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 remained empty for 4 days+. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Non-article New Jersey pages ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Template New Jersey pages ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Category New Jersey pages ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category and its sub-categories have all been superceded by the current assessment scale categories. All categories are empty. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 00:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• C1 all as empty categories. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment I would have done that myself, but I only emptied one of those cats today, and C1 requires categories to be unpopulated for four days before tagging. Not that I object, they are still unnecessary. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 01:49, 27 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge. Kbdank71 15:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Children of Presidents of Romania ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - I don't see a good rationale for this particular category, since all of these people are children of the same president of Romania (one guess which president), and there's no real likelihood of others achieving notability in the immediate future. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 23:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, the daughter of our current president, Elena Băsescu, is quite notable (she's currently the General Secretary of the Youth Organization of the Democrat-Liberal Party), but no one wrote an article about her. bogdan ( talk) 09:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep Upmerge until we find another way to get to the people so categorised from to Category:Children of national leaders. Hiding T 20:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• I should have added, Upmerge to Category:Children of national leaders. Cgingold ( talk) 02:55, 1 September 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I thought about speedily deleting this as re-created material previously deleted as a result of CfD consensus, but since it's been a year and a half since the last discussion (2007 Feb 7), I thought it better to bring the proposal here. To summarise the previous consensus, it was thought that "neoconservative" was a controversial and relatively vague term that is often used as a pejorative, or at the very least in a POV way. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep -- Neoconservatism is now a well defined political/social movement with very many well-known, self-described adherents. Many books, scholarly articles, and magazine articles have been written by Neoconservatives who self-identify as such. Additionally, more than a few books have also been written by or about Neoconservatives and Neoconservatism, e.g., Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea ( ISBN  1566632285), The Neocon Reader ( ISBN  0802141935), They Knew They Were Right ( ISBN  0385511817), The Neoconservative Revolution ( ISBN  0521545013), Neocon Middle East Policy ( ISBN  0976443732), along with many others. -- Wassermann ( talk) 04:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Questions How do we address the issue of inclusion criteria, then? To be included, do they need to be a self-described neoconservative? Are those involved with the Project for the New American Century automatically neoconservatives? What about those like Michael Lind or Francis Fukuyama, who have distanced themselves as of late from the movement? What about neoconservative "forerunners" who were active before the term was invented, like Scoop Jackson? Because of the roots of the movement, can this be a subcategory of Category:Trotskyists? What about previous uses of the term, like it being applied to Nazi thinkers Carl Schmitt and Arthur Moeller van den Bruck? Is this limited to American neoconservatives? If so, why? What about the problem of using "neoconservative" as an epithet, sometimes an anti-Semitic one? I think these issues need to be settled before we agree that the former consensus to delete has changed or should be overridden. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete The term is used too widely and wildly to be useful. What it is is not even fully agreed to by everyone.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per DLand's comment at the original CfD and per Good Olfactory here. (too nebulous a term) -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 00:01, 31 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Multi-racial musical groups ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Over-categorisation, per WP:OCAT#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Oli Filth^{( talk| contribs)} 21:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I think this could be an encyclopedic topic given the history of Jazz in the U.S. and the Music of South Africa. Granted the current list is more about Hootie & the Blowfish than the Benny Goodman Orchestra, but there is potential here. - MrFizyx ( talk) 22:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I see where you're going with that, but as the category currently stands, for the majority of the entries it is utterly irrelevant and non-notable that they're "multi-racial" (e.g. A Perfect Circle, Linkin Park and Soundgarden, to name but a few). Oli Filth^{( talk| contribs)} 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not entirely excited about the current list either, but it does include groups whose music crosses cultural lines (e.g. Santana) or deals with themes of racism (e.g. the Black Eyed Peas, Sly & the Family Stone). In these cases I don't think the group membership is merely coincidental and we can't create a Category:Notably multi-racial musical groups and maintain NPOV. - MrFizyx ( talk) 13:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Was thinking about nominating this myself, yesterday... Metao ( talk) 08:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - So a group qualifies because they have members of different races? I don't know that I'd even support listification of this. - jc37 10:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Thats all it took to keep your band from touring the southern US under Jim Crow (which incidentally was so named for a song). On the other hand I wouldn't now propose a category for multi-racial baseball teams. - MrFizyx ( talk) 18:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete If categorizing by mixed gender is trivial, then so is categorizing by gender. There doesn't seem to be a clear criterion, as MrFizyx pointed out. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Huh? Gender?? What did I say??? - MrFizyx ( talk) 18:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep (not surpising since I created it I guess). When I noticed again that the American Breed was bi-racial, I realized that this is a part of rock and roll history that is not particularly well known. It was rare enough when Hootie & the Blowfish came along, but I doubt that 1 of 100 American fans of " Bend Me, Shape Me" have any idea that this 1960s band was multi-racial. I remember checking in a couple of months later and being astounded at how quickly the category filled up compared to a couple of others that I have started. I guess it is hard for me to imagine that it is "notable" that the American Breed is from Chicago, or that it was formed in 1966 and disbanded in 1969; and that it is "notable" that Hootie are University of South Carolina alumni and that they are a quartet; but it is somehow "non-notable" that they are bi-racial groups. Can someone please explain that to me? Shocking Blue ( talk) 11:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I guess one way of looking at the difference is that facts like year of formation and town/state/country of origin are things that one might put in the lead of the article, for instance. However, I notice that in the case in point ( American Breed), it currently states "interracial" in the lead, which strikes me as odd. Not from some political-correctness point of view, but more from the fact that we don't put "all black" anywhere in e.g. the Destiny's Child article, nor for that matter "all white" in the Oasis (band) article. Nor do we say that "Samuel L Jackson is black" (or similar) in the Samuel L Jackson article. Oli Filth^{( talk| contribs)} 18:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • My point was not that year or city of formation is not notable (even though it was actually Cicero rather than Chicago itself in the case of the American Breed); they certainly are. But why keep track of the "quartets" among musical groups, and why is year of disbanding notable, particularly these days, when it is hard to come up with even an obscure 1960s band that has not reformed at least once. I agree with your point about interracial; "multi-racial" is what I came up with rather than "bi-racial" because there are some "tri-racial" bands like Deee-lite (and I just left "multi-ethnic" alone as being ultimately meaningless). And I would concede that perhaps it is of more historical significance as someone else pointed out below. Also, the category would have no meaning for some types of musical groups; it would be more notable for a full symphony orchestra to be singly racial than multi-racial for instance. Regardless, there are close to 100 bands listed already in the category, which shows that there is some interest out there in this distinction. Shocking Blue ( talk 20:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete However I think this issue is of enough historic importance to merit an article. Maybe something like Racial integration in popular music in the way we have Baseball color line. For example The Del-Vikings and Booker T. & the M.G.'s being multi-racial was likely significant then as segregation was still an issue. However to have this as a category may not make much more sense than to have "multi-racial golf courses" as a category even if that was also an issue once.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 19:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:14, 31 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: keep all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Siblings of Presidents of the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Parents of Presidents of the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Children of Presidents of the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Just being sibling of a president doesn't seem like it's notable enough of a criterion. Why not siblings of vice presidents? Mothers of presidents? Etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Create Category:Second cousins of United States Secretaries of State, nah just delete it. - MrFizyx ( talk) 21:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

FYI there is a Category:Parents of Presidents of the United States. - MrFizyx ( talk) 22:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I've reconsidered, especially after seeing the other categories added. Parents we must keep given the arguments of User:Americasroof below. I give a weak keep on children since not many people grow up in the White House. At the moment I'm neutral on siblings. I have to agree that you've now bundled too much here. - MrFizyx ( talk) 04:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - note this category was discussed previously, and renamed from Category:Presidential siblings to its current name. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 25#Category:Presidential siblings. the wub "?!" 23:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Clear KeepComment - While it may seem like a silly category, the simple fact is that we have four categories for close relatives of US presidents -- siblings, parents, children, and spouses (aka First Ladies) -- and for the great majority of those individuals it is that very relationship that establishes their notability. Cgingold ( talk) 23:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Notability isn't inherited though. I also added the parents and children, but not First Ladies, since that position is actually notable enough to have its own title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Clear Keep for All - Nobody ever suggested that "notability is inherited". What you're ignoring is the fact that each of those articles passes notability, and in most cases it's principally as a direct result of their close family relationship to a US president. That being the case, grouping them in these categories is just an obvious and straightforward basis for this set of categories. Cgingold ( talk) 01:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep - The overriding rule according to WP:Note is If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. There are numerous books that bundles the parents together here, here, here, and here. It clearly passes the third party notability test. Nominator has overly bundled this nomination and improperly linked the President's nomination (which I fixed). Americasroof ( talk) 01:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep but police. Being a relative of a president is a notable chacteristic of a person, but not a chacteristic that confers notability on an otherwise NN person. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:22, 27 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge as nominated and delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Lebanese blogs to Category:both parents

Nominator's rationale: Merge - small category with unclear growth potential. This is the only Blogs by country category that we have. No objection to recreation should such a tree develop but for now it's not needed. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per lack of other categories of this sort. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge/Delete. Lack of other categories and presence of only one article in category. - MrFizyx ( talk) 21:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep -- blogs are an emerging and increasingly important media source; as for the supposed lack of "growth potential" (which is not even a valid criticism of categories), I will go ahead and create Category:Blogs by country and a few associated categories and begin to populate them. The "growth potential" of categories such as these is actually enormous considering there are millions of blogs around the world. Also, we already have Category:Bloggers by nationality, so why not this category? Additionally, having Category:Blogs by country will help to specify and reduce the increasingly large and unmanageable size of Category:Blogs. -- Wassermann ( talk) 05:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I said I would reconsider after a couple of days, but what I see now are a bunch of empty categories that you've created. I don't think this helps matters. To me it would make sense to merge all of these into a structure with blogs and bloggers together e.g. Category:Freedonian blogs and bloggers. - MrFizyx ( talk) 17:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge/Delete. The cat was created in December 2005 and still has only one member? Blogs may be booming, but they're also ephemeral, and this cat has had a chance to grow, but hasn't. Parent categories Category:Lebanese bloggers and Category:Lebanese media are sufficient. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 21:12, 27 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete as empty. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:List New Jersey pages ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant purpose to Category:List-Class New Jersey articles; cat is empty. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Why rename an empty category? - MrFizyx ( talk) 21:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I see you actually meant suggest delete and not rename. Well sounds good to me. Shouldn't the other cat have a lowercase "c", as in Category:List-class New Jersey articles? - MrFizyx ( talk) 17:59, 29 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Tom T. Hall songs to Category:Songs written by Tom T. Hall

Nominator's rationale: Hall did write these songs, although he didn't perform them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. - MrFizyx ( talk) 19:31, 26 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Black Kids singles to Category:Black Kids songs

Nominator's rationale: per usual conventions in Category:Songs by artist and in Category:Singles. Occuli ( talk) 12:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:49, 26 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Black Kids ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Categories for a band appear to be non-standard. Metao ( talk) 10:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - insufficient material. Occuli ( talk) 12:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 ( talk) 13:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Eponymous band categories are usually frowned upon. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a parent category for albums and songs. Consensus can change on these categories for bands as per this CfD and this (soon to close) CfD. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Except of course there's also this recent CFD and this recent CFD and this recent CFD so the supposed "shift in consensus" is not so clear-cut as you'd like to paint it. The albums and singles are all linked through the main article as well as an extensive navigational template and the categories are appropriately parented in their respective ...by artist trees. Absolutely no need for a category to hold them along with the main article and the discography article. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep consensus for WP:OC#EPONYMOUS is not clear and it seems so make sense to structure categories in this way. - MrFizyx ( talk) 21:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - would be much better served by a template (along the lines of e.g. Template:Smashing Pumpkins), especially given such little material. Oli Filth^{( talk| contribs)} 22:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I see one already exists... Oli Filth^{( talk| contribs)} 22:52, 26 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Comic book publishing companies to Category:Comics publishing companies

This cat is broader than just American comic book publishers. And "comics" is the preferred term, per long-standing consensus at WP:CMC. (See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and WP:NCC) - jc37 08:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename as nominator. - jc37 08:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Aye. Hiding T 09:37, 26 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Rename Category:Comic book stores to Category:Comics retailers

Per Category:Retailers. - jc37 07:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename as nominator. - jc37 07:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Aye. Hiding T 09:37, 26 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Merge Category:Comic book terminology to Category:Comics terminology

Most terms apply to more than just to American comic books. And "comics" is the preferred term, per long-standing consensus at WP:CMC. (See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and WP:NCC) - jc37 07:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge as nominator. - jc37 07:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Jc. Hiding T 09:37, 26 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename (multiple songs have now been added to category). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Songs by Bob Gaudio to Category:Songs written by Bob Gaudio

Nominator's rationale: To match all other songs-by-songwriter cats. Either that or delete, there's only one song in it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom (he wrote or co-wrote quite a number of songs, some of which I've added). Occuli ( talk) 11:16, 26 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Songs by Bob Crewe to Category:Songs written by Bob Crewe

Nominator's rationale: Naming conventions for all other songs-by-songwriter cats. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom, for clarity. Occuli ( talk) 11:19, 26 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Storylines in comics (The CUSTOMER winds up and takes a hard shot. The ball sails off the court, through the air, and into a faraway yard. DANTE calls to the sidelines. ... "We get...what...twelve minutes of game, and it's over?"). Kbdank71 15:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Rename Category:Comic book storylines to Category:Fictional storylines in comics (or Category:Storylines in comics)

To match the example of: Category:Fictional storylines. - jc37 03:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename - as nominator. - jc37 03:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Slow down. Fictional storylines? What's the purpose of this category? To categorise real storylines of works of fiction published in the comics form, or fictional storylines such as the Black Freighter? Actually, this conversation is descending too far into meta-textuality. Is the Black Freighter a fictionl storyline? It's a fiction within a fiction, certainly. Would the death of Booby Ewing be a fictional storyline? My head hurts. "Storylines of fiction" should be the top category, so category Category:Comic book storylines should be Category:Storylines of fiction in comics or Category:Storylines of comics fiction. I think I prefer "in comics". Therefore, Oppose Category:Comic book storylines to Category:Fictional storylines in comics Hiding T 09:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  Renaming to Category:Storylines of fiction in comics sounds fine too. Though my next question would be: How would we categorise it into the Comics tree? - jc37 09:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  Good point. Category:Comics publications? Or the dreaded Category:Content in comics (Should that be Category:Content of comics - we could also categorise images here. What about Speech ballon?)? Which could sit in Category:Comics publications. Hiding T 10:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  I'm not sure, but I'm starting to think you're having a bit of fun at my expense : )

  As for the tree, a storyline (story and plot) would seem to be as much "content" as a character. They're both story elements, I think? That's why I was grouping them with Fictional content. that said, I can see how they're "slightly" different in that while a storyline may be congruent to story and plot, it isn't exactly equal to the story and plot. Which is why I'm also supporting your suggestion as an alternative. - jc37 10:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  Certainly not having fun. I just remember the thinking behind Category:Fictional comics, which is for comics which are not real. If we have Category:Fictional storylines in comics in the same category as Category:Fictional comics, am I the only person who sees the scope for confusion? Certainly a story is like a character in that they are content, and I certainly understand your thinking. This is one for consensus to decide. Hiding T 11:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  I actually had to think about that when I was categorising Category:Fictional content in comics. It didn't seem to belong in Category:Fictional, because it's actually parallel with that category. But it's also more narrow than that category in that it's for comics-related articles alone. So it didn't seem appropriate for Category:Fiction (the parent of "fictional".) So what I did was placed it in fictional, but not alphabetised with the rest of the fictional cats, but rather at the head, where lists and such usually are placed.

  I think we have a similar situation with storylines. It's concerning meta-content (not the physical comics, but rather what's being presented), but it's also a sort of "grouping" of content, as well.

  So perhaps placing it at the "head" would be appropriate. (Which also means that the different convention might be appropriate as well.)

  Is that making any sense? - jc37 11:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  Yes. I think we're exposing a flaw in the category structure, aren't we? Or at least the way our minds work in relation to it. Looking at the bottom of the article, Category:Fictional content in comics and Category:Fictional make sense, but in terms of the category structure, they don;t, it would instead be placing Category:Content in comics in Category:Fictional which would make the distinction. Brain-ache. Placing at the head is a good idea. The name is a complicated one. I'm happy to cut to the chase: Rename per nom. Your ball. :) Hiding T 12:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  (Looks at the ball tossed to me by Hiding. Now what am I supposed to do with this?)

  And yes, Brain-ache indeed. Then trying to combine the idea of the fewest necessary categories with the most useful navigation... Well, it definitely can be a challenge : ) - jc37 12:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  I added your option to the nom. - jc37 12:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  (de-dent) - Thinking about this, I think the best way to do this is probably "Storylines in <x>". The parent would be "Storylines in fiction", and have "Storylines in comics" as a sub-cat. - jc37 21:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  I think that's the best idea, yes. Hiding T 21:37, 30 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Rename Category:Comics characters to Category:Fictional characters in comics

Rename Category:Comics locations to Category:Fictional locations in comics

Rename Category:Comics objects to Category:Fictional objects in comics

To match the convention of Category:Fictional, including the examples of:

Category:Fictional characters

Category:Fictional locations

Category:Fictional objects

And also to match the previous consensus at WP:CMC (now noted in WP:NCC, under lists) that "...in comics" is to be used for fictional content, compared to "Comics x" which is (in general) only used for RL topics. - jc37 03:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename all - as nominator. - jc37 03:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support the other three. Hiding T 09:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  (Note: When I split #Category:Comic book storylines, from this nom due to Hiding's concerns, it left the above as his comment. So "other" is presumably "other than storylines".) - jc37 04:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Support - good idea. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 04:57, 27 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Student organizations. Kbdank71 15:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Associations of students to Category:Student associations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basically, the current name is less likely to be encountered in English; the current name sounds stilted. Unfortunately, Student association is a redirect to Students' union ( Category:Students' unions is - quite rightly - a subcategory of the category up for renaming, since the two terms are not synonymous). Category:Students' associations would also be a reasonable alternative to the current name. Grutness... wha? 00:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. - Darwinek ( talk) 09:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose use Category:Student groups instead. Student Association is too closely associated with the names of various college/university student governments. 70.55.85.122 ( talk) 12:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Alternative: I'd suggest Category:Student organizations. Following the parent, Category:Organizations by membership. - MrFizyx ( talk) 21:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Student organizations per MrFizyx. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:18, 31 August 2008 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold ( talk) 01:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Note: This was moved here from the previous day's CFDs. Cgingold ( talk) 01:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• I don't think there is any need to split British Scientologists into English, Scottish and Welsh as it is currently. British Scientologists would be sufficient. Johnalexwood ( talk) 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Under Category:Scientologists_by_nationality (sic) I find Category:British Scientologists and a subcat Category:English Scientologists with four members. No Scottish or Welsh. Exactly what are you proposing? -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 00:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note to nominator: - The category has not been properly tagged for CFD. Please use {{subst:cfm}} (I believe that's what you want to do.) Cgingold ( talk) 01:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Got a few questions re categories, with specific reference to Scientologists:

1. I don't know what you mean by {{subst:cfm}} i.e. where and how I am supposed to use that? 2. I have added Scottish and Welsh subcategories but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Scientologists is still showing English Scientologists as the only subcategory. What have I done wrong? 3. I notice that some Scientologists are listed as if they have 2 nationalities e.g. Doug E. Fresh (Barbadian and American) I expect because he is of Barbadian descent but lives in the US. So would it be OK to do the same for Hossam Ramzy who is Egyptian but lives in the UK? 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scientologists Is this list compiled by hand? There are people in it whose entry doesn't even mention Scientology e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Prepon, and vice versa, people who have a Scientology category who do not appear in this list e.g. Marc Koska

Also, I wanted to make these a numbered list - is that possible in WP and can one set up WP so I get alerted by e-mail when you reply to this? Johnalexwood ( talk) 19:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• • First, it appears that you've changed your mind here, and no longer oppose splitting Category:British Scientologists into sub-cats. If that's the case, we can close out this CFD. (Or have I got that backwards?)

Yes, sorry, forgot to tell you that. Once I thought I had got the hang of it, I decided that we might as well leave well alone. How do I close the CFD then?

• Since nothing was ever properly tagged, this isn't even an official CFD, so I will take care of closing out the discussion. Cgingold ( talk) 01:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• • • As to why those sub-cats weren't showing, very simple: you had them in the wrong parent cats. I've gone ahead and "fixed" Category:Scottish Scientologists, so you can look at the changes I made there and carry thru with similar changes for Category:Welsh Scientologists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Welsh_Scientologists seems to be sorted now - many thanks. All ready for when a Welsh Scientologist pops up.

• If there aren't any Welsh Scientologists with articles, that category should be deleted, unless you intend to create such an article in the next few days. Cgingold ( talk) 01:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• • • Speaking of inappropriate parent cats, Category:Egyptian Scientologists (which you just created) should not by any stretch be placed in Category:British people by religion -- I'm sure you can see why not. Where it does belong, of course, is under Category:Egyptian people by religion. (Please be sure to make that change)

Also sorted now I hope, see: Hossam Ramzy Didn't mean to do that - just pasted the wrong text.'

• • • Strictly speaking, people should only be listed by their nationality, but sometimes, if they've lived in another country for a very substantial part of their life, an editor will use that category as well.

Well Hossam is Egyptian but has lived in the UK for decades.

• • • People should never be included in categories when there is no assertion of fact in the text of the article to validate those categories. When I come across that sort of thing, I will either add the info myself -- with a cited source, whenever possible -- or else I raise the issue on the talk page, asking for other editors to either provide the info or remove the category. (There's also a cleanup template that can be added at the end of the article, but I don't recall it's name at the moment.)

OK - it makes sense to me for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scientologists to be made up of all entries that already have a Scientologist category of any description.

• In both cases you should ascertain whether it's actually mentioned in the text of the article. Cgingold ( talk) 01:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• • • Numbered lists are not possible in categories.

OK, thanks

• • • Sorry, but there's no email alert (wouldn't that be nice). You'll just have to keep checking back like everybody else. At least you get that bright yellow-orange band across the page when there's a new message on your talk page.

Yeah, that's noticable.

One last thing - David Gaiman (and undoubtedly other Scientologists around the world) still practices his religion of birth (Judaism) but is also a Scientologist (that's just the way it is with Scientology), so the cat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Converts_to_Scientology sort of fits but it implies that he has converted away from Judaism, which he hasn't. In any case, I ought to add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English_Jews and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Jews to his entry as well, no? Johnalexwood ( talk) 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Affirmative. Cgingold ( talk) 01:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Hope that helps -- and please don't forget to clarify what it is that you'd like to do about these categories. Cgingold ( talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (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.