Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 1

< January 31	February 2 >

February 1

Scouting biographies

Category:Scouting biographies
Category:Boy Scouts of America biographies
Rename, since all "biographies" categories are for biographical books, whereas these contain articles about actual scouts. I don't know how to denote members of scouting organizations, so I'm leaving this open to suggestions as to the target categories. Unint 23:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, tell me where is says an article can't be a biography..Rlevse 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Scouting biographies to Category:Scouting associates or Category:People associated with Scouting.
Rename BSA biographies to Category:Boy Scouts of America associates or Category:People associated with the Boy Scouts of America, although I see potential for category abuse so I don't much care for either of those options (I don't want to see every POTUS listed there as honorary BSA president or whatever the title is). Articles about people should not be categorized as biographies, which should be reserved for biographical works. Otto4711 01:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Rlevse, not everything needs to be written down, some things are simply accepted as conventions. Sumahoy 02:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Scouts and Boy Scouts of America scouts respectively. Scout appears to be the appropriate generic term for a person involved with Scouting. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read every categorized article, but are all the people listed actual Scouts, or are some of them associates who were never members? Otto4711 02:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that both categories contain founders, executives, and organizers (do these count?), as well as people who promoted scouting organizations (though it's not clear if they themselves were also members). –Unint 03:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To use a real-world example, my dad was a Scouting executive for 20-some years but was never a Boy Scout. Were he to be notable enough for an article (he isn't), he would not properly be categorized as a "Scout" but could properly be categorized as a "Scouting associate." Otto4711 03:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion-WikiProjects frequently collaborate with one another, could not WikiProject Scouting collaborate with WikiProject Biography and make the Scouting bios into a Scouting workgroup within the Bio Project? There's a politician one, a sports one and so on... That would save the ugly, indistinct and cumbersome names that are being suggested. The point of having all Scouting bios tagged similarly is so _not_ to divide them up by nationality or relative position but to bring them together. Chris 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Contributors" categories

Category:VR contributors
Category:Contributors to general relativity
Category:APL contributors
Rename some of these so that all three conform; which ones will have to be determined through discussion. Also rename VR contributors so as to expand the abbreviation to "virtual reality". Also, determine how these categories should relate to Category:Pioneers by field (somewhat related) and Category:People by occupation. Should there be a parent Category:People by contributions made to a field? Unint 22:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that Category:VR Pioneers (currently in speedy renaming) apparently exists in parallel to VR contributors, with different inclusion criteria for the two categories; are these criteria different enough to justify two categories? Unint 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete VR contributors as pointless. No opinion on the other two. Otto4711 01:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Land Before Time singers

Delete as improper performer by performance categorization. Otto4711 21:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OC. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete performer by performance categories. Doczilla 03:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Edge cities

POV, subjective. In time, a city that is currenty an edge city may no longer be an "edge city.". Elle Bee 21:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, a city could remain an "edge city". But it could also not be one. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; the criteria are discussed in the Edge city article and should be cited to reliable sources. As for the time issue, obviously many things change with cities and towns (population, demographics, political developments, principal buildings, etc.) and their articles are updated accordingly, including adding and deleting categories as appropriate. Simply because a city that is now an edge city might not be one forever is no reason to delete the category! --MCB 05:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete per WP:POINT and/or WP:SNOW. What's next, Category:Wikipedia pages that are not part of the U.S. constitution? >Radiant< 09:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia pages that are not essays

Delete, category seems to be solely created to make a point. PopUpPirate 20:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This is a nonsensical category. Dr. Submillimeter 20:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. --Xdamr^talk 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Stupid and pointless category. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this junk. Doczilla 03:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Multiple-time European Footballers of the Year

Category:Two-time European Footballers of the Year into Category:European Footballers of the Year

Category:Three-time European Footballers of the Year into Category:European Footballers of the Year

Merge - We should not categorize people by how many times they have won honors. It contributes to category clutter on articles on athletes. Dr. Submillimeter 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Pinoakcourt 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom as excessive overcategorisation. --Xdamr^talk 22:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need to go as far as categorizing for how many times they have won the award. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Three-time FIFA World Players of the Year

Category:Three-time FIFA World Players of the Year into Category:FIFA World Players of the Year

Merge - We should not categorize people by how many times they have won honors. It contributes to category clutter on articles on athletes. Dr. Submillimeter 18:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary inclusion criterion. ~ Bigr Tex 20:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Pinoakcourt 21:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom as excessive overcategorisation. --Xdamr^talk 22:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need to go as far as categorizing by how many times they have won the award. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)*This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Players who have played for FC Barcelona and Real Madrid

Delete - This is for people who have played on two separate teams with an intense rivalry. This could be done in any sport (e.g. "people who have played for the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox", "people who have played for the Green Bay Packers and the Minnesota Vikings", etc.). The number of cross-over categories that are possible may be difficult to estimate. Moreover, such categories contribute to clutter on athlete's individual pages. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overcategorization. Bearcat 20:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because top footballer are in too many categories. Pinoakcourt 21:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as gross overcategorisation. --Xdamr^talk 22:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OC. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are thousands of possible combinations. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Marvel Comics superhero teams

Propose renaming Category:Lists of Marvel Comics superhero teams to Category:Lists of Marvel characters by organisation

Rename, for consistency with like categories. J Greb 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with American spelling - Since Marvel is headquartered in the USA, and most Marvel characters/teams are located in US, we should use the American spelling "Category:Lists of Marvel characters by organization" . See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English (strong tie to specific region) --lquilter 02:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Julian Lennon

Delete - This is another son of John Lennon. While he too should have an article, he does not see famous enough to have his own category. Dr. Submillimeter 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - eponymous categories are best for very famous people with lots of aspects to them & consequently lots of articles dissecting them (see, e.g., George W. Bush); not simply "child of famous parent & semi-notable performer in own right" --lquilter 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary eponymous category. The subcategory is already correctly part of Category:Albums by artist, and the article links already appear in the main article Julian Lennon. Category can be safely deleted with no need to merge. Dugwiki 18:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient number of relevant articles to merit eponymous category; categories are not a badge of notability. --Xdamr^talk 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like I said in the Sean Lennon CfD. Just because hes the son of a famous person (John Lennon) doesn't mean he should have his own category also. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sean Lennon

Delete - This is the son of John Lennon. Even though he should have his own article, he simply does not seem famous enough to warrant having his own category. Dr. Submillimeter 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - eponymous categories are best for very famous people with lots of aspects to them & consequently lots of articles dissecting them (see, e.g., George W. Bush); not simply "child of famous parent & semi-notable performer in own right" --lquilter 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reasoning as the cfd for Category:Julian Lennon above. Dugwiki 18:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Category:Julian Lennon CFD. --Xdamr^talk 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because hes the son of a famous person, doesn't give him his own category also. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Businesses in Nashville

Propose renaming Category:Businesses in Nashville to Category:Companies based in Nashville

Rename to conform with convention of Category:Companies by city. choster 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Pinoakcourt 21:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per the convention Companies by city. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peel Sessions artists

Delete and listify - This is a list of people who once performed on a radio show presented by John Peel. This is effectively categorization by performance, which is generally treated as overcategorization. The information is worth keeping in a list, but it should not be implemented as a category, as performance categories such as these contribute to category clutter. (This category was found in Elton John, tied for number 18 in Special:Mostcategories.) Dr. Submillimeter 18:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially the same as categorizing guest stars, which is also frowned upon. Dugwiki 18:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above arguments. --Xdamr^talk 22:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-League Footballers

Most footballers will have played non-league football at some point, so this category could end up with thousands in it. There are much more specific categories around that categorise players better than this - by club, by nationality, by certain leagues etc. WikiGull 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as players who have only played non-league semi-professional football will not satisfy WP:BIO. Those that have gone onto a full professional career and are thus eligible for inclusion in WP are notable primarily because of that, so this category serves little useful purpose. Qwghlm 18:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (though it is not true that most [notable] footballers have played non-league football). Pinoakcourt 21:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most non-league players don't pass WP:BIO, so why have a category for it. Kingjamie 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rescope to Category:Current non-league footballers (and note capitalisation change, too). A category for former prominent players now in the lower reaches of the football pyramid may well be appropriate. Grutness...wha? 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is a pretty pointless category. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Owned item images

First off, I admit that I am unsure if this category violates any policy. It is not misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant, in need of being merged, or POV. It is a category originally filled with the image tag Template:Owned_item, which is now deleted as being deemed unnecessary, too generic, and largely unused (see tfd). The six images which were tagged with this template now have the substituted version. The category is no longer needed, should be deleted, and the images delinked from the category. Iamunknown 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Delete Empty category and no use of it. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Niagara Falls

'Rename to Category:People from Niagara Falls, New York to avoid confusion with Category:People from Niagara Falls, Ontario (which is in fact a more populated city) Mayumashu 16:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per nom, and to avoid confusion. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggsted Ulysses Zagreb 10:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vietnam People's Navy ships

Rename to Category:Naval ships of Vietnam, convention of Category:Naval ships by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per the convention Naval ships by country. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universities in Jordan

Merge into Category:Universities and colleges in Jordan, convention of Category:Universities and colleges by country, or Keep. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per the convention Universities and colleges by country. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electric Supply Companies of Pakistan

Rename to Category:Power companies of Pakistan, convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per the convention of Power companies by country. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Activists

Delete. This is the parent category of a wider activism categorization scheme. Rather than nominate every sub-cat, I'm nominating the parent to try to get a consensus generated on the overall activist categorization scheme. It strikes me that there is an enormous problem with this categorization, that being that there is no way that any sort of objective definition of "activist" can be generated. The Activism lead article defines activism: "Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action to bring about social or political change." That's terribly vague, and the activist category defines for inclusion anyone who engages in activism. There is no reasonable objective way to determine if someone is an activist or not. Ronald Reagan spoke out against the Briggs Initiative; should Reagan be categorized as a gay rights activist? All sorts of celebrities have lent their names and images to a variety of causes, everything from AIDS to animal rights to Katrina relief; should they all be categorized as activists? Is someone who donates money to an activist organization herself an activist? With no objective threshold as to what makes one an activist, potentially any public statement made by any public figure qualifies them for an "activist" category of one sort or another. I don't think there's any way that this category can avoid fatal POV issues so I think it has to be deleted. Otto4711 14:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are proposing to delete the entire tree & all the subcats, then you really need to place notices on all the relevant subcats. This is an extensive cat tree with a lot of work put into it for a long time (not by me). --lquilter 18:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is useful categorization information. For example, someone doing research on the history of peace activism would find a “Peace activists” category immensely helpful. As to what is an activist—someone who has engaged in “action to bring about social or political change... in support of, or opposition to, one side of an often controversial argument.” So, someone who advocates for peace would be a “peace activist”, but someone who argues against peace (or for war) would not—they would be a “war activist” or “anti-peace activist”. If we combine that with the general Wikipedia direction of not categorizing biographical articles on the basis of minor aspects of a person’s life, the categories should remain largely relevant. —GrantNeufeld 15:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is someone who supported U.S. military action in Afganistan but opposed it in Iraq a "peace activist" or an "anti-peace activist" or both? Otto4711 15:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mere support or opposition would not qualify for activism, but if they were an anti-Iraq war activist then they would get a specific category for that. See Category:Anti-war explaining that there are categories for activists against specific wars, and the general category for activists opposed to all wars. The distinction you bring up is important, but it seems to be reflected and accurately maintained in the existing category structure. --lquilter 15:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This parallels the hotly debated category:Terrorists, which always passes muster here. Rather than name it "People whose violent actions have been labeled as terrorism," we live with the slight ambiguity and characterize people by what their actions dictate. The same is true with "Activists." These people are known for their activism. Yes, there can be debates about what constitutes activism, and people who fall into those debates might be booted from the category. But there is no debate about the activism of Phyllis Schlafly or the Chicago Seven or many others, and this category is where they belong.--Mike Selinker 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, it's a line-drawing exercise on a per-article basis, but so is every category. And every occupation that humans engage in -- lawyering, writing, and so on -- requires these kinds of distinctions. (It would have been good to engage these questions on Category talk:Activists where I raised them before submitting the whole cat tree for deletion.) --lquilter 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the discussion and it appeared to have been abandoned close to a month ago. Otto4711 17:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? Where's the rush? --lquilter 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The line drawing exercise that this category has a problem - labelling someone as an 'activist' is a black and white exercise whereas in reality it is a very grey area. Why not do things in a method such as 'supporters of X organisation' and then add that cat to one that is relevant (such as 'Supporters of PETA' and add it to 'Animal liberation movement')? This would eliminate 99% of the potential issues and we would have a well structured hierarchy. -Localzuk^(talk) 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a good alternatve. Whatever line drawing problems there are with "activists," at least it requires action and involvement to some extent. "Supporters" is far more trivial and wishy washy, as you can "support" any number of things without having to leave your couch. Compounding that overinclusiveness is the fact that there are far too many organizations, both generally and for specific issues or causes. Biography articles would simply be swamped under "Sierra Club supporters," "World Wildlife Fund supporters," "PETA supporters," "Greenpeace supporters," "ACLU supporters"... So I'm going to say keep, finding "activists" imperfect but better than any of the alternatives. Postdlf 03:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provided the articles themselves have notable, verifiable references to the person being an "activist", I don't see a problem with categorizing them that way. Articles in which there are no verifiable references to the person as an activist should be removed from the category (or subcategory by specific activism area). Dugwiki 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes it can be overused, but some form of activism is the main defining characteristic of many notable people. Pinoakcourt 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that if the articles have reliable references, then they can be categorized this way. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are activists, and some people are defined by it, but the categories should be policed strictly. Xiner (talk, email) 01:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As an aside, to avoid POV problems, the activist stub categories explicitly indicate that they are for both those for and against the topic on a given issue, thus making for example both George Lincoln Rockwell and Martin Luther King, Jr. minority rights activists. Extending the idea upstream to the permanent cats might be useful to do the same there. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New College of Florida Alumnae/i

Propose renaming Category:New College of Florida Alumnae/i to Category:New College of Florida alumni

Rename, per capitalisation policy and naming convention of category:Alumni by university in the United States. Piccadilly 14:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per conventions of Category:Alumni by university in the United States -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per ProveIt. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hong Kong Fire Services Department

Delete This category contains four articles, three of which are stubs relating to the Hong Kong Fire Services Department. This category is almost too narrow and will not see the type of expansion in the number of articles which categories should have. Aside from the three stubs, the only article of note is the HK Fire Services Department article itself, which can easily fit into Category:Fire departments of Asia. Daysleeper47 14:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the only way to neatly fit all articles into the category:Fire services hierarchy. Piccadilly 14:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This looks like part of a hierarchy of fire departments by nation. It should be kept on that basis. Dr. Submillimeter 15:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hong Kong is not a nation and at this time, with the exception of the United States and UK, there are not enough Fire Service articles for any country to warrant a seperate category, including, in my opinion, this one. --Daysleeper47 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hong Kong has a category tree that resembles other countries' category trees. If this is not appropriate (e.g. if Hong Kong should be considered a part of China), then perhaps the category should be renamed Category:Fire departments of China. Regardless, the category should be kept, as it is part of a larger scheme. Dr. Submillimeter 17:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dr. Submillimeter. Pinoakcourt 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New School University alumni

Rename to Category:The New School alumni to match The New School, which changed its name in 2005. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename To match the current name of the school. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New School University

Rename to Category:The New School to match The New School which changed its name in 2005. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename If the school changed it's name, then the category should be changed also. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Various sportspeople

Based on current readings of Wikipedia:Overcategorization.--T. Anthony 12:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge LGBT figure skaters, along with Category:Lesbian sportspeople, Category:Gay sportspeople and Category:Bisexual sportspeople into Category:LGBT sportspeople. Weak keep on the Politicians category but that pretty much an "I like it" vote and I would shed no tears if it were merged somewhere or deleted. Otto4711 13:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any merger into Category:LGBT sportspeople as there is no non-POV reason not to separate them out. Piccadilly 14:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Categories that involve the intersection of two otherwise independent facts should normally be deleted unless those facts create a significant notable impact for each other. For example, "politicians who were in professional sports" only makes sense as a category if the person's political career is somehow significantly influenced by his sports career, and that influence is mentioned in the article. Likewise, "LGBT figure skaters" only makes sense for skaters for whom being LGBT has a significant impact on their skating career. Since it seems very likely that most such intersections are random, I'd recommend deleting both these categories. Dugwiki 19:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please only group categories that are strictly of the same type. These may have one thing in common, but they are different in many ways. Pinoakcourt 21:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Dugwiki - completely irrelevant intersection. --Xdamr^talk 22:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete politicians who participated in professional sports; "participation" is too insignificant a note. --lquilter 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LGBT figure skaters or merge into Category:LGBT sportspeople. Since people coming out in sports is relatively unusual, those who do are often notable for having come out as a sportsperson. --lquilter 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Dugwiki. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT studies noticeboard. lquilter 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of WP:LGBT, Delete LGBT figure skaters and merge them into LGBT sportspeople. I won't comment on the politicians one and seriously question grouping them together in this CfD. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew that as they are unrelated cases.--T. Anthony 12:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fooian actors

Based on current readings of Wikipedia:Overcategorization.--T. Anthony 12:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all These are no different from other by nationality subcategorisations. Piccadilly 14:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reply, the issue isn't that these are "national" categories. It's that they are interesecting two otherwise independent professions (eg actor + politician). Is there a reason that it's not sufficient to simply label such a person using the two categories "Actor" and "Politician"? Why do you need to create a third category, "Actor/Politician" to represent the combination? Dugwiki 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all on the basis of being categorized by two professions, same reason athlete-actors was recently deleted. Otto4711 15:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is an arbitary selective nomination. If the point being made is that the parents such category:Actor-singers etc should be deleted, then why have they not been nominated? Pinoakcourt 21:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had made an oversite there. If you want to nominate the parent category feel free to do so.--T. Anthony 01:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant why any other category was or wasn't nominated. Otto4711 21:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Whats the point of caegorizing by two professions? —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the actor-singer cats with a possible rename to musical actors or since actors who have been in stage or screen musicals is a notable subgrouping of actors.
Delete the actor-politician cats. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fooian scientists

Based on current readings of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. It's true that there are cases where race or sexual orientation might be relevant to a scientific career's progress, but it's not always true and categories apparently can't pick or choose. The intersections are not notable, by current standards.--T. Anthony 12:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with you that the intersections are not notable today (they are), categories have to reflect history as well as today. --lquilter 02:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there are scientists whose ethincity/sexual preference impacts their work These categories should only contain scientists whose ethnicity or sexual preference actually has a notable, significant impact on their scientific work as described in their article. If no such articles exist, then delete the categories. Dugwiki 19:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
e.g., Margaret Mead, Alan Turing, George Washington Carver, Ben Barres, Simon LeVay. (I'm sure you can't mean that they must study same-sex behavior from a scientific perspective, because that would be a confusion of two different topics: subject of research, and effect of a biographical identity on one's career.) --lquilter 00:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These three categories should not be lumped together as one might easily take a different opinion on the first from the other two. Pinoakcourt 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Pinoakcourt. These three don't belong together. Xiner (talk, email) 01:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All three are categories of scientists by things that aren't directly related to their career. In addition this isn't going to stop say Alan Turing from being in both gay and scientist categories. Just like Robert Boyle and Michael Faraday are still in both Christian categories and scientist categories.--T. Anthony 12:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three, since sexuality can have a significant impact on people's careers in science (ask a queer scientist; note the influence of marriage on scientific careers); and race in America is a very significant impactor on African-American people in the sciences -- as evidenced by statistics and the dearth of African American scientists. --lquilter 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lquilter put it perfect. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT studies noticeboard. lquilter 00:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the CSB talk. lquilter 00:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ivy Plus Group

Unsourced and inherently POV. Underlying article (Ivy Plus Group) has been prod'ded with no opposition so far. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a generic sense of "Ivy plus" and there are a few specific "Ivy Plus" groupings. The Ivy-Plus Group (note hyphen) consists of the eight members of the Ivy League plus MIT and Stanford University. The Ivy Plus admissions/financial aid court case involved the Ivies and MIT. In faculty and teaching Ivy Plus means the Ivies plus MIT, Stanford, Duke, and Chicago. But the Ivy Plus academic computing consortium, Ivy Plus library group, Ivy Plus human resources group, Ivy Plus travel group, and so on include different institutions in the plus. And then there's the Ivy Plus Society, an independent alumni social club with a rather looser definition of "plus" to throw off your Google tests :-). If this category is for "Ivy-Plus" I'd say it's unnecessary overcategorization. If it's for the general sense of "the Ivy League and their 'peer institutions'" it's an irredeemable magnet for boosterism.-choster 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems more suitable for an article. Xiner (talk, email) 01:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Web Cartoonist's Choice Award winners

Delete, since the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards was deleted for failing to reach notability. bogdan 09:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no point in having a category for a non-notable award. - Francis Tyers · 09:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the article was kept, it's questionable whether the category would be kept. It's usually preferable to use a list article instead of categories to list award winners as discussed in Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners. Dugwiki 20:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OC. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary awards category since it will not be a defining attribute of most, or any, people. (I might have voted to keep the award if I'd known about the AFD, but the category needs to go). --lquilter 00:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dugwiki. Doczilla 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PETA supporters

Delete, vague inclusion criteria and will likely be trivia. What level of involvement or advocacy is necessary for someone to qualify as a "supporter"? "Activist" was determined too vague in this context (see CFD); "supporter" is even more so. And how many organizations would end up having their own "X supporters" category? One could easily see articles swamped under "Sierra Club supporters," "ACLU supporters"... Postdlf 07:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I'm not sure that the lack of consensus on the Category:Animal rights activists is accurately characterized as "determined too vague". Some people thought it was too vague; others (including myself) thought it was just fine & should have been recreated. ... At any rate there is extensive backstory discussion on this matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal rights#Animal rights subcats for more info. --lquilter 14:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about the CFD; at any rate, I think we can agree that "PETA supporters" is much more problematic than "Animal rights activists." Postdlf 21:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being likely to accrue people based on one throw away comment about their sympathy for the organisation. However Category:Animal rights activists should most certainly exist. Piccadilly 14:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if you assume there is an objective way to determine if someone is a "supporter", that sounds like it's better suited to a list article. Imagine, for example, if every politicial or philisophical or activist organization had its own category called "Fill-in-the-blank supporters". Individual people can support any number of these organziations, and would therefore be subject to having a unique category in their article per organization or cause they support. You'd get for example "PETA supporters", "Democratic party supporters", "UN supporters", "UNICEF supporters", "ASPCA supporters", and so on down the line. It would be a potential deluge of categories per celebrity article. Dugwiki 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has been noted already, there is no possible objective standard to determining whether someone is a "supporter" or not. Is a person who opposes wearing fur a "PETA supporter" because she agrees with PETA on that one issue? Otto4711 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think you could determine who is a supporter or not. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The number of specific organizations is nearly limitless. Animal rights activist should be (re)created, for the exact opposite reason, that the catgory will not necessitate the creation of new categories. Huangdi 01:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category. Doczilla 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim actors

Delete per discussions of Sep 10th, Dec 27th, and Jan 12th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 03:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on coincidence rather than a categorically meaningful relationship. Postdlf 07:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Slavlin 19:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussions. Pinoakcourt 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biographies

Propose renaming Category:Biographies to Category:Biography books or similar.

There's a constant need to clean up this category, because people misunderstand it; it's meant to be a category for articles about biographical books, but people continually file articles about people in here (because the articles themselves are "biographies", *sigh*) Accordingly, I'd like to propose that we rename it to something a bit less open to misinterpretation. Bearcat 03:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would be tempted to keep it. "Biography books" sounds pretty clumsy to me and while I'm sure the category needs regular cleanup, I'm sure that the cat-redirect from "biographies" to "biography books" will need cleanup for the very same reasons. Pascal.Tesson 06:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to alternative Biographical books (perhaps also clumsy/contrived) or Biographies (books)...? David Kernow (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to alternative Biographical books gets my vote the proposed name is too clumsy - however I doo see the problem and the need for change. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to avoid confusion, no preference amongst suggestions. ~ Bigr Tex 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to category:Biographies (books) out of a preference for disambiguation over the use of awkward terms. Pinoakcourt 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Biographical books. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename to Category:Biographies (books) per Pinoakcourt & David Kernow's suggestions; the books are called biographies & putting books in parens disambiguates it nicely. "Biographical books" is a little confusing, simply because the term "biographies" is overwhelmingly used to describe those items. --lquilter 00:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename to Category:Biographies (books) as above. Sumahoy 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Biographical books Ulysses Zagreb 10:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese ministers

Propose renaming Category:Japanese ministers to Category:Government ministers of Japan

Rename, in line with categories for other countries and to disambiguate from "religious ministers". Piccadilly 02:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per other cats like this one. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Ulysses Zagreb 10:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gaming conventions

Propose renaming Category:Gaming conventions to Category:Game conventions

Rename. The current name is ambiguous since there are at least two types of gaming conventions and this name only covers one. Another possible choice is Category:Gaming conventions (games) but gamer is used in the introduction explaining the purpose of this category. Category:Games is the parent, so maybe using games as the dab would be better. Vegaswikian 01:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the proposal from Category:Gaming conventions (gamer) based on the comments below. Vegaswikian 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Rename - Gaming Conventions (gamer) doesn't really make it less ambiguous, it just makes it longer and essentially repeats the first word. If it was something like (roleplaying) or along those lines, it would make more sense. --Colage 02:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are not opposed to a rename, just the proposed name? Vegaswikian 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Roleplaying conventions should be a subcategory. Vegaswikian 01:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename - This is the kind of category name that hurts my brain. No one will be able to guess what gaming or gamer is supposed to mean in this context. The word "gaming" needs an adjective. Dr. Submillimeter 11:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to category:Game conventions. There's no parallel use in the casino industry for "game convention."--Mike Selinker 15:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support that suggestion. I'll modify the proposal with this version. Vegaswikian 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Conventions(Gaming) as Game conventions or Gaming conventions has a double meaning of both a large gathering and things which are standard among many games. Slavlin 19:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is Conventions (Gaming) different than Gaming Conventions? --Colage 21:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename per Dr. Submillimeter. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Code generation

Relisted from Jan 12 since it garnered no comments. the wub "?!" 00:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear from the name whether this cat is concerned with compiler code generation or with model-driven engineering, which for some reason its adherents like to call "code generation" (e.g., [1]). The articles in the category are a hodgepodge of both, plus things like Compiler-compiler that concern a third kind of "code generation". I suggest we delete the current cat and, if needed, create new cats for Category:Metaprogramming and Category:Model-driven engineering. There aren't enough articles about code generation (compiler) to warrant a subcat of Category:Compiler theory, which is where the current cat is. Quuxplusone 21:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bluap 06:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]