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 13:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canadian football club statistics to Category:Canadian soccer club statistics

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category consists of association football statistics articles, spefically Toronto FC's statistics. The current name's "Canadian football" is easily confused with Canadian football. Soccer is the predominant name for association football in Canada; "football" alone refers almost exclusively to Canadian or American football. 93JC (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - as creator of the category, I support the name change. I'd like the category to encompass Montreal and Vancouver statistics, maybe when they get into MLS. Themodelcitizen (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Argentinian bobsledders to Category:Argentine bobsledders

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency. Dictionaries list "Argentine", "Argentinian", and "Argentino" as acceptable forms for someone from Argentina, but the common standard used in Category:Argentine people and all its subcategories seems to be "Argentine". Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - as creator of this category, I support decision out of consistency for other people from Argentina. Chris (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject politics of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a WikiProject category, but appears to be incorrectly designed for use on the main article. Superm401 - Talk 22:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and inform the project about project templates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per PMA. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge those with sources, remove the rest. There are two issues here, notability and verifiability. The articles without sources are simple, remove them. There are many that are in this category without a source, and many where the article itself makes no reference of Riverdale (and many that were added to the category while this was ongoing, also without sources). There is a bigger issue, IMO, about notability. Are people notable for where they lived? A very few yes, most no. Alansohn's suggestion of By this logic, merge them all to Category:People from Earth. is quite faulty. Where does it end? Can we categorize by what street someone lived on? How about what house? Which apartment (flat for you Brits)? And how much time must one have spent somewhere to be "from" there? The only answers are subjective, and none of them prove notability. Yes, that is a problem with all "People from" categories, I fully admit that. But that doesn't mean we can't deal with this one now. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Otto brings up a good point, that categorizing by neighborhood adds more category clutter than is desired. Not every fact about a person needs to be a category. Kbdank71 13:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Riverdale, New York to Category:People from the Bronx

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry category without a parent category for the neighborhood. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - categorization by neighborhood is overcategorization. People can live in dozens of neighborhoods in the course of a lifetime. Otto4711 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-defined neighborhood with many notable individuals who have resided there, as documented with reliable sources in the article. The Bronx is a large enough borough to justify subcategories such as this one. There are dozens of articles that should be added to this category and a rundown of the list of notables in the parent article would fill this category easily. That people can live in many neighborhoods or cities or countries over the course of their lives is a completely ludicrous excuse for deleting a category. By this logic, merge them all to Category:People from Earth. Alansohn (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a bit of a difference between categorizing people based on country or state and categorizing them based on neighborhood. Most people do not country-hop with any great frequency. Many people don't state-hop with much frequency either. People do neighborhood-hop with great frequency. Using myself as an example, were I notable enough for an article, I would have one country category. I would be eligible for five state cats. But I would be eligible for close to 20 neighborhood cats. Am I really defined by the fact that I lived in a particular neighborhood in Akron, Ohio from the date of my birth to my first birthday (the day we moved), a time of which I have absolutely no memory? No, and to assert so is ludicrous. The vast majority of people are not defined by what neighborhoods they happened to live in and going down the road of categorizing by neighborhood serves little purpose beyond further fragmenting an already fractured people from categorization scheme. Otto4711 (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Take a look at the individuals listed. There are ample sources provided to show that the three dozen people in the category lived in Riverdale and made enough of an impression to be able to find a source to document these facts. Your personal story is interesting, but irrelevant. When you can find so many notable individuals from one well-defined place with properly-documented connections to that place (unlike, say, Akron, Ohio where not a single notable is properly sourced), you have met the textbook definition of a category. Alansohn (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the textbook definition of a category is: "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." The neighborhood in which, for instance, U Thant lived while he was Sec Gen of the UN does not define who U Thant was as a person. Otto4711 (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no argument that the category is specific, neutral, inclusive and follows all conventions specified. Thant's residency in Riverdale might be the subject of discussion for the individual, but is certainly a defining characteristic for the overwhelming majority of the 60 individuals included. The residency in Riverdale was enough to be mentioned in multiple articles in the media, including details about his home and regarding development plans after his death for the estate where he lived. While you may arbitrarily deem it non-defining, the reliable and verifiable sources disagree with you. Alansohn (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Merge/Keep. Riverdale is a distinct and unique neighborhood and is deserving of its own cat. In addition, it now has a parent cat (category:people from The Bronx) and had been populated, removing the nominater's rationale. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buzzzzzzzzz. Sorry wrong answer. It is still lacking a specific parent category for the neighborhood. And creating this now would result in that category also being nominated. Riverdale is not as significant as you may think. It it not on a par with the Westside or the Village. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may want to check your answers before assuming they're correct, particularly in the uniquely disturbing manner you chose. The specific parent Category:Riverdale, Bronx exists and is populated with about two dozen entries. I haven't checked the New York City neighborhood ranking system lately, but there seems to be no Wikipedia criteria that would have us use this ranking system to determine category eligibility, nor any other objective means -- other than your own personal bias -- to decide that Riverdale is "not on a par" with other arbitrarily-selected neighborhoods. The Riverdale neighborhood is well-defined and there are now five dozen people who are clearly associated with Riverdale in this category, with ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish the connections. When there are so many notable individuals from one well-defined place with properly-documented connections to that place, you've met the textbook definition of a category. Alansohn (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the specific category was created after this nomination. So I'll stand by my comments above. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. Assuming that nothing has changed since you made a nomination is careless, at best. Your particular arrogant tone is utterly counterproductive. The fact that the details have changed undermines the entire basis of your nomination, and the fact that you can stand by the nomination in light of these changes is troublesome. Alansohn (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to repeat myself, but the textbook definition of a category is: "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." The neighborhood in which, for instance, U Thant lived while he was Sec Gen of the UN does not define who U Thant was as a person. And as an aside, a number of the people included in the category have no mention of Riverdale in the article, and many of those who do include no sourcing for the assertion nor do many that do mention Riverdale indicate that the person's living there was of any particular significance. So we really don't have "five dozen people who are clearly associated with Riverdale in this category, with ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish the connections." Otto4711 (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The defining characteristic problem is a generic issue for all people from and all other categories and has no relevance as an issue to this particular category. This category is far better documented than almost all other such categories and meets the textbook definition for the overwhelming majority of the individuals listed. If removing the handful of entries that you feel do not meet the standards for inclusion will address your concerns, by all means do so. Alansohn (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We shouldn't fault people for living in combined metropolitan districts. A subject who lives in a dozen different small towns in Kansas should be treated no differently than a subject who lives in a dozen well-defined, legally recognized neighborhoods of a major city. In neither case would the subject be considered "people from" all 12 places, anyway -- the subject would only be "from" those places where (s)he lived for a long amount of time and/or during an extremely salient period in the person's life. --M@rēino 13:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How much time is a "long amount" and by what what objective standard do we as Wikipedians determine that without resorting to POV or OR? Otto4711 (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether it's a neighborhood, city or country, the issue is the same. The "long amount" standard would be a problem that is relevant to all such people from categories, not just this one. Alansohn (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Libertarian science fiction writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is misleadingly named; its name implies that the writer is Libertarian, but its terms of inclusion say the author's personal views do not matter.

More seriously, it is not defining:it includes any SF author who has written a story about a society with minimal or no government, even if (as with Larry Niven and "Cloak of Anarchy") the purpose of the story is to argue that such a society is not stable. That's everybody: Frederik Pohl (Years of the City); Isaac Asimov: (Foundation's Edge), Ursula K. LeGuin (The Dispossessed, The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas), even William Morris (News from Nowhere). (Is Bradbury included for Fahrenheit 451? If oppressive dystopias fit, that stretches the bounds wider still.) Cats which are indistinguishable from their supercats should be merged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - overly vague and broad category that perforce relies on OR and POV in determining whether a work is to be included. Otto4711 (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Should not Category:Libertarian science fiction and the books sub-cat then go too? Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly, but that should probably be another discussion. The books category is debateable (it may be possible to trim it to genuinely Libertarian books); the overall cat would be reasonable without them, but its present membership (e.g. V for Vendetta (film), which has been endorsed by Libertarians, but is not made by or for them, as far as our article goes) is iffy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename (author): You haven't given a rationale for deletion, but for renaming ("this category is misleadingly named" - that means it should be renamed, not deleted!). Libertarian science fiction is a well-documented area of science fiction, with numerous authors categorised due to verifiable third-party references to their work as belonging to the sub-genre. This category therefore deserves to exist as much as Category:Cyberpunk writers or Category:Alternate [sic.] history writers, which are just as liable to definitional creep.
  Thus, the discussion moves to finding a formula that clearly demarcates this category as belonging to the genre, rather than to personal political backgrounds (which is currently illustrated in the disclaimer and the categorisation, but admittedly not the title). I suggest that it be renamed to Category:Writers of libertarian science fiction. That is indisputably the purpose of the article and indisputably clear. Bastin 02:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This does not answer the real objections: that the cat is subjective, and that it does not define a useful subset of SF writers, any more than Category:Science fiction writers who have written about Mars would. Category:Cyberpunk writers appears to limit itself to those who identify themselves as writing cyberpunk, which would be acceptable here, but would exclude several of the present members of the cat. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current members of the category are all clearly identified by their description as writing libertarian science fiction by self-identification, by receipt of an award specifically for the sub-genre (i.e. the Prometheus Award), or by description by a third-party. They are all verifiable. Bastin 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If they are, it's not in their articles, as WP:CATEGORY requires. Ray Bradbury? Robert Anton Wilson? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I took Bradbury out. Wilson was mentioned in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction article, but I considered removing him.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a recognized subgenre of science fiction. It even has its own award, the Prometheus Award. It just needs a bit more focus.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Prometheus Award winners would be a different discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's like saying that there can't be Category:Film directors, because there should be a category for Category:Best Director Academy Award winners. Bastin 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually I'm open to such a replacement except that many non-winner nominees write in this subgenre. I think renaming to Category:Writers of Libertarian science fiction would be better. It might be better than what we have, but I can go either way.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OCAT intersection of politics and occupation. Do libertarian SciFi writers write differently than others? Everyone likes to make the assumption that people's race, ethnicity, sex, religion, politics is so intertwined in their writing - but that's stereotyping. It would be hard to find literary experts who when presented with works with which they are unfamiliar would claim to be able infalibly to discern the author's race, ethnicity, sex, religion, and politics. So why do we make that leap of illogic. P.S. If there is a true genre of libertarian sci fi then a proper category of Category:Writers of Libertarian science fiction may be sustainable, but I can't see that genre is clearly established by the arguments above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a genre, it's not an invention of Wikipedia. See The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction pgs 718-9. In fact I'll add a few names based on its article--T. Anthony (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if this were confined to the consensus members of that genre, there would be no objection but redundancy. But it isn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indoor soccer players to Category:Indoor football (soccer) players

Nominator's rationale: to match naming convention for Category:Football (soccer) players as in in particular Category:Indoor football (soccer) players by competition Mayumashu (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the few I looked at, these people play/played both indoor and outdoor soccer so this is OCAT, like Category:Football players on Astroturf, Category:Clay court tennis players, or Category:Bicycle racers who ride on macadam. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment indoor soccer and soccer are two different sports, with several different conventions and rules. plus, the page also acts as a collectoring page for its subcategories. Mayumashu (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, Neutral on rename because I'm not sure where Category:Futsal players comes into the equation. Neier (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 14:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:NPSL I players to Category:National Professional Soccer League (1967) players
• Category:NPSL I franchises to Category:National Professional Soccer League (1967) franchises
• Category:National Professional Soccer League I to Category:National Professional Soccer League (1967)

Nominator's rationale: to spell out initialism and replace naming it "I" (to indicate that it was the first incarnation of a league by the name "National Professional Soccer League") with "1967", the sole year the league operated (it s article page has likewise been changed). an alternative renaming could be Category:National Professional Soccer League (outdoor), as the other NPSL was indoor Mayumashu (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:North American Soccer League coaches. Kbdank71 14:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NASL coaches to Category:North American Soccer League head coaches

Nominator's rationale: spelling out initialisms to name cat page is the norm on wikip and being an assistant coach is not noteworthy enough (I ve checked to see that everyone listed was indeed an NASL head coach at some time) Mayumashu (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but to Category:North American Soccer League coaches per Category:Soccer coaches in the United States. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per roundhouse0. We don't seem to subclassify coaches into "head coaches", "assistant coaches", etc. for any sport. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Copley Medal to Category:Copley Medallists

Nominator's rationale: correct nomenclature emerson7 14:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • addendum: medalist → medallist. --emerson7 01:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm pretty sure UK English is medallist (this is a UK prize). Google gets 39 hits for Copley Medalist and 83 for Copley Medallist. And should it not be 'medallist'. ('Recipients of the Copley Medal' neatly sidesteps these difficulties.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "medallists" would be the correct spelling. I would note that the Royal Society website calls them "winners". DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree: 'medalists' comes from a bad spell checker. medallist is correct.
• Keep For the UK, it should be "medallists", but I doubt if recipients would ever be so described in the UK, as the word in this sense is an Americanism that that only so far affected sports in the UK. Who says it is "correct nomenclature", apart from the nom? In fact the sub-cats of Category:Award winners show a rich stew of "recipients", "winners", "laureates", "honorees", and "holders", but I can't see a single other cat of "medallists", however spelt. In fact "recipients" is much the commonest. As the creator of Category:Medallists, the difference in spelling was very convenient to avoid confusion. "Winners" would be a better rename, but none is necessary. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as far a nomenclature, much like the nobel prize, the honours bestowed include more than just the prize-purse, and a coin with a ribbon tied to it....they become 'laureates'. 'winners' of medals become medallists. there's really little to be confused about no matter which side of the atlantic one hails. ...also, see the myriad olympiad medal(l)st categories. --emerson7 00:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Recipients is clearer and widely used in UK. --Bduke (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Copley Medal recipients - looking at Category:Award winners the more standardized format for category names appears to be the name of the award first and the winners/recipients/laureates designation second. Also cuts two unnecessary words out of the cat name. Otto4711 (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or that. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Copley Medal winners per usage of the awarding body. DuncanHill (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment as explained above, emphasis is incorrectly placed on the physical rather than the honours bestowed. ...have you ever seen a UC Berkeley parking space reserved for a NR? --emerson7 00:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meta analysis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Should be more properly spelled "meta-analysis", hence request renaming. JFW | T@lk 13:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - article is Meta-analysis. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as suggested. I created it based on a (redirected) link in an article I was looking at, but all other occurences have "meta-analysis". Melcombe (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: 'delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tower Mint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Small category with no potential for growth. The very model of a minor general (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Subject has no article, probably rightly. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. (There is Tower Mint, possibly not for much longer, and also user:TowerMint.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 14:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Victoria Cross recipients by name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as ill-conceived (category of lists?) Sapphic (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's nothing inherently wrong about a category of lists. Given the huge number of recipients, this seems like a good way of organising these lists to me. Where else would they go? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It should be placed somewhere in the capacious Category:Military lists. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A biggish list split into articles/lists by letter. I see no problem, and there are loads of categories of lists. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I thought a category of lists would be considered a self-reference and should at least be a hidden category like Category:Wikipedia_template_categories. Since the main list already organizes the other lists, is the category really necessary? I think this whole area needs some cleanup perhaps, so are there some similar examples I can look at where there are both topic categories and categories of lists on that topic? --Sapphic (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Good Ol’factory & Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus, and cats still not tagged. Kbdank71 13:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Family Guy episodes: Season 1 to Category:Family Guy season 1
• Category:Family Guy episodes: Season 2 to Category:Family Guy season 2
• Category:Family Guy episodes: Season 3 to Category:Family Guy season 3
• Category:Family Guy episodes: Season 4 to Category:Family Guy season 4
• Category:Family Guy episodes: Season 5 to Category:Family Guy season 5
• Category:Family Guy episodes: Season 6 to Category:Family Guy season 6
• Category:Family Guy episodes: Season 7 to Category:Family Guy season 7 -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is this a standard naming convention? Surely the word "episodes" should be in there, to remove any possibility of plot elements, characters, etc relating to a particular series being listed. If it's not a standard convention, this needs a full listing rather than a speedy listing. Grutness...wha? 03:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally the tv episode categories are formed as Foo episodes, with the episode articles sorted either alphabetically or chronologically. This is the first example I've seen of sub-categorizing by season, btw. Merge all to Category:Family Guy episodes, or if we really want to keep the seasons split out, rename as Category:Family Guy season # episodes. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. None of the categories are presently tagged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems perfectly clear & acceptable to me. With up to 23 articles per cat, the split seems reasonable. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Episodes is needed in the title, and cat looks fine as is. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 00:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Family Guy season # episodes per Her Pegship. NB Category:The Simpsons episodes is also subdivided by season. Otto4711 (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The categories are still not tagged appropriately. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete, extreme overcategorization, subjective. Per nom, the article and the neighborhood, may be notable, but that doesn't mean that everyone who ever lived there is also (notable for living there) . Kbdank71 14:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, better handled as a list. Subdividing people by locality categories by neighborhood hinders navigation and really opens the floodgates to, well, a flood of categories (or maybe I'm just unusual in having lived in three different NYC neighborhoods in the past three years...not that I have an article, but you see the point). There's also the issue of defining inclusion, as neighborhoods do not have formal boundaries and may change significantly over time. Postdlf (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (upmerge if necessary). Such a finely-detailed level of category is inconceivable. Floodgates indeed! A list might be of interest for some neighborhoods like this, but certainly not for every neighborhood. (Perish the thought.) Cgingold (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I think this is a good idea as it enables users to break things down and allow users to focus on individual neighborhoods. Scanlan (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and this sub-sub-sub-categorization of the People from structure is really out of control. Otto4711 (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Perhaps Category:People from Riverdale, New York should be added to the nom. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the idea of a list is ok, however this is a famous, and culturally important and historical neighborhood and this category recognizes and documents that fact..Modernist (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And then we get into arguments regarding every neighborhood that someone asserts is culturally and historically important enough to merit a category. The problem is that a neighborhood is just far too local and specific to be of any use as a category; it's hard enough to make substantive use of any subnational people categories because of the degree to which people are born in one place, live in another, go to school in another, work in another... Postdlf (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the size of the category and the logical parent Category:Greenwich Village. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We have deleted any number of categories that are larger than this one and that have logical parents. Otto4711 (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Greenwich Village simply isn't just any neighborhood. Like Harlem, and a few other neighborhoods in New York City it is historically and culturally significant. The Village and Harlem are significant repositories of cultural folklore and historical fact reaching back to the 19th century....if not further..the people in the category are important writers, painters, poets and musicians..The Beats, Off-Broadway theater..and along with Harlem, this category is important..Modernist (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's why the article on the neighborhood exists and is important. And anyone who has played an important part in the history of the neighborhood can be listed in that article. Without context, an individual's connection to a neighborhood really doesn't mean much in the abstract, particularly since the character and boundaries of this neighborhood have changed over time (and you should hear New Yorkers fight about present boundaries of neighborhoods—where does Greenwich Village end and the West Village begin?) The issue is not whether Greenwich Village is historically important; it's whether any people-by-neighborhood categories should exist. One of the biggest problems is that neighborhoods are not clearly defined areas like municipalities, counties, or states. Neighborhood categories for people also really don't sit well with the parent people by city categories—we'd either be stuck with redundancy, as someone would be categorized as both from NYC (or really, the boroughs thereof) and from Greenwich Village (and any other bloody neighborhood they ever set foot in), or from San Fran and from Haight-Ashbury (you know that one's coming next if this stays...), or would only be categorized by neighborhood, which really hinders navigation. I think it's tenuous enough to categorize people by the city they are from considering how much people move around during their lives. But with neighborhoods, at one point in an individual's life they may live in one, work in another, go to school in yet another, and socialize in yet another neighborhood. Postdlf (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here's my point - and I'm ambivalent about this category, however I'd prefer to see attached to the article a list of important and/or notable residents of Greenwich Village..If this category goes, then the list becomes important because the people in the category are extremely well known, I've seen too many of those lists get diluted over time with Harry, and his Aunt Bee who once lived there - if you know what I mean, so it's a problem...which is why I think this particular category should stay. Modernist (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I agree with Modernist's viewpoint, but not Modernist's analysis. Greenwich is clearly culturally significant, but many people passed through there whether they "lived" there or not - and those who notably contributed to its culture will be mentioned in the neighborhood's article - those who were notably influenced by the culture will have mention of that in their bios. But a category of all sorts of those people, along with people who just happened to live in Greenwich without ado is a category of people with minimal in common with one another and not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However the cultural significance is in large part due to many of the residents. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I created the list Notable Residents in four columns in the article...if this category goes the list will have to suffice....Modernist (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Addendum someone deleted the list of notable residents, the reason given - the category is sufficient, I just returned the list to the article. Modernist (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:
  • 1. This isn't just a "neighborhood" -- it has a high-five-digit population, making its potential membership much larger than many of the small towns that have their own categories.
  • 2. "Who lived where" categories simply don't work as lists in the article. Cities and neighborhoods are big, permanent structures whose importance dwarfs that of any one person who has ever lived there. It lengthens and cheapens the geography articles to force them to include this information when a category could do the work.
    • Please see my "comment re lists" below. Cgingold (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. It is much easier to police this as a category than as a list. Wikipedia runs on the prinicple that the frequent editors of an article are semi-expert in that subject. But even an expert on a city can't keep track of the teeming millions of residents over that city's centuries of history. This is doubly so for neighborhood residents, where neighborhood membership is biographically significant, but not something that the neighborhood's official records would necessarily record. On the other hand, the experts of each individual's biographic article on Wikipedia should be expected to know the residential history of that person, and be able to know whether to place or not place that person in a given "People from..." category.

--M@rēino 21:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a very strong supporter of Categories, but one argument I would never make is that "it's easier to police a category than a list." The plain fact is that it is more difficult to police categories because there's no way to watchlist them, and there's no way to know what may have been removed without your knowledge. Cgingold (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep A culturally significant area of New York City with many notable individuals who are identifiably connected to the neighborhood and for whom their connection to Greenwich Village is a meaningful part of their identity. This is exactly the purpose that categories are intended to serve. Placing these people in this Greenwich Village category is infinitely more meaningful than using People from Manhattan or People from New York City as an alternative. Alansohn (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An argument can be made about other neighorghoods, but not Greenwich Village. The type of people the neighborhood inhabits have a world-wide reputation. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re exceptions - After reading through all of these heartfelt arguments for keeping, I feel obliged to elaborate a little further on why it would be so problematic for us to give our blessings to this category -- as much as I might otherwise be inclined to do so. Postdlf has already covered the basic issues very nicely, so I would like to address the question, "Why not make an exception for such an exceptional neighborhood? We're talking about Greenwich Village, ferkrisake."

My concern is that making exceptions on a purely ad hoc basis would be a recipe for major battles over other similar categories, with unpredictable and conflicting results. If there is very strong sentiment in support of making such exceptions, I think we would be much better off doing so only on the basis of guidelines that have already been agreed upon beforehand, so they can be applied fairly across the board. Cgingold (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re lists - In cases like this where there is a very extensive list of names, whose sheer length is disproportionate to the rest of the article, I would strongly recommend splitting it off into a separate article. This also helps by making readers aware that there is such a list of people associated with the neighborhood, and allows that article to be placed in one or two additional categories. Cgingold (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re splitting the article, Greenwich Village has already been split basically into three articles already. We have the East Village and the West Village, two fairly good sized articles. The category should really stay, and I agree with the above comments by various other editors about the difficulty of maintaining the article list, which is easily altered. Modernist (talk) 21:48, 5 May 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.