Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 28: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:49, 1 March 2007

< February 27	March 1 >

February 28

Category:Ideological publications

I noticed that Category:Neoconservatives and Category:American Conservatives had both been deleted, as consensus determined these to be POV and far too controversial categories for individual persons. (See here and here.) If so, then the categories listed above should also be deleted, as they are (most often) collectives of individuals organized to create publications, and as such ideological labels are even more difficult and controversial. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify a bit: Category:Ideological publications does not exist, this is simply an umbrella nomination for the four categories listed directly below the section header. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of given names and Category:Lists of surnames by ethnicity or nationality

WP:WINAD, and lists of names have been widely deemed to be unencyclopedic. In the past few weeks nearly all lists of given names and surnames have been traswikied to Wiktionary and deleted. There is strong consensus that they are dictionary material, so I'm nominating the categories to go as well. See below for evidence of the conenses; I've compiled a list of all the list of name-related AfDs. Dmcdevit·t 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of nominations for deleted lists of names

Delete - Per nom.--Niohe 00:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles mentioning educational websites

The idea of categorizing articles by words that might be "mentioned" is a bad concept. The articles might have almost nothing to do with the website mentioned, or with education in general, or with each other. Recommend deleting as an ill-definied concept collecting what could be fairly unrelated articles, and which also appears to be relatively unnecessary since articles that are actually about education or educational websites will appear in other corresponding categories. Dugwiki 23:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a subcat of Category:Educational websites so presumably they are aware of that category's existence and are not duplicating it. Apparently, category starter really wants to categorize by mere MENTIONS of an educational website, which just serves no purpose whatsoever. SubSeven 03:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native American tribes

Rename to "Native American peoples". Some of the entries in Category:Native American tribes refer to languages that the tribes spoke rather than tribes themselves. Furthermore, some tribes, such as the Ojibwa and the Cherokee, are not unified political entities, but rather are in seperate groups, such as the Cherokee Nation, The Eastern Cherokee Band, The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and so forth. Subcategories need to be made and the seperate entitites need to be in each category. Furthermore, some of the groups here aren't even tribes, they are confederations, such as the Iroquois, which are a confederation of six seperate tribes. This also needs to be addressed. Not to mention the fact that some of the articles refer to ethnic groups instead of tribes, such as the article about Muskhogean stock, Algonquian peoples, and so on. I propose renaming this category to "Native American peoples", moving the articles on languages into another category entirely, and putting subcategories for confederations and tribes that divide into seperate political entities. Asarelah 21:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saturday Night Live people

Delete - this is serving as a parent cat for two subcats which are both up for deletion (one speedy) and is also serving as a catch-all for people associated with SNL, including random writers and musical guests. No need for this category. Otto4711 20:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an inappropriate "Profession by Project" and "Performer by Appearance/Performance" category. — J Greb 21:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J Greb, category clutter. Haddiscoe 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saturday Night Live cast members

Speedy delete per actors by series mass nomination. A comprehensive cast list exists at Saturday Night Live cast. Otto4711 20:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the list exists (and it looks like it since the list is in the cat...) Speedy delete as per Listify tag. — J Greb 21:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MAD Magazine people

Delete An inappropriate categorization of writers, artists, editors, and publishers by project. J Greb 20:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saturday Night Live writers

Delete - Television writers work for a variety of shows over the course of their careers. This is an improper creator by series categorization. I have listified the contents of the category. In the alternative, merge to Category:Television writers. Otto4711 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Listified then merge the articles that don't already reside in Television writers or a nationality sub cat of it and delete as inappropriate "Profession by Project" categorization. — J Greb 21:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DC Comics executives

Delete Inappropriate classification of "Person by Employer". J Greb 20:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. People often work for a variety of employers and categorizing them by employer is improper. Otto4711 23:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comics people by company

Outmerge from the sub-categories then Delete parent and subs. People in this industry can and do change employer frequently. Hence it is inappropriate to classify them by employer. J Greb 20:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small question though... anyone know when characters became people. 4 of the 5 subs have the company's character cat listed as a sub. — J Greb 20:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Sorting people by company is inappropriate, as people work for many companies during their careers. Note that the outmerge suggestion is not practical, as the closing administrator will probably use a bot to either perform a simple merge or delete operation. If the closing administrator deletes these manually, he/she may not attempt to guess how people should be sorted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comics creators by company

Delete Parent and both sub-categories are explicitly "Person by Employer" categories. Articles listd in the the subs should be relocated to the following as appropriate: Category:Comics writers, Comics writers by nationality, Category:Comics artists, Comics artists by nationality, and/cor Category:Comics creators. J Greb 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Comic book people generally work for multiple companies, so categorizing people by company will just lead to duplicate categories. It also is not clear what a "comics creator" is. If it entails creating comic book characters, then it is not very special, as most comic book writers and artists do this all the time. If it entails creating comic book titles, however, it may be worth keeping. Dr. Submillimeter 20:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outmerge members to the appropriate Comics writers, Comics artists or Comics writers/artists by nationality category and then delete these. You beat me to them, I was just about to nominate them myself. Otto4711 20:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Note that the outmerge suggestion is not practical, as the closing administrator will probably use a bot to either perform a simple merge or delete operation. If the closing administrator deletes these manually, he/she may not attempt to guess how people should be sorted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2000 AD creators

Outmerge to appropriate Comics writer, Comics artist, or Comics writer/artist by nationality category and delete this category as an improper creator by project categorization. Otto4711 19:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outmerge and Delete as per nom. — J Greb 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Comic book people should not be organized by project. It can lead to severe category clutter, especially for people with long careers like Stan Lee or John Byrne. Dr. Submillimeter 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comics artists

Category:Aquaman artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Batman artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Captain America artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Daredevil artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Doctor Strange artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Fantastic Four artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Flash (comics) artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Green Lantern artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Hulk artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Iron Man artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Justice League artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Punisher artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Spider-Man artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Superman artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Thor artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:Wonder Woman artists to Category:Comics artists

Category:X-Men artists to Category:Comics artists

Merge all - Comics artists can and do work on a variety of series in the course of their careers. This is a form of performer by performance categorization and should be merged to the parent category. Would weakly support listifying. Otto4711 19:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent, or to appropriate Comic book artist by nationality. All listed are "Profession by Project" which is untenable due to writers moving from one project to another. In most cases the up/out merge destination should already exist on the article. — J Greb 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Comics artists - Comic book people should not be organized by project. It can lead to severe category clutter, especially for people with long careers like Stan Lee or John Byrne, who have worked on many different titles. Dr. Submillimeter 20:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - present cats are not workable as someone may have worked on many series. Metamagician3000 04:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comics writers

Category:Aquaman writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Batman writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Captain America writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Daredevil writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Doctor Strange writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Fantastic Four writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Flash writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Green Lantern writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Hulk writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Iron Man writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Justice League writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:New Warriors writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Spider-Man writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Punisher writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Superman writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:Wonder Woman writers to Category:Comics writers

Category:X-Men writers to Category:Comics writers

Merge all - Comic book writers can and do write for a variety of series over the course of their careers. This is a variety of performer by performance and should be merged to the parent category. Would weakly support listifying. Otto4711 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent, or to appropriate Comic book writer by nationality. All listed are "Profession by Project" which is untenable due to writers moving from one project to another. In most cases the up/out merge destination should already exist on the article. Also in the parent and tagged by the nom but missing from the list is Category:Flash writers — J Greb 19:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FLash writers category now added above. Otto4711 19:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:Comics writers - Comic book people should not be organized by project. It can lead to severe category clutter, especially for people with long careers like Stan Lee or John Byrne, who have worked on many different titles. Dr. Submillimeter 20:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all - more workable. Metamagician3000 04:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Comics editors

Category:Marvel Comics editors to Category:Comic book editors

Merge, The category is an example of "Profession by Employer". Editors can, and do move from company to company so it is more appropriate to categorize by profession only.. J Greb 18:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Otto4711 18:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Metamagician3000 04:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rotary Club members

Delete - Most people listed in this category are more notable for other activities. Many of the people in this category are high-profile politicians, including George W. Bush, Dianne Feinstein, Jesse Helms, Augusto Pinochet, and Margaret Thatcher. Clearly, this classification has little meaning for most of these people, as the Rotary Club plays a minor role in their notability. The category should be deleted (even though some of the associations are very funny). Dr. Submillimeter 17:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A reasonable sounding list, but as above not a very good category. Generally speaking since people can belong to any indetermintate number of various organizations simultaneously, it's probably not a good idea to create "members of" categories for most of them. Use lists instead unless there's a compelling reason for the category. Dugwiki 17:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If not deleted, at the very least the category should be restricted to those articles which specifically include the membership in the club as a detail. Articles which don't mention the Rotary Club shouldn't be included in the category. Dugwiki 17:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We might as well have Category:Oxygen breathers. Quatloo 18:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 22:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liverymen categories

Delete - As far as I can tell, these are honors bestowed by City of London organizations upon famous British people who receive many honors anyway. While the honor itself is notable, the categories themselves seem imappropriate, as these individuals are more notable for their other achievements, not for winning this article. Approximately half of the articles in these categories do not even mention this honor in the text. Moreover, classification by honors like this leads to category clutter, where the large number of categories becomes difficult to read. See, for example, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. For these reasons, I suggest deletion these categories. Dr. Submillimeter 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Simpson family

Merge into Category:The Simpsons characters, that is good enough. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here that isn't already in Category:The Simpsons characters. SubSeven 03:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Created by User:LedgerJoker, who is a sock of indef blocked User:EJBanks and User:Creepy Crawler. CovenantD 03:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Architecture schools in the United States

Merge into Category:Architecture schools, or Keep. There really aren't a lot of these, but if we wanted to split it up this would be the first step. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a bunch, the category was just not being used. There are even some not listed in the parent category. Someone needs to populate both categories. Vegaswikian 21:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate. Obviously useful for navigation. Haddiscoe 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guilford County High Schools

Merge into Category:High schools in North Carolina, convention of Category:High schools in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It should be a list on a Guilford County Schools article and not a category, as it is too narrow a subject and as per the convention above.--TinMan 20:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:St. Louis Walk of Fame

Delete - This is yet another minor award given to people who win many awards anyway. In this case, this award is given to anyone from St. Louis who has done anything notable (including Maya Angelou and Bob Costas.) Since many of these people win many awards anyway, the category should be deleted. Also note that the people on the walk are listed at St. Louis Walk of Fame so listifying is not necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 14:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per reasoning in Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners, just use a list instead. Dugwiki 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethnic groups of South Asia

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: CfD Not applicable, nominator notified. Duja► 15:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a stub article masquerading as a category, but the standard Category:Ethnic groups in South Asia already exists. LukeHoC 14:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subcategories of Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Delete. BiH division taken to an extreme: all articles in these two categories also exist in the parent category, needless to say. It's unusual to sort the ethnic groups according to country subdivisions, especially for a small country. Duja► 13:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Astral plane

Three articles related to the astral plane in Dungeons & Dragons (one race, one city, one bit of geography). Since this is very small and unlikely ever to grow, I'd suggest upmerging into the cat about planes in general. >Radiant< 13:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unusual dates

Small and unlikely to grow. It's a collection of oddities like February 30th and January 0th. These would already stand out in regular date cats, and can easily interlink. >Radiant< 13:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this nonsense, which would be wholly subjective anyway. Doczilla 16:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective trivia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful and a collection of coincidences. Sam Blacketer 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Comics supporting characters

Merge all into Category:Marvel Comics characters - This classification of characters as "supporting characters" makes little sense. First, the classification of a character as a "supporting character" is ill-defined. Some of the characters are central to the storylines surrounding the individual characters (e.g. Mary Jane Watson in Spider-Man comic books) and can hardly be called "supporting characters". Furthermore, some of these characters have developed to become independent characters known for appearing outside the comic book in which they originally appeared (most notably Wolverine (comics) listed in Category:Hulk supporting characters and Elektra (comics) in Category:Daredevil supporting characters). Aside from the characters who become popular enough to appear in their own comic books, some of these "supporting characters" appear with multiple superhero characters, so classifying a character as being a "supporting character" for a specific superhero or superhero group makes little sense. Therefore, I advocate merging into Category:Marvel Comics characters.Dr. Submillimeter 10:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all In my opinion, these categories allow to know in which comics these characters appear, an information we lose by merging all into a super category that wouldn't differentiate a character that is specific to Spiderman and a character that is specific to Hulk. If a character appeared in more than one comic, it can fit into more than one category. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - These characters are not necessarily specific to any comic book series. For example, Wolverine (comics) appeared in several other comic books series besides the Incredible Hulk. (This is a silly example, but I can easily find more examples.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to the parent - I see some small utility in distinguishing supporting characters but this is another of those "I wouldn't weep salty tears if it went away" sort of things. The character-specific ones are to an extent being improperly used as ersatz "enemies of" categories, capturing characters like 3-D Man as "Hulk supporting characters" when the only "support" 3-D Man ever offered was a ten-page battle in one issue. The character's article should make it clear where the character appeared and what role the character played in the series. Otto4711 16:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, by "parent" I mean Category:Marvel Comics supporting characters. Otto4711 16:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per above. Doczilla 16:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Could you please specifiy which category to merge into? Dr. Submillimeter 17:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an ugly one... Merge and prune seems the best option given the nature of things. But merging to what isn't clean and simple. Some of the characters only exists to fill supporting roles. So while most should migrate to Category:Marvel Comics characters, Category:Marvel Comics superheroes, and Category:Marvel Comics supervillains, if they aren't there already, that small minority should migrate to the tea parent cat listed by the nom. — J Greb 17:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Merge heroes to Category:Marvel Comics superheroes, villains to Category:Marvel Comics supervillains, and all the rest to Category:Marvel Comics supporting characters. The latter would be mostly for the J. Jonah Jamesons of the world. We could put notes on each one to suggest that only people who are mostly heroes go in the heroes cat, and so on.--Mike Selinker 17:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The closing administrator may give this to a bot to merge and/or delete. The above suggestion is not practical. Dr. Submillimeter 22:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DC Comics supporting characters

Merge all into Category:DC Comics characters - This classification of characters as "supporting characters" makes little sense. First, the classification of a character as a "supporting character" is ill-defined. Some of the characters are central to the storylines surrounding the individual characters and can hardly be called "supporting characters". Furthermore, some of these characters have developed to become independent characters known for appearing outside the comic book in which they originally appeared. Aside from the characters who become popular enough to appear in their own comic books, some of these "supporting characters" appear with multiple superhero characters, so classifying a character as being a "supporting character" for a specific superhero or superhero group makes little sense. Therefore, I advocate merging into Category:DC Comics characters. (I apologize for not citing specific examples like I did with the Marvel Comics characters, but I am less familiar with DC Comics.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Azrael, Batgirl, Huntress, Renee Montoya, Maggie Sawyer :) CovenantD 13:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Category:DC Comics supporting characters - as with the Marvel characters above, I see some measure of utility in categorizing supporting characters but would not be upset if the structure were deleted entirely. Otto4711 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per above. Doczilla 16:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Could you please specifiy which category to merge into? Dr. Submillimeter 17:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is like the above dealing with Marvel characters, an ugly one... Merge and prune seems the best option given the nature of things. But merging to what isn't clean and simple. Some of the characters only exists to fill supporting roles. So while most should migrate to Category:DC Comics characters, Category:DC Comics superheroes, and Category:DC Comics supervillains, if they aren't there already, that small minority should migrate to the tea parent cat listed by the nom. — J Greb 17:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North Flowing Rivers

Propose renaming Category:North Flowing Rivers to Category:North flowing rivers

Nominator's Rationale: Capitalization would normally fall under the speedy rules; but, I think this category, or one with a similar name may have been discussed and deleted last year. Listing it here for discussion. Neier 08:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely useless. Overcategorization, too. - Darwinek 08:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - North-flowing rivers in different locations are going to have very little to do with each other. For example, the several rivers in Florida included in this category have little in common with the Nile, nor would they have anything in common with the Ob River or the Rhine. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia. IIRC we also deleted the List of rivers flowing north (what was the exact name?) et al. last year. Duja► 13:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia that also happens to be inappropriately capitalized. Doczilla 16:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom as this is actually a very useful category since not too many rivers (comparitively) flow north. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that there are relatively few rivers that flow north is something I remembered (and which surprised me) from the previous discussion. It is likely that if it was a List which was deleted, last year, the ever popular "already a cat" reasoning was probably applied; in which case, this category should not be deleted. Unfortunately, I can't remember, and can't find the old discussions either. Is there a way to search deletion logs for non-specific article titles? Neier 01:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian NHL players

Löschen, Not a particularly helpful category; it's unverified in many ways (ie. some players' articles don't show proof of ancestry, and only going by looks and/or surnames); and this is the only "NHL players by race"-type category out there (there's no category for other races). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We shouldn't categorize by race or ethnicity unless it can be shown to be relevent. I made a related nomination a while ago, but it failed. -- Prove It ^(talk)

I agree. If it was nationality, it'd be different (as for hockey, it can determine which country/countries a player is eligible to play for), but race isn't relevant in any notable factors. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference Doczilla 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Buchanan-Hermit. ← amiИa (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish politicians by party

Category:Swedish Centre Party politicians to Category:Members of the Centre Party (Sweden)
Category:Swedish Christian Democratic politicians to Category:Members of the Christian Democrats (Sweden)
Category:Swedish Green Party politicians to Category:Members of the Green Party (Sweden)
Category:Swedish Left Party politicians to Category:Members of the Left Party (Sweden)
Category:Swedish Liberal Party politicians to Category:Members of the Liberal People's Party (Sweden)
Category:Swedish Moderate Party politicians to Category:Members of the Moderate Party
Category:Swedish Social Democratic politicians to Category:Members of the Swedish Social Democratic Party
Rename: I think these categories should be renamed so they can include also people who are members of any of the parties but not necessarily politicians. This includes for example some authors, artists musicians etc. /Slarre 03:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for many reasons:
- The politicians by party-by-country categorisation is a widely-used triple intersection, and an important way of grouping say politicians across countries (e.g. Category:Green politicians) and sub-dividing politicians in each country (e.g. Category:Swedish politicians by party). The renaming would effectively be a deletion, because many of the parent categories would no longer apply.
- political party is a defining characteric of a politician; it is not usually a defining characteristic of a painter or a poet. If there is a case for say Category:Members of the Green Party (Sweden), then create it as a new category and add Category:Swedish Green Party politicians as a sub-category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the idea of categorising non-politicians by party membership, as it will add to clutter for very little purpose. Haddiscoe 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:In Living Color characters

Category:In Living Color characters to Category:In Living Color

Merge, The characters subcat has two unique entries and the parent cat has six. Not enough to justify a split. CovenantD 03:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Doczilla 06:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Important publication

I propose Category:Important publication and all its subcategories for deletion. First, the name is ungrammatical (should be plural, "publications").

Also, there are not many articles on Wikipedia dedicated to a particular book or publication. I guess only notable books and publications get Wikipedia entries. Trying to categorize the existing entries by importance does not make much sense to me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: to closing administrator. If it is decided that these categories be deleted, I can use a bot to do the work. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete of category and subcategories that wholly invoke POV. Wikipedia has standard for words like notable, but not for important. Doczilla 06:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we all agree that the name is problematic. If so, do you agree to rename the category to "publications in X" or "notable publications in X"? APH 07:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I fully agree that the title is ungrammatical, and that it does not make much sense to start deciding which publications (say, in algebra, or geometry, or whatever) already having an article in Wikipedia are important or not -- this opens up a whole can of worms, so better to not go that way. On the other hand, it may make sense to have a category about books in a given field (say, Books in Algebraic Geometry), provided such a category were to be well populated. So I wouldn't close the door on that... Turgidson 04:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most advances in modern science are published in journals and not as books. Hence, the justification to a category of publications is just as the one of a category of books. Do you agree to rename the category to "publications in X"? APH 06:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename. I agree that there is a grammar problem in the name that should be fixed. In case that the word "Important" is a problem the category can be renamed to "notable publication in X" or "publication in X". We tried discussing the proper name but there is no decision. As for the existence of the category, I don't think that the size of t should be an argument. First, there is a place for small categories. Second, We plan to write article on these publication. The publication we consider are indeed notable ones that should get an entry at wikipedia. Actually, it is wikipedia that should get an entry on these publications. APH 06:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you propose addressing the POV issue? By definition if the publication has an article it is notable. So every publication with an article would be a member of this category. Vegaswikian 09:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We try to take care of the POV in some ways. First, every entry should be debated before added to the list. Currently it is done in the chemistry list very well while in the others list there is less interest. Second, we try to formalize definitions for such publications. Other than that I currently try another method that can be called recommendation by expert. The rational behind it is that if a Novel prize winner claims that a publication in his field is important, that we probably should add it to the list. Currently I ask recommendations for the computer science publications. It receives many compliments and some new entries were recommended. There were no recommendations for removal. APH 11:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to "Publications in X". These categories will get expanded in time. For example quite a few of the entries in List of important publications in chemistry deserve articles and will populate the chemistry category. --Bduke 06:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How do categories improve on what is already included in List of important publications in chemistry? Vegaswikian 09:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The categories should aid to the list. A one page list cannot contain in a comfortable way all publications. The category structure is much more flexible. It allows identifying publications that are important for a sub field but not to the entire field. It also provides an convenient method to treat publications that belong to some fields (e.g., math and computer science). APH 11:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete main category and subcategories - The term "important" is subjective. Many of the categories are empty or mostly empty, and the categories probably duplicate other publication category trees in Wikipedia, so keeping these categories is not even worthwhile. Dr. Submillimeter 10:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I don't want people's plans for good work being frustrated but this doesn't seem like the right way to go. The word "important" is just too subjective. Metamagician3000 11:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that we should avoid the word "important". None of the categories should be empty. If there is such an category then this is a mistake and we will fix it. Some of the categories contain few article but that is since we still have plenty of work. Do you agree to rename the categories? Unsigned comment added by APH 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. The concept of "important" is too vague. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that we should avoid the word "important". Do you agree to rename the categories to one of the options above? Unsigned comment added by APH 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Reply I don't see any clear proposal that I could say yay or any to, and I can't think of one that makes sense. It seems to me that this job is best done by lists --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The categories should aid to the list. A one page list cannot contain in a comfortable way all publications. The category structure is much more flexible. It allows identifying publications that are important for a sub field but not to the entire field. It also provides an convenient method to treat publications that belong to some fields (e.g., math and computer science). As for a rename options, what about "publications in X"? APH 06:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. A list of publications is better than a category. Users who care about such things may want to learn about publications (that they exist!) even when that pub doesn't have its own article. DavidCBryant 13:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The categories should aid to the list, not to replace them. They both should coexist. A one page list cannot contain in a comfortable way all publications. The category structure is much more flexible. It allows identifying publications that are important for a sub field but not to the entire field. It also provides an convenient method to treat publications that belong to some fields (e.g., math and computer science).APH 06:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - A category cannot begin to explain why an article is considered notable or important or who makes that claim. Lists can be annotated to show that this isn't just what a Wikipedia editor thinks is important. That List of important publications in chemistry that's being used as a standard? Totally unsourced. CovenantD 13:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply We try to take care of the POV in some ways. First, every entry should be debated before added to the list. Currently it is done in the chemistry list very well while in the others list there is less interest. Second, we try to formalize definitions for such publications. Other than that I currently try another method that can be called recommendation by expert. The rational behind it is that if a Novel prize winner claims that a publication in his field is important, that we probably should add it to the list. Currently I ask recommendations for the computer science publications. It receives many compliments and some new entries were recommended. There were no recommendations for removal. We aim to include publications that 90% of the experts agree that they are important. From the feedback so far it seem that there is such agreement on the list. APH 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, indiscriminate and POV list; it duplicates other categories. Duja► 13:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply We try to take care of the POV in some ways. First, every entry should be debated before added to the list. Currently it is done in the chemistry list very well while in the others list there is less interest. Second, we try to formalize definitions for such publications. Other than that I currently try another method that can be called recommendation by expert. The rational behind it is that if a Novel prize winner claims that a publication in his field is important, that we probably should add it to the list. Currently I ask recommendations for the computer science publications. It receives many compliments and some new entries were recommended. There were no recommendations for removal. We aim to include publications that 90% of the experts agree that they are important. From the feedback so far it seem that there is such agreement on the list. APH 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Which categories it duplicates? if there are already other suitable categories, we can use them. APH 06:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all POV categories. LukeHoC 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply We try to take care of the POV in some ways. First, every entry should be debated before added to the list. Currently it is done in the chemistry list very well while in the others list there is less interest. Second, we try to formalize definitions for such publications. Other than that I currently try another method that can be called recommendation by expert. The rational behind it is that if a Novel prize winner claims that a publication in his field is important, that we probably should add it to the list. Currently I ask recommendations for the computer science publications. It receives many compliments and some new entries were recommended. There were no recommendations for removal. We aim to include publications that 90% of the experts agree that they are important. From the feedback so far it seem that there is such agreement on the list. APH 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This appears to be an internally used category for Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls. I do agree that it presents POV issues, though, and I'm not sure if internal project categories that probably aren't valid for general use should appear in the category space. I'm not all that up on the details of how projects work, though, so I won't immediately say "delete" in case there are technical or practical reasons to keep that I'm not familiar with. Dugwiki 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen. POV by design. This one makes my head hurt. Quatloo 18:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply We try to take care of the POV in some ways. First, every entry should be debated before added to the list. Currently it is done in the chemistry list very well while in the others list there is less interest. Second, we try to formalize definitions for such publications. Other than that I currently try another method that can be called recommendation by expert. The rational behind it is that if a Novel prize winner claims that a publication in his field is important, that we probably should add it to the list. Currently I ask recommendations for the computer science publications. It receives many compliments and some new entries were recommended. There were no recommendations for removal. We aim to include publications that 90% of the experts agree that they are important. From the feedback so far it seem that there is such agreement on the list. APH 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen as utterly subjective. The WikiProject can make its own lists to cover this sort of thing. Sam Blacketer 23:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply We try to take care of the POV in some ways. First, every entry should be debated before added to the list. Currently it is done in the chemistry list very well while in the others list there is less interest. Second, we try to formalize definitions for such publications. Other than that I currently try another method that can be called recommendation by expert. The rational behind it is that if a Novel prize winner claims that a publication in his field is important, that we probably should add it to the list. Currently I ask recommendations for the computer science publications. It receives many compliments and some new entries were recommended. There were no recommendations for removal. We aim to include publications that 90% of the experts agree that they are important. From the feedback so far it seem that there is such agreement on the list. APH 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 321: / Line 321: @@
 *'''Delete all''', indiscriminate and POV list; it duplicates other categories. [[User:Duja|Duja]]<span style="font-size:70%;">[[User talk:Duja|►]]</span> 13:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 **'''Reply''' We try to take care of the POV in some ways. First, every entry should be debated before added to the list. Currently it is done in the chemistry list very well while in the others list there is less interest. Second, we try to formalize definitions for such publications. Other than that I currently try another method that can be called recommendation by expert. The rational behind it is that if a Novel prize winner claims that a publication in his field is important, that we probably should add it to the list. Currently I ask recommendations for the computer science publications. It receives many compliments and some new entries were recommended. There were no recommendations for removal. We aim to include publications that 90% of the experts agree that they are important. From the feedback so far it seem that there is such agreement on the list. [[User:APH|APH]] 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
+**'''Reply''' Which categories it duplicates? if there are already other suitable categories, we can use them. [[User:APH|APH]] 06:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete all''' POV categories. [[User:LukeHoC|LukeHoC]] 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)