Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 12: Difference between revisions

Nominator's rationale: This entire hierarchy of subcategories is overcategorisation. All of the categories listed above contain no more than two articles, and possibly won't ever expand beyond that amount. The parent category of Category:Next Generation Adelaide International is all that is necessary to categorise this information. -- Longhair\^talk 23:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to both the corresponding parents – Category:Next Generation Adelaide International and Category:1972 ATP Tour etc. Occuli (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vancouver television series

Category:Vancouver television series - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Split and/or delete - shooting locations and series settings should not be categorized together. There does not seem to be a widespread categorization scheme for TV series either set in or filmed in a particular city, and given the prevalence of location shooting series could wind up in multiple such categories. If kept, it should be split into categories for series that take place in Vancouver and series filmed in Vancouver. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of organizations

Category:Members of organizations - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - vague overarching category with no reasonable limitation of scope. Could capture everything from members of the Nazi party to members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Otto4711 (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep and possible rename. - I think you might want to reconsider this one, Otto. There isn't a single article placed directly in this category -- rather, it's a super-cat/grouping category which is clearly needed to group together all of those sub-categories that deal with members of organizations. We might, however, want to rename it to either Category:People by membership in organization or Category:People by organizational membership. Cgingold (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a supercat, it is intended to have a wide range of categories and have no limitation on its scope. That's the purpose and this a clearly justifiable aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or perhaps weak rename). Otto's right, when we consider how many organisations there are in existence (both currently, and in the past), we shouldn't have subcategorises for membership. This is not unlike the previous consensus that we shouldn't categorise characters by membership in a "team". - jc37 10:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kabbalah Centre followers

Category:Kabbalah Centre followers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - trivial category capturing association with faddish organization. I believe everyone in the category is already listed at the main article but if not anyone missing can be sourced and added. In the alternative, if it's deemed a defining characteristic then merge to Category:Kabbalists. Otto4711 (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A strong defining characteristic for the individuals included in this category. The proposed upmerge target of include those people who are associated with scholarly development and study of the Jewish mystical practice of Kabbalah, not the pop culture version practiced at the Kabbalah Centre. I do question the inclusion of the leaders of the Centre, the three Bergs listed in the category as "followers", but that does not affect the validity of the category itself. Madonna (or is it Esther?) is just one of many celebrities that have a strong defining link to the Kabbalah Centre. The article "The Garden of Kabbalah; Kabbalah gets dismissed as a fad-with its chic red string bracelets, "blessed" water, and star convert Madonna-but the practice has changed some of Hollywood's biggest egos into, well, nicer people." in Vanity Fair is just one of thousands that cover the phenomenon and its celebrity followers. Alansohn (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn the difference between "notable" and "defining characteristic." Otto4711 (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than familiar with the difference, as you are already well aware. You are free to disagree, but I would hope that you would present an argument for your views supported by facts and sources as I have done here, rather than just arguing in an uncivil manner. Alansohn (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to stop with the ad hominem phony-baloney cries of "incivility." Otto4711 (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem to qualify as a religion, or denomination of Judaism, so not defining. But whatever we do, don't merge with the 18th century etc rabbis of Category:Kabbalists, which already has some sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by race or ethnicity et. al.

Category:People by race or ethnicity - Template:Lc1

Category:People by religion - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This entire hierarchy of categories (this and all its children) is fundamentally unencyclopedic and fatally flawed. At best, in the cases where there is little or no dispute regarding who would/should belong in which categories, the classification is worthless and pointless. I would hope that the bygone days of corralling people into various groups to discriminate or edify the membership in an orgy of prejudice and stereotyping are, in fact, really gone.

The typical case, however, is to POV war over category membership in order to make a political point— adding or removing someone from one of those categories create full scale total war between factions— and that harm isn't even vaguely balanced by any reasonable putative benefit to the encyclopedia.

Finally, the categories themselves are hopelessly worthless. Do they include self-identification? Or exclude it? What about timelines? Someone who is born in X but who lived all their lives in Y? What is an "Ethnic German"— does that include an Austrian from Rhine descent?

Off with their heads! — Coren ^(talk) 20:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I've added Category:People by religion explicitly even though it is a child category of the main one, in case the discussion diverges towards that topic specifically. As far as I'm concerned, that and Category:People by nationality are equally divisive, uninformative and problematic as all the rest. — Coren ^(talk) 20:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Make sure all categories further down in the hierarchy get tagged also. A lot of people are not going to know about this CfD otherwise. If that task is too overwhelming I'm sure there are some admins running bots who could help you with it. Also, I suggest notifying affected WikiProjects as well as the Village Pump. Maybe even the English Wikipedia mailing list. __meco (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do mailing list (though you are welcome to raise a flag there); I am in the process of making noise on the topic on relevant noticeboards as we speak. — Coren ^(talk) 20:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query – are you sure? Category:People by nationality is one of the subcats (although perhaps it should not be). Category:People by religion is another. This is all because you think Israeli footballers shouldn't be categorised as Jewish (see ANI)? Occuli (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That too. I was in the process of finding the right parent category and adding it. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 20:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being pretty sure that Category:People by nationality and Category:People by religion are not subcats of Category:People by race or ethnicity I have removed them (from Category:People by race or ethnicity). Occuli (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all – nationality is surely defining for anyone, ethnicity for many, and religion for some. The Jewish ones are a special case, best considered one by one (eg we have deleted Category:Jewish mathematicians but kept Category:Jewish scientists). Occuli (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that, in the rare case where ethnicity or religion really is a defining characteristic of someone, then that would be easily sourced and ripe for inclusion in the article prose; that's hardly a good argument for a category, however. But why should "Jewish" be a special case as opposed to "Buddhist" or "African-American"? — Coren ^(talk) 21:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Vague and pointless categories. Is Tiger Woods African, Asian, Native American, Caucasian, or what? --Carnildo (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the race and ethnicity ones. "Race" is a little-used classification these days and it's bloody hard to verify and pin down ethnicity. Religion, I'm not so sure. At least this is in theory verifiable. Moreschi (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting question then becomes "when and according to whom"? I would expect only self-identification has any sort of reliability, but what about people who change their beliefs (and the corresponding self-identification) several times in their lives? Which category would they fall under? — Coren ^(talk) 21:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly doesn't apply in Africa - ethnicity is generally defining. Eg the genocide in Rwanda was Hutu/Tutsi. What about Kikuyu in Kenya, Ndebele in Zimbabwe, Hausa and Category:Igbo people in Nigeria. Flemish in Belgium, various in ex-Yugoslavia, 3 distinct language groups in Switzerland etc etc. Occuli (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them, these arguments convince me. Protonk (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep since there is no accepted agrument to delete all subcats, this category is needed as the grouping parent of them all. A very reasonable category for WP. Hmains (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I suggest deleting every subcat, the parent category is an obvious side-effect. Do you mean that you don't agree with deleting the subcategories, or did you just think I meant deleting the parent categories by themselves? — Coren ^(talk) 22:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep this cat; the subcats were not nominated, but keep them also; you can waste all the time you want on this; these categories are repeatedly kept after every discussion as they should be; they are an important part of WP; become acquainted with it Hmains (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Rarely can race or ethnicity be correctly determined, not to mention it adds no value to any articles. Category:People by Religion should be deleted aswell because it is not relevant unless you are the Pope or Dalai Lama. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some This process wil obviously take longer, but very obvious categories should be kept. ie the Hutu/Tutsi. If they either are one or they're not and there's no inbetween there's no reason to delete a good category. Others on the other hand just cause editwars and too much drama. This has to be a case-by-case basis. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree in principle, do you have a set of objective criteria to follow or are you suggesting nominating the categories individually and discussing each? — Coren ^(talk) 22:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate each one individually. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep there is nothing controversial about these categories. heck, even censuses ask about race and ethnicity. The controversy may be only about people asigned into them. But the latter is matter of article content dispute. `'Míkka >t 22:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. The subcategories are not tagged or listed here. As a result, essentially this is a discussion whether or not to delete two parent categories, each of which houses hundreds of categories. Deletion of the parent holder categories will not accomplish the nomination's objectives and will hurt the project by leaving hundreds of categories without the appropriate parent category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per well reasoned nom. Garion96 (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all following nom. There are such things as genetic strains among many species, ours too, but among people these are for the most part way skeinish, entwined, not at all yet thoroughly described or understood in meaningful scientific ways and hence, open to endlessly misleading labels. Carrying sourced commentary about an individual's ethnicity and/or ancestral origins in an article is ok, even helpful, but trying to plug that into stark categories is fraught with ways to botch and let down readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep (but probably rename to Category:People by ethnicity so as to remove the contentious term "race"). My time is very short right now, but I did want to go on record without delay. For the moment I will simply say this: Aside from the fact that these are super-cat/grouping categories for many hundreds of sub-categories, the nominator is simply asserting his personal prejudice against the very idea of providing this type of information, based on what appear to be some very simplistic beliefs about why these categories exist and what purpose they serve. I strongly object to his assumptions on that issue, as articulated in the following statement: "I would hope that the bygone days of corralling people into various groups to discriminate or edify the membership in an orgy of prejudice and stereotyping are, in fact, really gone." That is patent nonsense, and frankly, I consider it extremely offensive. The fact that he considers Category:People by nationality to be "equally divisive, uninformative and problematic" speaks volumes. That's all I have time for now. Cgingold (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, I'll bite. What encyclopedic purpose do they serve? — Coren ^(talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all That the categories are targets for edit wars is not a rationale for delete. We need to insure that ALL such categorizations are verified in reliable sources, but lots of people self-identify by race and ethnicity and religion, and for large parts of history, these characteristics were one of the driving forces for human behavior, even if we wish it weren't so. Merely because policing such categories requires diligence does not mean that they are unimportant or unworthwhile categories. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Not only has the nom not followed procedure, but this is a clear POV nomination. --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What, pray tell, would that putative POV be? — Coren ^(talk) 02:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I would hope that the bygone days of corralling people into various groups to discriminate or edify the membership in an orgy of prejudice and stereotyping are, in fact, really gone." This appears to be what the nomination hinges on. This is blatant POV and by far the worst reasoning I've ever seen on Wikipedia for proposing deletion. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's called an opinion on what is or, in this case, isn't good for the encyclopedia. By definition any statement on any project space is such an opinion— and indeed the gathering and discussion of those opinions is the very reason for the existence of the project space. My position here is that those categories serve no useful encyclopedic purpose, are divisive, and are impossible to populate rationally. That's certainly a "point of view", but NPOV applies to article contents which I am not discussing here. "Useless, prejudicial, divisive and harmful" is most certainly a very good justification for deletion— you are quite welcome to disagree but dismissing the argument as "worst reasoning" as you did is neither productive nor civil. — Coren ^(talk) 05:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'm being too tame. You know, there's people that have suggested you be blocked for disruption. Categories affect the article contents, and by deleting these categories you are imposing your own POV on the contents of the article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All these are some of the most fundamentally encyclopedic examples of defining characteristics. The nomination includes the oft-spouted "what about this hypothetical borderline case" which might be valid to exclude an entry or two, it provides no justification for eliminating the category in its entirety. Alansohn (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and block proposing editor for disruption of our project. Badagnani (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify thing, should only I be blocked for disruption or should the other administrators and editors who agreed with my nomination also be blocked en masse? — Coren ^(talk) 03:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all almost every person on Wikipedia defines themselves in some way and many chose ethnicity and religion. I understand if editors themselves don't define themselves in this way, but the subjects that they are editing many times do. -NYC2TLV (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A quick review of the comedians I was trying to group into a new sub-category for Saturday Night Live alumni shows a disproportionate categorization by religion, ethnicity, and national origin. While lacking categorization based on achievements, style, retinue affiliations, or other relevant aspects. My new subcategory was not allowed due to policies intended to address over-categorization. If categories must be pared down these are the first that should go. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, these categories are remarkably useless as navigation aids go, and tend to encourage the yes/no labelling for identifications that are best dealt with in prose. When you combine the fact that these don't actually help the encyclopedia very much at best, and tend to be divisive drama magnets at worst, I don't think Wikipedia is well served by keeping them. ~ mazca ^t|c 07:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I agree that how we categorise by race and religion needs to be addressed I think that the end result will be that some people are notable because of the their race or religion. What I think should happen is the creation of a policy/guideline to address the POV issues the end result will be that these super cats will still be valid groupings Gnan garra 08:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all : Unconvincing rationale. This is a huge change, which should be discussed at a broader audience apart from here. Also there is no need of this Bot request for Mass CFDing all the subcategories before a clear consensus is made. -- Tinu Cherian - 08:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure this current discussion inherently includes all the myriad subcategories - that bot request seems to be purely to tag the pages to alert a broader audience. ~ mazca ^t|c 09:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The procedure is to tag first, start the CfD second. So of course there is "a need" to tag them. As it is, things have been started in a bass ackwards manner; let's not compound the problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed partially as is per usual procedure. But here we dont a clear consensus in even deleting the main categories itself, therefore questions the need of blind Mass Tagging of all subcategories ( 100s of them) using Bot ( possibly need to revert them all after the closure of this CFD). It would have been appropriate if the nominator personally tag and CFD individually 'problematic' cats, stating specific reasons for them than "I dont like them ALL" reason. It would have been a different case if there was a consensus for deletion here .Just my 2 cents -- Tinu Cherian - 10:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for now There is a valid argument for a proper review of how we use such cats, but Cfd isn't the place to do it. At various times there have been nationalist or emancipatory movements with many people be they artists academics etc identifying as part of these movements. Further, whatever problems there are with racial or ethnic classifications, they are not withering away out in the big wide world but required in various legislatures, whether for ethnic monitoring in the UK, engineering the ethnic profiles of South African sports teams etc. By all means set up a centralised discussion, but don't go for the razed earth policy of a cfd for all cats that will leave us starved of soem useful cats in the future.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all in order to oppose the creeping censorship, sickening political correctness, and the denial of science and fact-gathering which now threatens to overrun Wikipedia and destroy its usefulness and effectiveness. The nomination of these categories also seems to me to be a half-veiled attempt to first and foremost delete ALL of the categories dealing with Jews from this encyclopedia. --Wassermann (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I would like to suggest two things. The first is that the ethnicity cats and the religion cats be nominated in two separate discussions. (If it's too late for that, I understand. It would just make discussion easier.) The second is that whatever day these these are all tagged (if not already by the 12th), would another admin please move this discussion to whatever day that is. - jc37 10:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging versus categorisation - One of the uses of such categories is as tagging. When you have very large groups like this, it is difficult to query the encyclopedia for a list of all English people or all French people or all people born in the 19th century or all Muslim or Christian crusaders or rulers. People making such queries should realise that the answer will be incomplete and not definitive, and this is not a reason for not attempting to aggregate and organise the data (and with such large groupings, lists and simple searches become unmanageable). But in order to make such queries, the articles need to be tagged in a suitable fashion. This is similar to answering the question of how many of our "people" (or 'biographical') articles are about men, and how many are about women? Currently, there is no tagging on articles to distinguish men from women. The first step to answering this requires that the "group" ariticles (covering more than one person) are tagged accordingly, and that the "single" articles (about a single person - I'm talking about the title of the articles here, not who is mentioned in the article) are also tagged accordingly. Then the tagging for gender (including "other") can be done. This points up one of the failings of the category system (and CfD as well). Categories are instinctively used by many as tags for basic data, even if that data is in some cases unclear. Stuff like "year of birth", "age at death", "place of birth", "place of death", "place of burial". These are all verifiable facts (with a few disputed cases - you always have to allow for some of that) that can be put in articles (even though they are not defining characteristics), but once in plain text in articles it becomes difficult to group related articles. CfD in particular has sometimes tried to remove "tagging" categories, and move towards "defining characteristics" categories, but that has its own problems as can be seen at many CfD debates. One answer is to use templates or special markup in the article text to allow "tags" and "data" to be extracted. See Wikipedia:Metadata for some examples. The systems there allow geographical data and ISBN data to be systematically mined and extracted. There are basic biographical data that can be extracted in similar ways, but using markup can impede the ease of editing. In some cases it is best to allow editors to write the information into articles in plaintext, and then have other editors come along and use that information to create metadata tags, whether that be microformats or category tags or templates in infoboxes. However, this is a work in progress and will take years to accomplish. Deleting whole swathes of the category structure like this risks losing large amounts of data that have been built up over the past eight years, and which would be slowly consolidated over the coming years. So keep all where verifiable. Carcharoth (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. I hope I am wrong here, but the motivation behind this nomination seems to be more the nominator's personal beliefs concerning the topic, rather than something based on improving the categorisation system. Because, as far as I can see, no reason has been provided for deleting these categories that is grounded in policy, I cannot support. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep all Aside from the inappropriate POV-pushing in seeking to eliminate the ability to search for and research information related to factors that have played and do play enormous roles in human interactions (apparently on the "if-it-can't-be-named-it-won't-exist" theory of social problem-solving), the trend toward abolishing/minimizing/ignoring racial and ethnic differences is medically destructive, dangerous, oppressive and bio-ethically misguided: For example, organ shortfall for those in need of organ transplants disproportionately and adversely affects non-whites globally, and racial/ethnic minorities within developed societies. It's remedied by soliciting increased donations from potential donors most likely to be organ matches for those in need of transplants. We know that more of, e.g. Native Americans are going to need liver transplants than there are matching livers donated, and that other Native Americans will be better matches on average than WASPs, and that people know their race even though they won't know their HLA genotype. So targeting Native Americans by race through voluntary organ donation drives is the best way to meet a known, unmet need. Impeding that effort by preventing identification by race/ethnicity sentences disproportionate numbers of minorities to suffer from organ shortfall, and is unjustifiably inhumane. PlayCuz (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'll change my vote to keep if the voluntary organ donation drives use these Wikipedia categories as their source for organ donors information. I somehow doubt it though. Garion96 (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cross-platform software

Category:Cross-platform software - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: It is more common for a software package to be available for more than one platform than for only a single platform. Thus, the majority of articles about software packages fall into this category, and it is not a useful classification. Delete SparsityProblem (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Many popular desktop software is not cross-platform (Windows Media Player, Windows Live Messenger, Internet Explorer, Nero Burning Rom, utorrent, emule, ImgBurn, daemon tools, transmission BT client, etc...), and I think this is a very usefull category. I am very surprised this got proposed for deletion... SF007 (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Make this only for "Windows AND Linux AND Mac software" if needed, but I think deleting is a very very bad idea... SF007 (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would you propose to rename the category to in that case? "Software available for Windows, various dialects of Unix and GNU/Linux, and Mac OS" is a very long name. SparsityProblem (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why rename in that case? just keep the same name, and a simple introductory paragraph in the beginning. I think many people might be looking for cross-platform software (like I was, when I noticed this category was missing!), and this is a very useful thing... SF007 (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's not renamed, almost every single open-source software package and lots of proprietary software packages that are available on Unix would belong in this category, since there are many different flavors of Unix. SparsityProblem (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Useful category as SF007 explained. rootology (C)(T) 20:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or substantially reorganize. The category as given covers at least three potential subcategories, which if populated would eliminate more than half of the examples given by SF007. Tedickey (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hard rock groups

Propose renaming Category:Hard rock groups to Category:Hard rock musical groups

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other, similar categories- generally, such categories are named "[genre] musical groups". There is a past precedent for this at CfD, I'm happy to dig out some examples if anyone wants them. J Milburn (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phone thriller/horror movies

Category:Phone thriller/horror movies - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Weird psuedo-category which, even if cleaned up, is too narrow in its scope and does not represent an established film genre. PC78 (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is definitely a very limited category. I would note, however, that if it ends up being kept, it needs quite a bit of filling. Among the titles that are currently missing (which I won't add if the category's going to be deleted in a week): Cellular (film), Eagle Eye, Phone Booth (film), When a Stranger Calls and When a Stranger Calls (2006 film). BookhouseBoy (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A description of a genre of films that keeps on being made. There are about a dozen listed in the category description (not the category), and several more have been listed in an argument for delete. And let's not forget When a Stranger Calls Back and Dial M for Murder. Alansohn (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Weak listify - the creator appears to have been trying to create a list.) In one sense too narrow, and in another too broad. "Phone" is too narrow, and combining the two genres "thriller" and "horror" makes it too broad. We could just as easily say "Car thriller/horror" or "television thriller/horror". It's categorising by an object related to the plot/content of the work of fiction (a film/movie in this case.) And we could do this with innumerable items which appear in a work of fiction. (Incidentally, you forgot Dial M for Murder : ) - jc37 10:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antisemitism in France

fr:Catégorie:Antisémitisme en France look big. Maybe Category:Antisemitism in France would be good. Could include Robert Brasillach, Edouard Drumont, Irène Némirovsky, Georges Oltramare, Jacques Ploncard d'Assac, Antisemitic League of France, Jules Guérin, Au Pilori, Henry Coston. 89.2.243.42 (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible - we don't seem to have national sub-cats, but Category:Anti-Semitism could do with reducing the huge number of articles in the main category. Remember to remove articles from this if they go in a national sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cable HD channels

Suggest merging Category:Cable HD channels to Category:HD channels

Suggest merging Category:Satellite HD channels to Category:HD channels

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This breakout and odd subcategory inclusions is not necessary. What exactly is the difference between the channels provided via cable or satellite? Merge these to the parent and then if needed break these out in another way, say Category:HD sports channels. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 *'''Keep All'''.  I hope I am wrong here, but the motivation behind this nomination seems to be more the nominator's personal beliefs concerning the topic, rather than something based on improving the categorisation system.  Because, as far as I can see, no reason has been provided for deleting these categories that is ''grounded in policy'', I cannot support.  [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 11:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC).
 *'''Keep all''' Aside from the inappropriate POV-pushing in seeking to eliminate the ability to search for and research information related to factors that have played and do play enormous roles in human interactions (apparently on the "if-it-can't-be-named-it-won't-exist" theory of social problem-solving), the trend toward abolishing/minimizing/ignoring racial and ethnic differences is medically destructive, dangerous, oppressive and bio-ethically misguided: For example, [[organ donation#Organ shortfall|organ shortfall]] for those in need of [[organ transplant]]s disproportionately and adversely affects non-whites globally, and racial/ethnic minorities within developed societies. It's remedied by soliciting increased donations from potential donors most likely to be organ matches for those in need of transplants. We know that more of, e.g. [[Native American]]s are going to need liver transplants than there are ''matching'' livers donated, and that other Native Americans will be better matches ''on average'' than [[WASP]]s, and that people know their race even though they ''won't'' know their [[Human leukocyte antigen|HLA]] genotype. So targeting Native Americans ''by race'' through voluntary organ donation drives is the best way to meet a known, unmet need. Impeding that effort by preventing identification by race/ethnicity sentences disproportionate numbers of minorities to suffer from organ shortfall, and is unjustifiably inhumane. [[User:PlayCuz|PlayCuz]] ([[User talk:PlayCuz|talk]]) 11:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
+**Ok, I'll change my vote to keep if the voluntary organ donation drives use these Wikipedia categories as their source for organ donors information. I somehow doubt it though. [[User:Garion96|Garion96]] [[User talk:Garion96|(talk)]] 12:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 ==== Category:Cross-platform software ====