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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Categorizing people by hobby or pastime doesn't seem like a good idea, and I know many
similar categories have been deleted in the past. Being a fan or enthusiast of Dungeons and Dragons is not defining for the people included in this category. Seems like if anything, this information should be included in a section within
Dungeons & Dragons.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I started the page due to Wil Wheaton being put into the "Dungeons & Dragons game designers" category, which was clearly erroneous, as on the talk page someone informed me that this had probably been done because he clearly had connections to the game as an author and was influenced by the game, yet there was no other way to express this. As he, and a number of other people listed in the category, generally DO find that their involvement with the game has shaped or influenced their lives positively in some fashion, and have been vocal about that (see Jon Favreau, Stephen Colbert, etc.) it is different from a category such as "chess enthusiasts" or "poker enthusiasts", where few people other than professionals mention such games have had a tangible impact on their lives. This is my reasoning to have the category.
LovelyLillith (
talk)
01:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep as long as category contains a notable list, not trivia eg
Vin Diesel is a good example since his involvement is verifyable, and extensive. (I would guess the category may need patrolling to prevent bloat?)14:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete as a non-defining characteristic. None of these people are in any way notable due to their Dungeons enthusiasm, any more than they would be notable for liking potato chips, smoking the ganja, or being bald. A category like
Category:Philatelists is, actually, a different kettle of fish: some people do owe whatever notability and fame they possess to their achievements in philately, but I'm not sure that kind of notability is necessarily Wikipedia notability.
Clifford Washington Kissinger and
W. Wilson Hulme II might be some example of people notable for their achievements as philatelists, although both biographies are unsourced currently. That one should probably be nominated separately for a discussion on its merits.
Anti-Nationalist (
talk)
20:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Vin Diesel is not only notable for being bald, he wrote the preface to a D&D 30th yr. anniversary book. Stephen Colbert is noted for playing D&D as well as being an uber LotR fan.
LovelyLillith (
talk)
03:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. Whether someone is an "enthusiast," as opposed to just a player, is vague and would be hard to determine, and more importantly a person's
opinion on an issue, like being a cat lover or Star Trek fan, is not suitable material for a category.
My original point was that it differed from being just a fan, as the game somehow enhanced or shaped their lives positively (in Favreau's case, making him a better writer, or encouraging social skills they used later). Most cat lovers don't express their cat love helped them be a better writer. Star Trek fans... well... that is a panacea.
LovelyLillith (
talk)
03:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I know my D&D history, Lillith. Whereas Wheaton was a regular author for an official D&D publication, none of the others were. Hobbyists don't merit categories, no matter how much the hobby shaped their careers. However, I will propose a middle-ground solution: create a category called
Category:Dungeons & Dragons writers, make designers and novelists subcategories (as opposed to novelists being a subcategory of designers, which makes no sense), and then Wheaton and even Diesel can be a part of that. Does that work for folks?--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
15:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Don't feel bad Mike, I didn't recognize Arneson when he walked up to chat with me at a convention, either. I think your proposal would be helpful. If you want to change this one to writers, I'll remove the links from everyone but those two.
LovelyLillith (
talk)
04:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep This game influences careers and that makes it a worthwhile category. In order to avoid BLP problems inclusion should be clearly based on refs, nerds.
SchmuckyTheCat (
talk)
07:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - I agree, we shouldn't be categorising people by what they're interested in - unless they're primarily notable for being a fan, and very few people are.
Robofish (
talk)
01:40, 1 December 2009 (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:Rail vehicles manufacturers
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 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:DR locomotives
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 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:DB locomotives
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 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:Buccaneers RFC
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.
Delete -- no content except main article, which (as stated) needs pruning of contact details, which will be available from the club's website, but that should appear as an external link.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:32, 27 November 2009 (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:Noble houses of the United Kingdom
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 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.
British families
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.
Nominator's rationale: As far as I know the term "House of" is only used with reigning or former reigning families, which in these cases is not applicable.
~~ Phoe talk ~~ 16:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep as it is, when it comes to Medieval originated noble families, titled aristocracy, they are commonly and most usually refered to as "House of" in peerage and geneological publications. For instance the House of Cavendish as an example.
[1] If it is just ____family, some people may get confused and randomly add everybody with said surname into that category. -
Yorkshirian (
talk)
20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Reply all the family categories are for a group of related people, not for everyone with that surname. It seems to work well in the other family categories, so I don't see why these ones should be different. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
At first glance I rather like that formulation, though some may regard it as tautological because only exceptional families get eponymous categories anyway. The problem if we follow that route is that it doesn't help the non-aristocratic family categories ... and if they are OK without the suffix, why add it here? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose, for example "House of Cadogan" is contextually clear that it contains people of noble birth, whereas "Cadogan family" perhaps does not, and "House of ..." is the standard usage I think. Additionally - other potential categories such as "Manor houses belonging to the Cadogan family" seem to fit better in the broader sounding "Noble house of ..." I see no issue with the "House of .." categories being included in "British familes" without a rename.
Shortfatlad (
talk) 13:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Do nothing distinction too sematic - current name gives good contectual information.
Shortfatlad (
talk)
14:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep most -- I have observed these categories being added to articles that I watch. I am far from convinced that they are valuable. It should certainly be
Category:House of Leveson-Gower, as Dukde of Sutherland is a title they have only obtained in relateively modern times. I see the argument for a category distinguishing the noble family from non-noble namesakes.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment Do we have a bit of a misunderstanding here? The other family categories are definitely not for just anyone with the same surname, but for a particular group of related notable people. Renaming these categories won't alter their inclusion criteria. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:42, 27 November 2009 (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.
Rugby union clubs in Ireland
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 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.
Philosophy of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
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.
Keep, but rename to
Category:Gandhism per the head article
Gandhism. The existence of the head article demonstrates that Ghandism is a notable topic, and it's a recognisable philosophical school. The usual criteria should apply to articles placed in it, i.e. references to reliable sources needed in the article. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
This brings up another problem. Non-specific principles to Gandhi, such as
simple living,
vegetarianism,
nonviolence,
fasting and
civil disobedience are however all key to Gandhism. One cannot really be a true Gandhian if you don't follow at least some of these principles. By pruning the category one takes away the full range of Gandhi's philosophies. He did not invent any of these principles. Gandhi sums it up in a nutshell "There is no such thing as 'Gandhism', and I do not want to leave any sect after me. I do not claim to have originated any new principle or doctrine. I have simply tried in my own way to apply the eternal truths to our daily life and problems." (Chapter I, P.47, All Men are Brothers by M.K.Gandhi
[3]). I cannot see any other philosopher (see
Category:Categories named after philosophers), religious leader or sect on Wikipedia that has a list of common philosophies in their own category. The problem is having a category at all!
nirvana2013 (
talk)
18:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
That's not actually a problem, because the test for applying an article or a category is whether the category is a defining characteristic of the article, not the other way round (as you appear to be suggesting). That's why
fish belongs under
Category:Water (fish can't survive without it), but
Water doesn't belong in
Category:Fish (water can get along just fine without fish). So if vegetarianism is a critical component of Ghandism, then
Ghandism belongs in
Category:Vegetarianism ... but since vegetarian is not solely a Ghandian practice,
vegetarianism does not belong in
Category:Gandhism. Hope this makes sense! --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
OK, I think I understand. So does that mean that the non-specific (but critical) Gandhian philosophies such as
Category:Simple living,
Category:Vegetarianism and
Category:Nonviolence will switch to having
Category:Gandhism as a sub-category, rather than vica-versa? All these practices can survive without Gandhi, but Gandhianism/Gandhism is incomplete without them. Rename - Also just for the record, I prefer Gandhism as a category title if there is consensus to keep.
nirvana2013 (
talk)
08:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep, possibly rename Of course, as creator. My rationale is that Gandhi—while not a philosopher of the sort that Immanuel Kant or Albert Camus—nonetheless has a system of ethics and truth that are presented in several articles in Wikipedia. I am basically indifferent to renaming it to Gandhism. As a final note, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is improper to
remove categories from a category undergoing CfD. If so, could someone please revert this until the CfD is finished? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
20:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Depopulating a category is indeed deprecated, but that is not what happened here. There may be a legitimate reason for that edit, but it seems odd, and I suggest you ask the editor concerned to explain it. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
01:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - there is an essay "don't built articles through categorisation" -other issues aside - tagging every article that relates to Gandhis life philoshopy with "Philosophy of Gandhi" is a nonsense. The obvious thing to do would be to write an article on "Gandhian philosphy" which I am sure will be easy to reference and prove notability of. No.
Shortfatlad (
talk)
14:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Response Per
WP:CfD: "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Interesting, I think that line should be modified as editors should be encouraged to be bold and edit categories to improve them as they are facing deletion. I still feel that the category is better now so I'm a little hesitant to revert myself. Is it absolutely necessary to do so, or may IAR trump process here? I know if articles such as "simple living" or "vegitarianism" would belong in this category by common sense, I would switch my vote to delete per IINFO as well as overcategorization issues. We can't categorize general articles like these under everyone who has ever supported them. ThemFromSpace02:58, 29 November 2009 (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:Cue sports novels
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename: This was my bad; I didn't think long enough before creating this category back when. The problem with it being this specific is that it necessitates the creation of additional categories (for novellas, short stories, novelettes, trilogies, etc., etc., etc.) as relevant articles arise, and that would be silly. The more generic name will encompass everything from
The Hustler (novel) to "
Darwinian Pool Room" with no problems. The parent cat. sorts at bottom of cat. page will need to be adjusted after the rename. PS: I thought of
Category:Cue sports fiction, but movies and TV shows (which already have
Category:Cue sports films and television) are also fiction. Best to just be really, really clear. — SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›08:33, 24 November 2009 (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:The public enemy era
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.
Nominator's rationale: The "Public Enemy" era was a period during the history of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation in particular and the social history of the United States more generally. While this may be a valid topic for a category, its current form is problematic because it has no clearly-defined scope. The current membership of the category includes articles about individual criminals (e.g.,
Ma Barker), criminal groups (e.g.,
Barrow Gang), law enforcement officials (e.g.,
J. Edgar Hoover), places (e.g.,
Biograph Theater, where
John Dillinger was killed), and events (e.g.,
Young Brothers Massacre).
Exactly the articles that are already there: the criminals who were notorious as being public enemies at this time and the article on this subject. There is no valid reason to remove the biographies.
Hmains (
talk)
20:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
delete is the best option here, I think. I agree with the nomination that categorizing biographies in this way is inappropriate. It is unclear what the scope of this category is meant to be. To me it looks like someone just took the article
public enemy and created a category for every article that is linked to in that article, which is often not a good idea.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:51, 26 November 2009 (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:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith
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.
Because there are some lay religious orders where people take vows, but don't take on clergy functions. I think that
Opus Dei fits this category, although I doubt that there are all that many openly gay ppl in Opus Dei ... --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
REname but purge of non-clergy, who should merely be categorised by their deonomination or order, if belonging to it is a significant characteristic.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:42, 27 November 2009 (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:Auto car racing controversies
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 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:Philosophical media
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.
Neutral. The convention of
Category:Media by interest is to name sub-categories as "Foo media", and it's a pity to break that convention. I do see that the current category name could be misleading (e.g. can it include CD-ROMs which sit in the desk-drawer contemplating the futility of their existence?), but is that really enough of a problem to justify breaking the convention? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment: I can see your point – and it's certainly a valid one, but I am still inclined to agree with the nominator on this. Something like the
Philosophical Gourmet Report (
[4]), for instance, shouldn't be categorized as "philosophical media" – it's philosophy-related, but not philosophy per se. I would not support all media related to philosophy – for example, popular sources known for their discussions of the status of philosophy in academic graduate programs or notable faculty moves in Ivy League universities – to be classified as "philosophical" media. A workable solution could be to keep this category with more specific categories, such as
Category:Philosophy publications (say, further subdivided into
Category:Philosophy journals,
Category:Philosophy books, and
Category:Philosophy magazines (for magazines like Philosophy Now) as some of the subcats, so as to assist those looking for actual content of philosophical interest, with distinctions drawn between the more scholarly, professional philosophy-type academic sources and those oriented towards a more popular audience. Things like the aformentioned academic Gourmet Report and things that devote some of their contents to documenting attractive issues in aesthetic and religious trends are probably better-described as "philosophy-related" than "philosophical." I perforce think that keeping this category is the neatest solution possible.
Anti-Nationalist (
talk)
21:45, 24 November 2009 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Categorizing people by hobby or pastime doesn't seem like a good idea, and I know many
similar categories have been deleted in the past. Being a fan or enthusiast of Dungeons and Dragons is not defining for the people included in this category. Seems like if anything, this information should be included in a section within
Dungeons & Dragons.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I started the page due to Wil Wheaton being put into the "Dungeons & Dragons game designers" category, which was clearly erroneous, as on the talk page someone informed me that this had probably been done because he clearly had connections to the game as an author and was influenced by the game, yet there was no other way to express this. As he, and a number of other people listed in the category, generally DO find that their involvement with the game has shaped or influenced their lives positively in some fashion, and have been vocal about that (see Jon Favreau, Stephen Colbert, etc.) it is different from a category such as "chess enthusiasts" or "poker enthusiasts", where few people other than professionals mention such games have had a tangible impact on their lives. This is my reasoning to have the category.
LovelyLillith (
talk)
01:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep as long as category contains a notable list, not trivia eg
Vin Diesel is a good example since his involvement is verifyable, and extensive. (I would guess the category may need patrolling to prevent bloat?)14:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete as a non-defining characteristic. None of these people are in any way notable due to their Dungeons enthusiasm, any more than they would be notable for liking potato chips, smoking the ganja, or being bald. A category like
Category:Philatelists is, actually, a different kettle of fish: some people do owe whatever notability and fame they possess to their achievements in philately, but I'm not sure that kind of notability is necessarily Wikipedia notability.
Clifford Washington Kissinger and
W. Wilson Hulme II might be some example of people notable for their achievements as philatelists, although both biographies are unsourced currently. That one should probably be nominated separately for a discussion on its merits.
Anti-Nationalist (
talk)
20:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Vin Diesel is not only notable for being bald, he wrote the preface to a D&D 30th yr. anniversary book. Stephen Colbert is noted for playing D&D as well as being an uber LotR fan.
LovelyLillith (
talk)
03:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. Whether someone is an "enthusiast," as opposed to just a player, is vague and would be hard to determine, and more importantly a person's
opinion on an issue, like being a cat lover or Star Trek fan, is not suitable material for a category.
My original point was that it differed from being just a fan, as the game somehow enhanced or shaped their lives positively (in Favreau's case, making him a better writer, or encouraging social skills they used later). Most cat lovers don't express their cat love helped them be a better writer. Star Trek fans... well... that is a panacea.
LovelyLillith (
talk)
03:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I know my D&D history, Lillith. Whereas Wheaton was a regular author for an official D&D publication, none of the others were. Hobbyists don't merit categories, no matter how much the hobby shaped their careers. However, I will propose a middle-ground solution: create a category called
Category:Dungeons & Dragons writers, make designers and novelists subcategories (as opposed to novelists being a subcategory of designers, which makes no sense), and then Wheaton and even Diesel can be a part of that. Does that work for folks?--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
15:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Don't feel bad Mike, I didn't recognize Arneson when he walked up to chat with me at a convention, either. I think your proposal would be helpful. If you want to change this one to writers, I'll remove the links from everyone but those two.
LovelyLillith (
talk)
04:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep This game influences careers and that makes it a worthwhile category. In order to avoid BLP problems inclusion should be clearly based on refs, nerds.
SchmuckyTheCat (
talk)
07:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - I agree, we shouldn't be categorising people by what they're interested in - unless they're primarily notable for being a fan, and very few people are.
Robofish (
talk)
01:40, 1 December 2009 (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:Rail vehicles manufacturers
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 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:DR locomotives
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 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:DB locomotives
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 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:Buccaneers RFC
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.
Delete -- no content except main article, which (as stated) needs pruning of contact details, which will be available from the club's website, but that should appear as an external link.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:32, 27 November 2009 (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:Noble houses of the United Kingdom
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 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.
British families
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.
Nominator's rationale: As far as I know the term "House of" is only used with reigning or former reigning families, which in these cases is not applicable.
~~ Phoe talk ~~ 16:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep as it is, when it comes to Medieval originated noble families, titled aristocracy, they are commonly and most usually refered to as "House of" in peerage and geneological publications. For instance the House of Cavendish as an example.
[1] If it is just ____family, some people may get confused and randomly add everybody with said surname into that category. -
Yorkshirian (
talk)
20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Reply all the family categories are for a group of related people, not for everyone with that surname. It seems to work well in the other family categories, so I don't see why these ones should be different. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
At first glance I rather like that formulation, though some may regard it as tautological because only exceptional families get eponymous categories anyway. The problem if we follow that route is that it doesn't help the non-aristocratic family categories ... and if they are OK without the suffix, why add it here? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose, for example "House of Cadogan" is contextually clear that it contains people of noble birth, whereas "Cadogan family" perhaps does not, and "House of ..." is the standard usage I think. Additionally - other potential categories such as "Manor houses belonging to the Cadogan family" seem to fit better in the broader sounding "Noble house of ..." I see no issue with the "House of .." categories being included in "British familes" without a rename.
Shortfatlad (
talk) 13:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Do nothing distinction too sematic - current name gives good contectual information.
Shortfatlad (
talk)
14:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep most -- I have observed these categories being added to articles that I watch. I am far from convinced that they are valuable. It should certainly be
Category:House of Leveson-Gower, as Dukde of Sutherland is a title they have only obtained in relateively modern times. I see the argument for a category distinguishing the noble family from non-noble namesakes.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment Do we have a bit of a misunderstanding here? The other family categories are definitely not for just anyone with the same surname, but for a particular group of related notable people. Renaming these categories won't alter their inclusion criteria. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:42, 27 November 2009 (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.
Rugby union clubs in Ireland
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 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.
Philosophy of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
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.
Keep, but rename to
Category:Gandhism per the head article
Gandhism. The existence of the head article demonstrates that Ghandism is a notable topic, and it's a recognisable philosophical school. The usual criteria should apply to articles placed in it, i.e. references to reliable sources needed in the article. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
This brings up another problem. Non-specific principles to Gandhi, such as
simple living,
vegetarianism,
nonviolence,
fasting and
civil disobedience are however all key to Gandhism. One cannot really be a true Gandhian if you don't follow at least some of these principles. By pruning the category one takes away the full range of Gandhi's philosophies. He did not invent any of these principles. Gandhi sums it up in a nutshell "There is no such thing as 'Gandhism', and I do not want to leave any sect after me. I do not claim to have originated any new principle or doctrine. I have simply tried in my own way to apply the eternal truths to our daily life and problems." (Chapter I, P.47, All Men are Brothers by M.K.Gandhi
[3]). I cannot see any other philosopher (see
Category:Categories named after philosophers), religious leader or sect on Wikipedia that has a list of common philosophies in their own category. The problem is having a category at all!
nirvana2013 (
talk)
18:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
That's not actually a problem, because the test for applying an article or a category is whether the category is a defining characteristic of the article, not the other way round (as you appear to be suggesting). That's why
fish belongs under
Category:Water (fish can't survive without it), but
Water doesn't belong in
Category:Fish (water can get along just fine without fish). So if vegetarianism is a critical component of Ghandism, then
Ghandism belongs in
Category:Vegetarianism ... but since vegetarian is not solely a Ghandian practice,
vegetarianism does not belong in
Category:Gandhism. Hope this makes sense! --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
OK, I think I understand. So does that mean that the non-specific (but critical) Gandhian philosophies such as
Category:Simple living,
Category:Vegetarianism and
Category:Nonviolence will switch to having
Category:Gandhism as a sub-category, rather than vica-versa? All these practices can survive without Gandhi, but Gandhianism/Gandhism is incomplete without them. Rename - Also just for the record, I prefer Gandhism as a category title if there is consensus to keep.
nirvana2013 (
talk)
08:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep, possibly rename Of course, as creator. My rationale is that Gandhi—while not a philosopher of the sort that Immanuel Kant or Albert Camus—nonetheless has a system of ethics and truth that are presented in several articles in Wikipedia. I am basically indifferent to renaming it to Gandhism. As a final note, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is improper to
remove categories from a category undergoing CfD. If so, could someone please revert this until the CfD is finished? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
20:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Depopulating a category is indeed deprecated, but that is not what happened here. There may be a legitimate reason for that edit, but it seems odd, and I suggest you ask the editor concerned to explain it. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
01:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - there is an essay "don't built articles through categorisation" -other issues aside - tagging every article that relates to Gandhis life philoshopy with "Philosophy of Gandhi" is a nonsense. The obvious thing to do would be to write an article on "Gandhian philosphy" which I am sure will be easy to reference and prove notability of. No.
Shortfatlad (
talk)
14:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Response Per
WP:CfD: "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Interesting, I think that line should be modified as editors should be encouraged to be bold and edit categories to improve them as they are facing deletion. I still feel that the category is better now so I'm a little hesitant to revert myself. Is it absolutely necessary to do so, or may IAR trump process here? I know if articles such as "simple living" or "vegitarianism" would belong in this category by common sense, I would switch my vote to delete per IINFO as well as overcategorization issues. We can't categorize general articles like these under everyone who has ever supported them. ThemFromSpace02:58, 29 November 2009 (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:Cue sports novels
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename: This was my bad; I didn't think long enough before creating this category back when. The problem with it being this specific is that it necessitates the creation of additional categories (for novellas, short stories, novelettes, trilogies, etc., etc., etc.) as relevant articles arise, and that would be silly. The more generic name will encompass everything from
The Hustler (novel) to "
Darwinian Pool Room" with no problems. The parent cat. sorts at bottom of cat. page will need to be adjusted after the rename. PS: I thought of
Category:Cue sports fiction, but movies and TV shows (which already have
Category:Cue sports films and television) are also fiction. Best to just be really, really clear. — SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›08:33, 24 November 2009 (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:The public enemy era
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.
Nominator's rationale: The "Public Enemy" era was a period during the history of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation in particular and the social history of the United States more generally. While this may be a valid topic for a category, its current form is problematic because it has no clearly-defined scope. The current membership of the category includes articles about individual criminals (e.g.,
Ma Barker), criminal groups (e.g.,
Barrow Gang), law enforcement officials (e.g.,
J. Edgar Hoover), places (e.g.,
Biograph Theater, where
John Dillinger was killed), and events (e.g.,
Young Brothers Massacre).
Exactly the articles that are already there: the criminals who were notorious as being public enemies at this time and the article on this subject. There is no valid reason to remove the biographies.
Hmains (
talk)
20:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
delete is the best option here, I think. I agree with the nomination that categorizing biographies in this way is inappropriate. It is unclear what the scope of this category is meant to be. To me it looks like someone just took the article
public enemy and created a category for every article that is linked to in that article, which is often not a good idea.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:51, 26 November 2009 (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:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith
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.
Because there are some lay religious orders where people take vows, but don't take on clergy functions. I think that
Opus Dei fits this category, although I doubt that there are all that many openly gay ppl in Opus Dei ... --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
REname but purge of non-clergy, who should merely be categorised by their deonomination or order, if belonging to it is a significant characteristic.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:42, 27 November 2009 (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:Auto car racing controversies
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 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:Philosophical media
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.
Neutral. The convention of
Category:Media by interest is to name sub-categories as "Foo media", and it's a pity to break that convention. I do see that the current category name could be misleading (e.g. can it include CD-ROMs which sit in the desk-drawer contemplating the futility of their existence?), but is that really enough of a problem to justify breaking the convention? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment: I can see your point – and it's certainly a valid one, but I am still inclined to agree with the nominator on this. Something like the
Philosophical Gourmet Report (
[4]), for instance, shouldn't be categorized as "philosophical media" – it's philosophy-related, but not philosophy per se. I would not support all media related to philosophy – for example, popular sources known for their discussions of the status of philosophy in academic graduate programs or notable faculty moves in Ivy League universities – to be classified as "philosophical" media. A workable solution could be to keep this category with more specific categories, such as
Category:Philosophy publications (say, further subdivided into
Category:Philosophy journals,
Category:Philosophy books, and
Category:Philosophy magazines (for magazines like Philosophy Now) as some of the subcats, so as to assist those looking for actual content of philosophical interest, with distinctions drawn between the more scholarly, professional philosophy-type academic sources and those oriented towards a more popular audience. Things like the aformentioned academic Gourmet Report and things that devote some of their contents to documenting attractive issues in aesthetic and religious trends are probably better-described as "philosophy-related" than "philosophical." I perforce think that keeping this category is the neatest solution possible.
Anti-Nationalist (
talk)
21:45, 24 November 2009 (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.