Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 24 May 26 >

May 25

Category:Creators who do not acquiesce to fan fiction

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: listify & delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Creators who do not acquiesce to fan fiction ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Very POV. (And how would one acquiesce to fic anyway?) EDIT: This category is being used by the website FanLib.com as a way of listing which authors' works they will not allow on their site. This is information they can easily post on their site. Changing my nomination to speedy delete. Kolindigo 22:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete speedy if possible. Feydakin 00:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This attribute may be important in relation to fan fiction, but it is not defining for the "creators". Honbicot 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comments:
    1. There's nothing WP:POV about the category; it doesn't say or suggest that fan fiction is good or that it is bad, nor that acquiescence is good or bad.
    2. The category itself has an answer to Kolindigo's parenthetical question: “Authors and other creators of creative works who have either stated their opposition or have taken some sort of action, legal or otherwise, against fan fiction based on their works.”
    3. I created this category to replace the egregiously named Category:People opposed to fan fiction (since speedily deleted without further action by me). I'm not wedded to the continued existence of Category:Creators who do not acquiesce to fan fiction, though the nominator's actual charges against it are quite ill-considered. — SlamDiego 03:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Yes, I read the category description, but I still don't see how acquiesce has anything to do with it. It makes it sound like fan fiction is a monolithic dictatorship that demands that authors everywhere bow down and let their copyright be infringed. And I think it's very POV in that it passes judgement on the creators, alhough not on fic itself. I think Creators opposed to fan fiction would be a better name for the category, but I'm still not sure it's a useful category. Wouldn't something like this be better as a list? I can see how it would be useful for fandom to have a centralized listing of creators who are willing to send C&D letters, especially in light of the FanLib thing, but this category still seems very POV to me.(see new comment below re:Fanlib) Kolindigo 06:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Acquiescence has everything to do with it; from the American Heritage Dictionary: “ac•qui•es•cence … 3. Law. Passive compliance, inaction, silence, or the like, construed as signifying acceptance or consent.” (Intellectual property may be lost by acquiescence, even when no rights are expressedly surrendered. Many people are aware that this happens with trademarks, but it happens with copyrights as well; Tolkein severely undermined his copyright in the United States by failing to act against the original American publisher.) A Category:Creators opposed to fan fiction would represent creators who would not acquiesce in the case of their own works as being somehow opposed to fan fiction more generally; presumably, however, most of them would feel that other authors had every right to permit fan fiction based on their own work. Finally, it is not POVy to be helpful to those with particular interests; we do not, for example, reject articles on cultivars as reflecting a horticultural “POV”. — SlamDiego 09:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's really impossible to know exactly who is opposed to others creating unlicensed works with their characters, settings, or stories, although it is generally known which authors have allowed their creations to be freely used by others ( Michael Moorcock allows pretty much anyone to use Jerry Cornelius, for instance), and of course works licensed under Creative Commons and the like are intended for such things. Also, the category doesn't specify that the creators are opposed to the creation of fan fiction based on their own copyrighted creations, just that they are opposed to it in general. Category:Creators who allow fan fiction based on their works would be much more easily verified and populated. - Sean Curtin 05:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment: Well, the category does specify, but its name indeed fails to do so. However, you are making a meaningful confusion here. Objectively, creators fall into three categories:
    1. those who expressly allow fan fiction based upon their works,
    2. those who expressly oppose fan fiction based upon their works, and
    3. those who do not make their positions clear.
    The category presently nominated for deletion is the second. Identifying only creators in the first category is no less ambiguous that identifying only those in the second. I think that you are right to want a Wikipedia Category for the first, and right to criticize the name of the second, but wrong to think that only having the first is any improvement on only having the second. Any case for getting rid of the second altogether would apply to your hypothetical category as well. (And perhaps indeed neither should exist.) — SlamDiego 06:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-defining and vaguely named. We shouldn't be categorized for all the things we don't do. Also, a category cannot provide references to back up this assertion. The MZB article at least mentions her opposition to fan fiction, but not all of the other authors' articles refer to any such opposition. Doczilla 07:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This category is being used by the site Fanlib.com as a way of advertizing which creators' works they will not allow. Kolindigo 08:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • This is not commerical advertisement; this is advertisement only in the sense that of giving notice. There is little question that the category is of special interest (albeït not unique interest) to those who generate fanfic. These people constitute a part of the user pool for Wikipedia. So what, exactly, do you want to make of their interest in the category? — SlamDiego 09:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Further, you earlier objected that the category “makes it sound like fan fiction is a monolithic dictatorship”; now that the category is useful to the writers of fanfic. So which WP:POV do you want to claim this Category actually represents, the opponents or the proponents of fanfic? — SlamDiego 09:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic in any reasonable sense of the word. Borders on trivia. Absolutely inappropriate for a category. At best, we could have a list with proper citations, and even that might be bordering on original research. Xtifr tälk 10:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, this topic is unencyclopedic, and the content of the category will inherently be pov. A ecis Brievenbus 11:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Xtifr Haddiscoe 18:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Comment I have to agree with SlamDiego that the arguments against the deletion of the category are very very weak. I'm not wedded to the category either, however, as someone who has written several fanficitons in the past (which I understand does give me a bias viewpoint), I do find it an interesting and unusual category, which I would rather seen kept than deleted. I don't see the problem really with it being kept a category--it's only being used for people who have specifically taken legal action or have openly stated they are against fanfiction being created from their work (as opposed to authors like J.K. Rowling who have publicly stated they even read it themselves), and it is not defaming nor promoting the creation of fanfiction. If anything, the only problem I could see with it is maybe it's not descriptive enough in its wording, and should be renamed Category:Creators who do not acquiesce to fan fiction of their own works or something along those lines. I don't believe it's simple "trivia" as it does include a number of authors who would probably otherwise be unrelated and it affects their opinion about their own work, and considering this as a "useless" category would also be considering the whole Category:Fandom and Category:Fan fiction categories rather useless as well, as this could arguably be considered the most refereced, "important" legally, and least WP:POV subcategory in that entire section. It seems a lot more useful and encylopedic in my opinion than something like Category:British writers or Category:1945 births that while definately referenced and groups a lot of seperate articles together, I doubt is often helpful or used by Wikipedia visitors nor tell much about the subject in question. As a matter of fact, to those arguing the category is just "trivial", I would think that making "trivia" into categories (assuming the trivia includes that wide a group of articles) would be the best and most useful way to get rid of those annoying list-like "Triva" sections in articles anyway. Interlinks and categories were originallly the main reason I started using wikipedia, because if I didn't know about something or was interesting in knowing more about a particular subject, I could just click on a linked word or category and immidieately find out more about it, rather than having to go to google or something and hope I was wording what I wanted to learn correctly and specifically enough and that the website would be descriptive and on the right topic. Deleting referenced and interesting categories like this is just taking away from the usefullness of categories on wikipedia in general. Again, I'm not wedded to the idea of the category, but I am tired of overpopulated but underused categories like Category:1945 births or Category:Writers by nationality, that are more trivial in my opinion than something like Category:Creators who do not acquiesce to fan fiction, which contains a moderate amount of categories and provides an interesting fact about the articles making it more likely to be used than a simple common birth year. Categories I think would be the best way to get rid of trivia sections on Wikipedia, while keeping the noteworthy facts about articles that may not have that big a place in the article (although is still referenced and encompasses a fairly good amount of articles). It's definately not a POV issue or a useless category, and if anything it just deserves a renaming. None of the issues raised against it I feel are large enough to deserve the category's deletion. Category:1945 births is much more trivial than a common legal issue that several writers have raised against a subject which is considered important enough to have its own category and detailed page on Wikipedia itself. Again, not in love with the category, but the points raised against it are not good enough for its deletion. Irish ♣ Pearl 20:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete passive nothing category. I have created things. I don't acquiesce to fan fiction. God created lots of things. He tolerates all kinds of fan fiction . . . or does He? Shoester 22:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Many deletionists, such as Shoester, have the issue of passivity exactly backwards. To acquiesce is to be passive; this Category is of creators who do not acquiesce. — SlamDiego 04:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Wording problem: Using that definition, creators who actively approve of fan fiction also do not acquiesce to it, thereby rendering this category useless for distinguishing active accepters from opposers. Doczilla 06:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Formally true. If the Category is kept, then a different name would almost certainly be better. — SlamDiego 06:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not a defining characteristic. Postlebury 11:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • keep May need a rename, but the category itself is useful to at the very least the relatively large subculture of fanfiction writers and readers. No less unencyclopedic than the fanfiction article itself.-- Kelly holden 14:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Listify Definitely needs a rename, but per some other editors, I disagree that this is an inherently POV category and do feel some way of acknowleding authors' and companies' views on fanfiction would be valuable for the Wikipedia. I do, however, think it might work better as a list article, perhaps something along the lines of Authors and companies with stated views on fanfiction (or a better title). There we could list authors and companies who have stated their views either favorably or disfavorably about fanfic based on their work, something that should be pretty easy to cite. Authors or companies who have not made a statement can't be cited and thus wouldn't be included in the list. -- Sparky Lurkdragon 16:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Listify Encyclopedic, but not worthy of a category. Circeus 17:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Listify and rename -- perhaps something like "List of authors with stated opinions on fanfiction"? Cactus Wren 06:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and do not listify Lists are just research notes. An encyclopedia should give well chosen examples in the context of an article. Dominictimms 02:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The fact another website links to this is irrelevant. The category may need to be renamed, but it already has a clear explanation of what authors would legitimately fit the category. Inclusion would not be a matter of POV, but requires clear action or statements by the author before they are listed. Edward321 01:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Web2-contributor-centric. Not defining for the writers. Nathanian 02:39, 4 June 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.

Category:Chicago 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 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 debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 10:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Chicago Football ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Football in Chicago, or Category:Chicago football. -- Prove It (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I'm not seeing the organizational utility in the categorization. It's holding categories for specific teams which are already reasonably located in Category:Sports in Chicago along with an article on the Bears (which has its own category) and one on the Arizona Cardinals. This layer is unneeded. Otto4711 21:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Otto. This appears to be an unnecessary division of Category:Sports in Chicago, and not part of any wider hierarchy of football-by-city. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Otto. If this is kept, the new name should specify that it concerns American football in Chicago. Honbicot 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I disagree, football in Chicago is assumed to be American football, football in Manchester is assumed to be football (soccer), football in Calgary is assumed to be Canadian football, etc., so making the distinction would be annoying and require lots of changes on both sides of the pond. Carlossuarez46 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Chicago has a professional football (soccer) club, but Manchester (and the whole of the UK for that matter) does not have a professional American football club. Honbicot 02:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • And all Chicago's soccer team's material says "soccer", perhaps Manchester was the wrong analogy, but pick any city with a NFL Europa team in it, A'dam, Berlin, etc., would we need to disambiguate Football in Amsterdam between the two? I think the less popular only needs to be disambiguated, the more popular to be assumed. Carlossuarez46 16:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Otto. Carlossuarez46 22:04, 30 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chicago Baseball

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 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 debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 10:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Chicago Baseball ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Baseball in Chicago, or Category:Chicago baseball. -- Prove It (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the category serves little organizational purpose. It mostly holds subcats for teams which are already in the parent Category:Sports in Chicago along with articles on the subcatted teams and some improperly categorized articles on players. This layer of categorizing is not needed. Otto4711 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Most, perhaps all, of the articles directly in this category relate to one of the three teams with subcategories, so it isn't really needed as a organizational device. Honbicot 01:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Otto. Carlossuarez46 21:59, 30 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Companies Headquartered in Troy, Michigan

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 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 debate was rename. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Companies Headquartered in Troy, Michigan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Companies based in Troy, Michigan, convention of Category:Companies of the United States by state. -- Prove It (talk) 20:30, 25 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:World Cup cricketers of East Africa

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:World Cup cricketers of East Africa ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, already covered by Category:East African ODI cricketers. East Africa's only ODI's were in the World Cup, also the East African cricket team no longer exists so no chance for future expanison. -- Jpeeling 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Moved from UCFD. VegaDark ( talk) 19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The other World Cup categories (of which only a few have been created so far) should probably be deleted for excessive overlap with the ODI categories. They add little or no utility to the system. Haddiscoe 18:42, 26 May 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.

Category:Static Shock

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 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 debate was delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Static Shock ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - one aticle, one subcat, unlikely to expand, not needed. Otto4711 19:42, 25 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Matlock (TV series)

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 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 debate was delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Matlock (TV series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 19:40, 25 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Wire (TV series)

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 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 debate was delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:The Wire (TV series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is not required for navigating the material. Otto4711 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep ongoing series, so has potential for growth. Tim! 21:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply Potential for growth by itself isn't enough of a reason here to keep a category. Theoretically almost all categories have a "potential for growth", including otherwise ambiguous or unnecessary ones. In fact, one could argue that allowing bad categories to grow only makes matters worse. Dugwiki 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. We would need a strong case to not follow the consensus for deleting similar categories. Vegaswikian 22:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 30 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Walker, Texas Ranger

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 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 debate was delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Walker, Texas Ranger ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - material does not warrant a category for navigation. Otto4711 19:27, 25 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Too Few Viewpoints

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: rename. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Too Few Viewpoints to Category:Articles needing more viewpoints
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, common practice for Wikipedia maintenance categories is to write them in full, starting with something to the extent of "Articles needing..." (see Special:Allpages/Category:Articles). I believe that "Articles needing more viewpoints" will make it clearer what needs to be done in an article. A ecis Brievenbus 19:14, 25 May 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.

Category:Portland millennial art renaissance

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 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 debate was delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Portland millennial art renaissance ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete POV category. We shouldn't start having categories every time someone claims there has been a renaissance somewhere or other. Alex Middleton 18:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete and upmerge to Category:Portland artists or Category:Oregon culture where appropriate. Agree cat is POV. I checked into the background of this. It appears it was created in tandem with an article on the renaissance that now redirects to List of artists and art institutions in Portland, Oregon. The original content about the phenomenon is shown being moved to History of Portland, Oregon in this diff, and it was later shortened. "Portland millennial art renaissance" gets zero google hits outside wiki mirrors, thus is not a widely recognized designation. Looks like a well-intentioned attempt to catalog the history of the arts in Portland, but the effort seems to have fizzled and the category is now an artifact in the wake of various changes to that effort. Not sure any of the editors who worked on this material are still around? Katr67 19:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Haddiscoe 18:42, 26 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Art, Music

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 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 debate was delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Art, Music ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Clearly redundant to Category:Art and Category:Music – Gurch 17:39, 25 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American actors by ethnicity

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 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 debate was keep all. -- Kbdank71 01:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:American actors by ethnicity ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Certainly open to alternatives and suggestions as to what to do with three-way categorizations by ethnicity, nationality, and occupation like this. I see these categories as being very comparable to the overcategorization by race, ethnicity, and religion example of Category:German-American sportspeople, which gives several reasons for deleting. One being that in general German-American sportspeople are not treated any differently from other sportspeople and so this is a non-notable intersection where the two separate categories of Category:German-Americans and Category:American sportspeople is good enough. This exact same argument could apply to actor by ethnicity categories, because, in general, except for type-casting the ethnicity is somewhat irrelevant. Another reason for deleting was that it will eventually become totally unmaintanable, since if we divide along ethnic-national intersections like this, there will literally be dozens and dozens of ethnicity-nationality actor intersections etc. Eventually, the double intersections will overlap even more, and actors will have a ethnicity-American actors category for each one of their grandparent's homelands. I believe we should subdivide actors by more notable intersections, like perhaps by genre or medium (as we already have) but not by a triple intersections such as this. Suggesting delete of each of these and upmerge into Cat:American actors or its notable subdivisions. Bulldog123 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Note to Closing Admin Interestingly, recent developments have proven that about four of the usernames participating on this CfD are vote-stacking sockpuppets. I have crossed out the sockpuppet !votes. Check their userpages for details. Bulldog123 06:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all as irrelevant intersections. The biggest problem with these is that the proliferate when people are in more than one ethnic category. Haddiscoe 17:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all I am willing to concede that under present "guidelines" some of these may be relevant intersections, but the time has come to amend those guidelines and delete all ethnicity and religious categories for a number of reasons: WP:BLP for all living people; the subjectivity of it (we recently determined by consensus that a category was OK in identifying people as Fooian ethnicity with 1/4 Fooian extraction), the general uselessness of it (does anyone click on Halle Barry's category of Category:African-American actors to find others? why? and why on a NPOV basis do we exclude her 50% English heritage; ah, because that unlike her African American ancestry, being an English actor is an irrelevant or trivial intersection according to WP the great knower of all about which ethnicities are relevant and trivial); it's freaking degrading, we're not and should not be in the business of categorizing people on these bases - if 1/4 is a threshhold, then people might be in 4 different categories, and pitty those with further mixed ancestries, those are just too dilute for WP to consider; and why do certain "ancestries" continue and others not -- it appears that any non-European ancestry stays with the lineage forever (like: you'll always be "other", never one of "us") - find one category of non-European ancestry that describes what % African, Latino, Asian it takes to be in the category, whereas European ancestry goes on a percentage basis (1/4 seems fine around here). Let's get out of the race classification business and delete these cats. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, but only on the condition that all of the child categories are removed as well. It makes no sense to remove the parent while keeping even one of the children. -- Prove It (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • This nomination is for the parent AND all the children categories. Is it necessary to tag all the others? They all seem to fit the same criteria. Bulldog123 21:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, the children should be tagged and listed. Otherwise people visiting the child categories won't realize they are under consideration for deletion, and that isn't fair. -- Prove It (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all Raymond Cruise 23:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all On the basis that there is a lot of interest in the role of American ethnic minorities in the media, and that there are enough articles to sufficiently populate these categories. I must absolutely disagree that actors' ethnicity is irrelevant, especially in American media - and by extension, I disagree that it is irrelevant for the purpose of categorising WP articles. Also, I don't consider it "unmaintainable" at all that somebody might be categorised under more than one of these categories. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 22:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • It's not "more than one." It could be as much as more than five. Then, after actor categories, sportspeople categories will follow in those footsteps, then artists, and soon it WILL be completely unmaintainable. On WP:Overcategorization, it writes that if you can't write an article about it, it is probably a good sign it isn't a good intersection. How on earth can we write the article Korean-American actors. Best we could put on there is trivia. That is an issue with WP:NOT. And, in the end, what is the big difference between having the category Category:Korean Americans and the category Category:American actors on the same article? Why do you want this intersection? Bulldog123 23:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • The question that WP:Overcategorization asks is whether or not the ethnic categorisation or intersection by ethnicity is notable. While German American sportspeople might not be a notable categorisation, that is not necessarily true for all the categorise you've listed here. Take for example, Asian American actors. While a Google search returns 26,600 hits for "Asian American actors" [1], a Google search only returns all of 10 hits for "German American sportspeople" [2], and all of them are either WP pages or WP mirrors. There have even been books written on the subject of Asian American actors [3], and there was even a recent PBS documentary on the subject [4]. I can only imagine the topic of African American actors to be even more notable. A Google hit returns 87,900 hits for that topic [5]. It's inherently inaccurate and false to say that because the categorisation of German American sportspeople is not notable, then Asian American actors or African American actors must not be notable categorisation as well. The two subjects are vastly different. It would be a tragic loss for WP if some of these categories are deleted. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Avoid WP:GOOGLEHITS reasonings. Does that coffeebook you cite have enough information to make Asian American actors? Links, even books, on German-American sportspeople exist too, such as here [6]. But whether these are just a compilation of biographies of Asian-Americans or a serious analysis of Asian-Americans in ACTING is a whole different question and the major concern - just as it was with German-Americans in sports. Bulldog123 05:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
          • No, Google hits does not establish notability, however, you could have easily looked at the search results and see that numerous articles have been written on the subject of Asian American actors. And we also know that there's at least one book and one PBS documentary on the subject as well. On the other hand, your assertion of non-notability is simply that it is an ethnic categorisation, with an utterly inaccurate assumption that German American sportspeople is on the same level of notability as Asian American actors or African American actors - and on this point, I really have to wonder if you actually took the time to find out for real whether or not some of these categories are actually not notable as you claimed. Also, if articles, books, and documentaries start being published for German American sportspeople, then a category for that most definitely deserves to exist, too. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
            • The response to this is a few comments down under the !vote by Tewfik. Bulldog123 22:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all I agree 100% with Hong Qi Gong. As there is a lot of interest in the media. Having been in the media business myself for a long time, it's very important for the actor, the production team, and audience. Until it does not matter what ethnicity one is it should be kept. Even though it shouldn't matter, but the truth is - that it most definitely does, and it will for a while yet. - Jeeny  Talk 00:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • "very important for the production team" Are you talking about casting? Otherwise your statement makes no sense. People get cast for all sorts of qualities. Blue-eyed people get cast. So Blue-eyed Actors is an ok category? Bulldog123 01:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I will not indulge that with a serious answer as the analogy is poppycock. (not you, the analogy). It's like saying if we let gay people have the right to marry, then pedophiles will want the same, then were do we draw the line?...etc. Deal with it if and when the blue-eyed actors want their own category. KEEP - Jeeny  Talk 01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Ok, so you did admit that blue-eyed actors is a legitimate category in your view. You just prove to everyone that WP:Overcategorization means nothing to you. What policy or guideline is there to support your view? Remember this IS an encyclopedia. Bulldog123 01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
          • No, in fact I think there are too many categories, but on this one I say keep. And the first part of my response, even with the misspellings, if you didn't notice was ...I will not indulge in a serious answer.... If you don't get it, I'm sorry. Okay, I will answer the blue-eyed question - Most certainly not. Does not apply here though as that's not on the table, is my point. I feel strongly about this, because of my experience, and observation and is worthy of an encyclopedia. Because, maybe we will not need these categories in the near future. :) - Jeeny  Talk 02:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
            • What is all this about "if blue-eyed actors want their own category?" This isn't myspace. Peoples wants for something don't always get carried out. Intersections, especially three-way intersections such as this, need to be analyzed through wikipedia policy and guideline. The question is: how much, if anything, can be written about ethnicity and being an actor except that they OBVIOUSLY will get cast for parts that suit them better physically? You can't write an entire article on that. You can't even write more than a paragraph on that. You have a very liberal view of ethnicity, so don't apply those viewpoints where they don't belong. We're not requesting ethnicity categories be deleted. This seems to be what you're thinking, at least in part. We're requesting ethnicity-nationality-occupation categories where absolutely no article-worthy significance can be found be deleted. (inhales) Bulldog123 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
              • That's really a straw-man argument. The topic of "blue-eyed actors" is not notable at all. However, subjects like Asian American actors or African American actors are notable topics and therefore notable intersections that deserve categorisation. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
                • Please help write African American acting and Asian American acting then. Otherwise, what you consider a notable intersection you are confusing with trivia. Just like when Halle Berry and Denzel Washington won for Best Actor and Best Actress, newspapers were A BUZZ with two African-American actors winning. It's trivia, not notability worth a permanent intersection. Bulldog123 05:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
                  • There are a whole bunch of articles I'd love to write. The fact that those articles do not yet exist does not mean they are not notable topics. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
                • I had a bunch of stuff all typed, and had an edit conflict and lost all I wrote. So, Yeah, what s/he said ^^^. Anyway, I was not the one who brought up the blue-eyed actors analogy. WTH? Don't make it look like I had. As I think that is ridiculous. Don't get me started on MySpace. Hate it. - Jeeny  Talk 03:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
          • I'm not misrepresenting your argument. I'm applying your exact logic and it seems to work perfectly with blue-eyed actors. A straw man would be if your argument was any different, but you haven't refuted that it is. "Keep because ethnicity is important for production team and actors." So this somehow doesn't apply when people cast for an "Aryan-looking" blonde-haired, blue-eyed person? If your argument applies to ethnicity, why wouldn't it apply to this type of categorization too? By the way, before you said you would keep (if blue-eyed people wanted it). Bulldog123 05:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
            • That was my fault. I wasn't referring to KEEP a blue-eyed cat, I was rambling on, and added KEEP at the end-meaning these cats, not relating to the blue-eyed reference. Sorry about that. I see though, why you would think that's what I was suggesting. (I striked the word after that statement, because that is not what I meant at all.) I thought I was clear when I said it was a poor analogy. Are you still breathing? :p - Jeeny  Talk 06:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per Carlos. Also most definitely the spark that will light a dangerously hot flame. There are many ethnicities missing from that list. Imagine if everyone wanted to put their ethnicity's actors in a category. Chaos. Feydakin 00:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • It bugs the crap out of me when people use the excuse that if we let one, then everyone will want (whatever it is the other got). Ethnicity is NOT somewhat irrelevant, is matters, unfortunately, at least in America. Although, it shouldn't, it does. It is a fact, that type-casting still exists and will for a while, until then needs to stay. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. - Jeeny  Talk 01:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all For better or worse, race and ethnicity are still relevant categorizations in terms of American media. Lindentree 04:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Here: http://www.newstatesman.com/200203250013, http://datelinehollywood.com/archives/2003/09/15/asian-american-representation-in-primetime-increases-33/, and http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/asian/arts_culture_media/quill_asian_TVa_0805.asp. I think these are fair examples of how actors are affected. Media representations of certain ethnic groups, both positive and negative, are also important, but it's a little harder to quantify that. Lindentree 06:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • So why keep all if you only have links to Asian-American articles? One of which seems to disprove the previously thought underrepresentation argument. Bulldog123 22:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Because you have not shown how each of these categories are non-notable on their own merits, and because deletion nominations, if applicable at all, should be applied to these categories individually. Like I keep saying, the fact that "German American sportspeople" may not be notable makes no bearing on any of these categories at all. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 23:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep some, delete others This is too broad a suggestion. Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference states that "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career" and that such specialized categories "should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." I don't know whether those statements are true of German-American or Argentine-American actors, but they are 100% true of African-American actors and Asian-American actors. I think these categories may need to be considered on an individual basis. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 04:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Can everyone who claims African-Americans and Asian-Americans should get special treatment here explain exactly how their ethnicity has a "significant bearing on their career" any more than the others? Bulldog123 06:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Can you discuss this without being such a dick? Nobody is claiming that African-Americans and Asian-Americans should get special treatment here. We're saying that the categories of African-American actors and Asian-American actors are significant in the real world; there are books written about people whose sole commonality is their membership in those categories. The threshold for sub-categories such as these is whether the "combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" — not by you, not by me, but by the same reliable sources we use to edit this encyclopedia. It may rub you the wrong way, but it's a fact of life. Maybe you should read WP:NOT#SOAPBOX; you seem to need a refresher. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 08:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Nominate on individual basis; until then, keep all. Some (German-American actors) are more trivial intersections than others (African-American actors). - Sean Curtin 05:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • If we nominated on individual basis we would get "keep" with WP:WAX excuses. Please don't make this any more difficult and preferably mention which you would delete and which you would keep with reasons. Bulldog123 05:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • OMG, you just linked to WP:WAX. I think you really need to do some research on this. This is what really ticks me off about Wikipedia. People who "vote" on subjects they know nothing about. Also, here is text from the WP:WAX and it's what to AVOID while in a deletion discussion.

The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they're missing before they're created, a lot of articles don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists doesn't prove that the article in question should also exist; it's quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet. Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test), but even here caution should be used. Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons: does the fact that there is an article on every Pokémon character mean there necessarily should be an article on every character in Super Mario Bros? Or every character in World of Warcraft? Or every character in Adventure Quest? Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it's better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". The generic form of this argument, that "loads of other crap articles exist" is also common.

- Jeeny  Talk 08:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for familiarizing yourself with WP:WAX. It would help shorten this log if you just linked to it instead of copied the whole thing. Bulldog123 19:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Oh, and as a reply to that thing about it ticking you off when ignorant people such as myself participate in xfds; Your comment on the necessity of this intersection because of - what really boils down to - "type casting" seems to also support the retention of Category:Dwarf actors. Little people on the big screen fit the exact same criteria used for keeping these categories. It's good to know someone is so much of an expert of ethnicity and being an actor that they know for certain little people won't be offended by a categorization into the highly-relevant dwarf actor intersection. Bulldog123 08:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all it makes sense to have lists of notable people who are actors organized by ethnicity.-- Sefringle 06:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I have yet to see a good argument as to why all of these categories listed are not notable. How does the notability of German American sportspeople make any comment on the notability of any of the categories listed above? On the other hand, for example on the subject of Asian American actors, here's a book [7] about Asian American actors' personal experience, glance at the preview pages and you'll see text about how their race affected their careers. Here's a PBS documentary [8] about the problems that Asian American actors face. Here are just a few examples of the numerous articles written about Asian American actors [9] [10] [11] [12]. Take a look at the search results from a Google search [13] and you'll see the topic is well-written about. And note - I can easily make a personal argument about why the race of Asian American actors significantly affect their careers, but I don't really need to do this and you shouldn't have to listen to my own personal argument - because plenty of reliable sources have already discussed the matter. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all and relist some It may be that some of these categories are less worthwhile than others, but clearly some are worth keeping and having an en masse discussion will confuse the issue.-- Runcorn 07:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

*Keep large ones It is very unhelpful to users to allow cats to get too big and some subcats are essential. If this appears to violate some rule, then WP:IAR.-- Brownlee 10:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

*Keep Obviously, in many cases ethnicity has had a major effect on people's careers. Compare the sort of roles given to Eastern European and black actors for example.-- R613vlu 16:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all per Carlos. "Fooian-American" and "American actors" should be enough by themselves. Tewfik Talk 18:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • The subject of some of these categories have been extensively written about. Policy dictates that we keep them. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 18:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Incorrect. Policy does not dictate any such thing. I have shown how Blonde Actresses and Scandinavian-American actors are examples of things written about in the same way but not worthy of categorization per WP:Overcategorization. Bulldog123 22:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Contradictory logic. If "Blonde Actresses" and "Scandinavian American actors" have been written about and documented by reliable sources, then they are worthy of categorisation because they would be notable intersections. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If someone is interested in African-American actors, why make them hunt through African-Americans and American actors? Our object should be to make things easier for users, not more difficult.-- Runcorn 19:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all, a number are clearly meaningful, and the nominator should be prepared to show which are not notable on a case by case basis. A Musing 22:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think some are relevant due to type casting and discrimination in Hollywood but others may be less so. I suppose if we have some we should cover most ethnicities to be inclusive. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Trim to just the seven racial/ethnic groups that are officially defined by the United States census. ( White, Black, Asian, Pacific, Native American, Hispanic American, Multi-racial. The list of categories is excessive, but not unnecessary. And the problem of overcategorization should be greatly reduced since I think most people self identify in only one category (Hispanic being the obvious exception). Additionally, it would be not as difficult to create articles about these groups. CJ 11:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I think this is the strongest "keep" argument we have, and if "delete all" does not reach consensus then I believe this should be the second best alternative. "Keep for now"s and "Keep until nominated separately" do not move the discussion forward. Bulldog123 22:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because the entire underlying notion behind these categories is false. These are all American actors by profession, who lived and died as American actors, nothing more and nothing less. To themselves and to the world they were American actors and just as all Americans do, they came from various backgrounds and all walks of life that did not and do not define their careers and fame as American actors. Does anyone really care that Frank Sinatra had an Italian heritage, or that Kirk Douglas is really Jewish, or that Sidney Poitier is a Black actor? It is about as significant as noting the "ethnicity" of Miss Piggy or Daffy Duck or the characters of Shrek or Batman or Darth Vader and noone cares what or who they represent just as long as they create good entertainment in movies! Thus these are violations of WP:NN, WP:TRIVIA and of course of Wikipedia:Overcategorization especially Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. IZAK 13:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • No offense, but you've really shown a lack of knowledge about the subject matter here. To answer your question, for example, yes, lots of people care that Sidney Poitier is a black actor. Even the intro paragraph for his biographical article makes mention the significance of his race. The problem with this deletion nomination is that no real effort was put into asserting the non-notability of each of these categories. The fact that "German American sportspeople" may not be notable has no bearing on any of these categories. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • HongQi: Thank you for informing me about the "level" of "knowledge" needed to express an opinion. You are under the delusion that everyone has to follow one line of reasoning (I assume you prefer that everyone follows yours...) at any rate your violation of WP:NPA against me notwithstanding, I stand by what I stated. Your insistence about the so-called silly "notability" of these criteria is exactly why these categories are cluttering up Wikipedia and should be eliminated. The notability of these actors themselves and what has made them famous never had and never will have anything to do with their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religion. One could start categories of equal "notability" such as Category:American actors with alcoholic parents or Category:American communist actors but we don't, no matter how much is definitely written and "noted" and known about such things, because an actor is an actor, and all the other stuff is not worthy of categorization, (it is sufficient that it can get mentioned in the article itself.) No normal person ever went to watch an Elizabeth Taylor movie because she claimed to have converted to Judaism or because Tom Cruise wants the world to know he is a Scientologist or because Anthony Quinn had a mixed ethnic background, etc etc. It is certain Wikipedia editors who have created a false market for this type of useless "knowledge" -- a clear violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY as well. IZAK 09:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • The problem here is that many votes to delete have not actually shown how all of the categories listed above are actually non-notable. The notability of the topic of "American communist actors" has no bearing on the notability of the topic of "African American actors". Per Wikipedia:Overcategorization, only those intersections by ethnicity that are not notable or have no bearings on the careers of the actors ought to be deleted. Whether or not being communist holds any significance to American communist actors has no bearing on whether or not being African American holds any significance to African American actors. The argument is uninformed and illogical in the first place. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply
          • HonQi: Your refutation that my "argument is uninformed and illogical in the first place" means nothing and blatantly ignores several things: (1) The fact that the nominator himself lays down at least six "intersections" -- ethnicity, nationality, and occupation" and "race, ethnicity, and religion" -- with only "ethnicity" being repeated. (2) Therefore it is valid, at least from this starting point, to talk of the significance or insignificance of these factors as criteria in creating categories. (3) The nominator further makes it very clear that to categorize American actors by using these criteria is simply a case of Wikipedia:Overcategorization because, as he says: "I believe we should subdivide actors by more notable intersections, like perhaps by genre or medium" and with which I agree 100%, because actors are by definition ACTORS and categories like "genre" or "medium" befit them whereas sorting them especially by ethnic, religious and racial criteria is OVER-categorization. (4) The fact that some may regard "ethnicity" and "race" as "notable" is a TRAP (in logic as well as in reality) that we should not be led into, because our job as editors and as rational beings is that we should be able to PUT THINGS IN CONTEXT and in a mature perspective, whereby we are freely able to reject NONSENSICAL categorization/s, such as these are, as would be Category:American communist actors or Category:American actors with alcoholic parents (used here by way of analogy to make a point, if you can hear that, but this being Wikipedia, you never know when the next editor will arise and create such categories, and them someone will no doiubt defend them to boot.) (5) To argue by way of analogy, comparison, or example or extension is not "uninformed" nor is it "illogical." So why display a very limited and confined way of thinking? (6) If some actors are also notable for being Blacks or Chinese, then let them be listed in those ethnic groups as well (as the nominator argues above and with with which I also agree 100%.) (7) Finally, in the case of Category:Jewish American actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), there are even more compelling reasons to delete it, since the "Jewishness" of almost all these actors is in many case quetionaable and is of zero importance to their status as American actors. See also: User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. Thank you, IZAK 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I feel the need to make a point here. I see quite a few comments for delete because racial heritage is viewed as non notable. Let me be quite frank. In a country that has a significantly large racial majority and a history of denying opportunities to racial/ethnic minorities, racial/ethnic heritage is especially notable. Additionally, as I noted earlier, the US government tracks racial, and sometimes ethnic, heritage of it's citizens, therefore I find it unwise to ignore the role race and ethnicity play in American Society. It may be preferable to ignore racial identity for the purposes of presenting one unified America but this is not the case in reality and Wikipedia, to maintain a neutral point of view, should reflect the actual situation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crownjewel82 ( talk • contribs) 22:16, May 29, 2007
      • I agree. Categorizing actors by race or ethnicity is not a "trap" that we need to "reject"; making up your own Wikipedia rules that run contrary to the reality outside WP is inappropriate and may be considered original research. As some of us have tried to explain, some of these categories are significant real-world categories that are therefore not overcategorization. The criteria for "dedicated group-subject subcategories" is that the "combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right," and that's the case with at least some of the nominated categories. You can continue your reductio ad absurdum arguments concerning Category:American communist actors or Category:American actors with alcoholic parents, but you can't dispute reality. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 20:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all as per Hong Qi Gong. Stefanomione 14:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all for now. Some of these categories may be non-defining, but others (such as Category:African-American actors) clearly are defining. Additionally, if the categories are removed, please (as a second preference) upmerge rather than delete; e.g. Category:African-American actors should be upmerged to Category:American actors and Category:African-Americans, or else important categorisations will be lost from these articles. (I do wish that more care was taken with these intersection nominations not to simply propose deletion when a dual upmerger would preserve undisputed categorisations). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • What do you mean "for now"? Why not just list which you believe are worthy and which are not? Many of the articles already are in the Category:American actors category. This is one of the many reasons these categories are so burdensome. Bulldog123 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I mean that per Runcorn's comment above, it may be that some of these categories are less worthwhile than others, but clearly some are worth keeping and having an en masse discussion will confuse the issue. Different considerations apply in different categories, so the categories should be discussed separately; e.g. the history or racial segregation in the USA means that very different issues are raised by Category:African-American actors and Category:Argentine American actors. For now, what matters is that I don't accept the premise of the nomination that all actors-by-ethnicity categories are inappropriate. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all Race and Ethnicity are relevant in today's media. Especially for those (of us) who are part of a minority, these topics are often discussed, researched, and written about. I value having a resource list such as "Asian American Actors." When casting controversy erupts, such as was the case with "Memoris of a Geisha," it is useful to go to "Japanese American actors" to help understand why the casting of that film was problematic... just one of many reasons to have such categories separated. This is not just about "American actors," but how many under-represented artist there are, among under-represented ethnic goups. TienTao 19:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Then you agree we should have Category:Dwarf actors, right? Since they are type cast similarly. Are we assuming casting directors use wikipedia? Bulldog123 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Yet another strawman argument. Firstly "Dwarf actors" is irrelevant to this discussion - whether or not that's a notable categorisation has no bearing on the categories listed here. Secondly, the notability of the subject of "Dwarf actors" need to be discussed on its own merit. Thirdly, a category called Category:Actors with dwarfism exists. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 22:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Excuses that "Dwarf actors" is not being discussed are methods used to avoid addressing the issue. Wherever an example can be found where the keep arguments would apply directly and exactly to that category, one has to wonder if the keepers would somehow rethink their reasons for retention. There are no INDEPENDENT merits for Dwarf actors. The comparisons are almost exact for some of these retention comments. I didn't notice Category:Actors with dwarfism. Thank you for pointing that out. An old CFD on Category:Bisexual actors used the same argument. It was met with real responses, which you have lacked to give for many counter arguments on this cfd. Bulldog123 22:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
          • How does the notability of "Dwarf actors" make any bearing on any of the categories listed here? One may be notable, and the other may not be. Now I and others have given plenty of reliable sources that have written about at least a couple of the categories listed. What's lacking here is a real effort to even find out if each of these categories are indeed non-notable before the deletion nomination. Notability is established by what reliable sources we can find on a subject, not by editors' own personal preference and not by arguing that because X does not exist, then Y is not notable. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 22:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
              • I've already addressed your and others "reliable sources" many times. My comments on "Dwarf actors" is merely to have other people consider the implications of their reasons for retention, not solely as a justification for the particular deletion of all these categorizations. Bulldog123 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
                • For others that are coming into this discussion, please simply scroll up to see some of the links offered, and decide for yourself if the numerous articles and books, and even a PBS documentary, establishes notability or not. Apparentlly Bulldog123 does not think so. But judge for yourselves. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 23:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - it is not so much the intersection that matters but that the link to nationality or ethnic origin may be lost if deleted. If origin is kept the ethnic origin categories are quite large already and refining may be a positive move. -- Rivus 23:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

*Keep Consider Hattie McDaniel, who is rightly described in her article as an African-American actress. One of her grounds for notability is that she was the first person of African descent to win an Academy Award. Because of her ethnicity, she was confined to some types of role; because of her ethnicity, she was frightened to attend the premiere of the film for which she won that award. How can she be described simply as an American actress, rather than an African-American one?-- Osidge 08:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Reply. That's a very useful illustration of the case for keeping Category:African-American actors. The problem with this group nomination is that it tries to treat all the sub-categories in the same way, and does not provide a useful space to apply the tests in WP:CATGRS. In order to make those assessments in a way which editors can follow clearly, we need to consider these ethnic categories one at a time. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment — The preceding comment may have come from a sockpuppet, but it is no less valid. While Hattie McDaniel, Sidney Poitier, and Halle Berry were/are all fine actors, part of their notability is that they were the first African-American actors to win Oscars in their respective categories. McDaniel's career was severely circumscribed by the limited roles made available to African-American actors, while Poitier's best-known roles made use of his race to challenge widely-held beliefs about the inferiority of Blacks. (In fact, his character is often superior in many ways to the white characters with whom he interacts.) Pretending that the category of African-American Actors isn't a notable intersection is just make-believe. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 07:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • I am slowly reconsidering only the African-American category as non-notable but not for the trivia reasons you give, but more because of segregation in film. However, I don't see this applying to any of the other categories. Bulldog123 07:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
          • Segregation on film basically applied to all non-white racial groups. The bottom line is that some of these categories have been thoroughly written about by notable sources, making them notable and WP:Overcategorization not applicable. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
            • That's not true. Segregation for African-Americans was a national phenomena, but a little bit of segregation here or there for other non-white groups doesn't provide the same argument. Zenophobia applies too then. Bulldog123 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
              • Actually - it is true. Segregation was a national phenomena to seperate whites from all non-whites. Segregation became a national issue when the US Supreme Court started upholding Jim Crow laws, and Jim Crow laws regularly applied to other minorities besides blacks. And I'm a little alarmed that you think that segregation is only a notable issue as long as it is a national phenomena. Regardless, read a little history of Asian actors in Hollywood and you'll note that they were regularly denied roles because of their race - this is a phenomenon that's been well written about, together with the fact that today, they are regularly limited in the roles they are allowed to play because of their race. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
            • "The “Jim Crow” laws were applied to all blacks. A definition of black was therefore necessary. The definition came 1896 with the Plessy v Ferguson case. Homer Plessy was only one-eighth black and he attempted to sit in a white only railroad car." No, they were not written up for any other race than for blacks. If there were localized incidents of discrimination against the other races/ethnicites, ok, but such incidents also stretch over to nationality, religion, disability etc...We're not drafting up tons of intersections for the "possibility" of discrimination, even if that discrimination is more prominent for some than others. In an all Protestant-nation, Irish Catholics were most definitely segregated against on stage. We've already deleted actors by religion despite there being the SAME argument for retention applicable there. Anyway, there's a big difference from a national decree to a localized incident(s). You keep repeating the same thing and I keep replying to you the same way. And finally, again with "they are regularly limited in the roles they are allowed to play because of their race" - for the hundredth time, type-casting does not automatically merit an intersection. Bulldog123 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
            • And just so you know, I'm not going to relist any categories that have been thoroughly discussed in this CfD separately, like Asian-Americans or African-Americans, if that's your only concern at this point. But nobody has really mentioned anything about the nationality/ethnicity intersections. So I think those merit separate listings. Bulldog123 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all Wikipedia isn't in the business of creating categories out of thin air. However, if a category is in general use in the larger culture, then that category should exist here. When books like Asian American Actors: Oral Histories from Stage, Screen, and Television by Joann Faung Jean Lee (McFarland & Company, 2000) and articles like The Oscars In Black And White - African American actors and the Academy Awards (Ebony, April 2000) exist, it is obvious that these ethnic categories exist in the greater culture. Since these categories have sufficient bibliographic and historic support to exist separate from Wikipedia, they should also exist on Wikipedia. That said, it's possible one or two of these categories are not valid, but since this is a vote on the whole group, we should keep them. If someone wants to bring individual categories up for a CfD at a later time, that's a different matter.-- Alabamaboy 14:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I'm swayed towards keeping African-American actors but not the others. I definitely don't see how a compilation of oral histories qualifies as an analysis of Asian-Americans and acting. Bulldog123 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • The book is a published work with personal stories about how their race affected Asian actors and actresses in Hollywood. Besides, that's not the only thing that's been published and written about on the subject of Asian actors. There was also a PBS documentary on the very subject, and numerous articles that are available online. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The point of the book of oral histories is to show that people outside of Wikipedia are using the category of Asian American actors. If you had brought all these categories up separately, people could have discussed each one and perhaps the unneeded ones would have been deleted. But by bringing all these categories up for discussion at one time, you've made it difficult to discuss each individual category's notability. I can provide examples of outside scholarship and media coverage on most of these categories to show that the categories exist outside WP. But since you've listed them all at once, it is way more trouble than its worth at this point. The two examples I have of the asian american and african american book/article were just that, examples, to show that these categories exist outside WP and are notable.-- Alabamaboy 17:38, 31 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

World War memorials

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 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 debate was rename. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose add "and cemeteries" for consistency with parent and sister categories Roger 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Moved from speedy, and support. Clearly correct, but I couldn't justify it under the criteria for a speedy rename. Nonetheless, I'd eventually like there to be a speedy rename criterion for clear matches to existing category structure.-- Mike Selinker 13:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename - These categories' names should match the name of the parent category, Category:Military memorials and cemeteries. (It would probably be better not to have speedy criteria for categories like these given the debate regarding the renaming of Category:Polish executions.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename - Carom 14:55, 26 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Palestine to Palestinian territories renames

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: rename. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

These nominations were placed in the speedy section, but given the contentious debate, it seemed clearly necessary to move it to the main discussion.-- Mike Selinker 13:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

per conventions. Palestine is not formally a country but rather it is known in its current state as the Category:Palestinian territories. Similar renamings have recently occured, see [14]. -- Abnn 02:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

We have been developing a consistent naming scheme here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#First_attempt_at_a_standard_naming_scheme. -- Abnn 16:49, 25 May 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.

Palestininian territories to Palestinian National Authority rename

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 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 debate was no consensus. -- Kbdank71 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

These nominations were placed in the speedy section, but given the contentious debate, it seemed clearly necessary to move it to the main discussion.-- Mike Selinker 13:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Basically this is about politics and thus we use Category:Palestinian National Authority rather than Category:Palestinian territories terminology. -- Abnn 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

We have been developing a consistent naming scheme here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#First_attempt_at_a_standard_naming_scheme. -- Abnn 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • This vote is for the churches category.--Mike
    • Oppose per my understanding of this discussion that such specific functions of specific geography should be dealt with by specific region, ie Category:Churches in the West Bank and Category:Churches in the Gaza Strip. Tewfik Talk 03:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment This above oppose vote is actually for a category in the other CfD. When moved from speedy these renamings we put into one CfD which I believe is overly confusing, thus I refactored it into two separate groups, but I have kept all previous comments by users in both CfDs because I want to refrain from refactoring other people's comments. -- Abnn 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Support all save my above oppose per this discussion. Tewfik Talk 03:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Moved from speedy.-- Mike Selinker 13:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Support as original nom. (Also I just refactored this to split up the speedy nom into two CfDs for simplicity in interpreting the resulting votes.) -- Abnn 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: the PNA is a government (of some kind), not a place, so there are no places in it. — Ashley Y 09:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Ashley Y. -- Eliyak T· C 19:34, 5 June 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:CNN newsreaders and journalists

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:CNN newsreaders and journalists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Speedy delete - It was already decided to delete categories such as these because people in journalism work for multiple networks. Consequently, if people are categorized by network, the people will accumulate many categories, leading to category clutter. To some degree, these categories function like "performer by performance" categories that have also been deleted. Moreover, this is a recreation of Category:CNN people, which was deleted 6 March 2007. Dr. Submillimeter 12:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per well-articulated nom. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom. -- Random Say it here! 23:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose deletion You can't apply this standard to all journalists, since print journalists don't move around that much. AndreasKQ 13:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - This category contains TV journalists, not print journalists. Dr. Submillimeter 11:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. gidonb 23:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as overcategorization per nom and strong precedent. Otto4711 16:08, 1 June 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.

Category:WABC-TV

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 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 debate was delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:WABC-TV ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - This is mostly the categorization of employees (mostly journalists) by employer. These journalists often work at other networks as well, so categorization by network will lead to long category lists. Moreover, categorization of people by network in general is discouraged. I therefore recommend deleting this category. Dr. Submillimeter 12:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom as inappropriate overcategorization of performer by network/station. Otto4711 12:56, 28 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Primates of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and of All Africa

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: rename. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Primates of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and of All Africa to Category:Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - These people are commonly referred to as "Popes", not "Primates of the Patriarchate". Even the Wikipedia article uses Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. The category should be renamed to use the more common title. ( Category:Popes of Alexandria would also be appropriate but possibly slightly ambiguous.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:42, 25 May 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.

Category:Fictional fugitives

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: Delete. Categories with unclear inclusion criteria are considered not such a good idea (the overcategorization guideline has some thoughts on that). There are a number of fictional characters for whom being fugitive has a clear and continuous impact on the story (e.g. "The Fugitive" from the series), but there are also many for whom "being on the run" is mentioned in their backstory but isn't really important throughout the story, and there are many for whom the "fugitive status" is a temporary plot point that is resolved in the next chapter. Aside from that, the categorized characters really don't have all that much in common. Contrary to what Petri says, in general fictional characters are categorized by their fictional characteristics, not by plot elements. >Radiant< 08:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional fugitives - Vague inclusion criterion. Fugitive from what? (Though I had to smile when I noted that The Gingerbread Man was a member of this category : ) - jc37 10:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Deletion - The dominant usage of this term is those fleeing from government custody. If there are people who simply wont get that, then a few words can be added to the description. In addition, if someone adds an inappropriate member of the category, then it can be removed from the member article in question. Removing the entire category is tantamount to ordering a tactical nuclear strike on a gunman in a PT_boat. Siyavash 16:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    As I noted above, and Dr. Submillimeter notes below, the inclusion critera is vague. Since the varied examples need such explanation, this would be better as a list, per WP:CLS. However, I still am leaning towards deletion, since this grouping of fictional characters could become bloated to include any character who was at some point attempting to evade capture by "someone". - jc37 19:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This really appears to be grouping characters together by plot element rather than grouping together characters with similar characteristics. The category title is vague about which government or authority these people are fugitives from. The category includes The Gingerbread Man, Jack Sparrow, The A-Team, Richard Kimble, and Scar (Fullmetal Alchemist), all of whom appear to be fleeing different authorities. The characters only appear to be vaguely related to each other; grouping them together does not really seem helpful. Dr. Submillimeter 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not clearly defined what's included and what's excluded and for how long someone has to be fugitive to belong. Carlossuarez46 20:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as what Submilli mentioned. A lot of these people are totally unrelated and its a loose connection at best Bulldog123 01:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete subjective, excessively broad category. Everyone flees something or someone at some time. Doczilla 07:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is fiction, does it matter what they are fleeing from? Whatever it is, it is fictional! Fictional character should be categorized by real plot elements, not their fictional characteristics. -- Petri Krohn 22:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, escape, exile and fleeing are important and notable leitmotifs in arts. Categorizing characters in arts by their fugitive status is very encyclopedic. A ecis Brievenbus 22:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Aecis. Edward321
  • Keep per Petri and Aecis. Hawkestone 23:28, 2 June 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.

Category:Rugby in the Isle of Man

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: rename. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Rugby in the Isle of Man to Category:Rugby union in the Isle of Man
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, All rugby categories divided by country are either in Category:Rugby league in Europe or Category:Rugby union by country. As far as I can see from Sport in the Isle of Man there are only Rugby union teams. An equiavlent Rugby league category can be created if necessary. Tim! 06:49, 25 May 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.

Category:High schools in Germany

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: not to rename. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:High schools in Germany to Category:Gymnasiums in Germany
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. They are called Gymnasiums in the lengthy introduction which can be greatly reduced if this category is renamed. Vegaswikian 05:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose "Gynasium" means something totally different in English and this is the English language Wikipedia. The problem with the introduction is that it assumes that the comparison that needs to be made is with the American system, as though the "standard" Wikipedia reader is an American. That is not only U.S. centrism, it is factually incorrect, as statistics show that the majority of users are not American. The differences between the German and British systems (and probably between the German system and those of many other countries) are far smaller. Haddiscoe 17:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • So if both the current and proposed names both have problems, what is the better option? Vegaswikian 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The American one in Kaiserslauten is presumably not a gymnasium in any sense. I'm not sure if some of the private ones are actually strictly gymnasiums either. Only some German "high schools" or secondary schools actually are gymnasiums. Johnbod 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • So should there be a category for both if they are really different? Most of the Gymnasium articles also list themselves as high schools or secondary schools. Vegaswikian 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Support Always supportive of shortening articles. Feydakin 01:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The top category for Germany should be "high" or possibly "secondary" schools. It is possible that more specialised subcategories would be appropriate. Honbicot 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
There aren't nearly enough members to justify this; as far as I'm concerned, it ain't broke, so don't lets fix it. Johnbod 03:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Actually I see many more gymnasiums have been added sine I first commented; a sub-cat along the lines suggested by Carlos Category:Gymnasiums (schools) in Germany below would be fine, but we do not need to decide this here. I would not object to renamimg this cat to "secondary schools". Johnbod 10:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose for a few reasons: (a) not all secondary or high schools in Germany are called gymnasium; (b) the word gymnasium in English has a more normal meaning other than this one, (c) does every sports-type gym in Germany get dumped in here, because they too are gymnasiums (or gymnasia) in Germany, and finally (d) to be consistent with the article Gymnasium (school) the name, if changed, should be Category:Gymnasiums (schools) in Germany or some such... Carlossuarez46 16:42, 31 May 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.

Category:Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman

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: merge. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - small category for a cancelled series, no need for the category for navigational purposes. Otto4711 02:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - the show article is already in the suggested target category, but I don't think the episode and character subcats should be. Otto4711 18:17, 25 May 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.

Category:Skins

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Skins ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete there is no need for a category to organize this material, especially in light of the navtemplate. Otto4711 02:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. General comment on all these tv show cats: All tv shows should have nav boxes and/or have all material linked from the main article; failure of the editors of such articles to do so should not be reason to create and keep cat-clutter. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 25 May 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.

Category:Soviet crimes

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Soviet crimes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - an umpteenth replica of Category:Soviet World War II crimes and Category:Massacres in the Soviet Union. -- Ghirla -трёп- 07:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete the category will be a flame bait: I can think of zillions articles that according to some POVs will be a Soviet Crimes while for the other POVs it would not be crimes or would not be Soviet. For the clear cases the two category menthioned by Ghirla are more than sufficient Alex Bakharev 08:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep All crimes of Soviet rule did not happen during WWII and were not massacres. As to flame baiting, any topic that points a finger at someone will have its opposition. Is it wikipedias policy to engage in censorship? Let the debates over what belongs here and what not happen on the respecive pages talk pages.-- Alexia Death 09:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a (quite real) flame bait. Besides, it is redundant with already existing categories... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree with Alex Bakharev. Also too much of a controversy-inducing category title. Bulldog123 16:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom & per Alex Bakharev, and normally "crimes" are things for which the perpetrators have been tried and convicted. Was the Soviet Union ever put on trial? For what? By whom? What was the outcome? Carlossuarez46 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless we are going to both create a "Fooish crimes" category to accommodate every ugly action of every other state (e.g. Bloody Sunday (1920) and 1972 in Category:British crimes, Bloody Sunday (1938) in Category:Canadian crimes, Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Category:American crimes, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in Category:Chinese crimes, Srebrenica massacre in Category:Serbian crimes) and achieve a miracle by creating an NPOV definition of what counts as a crime. Better, surely, to use more neutral caegories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unnecessary duplication. Beit Or 17:36, 28 May 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.

Category:Spooks episodes by series

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: merge to Category:Spooks episodes. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Spooks episodes by series to Category:Spooks (TV series) episodes
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - the various subcategories under this cat are oddly divided by individual series/season, which given the small number of articles seems like overcategorization. It is fairly non-standard to modify a TV episodes category on a seasonal basis. Additionally, inserting "TV series" will reduce ambiguity as to the content of the category. Otto4711 02:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
What else would they be episodes of?! Nevertheless, support. (And there will be more articles once every episode has one, so keeping these subcats is sensible.) Neddyseagoon - talk 09:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to the newly-created category. Otto4711 22:19, 25 May 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.

Spooks episodes

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: merge. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Spooks series 2 by episode ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Spooks series 3 by episode ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - articles in category space. Otto4711 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep - article material removed to episode list. Neddyseagoon - talk 09:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The series 2 category is now empty and subject to speedy deletion. Series 3 has one article in it. Otto4711 12:57, 28 May 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.

Category:Spooks series by episode

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: merge per above. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Spooks series 1 by episode to Category:Spooks episodes by series
Category:Spooks series 4 by episode to Category:Spooks episodes by series
Category:Spooks series 5 by episode to Category:Spooks episodes by series
  • Merge - largely an article in category space. There seems little utility in separating out the small number of episodes per series/season in this fashion. Otto4711 02:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this article information being in the category space is an accident of the way these categories were produced, and has now been merged out into the episode list. It is still useful to divide them off by series - see the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spooks And small?! - it has been running for 5/6 series! - if these are merged together it will become far harder to navigate between them and improve them (particularly once every episode has an article, which is the Project's goal - the cats may look empty at the moment, but not once that goal has been reached). Neddyseagoon - talk 09:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • If I'm reading the main article correctly, there are a maximum of 46 episodes articles that could be created to cover all five series (with another 10 possible should the sixth series actually be produced). TV shows with several times as many episodes that actually have articles written for all of them are not broken out in a series/seasonal categorization scheme. A single list article of episodes covers the territory as well or better than a category since the lists can be ordered by production order or air date and categories can only be alphabetical. Otto4711 19:39, 26 May 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.

Category:Octagon-Shaped Buildings

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

A muddle. Glossing over whether or not this is a defining characteristic and therefore suitable for a category, this contains buildings and streets. It's recursive - the only category parent this has is itself - and the nme is decidedly non-kosher (why the capitals, and why not Octagonal buildings?). If kept, it needs renaming to Category:Octagonal buildings and structures, categorising and weeding of the non-buildings, but ideally, I'd favour deletion. Grutness... wha? 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I'm not convinced that this is a defining characteristic. It is no longer recursive since I deleted the category that was causing the problem. Vegaswikian 02:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Deletion. I created this because, as an architect, I am aware that octagon-shaped buildings are not just a building "shape". They are a building type, similar (but not identical to) an architectural style. In the United States, there was period in the 19th Century (Longwood in Natchez; The Octagon House in Wisconsin, thousands of barns in the midwest, etc.) when this was considered an efficient architectural concept and promoted as such. While this is not an architectural style, as the oriental style "Longwood" house in Natchez is, it is a building type that has historical precedence - at least in the United States. While I have not personally studied the linkage between American octagon buildings in the United States to medieval European structures (Aachen, etc.), at the very least it is legitimate as an American movement. however, I doubt that American builders operated in a vacuum - we built our national capital based on the architecture of the Roman republic. I suspect there are links, and that builders in the United States were aware of what was constructed beforehand in Europe. Please note the following statement from the Watertown Historical Society in Wisconsin regarding this style: Richards, while in college, had been influenced by a new concept in building that swept across America a few years later - the octagon shaped house. ( http://www.watertownhistory.org/Articles/Octagon_House_MainPage.htm ) I concur that the New Zealand entry of the streets may not be appropriate. -- Baxterguy 14:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It is unclear whether the buildings currently in this category (such as First Baptist Church, Knoxville, Tennessee, Octagon Centre, and Palatine Chapel in Aachen) really are part of the same architectural movement or are otherwise related, as Baxterguy has admitted. It is not even clear that the architects of any of these buildings were vaguely influenced by any other buildings in this category. This is more or less the categorization of buildings that have roughly the same shape but which may have nothing else in common. If this was a specific architectural trend in one country at one point, I suggest creating a category with the technical name for that trend. Dr. Submillimeter 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not having every shape. What about rectangular buildings? Won't work. Feydakin 00:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for impracticality of categorizing by shapes. Doczilla 07:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Alex Middleton 09:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Where would we draw the limit? gidonb 23:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I take Baxterguy's point about the interest in this particular shape, so I have just created List of octagonal buildings and structures, which includes all the articles currently in this category. It would be great if Baxterguy and/or other interested editors could expand the list, or better still convert it into a substantive article on octagonal buildings. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • "Oppose Deletion" With respect, I need to point out that there was a 19th Century architectural movement in the United States that was about octagon shaped houses, barns, etc. There is no such movement for rectangle, triangle or other shapes. (I am aware that one could argue a cubist angle for rectangles, but I am sticking to movements that can be documented. Any architectural style should be open for inclusion.) This is something that any architectural historian can verify. However, as with the Longwood Plantation in Natchez (oriental), the octagon movement is integrated into other architectural styles. However, also see a term problem below.-- Baxterguy 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • "Coordinate with listing" I created the list, and spoke against it's deletion. However, I have found an problem. There is a page for octagon house that explains the 19th American octagon style. The problem is that octagon as a style was not limited to houses; in fact, barns are as integral a part of the style as houses were. And there are other structural types (towers, churches, etc.) Any ideas on how to reconcile these terms?-- Baxterguy 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: If the consensus is that the octagon does not merit a category, I will no longer object to deleting it. But some of the comments above appear to be made on the basis of whether the shape merits a category, and that does not reflect historic precedent. This category should not be deleted based on an argument that "shapes" don't merit a category. The octagon is an architectural fad, movement, etc., that can be referenced in published books that detail it's impact - primarily on the East Coast and Mid-West. The list can be culled down to American examples (eliminating Old World structures that may or may not have been the basis of the movement), but if the consensus is that an architectural fad or movement is best handled by an article rather than a category (under wikipedia protocols), I can live with that. Who wants to delete it? -- Baxterguy 15:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Just to reiterate, I would support a category that actually discussed an an architectural movement (such as Category:Neoclassical architecture or Category:Baroque architecture). This category, however, is not being used to collect buildings from a single architectural movement. Instead, it is being used to gather together all buildings of the same shape, regardless of how the buildings are related otherwise. This is not useful. If you can identify the architectural movement that gave rise to octagonal-shaped buildings in the United States in the late nineteenth century, then create a category based on that movement (and use a name other than Category:Octagon-Shaped Buiildings that actually indicates the architectural movement). This category, which contains buildings that are otherwise unrelated, should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:17, 1 June 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.

Category:Mortal Kombat television series

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: merge. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Mortal Kombat television series to Category:Mortal Kombat
  • Merge - there were two TV series based on the games and it doesn't seem necessary to segregate them from the parent cat. Otto4711 01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge then Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:43, 25 May 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.

Category:Mortal Kombat Conquest

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Mortal Kombat Conquest ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - small category for cancelled series, unlikely to expand. Not needed for navigation. Otto4711 01:55, 25 May 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.

Category:Have I Got News For You

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Have I Got News For You ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - most of the articles are for panelists on the show, which is improper performer by performance overcategorization. The remaining articles, for the show, the episode list and the studio where it's filmed, do not require a category to navigate between them (and the studio article really shouldn't be categorized by the shows filmed there anyway). Otto4711 01:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - The category is effectively being used as a "performer by performance" category, which does not work in the long term. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all "performer by performance" categories. -- Mais oui! 14:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per precedent of removal of performer by performance categorization Bulldog123 09:06, 28 May 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.

Category:Happy Days

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: rename to spin-offs. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Happy Days ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the bulk of the articles are for spin-offs, which are already linked through the main article. The rest are also appropriately linked for their Happy Days connection. The category is not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 01:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Simply counting articles while disregarding whether the category serves any navigational purpose seems simplistic. Otto4711 19:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • That's a straw man argument. You think it serves no navigational purpose, and I do. Regardless, this has quote a bit more content than a category like the Night Court one, so I support its existence.-- Mike Selinker 08:38, 26 May 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.

Category:Good Times

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Good Times ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - another TV show category, old show, unlikely to expand, nit needed to navigate the articles. Otto4711 01:06, 25 May 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.

Category:Ghostwriter

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 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 debate was delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Ghostwriter ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - two articles on two iterations of the show. Category is not needed for navigation. Otto4711 01:01, 25 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Get Smart

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Get Smart ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - following clean-up, we're left with a small amount of material that is all interlinked through the main Get Smart article. Cancelled series, unlikely to expand. Not needed. Otto4711 01:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - that discussion has not established a "standard." Otto4711 20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Mike, browsing the articles I see there were 138 episodes which suggests potential for growth. Tim! 16:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Which don't require a separate category, as they would be categorized under the appropriate episodes and characters by series trees. But since they don't exist now your argument is based entirely on the unsupported assumption that someone some time in the unknown future will decide to start writing these articles. Should that happen and the category be recreated as a result, the notion of whether a category is required can be revisited. Otto4711 14:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
And your argument is based on the entirely unsupported assumption that someone won't start writing the articles. Tim! 07:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, no, my argument is based on the fact that no one has written the articles, and allows for reconsideration of the necessity of the category should someone start writing them. Your argument, if taken to its logical extreme, would preclude the deletion of any category because, hey, someone just might start writing articles that would fit in them any day now! Otto4711 15:03, 2 June 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.

Category:Films with a medical theme

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 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 debate was Rename. Support was clearly in favor of renaming and keeping. Since there was no real objection to the proposed name I consider that consensus for this proposed name that had the most support from the previous discussion. Vegaswikian 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Films with a medical theme to Category:Medical-themed films
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This is relisting a discussion from earlier. It was relisted to gain consensus on a rename target however no name was suggested and the discussion reached no conclusion. Since the original discussion was for a rename of some type, I have proposed a name in the hopes of reaching consensus. The decision should be a name for renaming or maybe just deleting based on the last discussion. Vegaswikian 00:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I called for deletion in the first round of this discussion and my opinion hasn't changed. "Medical theme" is too broad of an inclusion criterion and there is no objective way to determine how much medical involvement there needs to be for a film to be considered to have a "medical theme." Otto4711 01:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - As the original creator of the category, I would support splitting it into 2 separate categories: hospital & doctor dramas, which would follow the definition set in Medical drama but applied to films instead of television and which would include The Doctor, Article 99, and John Q, and films about diseases, which would include Medicine Man and Lorenzo's Oil. In fact I originally created the category because there was no film equivalent of Category:Medical television series. Wl219 08:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • rename per nom, oppose deletion as before. Tim! 16:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • rename per nom 132.205.44.134 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Either rename per nom or keep as is, the name change seems a bit redundant to me but I'm happy either way. Certainly keep the category, or perhaps split it into several more specific categories. PC78 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my earlier comments. Carlossuarez46 20:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep This category does have room for growth because there is almost always a new medical drama introduced in the networks. Feydakin 01:07, 26 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 category's talk page 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_May_25&oldid=1138388746"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 24 May 26 >

May 25

Category:Creators who do not acquiesce to fan fiction

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: listify & delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Creators who do not acquiesce to fan fiction ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Very POV. (And how would one acquiesce to fic anyway?) EDIT: This category is being used by the website FanLib.com as a way of listing which authors' works they will not allow on their site. This is information they can easily post on their site. Changing my nomination to speedy delete. Kolindigo 22:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete speedy if possible. Feydakin 00:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This attribute may be important in relation to fan fiction, but it is not defining for the "creators". Honbicot 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comments:
    1. There's nothing WP:POV about the category; it doesn't say or suggest that fan fiction is good or that it is bad, nor that acquiescence is good or bad.
    2. The category itself has an answer to Kolindigo's parenthetical question: “Authors and other creators of creative works who have either stated their opposition or have taken some sort of action, legal or otherwise, against fan fiction based on their works.”
    3. I created this category to replace the egregiously named Category:People opposed to fan fiction (since speedily deleted without further action by me). I'm not wedded to the continued existence of Category:Creators who do not acquiesce to fan fiction, though the nominator's actual charges against it are quite ill-considered. — SlamDiego 03:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Yes, I read the category description, but I still don't see how acquiesce has anything to do with it. It makes it sound like fan fiction is a monolithic dictatorship that demands that authors everywhere bow down and let their copyright be infringed. And I think it's very POV in that it passes judgement on the creators, alhough not on fic itself. I think Creators opposed to fan fiction would be a better name for the category, but I'm still not sure it's a useful category. Wouldn't something like this be better as a list? I can see how it would be useful for fandom to have a centralized listing of creators who are willing to send C&D letters, especially in light of the FanLib thing, but this category still seems very POV to me.(see new comment below re:Fanlib) Kolindigo 06:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Acquiescence has everything to do with it; from the American Heritage Dictionary: “ac•qui•es•cence … 3. Law. Passive compliance, inaction, silence, or the like, construed as signifying acceptance or consent.” (Intellectual property may be lost by acquiescence, even when no rights are expressedly surrendered. Many people are aware that this happens with trademarks, but it happens with copyrights as well; Tolkein severely undermined his copyright in the United States by failing to act against the original American publisher.) A Category:Creators opposed to fan fiction would represent creators who would not acquiesce in the case of their own works as being somehow opposed to fan fiction more generally; presumably, however, most of them would feel that other authors had every right to permit fan fiction based on their own work. Finally, it is not POVy to be helpful to those with particular interests; we do not, for example, reject articles on cultivars as reflecting a horticultural “POV”. — SlamDiego 09:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's really impossible to know exactly who is opposed to others creating unlicensed works with their characters, settings, or stories, although it is generally known which authors have allowed their creations to be freely used by others ( Michael Moorcock allows pretty much anyone to use Jerry Cornelius, for instance), and of course works licensed under Creative Commons and the like are intended for such things. Also, the category doesn't specify that the creators are opposed to the creation of fan fiction based on their own copyrighted creations, just that they are opposed to it in general. Category:Creators who allow fan fiction based on their works would be much more easily verified and populated. - Sean Curtin 05:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    Comment: Well, the category does specify, but its name indeed fails to do so. However, you are making a meaningful confusion here. Objectively, creators fall into three categories:
    1. those who expressly allow fan fiction based upon their works,
    2. those who expressly oppose fan fiction based upon their works, and
    3. those who do not make their positions clear.
    The category presently nominated for deletion is the second. Identifying only creators in the first category is no less ambiguous that identifying only those in the second. I think that you are right to want a Wikipedia Category for the first, and right to criticize the name of the second, but wrong to think that only having the first is any improvement on only having the second. Any case for getting rid of the second altogether would apply to your hypothetical category as well. (And perhaps indeed neither should exist.) — SlamDiego 06:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-defining and vaguely named. We shouldn't be categorized for all the things we don't do. Also, a category cannot provide references to back up this assertion. The MZB article at least mentions her opposition to fan fiction, but not all of the other authors' articles refer to any such opposition. Doczilla 07:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This category is being used by the site Fanlib.com as a way of advertizing which creators' works they will not allow. Kolindigo 08:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • This is not commerical advertisement; this is advertisement only in the sense that of giving notice. There is little question that the category is of special interest (albeït not unique interest) to those who generate fanfic. These people constitute a part of the user pool for Wikipedia. So what, exactly, do you want to make of their interest in the category? — SlamDiego 09:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Further, you earlier objected that the category “makes it sound like fan fiction is a monolithic dictatorship”; now that the category is useful to the writers of fanfic. So which WP:POV do you want to claim this Category actually represents, the opponents or the proponents of fanfic? — SlamDiego 09:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic in any reasonable sense of the word. Borders on trivia. Absolutely inappropriate for a category. At best, we could have a list with proper citations, and even that might be bordering on original research. Xtifr tälk 10:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, this topic is unencyclopedic, and the content of the category will inherently be pov. A ecis Brievenbus 11:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Xtifr Haddiscoe 18:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Comment I have to agree with SlamDiego that the arguments against the deletion of the category are very very weak. I'm not wedded to the category either, however, as someone who has written several fanficitons in the past (which I understand does give me a bias viewpoint), I do find it an interesting and unusual category, which I would rather seen kept than deleted. I don't see the problem really with it being kept a category--it's only being used for people who have specifically taken legal action or have openly stated they are against fanfiction being created from their work (as opposed to authors like J.K. Rowling who have publicly stated they even read it themselves), and it is not defaming nor promoting the creation of fanfiction. If anything, the only problem I could see with it is maybe it's not descriptive enough in its wording, and should be renamed Category:Creators who do not acquiesce to fan fiction of their own works or something along those lines. I don't believe it's simple "trivia" as it does include a number of authors who would probably otherwise be unrelated and it affects their opinion about their own work, and considering this as a "useless" category would also be considering the whole Category:Fandom and Category:Fan fiction categories rather useless as well, as this could arguably be considered the most refereced, "important" legally, and least WP:POV subcategory in that entire section. It seems a lot more useful and encylopedic in my opinion than something like Category:British writers or Category:1945 births that while definately referenced and groups a lot of seperate articles together, I doubt is often helpful or used by Wikipedia visitors nor tell much about the subject in question. As a matter of fact, to those arguing the category is just "trivial", I would think that making "trivia" into categories (assuming the trivia includes that wide a group of articles) would be the best and most useful way to get rid of those annoying list-like "Triva" sections in articles anyway. Interlinks and categories were originallly the main reason I started using wikipedia, because if I didn't know about something or was interesting in knowing more about a particular subject, I could just click on a linked word or category and immidieately find out more about it, rather than having to go to google or something and hope I was wording what I wanted to learn correctly and specifically enough and that the website would be descriptive and on the right topic. Deleting referenced and interesting categories like this is just taking away from the usefullness of categories on wikipedia in general. Again, I'm not wedded to the idea of the category, but I am tired of overpopulated but underused categories like Category:1945 births or Category:Writers by nationality, that are more trivial in my opinion than something like Category:Creators who do not acquiesce to fan fiction, which contains a moderate amount of categories and provides an interesting fact about the articles making it more likely to be used than a simple common birth year. Categories I think would be the best way to get rid of trivia sections on Wikipedia, while keeping the noteworthy facts about articles that may not have that big a place in the article (although is still referenced and encompasses a fairly good amount of articles). It's definately not a POV issue or a useless category, and if anything it just deserves a renaming. None of the issues raised against it I feel are large enough to deserve the category's deletion. Category:1945 births is much more trivial than a common legal issue that several writers have raised against a subject which is considered important enough to have its own category and detailed page on Wikipedia itself. Again, not in love with the category, but the points raised against it are not good enough for its deletion. Irish ♣ Pearl 20:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete passive nothing category. I have created things. I don't acquiesce to fan fiction. God created lots of things. He tolerates all kinds of fan fiction . . . or does He? Shoester 22:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Many deletionists, such as Shoester, have the issue of passivity exactly backwards. To acquiesce is to be passive; this Category is of creators who do not acquiesce. — SlamDiego 04:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Wording problem: Using that definition, creators who actively approve of fan fiction also do not acquiesce to it, thereby rendering this category useless for distinguishing active accepters from opposers. Doczilla 06:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Formally true. If the Category is kept, then a different name would almost certainly be better. — SlamDiego 06:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not a defining characteristic. Postlebury 11:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • keep May need a rename, but the category itself is useful to at the very least the relatively large subculture of fanfiction writers and readers. No less unencyclopedic than the fanfiction article itself.-- Kelly holden 14:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Listify Definitely needs a rename, but per some other editors, I disagree that this is an inherently POV category and do feel some way of acknowleding authors' and companies' views on fanfiction would be valuable for the Wikipedia. I do, however, think it might work better as a list article, perhaps something along the lines of Authors and companies with stated views on fanfiction (or a better title). There we could list authors and companies who have stated their views either favorably or disfavorably about fanfic based on their work, something that should be pretty easy to cite. Authors or companies who have not made a statement can't be cited and thus wouldn't be included in the list. -- Sparky Lurkdragon 16:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Listify Encyclopedic, but not worthy of a category. Circeus 17:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Listify and rename -- perhaps something like "List of authors with stated opinions on fanfiction"? Cactus Wren 06:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and do not listify Lists are just research notes. An encyclopedia should give well chosen examples in the context of an article. Dominictimms 02:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The fact another website links to this is irrelevant. The category may need to be renamed, but it already has a clear explanation of what authors would legitimately fit the category. Inclusion would not be a matter of POV, but requires clear action or statements by the author before they are listed. Edward321 01:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Web2-contributor-centric. Not defining for the writers. Nathanian 02:39, 4 June 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.

Category:Chicago 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 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 debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 10:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Chicago Football ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Football in Chicago, or Category:Chicago football. -- Prove It (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I'm not seeing the organizational utility in the categorization. It's holding categories for specific teams which are already reasonably located in Category:Sports in Chicago along with an article on the Bears (which has its own category) and one on the Arizona Cardinals. This layer is unneeded. Otto4711 21:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Otto. This appears to be an unnecessary division of Category:Sports in Chicago, and not part of any wider hierarchy of football-by-city. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Otto. If this is kept, the new name should specify that it concerns American football in Chicago. Honbicot 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I disagree, football in Chicago is assumed to be American football, football in Manchester is assumed to be football (soccer), football in Calgary is assumed to be Canadian football, etc., so making the distinction would be annoying and require lots of changes on both sides of the pond. Carlossuarez46 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Chicago has a professional football (soccer) club, but Manchester (and the whole of the UK for that matter) does not have a professional American football club. Honbicot 02:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • And all Chicago's soccer team's material says "soccer", perhaps Manchester was the wrong analogy, but pick any city with a NFL Europa team in it, A'dam, Berlin, etc., would we need to disambiguate Football in Amsterdam between the two? I think the less popular only needs to be disambiguated, the more popular to be assumed. Carlossuarez46 16:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Otto. Carlossuarez46 22:04, 30 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chicago Baseball

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 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 debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 10:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Chicago Baseball ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Baseball in Chicago, or Category:Chicago baseball. -- Prove It (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the category serves little organizational purpose. It mostly holds subcats for teams which are already in the parent Category:Sports in Chicago along with articles on the subcatted teams and some improperly categorized articles on players. This layer of categorizing is not needed. Otto4711 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Most, perhaps all, of the articles directly in this category relate to one of the three teams with subcategories, so it isn't really needed as a organizational device. Honbicot 01:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Otto. Carlossuarez46 21:59, 30 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Companies Headquartered in Troy, Michigan

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 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 debate was rename. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Companies Headquartered in Troy, Michigan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Companies based in Troy, Michigan, convention of Category:Companies of the United States by state. -- Prove It (talk) 20:30, 25 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:World Cup cricketers of East Africa

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:World Cup cricketers of East Africa ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, already covered by Category:East African ODI cricketers. East Africa's only ODI's were in the World Cup, also the East African cricket team no longer exists so no chance for future expanison. -- Jpeeling 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Moved from UCFD. VegaDark ( talk) 19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The other World Cup categories (of which only a few have been created so far) should probably be deleted for excessive overlap with the ODI categories. They add little or no utility to the system. Haddiscoe 18:42, 26 May 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.

Category:Static Shock

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 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 debate was delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Static Shock ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - one aticle, one subcat, unlikely to expand, not needed. Otto4711 19:42, 25 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Matlock (TV series)

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 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 debate was delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Matlock (TV series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 19:40, 25 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Wire (TV series)

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 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 debate was delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:The Wire (TV series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is not required for navigating the material. Otto4711 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep ongoing series, so has potential for growth. Tim! 21:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply Potential for growth by itself isn't enough of a reason here to keep a category. Theoretically almost all categories have a "potential for growth", including otherwise ambiguous or unnecessary ones. In fact, one could argue that allowing bad categories to grow only makes matters worse. Dugwiki 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. We would need a strong case to not follow the consensus for deleting similar categories. Vegaswikian 22:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 30 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Walker, Texas Ranger

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 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 debate was delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Walker, Texas Ranger ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - material does not warrant a category for navigation. Otto4711 19:27, 25 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Too Few Viewpoints

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: rename. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Too Few Viewpoints to Category:Articles needing more viewpoints
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, common practice for Wikipedia maintenance categories is to write them in full, starting with something to the extent of "Articles needing..." (see Special:Allpages/Category:Articles). I believe that "Articles needing more viewpoints" will make it clearer what needs to be done in an article. A ecis Brievenbus 19:14, 25 May 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.

Category:Portland millennial art renaissance

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 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 debate was delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Portland millennial art renaissance ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete POV category. We shouldn't start having categories every time someone claims there has been a renaissance somewhere or other. Alex Middleton 18:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete and upmerge to Category:Portland artists or Category:Oregon culture where appropriate. Agree cat is POV. I checked into the background of this. It appears it was created in tandem with an article on the renaissance that now redirects to List of artists and art institutions in Portland, Oregon. The original content about the phenomenon is shown being moved to History of Portland, Oregon in this diff, and it was later shortened. "Portland millennial art renaissance" gets zero google hits outside wiki mirrors, thus is not a widely recognized designation. Looks like a well-intentioned attempt to catalog the history of the arts in Portland, but the effort seems to have fizzled and the category is now an artifact in the wake of various changes to that effort. Not sure any of the editors who worked on this material are still around? Katr67 19:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Haddiscoe 18:42, 26 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Art, Music

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 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 debate was delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Art, Music ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Clearly redundant to Category:Art and Category:Music – Gurch 17:39, 25 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American actors by ethnicity

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 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 debate was keep all. -- Kbdank71 01:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:American actors by ethnicity ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Certainly open to alternatives and suggestions as to what to do with three-way categorizations by ethnicity, nationality, and occupation like this. I see these categories as being very comparable to the overcategorization by race, ethnicity, and religion example of Category:German-American sportspeople, which gives several reasons for deleting. One being that in general German-American sportspeople are not treated any differently from other sportspeople and so this is a non-notable intersection where the two separate categories of Category:German-Americans and Category:American sportspeople is good enough. This exact same argument could apply to actor by ethnicity categories, because, in general, except for type-casting the ethnicity is somewhat irrelevant. Another reason for deleting was that it will eventually become totally unmaintanable, since if we divide along ethnic-national intersections like this, there will literally be dozens and dozens of ethnicity-nationality actor intersections etc. Eventually, the double intersections will overlap even more, and actors will have a ethnicity-American actors category for each one of their grandparent's homelands. I believe we should subdivide actors by more notable intersections, like perhaps by genre or medium (as we already have) but not by a triple intersections such as this. Suggesting delete of each of these and upmerge into Cat:American actors or its notable subdivisions. Bulldog123 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Note to Closing Admin Interestingly, recent developments have proven that about four of the usernames participating on this CfD are vote-stacking sockpuppets. I have crossed out the sockpuppet !votes. Check their userpages for details. Bulldog123 06:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all as irrelevant intersections. The biggest problem with these is that the proliferate when people are in more than one ethnic category. Haddiscoe 17:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all I am willing to concede that under present "guidelines" some of these may be relevant intersections, but the time has come to amend those guidelines and delete all ethnicity and religious categories for a number of reasons: WP:BLP for all living people; the subjectivity of it (we recently determined by consensus that a category was OK in identifying people as Fooian ethnicity with 1/4 Fooian extraction), the general uselessness of it (does anyone click on Halle Barry's category of Category:African-American actors to find others? why? and why on a NPOV basis do we exclude her 50% English heritage; ah, because that unlike her African American ancestry, being an English actor is an irrelevant or trivial intersection according to WP the great knower of all about which ethnicities are relevant and trivial); it's freaking degrading, we're not and should not be in the business of categorizing people on these bases - if 1/4 is a threshhold, then people might be in 4 different categories, and pitty those with further mixed ancestries, those are just too dilute for WP to consider; and why do certain "ancestries" continue and others not -- it appears that any non-European ancestry stays with the lineage forever (like: you'll always be "other", never one of "us") - find one category of non-European ancestry that describes what % African, Latino, Asian it takes to be in the category, whereas European ancestry goes on a percentage basis (1/4 seems fine around here). Let's get out of the race classification business and delete these cats. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, but only on the condition that all of the child categories are removed as well. It makes no sense to remove the parent while keeping even one of the children. -- Prove It (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • This nomination is for the parent AND all the children categories. Is it necessary to tag all the others? They all seem to fit the same criteria. Bulldog123 21:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, the children should be tagged and listed. Otherwise people visiting the child categories won't realize they are under consideration for deletion, and that isn't fair. -- Prove It (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all Raymond Cruise 23:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all On the basis that there is a lot of interest in the role of American ethnic minorities in the media, and that there are enough articles to sufficiently populate these categories. I must absolutely disagree that actors' ethnicity is irrelevant, especially in American media - and by extension, I disagree that it is irrelevant for the purpose of categorising WP articles. Also, I don't consider it "unmaintainable" at all that somebody might be categorised under more than one of these categories. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 22:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • It's not "more than one." It could be as much as more than five. Then, after actor categories, sportspeople categories will follow in those footsteps, then artists, and soon it WILL be completely unmaintainable. On WP:Overcategorization, it writes that if you can't write an article about it, it is probably a good sign it isn't a good intersection. How on earth can we write the article Korean-American actors. Best we could put on there is trivia. That is an issue with WP:NOT. And, in the end, what is the big difference between having the category Category:Korean Americans and the category Category:American actors on the same article? Why do you want this intersection? Bulldog123 23:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • The question that WP:Overcategorization asks is whether or not the ethnic categorisation or intersection by ethnicity is notable. While German American sportspeople might not be a notable categorisation, that is not necessarily true for all the categorise you've listed here. Take for example, Asian American actors. While a Google search returns 26,600 hits for "Asian American actors" [1], a Google search only returns all of 10 hits for "German American sportspeople" [2], and all of them are either WP pages or WP mirrors. There have even been books written on the subject of Asian American actors [3], and there was even a recent PBS documentary on the subject [4]. I can only imagine the topic of African American actors to be even more notable. A Google hit returns 87,900 hits for that topic [5]. It's inherently inaccurate and false to say that because the categorisation of German American sportspeople is not notable, then Asian American actors or African American actors must not be notable categorisation as well. The two subjects are vastly different. It would be a tragic loss for WP if some of these categories are deleted. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Avoid WP:GOOGLEHITS reasonings. Does that coffeebook you cite have enough information to make Asian American actors? Links, even books, on German-American sportspeople exist too, such as here [6]. But whether these are just a compilation of biographies of Asian-Americans or a serious analysis of Asian-Americans in ACTING is a whole different question and the major concern - just as it was with German-Americans in sports. Bulldog123 05:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
          • No, Google hits does not establish notability, however, you could have easily looked at the search results and see that numerous articles have been written on the subject of Asian American actors. And we also know that there's at least one book and one PBS documentary on the subject as well. On the other hand, your assertion of non-notability is simply that it is an ethnic categorisation, with an utterly inaccurate assumption that German American sportspeople is on the same level of notability as Asian American actors or African American actors - and on this point, I really have to wonder if you actually took the time to find out for real whether or not some of these categories are actually not notable as you claimed. Also, if articles, books, and documentaries start being published for German American sportspeople, then a category for that most definitely deserves to exist, too. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
            • The response to this is a few comments down under the !vote by Tewfik. Bulldog123 22:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all I agree 100% with Hong Qi Gong. As there is a lot of interest in the media. Having been in the media business myself for a long time, it's very important for the actor, the production team, and audience. Until it does not matter what ethnicity one is it should be kept. Even though it shouldn't matter, but the truth is - that it most definitely does, and it will for a while yet. - Jeeny  Talk 00:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • "very important for the production team" Are you talking about casting? Otherwise your statement makes no sense. People get cast for all sorts of qualities. Blue-eyed people get cast. So Blue-eyed Actors is an ok category? Bulldog123 01:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I will not indulge that with a serious answer as the analogy is poppycock. (not you, the analogy). It's like saying if we let gay people have the right to marry, then pedophiles will want the same, then were do we draw the line?...etc. Deal with it if and when the blue-eyed actors want their own category. KEEP - Jeeny  Talk 01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Ok, so you did admit that blue-eyed actors is a legitimate category in your view. You just prove to everyone that WP:Overcategorization means nothing to you. What policy or guideline is there to support your view? Remember this IS an encyclopedia. Bulldog123 01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
          • No, in fact I think there are too many categories, but on this one I say keep. And the first part of my response, even with the misspellings, if you didn't notice was ...I will not indulge in a serious answer.... If you don't get it, I'm sorry. Okay, I will answer the blue-eyed question - Most certainly not. Does not apply here though as that's not on the table, is my point. I feel strongly about this, because of my experience, and observation and is worthy of an encyclopedia. Because, maybe we will not need these categories in the near future. :) - Jeeny  Talk 02:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
            • What is all this about "if blue-eyed actors want their own category?" This isn't myspace. Peoples wants for something don't always get carried out. Intersections, especially three-way intersections such as this, need to be analyzed through wikipedia policy and guideline. The question is: how much, if anything, can be written about ethnicity and being an actor except that they OBVIOUSLY will get cast for parts that suit them better physically? You can't write an entire article on that. You can't even write more than a paragraph on that. You have a very liberal view of ethnicity, so don't apply those viewpoints where they don't belong. We're not requesting ethnicity categories be deleted. This seems to be what you're thinking, at least in part. We're requesting ethnicity-nationality-occupation categories where absolutely no article-worthy significance can be found be deleted. (inhales) Bulldog123 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
              • That's really a straw-man argument. The topic of "blue-eyed actors" is not notable at all. However, subjects like Asian American actors or African American actors are notable topics and therefore notable intersections that deserve categorisation. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
                • Please help write African American acting and Asian American acting then. Otherwise, what you consider a notable intersection you are confusing with trivia. Just like when Halle Berry and Denzel Washington won for Best Actor and Best Actress, newspapers were A BUZZ with two African-American actors winning. It's trivia, not notability worth a permanent intersection. Bulldog123 05:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
                  • There are a whole bunch of articles I'd love to write. The fact that those articles do not yet exist does not mean they are not notable topics. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
                • I had a bunch of stuff all typed, and had an edit conflict and lost all I wrote. So, Yeah, what s/he said ^^^. Anyway, I was not the one who brought up the blue-eyed actors analogy. WTH? Don't make it look like I had. As I think that is ridiculous. Don't get me started on MySpace. Hate it. - Jeeny  Talk 03:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
          • I'm not misrepresenting your argument. I'm applying your exact logic and it seems to work perfectly with blue-eyed actors. A straw man would be if your argument was any different, but you haven't refuted that it is. "Keep because ethnicity is important for production team and actors." So this somehow doesn't apply when people cast for an "Aryan-looking" blonde-haired, blue-eyed person? If your argument applies to ethnicity, why wouldn't it apply to this type of categorization too? By the way, before you said you would keep (if blue-eyed people wanted it). Bulldog123 05:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
            • That was my fault. I wasn't referring to KEEP a blue-eyed cat, I was rambling on, and added KEEP at the end-meaning these cats, not relating to the blue-eyed reference. Sorry about that. I see though, why you would think that's what I was suggesting. (I striked the word after that statement, because that is not what I meant at all.) I thought I was clear when I said it was a poor analogy. Are you still breathing? :p - Jeeny  Talk 06:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per Carlos. Also most definitely the spark that will light a dangerously hot flame. There are many ethnicities missing from that list. Imagine if everyone wanted to put their ethnicity's actors in a category. Chaos. Feydakin 00:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • It bugs the crap out of me when people use the excuse that if we let one, then everyone will want (whatever it is the other got). Ethnicity is NOT somewhat irrelevant, is matters, unfortunately, at least in America. Although, it shouldn't, it does. It is a fact, that type-casting still exists and will for a while, until then needs to stay. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. - Jeeny  Talk 01:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all For better or worse, race and ethnicity are still relevant categorizations in terms of American media. Lindentree 04:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Here: http://www.newstatesman.com/200203250013, http://datelinehollywood.com/archives/2003/09/15/asian-american-representation-in-primetime-increases-33/, and http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/asian/arts_culture_media/quill_asian_TVa_0805.asp. I think these are fair examples of how actors are affected. Media representations of certain ethnic groups, both positive and negative, are also important, but it's a little harder to quantify that. Lindentree 06:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • So why keep all if you only have links to Asian-American articles? One of which seems to disprove the previously thought underrepresentation argument. Bulldog123 22:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Because you have not shown how each of these categories are non-notable on their own merits, and because deletion nominations, if applicable at all, should be applied to these categories individually. Like I keep saying, the fact that "German American sportspeople" may not be notable makes no bearing on any of these categories at all. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 23:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep some, delete others This is too broad a suggestion. Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference states that "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career" and that such specialized categories "should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." I don't know whether those statements are true of German-American or Argentine-American actors, but they are 100% true of African-American actors and Asian-American actors. I think these categories may need to be considered on an individual basis. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 04:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Can everyone who claims African-Americans and Asian-Americans should get special treatment here explain exactly how their ethnicity has a "significant bearing on their career" any more than the others? Bulldog123 06:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Can you discuss this without being such a dick? Nobody is claiming that African-Americans and Asian-Americans should get special treatment here. We're saying that the categories of African-American actors and Asian-American actors are significant in the real world; there are books written about people whose sole commonality is their membership in those categories. The threshold for sub-categories such as these is whether the "combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" — not by you, not by me, but by the same reliable sources we use to edit this encyclopedia. It may rub you the wrong way, but it's a fact of life. Maybe you should read WP:NOT#SOAPBOX; you seem to need a refresher. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 08:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Nominate on individual basis; until then, keep all. Some (German-American actors) are more trivial intersections than others (African-American actors). - Sean Curtin 05:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • If we nominated on individual basis we would get "keep" with WP:WAX excuses. Please don't make this any more difficult and preferably mention which you would delete and which you would keep with reasons. Bulldog123 05:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • OMG, you just linked to WP:WAX. I think you really need to do some research on this. This is what really ticks me off about Wikipedia. People who "vote" on subjects they know nothing about. Also, here is text from the WP:WAX and it's what to AVOID while in a deletion discussion.

The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they're missing before they're created, a lot of articles don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists doesn't prove that the article in question should also exist; it's quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet. Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test), but even here caution should be used. Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons: does the fact that there is an article on every Pokémon character mean there necessarily should be an article on every character in Super Mario Bros? Or every character in World of Warcraft? Or every character in Adventure Quest? Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it's better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". The generic form of this argument, that "loads of other crap articles exist" is also common.

- Jeeny  Talk 08:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for familiarizing yourself with WP:WAX. It would help shorten this log if you just linked to it instead of copied the whole thing. Bulldog123 19:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Oh, and as a reply to that thing about it ticking you off when ignorant people such as myself participate in xfds; Your comment on the necessity of this intersection because of - what really boils down to - "type casting" seems to also support the retention of Category:Dwarf actors. Little people on the big screen fit the exact same criteria used for keeping these categories. It's good to know someone is so much of an expert of ethnicity and being an actor that they know for certain little people won't be offended by a categorization into the highly-relevant dwarf actor intersection. Bulldog123 08:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all it makes sense to have lists of notable people who are actors organized by ethnicity.-- Sefringle 06:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I have yet to see a good argument as to why all of these categories listed are not notable. How does the notability of German American sportspeople make any comment on the notability of any of the categories listed above? On the other hand, for example on the subject of Asian American actors, here's a book [7] about Asian American actors' personal experience, glance at the preview pages and you'll see text about how their race affected their careers. Here's a PBS documentary [8] about the problems that Asian American actors face. Here are just a few examples of the numerous articles written about Asian American actors [9] [10] [11] [12]. Take a look at the search results from a Google search [13] and you'll see the topic is well-written about. And note - I can easily make a personal argument about why the race of Asian American actors significantly affect their careers, but I don't really need to do this and you shouldn't have to listen to my own personal argument - because plenty of reliable sources have already discussed the matter. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all and relist some It may be that some of these categories are less worthwhile than others, but clearly some are worth keeping and having an en masse discussion will confuse the issue.-- Runcorn 07:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

*Keep large ones It is very unhelpful to users to allow cats to get too big and some subcats are essential. If this appears to violate some rule, then WP:IAR.-- Brownlee 10:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

*Keep Obviously, in many cases ethnicity has had a major effect on people's careers. Compare the sort of roles given to Eastern European and black actors for example.-- R613vlu 16:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all per Carlos. "Fooian-American" and "American actors" should be enough by themselves. Tewfik Talk 18:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • The subject of some of these categories have been extensively written about. Policy dictates that we keep them. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 18:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Incorrect. Policy does not dictate any such thing. I have shown how Blonde Actresses and Scandinavian-American actors are examples of things written about in the same way but not worthy of categorization per WP:Overcategorization. Bulldog123 22:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Contradictory logic. If "Blonde Actresses" and "Scandinavian American actors" have been written about and documented by reliable sources, then they are worthy of categorisation because they would be notable intersections. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If someone is interested in African-American actors, why make them hunt through African-Americans and American actors? Our object should be to make things easier for users, not more difficult.-- Runcorn 19:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all, a number are clearly meaningful, and the nominator should be prepared to show which are not notable on a case by case basis. A Musing 22:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think some are relevant due to type casting and discrimination in Hollywood but others may be less so. I suppose if we have some we should cover most ethnicities to be inclusive. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Trim to just the seven racial/ethnic groups that are officially defined by the United States census. ( White, Black, Asian, Pacific, Native American, Hispanic American, Multi-racial. The list of categories is excessive, but not unnecessary. And the problem of overcategorization should be greatly reduced since I think most people self identify in only one category (Hispanic being the obvious exception). Additionally, it would be not as difficult to create articles about these groups. CJ 11:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I think this is the strongest "keep" argument we have, and if "delete all" does not reach consensus then I believe this should be the second best alternative. "Keep for now"s and "Keep until nominated separately" do not move the discussion forward. Bulldog123 22:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because the entire underlying notion behind these categories is false. These are all American actors by profession, who lived and died as American actors, nothing more and nothing less. To themselves and to the world they were American actors and just as all Americans do, they came from various backgrounds and all walks of life that did not and do not define their careers and fame as American actors. Does anyone really care that Frank Sinatra had an Italian heritage, or that Kirk Douglas is really Jewish, or that Sidney Poitier is a Black actor? It is about as significant as noting the "ethnicity" of Miss Piggy or Daffy Duck or the characters of Shrek or Batman or Darth Vader and noone cares what or who they represent just as long as they create good entertainment in movies! Thus these are violations of WP:NN, WP:TRIVIA and of course of Wikipedia:Overcategorization especially Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. IZAK 13:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • No offense, but you've really shown a lack of knowledge about the subject matter here. To answer your question, for example, yes, lots of people care that Sidney Poitier is a black actor. Even the intro paragraph for his biographical article makes mention the significance of his race. The problem with this deletion nomination is that no real effort was put into asserting the non-notability of each of these categories. The fact that "German American sportspeople" may not be notable has no bearing on any of these categories. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • HongQi: Thank you for informing me about the "level" of "knowledge" needed to express an opinion. You are under the delusion that everyone has to follow one line of reasoning (I assume you prefer that everyone follows yours...) at any rate your violation of WP:NPA against me notwithstanding, I stand by what I stated. Your insistence about the so-called silly "notability" of these criteria is exactly why these categories are cluttering up Wikipedia and should be eliminated. The notability of these actors themselves and what has made them famous never had and never will have anything to do with their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religion. One could start categories of equal "notability" such as Category:American actors with alcoholic parents or Category:American communist actors but we don't, no matter how much is definitely written and "noted" and known about such things, because an actor is an actor, and all the other stuff is not worthy of categorization, (it is sufficient that it can get mentioned in the article itself.) No normal person ever went to watch an Elizabeth Taylor movie because she claimed to have converted to Judaism or because Tom Cruise wants the world to know he is a Scientologist or because Anthony Quinn had a mixed ethnic background, etc etc. It is certain Wikipedia editors who have created a false market for this type of useless "knowledge" -- a clear violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY as well. IZAK 09:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • The problem here is that many votes to delete have not actually shown how all of the categories listed above are actually non-notable. The notability of the topic of "American communist actors" has no bearing on the notability of the topic of "African American actors". Per Wikipedia:Overcategorization, only those intersections by ethnicity that are not notable or have no bearings on the careers of the actors ought to be deleted. Whether or not being communist holds any significance to American communist actors has no bearing on whether or not being African American holds any significance to African American actors. The argument is uninformed and illogical in the first place. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply
          • HonQi: Your refutation that my "argument is uninformed and illogical in the first place" means nothing and blatantly ignores several things: (1) The fact that the nominator himself lays down at least six "intersections" -- ethnicity, nationality, and occupation" and "race, ethnicity, and religion" -- with only "ethnicity" being repeated. (2) Therefore it is valid, at least from this starting point, to talk of the significance or insignificance of these factors as criteria in creating categories. (3) The nominator further makes it very clear that to categorize American actors by using these criteria is simply a case of Wikipedia:Overcategorization because, as he says: "I believe we should subdivide actors by more notable intersections, like perhaps by genre or medium" and with which I agree 100%, because actors are by definition ACTORS and categories like "genre" or "medium" befit them whereas sorting them especially by ethnic, religious and racial criteria is OVER-categorization. (4) The fact that some may regard "ethnicity" and "race" as "notable" is a TRAP (in logic as well as in reality) that we should not be led into, because our job as editors and as rational beings is that we should be able to PUT THINGS IN CONTEXT and in a mature perspective, whereby we are freely able to reject NONSENSICAL categorization/s, such as these are, as would be Category:American communist actors or Category:American actors with alcoholic parents (used here by way of analogy to make a point, if you can hear that, but this being Wikipedia, you never know when the next editor will arise and create such categories, and them someone will no doiubt defend them to boot.) (5) To argue by way of analogy, comparison, or example or extension is not "uninformed" nor is it "illogical." So why display a very limited and confined way of thinking? (6) If some actors are also notable for being Blacks or Chinese, then let them be listed in those ethnic groups as well (as the nominator argues above and with with which I also agree 100%.) (7) Finally, in the case of Category:Jewish American actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), there are even more compelling reasons to delete it, since the "Jewishness" of almost all these actors is in many case quetionaable and is of zero importance to their status as American actors. See also: User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. Thank you, IZAK 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I feel the need to make a point here. I see quite a few comments for delete because racial heritage is viewed as non notable. Let me be quite frank. In a country that has a significantly large racial majority and a history of denying opportunities to racial/ethnic minorities, racial/ethnic heritage is especially notable. Additionally, as I noted earlier, the US government tracks racial, and sometimes ethnic, heritage of it's citizens, therefore I find it unwise to ignore the role race and ethnicity play in American Society. It may be preferable to ignore racial identity for the purposes of presenting one unified America but this is not the case in reality and Wikipedia, to maintain a neutral point of view, should reflect the actual situation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crownjewel82 ( talk • contribs) 22:16, May 29, 2007
      • I agree. Categorizing actors by race or ethnicity is not a "trap" that we need to "reject"; making up your own Wikipedia rules that run contrary to the reality outside WP is inappropriate and may be considered original research. As some of us have tried to explain, some of these categories are significant real-world categories that are therefore not overcategorization. The criteria for "dedicated group-subject subcategories" is that the "combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right," and that's the case with at least some of the nominated categories. You can continue your reductio ad absurdum arguments concerning Category:American communist actors or Category:American actors with alcoholic parents, but you can't dispute reality. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 20:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all as per Hong Qi Gong. Stefanomione 14:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all for now. Some of these categories may be non-defining, but others (such as Category:African-American actors) clearly are defining. Additionally, if the categories are removed, please (as a second preference) upmerge rather than delete; e.g. Category:African-American actors should be upmerged to Category:American actors and Category:African-Americans, or else important categorisations will be lost from these articles. (I do wish that more care was taken with these intersection nominations not to simply propose deletion when a dual upmerger would preserve undisputed categorisations). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • What do you mean "for now"? Why not just list which you believe are worthy and which are not? Many of the articles already are in the Category:American actors category. This is one of the many reasons these categories are so burdensome. Bulldog123 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I mean that per Runcorn's comment above, it may be that some of these categories are less worthwhile than others, but clearly some are worth keeping and having an en masse discussion will confuse the issue. Different considerations apply in different categories, so the categories should be discussed separately; e.g. the history or racial segregation in the USA means that very different issues are raised by Category:African-American actors and Category:Argentine American actors. For now, what matters is that I don't accept the premise of the nomination that all actors-by-ethnicity categories are inappropriate. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all Race and Ethnicity are relevant in today's media. Especially for those (of us) who are part of a minority, these topics are often discussed, researched, and written about. I value having a resource list such as "Asian American Actors." When casting controversy erupts, such as was the case with "Memoris of a Geisha," it is useful to go to "Japanese American actors" to help understand why the casting of that film was problematic... just one of many reasons to have such categories separated. This is not just about "American actors," but how many under-represented artist there are, among under-represented ethnic goups. TienTao 19:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Then you agree we should have Category:Dwarf actors, right? Since they are type cast similarly. Are we assuming casting directors use wikipedia? Bulldog123 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Yet another strawman argument. Firstly "Dwarf actors" is irrelevant to this discussion - whether or not that's a notable categorisation has no bearing on the categories listed here. Secondly, the notability of the subject of "Dwarf actors" need to be discussed on its own merit. Thirdly, a category called Category:Actors with dwarfism exists. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 22:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Excuses that "Dwarf actors" is not being discussed are methods used to avoid addressing the issue. Wherever an example can be found where the keep arguments would apply directly and exactly to that category, one has to wonder if the keepers would somehow rethink their reasons for retention. There are no INDEPENDENT merits for Dwarf actors. The comparisons are almost exact for some of these retention comments. I didn't notice Category:Actors with dwarfism. Thank you for pointing that out. An old CFD on Category:Bisexual actors used the same argument. It was met with real responses, which you have lacked to give for many counter arguments on this cfd. Bulldog123 22:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
          • How does the notability of "Dwarf actors" make any bearing on any of the categories listed here? One may be notable, and the other may not be. Now I and others have given plenty of reliable sources that have written about at least a couple of the categories listed. What's lacking here is a real effort to even find out if each of these categories are indeed non-notable before the deletion nomination. Notability is established by what reliable sources we can find on a subject, not by editors' own personal preference and not by arguing that because X does not exist, then Y is not notable. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 22:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
              • I've already addressed your and others "reliable sources" many times. My comments on "Dwarf actors" is merely to have other people consider the implications of their reasons for retention, not solely as a justification for the particular deletion of all these categorizations. Bulldog123 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
                • For others that are coming into this discussion, please simply scroll up to see some of the links offered, and decide for yourself if the numerous articles and books, and even a PBS documentary, establishes notability or not. Apparentlly Bulldog123 does not think so. But judge for yourselves. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 23:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - it is not so much the intersection that matters but that the link to nationality or ethnic origin may be lost if deleted. If origin is kept the ethnic origin categories are quite large already and refining may be a positive move. -- Rivus 23:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

*Keep Consider Hattie McDaniel, who is rightly described in her article as an African-American actress. One of her grounds for notability is that she was the first person of African descent to win an Academy Award. Because of her ethnicity, she was confined to some types of role; because of her ethnicity, she was frightened to attend the premiere of the film for which she won that award. How can she be described simply as an American actress, rather than an African-American one?-- Osidge 08:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Reply. That's a very useful illustration of the case for keeping Category:African-American actors. The problem with this group nomination is that it tries to treat all the sub-categories in the same way, and does not provide a useful space to apply the tests in WP:CATGRS. In order to make those assessments in a way which editors can follow clearly, we need to consider these ethnic categories one at a time. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment — The preceding comment may have come from a sockpuppet, but it is no less valid. While Hattie McDaniel, Sidney Poitier, and Halle Berry were/are all fine actors, part of their notability is that they were the first African-American actors to win Oscars in their respective categories. McDaniel's career was severely circumscribed by the limited roles made available to African-American actors, while Poitier's best-known roles made use of his race to challenge widely-held beliefs about the inferiority of Blacks. (In fact, his character is often superior in many ways to the white characters with whom he interacts.) Pretending that the category of African-American Actors isn't a notable intersection is just make-believe. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 07:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • I am slowly reconsidering only the African-American category as non-notable but not for the trivia reasons you give, but more because of segregation in film. However, I don't see this applying to any of the other categories. Bulldog123 07:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
          • Segregation on film basically applied to all non-white racial groups. The bottom line is that some of these categories have been thoroughly written about by notable sources, making them notable and WP:Overcategorization not applicable. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
            • That's not true. Segregation for African-Americans was a national phenomena, but a little bit of segregation here or there for other non-white groups doesn't provide the same argument. Zenophobia applies too then. Bulldog123 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
              • Actually - it is true. Segregation was a national phenomena to seperate whites from all non-whites. Segregation became a national issue when the US Supreme Court started upholding Jim Crow laws, and Jim Crow laws regularly applied to other minorities besides blacks. And I'm a little alarmed that you think that segregation is only a notable issue as long as it is a national phenomena. Regardless, read a little history of Asian actors in Hollywood and you'll note that they were regularly denied roles because of their race - this is a phenomenon that's been well written about, together with the fact that today, they are regularly limited in the roles they are allowed to play because of their race. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
            • "The “Jim Crow” laws were applied to all blacks. A definition of black was therefore necessary. The definition came 1896 with the Plessy v Ferguson case. Homer Plessy was only one-eighth black and he attempted to sit in a white only railroad car." No, they were not written up for any other race than for blacks. If there were localized incidents of discrimination against the other races/ethnicites, ok, but such incidents also stretch over to nationality, religion, disability etc...We're not drafting up tons of intersections for the "possibility" of discrimination, even if that discrimination is more prominent for some than others. In an all Protestant-nation, Irish Catholics were most definitely segregated against on stage. We've already deleted actors by religion despite there being the SAME argument for retention applicable there. Anyway, there's a big difference from a national decree to a localized incident(s). You keep repeating the same thing and I keep replying to you the same way. And finally, again with "they are regularly limited in the roles they are allowed to play because of their race" - for the hundredth time, type-casting does not automatically merit an intersection. Bulldog123 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
            • And just so you know, I'm not going to relist any categories that have been thoroughly discussed in this CfD separately, like Asian-Americans or African-Americans, if that's your only concern at this point. But nobody has really mentioned anything about the nationality/ethnicity intersections. So I think those merit separate listings. Bulldog123 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all Wikipedia isn't in the business of creating categories out of thin air. However, if a category is in general use in the larger culture, then that category should exist here. When books like Asian American Actors: Oral Histories from Stage, Screen, and Television by Joann Faung Jean Lee (McFarland & Company, 2000) and articles like The Oscars In Black And White - African American actors and the Academy Awards (Ebony, April 2000) exist, it is obvious that these ethnic categories exist in the greater culture. Since these categories have sufficient bibliographic and historic support to exist separate from Wikipedia, they should also exist on Wikipedia. That said, it's possible one or two of these categories are not valid, but since this is a vote on the whole group, we should keep them. If someone wants to bring individual categories up for a CfD at a later time, that's a different matter.-- Alabamaboy 14:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I'm swayed towards keeping African-American actors but not the others. I definitely don't see how a compilation of oral histories qualifies as an analysis of Asian-Americans and acting. Bulldog123 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • The book is a published work with personal stories about how their race affected Asian actors and actresses in Hollywood. Besides, that's not the only thing that's been published and written about on the subject of Asian actors. There was also a PBS documentary on the very subject, and numerous articles that are available online. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The point of the book of oral histories is to show that people outside of Wikipedia are using the category of Asian American actors. If you had brought all these categories up separately, people could have discussed each one and perhaps the unneeded ones would have been deleted. But by bringing all these categories up for discussion at one time, you've made it difficult to discuss each individual category's notability. I can provide examples of outside scholarship and media coverage on most of these categories to show that the categories exist outside WP. But since you've listed them all at once, it is way more trouble than its worth at this point. The two examples I have of the asian american and african american book/article were just that, examples, to show that these categories exist outside WP and are notable.-- Alabamaboy 17:38, 31 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

World War memorials

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 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 debate was rename. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose add "and cemeteries" for consistency with parent and sister categories Roger 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Moved from speedy, and support. Clearly correct, but I couldn't justify it under the criteria for a speedy rename. Nonetheless, I'd eventually like there to be a speedy rename criterion for clear matches to existing category structure.-- Mike Selinker 13:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename - These categories' names should match the name of the parent category, Category:Military memorials and cemeteries. (It would probably be better not to have speedy criteria for categories like these given the debate regarding the renaming of Category:Polish executions.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename - Carom 14:55, 26 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Palestine to Palestinian territories renames

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: rename. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

These nominations were placed in the speedy section, but given the contentious debate, it seemed clearly necessary to move it to the main discussion.-- Mike Selinker 13:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

per conventions. Palestine is not formally a country but rather it is known in its current state as the Category:Palestinian territories. Similar renamings have recently occured, see [14]. -- Abnn 02:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

We have been developing a consistent naming scheme here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#First_attempt_at_a_standard_naming_scheme. -- Abnn 16:49, 25 May 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.

Palestininian territories to Palestinian National Authority rename

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 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 debate was no consensus. -- Kbdank71 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

These nominations were placed in the speedy section, but given the contentious debate, it seemed clearly necessary to move it to the main discussion.-- Mike Selinker 13:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Basically this is about politics and thus we use Category:Palestinian National Authority rather than Category:Palestinian territories terminology. -- Abnn 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

We have been developing a consistent naming scheme here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#First_attempt_at_a_standard_naming_scheme. -- Abnn 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • This vote is for the churches category.--Mike
    • Oppose per my understanding of this discussion that such specific functions of specific geography should be dealt with by specific region, ie Category:Churches in the West Bank and Category:Churches in the Gaza Strip. Tewfik Talk 03:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment This above oppose vote is actually for a category in the other CfD. When moved from speedy these renamings we put into one CfD which I believe is overly confusing, thus I refactored it into two separate groups, but I have kept all previous comments by users in both CfDs because I want to refrain from refactoring other people's comments. -- Abnn 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Support all save my above oppose per this discussion. Tewfik Talk 03:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Moved from speedy.-- Mike Selinker 13:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Support as original nom. (Also I just refactored this to split up the speedy nom into two CfDs for simplicity in interpreting the resulting votes.) -- Abnn 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: the PNA is a government (of some kind), not a place, so there are no places in it. — Ashley Y 09:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Ashley Y. -- Eliyak T· C 19:34, 5 June 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:CNN newsreaders and journalists

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:CNN newsreaders and journalists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Speedy delete - It was already decided to delete categories such as these because people in journalism work for multiple networks. Consequently, if people are categorized by network, the people will accumulate many categories, leading to category clutter. To some degree, these categories function like "performer by performance" categories that have also been deleted. Moreover, this is a recreation of Category:CNN people, which was deleted 6 March 2007. Dr. Submillimeter 12:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per well-articulated nom. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom. -- Random Say it here! 23:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose deletion You can't apply this standard to all journalists, since print journalists don't move around that much. AndreasKQ 13:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - This category contains TV journalists, not print journalists. Dr. Submillimeter 11:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. gidonb 23:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as overcategorization per nom and strong precedent. Otto4711 16:08, 1 June 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.

Category:WABC-TV

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 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 debate was delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:WABC-TV ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - This is mostly the categorization of employees (mostly journalists) by employer. These journalists often work at other networks as well, so categorization by network will lead to long category lists. Moreover, categorization of people by network in general is discouraged. I therefore recommend deleting this category. Dr. Submillimeter 12:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom as inappropriate overcategorization of performer by network/station. Otto4711 12:56, 28 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Primates of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and of All Africa

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: rename. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Primates of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and of All Africa to Category:Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - These people are commonly referred to as "Popes", not "Primates of the Patriarchate". Even the Wikipedia article uses Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. The category should be renamed to use the more common title. ( Category:Popes of Alexandria would also be appropriate but possibly slightly ambiguous.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:42, 25 May 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.

Category:Fictional fugitives

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: Delete. Categories with unclear inclusion criteria are considered not such a good idea (the overcategorization guideline has some thoughts on that). There are a number of fictional characters for whom being fugitive has a clear and continuous impact on the story (e.g. "The Fugitive" from the series), but there are also many for whom "being on the run" is mentioned in their backstory but isn't really important throughout the story, and there are many for whom the "fugitive status" is a temporary plot point that is resolved in the next chapter. Aside from that, the categorized characters really don't have all that much in common. Contrary to what Petri says, in general fictional characters are categorized by their fictional characteristics, not by plot elements. >Radiant< 08:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional fugitives - Vague inclusion criterion. Fugitive from what? (Though I had to smile when I noted that The Gingerbread Man was a member of this category : ) - jc37 10:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Deletion - The dominant usage of this term is those fleeing from government custody. If there are people who simply wont get that, then a few words can be added to the description. In addition, if someone adds an inappropriate member of the category, then it can be removed from the member article in question. Removing the entire category is tantamount to ordering a tactical nuclear strike on a gunman in a PT_boat. Siyavash 16:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    As I noted above, and Dr. Submillimeter notes below, the inclusion critera is vague. Since the varied examples need such explanation, this would be better as a list, per WP:CLS. However, I still am leaning towards deletion, since this grouping of fictional characters could become bloated to include any character who was at some point attempting to evade capture by "someone". - jc37 19:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This really appears to be grouping characters together by plot element rather than grouping together characters with similar characteristics. The category title is vague about which government or authority these people are fugitives from. The category includes The Gingerbread Man, Jack Sparrow, The A-Team, Richard Kimble, and Scar (Fullmetal Alchemist), all of whom appear to be fleeing different authorities. The characters only appear to be vaguely related to each other; grouping them together does not really seem helpful. Dr. Submillimeter 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not clearly defined what's included and what's excluded and for how long someone has to be fugitive to belong. Carlossuarez46 20:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as what Submilli mentioned. A lot of these people are totally unrelated and its a loose connection at best Bulldog123 01:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete subjective, excessively broad category. Everyone flees something or someone at some time. Doczilla 07:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is fiction, does it matter what they are fleeing from? Whatever it is, it is fictional! Fictional character should be categorized by real plot elements, not their fictional characteristics. -- Petri Krohn 22:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, escape, exile and fleeing are important and notable leitmotifs in arts. Categorizing characters in arts by their fugitive status is very encyclopedic. A ecis Brievenbus 22:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Aecis. Edward321
  • Keep per Petri and Aecis. Hawkestone 23:28, 2 June 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.

Category:Rugby in the Isle of Man

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: rename. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Rugby in the Isle of Man to Category:Rugby union in the Isle of Man
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, All rugby categories divided by country are either in Category:Rugby league in Europe or Category:Rugby union by country. As far as I can see from Sport in the Isle of Man there are only Rugby union teams. An equiavlent Rugby league category can be created if necessary. Tim! 06:49, 25 May 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.

Category:High schools in Germany

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: not to rename. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:High schools in Germany to Category:Gymnasiums in Germany
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. They are called Gymnasiums in the lengthy introduction which can be greatly reduced if this category is renamed. Vegaswikian 05:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose "Gynasium" means something totally different in English and this is the English language Wikipedia. The problem with the introduction is that it assumes that the comparison that needs to be made is with the American system, as though the "standard" Wikipedia reader is an American. That is not only U.S. centrism, it is factually incorrect, as statistics show that the majority of users are not American. The differences between the German and British systems (and probably between the German system and those of many other countries) are far smaller. Haddiscoe 17:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • So if both the current and proposed names both have problems, what is the better option? Vegaswikian 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The American one in Kaiserslauten is presumably not a gymnasium in any sense. I'm not sure if some of the private ones are actually strictly gymnasiums either. Only some German "high schools" or secondary schools actually are gymnasiums. Johnbod 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • So should there be a category for both if they are really different? Most of the Gymnasium articles also list themselves as high schools or secondary schools. Vegaswikian 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Support Always supportive of shortening articles. Feydakin 01:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The top category for Germany should be "high" or possibly "secondary" schools. It is possible that more specialised subcategories would be appropriate. Honbicot 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
There aren't nearly enough members to justify this; as far as I'm concerned, it ain't broke, so don't lets fix it. Johnbod 03:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Actually I see many more gymnasiums have been added sine I first commented; a sub-cat along the lines suggested by Carlos Category:Gymnasiums (schools) in Germany below would be fine, but we do not need to decide this here. I would not object to renamimg this cat to "secondary schools". Johnbod 10:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose for a few reasons: (a) not all secondary or high schools in Germany are called gymnasium; (b) the word gymnasium in English has a more normal meaning other than this one, (c) does every sports-type gym in Germany get dumped in here, because they too are gymnasiums (or gymnasia) in Germany, and finally (d) to be consistent with the article Gymnasium (school) the name, if changed, should be Category:Gymnasiums (schools) in Germany or some such... Carlossuarez46 16:42, 31 May 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.

Category:Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman

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: merge. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - small category for a cancelled series, no need for the category for navigational purposes. Otto4711 02:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - the show article is already in the suggested target category, but I don't think the episode and character subcats should be. Otto4711 18:17, 25 May 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.

Category:Skins

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Skins ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete there is no need for a category to organize this material, especially in light of the navtemplate. Otto4711 02:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. General comment on all these tv show cats: All tv shows should have nav boxes and/or have all material linked from the main article; failure of the editors of such articles to do so should not be reason to create and keep cat-clutter. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 25 May 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.

Category:Soviet crimes

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Soviet crimes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - an umpteenth replica of Category:Soviet World War II crimes and Category:Massacres in the Soviet Union. -- Ghirla -трёп- 07:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete the category will be a flame bait: I can think of zillions articles that according to some POVs will be a Soviet Crimes while for the other POVs it would not be crimes or would not be Soviet. For the clear cases the two category menthioned by Ghirla are more than sufficient Alex Bakharev 08:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep All crimes of Soviet rule did not happen during WWII and were not massacres. As to flame baiting, any topic that points a finger at someone will have its opposition. Is it wikipedias policy to engage in censorship? Let the debates over what belongs here and what not happen on the respecive pages talk pages.-- Alexia Death 09:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a (quite real) flame bait. Besides, it is redundant with already existing categories... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree with Alex Bakharev. Also too much of a controversy-inducing category title. Bulldog123 16:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom & per Alex Bakharev, and normally "crimes" are things for which the perpetrators have been tried and convicted. Was the Soviet Union ever put on trial? For what? By whom? What was the outcome? Carlossuarez46 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless we are going to both create a "Fooish crimes" category to accommodate every ugly action of every other state (e.g. Bloody Sunday (1920) and 1972 in Category:British crimes, Bloody Sunday (1938) in Category:Canadian crimes, Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Category:American crimes, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in Category:Chinese crimes, Srebrenica massacre in Category:Serbian crimes) and achieve a miracle by creating an NPOV definition of what counts as a crime. Better, surely, to use more neutral caegories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unnecessary duplication. Beit Or 17:36, 28 May 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.

Category:Spooks episodes by series

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: merge to Category:Spooks episodes. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Spooks episodes by series to Category:Spooks (TV series) episodes
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - the various subcategories under this cat are oddly divided by individual series/season, which given the small number of articles seems like overcategorization. It is fairly non-standard to modify a TV episodes category on a seasonal basis. Additionally, inserting "TV series" will reduce ambiguity as to the content of the category. Otto4711 02:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
What else would they be episodes of?! Nevertheless, support. (And there will be more articles once every episode has one, so keeping these subcats is sensible.) Neddyseagoon - talk 09:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to the newly-created category. Otto4711 22:19, 25 May 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.

Spooks episodes

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: merge. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Spooks series 2 by episode ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Spooks series 3 by episode ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - articles in category space. Otto4711 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep - article material removed to episode list. Neddyseagoon - talk 09:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The series 2 category is now empty and subject to speedy deletion. Series 3 has one article in it. Otto4711 12:57, 28 May 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.

Category:Spooks series by episode

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: merge per above. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Spooks series 1 by episode to Category:Spooks episodes by series
Category:Spooks series 4 by episode to Category:Spooks episodes by series
Category:Spooks series 5 by episode to Category:Spooks episodes by series
  • Merge - largely an article in category space. There seems little utility in separating out the small number of episodes per series/season in this fashion. Otto4711 02:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this article information being in the category space is an accident of the way these categories were produced, and has now been merged out into the episode list. It is still useful to divide them off by series - see the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spooks And small?! - it has been running for 5/6 series! - if these are merged together it will become far harder to navigate between them and improve them (particularly once every episode has an article, which is the Project's goal - the cats may look empty at the moment, but not once that goal has been reached). Neddyseagoon - talk 09:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • If I'm reading the main article correctly, there are a maximum of 46 episodes articles that could be created to cover all five series (with another 10 possible should the sixth series actually be produced). TV shows with several times as many episodes that actually have articles written for all of them are not broken out in a series/seasonal categorization scheme. A single list article of episodes covers the territory as well or better than a category since the lists can be ordered by production order or air date and categories can only be alphabetical. Otto4711 19:39, 26 May 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.

Category:Octagon-Shaped Buildings

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

A muddle. Glossing over whether or not this is a defining characteristic and therefore suitable for a category, this contains buildings and streets. It's recursive - the only category parent this has is itself - and the nme is decidedly non-kosher (why the capitals, and why not Octagonal buildings?). If kept, it needs renaming to Category:Octagonal buildings and structures, categorising and weeding of the non-buildings, but ideally, I'd favour deletion. Grutness... wha? 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I'm not convinced that this is a defining characteristic. It is no longer recursive since I deleted the category that was causing the problem. Vegaswikian 02:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Deletion. I created this because, as an architect, I am aware that octagon-shaped buildings are not just a building "shape". They are a building type, similar (but not identical to) an architectural style. In the United States, there was period in the 19th Century (Longwood in Natchez; The Octagon House in Wisconsin, thousands of barns in the midwest, etc.) when this was considered an efficient architectural concept and promoted as such. While this is not an architectural style, as the oriental style "Longwood" house in Natchez is, it is a building type that has historical precedence - at least in the United States. While I have not personally studied the linkage between American octagon buildings in the United States to medieval European structures (Aachen, etc.), at the very least it is legitimate as an American movement. however, I doubt that American builders operated in a vacuum - we built our national capital based on the architecture of the Roman republic. I suspect there are links, and that builders in the United States were aware of what was constructed beforehand in Europe. Please note the following statement from the Watertown Historical Society in Wisconsin regarding this style: Richards, while in college, had been influenced by a new concept in building that swept across America a few years later - the octagon shaped house. ( http://www.watertownhistory.org/Articles/Octagon_House_MainPage.htm ) I concur that the New Zealand entry of the streets may not be appropriate. -- Baxterguy 14:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It is unclear whether the buildings currently in this category (such as First Baptist Church, Knoxville, Tennessee, Octagon Centre, and Palatine Chapel in Aachen) really are part of the same architectural movement or are otherwise related, as Baxterguy has admitted. It is not even clear that the architects of any of these buildings were vaguely influenced by any other buildings in this category. This is more or less the categorization of buildings that have roughly the same shape but which may have nothing else in common. If this was a specific architectural trend in one country at one point, I suggest creating a category with the technical name for that trend. Dr. Submillimeter 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not having every shape. What about rectangular buildings? Won't work. Feydakin 00:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for impracticality of categorizing by shapes. Doczilla 07:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Alex Middleton 09:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Where would we draw the limit? gidonb 23:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I take Baxterguy's point about the interest in this particular shape, so I have just created List of octagonal buildings and structures, which includes all the articles currently in this category. It would be great if Baxterguy and/or other interested editors could expand the list, or better still convert it into a substantive article on octagonal buildings. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • "Oppose Deletion" With respect, I need to point out that there was a 19th Century architectural movement in the United States that was about octagon shaped houses, barns, etc. There is no such movement for rectangle, triangle or other shapes. (I am aware that one could argue a cubist angle for rectangles, but I am sticking to movements that can be documented. Any architectural style should be open for inclusion.) This is something that any architectural historian can verify. However, as with the Longwood Plantation in Natchez (oriental), the octagon movement is integrated into other architectural styles. However, also see a term problem below.-- Baxterguy 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • "Coordinate with listing" I created the list, and spoke against it's deletion. However, I have found an problem. There is a page for octagon house that explains the 19th American octagon style. The problem is that octagon as a style was not limited to houses; in fact, barns are as integral a part of the style as houses were. And there are other structural types (towers, churches, etc.) Any ideas on how to reconcile these terms?-- Baxterguy 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: If the consensus is that the octagon does not merit a category, I will no longer object to deleting it. But some of the comments above appear to be made on the basis of whether the shape merits a category, and that does not reflect historic precedent. This category should not be deleted based on an argument that "shapes" don't merit a category. The octagon is an architectural fad, movement, etc., that can be referenced in published books that detail it's impact - primarily on the East Coast and Mid-West. The list can be culled down to American examples (eliminating Old World structures that may or may not have been the basis of the movement), but if the consensus is that an architectural fad or movement is best handled by an article rather than a category (under wikipedia protocols), I can live with that. Who wants to delete it? -- Baxterguy 15:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Just to reiterate, I would support a category that actually discussed an an architectural movement (such as Category:Neoclassical architecture or Category:Baroque architecture). This category, however, is not being used to collect buildings from a single architectural movement. Instead, it is being used to gather together all buildings of the same shape, regardless of how the buildings are related otherwise. This is not useful. If you can identify the architectural movement that gave rise to octagonal-shaped buildings in the United States in the late nineteenth century, then create a category based on that movement (and use a name other than Category:Octagon-Shaped Buiildings that actually indicates the architectural movement). This category, which contains buildings that are otherwise unrelated, should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:17, 1 June 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.

Category:Mortal Kombat television series

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: merge. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Mortal Kombat television series to Category:Mortal Kombat
  • Merge - there were two TV series based on the games and it doesn't seem necessary to segregate them from the parent cat. Otto4711 01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge then Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:43, 25 May 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.

Category:Mortal Kombat Conquest

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Mortal Kombat Conquest ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - small category for cancelled series, unlikely to expand. Not needed for navigation. Otto4711 01:55, 25 May 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.

Category:Have I Got News For You

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Have I Got News For You ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - most of the articles are for panelists on the show, which is improper performer by performance overcategorization. The remaining articles, for the show, the episode list and the studio where it's filmed, do not require a category to navigate between them (and the studio article really shouldn't be categorized by the shows filmed there anyway). Otto4711 01:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - The category is effectively being used as a "performer by performance" category, which does not work in the long term. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all "performer by performance" categories. -- Mais oui! 14:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per precedent of removal of performer by performance categorization Bulldog123 09:06, 28 May 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.

Category:Happy Days

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: rename to spin-offs. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Happy Days ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the bulk of the articles are for spin-offs, which are already linked through the main article. The rest are also appropriately linked for their Happy Days connection. The category is not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 01:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Simply counting articles while disregarding whether the category serves any navigational purpose seems simplistic. Otto4711 19:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • That's a straw man argument. You think it serves no navigational purpose, and I do. Regardless, this has quote a bit more content than a category like the Night Court one, so I support its existence.-- Mike Selinker 08:38, 26 May 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.

Category:Good Times

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Good Times ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - another TV show category, old show, unlikely to expand, nit needed to navigate the articles. Otto4711 01:06, 25 May 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.

Category:Ghostwriter

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 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 debate was delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Ghostwriter ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - two articles on two iterations of the show. Category is not needed for navigation. Otto4711 01:01, 25 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Get Smart

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: delete. >Radiant< 11:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Get Smart ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - following clean-up, we're left with a small amount of material that is all interlinked through the main Get Smart article. Cancelled series, unlikely to expand. Not needed. Otto4711 01:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - that discussion has not established a "standard." Otto4711 20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Mike, browsing the articles I see there were 138 episodes which suggests potential for growth. Tim! 16:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Which don't require a separate category, as they would be categorized under the appropriate episodes and characters by series trees. But since they don't exist now your argument is based entirely on the unsupported assumption that someone some time in the unknown future will decide to start writing these articles. Should that happen and the category be recreated as a result, the notion of whether a category is required can be revisited. Otto4711 14:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply
And your argument is based on the entirely unsupported assumption that someone won't start writing the articles. Tim! 07:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, no, my argument is based on the fact that no one has written the articles, and allows for reconsideration of the necessity of the category should someone start writing them. Your argument, if taken to its logical extreme, would preclude the deletion of any category because, hey, someone just might start writing articles that would fit in them any day now! Otto4711 15:03, 2 June 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.

Category:Films with a medical theme

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 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 debate was Rename. Support was clearly in favor of renaming and keeping. Since there was no real objection to the proposed name I consider that consensus for this proposed name that had the most support from the previous discussion. Vegaswikian 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Films with a medical theme to Category:Medical-themed films
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This is relisting a discussion from earlier. It was relisted to gain consensus on a rename target however no name was suggested and the discussion reached no conclusion. Since the original discussion was for a rename of some type, I have proposed a name in the hopes of reaching consensus. The decision should be a name for renaming or maybe just deleting based on the last discussion. Vegaswikian 00:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I called for deletion in the first round of this discussion and my opinion hasn't changed. "Medical theme" is too broad of an inclusion criterion and there is no objective way to determine how much medical involvement there needs to be for a film to be considered to have a "medical theme." Otto4711 01:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - As the original creator of the category, I would support splitting it into 2 separate categories: hospital & doctor dramas, which would follow the definition set in Medical drama but applied to films instead of television and which would include The Doctor, Article 99, and John Q, and films about diseases, which would include Medicine Man and Lorenzo's Oil. In fact I originally created the category because there was no film equivalent of Category:Medical television series. Wl219 08:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • rename per nom, oppose deletion as before. Tim! 16:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • rename per nom 132.205.44.134 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Either rename per nom or keep as is, the name change seems a bit redundant to me but I'm happy either way. Certainly keep the category, or perhaps split it into several more specific categories. PC78 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my earlier comments. Carlossuarez46 20:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep This category does have room for growth because there is almost always a new medical drama introduced in the networks. Feydakin 01:07, 26 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 category's talk page 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_May_25&oldid=1138388746"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE