Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 26: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:49, 27 April 2007 editStbalbach (talk \| contribs)24,748 edits →Category:Non-fiction outdoors writers ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:19, 27 April 2007 edit undoRachack (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,703 edits →Category:Antisemitism Next edit →
Line 74:		Line 74:
	*'''Keep''' - for reasons well articulated above. --] 18:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)		*'''Keep''' - for reasons well articulated above. --] 18:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Keep, and Oppose rename'''. The current category text seems to me to do the job fine. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)		*'''Keep, and Oppose rename'''. The current category text seems to me to do the job fine. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Keep.'''] \| ] \| ] 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

	==== Elections in the United States by year ====		==== Elections in the United States by year ====

Revision as of 21:19, 27 April 2007

< April 25	April 27 >

April 26

Category:Caravaggio paintings in the Borghese collection

Category:Caravaggio paintings in the Borghese collection to Category:Paintings in the Borghese collection

Merge - this is overcategorization by triple intersection of artist, medium and collection. In addition, the parent cat is so small that subdividing seems unnecessary. Otto4711 23:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom Johnbod 00:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As a member of Phi Beta Sigma, I enjoy the page and use it as a reference at times. Although it is important that the page be kept accurate, It's fine by me. However, the actual[REDACTED] Phi Beta Sima page seems to be objective and over doen. Just the fact please! For info on PBS please visit pbs1914.org

GOMAB Brandon C. Boles

Category:Bernini sculptures of the Borghese collection

Category:Bernini sculptures of the Borghese collection to Category:Sculptures in the Borghese collection

Merge - the parent category is small so subdividing it seems unnecessary. Additionally, this is overcategorization by triple intersection of artist, medium and collection. Otto4711 23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Rename to "Modern sculptures of the Borghese collection" or similar, but don't delete. See below. The distinction between ancient and modern is highly important. I'd rather see these merged with the paintings into "Renaissance and Baroque works of art in ..." than merged with the antiquities. Johnbod 00:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Borghese antiquities

Category:Borghese antiquities to Category:Sculptures in the Borghese collection

Merge - the parent category is very small so subdividing it seems unnecessary. There is nothing that indicates why "antiquities" should be categorized separately from sculptures. Otto4711 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep These belong to diffferent trees & are sufficently distinct that they should be kept apart. If Otto cannot see why a sculpture of 150 AD should not be categorised differently from one of 1650 AD then I suppose there's no use trying to explain. Johnbod 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, instead of being snotty about it, you could explain why they are distinct. If the only reason to keep them separate is because one bunch is older than another bunch, then the scheme smacks of being an arbitrary standard of inclusion. Otto4711 01:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

They are just very different things - in London and many places they wouldn't even be in the same museum & in the Louvre they are in different departments. Look at what your proposal would do to the head-categories also. Are you saying a near-2000 year difference in period is "an arbitrary standard of inclusion"? Would you apply the same crieria to non visual arts categories? Roll up the Roman emperors and Presidents of Italy? I don't think so. Johnbod 01:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that the category does not indicate, with perhaps a category description, why this set of sculptures should be categoried as "antiquities" instead of "sculptures." Saying that "they are just different" doesn't strike me as particularly informative or persuasive, especially in light of a comment like "I suppose there's no use trying to explain." It leads me to wonder if that actually means "I don't know either." "Rome" and "Italy" are two very easily distinguishable geopolitical entities. Even dumb ol' me can tell you some differences between them so I wouldn't suggest merging the two categories. Otto4711 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I also find Ancient Rome and Baroque Rome "very easily distinguishable". I guess I was right the first time & there is no point trying to explain. Or are you saying you just don't know what antiquities means, and put the category up for deletion rather than disturbing your dictionary? Johnbod 03:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Duuuuh..."antiquities" means "old stuff," right? Maybe it's just me, but I think something from AD 1650 is pretty damn old. I am more than happy to learn about the very special distinctions which require that these particular statues need to be categorized as "antiquities" but so far you really haven't offered any real justification for it. If all that "antiquities" means is "really old" as opposed to, oh, "old," then I'm not seeing the need to differentiate between old statues and really old statues. Can you explain that to me or are you just planning on spouting more of this I know it when I see it stuff? That may have worked for Potter Stewart but you sir are no Potter Stewart. Otto4711 03:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just you - I hope. Johnbod 12:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So...does that mean you can't explain why the old sculptures and the really old sculptures should be separated, or does it mean you're just not going to? Otto4711 20:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep per User:Johnbod Modernist 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Elections in Mexico by year

Propose renaming Category:Elections in Mexico, 2000 to Category:2000 elections in Mexico
Category:Elections in Mexico, 2003 to Category:2003 elections in Mexico
Category:Elections in Mexico, 2004 to Category:2004 elections in Mexico
Category:Elections in Mexico, 2005 to Category:2005 elections in Mexico
Category:Elections in Mexico, 2006 to Category:2006 elections in Mexico
Category:Elections in M:exico, 2007 to Category:2007 elections in Mexico

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention of other year stuff in country categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to tag the categories when I nominated the articles last night. Now done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism

Propose renaming Category:Antisemitism to Category:Articles that discuss antisemitism

Nominator's Rationale: According to the disclaimer template at the top of the category page, this category "indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of antisemitism. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is antisemitic." The problem is that this is not clear from the category name alone, and this leads to potential WP:BLP problems when it's added to the articles of living people. For example, there's a nasty argument over on Talk:Gilad Atzmon about whether or not adding this musician to the category (he's been accused of antisemitism, which he denies) violates our BLP policy. The argument in favor of retaining the category is that it isn't an accusation of antisemitism, but merely an indicator that antisemitism is discussed somewhere in the article. If that's the case, then we should rename the category to make this clear. The existing title is simply too problematic and too subject to misinterpretation. *** Crotalus *** 23:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - oh, is it time again already to discuss this category and its many iterations? How about instead of constantly tinkering with it to the satisfaction of no one we just admit defeat, delete it and then we don't have to worry about it any more? Otto4711 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - the nomination was to rename. While you're at it, why not remove all the articles in the cat as well: "and then we don't have to worry about it any more". ←Humus sapiens 04:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Interesting but hardly novel idea - eliminating things so we don't have to worry about them anymore... --Leifern 18:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep as is. Or maybe change back to its older name "Anti-Semitism" as I'm still uncertain this is really the more common name. Anyway point being this is a valid historical topic and it doesn't need to be awkwardly justified. In addition we have Category:Anti-Arabism, Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment, Category:Anti-Indian sentiment, and other things in Category:Anti-national sentiment. Rename them all in this manner or why bother? Granted my main view is don't bother.--T. Anthony 03:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- That said it might be best to not add it to articles of living people. Also I'm leaning toward "speedy keep" after I saw how many other language Wikipedias have this as well.--T. Anthony 03:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - Unlike Category:Anti-Arabism (hatred of Arabs) or Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment (hatred of Chinese), antisemitism is not hatred of semites. Many academic sources prefer non-hyphenated spelling. Why would we reintroduce confusion? As for BLP, are the living people somehow immune to antisemitism? Let's not put artificial barriers please. If the requirements of WP:BLP are satisfied, it should be enough. ←Humus sapiens 03:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    - By not having the hyphen I guess it means it's more like antimatter, therefore it's something that when mixed with semitism annihilates both. (Whatever that would mean) Or it could be like Antiphon and it's something that alternates with semitism somehow. Point being you have a hyphen, you don't have a hyphen, the word still implies it involves semites somehow. Having "semitism" as part of it clearly implies that. If you can think of a word that starts with the "anti" prefix, but has nothing to do with what comes after the prefix, feel free to correct me. As I see it the only way to get around the association is to coin a new word which has no "semitic" element in it. And the unhyphenated form is not really preferred in scholarship or academia in the English language. Still it is preferred in non-English languages and the Jewish community. I had said maybe move it back, but remembering that I know it's a bad idea, so what I mean now is that if we were to rename this that would be the way to go. I disagree with the proposal here and ultimately I want this category to remain as is.--T. Anthony 05:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      - Maybe it's like Antipasto. :) --Xtifr _tälk 11:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep as is - just as any Category X doesn't need to be changed into Category:Articles that discuss X (imagine Category:Articles that discuss addiction and Category:Articles that discuss nationalism instead of Category:Addiction and Category:Nationalism). ←Humus sapiens 03:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, antisemtism is, unlike the various[REDACTED] based neologism fluctating in cfd discussions, a well established historical concept. The fact that the term is a misnomer (i.e. that not all semites are jews) doesn't really affect anything,[REDACTED] relates to how concepts are used in the real world. Of course one should keep in mind that accusations of antisemitism can be extremly controversial, and the category should be reserved for obvious clearcut cases (Hitler, Göring, Anti-Jewish Struggle League of Sweden, etc.). --Soman 09:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep for clarity's sake. Why add all the blah, blah, blah about nothing? What else is Misplaced Pages if not mainly articles? What next, rename Category:Sex to Category:Articles that discuss sex or Category:Holocaust to Category:Articles that discuss the Holocaust, or how about Category:Internet to Category:Articles that discuss Internet? Hmm, this could keep us all busy as we rename everything. This is obviously a BAD FAITH nomination and should be dealt with quickly! IZAK 10:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as per IZAK. Good analogy. The Prince 11:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep as is. Tinkering with a category because of occasional problems in applying it is a case of the tail wagging the dog. If it's application is controversial for some living person, deal with the problem at that level.--Redaktor 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep and close discussion per WP:SNOWBALL and WP:POINT. Gidonb 11:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment as already mentioned, the problem is when the category is used as "well person A is alive and it's not clear that A is an antisemite, but I think he is so I'll add him to the category". If only used for dead and/or self proclaimed antisemites there wouldn't be any problem. // Liftarn
Keep as is. If we were talking about something called Category:Antisemites, the concern about application to controversial individuals would be valid, but in this instance it's clearly just a category of articles that deal with antisemitism in some way. As an example, Abraham Foxman is included, and I don't think there's any concern whatsoever of him being painted as antisemitic. ;) Daniel/_T+ 12:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep as it is, like IZAK says. There is no need to start renaming this category because then it will start a trend and a bad habit, and, more than anything else, isn't it obvious that the articles in that category discuss Antisemitism? If the name of the category was Actions carried out by the Wehrmacht during WW2 then I'd agree renaming as that not all the Wehrmacht actions were related to Antisemitism. --JewBask 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep and do not rename As discussed on the previous CfD's. What next, rename Category:Imams to Category:Articles that discuss Islamic religious figures? or Category:Islam to Category:Articles that discuss religous issues based on Mohammedean prophecies and teachings? This is getting a bit out of hand. -- Avi 13:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, do not rename - disclaimer is adequate; new name is awkward, reminds me of those 'as-a-term/in-popular-culture' evasions. Tom Harrison 14:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep as is per IZAK, Avi, and Tom Harrison. (And obviously use only when documented appropriate — like any other category on Misplaced Pages...) -- Olve 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep as is. Arguments above convinced me. If the name was 'Antisemite' or 'Antisemitic' it would have to change. But trying to find the 'right' qualifying phrase is impossible (e.g. "Antisemitism (topic)") is what I had been thinking. Now as a topic, it can be applied in many cases, including those people/institutions with positions against it. It will just have to be understood (through disclaimer, and ability to read being a common given around here) as not being 'Antisemite'. Shenme 14:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, rename unnecessary I'm not sold on the proposed rename. The current name doesn't seem all that ambiguous to me, plus the argument that people aren't reading the category description simply means that incorrectly included articles should be removed. (I never liked the argument that editors aren't responsible for reading category descriptions when categorizing. You should follow the description and context, not just guess at what you think the category title means.) Dugwiki 16:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
keep i think most folks would understand that category:antisemitism would mean something like topic:antisemitism, not category:antisemites Gzuckier 17:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - for reasons well articulated above. --Leifern 18:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, and Oppose rename. The current category text seems to me to do the job fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep.רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Elections in the United States by year

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention of other year stuff in country categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

oppose rename This is the standard WP convention in all Category:Elections by country articles I found. --Shuki 23:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- These are categories, not articles. See, for example Category:1998 elections in Canada, Category:1999 elections in Canada, Category:2006 elections in Germany, Category:1998 elections in Germany, Category:1999 elections in Germany, Category:2006 elections in Australia, Category:1998 elections in Australia, Category:1999 elections in Australia, and all subcats of Category:Elections in the United Kingdom by year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Rename per BHG. Doczilla 01:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Rename per BHG. Lesnail 01:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Rename all. It just reads a whole lot better that way.--Mike Selinker 07:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:YouTube

Delete - this category is largely serving as a recreation of the deleted YouTube users category (similar to the also-deleted MySpace people category) as well as capturing videos which appear on YouTube. Since pretty much anything and everything seems to end up on YouTube eventually, appearing on YouTube, and even becoming very popular on YouTube, does not IMHO warrant a category. If not deleted, then I suggest Renaming to something like Category:YouTube videos and restricting the category to the videos and excluding the people per what appears to be consensus against that sort of categorization. Otto4711 21:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename and repurpose to Category:YouTube videos I'd support the suggested rename and repurposing to make this a category to house articles about notable YouTube videos, such as lonelygirl15. I don't recommend deleting the category altogether, though, as my guess is we'll see enough notable YouTube specific videos to warrant keeping the category in place. Dugwiki 16:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Futurama directors

Delete - *sigh* Another one. The contents are already listed at List of Futurama crew so just delete it. Otto4711 21:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. and ongoing convention. Doczilla 01:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Categories for cast/crew lists aren't normally necessary. Dugwiki 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fantasy books by author

Propose renaming Category:Fantasy books by author to Category:Fantasy novels by author

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - while honestly I don't really see the utility of segregating novels from other books, as long as that's done then this category, as a container for novels categories and as a child of Category:Fantasy novels and Category:Novels by author should be renamed. If this gets deleted and serves as a springboard to discussing the dismantling of the novels/books split, I'm good with that too. Otto4711 20:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - per nom. Except I do not accept the criticism of the Book, Novels split. What we are talking about is a literary form, not the method of delivery. A poem may be in a book, a play may be in a book, a book may contain a whole set of artist's pictures. Increasingly novels, short stories etc are not arriving in book form at all, often online and more traditionally published in serial form, particularly in the 19thC. Many of these were notable at the time but still have not seen the light of day in book form. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 10:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. If we're only going to have one of "books" or "novels", then we should clearly choose "books", or countless short-story collections will be rendered homeless. It's easy enough to re-parent this in Category:Books by author and Category:Fantasy books, if that's really all that's bothering you. I am, however, neutral on the topic of whether Category:Fantasy novels by author should or should not be created as a new category. Xtifr _tälk 11:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Lost (TV series) directors

Delete - per extensive precedent against categorizing cast and crew by project. I listified the contents here so subject matter experts can expand upon it. Otto4711 19:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Novels by Anne Brontë

Delete, Small with no potential for growth; Anne Brontë only wrote two novels, and both novels are listed in this category. However, these two novels are the only novels that are and will ever be in this category. It's unnecessary. María (habla conmigo) 17:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep as a child of Category:Novels by author. When there is an extensive category tree, small categories with no growth potential may be maintained for organizational purposes. I would not object to upmerging all "Novels by..." categories to their corresponding "Books by..." parents but that's a different discussion. Otto4711 17:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep As per Otto above, it is acceptable to have subcategories with only one or two articles when they are part of an established scheme to completely subdivide a larger parent (in this case, subdivide Category:Novels by author). Dugwiki 19:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, Like Albums by artist, this is part of an established navigation hierarchy. -- Prove It 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Novels by author should have a similar header as Albums by artist, I think.--Mike Selinker 07:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Done as requested. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 10:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:One man show

Delete or Rename to something. The category is capturing people who have performed alone on stage. I'm not sure this is a worthwhile categorization, but if it is the category should be renamed to reflect that it's for performers. Perhaps something like Category:Monologuists but at the very least should be made gender-neutral. Otto4711 16:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion - Category:Spoken word performers. Otto4711 16:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Spoken word applies to ~~any~~ all of the entries currently listed in this category; although spoken word artists could conceivably be added in the future. Agree with nom to delete this category altogether and re-categorize subjects elsewhere, such as Category:Vaudeville performers, Category:Humorists, Category:Stand-up comedians, etc. SqlPac 17:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the people in the category are listed in the Spoken word article, for example Henry Rollins. Otto4711 17:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

However, not all are. I don't believe that renaming the category to Category:Spoken word performers because a single entry in the category is a Spoken word performer is the correct way to go. By the same token I don't believe it makes sense to move every one of the entries in this category to a single existing category, like Category:Vaudeville performers, just because one person listed in the category was a Vaudeville performer. I think it makes more sense to recategorize these performers and remove this category. SqlPac 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, that's fine, I'm OK with deleting the category obviously. Just want to be sure that's the best way to go. Otto4711 16:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Poems by poet

Propose renaming Category:Poems by W. H. Auden to Category:Poetry of W. H. Auden

Nominator's Rationale: Rename all - per the outcome of April 10 CFD it was decided that "Poetry of..." is the preferred construction. Otto4711 15:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll suggest "Poetry of William Shakespeare" instead. Otherwise, rename all.--Mike Selinker 16:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Rename all per nom, with suggestion of Mike Selinker to rename Category:Poems of Shakespeare to Category:Poetry of William Shakespeare. SqlPac 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Rename as per SqlPac Good point on William Shakespeare. The category name should match his main article's title (which is his full name). Dugwiki 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Updated nomination to reflect Shakespeare's full name. Otto4711 17:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename all per revised nom for consistency, per previous CfD in which this format was agreed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Rename all I'm a little frightened by the Poetry of Stephen King category! A Musing 19:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Please Please Revise - can I strongly suggest we change this to "by" instead of "of". This would be more consistent with the parent category name and with most of the other 'literature by author' category conventions. Why have a convention if there are so many? Also if we are changing to "Poetry" then the parent category name should become "Poetry by author" too :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 10:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Rename all. The "by" in the parent category refers to how these are categorized, not to the fact of authorship. It is analogous to Category:Guitarists by genre or Category:Actors by nationality. I hope you wouldn't suggest that Category:Flamenco guitarists be renamed to "Guitarists by flamenco" for consistency with the parent cat! :) And the "literature by author" argument was rebutted in the previous CfD. The important thing is to be consistent within a given category, and "of" seems to be the current consensus for this one. Xtifr _tälk 12:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Non-fiction outdoors writers

This category was originally deleted in an April 13 CfD. DRV overturned, holding the view that the debate had been too terse for consensus to have developed. The category is resubmitted for fresh consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep if someone will just better define who is and is not included and how the category relates to nature writers and travel writers - the DRV discussion was much clearer than the earlier CfD discussion. A Musing 20:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Outdoor literature provides a definition. -- Stbalbach 20:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep There is a need for this - I see Alfred Wainwright - surely the classic example - was/is not in the category (now he is). Bill Bryson is in general a travel-writer, but wrote a whole book just on walking the Appalachian Trail. The category title isn't snappy, but it will do. Travelling through countryside on foot, bike or boat is how I see it - ~~with sailing & mountain-climbing being different - no ropes allowed. ~~Johnbod 04:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)~~~~

Keep Clearly I was being irresponsible in standing by with only a comment. Nevertheless, even given what I said earlier about my unfamiliarity it seems clear-cut that these are not the same as nature writers. The argument that one term is used more than the other still does not establish that they are necessarily the same. –Unint 08:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep as a clear genre, albeit one which can sometimes overlap with Category:Travel writers and Category:Nature writers. The definition at outdoor literature could be improved, but will do as a starting point; but I disagree with Johnbod in excluding sailing (which is listed in outdoor literature). There currently appears to be no more specific category for writers about sailing. I have added a few sailing writers to the category, but I think that they might be better sub-catted as Category:Non-fiction sailing writers, which could be parented under this and other appropriate categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I have to admit I assumed sailing & mountaineering writers already had their own cats, without checking. If not, then yes they belong here. Thanks for adding Wainwright to the cat, which I was too lazy to do. Johnbod 12:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment. ~~I'm confused. The article that covers this genre is called Outdoor literature and we have an existing Category:Outdoor literature for that purpose.~~ Never mind, makes sense. This category could have lots of sub-cats like "Sailing literature", "Mountaineering literature", "Exploration literature", etc.. -- Stbalbach 20:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
~~More Hollywood families~~
Category:DeMille family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Disney family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Douglas family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Dutt family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Fisher family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Fonda family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Ganguly family (films) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete all - as with so many family categories, these are unnecessary for navigational purposes. The articles on individual family members are easily interlinked through each other. In many cases there is already an article on the family, which serves as an appropriate navigational hub and does a better job of explaining the relationships between the members of the family than the categories do or could. Otto4711 12:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. SqlPac 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete all per nom. Doczilla 07:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
~~Category:Pi Beta Phi sisters, Category:Omicron Delta Kappa brothers, Category:Kappa Alpha Theta sisters, Category:Delta Gamma sisters~~
~~I found some more fraternity membership categories, which are not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 08:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)~~
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and per countless previous CfDs which have agreed that membership of a student fraternity is not, in general, a defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
~~Category:Bonesmen~~
~~I found some more fraternity membership categories, which are not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)~~
Delete per nom and many precedents. Haddiscoe 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep (and thanks for separating this one out). Previous CfDs have agreed that membership of student fraternities is not a defining characteristic, and in I have agreed with all previous nominations; but I think that Bonesmen are a different kettle of fish. As the article Skull and bones says in its intro: "retention of selective membership, masonic-inspired rituals and other aspects that have engendered 175 years of continued fascination, glamour (or notoriety), and mystery. In regards to the influence of its members on US government and business, it is peerless." That membership includes at least three Pressidents of the United States (G. H. W. Bush and Taft, G. W. Bush, John Kerry, several supreme court judges etc
That marks it for me as a very notable and (arguably) defining characteristic; even if one doesn't agree with the (arguably hyped) assertions of its influence, the degree of interest in the bonesmen means that it is a category which will be very useful to readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
PS, there is also List of Skull and Bones members, which is a good and detailed list ... but the category is handier for the reader as a starting-point for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete I think the uniqueness of this fraternity is being overstated; I'd give more credence to keeping masonic categories, where they can point to in many cases a lifetime of association and a lot of collective charitable works, but precedent says those don't make it. The list is plenty. Given what's happening to the other fraternities, this will soon be an "orphaned" category, nonsensical within any broader context.A Musing 20:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete every fraternity is unique, but all are trivial; there is a list in the article of its notable members, if the membership is important to the biography it'll be mentioned there; if anyone cares to follow that link they'll see all the other notable members, so nothing is lost. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong KeepThere is legitimate significance to identifying these "old boy network" connections--and not just for conspiracy theorists. It is absolutely incorrect to state that all fraternity connections are trivial. The Skull and Bones connections have been the subject of numerous books, articles and documentaries.DIDouglass 04:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per BrownHairedGirl. Greg Grahame 10:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
~~Eh? BHG voted strong keep! Bencherlite 11:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)~~
~~Category:Alpha Phi Omega, Category:Kappa Sigma, Category:Phi Iota Alpha and Category:Phi Kappa Tau~~
These categories about a student fraternity are pretty much empty, generally containing the article on the frat itself, a member list, a few templates, possibly a member or two, and in a few cases also articles on other frats, for some reason. >Radiant< 08:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose for now. In numerous previous CfDs on categories relating to individual student fraternities, the consensus has been that it is inappropriate to categorise biographies by fraternity (because frat membership is not a defining characteristic of the person), so they shouldn't be used that way; and the underpopulation of these shows that there is clearly no need for such small categories to organise the basic articles on the fraternities.
Category:United States student societies is getting too large, and I'm not clear on how these articles should be categorised if these categs are removed: it seems to me that at the least we need a categ along the lines of Category:Lists of members of United States student societies. I'll happily chnage my vote once a solution is in place which also accommodates the likes of Category:Alpha Phi Omega, which is currently parented under both the US and Australian branches of the student society categories.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
~~It is also under the Philippine branch. Naraht 12:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)~~
I think the lists of members cat is a good idea. I also think the cat is too large, but I don't think that this particular split is helpful. >Radiant< 12:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete all The removal of the categories for members has left this almost empty, and if they are kept there is a strong risk that they will be used to categorise individuals, when there is a consensus not to categorise individuals by fraternity. Haddiscoe 13:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
~~Category:Armenian-American actors~~
~~Category:Armenian-American actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)~~
Upmerge to Armenian-Americans, An invalid intersection of ethnicity and occupation, Armenian-American acting is no different from any other, so Armenian-American actors should be upmerged and deleted like Scots Irish American actors and others which have been deleted before. Carlossuarez46 05:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Question Your argument would seem to imply to everything in Category:American actors by ethnicity. Is there a reason you're doing this one at a time?--T. Anthony 05:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I presumed that it was to allow for the possibility that editors might feel that there were different issues pertaining to different ethic groups. For example, I would be loathe to see Category:African-American actors removed, so I think it's useful to discuss these on a case-by-case basis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't nominated them all, I cannot see how the story of English-American actors differs from American actors in general, I cannot say the same for African-American actors, and others that remain in the parent category. Carlossuarez46 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Upmerge to both Category:Armenian Americans and Category:American actors. I agree that this is an invalid intersection of ethnicity and occupation, but result of removing this category should not be to remove the articles from either actors category or the ethnicity category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is no more invalid than every other acting by ethnicity category. Get rid of one or get rid of them all, or else it reeks of bias. Siyavash 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
~~Category:English American actors~~
~~Category:English American actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)~~
Upmerge to English Americans, An invalid intersection of ethnicity and occupation, English American acting is no different from any other, so English American actors should be upmerged and deleted like Scots Irish American actors and others which have been deleted before. Carlossuarez46 05:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Upmerge for overcategorization and per precedent. Doczilla 06:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Upmerge to both Category:English Americans and Category:American actors. I agree that this is an invalid intersection of ethnicity and occupation, but result of removing this category should not be to remove the articles from either actors category or the ethnicity category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
~~Category:Opera ballet~~
~~Category:Opera ballet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)~~
Delete. This category (which now only has one item) is ambiguous, referring to either (1) ballets in opera, or (2) the specific French form of opéra-ballet. It should be deleted because in the case of (1) it is too general to be useful, and in the case of (2) there is already a Category:Opéras-ballets. (Category:Opera ballet is also singular). --Kleinzach 05:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
~~Category:SQL statements~~
Propose renaming Category:SQL statements to ~~Category:SQL Keywords~~Category:SQL keywords

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, SQL statements is an inaccurate description for the content of the category. Per the ISO/IEC 9075-n:2003 (SQL) standard, this category lists SQL clauses and other non-statement SQL keywords, as well as SQL statements. A more accurate title for this category would be ~~SQL Keywords~~SQL keywords. SqlPac 02:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Rename, but use Category:SQL keywords, according to Misplaced Pages titling policies. No need to capitalize "Keywords". --GreyCat 03:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, per GreyCat, rename using Category:SQL keywords. SqlPac 13:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, per GreyCat, rename using Category:SQL keywords. Nswinton 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Updated nom to rename to SQL keywords with keywords lowercased. SqlPac 14:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
~~Category:Date of birth missing~~
~~Category:Date of birth missing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)~~
Repurpose to talk pages, as per Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 17#Category:Place of birth missing and considerable other precedent. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree per nom. Carlossuarez46 05:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Repurpose to talk pages per nom. Category:Year of birth missing is a defining characteristic and belongs on the article, but the precise date is not so critical, and its presence in article space simply adds to category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete, or at least move to talk pages. Haddiscoe 13:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Repurpose to talk pages per nom. Neier 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment A couple of times, I have actually been motivated to hunt down the information after seeing this category at the bottom of an article. If it had been on the talk page, I doubt I would have noticed it. I don't know if that's sufficient reason to oppose, but I wanted to at least mention it. Xtifr _tälk 13:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
~~Category:Date of death missing~~
~~Category:Date of death missing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)~~
Repurpose to talk pages, as per Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 17#Category:Place of birth missing and considerable other precedent. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree per nom. Carlossuarez46 05:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Repurpose to talk pages per nom. Category:Year of death missing is a defining characteristic and belongs on the article, but the precise date is not so critical, and its presence in article space simply adds to category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete, or at least move to talk pages. Haddiscoe 13:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Repurpose to talk pages per nom. Neier 00:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
~~Category:Place of death missing~~
~~Category:Place of death missing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)~~
Repurpose to talk pages, as per Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 17#Category:Place of birth missing and considerable other precedent. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree per nom. Carlossuarez46 05:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Repurpose to talk pages per nom. Place of death is not (in most cases) a defining characteristic, so this useful maintenance categ should not clutter up article space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete, or at least move to talk pages. Haddiscoe 13:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Repurpose to talk pages per nom. Neier 00:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)