Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 4 January 6 >

January 5

[edit]

Category:Cyclopses

[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: round and round and round we rename. This time we'll leave a redirect. Kbdank71 15:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cyclopses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Merge into Category:Cyclopes, the correct spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Changed to weak support per comments below. The issue was discussed a year ago. I agree with the previous consensus to use Category:Cyclopses because (1) either form is a correct English plural form; (2) Category:Cyclopses was created before Category:Cyclopes; (3) "cyclopses" is a more intuitive spelling for most English users; (4) if in doubt, go with previous consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Intuitive"? not to me, and not to most dictionaries. The rest of this is a claim that consensus cannot change, and therefore changes in it need not be discussed. But that is contrary to clear policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dictionaries don't work on intuition. The intuitive spelling is just one of my four factors. Find someone who knows nothing about the meaning or original source of the word "cyclops"—ask them to pluralize it. You'll likely get "cyclopses" over "cyclopes" 99% of the time. That's what I meant by intuition. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Sigh.) Please show me where I suggested that consensus cannot change. I explicitly said, "if in doubt, go with previous consensus". The fact that I suggested doubt could exist is reason enough to disprove your interpretation of what I said. As does the fact that I'm discussing it instead of speedily closing the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "previous consensus" is here; it consists of several voices that this should be merged (I agree) and two voices on which spelling should be used. The nominator misrepresented the OED, which records only what has happened: two quotations (out of a couple dozen) hit on cyclopses; the rest use cyclops or cyclopes. The OED does indicate its preference for the more common form, thus: Also Cyclop. Pl. Cyclopes (saklpiz); also Cyclops, Cyclopses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that the dictionary lists both. Either is acceptable. One is not "in error" or "mis-spelled". You're free to use the one you like, but it's not a reason to rename the category. To quote, um, you (from another discussion below about details of word usage)—"leave well enough alone"; we generally stick with the one that existed first in situations like this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course the OED lists both, or rather all three. The OED describes what they find, they do not prscribe what usage should be; they found, among the many citations on Cyclopes, a single seventeenth century quotation and a blunder by Shelley. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • My two dictionaries list both (not the third). Neither dictionary is the type that "describe[s] what [it] finds" in the way the large OED does. One is an Oxford compact and one is a New Zealand English dictionary, unrelated to Oxford. Both plurals are in both dictionaries. I'm not seeing any indication that either spelling is unacceptable English. Looks like another preference issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Academic usage goes with the anglicized version of the Greek "Cyclopes". Whether or not "cyclopses" is "intuitive" or not is irrelevant. Intuition is highly subjective. The "intuitive" plural of "fish" is "fishes". But we go with Category:Fish because, even though "fishes" was at one time considered correct usage, current academic standard goes with "fish" as the plural form. The form "Cyclopes" also has a stronger basis in the OED ("Cyclopses" only has 2 usages). CaveatLector Talk Contrib 18:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Few people would expect to see "fish" pluralized as "fishes", but far fewer would expect the plural of "cyclops" to be spelled "correctly" as "cyclopes". Anyone out there want to correct Category:Stadiums to stadia? Alansohn (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, nobody would. This is because the proper plural for stadium (the building) is "stadiums", while the proper plural for the unit of length from which the word "stadium (the building)" derives would be "stadia". For instance: NFL teams play in many different "stadiums". Vs. The athlete ran several "stadia". They're two different words. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 06:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is no consensus to rename, we may as well consider deletion. This cat has three members, which link to each other; it is never likely to have many more; and one of them (List of one-eyed creatures, which links to Cyclops) probably should be removed anyway. We don't want to put lists in cats which apply to only one member. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support (changing from oppose, above). I've considered this some more, and I think there's more sense to the nominator's rationale that I was giving credit for. As I examine printed (non-internet) sources, "cyclopes" does indeed seem to be far more common. It's not intuitive, but that's not determinative and since when is English intuitive, right? :) As I pointed out above, we do use "non-intuitive" (subjective, I know) plurals like Category:Aquaria and Category:Arboreta, so why not this? I'm not strongly in favor of renaming, but I can see the nom's point more clearly now after further consideration and would support doing so if it's wanted by others too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- While Cyclopes is the correct ancient Greek plural, I think Cyclopses is the common English plural. In the same way we talk of discuses not discoi. However, whichever version is decided upon, we should Keep the other as a redirect. If this is done it hardly matters which we have. In any event, this will always be a very small category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 11 January 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:Pac biters

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pac biters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Seems to be an unencyclopedic category. Its name may refer to Tupac Shakur but the definition of the category is unclear and not explained in any of the articles. —Snigbrook 22:31, 5 January 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.

Songs by X

[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, but only the ones that already exist as "blue-linked categories". Red-linked categories do not yet "exist" in that they have not yet been "created" (though articles may appear on them to show what the category would contain if created). I'm not going to have a bot create "renamed" categories from still non-existent categories because it will create categories with no parents. The ones that don't exist should be created and populated by editors as any new category would be. (Addendum (21.00 11 JAN 2009): This result also doesn't apply to Category:Songs by Edward Elgar, which wasn't properly tagged for this discussion and which was separately nominated at a later date.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to comment on individual category rename proposals. We really should consider them all together, so I do not keep getting one message on my user page every so often. It makes sense to have a uniform convention.

Propose renaming Category:Songs by Aaron Schroeder to Category:Songs written by Aaron Schroeder
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Abe Lyman to Category:Songs written by Abe Lyman
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Abner Silver to Category:Songs written by Abner Silver
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Al Jolson to Category:Songs written by Al Jolson
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Al Lewis to Category:Songs written by Al Lewis
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Al Sherman to Category:Songs written by Al Sherman
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Alec Wilder to Category:Songs written by Alec Wilder
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Amy Woodforde-Finden to Category:Songs written by Amy Woodforde-Finden
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Ann Ronell to Category:Songs written by Ann Ronell
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Archie Fletcher to Category:Songs written by Archie Fletcher
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Benny Davis to Category:Songs written by Benny Davis
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Bert Kaempfert to Category:Songs written by Bert Kaempfert
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Bert Lown to Category:Songs written by Bert Lown
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Betty Carter to Category:Songs written by Betty Carter
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Betty Peterson to Category:Songs written by Betty Peterson
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Bill Trader to Category:Songs written by Bill Trader
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Billy Duke to Category:Songs written by Billy Duke
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Billy Hill to Category:Songs written by Billy Hill
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Billy Mayhew to Category:Songs written by Billy Mayhew
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Billy Reid to Category:Songs written by Billy Reid
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Billy Rose to Category:Songs written by Billy Rose
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Billy Sherrill to Category:Songs written by Billy Sherrill
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Bob Hilliard to Category:Songs written by Bob Hilliard
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Bob Weir to Category:Songs written by Bob Weir
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Borney Bergantine to Category:Songs written by Borney Bergantine
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Buddy Feyne to Category:Songs written by Buddy Feyne
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Buddy Pepper to Category:Songs written by Buddy Pepper
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Carl Sigman to Category:Songs written by Carl Sigman
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Carole Joyner to Category:Songs written by Carole Joyner
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Charles Singleton to Category:Songs written by Charles Singleton
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Charles Tobias to Category:Songs written by Charles Tobias
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Chauncey Gray to Category:Songs written by Chauncey Gray
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Chilton Price to Category:Songs written by Chilton Price
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Chuck Willis to Category:Songs written by Chuck Willis
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Dave Bennett to Category:Songs written by Dave Bennett
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Dave Dreyer to Category:Songs written by Dave Dreyer
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Dick Charles to Category:Songs written by Dick Charles
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Dick Glasser to Category:Songs written by Dick Glasser
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Dolores Vicki Silvers to Category:Songs written by Dolores Vicki Silvers
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Dominic John to Category:Songs written by Dominic John
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Eddie Cooley to Category:Songs written by Eddie Cooley
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Eddie Miller to Category:Songs written by Eddie Miller
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Edgar De Lange to Category:Songs written by Edgar De Lange
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Edward Elgar to Category:Songs written by Edward Elgar
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Einar Aaron Swan to Category:Songs written by Einar Aaron Swan
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Ernesto Lecuona to Category:Songs written by Ernesto Lecuona

These only go through the E's, but I would extend the list to the whole set if I had the time and energy. -- BRG (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My question is, Why on earth did you create a number of brand-new categories that were tagged-at-birth for renaming? (I spotted three, I hope there aren't a lot more.) This is one of the strangest things I've ever come across on Wikipedia. Cgingold (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category was created a long time ago, by simply assigning the song. As I thought I had made clear: when I categorized songs (through inadvertence) some were created as "Songs by X" and some as "Songs written by X." What you may not know is that when you categorize a page, it creates a new category that shows up as a red link, even though the category actually exists. It is only if you put something else (like a higher-level category) on the page that the link to that category goes to blue. So I don't know what you meant by "create a number of brand-new categories that were tagged-at-birth for renaming") -- BRG (talk) 18:55, 8 January 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:Montreal festivals

[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 (no opposition and will match other categories). Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Montreal festivals to Category:Festivals in Montreal
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In keeping with parent categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 5 January 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:Orthodox converts to Pagan religions

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Orthodox converts to Pagan religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete One article in category, too narrow Editor2020 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 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:Orthodox converts to Jehovah's Witnesses

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Orthodox converts to Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete only one article in category, too narrow in scope Editor2020 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 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:Orthodox converts to Yehowism

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Orthodox converts to Yehowism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only one article in category, overly narrow. Editor2020 (talk) 19:47, 5 January 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.

People by century

[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 15:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:1st century people to Category:1st-century people
Category:1st century people to Category:1st-century people
Category:2nd century people to Category:2nd-century people
Category:3rd century people to Category:3rd-century people
Category:4th century people to Category:4th-century people
Category:5th century people to Category:5th-century people
Category:6th century people to Category:6th-century people
Category:7th century people to Category:7th-century people
Category:8th century people to Category:8th-century people
Category:9th century people to Category:9th-century people
Category:10th century people to Category:10th-century people
Category:11th century people to Category:11th-century people
Category:12th century people to Category:12th-century people
Category:13th century people to Category:13th-century people
Category:14th century people to Category:14th-century people
Category:15th century people to Category:15th-century people
Category:16th century people to Category:16th-century people
Category:17th century people to Category:17th-century people
Category:18th century people to Category:18th-century people
Category:19th century people to Category:19th-century people
Category:20th century people to Category:20th-century people
Category:21st century people to Category:21st-century people
Category:1st century BC people to Category:1st-century BC people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As adjectivals they all need to be hyphenated per this discussion. This is the first of a series of nominations. I'll be adding more nominations as time goes on. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is, except in people's imaginations. In the old discussion there was some suggestion that the British do hyphenate and the Americans don't, but there was no evidence (apart from anecdotal) to back up the "Americans don't" position. The Chicago Manual of Style says "phrasal adjectives" should be hyphenated when they precede nouns (see ¶5.92 in 15th ed.), so there's at least one major U.S. source that agrees with the "British" sources cited in the old discussion. Of course, it's easy to find examples where people don't do it because people generally have poor written English skills. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 7 January 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.

Pakistani Cave Explorer & mountain climbers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete; I'm not an expert on merging articles, if someone else wants to take a crack at it, I'll restore the text. Kbdank71 15:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pakistani Cave Explorer & mountain climbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete contains only one page (Hayatullah_Khan_Durrani). That page will probably be speedied for self-promotion. This category is self-promotion too. Furthermore spelling issues.. Jasy jatere (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the page itself has a huge picture of Durrani and a large article on him - it's being grossly misused. Can't it be speedied? (I love the Edit summary "(Made by the Authorised official of the Association as per directions of the authorities of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"). dougweller (talk) 19:51, 5 January 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:Soviet radio

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus, although Tim is correct, this nomination does go against convention. Kbdank71 15:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Soviet radio to Category:Radio in the Soviet Union
Nominator's rationale: Rename, as it was done for Category:Soviet television. Timurite (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. the same with Category:Soviet media->Media:Radio in the Soviet Union, I guess. Timurite (talk) 18:32, 5 January 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:Persons connected to George W. Bush

[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: upmerge and delete. As noted, we don't categorize people by people; if the connection is defining and notable, these articles belong in Category:George W. Bush. Kbdank71 15:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Persons connected to George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Per WP:OCAT - Non-defining or trivial characteristic, Arbitrary inclusion criterion, Trivial intersection, etc. Lugnuts (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-defined and non-arbitrary. It is well-common to track connections of highly notable persons for various research, hence the category is useful. Timurite (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is "well-common"?! Can you find another category that does this? Why aren't people such as Tony Blair and Saddam Hussein in this category? A category should be a defining characteristic of the articles contained within it, not some mention in passing. Lugnuts (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be "well-defined" when there is no definition provided?-choster (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh dear, we don't categorize people by person. If a person is so closely connected to Bush to the point of being on the verge of biologically merging with his body, then they could be placed in Category:George W. Bush, but we don't need this particular category with its vague wording which will create subjective inclusionary decisions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, GO and extensive precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems a sensible category in this case, given the thicket of other GWB ones. At the least some upmerging is needed - eg The Vulcans is in no other GWB cat, & should be. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has someone removed a bunch of entries? Six categories is hardly a "thicket" and adding two more subcategories won't make it so either; I only see three subcategories and a handful of articles which can be recategorized or upmerged, as they are for every other president.-choster (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In this instance, the category makes a great deal of sense in bringing the material together. DGG (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm dumbfounded. (And I thought the Kentucky colonels one was a once-in-a-lifetime experience.) ... So, you keepers, what is the definition of this category? What degree of "connection" to Bush is enough, and when does the connection to Bush become too tenuous? And who decides the strength of the connection? Is it limited to blood relation? Or is relation by marriage OK? Or is this for people who have worked with Bush somehow? If so, how involved must they have been? A cabinet member? Somewhere among the hundreds who work in the Bush Administration? Must they have actually spoken to Bush? Must Bush know them by name? Or is this for people Bush is buddies with? How close do they have to be? Golf on weekends? Before or during the presidency? Does the person have to have a Bush-assigned nickname? If so, how do we verify this? Is the guy who threw the shoe at Bush closely connected enough? If so, why? What about people who have a strong opinion about Bush or have participated in activism against him or his policies, but haven't had the opportunity to throw anything at him? OR ... maybe the decisions to delete categories like this—which have consistently been made over the years—were actually good decisions after all? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The keep argument seems to be "this category is the only way to relate these otherwise unrelated people." -choster (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Before I looked at the category I assumed that it would be a hodgepodge of articles, but it actually appears to serve meaningfully as a parent for several categories that each have very clear definitions. I see no issue with the category as long as it is not used to include articles about individual people. Alansohn (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has someone removed a bunch of entries? I only see three subcategories and a handful of articles which can be recategorized or upmerged, as they are for every other president. I find it highly unlikely that people like Seth Cropsey or Richard S. Williamson are more closely associated to the man than to the administration, and by any logic the family category should be a parent, not a child.-00:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's not very old and Walter Aston, James R. Bath, List of people pardoned by George W. Bush, and The Vulcans are already in the category directly—not in a subcategory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. These connections can be made mention in George W. Bush. Describing where to draw the line involves too high a degree of POV. And as GoodOlFactory, we don t cat people by people Mayumashu (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, not a good way to name or structure a category. If the "connected"-ness is not strong enough for them to be categorized directly within Category:George W. Bush or its appropriate subcategories, then they shouldn't be categorized by that relationship. Postdlf (talk) 01:40, 11 January 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:United States Department of Energy personnel

[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 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States Department of Energy personnel to Category:United States Department of Energy officials
Nominator's rationale: Rename for conformity with the other daughter categories of Category:United States federal executive department officials. Eastlaw (talk) 17:40, 5 January 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.

Law school professors vs. faculty

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cardozo School of Law professors to Category:Cardozo School of Law faculty
Propose renaming Category:Harvard Law School professors to Category:Harvard Law School faculty
Nominator's rationale: all of the other subcategories within the parent Category:Faculty by law school in the United States are in the form "Foo Law School faculty", with these two as the only exceptions. I'm not sure what nuance "professors" offers, but I see no reason not to match the other dozen schools in the parent category. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 5 January 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:St. Ives artists

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:St. Ives artists to Category:St Ives artists
Nominator's rationale: The period is redundant, and contrary to normal practice for British place-names. DuncanHill (talk) 16:19, 5 January 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:Swedish government agencies

[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 14:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Swedish government agencies to Category:Government agencies of Sweden
(also, therefore Category:Defunct Swedish government agencies to Category:Defunct government agencies of Sweden)
Nominator's rationale: In line with other nation-specific categories. Articles contained also need changing as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers)... ninety:one 16:05, 5 January 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:Philosophy Comparisons

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus, rename to fix capitalization. Kbdank71 14:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Philosophy Comparisons to Category:Comparative philosophy
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Slightly better, at least it has proper capitalization. Also, this needs better categorization itself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:02, 5 January 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:Transgender in film

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename per nom. If further discussion is desired to change "film and television", a broader CFD can be opened (or perhaps brought to the village pump). Kbdank71 14:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Transgender in film to Category:Transgender in film and television
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to bring the category in line with other similar categories (e.g. Category:AIDS in film and television) and to broaden the scope. Otto4711 (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be "Category:Transgenderism in film and television"? CaveatLector Talk Contrib 17:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead category is Category:Transgender and its various subcats use either "transgender" or in one instance "transgender and transsexual". I have no major objection to using "transgenderism" but I believe it ought to be done as a group nomination to include the subcategories. Otto4711 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transgender is fine as the category page can state more clearly that transsexual et al is included or any other nuance. It's hard enough to keep transgendered out of articles so I'd rather err on simplification. -- Banjeboi 23:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment This category has no clear explanation of what is included here nor does the title make it obvious, before or after the rename. Is there any inclusion criteria or does any mention or appearance of anything transgender-related qualify? Does a film like Tootsie belong here, when the main plot element is crossdressing as a means to get a job? Alansohn (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That can be spelled out on the cat page; broadly I would say yes, include it and spell out, for example, that plot devices regarding gender and transsexual issues as well as films about T people. -- Banjeboi 01:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it isn't. There is no explanation or inclusion criteria within the category and there seems to be a chronic difference in the way this and other related categories are treated from the micromanagement and nitpicking applied to all other categories. Why does Tootsie or Some Like It Hot belong here, when the cross-dressing is used solely as a gag to drive a rather heterosexual plot? A few days ago, I saw the recent remake of Fun with Dick and Jane which included a scene in which Tea Leoni and Jim Carrey rob a bank while dressed as Sonny & Cher respectively; Does that film belong here? Should the Tom Hanks series Bosom Buddies be included here? I saw my daughter watch an episode of The Suite Life on Deck on the Disney Channel in which a female character pretends to be a boy to get a spot on the ship. Does that series belong here? There are dozens of films and television series in which plot elements have a character cross dress, usually as a woman (e.g. Juwanna Mann, Norbit, Big Momma's House, etc.) in which the plot gag is entirely related to the heterosexual hijinks that follow when another female character doesn't realize that the person in that rubber suit and tons of makeup is really a man. Do all of these films belong here too? A small dose of consistency in applying Wikipedia rules to all categories equally will help convince me and anyone else reading this discussion that this is not just an ILIKEIT game here and IHATEIT elsewhere, and the best way to do so is to at least pretend that this category ought to have meaningful inclusion criteria just like all others, separating those films and television programs that belong here and those that don't, preferably based on some objective criteria derived from reliable and verifiable sources that eschews the I know it when I see it approach. The failure to do so only raises issues of the integrity of this category and the entire process. Alansohn (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why "film" and "television", perhaps we need to start to look at the where the "space" is going. It is already here and in a few years there will not be "film" and "television", there will just be "video media", which broadcast, podcast, sharecast, hardcast, . . . ditto all such other categories. Most "film" ends up on "televisions" anyway. "film" and "television" may be "historical media categories"? Peet Ern (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Film and television" because those remain the two major forms of "video media". I'm not aware of a great deal (any, in fact) of "video media" relating to transgender issues that isn't either from films or television (which isn't to say it doesn't exist and I don't claim to be an expert on the subject). Including both film and television allows for the inclusion of those things that originate on television and not film. There are articles with names like Media portrayal of lesbianism so Category:Media portrayal of transgender may be where the category should eventually end up but I really haven't thought about it to that level of detail before this moment. Otto4711 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 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:People by sexual attraction

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People by sexual attraction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category does not serve any purpose in navigation. Grouping LGBT people, necrophiles and pedophiles together is questionable. (And since "sexual attractions" are about as varied as snowflakes, I also question the viability of this category. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 05:38, 5 January 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.

Categories:Soccer in South Africa

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to "football (soccer)" for at the very least, consistency between the South African categories. If it is desired to be just "football" or just "soccer" or (and now for) something completely different, we can do them all in another nomination. Kbdank71 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per wikip. practice to refer to association football in a South African context as 'soccer' ) as in Category:Soccer in South Africa. (An alternative may be to rename these and all others under this supracat page using the 'football (soccer)' disambiguate, for the governing body of the sport in the country is named the South African Football Association and most clubs refer to themselves not as 'soccer clubs' but as 'football clubs') Mayumashu (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Given the comments below, I have updated the nomination to use the 'disambiguate' 'football (soccer)' Mayumashu (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the point though Peterkingiron is that 'soccer' is what is thre more commonly used term in South Africa, irrespective of what rugby union is called in the country. I wonder however more now if really 'football (soccer)', per Occuli, or even 'soccer {football)' should not be used. The impression I get from looking is that a significant minority of South Aficans use football (those decedent of British if not more). The same should be considered for Australia and New Zealand too, whose national associations have renamed themselves incorporating the term 'football' Mayumashu (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "football (soccer)". Given that "football" is the official term for the sport in SA, that term should take precedence. To save confusion, however - given that the term means different things to different South Africans - a disambiguation should be used to say which type of football. The same is the case in NZ, so should also be done to the mix'n'match New Zealand football/soccer categories. I *think* that the name of the sport in Australia is still officially soccer (ISTR the governing body there is Soccer Ausstralia), so that should be used there (and would not need disambiguating). Grutness...wha? 22:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
will put the New Zealand pages up in the coming days. Australia too - note it s been Football Federation Australia since the end of 2004 - will post them too, at some point Mayumashu (talk) 02:31, 7 January 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.

American conservatives redux

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African American conservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Democratic Party (United States) conservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American protestant conservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American Roman Catholic conservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jewish-American conservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Republican Party (United States) conservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Scottish-American conservatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete First of all, all of these categories are being used to categorize articles about people, so if you substitute "conservatives" for "conservatism" this gives you a far better idea of how the categories are operating in practice. This seems to be an end-run around the decision to delete Category:American conservatives, which has been made multiple times (the latest discussion found here). Whether this end-run has been deliberate or non-deliberate I don't know, but at the end of the day I suppose it's irrelevant: without a WP:DRV establishing a consensus to re-create, we shouldn't be re-creating Category:American conservatives or any other category that would be a direct subcategory break-down of it, which these are. In other words, if Category:American conservatives is not OK, why is Category:American Roman Catholic conservatism OK when it's used exclusively to house articles about people who are deemed by someone to be Roman Catholics who are "American conservatives"? Because of this, these are probably eligible in a borderline way for speedy deletion, in my opinion. But since it's not clear-cut, we can discuss them here.
In any case, these all suffer from the same fatal flaw as the deleted categories American conservatives, Gay conservatives, Former conservatives, Neoconservatives, Jewish American conservatives, and most recently Conservatives: there is no consensus means of determining who is and who isn't a "conservative", especially in American politics, and so categorization using this terminology is subjective and POV. I don't think attempting to repurpose them as non-people categories only is worthwhile at this point—though the option of re-creating them for that purpose could be left open. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for these categories is too vague.   Will Beback  talk  06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per the cogent arguments of the nominator and per my reasoning re the previously discussed and deleted Conservatives category. "Conservative" is too fluid of a concept to serve as the basis of categorization and the same individual may hold viewpoints on some issues that would be considered "conservative" while simulaneously holding viewpoints on other issues that would be considered "liberal" or "moderate". Otto4711 (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On the whole I have to agree that these categories are being improperly used, primarily to house articles about people. I took a good look at each one and found that only one of them has a main article -- Category:African American conservatism, which has Black conservatism in the United States (and also Black conservatism). Two articles isn't enough to warrant a category, but there may be other articles that could be added (perhaps about organizations or publications). Category:Jewish-American conservatism is currently lacking a main article, although I think I came across a talk page discussion somewhere about writing such an article. There are, however, four articles about aspects of Jewish-American conservatism in this category right now, and potential for more articles (perhaps one about the Jewish Conservative Alliance, for instance). So I think we should clean out the bio articles and add a head note with a very stern warning not to use the category for people. The same goes for Category:African American conservatism, if other articles can be found. Cgingold (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (at least in lost cases) -- we can have articles on conservativism as a philosophical, political, or theological position without difficulty. The problem arises when you start categorising people, who may be conservatives in one area and liberal in others. These are about a point of view, not POV categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep How is deletion of these more precise categories be helpful to the WP reader? How can they navigate WP to find out anything about the US people who are identified in their articles as 'conservative'. Is this just trying to mindlessly enforce rules that make no sense in the context? What are the rules, exactly? Do they need to be changed? Just because the U.S has no major political party that has the word 'conservative' or 'liberal' or 'whatever' in it, are readers to be left hung out to dry? What is so wrong about having these and other categories based on the accepted content of the WP articles? Hmains (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Examine WP:NPOV, and then let us know when you craft a one-size-fits-all method of determining if an American's political views are "conservative". Oh yeah—and there has to be a consensus that your approach should be adopted and applied. When it comes to categories, it's simply a subjectivity issue. WP:OC says quite bluntly: "Adjectives which imply a subjective inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category." "Conservatives" in the American political context is a perfect match for this statement. It may be crystal clear to you as the creator of the category who is conservative and who is not, but others no doubt disagree with your personal assessments. These are largely the reasons the past categories have been deleted, and these are no different when applied to people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is nothing of the sort. Putting an article in a category which has conservative in the name because the article text contains the word 'conservative' is making no judgment whatsoever. It is rather mechanical. Done for the sake of helpful reader navigation (the purpose of categories) and nothing more. Hmains (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that's how it's actually done, then things are actually worse than I was assuming. So basically, you can apply Category:American Roman Catholic conservatism to any article that mentions U.S. politics, the Roman Catholic Church, and "conservative"? Ai yai yai. Maybe you just want to think again about that approach to categorization—I would certainly encourage you to do so. Because you know, all it would take is one person to remove the category based on POV considerations and the whole system is shot. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, that is what categories are for: navigation, not judgement. Categories should mechanically reflect what is in the articles. Articles are subject to references and citations; categories are not. There is no other criteria that can be used for categories except the article's contents--unless you want to insert the POV (unreferenced/uncited) of the category creator and deleter. Something that seems to be happening all too often here. Hmains (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, of course the application of a category is based on the article's contents. But it's not done in the blind, mechanical way you are advocating. At least it should not be done that way—apparently you do operate in this way, which is pretty scary. You have to evaluate the article data in the context of the category's definition, not just mechanically search for "key words". Otherwise we wouldn't even need real users to apply categories—we could have bots do it. But I guess it's asking quite a bit to have users actually think about what they are doing. (I'm a little cranky with Hmains because I just spent a bunch of time going through Category:American anti-illegal immigration activists—which s/he created and populated—removing most of the many politicians s/he so categorized. They were apparently included in the cat because the politicians had come out in favor of the govt taking anti-illegal immigration measures. Holding a position on a political issue does not make a politician an activist, though. Unfortunately the "mechanical" approach failed to think this through and realise the mischaracterization! This is a good example of what's wrong with these nominated and many other similar categories created and applied by Hmains.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you cannot proceed with facts or logic, I suppose resorting to personal attacks is always available, right? But hardly helpful to WP Hmains (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as I didn't state this explicitly in my comment above, I am recommending that we Keep, clean out & restrict Category:Jewish-American conservatism and possibly Category:African American conservatism, because they both deal with a highly significant socio-political phenomenon: conservatism within communities that are generally considered to be predominantly liberal. The Jewish cat (now there's a funny thought: how can you tell when a cat is Jewish?...) Yes, as I was saying -- with 4 articles the Jewish category already passes muster, imo. The African American category is borderline at the moment, but I think has potential for growth; if deleted it should be without prejudice to recreation. As for the other sub-cats, with the possible exception of the Democratic Party, I don't believe that conservatism within those entities/communities is necessarily a noteworthy socio-political phenomenon on a par with the Jewish- and African American communities. In any event, there don't seem to be articles available to populate those categories; if there is, I will be happy to reconsider. Cgingold (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be absolutely clear, as I said above, any categories that are kept should only be on the basis that we clean out the bio articles and add a head note with a very stern warning not to use the category for people. Cgingold (talk) 12:30, 7 January 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:Protestant converts to Nation of Yahweh

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Protestant converts to Nation of Yahweh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only member is the founder of religion. Editor2020 ([[User taltalk) 03:39, 5 January 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.

Assemblies of God people

[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: merge/delete per nom. While true, these are relatively new categories, nothing has been added to them other than the clergy subcats since creation. Not even John Ashcroft. Kbdank71 18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:American Assemblies of God people to Category:American Pentecostals and Category:Assemblies of God people
Category:New Zealand Assemblies of God people to Category:New Zealand Pentecostals and Category:Assemblies of God people
Category:Samoan Assemblies of God people to Category:Samoan Pentecostals and Category:Assemblies of God people
Suggest deleting Category:Assemblies of God people by nationality (if the above were merged the only contents would be Category:Assemblies of God clergy, which is already in other appropriate categories)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent categories. Assemblies of God is one denomination within Pentecostalism. The nationality sub-categories of Category:Pentecostals by nationality and the category Category:Assemblies of God people are not large enough to justify break-down of by specific denomination and by nationality at this point. Perhaps the breakdown of the American Pentecostals is justified, but I want more input on that. (These are more creations by User:EstherLois, FYI.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Understanding the desire to have larger categories upon creation, nevertheless there seem to be many, many small categories through out the category system. Indeed, I have stumbled accross lots of single-article categories. Yet these are not nominated. These categories will grow as time goes on. EstherLois (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete all per nom. The parents are not so large as to require splitting by nationality. The existence of other small categories does not serve as justification for these. Otto4711 (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only reason the categories are so small is that they are drastically incomplete; even John Ashcroft is missing. Any category will go through this stage, and this is no reason to kill it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom (and the same should apply to the AOG clergy sub-cats, too). I finally found the time to have a good look through these categories, and I am not persuaded there's a compelling case for separating these out from their parent cats (though perhaps there will be at some future date). Cgingold (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all "people" subcategories -- List of people associated with Australian Christian Churches suggests there is potentially a significant population. The problem is that the tree has two parallel limbs, with some categorisation linking between categories. For clergy, denomination is a significant characteristic; for the ordinary man (or woman) in the pew, it will usually be a NN characteristic. I wouold suggest that the "clergy" categories should be kept, but the "people" categories, which are otherwise empty should be deleted, without prejudice to possible recreation if they will be properly populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 11 January 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:Prominent JD/MBAs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. the wub "?!" 01:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Prominent JD/MBAs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorization by academic degree, which is not defining; similar categories have been deleted in the past. Creator has also created a list, which should be sufficient (although I don't see how it could ever come close to being "comprehensive", even for people with WP articles). Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion: The burden of establishing why this info should be deleted has not been met. "JD/MBA" is a specific, defining term. The alleged "similar" categories that have been deleted are not similar. For example, "Holders of First Class Degree Honours," is ambigous, unlike this category. Also, "Holders or Bachelors degrees" is unduly broad and not useful, unlike here, where we are dealing with a narrow group of Wikipedia-notable individuls who hold a joint JD/MBA degree (thus far only 29 have been found). Furthermore, the term JD/MBA is clearly defined by the "J.D./M.B.A." wikipedia entry, which this category is linked to. If the word "Prominent" is the issue, I propose a renaming of the category to "Notable JD/MBAs," but not a complete deletion of this useful category (this category can be used by anyone looking to learn of biographical info of JD/MBA holders, including current JD/MBAs, prospective employers, prospective students, or those who are simply interested in the subject). Thanks for your review and thanks for your consideration for non-deletion.JdmbaRainmaker3843 (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your input as creator. What I meant was that the categories are similar in that they deleted categories that classified people by academic degree. Academic degrees held has generally been thought to be not defining for a person, which is a general requirement for categorization. We don't use "notable" or "prominent" in category names, so if kept the category would be something like Category:People with J.D. and M.B.A. degrees. I've no problem with the list, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:People with Juris Doctor and Master of Business Administration degrees. Abbreviations should be expanded as they are not self-evident. "Prominent" is acceptable for a list article, but not for a category: if the degree holders were not prominent, they would not be notable. Hence they have no articles to be categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is having this pairing of degrees notable and defining for the individual? Is every pairing like this then also defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would support a consensus to initiate the renaming proposed by Peterkingiron. I am not sure if there is a simple way to rename without going through the entries manually.66.157.22.92 (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is an easy way, but first someone needs to explain why this is "defining" for a person. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The JD and MBA abbreviations might be clear enough for most people, but maybe not; I don't know the point at which an abbreviation takes over for a set of words. I am admittedly unfamiliar with the concept of "defining for a person, which is a general requirement for categorization" (quoting Olfactory). Is there a simple list of requirements? Sorry for having to ask this, but I poked around for a bit and couldn't find it. I am not very familiar with Wikipedia rules, and probably should have looked this up beforehand. Thanks.JdmbaRainmaker3843 (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hey, no problem. A good place to start when thinking about categorizing people is Wikipedia:Categorization of people. You can also see an intro to inappropriate categorization at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Once you're there the links can guide you around. Just to be clear, I have no problem with this information existing as an article and I'm not trying to denigrate its relevance, I just don't think it's tyypical of the kind of categories we usually agree to keep (category by academic degree, that is). Though you're right that the ones I cited as examples are not exactly analogous to this one since this involves two specific degrees. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks. I was a bit on the defense because someone previously deleted the Prominent JD/MBAs List (before I created a separate page for it). The rules don't make it crystal clear to me whether or not the JD/MBA category should exist. I guess it's a balancing act of usefulness vs. taking up limited space; not being overly familiar with Wikipedia categories, I'm not sure what the outcome of this should be. I definitely agree that the list page is more useful than the category page. I suppose the category page could be useful to some people who scroll down to the end of a JD/MBA's page, but I understand that you don't want to have a million categories under every Wikipedia entry.JdmbaRainmaker3843 (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • You're right that the guidelines are not crystal clear re: academic degrees. The guidelines just set out just that—guidelines—most of the details re: specific instances have to be worked out by reaching a consensus through discussion. In the past, we've deleted the academic degree categories, so I thought that would be the best approach here, especially since we have the list. That's a shame about the list being deleted on you, and it probably shouldn't have happened, in my opinion—if that ever happens to you again for an article you're working on, just let me know and I can recover the information for you as there are logs that keep the information even after deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If the category doesn't add much value above and beyond what the list offers, then I suppose the category is not necessary. I don't care much one way or the other; thank you for respecting the list though-- I think a lot of people want this info (about where JD/MBAs end up), and there is nowhere else to get it.JdmbaRainmaker3843 (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fully support the category creator's creation of a corresponding list per the encouragement from WP:CLN that categories AND lists should co-exist and complement each other. Alansohn (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just one fly in the ointment though—other parts of the guidelines instruct that categories should not be kept if they are not defining. You have to read the guidelines as a body, not just cherry-pick isolated parts. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that earning both degrees is a defining characteristic, which would address your issue, and I am not the only editor who interprets this issue in the same manner. Will this be the start of yet another back-and-forth in which you repeat your argument? Alansohn (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, if you will it to be. Explain how it is defining. There needs to be discussion on this point as there hasn't been much in this discussion and that's what we need to suss out. Stating something is defining doesn't make it so, nor is it a substantive argument. It's more like an unsubstantiated "vote", which for a closer is meaningless. My position is that it is not defining because those who are included are defined by something else they did, not by the degrees they earned. Almost invariably, their notability came after the degrees were earned, so I'd question if it's even notable, let alone defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I appreciate that this category is up for debate; however, I do want to point out that I have yet to find the black-letter Wikipedia law about "defining" that you keep mentioning with such certitude (not that I mean to even concede that the JD/MBA is non-defining, because I think it is defining). Also, the logic that a category should be deleted because "[a]lmost invariably, their notability came after the [categorized activity took place]," means that a HUGE percentage of categories I've seen should go (e.g., born in X year, born in X place, from X place, alumni of X school, faculty at X school, etc.). Final point, I thought the "notability" question was for the existence of a separate Wikipedia entry, not for information within entries (like a categorization).JdmbaRainmaker3843 (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's a few points to address there: (1) Notability and "definingness" are related, but not quite the same. You are right that notability is the standard for articles. Being "defining" is a bit of a higher standard, as something could be notable in a person's life, but not defining. (2) As far as I know, this standard has evolved from years of CfDs involving categories that relate to people. I'm not sure where exactly it's "spelled out" in the way you're looking for, but it's a commonly-invoked and applied standard for categories that relate to people. I agree that the category guidelines are fairly unclear and don't adequately reflect what previous consensus from actual discussions has been. (3) The fact that a huge percentage of categories are currently non-defining is true. I agree with you there. Making this kind of argument is often disparaged as a "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS" argument, which usually carries little weight in WP discussions. The reason is: since all users only have so much time to nominate stuff, pointing out that other similar categories have not been nominated on equally applicable grounds is a recipe for nothing to ever get done since we could always point to no action being taken against other categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see anyone making a case why anyone holding two degrees is notable for that fact. Then there is no case made for why these two in particular are notable for the individuals. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I mentioned just above, "I thought the 'notability' question was for the existence of a separate Wikipedia entry, not for information within entries (like a categorization)." If we questioned whether each fact in each Wikipedia entry was notable, then the Wikipedia pages would likely be bare. For example, "Al Gore was born in X city," oops... that sentence needs to go because there's nothing notable about being born in X city. Suppose you say that this debate is different because it's a category, you will encounter the same problem. What is notable in and of itself about half of the categories on Wikipedia (e.g., born in X year, alumni of X school, etc.)-- there is going to be a lot of category deleting to do. I was on the fence about what to do about this JD/MBA category, but now that I read more arguments, I am leaning strongly in favor of opposing deletion.JdmbaRainmaker3843 (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Vegaswikian. It's not an unusual degree pairing, many schools offer joint JD/MBA programs. Note also that we do not have Category:People with JDs, Category:People with MBAs, or Category:People by academic degree generally. Instead we have Category:Lawyers, Category:Businesspeople, etc., to categorize people by the career they actually notably engaged in. Postdlf (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, I am not convinced by the arguments for deletion of this category. I find it odd that we have broad categories like "Lawyers," and "Businesspeople," but you want to delete a narrower (and thus presumably more useful) category like "JD/MBAs". Also, I agree with anyone who feels that categories of "People with JDs," and "People with MBAs" would be inappropriate. The "JD/MBA" category is easily distinguished from those. First, there are MUCH fewer people with JD/MBAs. In fact, on Wikipedia, only 29 such individuals have been found. Second, the probative value of the JD/MBA category greatly exceeds that of categories like "People with BAs." This is because many people (prospective students, employers, etc.) are curious to know what JD/MBAs end up doing, especially successful ones who manage to have their own Wikipedia page. With the strait BA, MBA, or JD, there is simply less curiosity as to what someone will end up doing. Furthermore, the bios of the JD/MBAs may be indicative of which route, law or business, is more attractive to someone looking to get solely a JD or an MBA. It may help to signify which career route tends to be more promising and demanded by society; or, it may signify that neither route sticks out above the other. One more point, if we use the logic that "the JD/MBA is not unusual, so the category should be deleted," we are going to have A LOT of category deletion to do (e.g., People born in X year, People from X location, Alumni of X school).JdmbaRainmaker3843 (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories are not to meant to list every detail about a person. Having a degree (or even two) is not notable or defining. As for WP:CLN, please, for the love of whatever you believe in, stop with the "CLN says we have to have both". There are some very good sections of CLN, Advantages of and Disadvantages of, which state why, for something like this, a list would be more appropriate. --Kbdank71 14:38, 12 January 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.

Rename of some pages Category:Particular sport players by nationality

[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 the "by country" cats to "by nationality" (per nom), no consensus on adding "by nationality" to the others, noting problems with the Snooker players category. I suppose this does not stop anyone from being bold and creating, for example, Snooker players by nationality and moving into it only the appropriate cats, leaving Snooker players as a supercat (would that be an uppercase meow?) Kbdank71 18:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: these three pages are listed under supra-category page Category:Sportspeople by sport and nationality. (The supra-cat page's other 42 linked pages are named 'by nationality'). The cue sports pages here likely need to be restarted once renamed as most of what they list is for this supra-cat page but a little is meant for Category:Sportspeople by sport page - till now they have been acting a dual purpose pages. (It is not part of this nomination, but I wonder if the name of this supra-cat page (and a few other related pages) should use 'sports players' (and if/where necessary 'sport players') instead of 'sportspeople' as the sub-cat nearly all the lists are of playing participants and not coaches, officials etc. Views?) Mayumashu (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose atleast Ice hockey players by country as those categories are not about nationality as has been pointed out to you in a few others cfds that are not yet closed and currently seem to be indicating no consensus to delete. As far as sportspeople to sports players, sportspeople is used because alot of the time it does include non-playing people in the sport, definately in the hockey cat structure. Of course players out number non-players because there are more players than other positions. And it can often look as though its all players because most coaches etc have been players at one time. -Djsasso (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think on the "sportspeople" vs. "player" point, his entire point is that the former is broader and that this is therefore problematic or at least potentially problematic for categorization purposes. The (specific) subcats do not mesh well with the ([over-]general) parent. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Place of birth is not defining, so if any non-nationality categories exist within them they should be deleted or repurposed to nationality categories anyway. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Place of birth is defining in some instances. A player born in a desert country playing professional hockey at the highest level is exceptionally rare and makes a player stand out from other players. ie he is defined from other players by having been born in the desert. -Djsasso (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, no, I don't think so, any more than an ice hockey player who dyes his hair mauve stands out from the other players and is therefore defined by hair color. If he grew up in the desert or had the nationality of a desert country, then yes, perhaps. But where a person is born is not defining, unless it's in outer space, and that's only because it's never happened there yet. In any case, we shouldn't be using a naming format which caters to the very rare situation where place of birth may be defining. Especially when all comparable categories use "nationality". Using "country" can also suggest "country of competition", i.e., where they played, which is also incorrect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That made no sense at all. If you propose that nationality is a non-defining characteristic, that is an argument for deletion of nationality-specific categories, not for creating more of them or moving more of them to such names. <fzzz!> <spark!> <POP!> DOES NOT COMPUTE. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you read my comment again you'll see I'm saying that place of birth is non-defining. Nationality is a completely separate issue, and I do not claim that nationality is non-defining. If you misunderstood me in that respect, I'm happy to disabuse you of the misperception. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The ice hockey place of birth categories have been deleted, so now I really can't see that there's any possible rationale for retaining "by country" for at least the ice hockey ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- sportspeople need to be categorised by the place where they play, not by the country of which they have nationality. With football (soccer), there are many expatriate players, who may be British, but play for a club in Madrid and be qualified to represent Scotland (or even Nigeria) internationally. This is far too complicated to impose nationality on. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you may be confusing the two category "trees". These are within the "by-nationality" system. Perhaps we shouldn't so classify, but we do—and these are part of that. There is a separate tree for "expatriate sportspeople", and these are nothing to do with that. The only issue here is whether we use "by country" or "by nationality" for categories that are categorizing people by citizenship. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And the confusion that it brings about is largely the point. The 'by country' ones are not listing by country where these sportspeople play or have played, as the name may suggest, but, presumably, by the country for which they have citizenship - this naming is too ambiguous for catting purposes. The ice hockey page goes about it actually by listing not by country where they play or citizenship but by place of birth, although easier to track, is sth. that is utterly non-defining (pure trivia), as GoodOlfactory has pointed out at several different times. Mayumashu (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice summary—I agree that this confusion is really what the nomination is seeking to resolve. It's kind of a perfect example of why they need to be changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what I say in my 'nomination rationale' that the cue sport pages will need to be restarted (or as you say reinstated). I agree not to suggest changing 'pool' to 'pocket billiards' as the supracat page is Category:Pool . Mayumashu (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I now understand the 'restart' bit. Occuli (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I actually find ALL these sports people by country, nationality, ethnicity, whatever categories a complete joke. Governing sports bodies make up the rules as they go along and they change all the time. "Eligibilty" to play for Fooia can be because your great grand mother was born in Fooia, or you spent 12 months and 1 day living there as a 3 year old . . . The only categories that are "real" are ones like "people who have played quiditch for Foo". Where they were born, who their parents where, where they live at the time is really irrelevant, and infinitely varied. There are olympic medallists who win medals for more than one country. Sports / games people go where the money is . . . and are then sometimes "available" to represent "their" country depending on the eligiblity rules at the time, or do whatever they have to do to be eligible for some other country to play at an elite level. Wiki categorisation does not seem to recognise the reality of a global village of demographic expedience. Peet Ern (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose: The only thing this would accomplish is the necessity to re-create new categories at the original names, to hold both "Category:WHATEVER players by nationality" and all of the non-nationality-oriented articles and subcategories that were also already under the original "Category:WHATEVER players" categories. The nominator describes this as a side effect, but it is in fact the sole effect. This "by nationality" navigational subcat type is arguably only needed (if at all, also an arguably matter if you ask me) when the sport has fielded notable people, about whom we have articles, in so many nationalities that all other content in the players category is drowned out by national subcats. I.e., this is not actually a rename proposal at all, but a restructuring-by-admin-and-project-labor proposal. If this nominator feels very strongly about the necessity of the "by nationality" structure, nominator is instructed to simply create the necessary "by nationality" subcats under all of the nominated categories and move all of the national subcats to now be under those new subcats as subsubcats, leaving everything else unharmed. This nomination amounts to "this is really important to me, but I'm unwilling to do the work to make it happen, so let's do it in a sloppy way that makes everyone else in all of these topics/projects have to clean up after me to move everything of a non-national character back where it belongs". No, thank you.
PS: I have to observe that the precedential value/harm of this CfD is truly immense. The nominator only mentioned a few sports categories, but it could potentially affect every single human category on the system that does not yet have a "by nationality" subcat.
PPS: The "dual nature" of these categories is (at least in the case of pool and snooker and other cue sports) by design (mine; I do most of that cat. maintenance); there simply isn't enough of an overwhelming number of nations present to necessitate (in my view) a "by nationality" system of subcats. I do not object to one, only to doing it in the backwards manner proposed here.
  • Addl. comment: I am not even going to touch the "nationality" issues raised here, as most of them are not relevant to my topics'/projects' concerns (no one is a pool player "for" Germany or Azerbaijan, they are simply from there, in one relevant sense or another the same way an actor or chemist is). I agree that the concept as applied here raises issues. Four of them, specifically: What constitutes a "nation" for WP "nationality" purposes (see nation, state, nation-state, country, etc.)? What constitutes "nationality" itself for WP purposes - self-declaration(s), citizenship(s), birthplace, place(s) of residence? What does it mean to play "for" or "representing" a particular "country" or "nation" - is there an objective definition? Lastly, how does one "qualify to" or "officially" play for or represent a country/nation/whatever - is this quantifiable either? Messy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:05, 16 January 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:Interest (emotion)

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Interest (psychology). This could have gone either way, (delete or rename), but there was really not a lot of strong, ahem, emotion on what to do. There was some agreement that it could work with a rename . Kbdank71 14:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Interest (emotion)

Interest is not an emotion. It is a cognition. The items in this category are a grab bag of articles. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It should be undestood here that the original 'main article' was named Interest (emotion) and began thus: "Interest is a feeling or emotion that causes attention to focus on an object or an event or a process." It was later moved by Mattisse, the deletion proposer here, under the name Interest (attention) and the beginning was changed by Mattisse to: "Interest is the focusing of attention on an object or an event or a process." I am of the opinion that these changes by Mattisse were made in good faith but are not appropriate. As to the problem with the weird expression "Interest (emotion)", I suggest that we might use something like "Interest (psychology)" for the category and for the main article for now... I object to the reduction of affective phenomena to cognitive phenomena. --Robert Daoust (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone have reliable sources that interest is considered an emotion? Generally, in psychology, interest is considered a cognitive function related to attention. It would help if this issue were cleared up. The references I looked at, although they mentioned "interest" and "emotion" in the same article, to consider interest an emotion would be WP:SYN. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about a standard dictionary definition of interest? See for instance Merriam-Webster: "a feeling that accompanies or causes special attention to an object or class of objects". Or Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary: "Excitement of feeling, whether pleasant or painful, accompanying special attention to some object". Could it be that there is a problem generally, in contemporary or American or perhaps cognitive (ex behaviorist?) psychology, when interest and even emotion is considered a cognitive function? Should a general encyclopedia cover the topic of mind only from the perspective of such a psychology? Is there not a better way to deal with the affective than what we find now under the category emotion? --Robert Daoust (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine if this category is for popular culture or something similar. As long as you keep it out of psychology, I don't care what your references are. If it is to be a category for articles in psychology, then dictionaries, text books and the like are not reliable sources. See Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). (Dictionaries give the "popular usage". Wikipedia already has a dictionary for those sorts of entries.) —Mattisse (Talk) 01:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then just google 'interest psychology emotion' and you get in second place Exploring the Psychology of Interest, where you can read: "Anyone interested in emotions will find this book on the emotion of interest immensely interesting! If you are among those who question the status of interest as an emotion, this book will convince you. This very real emotion not only exists, but also plays a major role in shaping our lives. This book goes a long way toward documenting what I have long believed. Of all the emotions, interest has the greatest long-term impact across the life span."--Carroll E. Izard, PhD, Trustees Distinguished Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Delaware. --Robert Daoust (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That reference is good. Do you have the book, as the blurb makes it sound like this writer is the first or one of the first to consider interest an emotion? It would be better to have more references and an actual description of the connection. The blurb is very vague. Therefore, it would be difficult to set up inclusion criteria for the category Interest (emotion). Certainly, not all interest is emotion. I do not think you will find wide support for that. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, and I hope you see what I mean, the very much more important question that is at stake here is how Wikipedia deals with the emotional or the affective in psychology. It looks like if there was no branches of psychology dealing with it (see category: Branches of psychology). This staggering problem is well illustrated by the fact that the article Mind is under category: Cognitive science, as if feeling or emotion was not as (or more!) fundamental than cognition in the psychological study of mind. --Robert Daoust (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I worked on all that for a while a year or two ago, but after much hard work, really did not accomplish very much. The categories in psychology are a mess, with many overlapping ones, and some are subcategories of inappropriate categories. If someone could come up with a workable system, that would be wonderful. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I too thought this was a pretty weird category when I came across it a while back, on account of both its name (interest as an emotion) and its odd assortment of contents (Flow?? Category:Hobbies??) - probably stemming from the lack of clear inclusion criteria. I was uncertain as to what, if anything, should be done about it - and I remain so now. I'm not entirely persuaded that it should exist; however, if it's kept, I think it should at least be renamed to Category:Interest (psychology) as suggested by R. Daoust. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, the inclusion criteria for any category in psychology have to be very clear, or else you will end up with a hodge podge of articles, many of which are not psychology-related in the professional sense. We have an issue with Category:Emotion and its relationship to psychology. The category needs constant policing as there can be almost endless entries for emotion, much pop psychology stuff, and articles that have nothing to do with emotion in the psychological sense are plunked into it, like Limerance and Human nature. The subcategories are not used enough so there are too many articles not in a subcategory. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:01, 12 January 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.

rename to Categories:Expatriate football (soccer) players

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: the accepted wikip. disambiguate for association football with category pages that do not pertain to any particular country or nationality is 'football (soccer)'. Mayumashu (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, only for ones that are country non-specific Mayumashu (talk) 00:31, 6 January 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:Companies listed on the SWX Swiss Exchange

[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 14:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Companies listed on the SWX Swiss Exchange to Category:Companies listed on the SIX Swiss Exchange
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Exchange changed its name from SWX to SIX in September (media release here). Gr1st (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm wondering if this might be better served as a list, which can capture such additional encyclopedic information as the date the stock was listed, ticker symbol, previous names of the exchange, previous companies of the exchange and so on. If I were researching stock exchanges I would find that much more valuable than a bare alphabetical list. If kept then rename to match the current exchange name. Otto4711 (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 5 January 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:Squash

[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: Withdrawn Grutness...wha? 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Squash to Category:Squash (sport)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Article is at Squash (sport); Squash is a dab page. An alternative idea may be to move the article page, since it could be argued that the sport is the main topic with this title (that would certainly save a lot of work, including the nomination of the dozen or more subcategories of this category!) Grutness...wha? 00:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ach. On second thoughts, given that 48 of the first 50 ghits are for the sport, chances are it's the primary topic. I'll change the article name. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 5 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_5&oldid=1140416363"