Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 27 April 29 >

April 28

Category:Television documentaries

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep. -- Xdamr talk 12:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Um, yes there is. Again, read the freakin' discussion between the creator of the category and me at category talk:television documentaries--I dare you. Mindlessly replying with regurgitated "per <person>" only shows the dictatorial nature of so-called "consensus". Put up or shut up. Provide REASONS for your statements; not just appeal to authority/consensus fallacies... - Eep² 07:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Eep: WP:CIVIL, please, particularly when in a glasshouse.
Having re-read the discussion, I note that the last comment from MakeRocketGoNow, to which you agreed, was: "I now feel Category:television documentaries is indeed too vague, and should be renamed Category:documentary television films, to distinguish it from Category:documentary television series." That is not what you have proposed here: your proposal would merge the two categories rather than distinguish them. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, I meant to say to change category:television documentaries to category:documentary television films, but there are some entries in "television documentaries" that need to be changed to "documentary television films". All of this beaurocratic nonsense gets annoying...next time I'll just do it instead of trying to discuss it with people who aren't involved--sheesh! I was just trying to get some automated quick way of changing a lot of page's categories at once. - Eep² 10:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Jeff Eep, it's hardly the fault of any bureaucracy that you didn't say what you meant to say, and that people read what you actually wrote rather than what you meant to write. We all make mistakes, but when they do happen they aren't someone else's fault. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Who's Jeff? I'm Eep. Anyway, yes, it was my fault but, had you (or anyone) read the original discussion on the category's talk page, they would have easily caught this simple miswording and prevented most of this misunderstanding in the first place. <sigh> It just shows how you all weren't even bothering to pay attention initialy... - Eep² 13:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I meant to say Eep. And Eep, if you had paid attention initially, you'd have spotted your mistake and corrected it rather than sighing at everyone else. Per Johnbod below, I think that film is a bad name for a TV documentary. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Broadly in sympathy, but I think the "films" in the new title confusing. The discussion on the talk page doesn't address what to do with individually notable episodes of series like Genocide (The World at War episode) or The Fishing Party(not The Fishing Party!). Most of the articles in the category are in fact series. I don't object to seperate categories for series and single documentaries, but films is the wrong word - maybe "Individual television documentaries". Johnbod 09:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Present Queens Consort

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Queen consorts. -- Xdamr talk 17:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Present Queens Consort to Category:Current queen consorts
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per capitalisation convention and to better match category:Queen consorts. Brandon97 23:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Musical artists who died prematurely

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. -- Xdamr talk 17:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Musical artists who died prematurely ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Category is subjective by design - "prematurely" is an opinion. Category also appears to have been created to promote a website. -- ChrisB 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Orlando area attractions

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando. -- Xdamr talk 17:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Live-action films with animated sequences

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. -- Xdamr talk 17:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Live-action films with animated sequences ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Whatever y'all think - I made this a while back and I thought it was a worthwhile categorization scheme. I never got around to populating it though, and I don't want to spend the time on it should it be decided to delete it later. I'm fine with whatever happens to it. Otto4711 18:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American ambassadors to Canada

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:United States ambassadors to Canada. -- Xdamr talk 12:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:American ambassadors to Canada to Category:United States ambassadors to Canada
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, As per naming conventions. "Ambassadors" are categorized by country not nationality -- Cat chi? 16:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Snooker celebrity amateur players

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. The others ought to form the basis of a separate nomination. -- Xdamr talk 12:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Snooker celebrity amateur players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete I found this empty, and categorisation of celebrities by hobby is clutter-creating. Brandon97 16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you mean WP:CSD#C1? Bencherlite 00:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Hehe...yes. ^_^ -- Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť Talk to me or learn something new! 22:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
My apologies. I should have done so and will not be offended in any way if the closing admin decides that the decision on the merits should be confined to the original proposal. Bencherlite 09:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Substantive objection to same: Keep those that have articles in them, and the supercat. They are there for a reason (namely to keep the "players" categories free of non-professional player clutter). The number of articles that will be in those categories will be high enough at some point; populating them has been a low priority, but they serve a maintenance purpose. It is better to have the "clutter" of a handful of categories that aren't earthshakingly essential (cf. stub sorting; no one would keel over and die if {{ England-footy-bio-stub}} upmerged into Category:English sportspeople stubs) than to have the actually maintenance-impeding clutter of tens or eventually maybe hundreds of miscategorized articles (cf. again WP:WSS, under which an English sportspeople stubs subcategory like Category:English football biography stubs exists to make maintenance easier). The list of players to so categorize is already fairly long (it can be recovered from Cue sport article history, I believe (was removed a while back to keep article length down, but with the ultimate intent of becoming a separate article). This isn't simply categorization by hobby; no one is proposing Category:Celebrity players of Playstation 3, but there is no such thing as a pro player in that, eh, field, thus no such confusion about what sort of "player" belongs in the (nonexistent) "players" category for it. The situation is simply different in this case. We need somewhere for people who are a) notable for something (acting, statemanship, etc.), b) not professional pool (snooker, whatever) players, yet also c) actually notable on the side as amateur pool/whatever players, without gunking up the pro players category, which has radically different maint. needs (e.g. {{ Infobox snooker player}}, {{ Cue sports project}}, {{ Snooker-bio-stub}} etc, none of which should appear on the article or talk page of the aforementioned French president (who wasn't just a player, but a world-class amateur one; even so, not of particular interest to WP:CUE). Or another way of putting it, AWB becomes more dangerous, and less useful for what it's actually good at, for me or anyone else using it on the cue sports corner of the categoryspace without this dividing line. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
PS: Categorization by "hobby" isn't the issue or intent here. Genuinely notable amateur or pro-am play in such an activity is considerably beyond just a hobby. It would be about on par with someone like Kevin Costner actually becoming a real Minor League baseball player (vs. engaging in occasional rock climbing or liking to weave baskets). — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional unicorns

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Unicorns in fiction. -- Xdamr talk 12:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional unicorns ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A unicorn is a fictional kind of animal. The word "fictional" doesn't give any additional info. Georgia guy 14:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment: Sadly the category has probably only just scratched the surface for unicorn characters. The policy says "Avoid categories that will never have more than two or three members" which clearly does not apply here. Johnbod 21:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This should be merged into Category:Unicorns. Aren't all unicorns fictional? Why have another category? It only has 6 members in it anyways. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť Talk to me or learn something new! 22:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Island languages in diaspora

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep. -- Xdamr talk 12:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Island languages in diaspora ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Endangered languages, or at least Rename Category:Endangered island languages. -- Prove It (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The proposed rename is much less clear and accurate - the "islands" are all or mostly metaphorical, not geographic - Canadian Gaelic etc. I expect this is a term familar to linguists - see Diaspora language. This is a heavily populated category covering a very distinct category. No reason has been given for the nomination, and I can see none. Johnbod 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm going to have to agree with this statement as the next best opinion for this category. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť Talk to me or learn something new! 23:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
That policy says:" Avoid categories that will never have more than two or three members". This one has 25 already. This category is not an intersection of anything. I don't think you have looked at what is in the category. Johnbod 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The category "Catalan-speaking countries" was deleted. How could you consider this different? How is it going to expand? It is a narrow intersection. How does having a Category "Island langauges in diaspora" contribute to the encyclopedia? Read this; particularly the first paragraph. Having a list of "island languages in diaspora" is ok, but not as a category. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť Talk to me or learn something new! 22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Catalan-speaking countries was deleted because it could only have one member. This category already has 25 and for all either of us know could have more. What has WP:NOT to do with it? What do you think it is an intersection of or between? This is a distinctive group of endangered dialects of languages that have been long isolated from the main language-speaking area - Welsh in Patagonia, Venetian Italian in Mexico, Texan German and so on. Johnbod 23:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Never mind. What I think should happen won't, and this isn't the past to propose an idea. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť Talk to me or learn something new! 23:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • keep pending input from participants in the language wikiproject - they've got a solid, scholarly project going, and I'd respect language categories until their input is sought. This one looks interesting, but I don't know enough to say if it is meaningful or trivial. A Musing 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Birds without "The"

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename all. -- Xdamr talk 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Adding a "The" to each, except Iran, which is only seen as "Iran" in other categories.-- Mike Selinker 14:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Land birds

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus—many suggestions, but no discernible consensus for any in particular. -- Xdamr talk 14:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

These are the only places where we've tried to categorize by "bird by type by country," which seems a bad three-way intersection. I'm also having trouble pinning down the meaning of the term "land bird."-- Mike Selinker 13:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Castles in France

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Fortified French chateaux. While the consensus is to not delete, there is more of a consensus to rename rather then simply keep. This includes one editor who would prefer a delete. I suggest discussions on the talk page to resolve any remaining issues. Vegaswikian 05:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Castles in France ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category was renamed/merged at an April 23 CfD. DRV overturned, in light of extensive new information brought forward. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. This a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

"the word "chateau" is almost as familiar to English speakers as the word castle..". Precisely. And it is used solely to mean a palace, not a castle! Emeraude 15:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
It is much easier to understand castle to mean ........ castle! There is no such thing as a fortified château - it's like saying a fortified palace. The French term for a castle is château-fort, to distinguish it from a Renaissance château; château-fort DOES NOT translate as fortified château. Emeraude 15:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
So what? It is clear and unambiguous. You keep saying things like "(chateau) is used solely to mean a palace, not a castle" in English, but this is plainly just not true, as I and other editors have pointed out. Johnbod 16:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Elections in Europe, 2007

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:2007 elections in Europe. -- Xdamr talk 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Elections in Europe, 2007 to Category:2007 elections in Europe
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention of other year stuff in country categories (elections-by-year categories are currently inconsistent, but there are many others in the year elections in country format, such as for example ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:1998 elections in Canada, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:1999 elections in Canada, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:2006 elections in Germany, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:1998 elections in Germany, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:1999 elections in Germany, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:2006 elections in Australia, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:1998 elections in Australia, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:1999 elections in Australia, and all subcats of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Elections in the United Kingdom by year).
See also two current related CfDs: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_26#Elections_in_the_United_States_by_year and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_26#Elections_in_Mexico_by_year.
Note: I know that we don't usually subcategorise these year stuff in country categs by continent, but because of European integration (whatever anyone's POV on that issue), I believe that Europe should be an exception (see discussion on my talk page), and that other xxxx elections in Europe categs should be created for years since about 2000. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Restaurants in Dallas

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Restaurants in Dallas ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

duplicate category; other category already has articles in it. Postcard Cathy 11:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Accounting in the People's Republic of China

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus, but category is empty so liable for speedy deletion if not populated. -- Xdamr talk 12:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Accounting in the People's Republic of China ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Slaveholders

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete all. Consensus seems to be in favour of deleting most of these, the arguments for exceptional treatment for the American category smack rather of US-centricism. That being the case I see no reason not to treat it alongside the other categories. -- Xdamr talk 14:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Slaveholders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American slaveholders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Arabian slaveholders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Empty cat)
Category:Middle Eastern slaveholders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As per WP:DNWAUC, and WP:OC#Trivial intersection, I believe these categories should be deleted. While slavery is unacceptable by todays standards, in the past it was as common, natural, and trivial as owning a TV set today. Cat chi? 09:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment:what on earth is the relevance of the first policy? Either they held/owned slaves or they didn't. The definition of a defining characteristic in the policy seems to be "If you could easily leave something out of a biography, it is not a defining characteristic" and that hardly seems to apply here. This editor has scattered impressive-looking policy citations all over this page, but few of them stand up to a moments examination in terms of relevance to the debate. Johnbod 21:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Ughh. How could you not say that slave owning is not an opinion? Many people from the Southern United States still believe they did nothing wrong by having slaves. They really didn't even consider themselves to be slave owners anyways. And you could easily leave out the fact that someone is a slave owner. When people think of George Washington, they don't think of him as a slave owner, but as a founder of the United States. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť Talk to me or learn something new! 22:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Ughh what? This isn't Category:People who thought slaveholding was ok it is people who actually did it, including, as has been pointed out, some who apparently thought it wasn't ok but did it anyway. If it ever was possible to write a biography of GW without mentioning his alaves, which I doubt since they were an essential part of his income, that period is now long past. Categories are not (just) for "the first thing that comes into my head when I think of X". George Washington is in 22 categories - see how many you can guess without looking. Johnbod 23:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
So sweep it under the carpet then? Johnbod 10:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I didn't favor deleting them all, but if their being a slaveholder is noteworthy it can be in the article. The category staying or going won't "sweep things under the rug." Besides that it already sweeps things under the rug in a way. We don't have say Category:Brazilian slaveholders, Category:British slaveholders, or Category:Sudanese slaveholders.-- T. Anthony 05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
That's what I'm saying. Its a matter of opinion. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť Talk to me or learn something new! 22:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť, the category is not about whether society thought it was right or wrong. It is about whether they did or did not. T. Anthony, maybe someone could make those categories. Just because they don't currently exist right at this moment doesn't mean they are irrelevant. MrBlondNYC 09:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Ownérsɧǐp of slaves is trivial info. Categories are navigational aids not tags. They should never be used to bring up the "facts". Removing the category wouldn't make them [people categorised] slave-free either. -- Cat chi? 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep People who argue that owning slaves in past times in America, the Middle East, or among Arabs, was trivial or common cite no support for that proposition. For example, it was probably no more common that belonging to Category:English-Americans during the same periods, so should that also go? Carlossuarez46 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep for parent and American Part of me thinks that the most defining characteristic of someone isn't their property (unless they own something unique, which, by owning the object, makes the person notable). However, slavery is a different issue. It isn't exactly the same thing as having a cat of Rolls Royce owners. I have a feeling that down the line, these cats may become overpopulated and we may decided that owning slaves is not notable enough to be a defining characteristic (and part of me feels like these cats are there to attempt to tarnish someones' image). But all that said, I agree with BHG. This is relatively historically important feature to some people.- Andrew c 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-defining characteristic. If it's important to mention in an article, then it should be mentioned in an article, but linking these people together serves no purpose whatsoever. You might as well make Category:Land owner. In many periods and places in history, it amounts to much the same thing. From our earliest records of ancient Sumer up to several hundred years ago—a period covering over three thousand years—pretty much everyone of note in history could be placed in this category. Xtifr tälk 13:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge To one category. I do not think that either WP:OC#Trivial_Intersection or WP:OC#Non-defining or trivial characteristic apply in this case. Slave owning was not as common as one might think: in many cases (from Ancient Rome to the antebellum United States) only the wealthy could afford to own slaves. And in some instances slave-owning could be considered a defining characteristic, after all some of the most famous American/British/Spanish historical figures made their fortunes on the backs of slaves. Who knows if they could have been as successful if they had to pay freemen to do the same work? - HammerHeadHuman  (talk) (work) 01:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all Contrary to what Carlossuarez46 says, the onus is always on the people who support a category to produce evidence that the existence of the category is beneficial as a navigational device and neutral. These categories are not neutral, as it is derogatory, and often irrelevant to the noteworthy achievements of the subject of the article. Keeping only the U.S. category would imply that slaveholding in the U.S. was worse or more significant than slaveholding elsewhere, which would be U.S. centric or biased or both, not to mention being an insult to the sufferings of people who had the misfortune to be enslaved in other parts of the world. Honbicot 11:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Xtifr Sleep On It 20:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Category:American slaveholders, but rename to Category:Slaveholders in the United States in order to limit the category to post-colonial history. The arguments have persuaded me that, generally speaking, these categories do not provide useful or beneficial navigational information, because in most countries through most of history slaveholding was not unusual or controversial: it was either allowed and practiced, or it wasn't. (Somewhat of an oversimplification, to be sure.) The great exception was in the United States, where the issue of slavery was highly contentious for a period of eight decades, ultimately resulting in a full-blown civil war. I believe the U.S. was unique in having both extensive slaveholding and a vigorous public debate over an extended period of time. Category:Slaveholders in the United States thus serves a useful and beneficial purpose for students of U.S. history. The other categories should probably be deleted for the reasons that have been adduced. Cgingold 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Non-defining for most of the history. While US may be an exception I am somehow doubtful WP is be able to maintain such a category. Pavel Vozenilek 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: In all honesty, I haven't the faintest idea why it would be difficult "to maintain such a category". Cgingold
Comment: The existing articles on Slavery, History of Slavery, and History of Slavery in the United States are all already far too long to incorporate a lengthy list of slaveholders. A separate, free-standing article "List of slaveholders in the United States" could, of course, be created. But I still think there is real value in having a Category:Slaveholders in the United States for navigational purposes. (We do, by the way, have both a category and lists for opponents of slavery.) Cgingold 13:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indian martial arts practitioners

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (empty).--- Mike Selinker 04:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Indian martial arts practitioners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Category empty for over 1 week, was a duplicate of Category:Indian martial artists. Scott Alter 04:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Ivy League football

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. -- Xdamr talk 17:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Ivy League football ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ivy League football players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created these long before we had team categories. At the time, I thought it was useful to put all the Yale, Harvard, Brown and other such articles in one spot, but we haven't done any other conference, and I'm certain, given conference volatility, that that would be a bad idea. Also, they contain nothing but subcategories which already feed into all the categories they'd need to if they weren't Ivy League. So I'd like to see these deleted.-- Mike Selinker 03:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Ultimate Encyclopedia templates

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete - original author requested deletion below. VegaDark 08:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:The Ultimate Encyclopedia templates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looks like this category is for categorizing templates...used on another Wiki? This should be done on that Wiki, not here. Some of the categorized templates look to need a TfD or userfication for the same reasons. VegaDark 01:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Goldsmiths College, University of London (and related categories)

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename all. -- Xdamr talk 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Goldsmiths College, University of London (and related categories) to Category:Goldsmiths, University of London
Nominator's Rationale: Rename as the college has renamed itself and dropped the word "College" from its title - the main article is now Goldsmiths, University of London, and Goldsmiths College, University of London is now a redirect to that page. The new name is mentioned in the lead paragraph and the source given is here. (The lack of a possessive apostrophe is correct, incidentally!)

Also nominating the following related categories for the same reason:

All nominated on the basis that the category names should reflect the title of the main article - it would be confusing to have one category tree for the old name and another for the new name. Bencherlite 01:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Hollywood families

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete all. -- Xdamr talk 17:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Kapoor family of Hindi films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Khan family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Khan-Roshan family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Valdés family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - similar to the many other Hollywood family categories, the articles in these are extensively interlinked and in some instances have an article on the family which serves as an appropriate navigational hub and does a better job of explaining the family relationships, which a category can't do. Otto4711 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

French-Canadian families

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. -- Xdamr talk 17:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Johnson political family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Papineau family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete both - as with many other family categories, these two are unneeded. The few articles in them are easily interlinked. Otto4711 00:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_28&oldid=1144513313"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 27 April 29 >

April 28

Category:Television documentaries

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep. -- Xdamr talk 12:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Um, yes there is. Again, read the freakin' discussion between the creator of the category and me at category talk:television documentaries--I dare you. Mindlessly replying with regurgitated "per <person>" only shows the dictatorial nature of so-called "consensus". Put up or shut up. Provide REASONS for your statements; not just appeal to authority/consensus fallacies... - Eep² 07:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Eep: WP:CIVIL, please, particularly when in a glasshouse.
Having re-read the discussion, I note that the last comment from MakeRocketGoNow, to which you agreed, was: "I now feel Category:television documentaries is indeed too vague, and should be renamed Category:documentary television films, to distinguish it from Category:documentary television series." That is not what you have proposed here: your proposal would merge the two categories rather than distinguish them. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, I meant to say to change category:television documentaries to category:documentary television films, but there are some entries in "television documentaries" that need to be changed to "documentary television films". All of this beaurocratic nonsense gets annoying...next time I'll just do it instead of trying to discuss it with people who aren't involved--sheesh! I was just trying to get some automated quick way of changing a lot of page's categories at once. - Eep² 10:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Jeff Eep, it's hardly the fault of any bureaucracy that you didn't say what you meant to say, and that people read what you actually wrote rather than what you meant to write. We all make mistakes, but when they do happen they aren't someone else's fault. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Who's Jeff? I'm Eep. Anyway, yes, it was my fault but, had you (or anyone) read the original discussion on the category's talk page, they would have easily caught this simple miswording and prevented most of this misunderstanding in the first place. <sigh> It just shows how you all weren't even bothering to pay attention initialy... - Eep² 13:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I meant to say Eep. And Eep, if you had paid attention initially, you'd have spotted your mistake and corrected it rather than sighing at everyone else. Per Johnbod below, I think that film is a bad name for a TV documentary. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Broadly in sympathy, but I think the "films" in the new title confusing. The discussion on the talk page doesn't address what to do with individually notable episodes of series like Genocide (The World at War episode) or The Fishing Party(not The Fishing Party!). Most of the articles in the category are in fact series. I don't object to seperate categories for series and single documentaries, but films is the wrong word - maybe "Individual television documentaries". Johnbod 09:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Present Queens Consort

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Queen consorts. -- Xdamr talk 17:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Present Queens Consort to Category:Current queen consorts
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per capitalisation convention and to better match category:Queen consorts. Brandon97 23:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Musical artists who died prematurely

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. -- Xdamr talk 17:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Musical artists who died prematurely ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Category is subjective by design - "prematurely" is an opinion. Category also appears to have been created to promote a website. -- ChrisB 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Orlando area attractions

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando. -- Xdamr talk 17:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Live-action films with animated sequences

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. -- Xdamr talk 17:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Live-action films with animated sequences ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Whatever y'all think - I made this a while back and I thought it was a worthwhile categorization scheme. I never got around to populating it though, and I don't want to spend the time on it should it be decided to delete it later. I'm fine with whatever happens to it. Otto4711 18:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American ambassadors to Canada

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:United States ambassadors to Canada. -- Xdamr talk 12:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:American ambassadors to Canada to Category:United States ambassadors to Canada
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, As per naming conventions. "Ambassadors" are categorized by country not nationality -- Cat chi? 16:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Snooker celebrity amateur players

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. The others ought to form the basis of a separate nomination. -- Xdamr talk 12:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Snooker celebrity amateur players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete I found this empty, and categorisation of celebrities by hobby is clutter-creating. Brandon97 16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you mean WP:CSD#C1? Bencherlite 00:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Hehe...yes. ^_^ -- Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť Talk to me or learn something new! 22:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
My apologies. I should have done so and will not be offended in any way if the closing admin decides that the decision on the merits should be confined to the original proposal. Bencherlite 09:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Substantive objection to same: Keep those that have articles in them, and the supercat. They are there for a reason (namely to keep the "players" categories free of non-professional player clutter). The number of articles that will be in those categories will be high enough at some point; populating them has been a low priority, but they serve a maintenance purpose. It is better to have the "clutter" of a handful of categories that aren't earthshakingly essential (cf. stub sorting; no one would keel over and die if {{ England-footy-bio-stub}} upmerged into Category:English sportspeople stubs) than to have the actually maintenance-impeding clutter of tens or eventually maybe hundreds of miscategorized articles (cf. again WP:WSS, under which an English sportspeople stubs subcategory like Category:English football biography stubs exists to make maintenance easier). The list of players to so categorize is already fairly long (it can be recovered from Cue sport article history, I believe (was removed a while back to keep article length down, but with the ultimate intent of becoming a separate article). This isn't simply categorization by hobby; no one is proposing Category:Celebrity players of Playstation 3, but there is no such thing as a pro player in that, eh, field, thus no such confusion about what sort of "player" belongs in the (nonexistent) "players" category for it. The situation is simply different in this case. We need somewhere for people who are a) notable for something (acting, statemanship, etc.), b) not professional pool (snooker, whatever) players, yet also c) actually notable on the side as amateur pool/whatever players, without gunking up the pro players category, which has radically different maint. needs (e.g. {{ Infobox snooker player}}, {{ Cue sports project}}, {{ Snooker-bio-stub}} etc, none of which should appear on the article or talk page of the aforementioned French president (who wasn't just a player, but a world-class amateur one; even so, not of particular interest to WP:CUE). Or another way of putting it, AWB becomes more dangerous, and less useful for what it's actually good at, for me or anyone else using it on the cue sports corner of the categoryspace without this dividing line. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
PS: Categorization by "hobby" isn't the issue or intent here. Genuinely notable amateur or pro-am play in such an activity is considerably beyond just a hobby. It would be about on par with someone like Kevin Costner actually becoming a real Minor League baseball player (vs. engaging in occasional rock climbing or liking to weave baskets). — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional unicorns

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Unicorns in fiction. -- Xdamr talk 12:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional unicorns ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A unicorn is a fictional kind of animal. The word "fictional" doesn't give any additional info. Georgia guy 14:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment: Sadly the category has probably only just scratched the surface for unicorn characters. The policy says "Avoid categories that will never have more than two or three members" which clearly does not apply here. Johnbod 21:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This should be merged into Category:Unicorns. Aren't all unicorns fictional? Why have another category? It only has 6 members in it anyways. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť Talk to me or learn something new! 22:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Island languages in diaspora

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep. -- Xdamr talk 12:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Island languages in diaspora ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Endangered languages, or at least Rename Category:Endangered island languages. -- Prove It (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The proposed rename is much less clear and accurate - the "islands" are all or mostly metaphorical, not geographic - Canadian Gaelic etc. I expect this is a term familar to linguists - see Diaspora language. This is a heavily populated category covering a very distinct category. No reason has been given for the nomination, and I can see none. Johnbod 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm going to have to agree with this statement as the next best opinion for this category. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť Talk to me or learn something new! 23:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
That policy says:" Avoid categories that will never have more than two or three members". This one has 25 already. This category is not an intersection of anything. I don't think you have looked at what is in the category. Johnbod 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The category "Catalan-speaking countries" was deleted. How could you consider this different? How is it going to expand? It is a narrow intersection. How does having a Category "Island langauges in diaspora" contribute to the encyclopedia? Read this; particularly the first paragraph. Having a list of "island languages in diaspora" is ok, but not as a category. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť Talk to me or learn something new! 22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Catalan-speaking countries was deleted because it could only have one member. This category already has 25 and for all either of us know could have more. What has WP:NOT to do with it? What do you think it is an intersection of or between? This is a distinctive group of endangered dialects of languages that have been long isolated from the main language-speaking area - Welsh in Patagonia, Venetian Italian in Mexico, Texan German and so on. Johnbod 23:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Never mind. What I think should happen won't, and this isn't the past to propose an idea. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť Talk to me or learn something new! 23:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • keep pending input from participants in the language wikiproject - they've got a solid, scholarly project going, and I'd respect language categories until their input is sought. This one looks interesting, but I don't know enough to say if it is meaningful or trivial. A Musing 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Birds without "The"

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename all. -- Xdamr talk 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Adding a "The" to each, except Iran, which is only seen as "Iran" in other categories.-- Mike Selinker 14:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Land birds

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus—many suggestions, but no discernible consensus for any in particular. -- Xdamr talk 14:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

These are the only places where we've tried to categorize by "bird by type by country," which seems a bad three-way intersection. I'm also having trouble pinning down the meaning of the term "land bird."-- Mike Selinker 13:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Castles in France

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Fortified French chateaux. While the consensus is to not delete, there is more of a consensus to rename rather then simply keep. This includes one editor who would prefer a delete. I suggest discussions on the talk page to resolve any remaining issues. Vegaswikian 05:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Castles in France ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category was renamed/merged at an April 23 CfD. DRV overturned, in light of extensive new information brought forward. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. This a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

"the word "chateau" is almost as familiar to English speakers as the word castle..". Precisely. And it is used solely to mean a palace, not a castle! Emeraude 15:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
It is much easier to understand castle to mean ........ castle! There is no such thing as a fortified château - it's like saying a fortified palace. The French term for a castle is château-fort, to distinguish it from a Renaissance château; château-fort DOES NOT translate as fortified château. Emeraude 15:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
So what? It is clear and unambiguous. You keep saying things like "(chateau) is used solely to mean a palace, not a castle" in English, but this is plainly just not true, as I and other editors have pointed out. Johnbod 16:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Elections in Europe, 2007

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:2007 elections in Europe. -- Xdamr talk 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Elections in Europe, 2007 to Category:2007 elections in Europe
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention of other year stuff in country categories (elections-by-year categories are currently inconsistent, but there are many others in the year elections in country format, such as for example ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:1998 elections in Canada, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:1999 elections in Canada, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:2006 elections in Germany, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:1998 elections in Germany, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:1999 elections in Germany, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:2006 elections in Australia, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:1998 elections in Australia, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:1999 elections in Australia, and all subcats of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Elections in the United Kingdom by year).
See also two current related CfDs: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_26#Elections_in_the_United_States_by_year and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_26#Elections_in_Mexico_by_year.
Note: I know that we don't usually subcategorise these year stuff in country categs by continent, but because of European integration (whatever anyone's POV on that issue), I believe that Europe should be an exception (see discussion on my talk page), and that other xxxx elections in Europe categs should be created for years since about 2000. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Restaurants in Dallas

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Restaurants in Dallas ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

duplicate category; other category already has articles in it. Postcard Cathy 11:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Accounting in the People's Republic of China

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus, but category is empty so liable for speedy deletion if not populated. -- Xdamr talk 12:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Accounting in the People's Republic of China ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Slaveholders

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete all. Consensus seems to be in favour of deleting most of these, the arguments for exceptional treatment for the American category smack rather of US-centricism. That being the case I see no reason not to treat it alongside the other categories. -- Xdamr talk 14:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Slaveholders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American slaveholders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Arabian slaveholders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Empty cat)
Category:Middle Eastern slaveholders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As per WP:DNWAUC, and WP:OC#Trivial intersection, I believe these categories should be deleted. While slavery is unacceptable by todays standards, in the past it was as common, natural, and trivial as owning a TV set today. Cat chi? 09:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment:what on earth is the relevance of the first policy? Either they held/owned slaves or they didn't. The definition of a defining characteristic in the policy seems to be "If you could easily leave something out of a biography, it is not a defining characteristic" and that hardly seems to apply here. This editor has scattered impressive-looking policy citations all over this page, but few of them stand up to a moments examination in terms of relevance to the debate. Johnbod 21:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Ughh. How could you not say that slave owning is not an opinion? Many people from the Southern United States still believe they did nothing wrong by having slaves. They really didn't even consider themselves to be slave owners anyways. And you could easily leave out the fact that someone is a slave owner. When people think of George Washington, they don't think of him as a slave owner, but as a founder of the United States. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť Talk to me or learn something new! 22:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Ughh what? This isn't Category:People who thought slaveholding was ok it is people who actually did it, including, as has been pointed out, some who apparently thought it wasn't ok but did it anyway. If it ever was possible to write a biography of GW without mentioning his alaves, which I doubt since they were an essential part of his income, that period is now long past. Categories are not (just) for "the first thing that comes into my head when I think of X". George Washington is in 22 categories - see how many you can guess without looking. Johnbod 23:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
So sweep it under the carpet then? Johnbod 10:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I didn't favor deleting them all, but if their being a slaveholder is noteworthy it can be in the article. The category staying or going won't "sweep things under the rug." Besides that it already sweeps things under the rug in a way. We don't have say Category:Brazilian slaveholders, Category:British slaveholders, or Category:Sudanese slaveholders.-- T. Anthony 05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
That's what I'm saying. Its a matter of opinion. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť Talk to me or learn something new! 22:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť, the category is not about whether society thought it was right or wrong. It is about whether they did or did not. T. Anthony, maybe someone could make those categories. Just because they don't currently exist right at this moment doesn't mean they are irrelevant. MrBlondNYC 09:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Ownérsɧǐp of slaves is trivial info. Categories are navigational aids not tags. They should never be used to bring up the "facts". Removing the category wouldn't make them [people categorised] slave-free either. -- Cat chi? 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep People who argue that owning slaves in past times in America, the Middle East, or among Arabs, was trivial or common cite no support for that proposition. For example, it was probably no more common that belonging to Category:English-Americans during the same periods, so should that also go? Carlossuarez46 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep for parent and American Part of me thinks that the most defining characteristic of someone isn't their property (unless they own something unique, which, by owning the object, makes the person notable). However, slavery is a different issue. It isn't exactly the same thing as having a cat of Rolls Royce owners. I have a feeling that down the line, these cats may become overpopulated and we may decided that owning slaves is not notable enough to be a defining characteristic (and part of me feels like these cats are there to attempt to tarnish someones' image). But all that said, I agree with BHG. This is relatively historically important feature to some people.- Andrew c 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-defining characteristic. If it's important to mention in an article, then it should be mentioned in an article, but linking these people together serves no purpose whatsoever. You might as well make Category:Land owner. In many periods and places in history, it amounts to much the same thing. From our earliest records of ancient Sumer up to several hundred years ago—a period covering over three thousand years—pretty much everyone of note in history could be placed in this category. Xtifr tälk 13:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge To one category. I do not think that either WP:OC#Trivial_Intersection or WP:OC#Non-defining or trivial characteristic apply in this case. Slave owning was not as common as one might think: in many cases (from Ancient Rome to the antebellum United States) only the wealthy could afford to own slaves. And in some instances slave-owning could be considered a defining characteristic, after all some of the most famous American/British/Spanish historical figures made their fortunes on the backs of slaves. Who knows if they could have been as successful if they had to pay freemen to do the same work? - HammerHeadHuman  (talk) (work) 01:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all Contrary to what Carlossuarez46 says, the onus is always on the people who support a category to produce evidence that the existence of the category is beneficial as a navigational device and neutral. These categories are not neutral, as it is derogatory, and often irrelevant to the noteworthy achievements of the subject of the article. Keeping only the U.S. category would imply that slaveholding in the U.S. was worse or more significant than slaveholding elsewhere, which would be U.S. centric or biased or both, not to mention being an insult to the sufferings of people who had the misfortune to be enslaved in other parts of the world. Honbicot 11:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Xtifr Sleep On It 20:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Category:American slaveholders, but rename to Category:Slaveholders in the United States in order to limit the category to post-colonial history. The arguments have persuaded me that, generally speaking, these categories do not provide useful or beneficial navigational information, because in most countries through most of history slaveholding was not unusual or controversial: it was either allowed and practiced, or it wasn't. (Somewhat of an oversimplification, to be sure.) The great exception was in the United States, where the issue of slavery was highly contentious for a period of eight decades, ultimately resulting in a full-blown civil war. I believe the U.S. was unique in having both extensive slaveholding and a vigorous public debate over an extended period of time. Category:Slaveholders in the United States thus serves a useful and beneficial purpose for students of U.S. history. The other categories should probably be deleted for the reasons that have been adduced. Cgingold 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Non-defining for most of the history. While US may be an exception I am somehow doubtful WP is be able to maintain such a category. Pavel Vozenilek 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: In all honesty, I haven't the faintest idea why it would be difficult "to maintain such a category". Cgingold
Comment: The existing articles on Slavery, History of Slavery, and History of Slavery in the United States are all already far too long to incorporate a lengthy list of slaveholders. A separate, free-standing article "List of slaveholders in the United States" could, of course, be created. But I still think there is real value in having a Category:Slaveholders in the United States for navigational purposes. (We do, by the way, have both a category and lists for opponents of slavery.) Cgingold 13:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indian martial arts practitioners

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (empty).--- Mike Selinker 04:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Indian martial arts practitioners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Category empty for over 1 week, was a duplicate of Category:Indian martial artists. Scott Alter 04:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Ivy League football

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. -- Xdamr talk 17:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Ivy League football ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ivy League football players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created these long before we had team categories. At the time, I thought it was useful to put all the Yale, Harvard, Brown and other such articles in one spot, but we haven't done any other conference, and I'm certain, given conference volatility, that that would be a bad idea. Also, they contain nothing but subcategories which already feed into all the categories they'd need to if they weren't Ivy League. So I'd like to see these deleted.-- Mike Selinker 03:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Ultimate Encyclopedia templates

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete - original author requested deletion below. VegaDark 08:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:The Ultimate Encyclopedia templates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looks like this category is for categorizing templates...used on another Wiki? This should be done on that Wiki, not here. Some of the categorized templates look to need a TfD or userfication for the same reasons. VegaDark 01:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Goldsmiths College, University of London (and related categories)

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename all. -- Xdamr talk 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Goldsmiths College, University of London (and related categories) to Category:Goldsmiths, University of London
Nominator's Rationale: Rename as the college has renamed itself and dropped the word "College" from its title - the main article is now Goldsmiths, University of London, and Goldsmiths College, University of London is now a redirect to that page. The new name is mentioned in the lead paragraph and the source given is here. (The lack of a possessive apostrophe is correct, incidentally!)

Also nominating the following related categories for the same reason:

All nominated on the basis that the category names should reflect the title of the main article - it would be confusing to have one category tree for the old name and another for the new name. Bencherlite 01:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Hollywood families

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete all. -- Xdamr talk 17:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Kapoor family of Hindi films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Khan family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Khan-Roshan family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Valdés family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - similar to the many other Hollywood family categories, the articles in these are extensively interlinked and in some instances have an article on the family which serves as an appropriate navigational hub and does a better job of explaining the family relationships, which a category can't do. Otto4711 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

French-Canadian families

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. -- Xdamr talk 17:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Johnson political family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Papineau family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete both - as with many other family categories, these two are unneeded. The few articles in them are easily interlinked. Otto4711 00:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_28&oldid=1144513313"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE