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.
Nominator's rationale: I created this category as a procedural device in order to list it for merging. An editor has been busily filling the category (prior to its existence) with 97 (and counting) articles. But it is not clear which cultural heritage is being categorised. I believe that it should be merged with intelligence into either Category:Cultural heritage or some of its many sub-categories. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with optimal intelligence and perhaps make it into a category redirect. Occuli (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Johnbod (below) seems to be correct, as is often the case. Zarautsoy Rock Paintings is another cut n' paste from the unesco site linked in the articles. Occuli (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as far as I can determine, and I have not checked more than a handful, these are all to do with UNESCO sites. There are clues on the editor's talk page. A little guidance is in order by a kind passer by. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Cultural Sites on the UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List, which I suppose is defining for these mostly little-known places. World Heritage Site is the key article here, and we already have categories for those on the list - or "nominated" according to the article. Unfortrunately the editor has created many of these articles by pure cut n' paste from the UNESCO site - see Las Parinas. Is this a copyvio? Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, all of the sites I am adding are on the UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List. I absolutely agree with Johnbod that these sites should be re-categorized to Category:Cultural Sites on the UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List. It is a very accurate way of describing them. I would also add that it should be a sub-category of Category:Cultural heritage. As per the "copyvio" concern, all of the articles will be edited ASAP to remove this. Please check my most recently created articles for quality (ie Sarazm). --Adunbar505 (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
, Great - the text may be Public domain, I'm not sure, but it should be made clearer in the text if it is being quoted directly. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator I will support any pragmatic solution to this. All I know is that the status today is incorrect. Copyvios etc should be discussed away form this discussion, I think, though it can be useful to see that there may be a discussion over them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2009 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete.User:Yocep has created this category to hold the images that he has created/uploaded. I don't think we categorize images in this way—the user can create a list on in his own userspace if he wants to group these or track them. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per several precedents from a few months back. Otto4711 (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent (1, 2, 3). I've seen 'images by uploader' categories on Wikimedia Commons, but I don't know whether they are community-endorsed; on Wikipedia, maintaining a list in userspace—as a section on the user page or as a separate user subpage—is preferred over using a category. Another option is to use the upload log directly. –Black Falcon(Talk) 00:43, 5 March 2009 (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 14:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current name is ambiguous since "American Baptist" can mean member of the American Baptist denomination or even a member of the American Baptist Association. But not all Baptist ministers of American nationality are members of that denomination or association. To get around this problem, the category for Baptists of American nationality is at Category:Baptists from the United States. I suggest renaming this subcategory to match. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename , preferably avoiding "from", to allow for the many immigrants who have chosen to excercise their lungs before the Baptist public in America. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2009 (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 14:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I made this nomination because it isn't a category, there is never more than one "Chief of Public Affairs." Categories should have more than one member! Unless we'd want to have Current and Former DEA Chiefs of Public Affairs. I thought not! I changed the article reference to the personnel category, but I think Administrators may be better. --Abd (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP categories do not generally distinguish "former" and "current." If retained the name would be pluralized to reflect that contains articles for both present and past chiefs who might have articles. Considering there's no main article, and since as I noted the parent is quite small, there's no compelling need for it, i.e. its existence needlessly complicates browsing content by category.-choster (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Upmerge/Get rid of it - doesn't seem to be a pressing need for the category and the sole (former) article can reside quite happily in the personnel category. If retained for some reason, expand the abbreviation "DEA". For future reference, categories should not be emptied during the CFD process. Otto4711 (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kept or not, expanding all the DEA abbreviations is in order, see Note below, and see Category:Drug Enforcement Administration I also moved the cat in the article to the Administrators category, imagining that this category would refer to any administrator there, but apparently that category is for the Directors of the agency. That category might be misnamed. I reverted myself.--Abd (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it wasn't. I concluded that the category was useless in the article, so I removed it from the article. Then I CfD'd the category. --Abd (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For practical purposes it amounts to the same thing. Nominate it then empty—empty then nominate: the same situation results. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then if I want to remove a category from an article, how long must we wait before nominating the now-empty category? If my removal was improper, someone could put it back, except that we have consensus that there are two more-useful categories (and what was done, in fact, was to edit the article to the better category, and probably it should have both). If my nomination was improper, why? And why, if I've determined that the needs of our readers suggest that a category not be listed in an article (in this case, it provides the reader who follows it nothing that the reader didn't already have from the article), should I then refrain from nominating the category after removal? Content is king, here, and suggesting that the removal was improper is placing a possible technicality of CfD process above improvements to content. Wrong approach, which is why I've taken the trouble to discuss this. It's moot here, but the problematic approach might make a difference someday. --Abd (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2009 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per extensive precedent and consensus against categorizing sportscasters and other performers by media outlet. Was tagged for speedy because of capitalization and spelling error, but is not eligible for speedy per criterion 2. Otto4711 (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2009 (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 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two things here: Adding states as per many other such nominations, and converting "of" to "in" as appropriate.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of those. I have adjusted the nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom This provides information for the reader that they should not have to guess at--namely, the U.S. state in which the city is located or to otherwise clarify the contents of the category. Hmains (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and recent consensus re category names in many similar discussions. Occuli (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2009 (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 14:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More of the kind from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_26#Attractions, which passed. I've left out any from New York or Las Vegas, as those are somewhat murky. The Louisville and Pittsburgh parks categories are for the metro area, so I'd recommend changing them and then moving some of their contents into a greater area category. All other categories appear to be entirely inside the city limits. The "Religious structures" one is the only category of its kind, and is inside the Places of worship tree, so I'm suggesting renaming that to the more common structure.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion about this. The Arts tree seems well-established, so I don't feel a need to mess with it even if only two cities in the US have such categories. But I'm fine with that approach as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom This provides information for the reader that they should not have to guess at--namely, the U.S. state in which the city is located Hmains (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to have this discussion on a general basis. Let's implement it wikiwide for categories! Flesh out the proposal on the talk page then we can open it up for the community to see if there is a consensus. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and recent consensus re category names in many similar discussions about US places. Occuli (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2009 (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. Since I am sure this will make some users respond to this decision with a "Wha...?", I will state right up front that this was not decided through counting votes, but through the strength of the arguments presented. (If it was pure vote counting this would be a "no consensus" or a "keep".) For those who were in favour of keeping, we had the following arguments (or variations thereof) presented: (1k) he is the best known cricketer ever, exceedingly notable, etc.; (2k) more articles could or will be created that could be added to the category; (3k) its existence doesn't hurt anything; (4k) it's useful. For the deletion side, we had the following arguments (or variations thereof) presented: (1d) it is an eponymous category; (2d) it is a small category and it is unlikely that more articles will be added to it; (3d) the article Shane Warne serves as an appropriate navigational hub for all of the material. My assessment of the "keep" arguments: (1k) is irrelevant. Notability is the test for articles, not for categories, and no one "deserves" a category because of his notability. (2k) is possible, but not inevitable. (3k) is largely irrelevant: WP:NOHARM. (4k) is largely irrelevant: WP:ITSUSEFUL. My assessment of the "delete" arguments: (1d) is supported by WP:OCAT#EPONYMOUS, which in a general way discourages against the creation of eponymous categories, while acknowledging that they can occasionally be appropriate. (2d) is possible, but not inevitable. (3d) is a valid point: the 3 articles in the category are all linked in the text of Shane Warne, and each article contains in its text a link back to Shane Warne. Considering all of these, the issues of 2k and 2d are discussed in WP:OCAT#SMALL and the differing opinions on that guideline as applied here essentially cancel each other out: the additions could happen, but it's also possible that they may not. Without anything solid to go by, we have to just accept the status quo situation and not try to anticipate what will happen: it is currently a relatively small category. In the end, we are left with no good arguments for keeping (1k, 3k, 4k), but some decent ones for deletion (1d, 3d). User:Stephen Turner may have hit the nail on the head with his comment: this category should be deleted now in its current state; that's not to say it could never be appropriate or necessary, but that time is not now. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary small eponymous category with little or no immediate likelihood of expansion. Main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the material. Otto4711 (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sigh. Probably the best known cricketer ever. Plenty of potential for expansion. Argument for deletion is little better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, actually the rationale for deletion is not in any way like WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I guess that's an easy (if lame-ass) way of trying to rebut the nomination. Where is this room for expansion? He's retired from the sport, articles about seasons or teams or tests or whatever don't get categorized by those who participate in them, it's unlikely that his books are independently notable (and even if they were they wouldn't be categorized under his name but in a "Books by..." category). How well-known he is as a cricketer (or anything else) has bugger-all to do with whether there is now or is likely to be sufficient material to support a category or whether or not his own article links these whopping three additional articles together. Otto4711 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason for deletion, doesn't hurt anything by being there, and often people will not go from the smaller articles to main articles to check the other articles. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOHARM is not a legitimate argument for retention. The reasons for deletion are WP:OC#SMALL, which states Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, and WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, which states In general, avoid creating categories named after individual people, or groupings of people (such as families or musical groups). Articles directly related to the subject (which would thus be potential members of such categories) typically are already links in the eponymous article in question. There is no still no indication of possible expansion for this category, nor do the exceptions to the eponymous categorization guideline apply here. Otto4711 (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the category can certainly do with some work, but that hardly provides a reason for deletion.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of an expandable category despite nominators misgivings SatuSuro 01:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, where is the possible or likely expansion? Otto4711 (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exceedingly notable person, whose career is still ongoing, albeit not as a player. Lack of likelihood of expansion is a red herring, per Satu. Can easily be expanded as his biog article develops daughter article forks, as happened with Category:Donald Bradman. The policy specifically says "in general" because for most biogs it's not necessary, but for individuals about whom we have a lot to say, they're exceedingly useful and encyclopedic. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the Australian cricket wikiproject whether there is likely in due course to be a collection of articles such as those in Category:Keith Miller (the ones under K have all appeared in the last few weeks, since the Invincibles discussion). Occuli (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The most prolific creator of these articles by far is YellowMonkey, who has made his opinions clear above. --Dweller (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the nominator has quoted WP:OC#EPONYMOUS in part, perhaps it might be useful to post here another section of it: there are sometimes good reasons to have an eponymous category. Most examples are either collections of subarticles (see Wikipedia:Summary style), or collections of articles on a topic about the named person. Yup. This is and will be a collection of articles and subarticles. --Dweller (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And...one more time, where is the likely expansion of this category? All very well and good to go "oh, I just know there's more to say about this guy because he's just so very notable" (notability not having anything at all to do with categorization) yet apparently it's not so easy to offer even a single example of where the category is likely to expand. The idea that this is a "collection of subarticles" along the lines of the examples offered (Category:William Shakespeare or Category:Alexander the Great) is ludicrous on its face. Oh, and Occuli? The current revision of OC#EPONYMOUS, quoted above, includes both families and musical groups so pulling out that old diff is supposed to illustrate what exactly? Otto4711 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most notable living cricketers of the game. He's going to be doing Ashes commentry this summer and has been linked with a possible return. Certainly room for expanision. Oh, wait, can't have that as it's too much crystal balling. A bit like the policy of "little or no immediate likelihood of expansion", which in itself is full of weasel-wordings. Lugnuts (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the standard for categorization, otherwise every article on Wikipedia would be eligible for its own category. You've been around these parts more than long enough to know that. Since we do not categorize sporting events on the basis of who participates in them, neither his supposed Ashes commentary nor his rumored return are relevant. Otto4711 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until there are more articles in it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per this is not AFD. "is a notable person" is an argument to keep the article, not the category. --Kbdank71 14:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The "Keep" voters seem to be laboring under the delusion that deleting the category will somehow make the article about this person, or Wikipedia's coverage of him, or something, worse. His notability is not at issue, and is no reason to give him a category of his own. Until we have 20 or so different articles that are directly about him (which is highly unlikely ever to happen), there's no reason for a separate category. —Angr 16:51, 10 March 2009 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary small eponymous category with little immediate likelihood of expansion. Subject article serves to link the material. Otto4711 (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The template listing all those articles is a better plan. Versus22talk 18:34, 4 March 2009 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have added Wasit to the parent. (Wasit wasn't in either, was it?) Occuli (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now you've got everybody totally confused. Wasit, or Wasit not? Cgingold (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicate category. Versus22talk 18:30, 4 March 2009 (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:Tribes officially recognized by the United States[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.
Nominator's rationale: Exact same concept. MBisanztalk 20:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I prefer Category:Tribes officially recognized by the United States as the category name, partly because "Tribes" happens to be capitalized. Worth noting, also, that the US sense of "tribe" is inclusive/simultaneously a reference to a government as well as a people, and this isn't always apt or even ethnographically viable. There's supposed to be a distinct between ethnographic and tribal-organization articles, but this hasn't been applied across the board, and again part of the issue is that Category:Native American tribes is inherently vague, as it includes both peoples and also governments comprising groups of those peoples; Colville and Grand Ronde come to mind (in Washington and Oregon respectively). It would be better, for the sake of clarity, if Category:Tribal organizations recognized by the United States or Category:Tribal governments recognized by the United States were subcats of Category:Native American tribes, and even that, really, should be subcatted to Category:Native American peoplesexcept there's already Category:Indigenous peoples of North America (I think....) which is inclusive of the Canadian First Nations/peoples cats and also, for waht there are of them, the Mexican indigenous peoples.....whatever's decided of this merge, the vaguenss of the term "tribe" in the American usage is misleading in non-American contexts and also, I submit, potentially confusing form within the Amerian perspective as well.Skookum1 (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The problem with the name "Tribes officially recognized by the United States" is that the term does not clearly distinguish between tribes recognized by the federal government or state governments. There is a wide gulf of legal rights between federally recognized and state recognized tribes. Also, there are even stranger legal situations such as with the Lumbee, where the US has officially acknowledged them as being "Indians" but won't recognize them as a tribe. "US" needs to be included since some tribes within the US are recognized by other governments, such as Cuba. "Tribal governments" does not quite work because articles about the federally recognized tribes also include information about the tribal communities, such as famous members or grassroots events such as powwows, that might not be part of the tribal government. "Tribes," although not following the strict anthropological definition of the term, is the mostly commonly used term for Native American entities today. Terms such as "Nation" or "Band" carry their own baggage and are less frequently used. I agree that making this category a sub-cat of "Category:Native American tribes" makes sense. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
rename to Category:Native American communities federally recognized by the United States or remove "federally" and append "government" instead. Not all of these are "tribes" many are "bands" or "communities" by title, what they are generically are "associations" or "communities" or even "governments" for I believe that the recognition is to the tribe by and through its representatives which is responsible for defining who is in or not in the tribe based on its own inclusion criteria. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to something with Native American in the title. The reader has no way to know that the currently named category should not include e.g. Australian Aboriginal tribes. Arnoutf (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "United States" should be the tip-off. The US federal government doesn't recognize tribes residing in other countries, since they would be out of their jurisdiction. Conversely "Native American" most often means indigenous peoples of the Americas, North and South. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we use "tribes", we delete all bands, nations, and non-tribes from the category as not really belonging. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2009 (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.
What about the sub-cats then? Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, true, and the "...by location" category has the same problem. What should be done, then? ~EdGl(talk)
Comment prefer series to program to avoid UK/US spelling differences. Tim! (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment which is why I used show in the first place. I thought it was neutral sounding. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Presuming that this doesn't include a "one-shot" stand-alone program/programme, how about "television series", per WP:NC-TV? - jc37 09:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a Brit I would prefer "television series". At present there do not seem to be any program(me)s in these categories which do not fit "series". Is it likely that foreign-language programmes which are not series will ne notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, e.g. television news? - Fayenatic(talk) 09:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the "nightly news" is a "series" as well. - jc37 11:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 4 of the daughter categories use "shows" one uses "series", seems that "shows" is nearer the consensus standard. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit: I like "programming". It avoids the whole UK/US English issue of both programme/program, and series (season) vs. series (show). Let's make that the new standard! (Else, I support "series", per the current NC-TV.) - jc37 11:12, 5 March 2009 (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:Information Technology companies of Australia[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 14:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename, capitalisation fix.-choster (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2009 (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 14:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as per below nominations Mayumashu (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The proper parent for the politician categories would be "Politicians by career" or something of that kind. I consider the rest to be trivial intersections. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - agree with Peterkingiron. Occuli (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sort of... – I support deletion of this category eventually, but not until all of its subcategories have been deleted. At minimum, the contents of this category would need to be upmerged to Category:People by occupation; however, I oppose that outcome at this time since this is a nice container category for two-occupation categories. I also oppose a "Politicians by career" scheme per my argument in the CFD (see below) for physician-politicians. –Black Falcon(Talk) 20:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most people of note have had multiple occupations over their lives - this is hardly defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for nowuntil empty per Black Falcon. This is a container category for several sub-categories. I agree that the sub-categories probably should be deleted, but unless and until they go, this category serves a useful purpose. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Upmerge - most if not all of the sub-cats are going to be deleted and the few if any that remain can reside in the parent people by occupation category. Maintaining this category also acts as encouragement to editors to create additional trivial occupational intersection categories. Otto4711 (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2009 (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 13:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, possibly speedily. This is my fault, in that I just missed this one in my global nomination of February 25. I think it would have passed just like the other ones did, so I'd suggest making the rename ASAP.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and precedent. Occuli (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2009 (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:listify and delete. Kbdank71 14:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - clear-cut overcategorization based on opinion or issue. These are particularly egregious categories, as opinions about an extended conflict like the Vietnam War or Iraq War/Occupation are highly mutable. Read the inclusion criterion for the Iraq War category for an outstanding example of why this sort of categorization scheme is unworkable. Otto4711 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's well-reasoned argument. While the description in the Iraq War category attempts to specify clear inclusion criteria, it fails to do so, and the criterion it does provide is ultimately arbitrary (does not include those who are critical of the war) and subjective ("clear stand in opposition"). –Black Falcon(Talk) 02:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I could not disagree more with how these categories have been characterized. To begin with, the assertion that they are merely about "opinions" badly misrepresents their purpose. The individuals who are included in these categories took stands against those wars and actively worked to end them in their capacity as members of Congress. They are/were a crucial element in the opposition to those wars, and as such their categories are the counterparts to the respective categories for anti-war activists. The abstract arguments of supposed "subjectivity", etc. adduced in support of deletion are trumped by the clear and tangible evidence that the categories are being used properly and have not caused the sort of problem in application that one would rightly expect to find if those arguments held water. Please be kind enough to support the contention that "this sort of categorization scheme is unworkable" with evidence to back it up. I assure you that won't be possible, but I encourage everybody reading this to take a good look at the contents to satisfy themselves that what I'm saying is the case. Cgingold (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout the course of their careers, politicians take stands for and against and actively work to start and end many actions, policies, and practices. While the Iraq and Vietnam Wars are significant events, I think the relevant question is whether a congressperson's stance on these two particular wars, as opposed to any number of other things, is sufficiently defining to merit a category. Perhaps the precedent of the CFD for opponents and proponents of Alaska statehood, where the result was "listify", could be applied. –Black Falcon(Talk) 05:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at just one example, of a member of Congress who is not included in the category: Hilary Rodham Clinton. She voted in favor of the initial Iraq War resolution, then voted in opposition to the surge, voted in favor of a funding bill that required withdrawal, slammed Petraeus's report to Congress on the war, sponsored legislation to withdraw troops and during the presidential campaign vowed to end the war as President. Yet she is not considered a "Congressional opponent of the Iraq War"? Deciding who goes into this category and who doesn't is completely arbitrary as there is no standard for determining what level of opposition is required to qualify one as an opponent. What if a Senator was personally deeply opposed to war in Iraq but felt that it was important to support the foreign policy position of the President? What if Congressman Smith voted against one or more Vietnam War-related bills as a quid pro quo to get Congressman Jones's vote on one of Smith's pet pork projects? The motives behind congressional votes are often far from clear-cut to an outside observer. Further, maintaining this category sets a terrible precedent for categorizing Congresspeople on every political issue that comes before them, on both sides. Category: Congressional opponents of same-sex marriage, Category:Congressional supporters of stem cell research, Category:Senators who voted to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States, Category:Members of Congress who want to abolish the Department of Education, Category:Members of Congress who generally support the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy but who don't like the idea of partial-birth abortion and so voted to ban it and on and on it would go. Congresspeople could end up with dozens or hundreds of categories and, since over the course of a career politicians change their opinions on issues for any number of reasons from sincere political conviction to the direction of the wind in their home district, they will inevitably end up with categories in direct opposition to one another. The category system is simply not designed to capture this sort of information. Otto4711 (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is remotely suggesting that Congresspeople be categorized merely on the basis of their positions on a laundry list of issues. What sets these categories apart is that taking a clear stand against the Vietnam or Iraq War in the face of the full weight of "patriotic" sentiment and official pronoucements from the President & his minions meets the standard of being a defining act for members of Congress. Cgingold (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the categories are in no way limited to the timeframe of when one war or the other had the "full weight of 'patriotic' sentiment...". The category description for the Iraq category specifically includes those who were initially in favor of that war and then turned "strongly" against it (oh, how do we gauge what constitutes turning "strongly" away from the war again?) And if that is in fact the measure, then what constitutes that "full weight" of sentiment, and how is whatever standard one could come up with objective? Otto4711 (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The assertion that these categories merely reflect an "opinion" is incorrect - they are defined as those senators and representatives who have "taken a clear stand in opposition" to two of the most prominent and controversial conflicts of the last 60 years - and that clearly implies a public stand in their professional capacities as elected officials. As such, it is also incorrect to suggest that these positions are "highly mutable". If you read history and/or follow the news you'll find that the direction these positions tend to go is toward the anti-war position, not away from it - I think you would be hard-pressed to find politicians who once were against either of these wars later becoming in favor of them - so the change in category membership would only be to add members to it: like most other categories, in fact, which is a positive attribute of categories. It is highly unlikely that people would be moving in and out of it arbitrarily - there are clear criteria for admission. As for listifying - while I think that lists of Congresspeople against these wars would be valid and welcome additions to the encyclopedia, they do not accomplish what categories do: the net increase in information for our readers - which is our purpose here - by enhancing their navigation to related articles. The redundancy of lists and categories is desirable - see WP:CLN, which acknowledges clearly that readers navigate in different ways, all of which are valid and important. As for the comparison to the Alaska statehood opponents and proponents category, I think that action was hardly precedent-setting: there was very little discussion and only two editors weighing in in support of Black Falcon's nomination and one against it. That is not any kind of overwhelming mandate against such a category. Arguably (using Black Falcon's own argument over there) Congresspeople against these two wars - some in conflict with Presidents from their own party - was absolutely defining to their careers and of great significance, especially so for the early opponents - not mere personal opinion. I find CGingold's argument above to be convincing and correct, and consistent with the greater aims of the encyclopedia. I also await some evidence to support the "unworkable" contention, since the categories appear to be quite workable as they are now. Tvoz/talk 09:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That through the course of history positions tend to move toward war opposition is debatable (I think you'll find that the United States moved from opposition to support of one or two other wars in the last hundred years) but even if it weren't, the fact that political support and opposition changes is exactly my point, that opinion on these subjects is mutable. WP:CLN does not mandate the existence of both lists and categories; rather, it acknowledges that there are instances in which one form is superior to another. This is an instance where lists would be superior, because support of or opposition to a war is so complex an issue that a bare alphabetical list of names is insufficient to explain how the people included in it supported or opposed the wars. Otto4711 (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify -- a politician will have opinions on a multitude of subjects in the course of a long career. I do not think we can categoriese them all, but that would be the only logical conclusion. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially as The Creator is Cgingold the infallible, as I had begun to suspect. In the recent presidential elections, the position(s) on Iraq taken by each candidate was discussed at length in the global media and was clearly thought to be defining. (Vietnam more so.) Occuli (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this category is subjective and has no real dividing line. Is it just saying "I don't like it" or what? If the information is truly notable (which I have some doubts about), then listify. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 15:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I agree that the category creator sets a higher standard than "opinion"; notwithstanding, the inclusion criteria are still subjective. It's going from "doesn't like it" (opinion) to "doesn't like it and did something about it" (opinion + action), but the something is undefined and thus still subjective. It is scarcely different from the numerous "Critics of" categories we have repeatedly deleted, or the "Liberal" and "Conservative" categories also recently deleted. The "problem" is not with the Dennis Kucinichs or Donald Rumsfelds, it never is. No one denies that some are flatly in favor or against certain ideas or actions. The problem is that most of us do not inhabit a Manichean world, and politicians especially like to straddle the fence. In a sense, all politicians were against the war, like they are all against abortion, and you heard during the campaign some who excused their vote for the resolution as only supporting the authority to use force, not the actual use of it. Codswallop, twaddle, hokum, and malarkey of course. So what do we do about all the marginal cases, some of whom have been included and others excluded. John Kerry not only voted to authorize the war, but devoted a 45-minute floor speech to his support of the resolution, and voted to continue funding it (although, to Karl Rove's eternal satisfaction, not until after he'd also voted against it). Harry Reid did much the same. In the meantime, the category omits Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton. An oversight? Or does their level of opposition to the war not meet the criteria of "actively worked to end"… which is defined how again? Now, one could argue, a legislator's positions can be objectively measured by his or her votes. But you'd still have to pick which of the votes, not just on resolutions, but their amendments, and all related floor and committee motions. That's something lobby groups can do to paint a politician as 74% anti-gun or 56% anti-environment or what have you, but it's not something for WP editors to bother with.-choster (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Codswallop, twaddle, hokum, and malarkey", indeed - love it! (Have you thought of sending some writing samples to the op-ed page of your favorite paper? :) All the same, to say that "In a sense, all politicians were against the war" is to obscure the issue. Those who are rightly included in this category have verifiably declared their opposition in clear terms. John Kerry, for example, did waffle on the war for an extended period of time, before belatedly reversing and declaring that "the war itself was a mistake... and I was wrong to vote for that Iraqi war resolution." ("Kerry demands US troop pullout",Boston Globe, 6-14-06) Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, never reversed, and it cost her the nomination -- nor have Schumer, Feinstein, or Reid (whom I've removed from the category - he was erroneously added by an anon. IP in January). Cgingold (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete politician by position is a terrible basis of categorization. It also runs the risk of being useless even in the sense that the keep voices think it would: politicians by their nature change positions, so without tying this to any timeframe is useless. Take another contentious issue in the US: Slavery, if we had a category:Congressional opponents of slavery, presumably we could put in (almost?) all members of the last several dozen congresses, for few if any congressmen/women during that period were not opponents of slavery. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep When a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives voted in October 2002 in favor of invading Iraq, they weren't just "expressing an opinion". That was an act, not merely a question of "position". That roll call vote was no harmless opinion poll. Every single one of those who voted in favor is in a very real and literal sense among those personally responsible for unleashing the war. For most of them, it was their single most important vote ever. This applies as well to those who voted against the invasion. This is why those who had the guts and the moral fiber to vote against the decision to go to war certainly deserve a category of their own. Monegasque (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one "deserves" a category. Categories are not awards of merit or recognition. Adopting your rationale for keeping the Iraq category is in direct violation of WP:POINT and WP:NPOV as it puts forth the position that a vote against the Iraq War resolution was an expression of "guts" and "moral fiber" and implying that those who voted in favor of the resolution lack guts and moral fiber. Moreover, the category is not limited to people who voted against the resolution, as some in the category (Barack Obama for one) were not in Congress at the time of the vote. Your keep rationale does not address the Vietnam category at all. Otto4711 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category is clearly not for Congressional opponents of the October 2002 resolution, considering Barack Obama was not even a member of Congress at the time. Such a category, at least, would be verifiable. But it still would not be particularly informative, given the legislative process. A ban on discrimination against women was inserted into the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in an attempt to defeat the bill, so what use would it be simply to group its opponents together? Perhaps some were trying to rescue the bill, perhaps others had no interest in women's equality. That sort of information cannot be captured in a category. -choster (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. Unlike most of the above comments, I don't have any "strong" opinion about this, though it seems like overcategorization by opinion, since each of the individuals has held so many stances on a variety of political issues. So I'm inclined as a compromise to split the difference and listify it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per above. Categories are a very poor method for collecting this kind of information, and there's no potential end to the categories that would be created if we used them for political positions. No opinion on listifying, it depends on the list. Postdlf (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note that I've inserted a couple of responses (above). There's more to be said, but I am totally pooped out right now. Cgingold (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify as the content is notable but extremely subjective and mutable. A list format would allow politicans to be listed as "Voted against X resolution on the war", commentary could be added stating "said X in 2004 but said Y in 2008" etc. Categorising has none of those shades of gray. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong listify and delete both. Both these wars made and broke political careers, and a stance one way or these wars coud make or break a political career; in many cases, these stances are indeed a defining characteristic of those categorised. But the important point is one made repeatedly above, that political positions such as this are nuanced and changeable, and many of those involved in the debates do not fit neatly on one side or the other. Categories create a binary choice: people are either in the category or not, and none of those nuances are presented to the reader when they see the name in a category list. This is highly misleading: it lumps those who opposed these wars from the outset alongside those who switched sides, and it makes no distinction between those who opposed these wars on principle and those who objected to their lack of success. These nuances can be addressed in a list, but not in a category. There has long been a principle at CfD of not categorising people by political views, and the support for these categories seems to me to be a serious case of recentism. There is nothing new in wars becoming major issues of political divide, and if we keep these categories there is no resaon why we shoukdn't have the for plenty of other wars in which the US has fought: there was strong opposition to US involvement in World War 1. And if we categorise by this political opinion, why not also categorise across any of the other major faultlines in politics? Category:Opponents of the bailout of the banks, Category:Opponents of Obama's economic stimulus package, Category:Opponents of bussing to schools, Category:Opponents of drilling for oil in the Arctic ... and so on. Please folks, don't go there. These are important issues, but as Otto4711 noted above "the category system is simply not designed to capture this sort of information". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete. I basically agree with the points expressed in support of this action. Basically it is the only way to meet the verifiability for WP:BLP. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Unless the category name and criteria are kept specific enough then this category will be difficult to maintain. People waffle all over the map on wars. They change their minds over time. You could have a category for each year or month of the war. Specificity is key to whether to keep the categories. They may need to be renamed to provide that specificity. As for lists, they can exist too. There is no reason we can't have both lists and categories. I am for more categories, not less. We need to use common sense not some guideline written up at one point in time without reference to the specific issues currently. Does the category help the reader find info or not? Is it accurate enough to do that job? Would the lack of the category make that job more difficult? We can't sacrifice utility for perfection, or common sense for bureaucratic guidelines. They are GUIDELINES. See my related comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 9#Category:Malmedy massacre. These category names below are more specific and better meet the guideline in question too. There is a big difference between a mere opponent and an activist. Some of the entries in the category would have to be removed. The category criteria could be written up to emphasize outspoken activism as the criteria used.
Category:Congressional activists against the Iraq War
Category:Congressional activists against the Vietnam War
From WP:OC#OPINION: "Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic (see Category:Activists)."
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 but hold for 3 days to allow for anyone who wishes to listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Overcategorization on the basis of a trivial intersection: being a physician and being a politician are unrelated characteristics. Maybe this could work as a list of some sort, but it's definitely not a suitable basis for categorization. –Black Falcon(Talk) 01:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - with few if any exceptions, every member of Congress had at least not one if not more careers prior to becoming a member of Congress. Categorizing on the basis of former profession and being in Congress is trivial overcategorization. Same rationale applies to physician-politician category. Otto4711 (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I cannot speak of the Congress, but in the UK Parliament, scientists are under-represented and lawyers over-represented. Furthermore, an elected politician will inevitably bring expertise from his previous occupation that will enable him to speak with authority in debates. Accordingly, previous occupation is likely to be highly significant. However, I am not sure whether we need separate categories for physicians and dentists, as opposed to a general one for medics of all kinds. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[A]n elected politician will inevitably bring expertise from his previous occupation that will enable him to speak with authority in debates. Personally, I think political debates are informed more by political interests and affiliations than expert recommendations. However, putting aside that thought for a moment, I can't help but think that the same could be claimed of virtually any combination of occupations. Though the context varies, every person makes use of expertise from previous occupations. For instance, a novelist could make use of expertise from her previous work as an engineer to write about the design and construction of a fictional building, so should we have Category:Engineer-novelists? Moreover, Category:Physician-politicians is not limited to articles about MPs; it can include councillors, mayors, governors, agency/bureau directors, and so on, where previous occupation may or may not be at all significant. –Black Falcon(Talk) 20:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all intersection by resume. (Incidentally, actor-singer is overcat, but politician intersections are ok? Riiiiight, that's not a double standard...) If this is kept, be aware that Category Lawyer-politicians will likely be created in short order. (Can't be a WP:POINT violation if it's not disruptive. And if there's consensus for these, then...) As for "under-represented", how about Roman Catholic priests in Parliament? - jc37 11:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a sufficiently significant intersection. RC priests are not allowed to run for elected office by the church (these last several decades, nor were they before the Reformation for different reasons); if there were a number it might well be worth categorizing them. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the closer - as the two following nominations may be considered similar, and because there have been commenters who have suggested that their comments in one or the other discussion count for all, please take all three nominations into consideration when closing. - jc37 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure - let's tie on Category:Actor-singers like an anchor so it can drag down the other, fundamentally different categories. Nice try, jc! Cgingold (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCategory:Physicians in the United States Congress as this is NOT merely an incidental (and thus "trivial") intersection. Issues involving healthcare, medical research and medical ethics are among the most significant (and complex) that are dealt with by Congress on a regular basis. Physicians are understood to bring special expertise in these areas, and though a distinct minority in Congress, have played a leading role in shaping policy. This assumes even greater importance going forward, as Obama has made it clear that comprehensive reform of the healthcare system is one of his foremost priorities. I am doubtful about Category:Dentists in the United States Congress. As for Category:Physician-politicians, I think it would probably serve best as a container category for Category:Physicians in the United States Congress and analagous sub-cats for the UK & possibly other countries. Cgingold (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The United States Congress is not unique in that respect. Virtually every province/state- and national-level legislative body deals with "issues involving healthcare, medical research and medical ethics", as do all executive cabinets and health ministries. Would you support similar categories for every cabinet and national and provincial legislative body in the world, or at least for every national cabinet and legislature? I am not trying to make an appeal to ridicule; rather, that seems to be the logical extension of the 'special expertise' argument, since there is no reason to give special preference to the United States Congress over other national-level legislatures. –Black Falcon(Talk) 21:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair question. The answer is simple enough: It's a question of size. So in most cases, certainly not. But the US Congress has had more than 200 physicians among its members. I suspect a sizable number of UK MPs have been physicians, so that may be warranted as well. Cgingold (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Congress (or any other legislative body) deals with issues relating to health care does not serve as justification for the category, as the notion that physicians in Congress (or other legislative bodies) actively employ their medical backgrounds as members of Congress is simply an assumption. Congress routinely deals with food safety issues; should we therefore have Category:Grocers in the United States Congress? Infrastructure is a big congressional issue, so Category:Bricklayers in the United States Congress? At what level does the intersection of previous occupation and "member of Congress" become significant enough to categorize on the basis of the issues that Congress deals with, and what possible objective standard could there be to determine that? Otto4711 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I live to amuse you. Otto4711 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all, listify if desired. Many politicians had professional careers outside politics before taking office, but their previous careers are not predictive of their political positions or career trajectories. Margaret Thatcher was a chemist, but her premiership betrayed little sign of a bias towards a scientific worldview. In the current British House of Commons, two very prominent doctors come to mind: Evan Harris and Liam Fox. Harris a strongly left-wing, libertarian, atheist advocate of LGBT rights, while Fox is a socially conservative opponent of just about everything Harris has to say (it's hard to imagine the two of them even agreeing about the wetness or otherwise of water). The doctor-politician intersection is a trivial point of curiosity, and so is the dentist-politician intersection. Maybe one day category intersection will allow readers to browse whatever bizarre combination of categories they like, but in the meantime this sort of arbitrary trivia only causes category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the closer – A possible middle-ground between the "delete" and "keep" positions is to listify the category contents. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd have no objection to a List of physician-politicians (regular dash or en-dash?) and List of physicians in the United States Congress. The dentists category is probably too narrow in scope even for a list. –Black Falcon(Talk) 21:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That would be fine for me too. I'll change my !vote to "Strong delete all, listify if desired". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 8 March 2009 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete all trivial intersection. catting each for each of the two categories suffices Mayumashu (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - especially given the recent rise of musical TV episodes, the inclusion criteria for this category are vague and unworkable. Even without the TV musicals, pretty much everyone got shoehorned into a musical or two back in the studio days. Should Bette Davis be categorized as an actor-singer because she did a number in Thank Your Lucky Stars or croaked her way through an album? Otto4711 (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Otto, as overcategorization on the basis of a trivial intersection. The other national subcategories (Canadian, German, Turkish) should also be considered with this nomination. –Black Falcon(Talk) 02:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Moving between different branches of show biz is too commonplace to be worth having a category for. Every opera singer would have to be included; every performer in musicals; every pop singer who acted in a film; etc etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per all. Occuli (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial intersection as per my comment at the above CFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - intersection by resume. Note that if either of the other two discussions (before and after this one) result in keep, then I'll be at DRV with this one, since, in that case, intersection by resume would have consensus. - jc37 11:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron etc. "Trivial" is not exactly the point - too general and common to be worth categorizing seperately is. To jc37, this is very different from the the one below, as has been explained many times. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"very different" is a matter of subjective opinion AFAICT. - jc37 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the closer - as the two politician nominations may be considered similar, and because there have been commenters who have suggested that their comments in one or the other discussion count for all, please take all three nominations into consideration when closing. - jc37 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure - let's tie on Category:Actor-singers like an anchor so it can drag down the other, fundamentally different categories. Nice try, jc! Cgingold (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per Peterkingiron & Johnbod. These are, indeed, prime examples of what is really meant by "trivial intersection". Cgingold (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Since most actors have to do some signing, it's not a defining charcteristic of an actor. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:49, 8 March 2009 (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 to delete. —Angr 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as per discussion for recent nomination of similar nature, that is a trivial intersection Mayumashu (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note At least 3 previous nominations here - can nominators please check "What links here" when doing nom. All closed as "no concensus" - last, with links to the others, hereJohnbod (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable intersection. Every politician has had one or more careers before turning to politics. A list article that discusses the phenomenon of parlaying an acting career into a political career would be an interesting read but the category should go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 02:01, March 4, 2009 (UTC)
or indeed an interesting academic study, like "The Politics of Adulation: Cinema and the Production of Politicians in South India" JSTOR, "The Painted Face of Politics: The Actor-Politicians of South India" by Farrukh Dhondy, and others. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is an argument in favor of notability, the standard for an article. Otto4711 (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I have argued above for keeping physician-politicians. Acting is probably a less significant previous expertise, but the same logic must apply. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to your comment at the Physician-politicians discussion. However, with regard to your second point, I don't think that "the same logic must [necessarily] apply". If one intersection is defining and another is not, there is no need to keep both simply for the sake of completeness. Per Wikipedia:Overcategorization: "Avoid intersections of two traits that are unrelated, even if some person can be found that has both traits." We already apply this principle to intersections of occupation and gender, race, and sexuality.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs)
In fact the arguments for this cat are far stronger than for the doctors, for the reasons given below. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial intersection per my comments on the Physicians-Politicians above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (nb: 1st comment after Note about previous discussions) per my comments in previous discussions. In some parts of the world, above all India, this is a highly significant, & many would say pernicious, combination in political life (by my count 26/57 in the main cat are Indian - they should have their own sub-cat). In many cases, eg Reagan, Arnie, Glenda Jackson, nearly all the Indians etc, we are talking about stars whose fame as actors was undoubtedly an important factor in their political career. The intersection is not trivial, & the "two traits" are far from "unrelated". I would not be so bothered about people who were little-known actors before, but we can't realistically have Category:Acting-star politicians or whatever. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that a person's career as an actor can be—and, in some cases, is—a significant factor in their political career. However, it can also be—and often is—completely insignificant. When a characteristic is somewhat defining in some cases and utterly non-defining in many others, then that characteristic is not a good basis for a category. In such a case, entries need to be annotated with descriptions, comments, and references to explain how or prove that the characteristic is defining for each person who is listed. After all, if a real-world reliable source doesn't state that a person's "fame as [an] actor was ... an important factor in their political career", then we shouldn't assume or claim that that person's career as an actor was in any way relevant to their career as a politician. –Black Falcon(Talk) 06:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't demand that all of our other categories be equally defining for all members of the category. By that standard, hardly any would survive close scrutiny. Cgingold (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I never suggested demading that the characteristic by equally defining. I suggested that the presence of a high degree of variation makes a list a more attractive option. –Black Falcon(Talk) 21:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And in fact there are very few cases that I can see in the articles included where it was "completely insignificant". However the criteria of the main cat should be amended to match the American sub-cat, which requires that they have independent notability in each capacity. I don't think many would be affected in the main cat, although Clint Eastwood (local mayor) should be removed from the US sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all intersection by resume. (Incidentally, actor-singer is overcat, but politician intersections are ok? Riiiiight, that's not a double standard...) If this is kept, be aware that Category Lawyer-politicians will likely be created in short order. (Can't be a WP:POINT violation if it's not disruptive. And if there's consensus for these, then...) As for "under-represented", how about Roman Catholic priests in Parliament? - jc37 11:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't a double-standard. Almost all actors are trained in singing, and most sing at some point in their careers. That is the same as lawyer-politicians, as was brought out in the last debate, which argued the issues a good deal more thoroughly than this one so far. I can't see what "under-represented" comes from, but RC priests are not allowed to run for elected office by the church (these last several decades). Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, they're not. Though things have "loosenedup" somewhat in the last few years, I remember at a local university where the drama majors couldn't take music major classes, but the music majors could take some drama major classes... And that aside, my experience (call it WP:OR if you will) is that most actors cannot sing. Or at least not on the professional level (which is the implication here).
And the RC priests in Parliament comment was meant as a joke, but I'm sure that we can find quite a few professions under-represented as politicians, much less in Parliament. - jc37 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actors are taught to say things to audiecnes that they don't actually believe and keep a straight face and to pretend they are something they are not. Seems exactly what politicians/parliamentarians do. N'est pas? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like quite a few managers too : ) - jc37 21:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As I pointed out last time, there are multiple ways that an acting career can give a major boost to a career in politics -- so this is anything but a "trivial/random" intersection. I am totally pooped out, so for now I will simply say that I stand by what I said in the last CFD for this category. Cgingold (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple ways in which being a billionaire businessperson can give a major boost to a career in politics too. Are we categorising by qualities of an individual which contribute to them being a politician? I can think of quite a few more... - jc37 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought of that as a possible category, but it's not without merit. Cgingold (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple of pertinent excerpts from my comments in the last CFD:
"...these professions are increasingly intertwined (in the U.S. and elsewhere); it's a significant socio-political phenomenon..."
"Category:Actor-politicians reflects [among other things] the fact that acting ability is related to success in politics, and visibility/name recognition is related to electoral success."
The point, again, is that it's not, as claimed, a "trivial intersection". Cgingold (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the closer - as the two above nominations may be considered similar, and because there have been commenters who have suggested that their comments in one or the other discussion count for all, please take all three nominations into consideration when closing. - jc37 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure - let's tie on Category:Actor-singers like an anchor so it can drag down the other, fundamentally different categories. Nice try, jc! Cgingold (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category is quite different from German actor-singers and the like - actor-politicians are a phenomenon that is interesting at least in part by an examination of other people who fit the same characteristics, as opposed, say, to Peruvian lawyer-politicians or French singer-dancers - and what better way to navigate to their pages than via category. This is far from a trivial intersection, and in fact it is a rather significant intersection. Ask Fred Thompson. Tvoz/talk 23:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of those intersections which is in most cases no more than "interesting". There are a few actor-politicians for whom a an acting career was a key part of their political development, but for most it is no more than one of the many ways in which an aspiring politician can start with a high profile: others enter politics after achieving notability in business, sport, the military, or whatever. This sort of largely-trivial-and-only-occasionally-defining intersection is best explore in a list or article, and by category intersection (if or when it arrives). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the Westminster perspective, but as described above the category mostly contains stars from the US, Philipines, India etc, for whom fame as an actor was an essential precondition for a political career. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. "An essential precondition"? Sure, acting fame has launched several notable political careers in those countries, but plenty have made it without being actors. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well ok, coming from a family in the oligarchy is the other usual way in India & the Philipines. Or crime. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, but for these individuals the acting career was an essential precondition, not an incidental aside. Tvoz/talk 19:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's necessarily true. Fred Thompson did a bit of acting before running for public office, but I don't think that's what gave him the stature to be elected—he was involved as a lawyer in cases involving the government (Watergate, etc.) long before his acting career and was a lobbyist as well, and he didn't become a "famous" actor until after he was elected to the U.S. Senate. This is much better dealt with by a list. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying it is always true, but for Joseph Estrada, N. T. Rama Rao & the 25 other Indian articles in the category it certainly is. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which demonstrates the problem with having a category where there is a large variation in the significance of the intersection. Lots of politicians are notable before they become politicians, and the pre-existing notability may be for a variety of reasons. Should we have categories for all of these situations? Obviously not, but lists work well. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BHG and many of the other commentors. This is usually trivial, occasionally defining, but almost always interesting to someone, so I don't think it's best dealt with by a category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS after close. I have set up an Indian sub-cat, harmonised the criteria to demand independent notability in both capacities per the US sub-cat, & removed 4 who did not meet this (including Clint). See you all next time! Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2009 (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.
