Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 7: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 16:19, 27 February 2023

< October 6	October 8 >

October 7[edit]

Category:Books by region[edit]

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: consensus to rename, no consensus to what. Suggest renomination. Kbdank71 14:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Books by region to Category:Books about a region

Better reflects the category's contents. - jc37 23:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. - jc37 23:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, grudgingly. Another 0.005% complete grand scheme - there are no books about America then? Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't bring myself to !vote because the entire "by region" categorization scheme as it currently exists makes me shudder. Otto4711 (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Category:Books about a region sounds awful. However, it is better than the existing name which I would take to be books coming out of a region. __meco (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how about Category:Books about countries by region? We have Category:Books about countries and the point of this category seems to be to sort the members of that category by region. —An gr 09:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Books about countries by region. Sounds reasonable to make this a middle level navigational tool category, so to speak. __meco (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How about Category:Books about world regions? That would be consistent with Category:Books about countries. I suggest "world regions" instead of "regions" to help clarify that this is not a place for books about regions (such as New England or Siberia) that are contained within a single country. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like we all agree on "Books about...". The problem with "countries by region" is that the members of the subcats aren't all countries, but geographical or geopolitical regions. And while I suppose I don't oppose "world regions", I'm concerned that we'd be creating a neologism. Is there a source out there which might provide a clearer, more specific term? - jc37 06:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Books about regions to match Category:Books about countries. --Eliyak T·C 13:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Books about continents. The sub-cats that are not continents should become sub-cats of Category:Books about Asia. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Military personnel of Switzerland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename per consistency; no prejudice against renaming back as part of a mass nomination. Kbdank71 14:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military personnel of Switzerland to Category:Swiss military personnel

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category name is not currently in parallel with other similar categories (e.g., Category:American military personnel). Nlu (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom for the good reasons stated Hmains (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as creator) I'm not sure what I was thinking of doing it this way, but there is a case for it, especially for earlier periods (and perhaps periods in the future) when significant numbers of people fought for countries not their own, not least the Swiss, the world's most famous mercenaries. Does the adjective denote the country they came from, or the one they fought for, or either? We should have categories like Category:Generals of the Holy Roman Empire and so on, but we don't. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is good but I would prefer a mass rename to "Military personnel of [place]". — CharlotteWebb 05:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - I agree with Charlotte that the category structure should be "Military personnel of Foo". Given the mania for characterizing people based on national descent, "Fooian military personnel" lends itself easily to having people miscategorized on that basis. The category name should be clear that it refers to the country for which the person fought, not the country of origin of the fighter. Otto4711 (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I hadn't even thought about mercenaries. See how much of this article you can read before your head hurts. I'd rather not speak of Burkinabés, Monégasques, Damascenes, or Michiganders if I can help it, nor use nouns as adjectives just because "Dominican" and "Congolese" are ambiguous. For this reason I will support "X [from/of/for] Y" wherever possible. Just curious, what do you call a single Swiss person anyway? — CharlotteWebb 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter; he won't come anyway. Otto4711 (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. With no prejudice against a larger group nom of the subcats of Category:Military personnel by nation and Category:Swiss people by occupation. (And really, of all subcats of: Category:People by nationality.) - jc37 06:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Graphs as models of other objects[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete, empty. Kbdank71 13:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Propose renaming~~ Category:Graphs as models of other objects to ~~Category:Graphs as models of other structures~~

Nominator's rationale: ~~Rename~~. I created this category today, but now I see the name is not good: graphs are models of structures, rather than of objects. After a second thought, a better idea would be Category:Graphs defined as models of certain relations. It looks too long, but that's the intention of the category. Twri (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the discussion, I agree with the opinion to merge back into the parent category. Since you did not understand my intention (which I think is still valid), this means I was not clear enough with the definition and name. For those interested in the topic, please see my explanations in Category talk:Graphs#Subcategory suggestion. Twri (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ok, after doing some reading for this nom, I just learned a lot about methematical mechanics. So thank you for that at least : ) - That said, this cat seems a result of you very recently splitting Category:Graphs. My main concern is that, due to even you not being certain about the target name, that we'll be back here in a few days with a new nom for a "better" name. As such, I dropped a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics (talk) to see if someone there might have some further suggestions. - jc37 06:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, please see my explanations in Category talk:Graphs#Subcategory suggestion. Twri (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or listify or even make a popper article. This category is too broad and poorly defined. The concept of using one type of structure to model another is just to ubiquitous in mathematics to be useful for chaterisation. You could potentially list every possible graph here as it will model some structure or other. I could see an interesting article about the various ways graphs are used to model other structures. --Salix (talk): 07:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, just delete or listify, leaving them uncategorised as graphs?! Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely graphs are models for binary relations, and that comprises a lot of stuff. Richard Pinch (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge back; this is a non-defining category: all graphs are relations, which are likely to be of interest because they are isomorphic to other relations. Category:Applied graphs may be what this is trying to say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly "applied". Please see my explanations in Category talk:Graphs#Subcategory suggestion. Twri (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are better ideas, Delete and merge back per Pma. I can't see how the two sub-cats match the main one, but what do I know? Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my explanations in Category talk:Graphs#Subcategory suggestion. Twri (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:True-believer syndrome[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Terminology proposed by a single writer which could be considered derogatory and is highly likely to be misused. Wednesday Next (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't imagine anything which really belongs in the category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be more precise, I cannot imagine that it would be restricted to the few articles related to the syndrome itself, rather than people alleged to be suffering from him, which is impossibly WP:NPOV or WP:OR — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As currently formulated, I have no idea what is supposed to be in here. The article for Cancell seems to have no relation to True-believer syndrome; Dowsing is a poor example; and Royal Rife was a scientist who made some mistakes. I don't see any of these article, other than the parent, that have any relevance to the subject to merit a category. I will be willing to reconsider if there is some evidence that this can be more than one article or why the other articles belong here. Alansohn (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; we don't, for instance, put groups deemed to be cults into Category:Cults. There is too much room for contention here over a term that seems only to be pop psychology (does it belong in Category:Popular psychology?). -choster (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any sources which make this claim about the category members. And further, then, this cat has a WP:BLP problem, as well. This is clearly WP:OR. Inclusion, if kept, would be solely at the discretion of Wikipedia editors, which is, of course, contrary to core policy. - jc37 07:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the category would obviously be intended for articles about a particular psychological condition: of which there are unlikely to be very many, or even any. It would equally obviously be used to label people whose opinions other people don't like, of which there are likely to be very many indeed, followed by a commensurate number of rows. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Per Arthur Rubin's logic. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Comic book alternate universes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to plural (Category:Parallel universes (comics)). Kbdank71 14:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Comic book alternate universes to Category:Parallel universe (comics)

To match Category:Parallel universe (fiction). - jc37 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as nominator. - jc37 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The words are mostly interchangeable, but I see "parallel" as more inclusive, whereas "alternate" seems predicated on the changing of certain circumstances, à la What If? I would prefer it to be plural, however: Parallel universes. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much of a problem with that, but then the parent should be renamed similarly. (And I was attempting to skirt that question in this nom : ) - jc37 01:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I think it'd would be great if the closer were to also speedy rename (WP:CSD#C2) Category:Parallel universe (fiction) to Category:Parallel universes (fiction). - jc37 07:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if, as I assume, it means to apply articles about particular fictional universes, as opposed to the rather fewer articles about the concept of a parallel universe as used in comics. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look over the contents of Category:Parallel universe (fiction) and see if that helps clarify. - jc37 08:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or alternatively I could ask the nominator to tell us what his views are. Richard Pinch (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have already, but I suppose I'll take that as an additional request for clarification. Essentially both cats are mostly categorising fictional universes (with a few articles concerning fictional universes as well). I thought that would be self-evident if someone actually took a moment to click on a link and look.

My apologies for offering you an opportunity to see and assess for yourself. - jc37 21:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it needs renaming to move away from "comic books" and I think the distinction between alternate universes vs parallel universe (fiction) is one worth making (we also need to change the link in the text in the category, whatever happens). While the name seems fine to me just so we don't come back to this in 6 months time: Is it worth making the distinction that these are fictional? As in "fictional parallel universe (comics)"? Now we don't actually have any real ones and I think we are fine without but everyone should be on the same page. (Emperor (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

Category:Fictional comedy characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Fictional characters in comedy. Kbdank71 14:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Fictional comedy characters to Category:Fictional characters in works of comedy or Category:Fictional characters in comedy (Or something similar.)

Compare to Category:Literary characters by genre of work. - jc37 19:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Fictional characters in works of comedy - as nominator. - jc37 19:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning more towards "Fictional characters in comedy", "Fictional characters in romance" and so on, sub-catting into fictional comics by genre and form, so "Fictional characters in comedy novels". Hiding T 00:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see both sides of it, and am pretty close to neutral between the two choices (and would be interested in hearing if there were other options as well). I honestly actually only picked the one I did due to previous comments of yours : ) jc37 01:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is complicated. It basically means working out a structure, and then working out the names. Is this category going to hold articles or subcategories? That would, to my mind, influence the name. Hiding T 13:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably both, potentially. - jc37 07:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are comedy, or comic, or comedic, or just plain funny, characters in works that are not works of comedy (eg Falstaff in Henry V (play), the Porter in Macbeth). The first name includes them, the second one doesn't. Which is intended? Richard Pinch (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent question : )

My presumption (based upon category inclusion, and the rather terse introduction of the cat) is that this is for characters that are presented in works of comedy.

Further, I don't believe that "characters" have "genre", but the work that they reside in may. For example, a character may be simulataneously comedic and tragic (even at the same moment). And thhere are, as I'm sure you can imagine, even more complex than that, depending on the character development in the work. - jc37 08:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Preserve America Communities[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete per list creation. Kbdank71 13:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Preserve America Communities

There are concerns on the talk page, which suggest that at least this should be a list. However, considering that this is merely categorising cities by a particular US government program (See Preserve America), I'm not sure that this should even be a list (besides the 500+ members that the category would potentially have). - jc37 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that List of Preserve America Communities has been created per the discussion below. - jc37 02:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify/Delete - as nominator. - jc37 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a list. I am the one who commented that this content would be more appropriate as a list, but until this proposed deletion (which I assume was occasioned by my recently adding a bunch of articles to the category), no one has responded to that proposal. (I do not know what the category's creator had in mind.) I think a list would be more useful for this topic than a category. Designation as a Preserve America Community requires that a place (which could be a city, county, neighborhood, Indian reservation, etc.) have undertaken a program to promote historic/cultural preservation and heritage tourism/education, so a Wikipedia list of Preserve America Communities (with links to their Wikipedia articles) would have informational value for people interested in the topic of heritage promotion (either as heritage tourists or as heritage promoters). (That subject matter is loosely related to the subject matter of the National Register of Historic Places, which has an active Wikiproject.)
Although new communities might be added to Preserve America in the future, the current list membership is likely to be fairly stable, as there is no requirement for designated communities to requalify. Since this is a Bush Administration initiative, the program might evaporate under the next President, but the Preserve America signs and other vestiges of designation that exist in these communities are likely to survive for a long time. If list size became a problem, the handful of states (such as Kentucky and Texas) with large numbers of Preserve America Communities could be split out. --Orlady (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two things.

First, I don't necessarily oppose this being a list (except for the concern I noted above due to size).

Second, this CfD nom doesn't prevent you from starting such a list immediately, if you would wish. - jc37 18:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I figured the category wasn't doing any real harm, and I have been hoping for its creator to return and explain his/her intentions. From the time in August that I posted the comment until the day before yesterday, the category's creator had been inactive, but s/he has reappeared, and I've added another user talk page note... --Orlady (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a list article that could replace this category. --Orlady (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Outrageous Fortune characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: As a result of AfDs with concensus to merge, category is populated by only a single article. McWomble (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with no prejudice of recreation should it be deemed appropriate in the future. - jc37 00:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Members of the Detection Club[edit]

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: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - I submit ladies and gentlemen that membership in this club is insufficiently defining of its members to warrant categorization, and that a list should be placed in the main article. Otto4711 (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The most notable British fiction writers establishing a notable group for the purpose of organizing and establishing rules for mystery fiction is a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. No one's doubting the notability of the club, just the appropriateness of using a category for the purpose of listing its members. There should be a list made either in the main article or in a separate List of members of the Detection Club article, where adequate sources can be added. There's no convenient way of adding sources for inclusion in a category. —Angr 15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that "There's no convenient way of adding sources for inclusion" in any category in Wikipedia, not just this one. This is a vote that is not relevant to this category, but instead would insist that the whole category system be dismantled in its entirety. Alansohn (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not at all. Most categorization is either uncontroversial or is based on information independently mentioned and sourced in the text. Thus, people only get included in the various "LGBT whatever" categories if their sexual orientation is already discussed and sourced in the text. In this case, the category would work if the biography of every member of the Detection Club specifically mentioned that person's membership and sourced it, but that would be cumbersome as membership in this club isn't really all that relevant to most of its members' careers. So in this case, having a list makes more sense than having a category. (A secondary point: this category is also inconvenient because its main article doesn't even strictly belong in the category: the Detection Club is not itself a member of the Detection Club.) —Angr 16:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are controversial categories, but this isn't one of them, unless Category:LGBT Members of the Detection Club is forthcoming. As with every single category in Wikipedia, reliable sources to support inclusion can only go into an article. You are describing generic limitations that apply to the entire category architecture in Wikipedia, not just to this category. Alansohn (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per arguments above. Best done in article space rather than category space. Hiding T 20:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLN encourages the coexistence and synergy of both lists AND categories. Is there any policy reason for this category to be deleted? Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. WP:CONSENSUS is policy. If the consensus is that this information is more usefully presented as a list than as a category, then the category is to be deleted. —An gr 06:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:CONSENSUS states, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale". If you would like to change WP:CLN, feel free to get consensus to do so. Until then, WP:CLN's clearly stated admonition "Accordingly, these methods should not [emphasis in original] be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa." takes precedence. Alansohn (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, nothing at WP:CLN as currently written requires us to keep useless categories if we don't want to. —An gr 07:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(yawn) Hey, do me a favor, would ya Alansohn? Could you let me know exactly how many times it needs to be explained to you that WP:CLN does not in any way mandate that information be presented in more than one grouping format? Because I know I've explained it to you more than a dozen times and other editors have explained it as well, but somehow it just doesn't seem to be making it through to you. I can only think that there is some critical mass threshold of repetition that is required before it becomes clear. Otto4711 (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) - You (Alansohn) may wish to re-read CLN. In any case, I think you have it backwards. We encourage a list to coincide with a category (it helps explain the grouping, the circumstances, and most importantly the sourcing). We do not necessarily encourage a category when a list already exists. The category system is a navigational tool, it should not be used to replace content in article space.

And if you'll note Hiding's comments in other discussions, he repeatedly suggests that unless an article can be written about a topic, then a category concerning the topic shouldn't exist. (Which may or may not be relevant in this case.)

All that said, the relevant related policies and guidelines you may be looking for are WP:BLP, WP:N, WP:CAT, Wikipedia:Categorization of people, WP:OC, etc. - jc37 06:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read above reply to Hiding, and may I emphasize that you would greatly benefit both from reading WP:CLN and from applying it as the relevant Wikipedia guideline on the matter. I will also point out that there is already an article about the topic. I fully support the creation of a standalone list, in keeping with WP:CLN's guideline on the benefits of lists AND categories coexisting. Alansohn (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did, I have, and I have (and did again just before posting).

You know, I know I've said this before (several times), but I actually support the CLN guidelines. But theguidelines intent is to offer a guidance as to the benefits and liabilities of difefrent ways to present information for navigation. Neither navboxes nor categories are intended to replace mainspace content.

Further, categories have other liabilities, such as sourcing. And when dealing with people, per WP:BLP, we need to be very careful.

And finally (and I don't believe I can stress this enough) - I think Otto4711's hit the nail on the head. Why do I think so? Well the evidence is your response. See, I did exactly what you asked. I provided several policies and guidelines which, if you were making good faith comments, and sincere about this being for making a better Wikipedia, and not just pushing your own point of view, you might have bothered to read, and then note what you found, showing how your opinion is supported by policy and guidelines.

How do I know you don't do such research? Simple. Not only haven't you mentioned some very easy things which could rebut what the others are saying, but you neglected to even notice the value of the comment I placed at the bottom of this discussion.

So you'll please pardon me if I'm placing little weight on your "opinion", and highly doubt any closer will either. - jc37 07:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. I also note that there is no problem with sources as the article links to a list of members to 2001. Any bio that had this category should state that the subject is a member and link to that source. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly - any article in this category has to explicitly mention the fact and source it. But membership in this group is not a significant event in most of the author's lives, and most articles won't benefit from having a sentence along the lines of "Oh yeah, s/he was in the Detection Club, too" crammed in somewhere. That's why a list makes more sense than a category. —An gr 06:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (Just because it sounded like fun) - What about Category:Members of organizations? : ) - jc37 06:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - membership of this club is characteristic of a certain group of authors; it is sufficiently notable to be mentioned in an article about such an author (and hence sourced); it is far easier to maintain than a list and just as easy for the user to consult. Richard Pinch (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A mention in another article is not in and of itself a source. A mention with a citation from a reliable source indicating that the membership was defining for the individual would be acceptable. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per my comments above. While a WP:WAX rationale may be inappropriate, Category:Members of organizations gives me pause. - jc37 00:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is a quantifiable difference between the organizations being captured in that cat and the Detection Club. Look at the kind of organizations in the category. The various arms of the IRA. Al-Queda (in the criminal orgs subcat). The only one that's really comparable that I'm seeing is Category:Kabbalah Centre followers and frankly that should probably be listified as well. Otto4711 (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then that parent should probably be renamed for clarity.

That aside, I don't oppose listification. - jc37 07:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete. I will note that at least one of those in favor of keeping is not opposed to listification. There are simply too many issues with verifiability for these entries. For the category to exist, editors would need to find sources that show why everyone who is included is a member, that it is clear from the article that they should be included in this category and that their membership is in fact defining for them. I see that as a nightmare to make happen and maintain. In addition, I suspect that a good number of those in the category would not be able to qualify for inclusion in the category. So the best solution to preserve the information without dropping anyone is to listify. A listification preserves the information that was in the category so when this happens, nothing is lost except some possible category clutter in several articles. That is not a bad change and for many it would be an improvement. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Dune[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Dune universe to match the lead article Dune universe and the commons:Category:Dune universe and to avoid confusion with sand dunes and the like. — CharlotteWebb 09:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC) I just noticed sand dunes is a redirect to Dune, so this confusion is more plausible than I originally thought. — CharlotteWebb 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Cgingold (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Definitely likely for confusion. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom. Clraity is a good thing : ) - jc37 00:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Herzegovinans[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename and leave a category redirect. Kbdank71 14:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Herzegovinans to Category:Herzegovinians

Nominator's rationale: A search at Google Books (more reliable than simple Google for spelling issues) reveals that "Herzegovinian" is considerably more common than "Herzegovinan". The lead article of the category has already been moved from Herzegovinans to Herzegovinians. —An gr 09:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a {{category redirect}} from the less common spelling. — CharlotteWebb 09:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:National/Local Campsites of Scouting Ireland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Campsites of Scouting Ireland. Kbdank71 13:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:National/Local Campsites of Scouting Ireland to Category:National and local campsites of Scouting Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. capitalization. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Campsites of Scouting Ireland and drop the whole "National and local" portion. Alansohn (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Campsites of Scouting Ireland per Alansohn. Occuli (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Campsites of Scouting Ireland; create subcats if they are ever needed. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cool by me so long as the caps are correct. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Humor[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. The BE/AE question should probably be resolved with a wider audience, and as noted, not at CFD. Kbdank71 13:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might ought to move this to Category:Humour to match the lead article Humour. Alternatively the article could be moved the opposite way, back to Humor (which was the incidentally the original title [1]). I'm not wanting to start a big flame-war here, just saying that the same spelling should be used for the article and the category, I really don't care which one (speaking as an American who sometimes uses the British spelling she's trying to be more humourous ). — CharlotteWebb 01:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Webb, what untangled weave you have practiced to conceive! (with apologies to Walter Scott) What infernal can of worms have you opened? Alas, Her Majesty is not amused... I fear the only solution that might enable us to avoid a full-blown civil war over this may be to rename both to Humer (or perhaps some other, equally elegant variant) -- with, of course, redirects from both of the rival spellings. Cgingold (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it kind of ruins things when you explain ~~humor~~ humer, but just in case it's not familiar to all, I thought it would be good to have the original line here for reference: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!" (from Scott's poem, Marmion). Cgingold (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think we should use this forum to deal with the British English vs. American English problem as a first instance. In this particular case I think Talk:Humour could discuss this viable inconsistency if need be, and if they decide the overall solution would be to rename the category page, then the CFD could be raised citing that mandate. __meco (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shrug, if they want to move it to "Humor" in the future (I doubt it) this category can easily be renamed back. I don't care what the final result is, I just want consistency right now. — CharlotteWebb 08:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I left a note on the talk page, but judging by the talk page header, nobody wants to consider any change of the article title (there is a banner at the top which implies that such comments should go on a sub-page where they can be more easily ignored). — CharlotteWebb 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can see the humor in that suggestion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think the inconsistency adds to the article and the category, and besides which, Wikipedia doesn't have standards. Hiding T 08:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean that readers find the inconsistency humorous? — CharlotteWebb 09:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. I mean "I think the inconsistency adds to the article and the category." I don't see a reason to delete since we don't have to standardise, and I like the quirkiness. I don't share your opinion that the same spelling should be used for the article and the category, is all it amounts to. There's not really any policy or guidance that applies here, it's just one of those things you either like or you don't like. I appreciate the arguments for standardising, but they don't carry any more weight than those for not standardising in this instance. It's just personal preference. Do we want a uniform encyclopedia or one that allows the odd quirk? Hiding T 11:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Main article name appears stable, so why shilly-shally? Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's bad enough the main article was moved in violation of policy, at least the category can stay where it belongs. —An gr 05:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't matter per the current guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. So Keep one, and have a Template:Category redirect at the other. - jc37 00:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to change this when the comments above show that the article is not at the name it should be. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ScienceApologist[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — CharlotteWebb 02:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Attack page made by User:Elonka against me. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are they yours? — CharlotteWebb 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the question is, is this an "alternate accounts used in a manner forbidden by Wikipedia's policies" as Elonka wrote? Then the answer is "no". I am tempted to go to WP:OFFICE with this one as it looks like it is an attempt to get people to stalk me to an anonymous IP account. However, we can make this all go away by simply deleting the category which was maliciously started for reasons I can only surmise. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's a claim made that the IP was used as a WP:SOCK puppet, rather than as a proper alternate account, delete and [{WP:TROUT]] the creator. If there is such a claim, point to evidence, which has not been done on any (clearly) relevant page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the ScienceApologist ArbCom case, ScienceApologist is only allowed to use one account. --Elonka 01:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Editing while not logged into any account might violates the spirit of that ruling but I'd rather not speculate about this. Has anyone asked arbcom to clarify? — CharlotteWebb 01:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking at the disputed edits on psychic the edits are obviously SA, in fact this is so obvious (even down to referring to discussions on the talkpage (diff) that I can't imagine that SA was making any attempt to hide his identity. If he was I'd class this as probably the worst attempt at a sockpuppet in history. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, I'll freely admit that I'm fairly inexperienced with sock tagging, so it looks like the category was more than is needed. The fair thing to do is delete the category, so I went ahead and removed the tag from the anon, and deleted the category as G7. Thanks to everyone for commenting, and I apologize for jumping the gun here. --El on ka 02:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Images by 84user[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — CharlotteWebb 02:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I have seen many CfDs for Images by ..., all of which have been deleted. Also, doesn't help coordinate encyclopedic collaboration. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've emptied it now, so delete away. (BTW, they were to demonstrate a still-existing bug, see Category:Images of browser bugs) 84user (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G7'd it for ya'. Dunno' what templates to use to close this, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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