Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 10



Category:Beer and breweries by region

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Beer and breweries by country and populate as necessary with sub-categories. Whilst noting Hmains's comment that the concrete proposal was made late in the discussion, it was clear to me that it was a proposal that was generally supported in the discussion before that point, and so relisting was not necessary. BencherliteTalk 14:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Beer and breweries by region to Category:Discuss
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * consider Most countries have only a few brewers and a few beer brands and it would probably be unhelpful to do a lot of further categorization for them. For countries, such as Germany, UK, US, etc, that have many brewers and beer brands, then create subcats just for those countries.  Example: Category:Beer and breweries in Germany could have subcats named German beer brands and German Breweries (or Beer brands of Germany and Breweries in Germany) while articles on German beer types and German beer culture would remain in Category:Beer and breweries in Germany.  In the meantime, there could be one big category named Catgegory:Beer Brands that would directly include all beer brands world-wide yet include any subcats named 'Fooian beer brands'.  Hmains 22:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we are both on the same page. Since a reverse merge was done, I need a vote here to create the subcategories within the rules.  This can not be done by a bot, so it will be a manual operation and take a while to do.  I fully expect the building category to be small and not have any subcats at this time.  Vegaswikian 07:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anything have to be changed with the current 'Category:Beer and breweries by foo' for 'foo' countries? We just have to create some country subcats once we agree on a naming convention--no permission is needed to create subcats.  Apart from that, I wonder why the 'region' level of subcats are needed at all.  Just having 'country' subcats seems to me to be sufficient.  The naming conventions I am now thinking about are 'Breweries of foo'  for 'foo' countries to match the naming convention in the 'industry by country' category.  Then use 'fooian beer brands' for 'foo' countries. Hmains 16:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By country seems best at the highest level, those that need further splitting can be by what is normal by the country: state in the US? city in Germany? Carlossuarez46 23:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support what I think the consensus is. Rename Category:Beer and breweries by region to Category:Beer and breweries by country and allow creation of the subcategories for brewing companies, breweries (building) and beers under the new parent and within appropriate subcats overturning the previous CfD which merged similar subcategories into the parents. Vegaswikian 00:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * question what becomes of the 'continental subcats? Do they stay between the Category:Beer and breweries by country and the 'country' subcats? Hmains 05:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say they get removed. Categorization by county should be sufficient. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename Category:Beer and breweries by region to Category:Beer and breweries by country per above conversation. Hmains (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * comment to administrator This nomination should be re-listed since we only had a concrete proposal two days ago.  Hmains (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Red

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * red
 * Merge into Category:Shades of red, convention of Category:Colors. -- Prove It (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete : appears to be nothing to merge; only contents is Category:Shades of red as a subcategory. Snocrates 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Snocrates. Carlossuarez46 23:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Freemasons

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

The result of the debate was delete. As recreation of the category is likely, the category will also be salted to prevent future creation outside the channels of deletion review. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * freemasons


 * Nominator's rationale:  The main issue was, and is still, that of verification.  The category becomes a magnet for unsubstantiated claims that people were or are currently Freemasons.  This was and is a real nightmare for the members of the Freemasonry project who constantly have to monitor this category to removed unsubstantiated additions.  Even when it is verifiable that the subject was or is a Freemason, the fact of his membership in the Fraternity is of very minor note (often amounting to a "trivial" one sentence mention in the article) that had no real importance or influence on the subject's life.  It has been suggested that this category be remamed to something along the lines of "People who contributed to Freemasonry"... which would result in all but five being cut.  Those should be listed in the broader Category:Freemasonry.  The category was deleted for good reasons, the List serves the same purpose and is much easier to monitor and maintain. Blueboar 22:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Deprecate category. Also, the above editor might actually sign his name. The kind of secretism displayed above is probably one of the reasons content related to this subject is as often vandalized as it currently is. John Carter 21:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Secretism? Oh, please... I simply hit 5 tildies instead of 4 when signing.  Now corrected. Blueboar 22:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for the reasons very well explained by nom. It already exists as a list and is a re-creation of a previously deleted cat. (Above interchange is a classic example what can happen when WP:AGF is not followed.) Snocrates 22:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment But lists are a far inferior way of organising information compared to categories. They are far more prone to edit wars and they do not have the flexibility of categories.  JASpencer 14:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just one opinion. I find lists to be far superior for other reasons you've failed to discuss. Snocrates 20:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:V can be dealt with on individual pages as they are with other sensitive categories such as Category:LGBT politicians. And as far as unimportance goes, I hardly see, say, Harry Truman's Freemasonry as being less trivial than other categories such as "Time magazine Persons of the Year", "1972 deaths" or "Congressional Gold Medal recipients".  JASpencer 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Further to this I've just stumbled upon Category:Opus Dei members, they have both a list and a category. Surely the same objections would apply here?  JASpencer 14:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree... Keep the list and delete the Cat. Blueboar 15:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the members of Opus Dei category? On what grounds?  JASpencer 16:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Overcategorization of a subject that is better handled by a list. But this is really besides the point here... We are not talking about some other category... we are talking about Category:Freemasons.  "Other stuff exists" has never been a good reason for oppose a deletion.  Each deletion nomintation should be judged on its own merits. Blueboar 16:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm afraid to say that as this is a natural category that doesn't clearly breach any Wikipedia policy, this means that every year or so someone else will create it. I know that there is a well organised minority who dislike the idea that people should be identified by their affiliation, but Wikipedia is about verifiability and not about being sensitive to club rules.  JASpencer 13:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... this is about verifiability. I am also not sure what you mean by "being sensitive to club rules"?  This nom resulted from a mistaken (but good faith) recreation of a category that was deleted for valid reasons several months ago.  The issues that resulted in its first deletion are reoccuring. In my opinion, the reasons for the original deletion are still valid, and it should be redeleted. Blueboar 15:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as recreation (would have been G4, but cannot whilst this is pending says the rules). No defining, not verifiable, and not meaningful - is a freemason of 1780 have the same meaning as one of 2007? Carlossuarez46 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The reasons were about sensitivity rather than about Wikipedia policy. This is a natural category with no deviation from Wikipedia policy.  WP:V can be enforced within the articles. JASpencer 16:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? Not following you.  What reasons were about sensitivity? Blueboar 16:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - this is indeed a "natural" category. If there is a problem, it is with verifiability, but that should rest with the individual article authors.  In this context the use of lists is usually to be deplored, unless there are a signficant number of red links, and this one has just one.  In principle it is the list that should be deleted, not the category.  Peterkingiron 23:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - Obviously, I disagree that this is a "natural" category. To repeat what I stated in the nomination, in the vast majority of the articles tagged with this cat, the fact that the subject was a Freemason is trivia, with nothing more than one sentence stating, "He was also a Freemason".  It certainly does not define who they were or what made them notable.  As such I think the categorization amounts to WP:Overcategorization (Non-defining or trivial characteristic). As for the issue of List vs. Category, reading the comments from the original November deletion page there seems to be an opposite opinion.  It was clear that at that time it was felt that this topic should be listified and not done as a category.  I suppose it could be considered a matter of choice, but it is clearly not something for which there is a "principle". Blueboar 00:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - there are already issues with WP:V in just a few days of the cat having been recreated. When an article is added to a cat, there is no way to tell without looking at the cat directly; with a list, every edit is in the edit history, and references can easily be requested.  Therefore, in terms of usability, a list of Freemasons is much more policeable than the category is, so there is no real improvement to Wikipedia by having it. MSJapan 00:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - As stated above, I think the best alternative would be to keep the category but indicate that the category is not to be used. Also, the argument regarding the fact that there is possibly only one or so sentences in the article is perhaps solipsistic, as it seems to imply that each and every one of these articles is considered complete regarding the subject of the article, when many/most clearly are not. I could just as easily say that a one-sentence article about any person should not be categorized at all, as there is less than one sentence about the subject's relation to anything. And the cats for years of birth and death, which don't even generally get full sentences, should clearly be removed as well. As such, I believe the essential argument is spurious. Also, the nominator has earlier expressed reservations, which he has omitted here, that he is concerned about the fact that being listed as a Freemason could endanger the subject's life. Clearly, the same could be applied to living adherents of any religion, and yet those categories continue to exist as well. Nominator has indicated that it is "too much work" to keep up the category, but the same can be said for every category. Personally, I believe the nomination could be closed as basically raising no real good, relevant policies for deletion. Having said that, however, I have already stated that I think it would be best for the category to remain, but that it be specifically listed that it not be used, except in certain verifiable, relevant circumstances, or just keeping the category and indicating that it is not to be used, or otherwise "salting" it, and I still think that would be the best alternative. John Carter 18:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have to take exception to this last comment... I never stated that I was concerned about the fact that being listed as a Freemason could endanger the subject's life... that was a worry expressed by another editor at the old CfD. As for citing policy, while I did not explicitly point to a policy or guideline, I did discuss issues that relate to policy and guideline criteria.  But to be explicit now: see WP:Overcategorization (this category fits several of the criteria, but especially: Non-defining or trivial characteristic).  Blueboar 13:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If it can be verified that the membership in this society, about whose actions historically very little if anything is known, is clearly and explicitly not a defining characteristic, then I would agree. The remarkable lack of information about the subject in many instances, however, makes it very hard to make such judgements, particularly when dealing with an organization that has historically expended so much effort to draw as little attention to itself as possible. In those instances, I can and do think that at this point saying something is not a defining characteristic is not something which can be supported by the often fragmentary information about the organization and its activities. John Carter 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would argue this the other way... we can not assume that being a member of a fraternity (any fraternity) is a defining characteristic. We need reliable sources that tell us that it is/was defining (And if the sources tell us that it is/was defining, the article should have more than a one sentence "trivia" comment.) Yes, there have been a few notable people for whom membership in Freemasonry was a defining characteristic (indeed there are one or two for whom membership in the fraterinty is the defining characteristic, the thing that makes them notable - James Anderson (Mason) being an obvious example), but we can not say the same for the vast majority of subjects in the category.  And if we limit the category to include only the few people for whom  we do have evidence of it being a defining characteristic, we end up with a different form of WP:Overcategorization - a category that is Small with no potential for growth.  Blueboar 15:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court

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

The result of the debate was merge. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * chief justice of the philippine supreme court
 * Merge into Category:Chief Justices of the Philippines, as duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Persons are not chief justices "of the P.S.C.", they are chief justices "of the Philippines". Snocrates 22:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge then rename per Snocrates. Carlossuarez46 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per all (rename not needed I think, Carlos) Johnbod 00:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * merge per nom. A lot of overlap; no clear reason for 2nd category. Hmains 05:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional elements from video games

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

The result of the debate was merge. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Fictional elements from video games to Category:Video games
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Merge per nomination. Doczilla 07:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nomination. Carlossuarez46 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Enemies from The Legend of Zelda series

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

The result of the debate was merge. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Enemies from The Legend of Zelda series to Category:Characters from The Legend of Zelda series
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Merge per nom ... see also August 25th discussion. -- Prove It (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nomination. Doczilla 07:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Elements

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * elements


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete per nom. Another -ology category. Johnbod 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Doczilla 07:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional teetotalers

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * fictional teetotalers


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete per nom. Johnbod 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, deletion of real world teetotaler categories. Doczilla 07:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Scabs

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * scabs
 * Delete, as non-defining, POV slang, or at least Rename to Category:Strikebreakers. -- Prove It (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as attack category here, without prejudice to a serious attempt at Category:Strikebreakers in the future. Johnbod 17:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  18:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as probably POV, potentially slanderous, maybe WP:COI, placed only on pages relating to current issues (i.e. Hollywood writers' strike), and currently empty. Zue Jay (talk)  19:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Whether one crosses a picket line is not defining (does one have to do it once only, occasionally, frequently, always, and how do we define that). Carlossuarez46 23:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not an issue now, but it might be defining for some - say if one got killed for it, as I think has happened. Johnbod 00:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Century eras

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

The result of the debate was merge all. Most of the categories would be emptied by the removal of the corresponding ##th century Jewish history category, which should have taken place even if the categories had been kept. (The division into centuries of the history of a religion and people is a matter of convenience, whose merits can be separately debated; however, the centuries themselves do not constitute meaningfully distinct eras.) That leaves only a few categories to consider. Some, such as Category:19th century eras, include few articles and are arguably overcategorisation, as the contents would fit just as well in the main parent category. Others, such as Category:21st century eras, are populated by articles about subjects whose designation as eras is highly questionable (e.g. Iraq War, Iraqi insurgency). The combination of these factors, plus concerns about the interpretation of the term "era", suggests that a separate categorisation scheme for eras is unnecessary. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging


 * category:21st century BC eras into category:21st century BC
 * category:20th century BC eras into category:20th century BC
 * category:19th century BC eras into category:19th century BC
 * category:18th century BC eras into category:18th century BC
 * category:17th century BC eras into category:17th century BC
 * category:16th century BC eras into category:16th century BC
 * category:15th century BC eras into category:15th century BC
 * category:14th century BC eras into category:14th century BC
 * category:13th century BC eras into category:13th century BC
 * category:12th century BC eras into category:12th century BC
 * category:11th century BC eras into category:11th century BC
 * category:10th century BC eras into category:10th century BC
 * category:9th century BC eras into category:9th century BC
 * category:8th century BC eras into category:8th century BC
 * category:7th century BC eras into category:7th century BC
 * category:6th century BC eras into category:6th century BC
 * category:5th century BC eras into category:5th century BC
 * category:4th century BC eras into category:4th century BC
 * category:3rd century BC eras into category:3rd century BC
 * category:2nd century BC eras into category:2nd century BC
 * category:1st century BC eras into category:1st century BC
 * category:21st century eras into category:21st century
 * category:20th century eras into category:20th century
 * category:19th century eras into category:19th century
 * category:18th century eras into category:18th century
 * category:17th century eras into category:17th century
 * category:16th century eras into category:16th century
 * category:15th century eras into category:15th century
 * category:14th century eras into category:14th century
 * category:13th century eras into category:13th century
 * category:12th century eras into category:12th century
 * category:11th century eras into category:11th century
 * category:10th century eras into category:10th century
 * category:9th century eras into category:9th century
 * category:8th century eras into category:8th century
 * category:7th century eras into category:7th century
 * category:6th century eras into category:6th century
 * category:5th century eras into category:5th century
 * category:4th century eras into category:4th century
 * category:3rd century eras into category:3rd century
 * category:2nd century eras into category:2nd century
 * category:1st century eras into category:1st century


 * Nominator's rationale: Merge: no reason to split them out, confusing. Possibly non-standard definition of "era".  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * incomplete nomination, await AMbot request to build cfm templates. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep (a) Something needs to be clarified. The nominator is jumping the gun. He had requested clarification only a day ago, see User talk:IZAK and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Time but instead of waiting to discuss the issues he had, he went ahead with this mass deletion proposal in a punitive manner (against me it seems, because nothing else seems to add up), when I was not even the originator of the idea behind creating these categories.(b) The nucleus and the name for these categories were long-established before I came across a few of them and then expanded them to cover all centuries. For example, the following were created (not by me) in August 2006 Category:21st century eras Category:20th century eras  and in June of 2007, Category:19th century eras  was created. (c) Thus based on these precedents, I proceeded to complete the work of others by setting up the exact same sub-category for each century so that present and future editors can and will continue the work of placing specific eras by name and by time of history into each of the categories of eras by century. (d) This is a legitimate, honored and honorable way of categorizing not just by the centuries but by the names of the Eras that is covered by each century. This is an accepted and important tool for historians and for the study of history. Nothing new here except maybe to the nominator who is over-reacting. (e) Finally, see the Era article: "In chronology, an era is the highest level for the organization of the measurement of time. A calendar era indicates a span of many years which are numbered beginning at a specific reference date (epoch), which often marks the origin of a political state or cosmology... it is generally called after its focus accordingly as in Victorian era... In common speech and various contexts, the term era is also used, by extension, for any (as a rule relatively long) period in history with a name, often relating to common characteristic(s), even if this is not the normal way to organize time..." The nominator should reconsider and withdraw this ill-conceived, misguided, and misinformed nomination. See related discussions at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 8; Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 8 and Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 8. Thank you, IZAK 00:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, if you'd explained that when you created the categories, we might have gotten somewhere. Still....  OK, if you delete the Jewish subcategories from these categories (which are clearly wrong according to the meaning you're placing on these categories), and propose speedy deletion for the then-empty categories, I'll withdraw the nomination on the 3 or 4 remaining categories.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Arthur you make no sense. On the one hand you agree that "3 or 4" of the categories are ok and can stay, but on the other hand you wish to eliminate the rest that are contructed exactly the same way. And then you want me to go along with your deletion proposals when I have already explained in great detail why you are mistaken. Those categories will not be orphaned in any way. To any student of history, there are many "era" categories and sub-categories that can go into each and every one of the century era categories that you so blithely wish to eliminate here. It's just that I do not have time to do it all. It will take time to populate each category with all of its various (sub) categories that exist on Wikipedia already, just that it requires someone to do the heavy lifting and place each era into its centry parent era. It is perfectly legitimate to have a time era put in, see for example, the sub-Category:History of Poland (1918–1939) that was placed (not by me) in Category:20th century eras. This is not always a pure science like mathematics, it's more like the Social sciences and is more of an art in many ways, yet one that is built on basic chronology. Thanks for your interest though, IZAK 02:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm inclined to delete/merge them all. Certainly the Jewish history by century categories should be removed, per Arthur. Looking at Category:20th century eras, how many of these actually are eras? It's a very easy name for a journalist to hang onto any phenomenon, and impossible to define rigorously. Look at Lochner era, The Great Binge, Old Time etc. Half of the actual eras one thinks of - Edwardian (or course all the cat is US), Jazz Age, Depression, Sixties etc aren't there, because the article names don't fit. Johnbod 04:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, they aren't there because noone has gotten around to putting them in, and there are many more. The notion of "eras" is a general one but it's legit, see the Era article, and therefore we should approach this in an inclusive manner, otherwsie you will end up saying that nothing is an era because of this-or-that reason, when in fact everything is part of some sort of era or another. IZAK 04:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as overcategorization at this point. There is apperently nothing here that cannot be held under the regular century categories. All they contain are Jewish history in XX century, which are not even eras. --Eliyak T · C 19:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Admin comment - Moved this discussion forward 2 days for delay in tagging all categories. --After Midnight 0001 15:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per IZAK's arguments above. Nahum 18:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong merge all all per nom. I see no evidence that these categories serve any purpose other than as duplicates of the by-century categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge all per nom. -Sean Curtin 07:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge all per nom. The use of "eras" in this sense is far too vague & certainly does not need separate categories. Johnbod 14:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Argentinian lugers

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

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * argentinian lugers
 * Rename to Category:Argentine lugers, convention of Category:Argentine sportspeople. -- Prove It (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Snocrates 22:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

More Irish politicans

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

The result of the debate was rename both as nominated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC) See also the nomination below for other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming
 * Category:Irish Progressive Democrat party politicians to Category:Progressive Democrats politicians
 * Category:Irish Democratic Left Party politicians to Category:Irish Democratic Left politicians Category:Democratic Left politicians (Ireland)
 * Rename. neither of these Irish political parties used the word "party" in their title; however the adjective "Irish" is retained for the Democratic Left (Ireland) because there have been organisations in other countries also called Democratic Left.


 * Rename all per nom. Tim Q. Wells 15:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think Category:Irish Democratic Left politicians is ambiguous - Category:Democratic Left (Ireland) politicians or similar would be better, and match the article. Johnbod 15:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have changed the nomination to Category:Democratic Left politicians (Ireland), which wass the format we agreed after a lot of discussion for the subcats of Category:British politicians by party. Hope that's OK, and thanks for challenging the clumsiness of my first version. If we agree to use the "(Ireland)" postfix for the Democratic Left, then some of the other subcats of Category:Irish politicians by party will also need changing to the new format (not all of them, cos in some cases their name way "Irish foo"). I'm happy to nominate them afterwards if this proposal passes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom Johnbod 17:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom ww2censor 17:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:American bloggers
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no change in name. We are busy expanding abbreviations rather than the other way round. WP:SNOW Carlossuarez46 23:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:American bloggers to Category:US bloggers
 * Nominator's rationale:
 * This is a procedural nomination. Found this on the talk page while doing October cleanup.  Vegaswikian 06:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think "American" is fairly widely recongized as meaning "of the United States" and not "of North or South America" when it refers to people. Most WP categories use "American" when referring to people from the United States. I am a non-American if that helps dispell any perceptions of US-centrism in my comments. Snocrates 07:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, since there's no evidence of this being a special case and American is used as the adjective in pretty much every category that lists people by nationality. It's been discussed before, and if there's evidence that the current consensus has changed (which would be stupid at this point), someone would have to nominate all the relevant categories for renaming, not just this one. - Bobet 10:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Standard and correct name. If it is being misused, clean it up. Ravenhurst 13:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: we don't use abbreviations in category names (see WP:NCCAT). I would much prefer that we didn't use the inaccurate adjectives "British" and "American" in category names where we mean something different, viz. "United States" and "United Kingdom". But if there is going to be change wrt to the use of "American" in category names, let's do it consistently by considering a group nomination to decide whether to change the convention. I see no reason to make this category an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest WP:SNOW. Category name is appropriate and the nom is based on a misunderstanding plus miscategorization of constituent articles. Otto4711 15:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per standard meaning. Doczilla 07:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Character actors
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Far too broad and no objective criteria for inclusion. Character actor doesn't help in formulating a useful category definition either. BencherliteTalk 13:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:Character actors
 * Category:American character actors
 * Category:Argentine character actors
 * Category:Australian character actors
 * Category:Austrian character actors
 * Category:Belgian character actors
 * Category:British character actors
 * Category:Canadian character actors
 * Category:Croatian character actors
 * Category:Cuban character actors
 * Category:English character actors
 * Category:Filipino character actors
 * Category:French character actors
 * Category:German character actors
 * Category:Hungarian character actors
 * Category:Irish character actors
 * Category:Israeli character actors
 * Category:Japanese character actors
 * Category:Mexican character actors
 * Category:New Zealand character actors
 * Category:Portuguese character actors
 * Category:Scottish character actors
 * Category:Spanish character actors
 * Category:Swedish character actors


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Character actor is a subjective term and not a definitive one; also, the category contains several actors who've been in leading roles. IrkCome in for a drink! 05:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. From the discussion/definition in Character actor, the term doesn't seem to me to be amendable to a category due to its fluid nature. There are no bright lines that can be drawn as to who qualifies. As nom says, any application will be a subjective opinion in practically all instances. Snocrates 07:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I checked American character actor and there is no description on the category. And according to the article, any movie actor and television actor can be concidered one. TheBlazikenMaster 12:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now. I think that the definition may be a little more solid than the nominator suggests, so I have posted a cfdnotice at WikiProject Theatre, and look forward the input from members of that project and/or of WikiProject Films, who had already been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * keep It is clear who character actors are. They are notable in that they have articles on them and identifiable in that the articles on them identify them as character actors--at least in some stage of their careers (one does not have to be a life-long character actor to qualify!).  It is not 'subjective' to place article in a category when the article contains the necessary information.  If the article does not have this information, either improve the article or delete that article from the category; do not delete the category itself, which is unhelpful to the WP knowledge base. Hmains 19:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the point; the point at hand is that actors are actors. Why isn't there a category for Category:Hollywood leading men? IrkCome in for a drink! 04:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article offers a clear, unambigious and objective description. That an actor may also play leads occasionally in no way invalidates their membership in this category, just as a film actor is also capable of being a stage actor. Snocrates would need to explain exactly what is it is about the term that constitutes its "fluid nature" - the term operates and is understood perfectly well within the industry and within the marketing and critical analysis of films in the culture at large. TheBlazikenMaster claims that "according to the article" anyone fits, but in lieu of a more precise criticism I fail to see how this is true - the description is clear and the term is used in as precise a sense as any descriptive adjective within the cultural sphere; to complain that it is "subjective" within those terms is to misunderstand the difference between natural and cultural phenomena. That the term lacks the precision of a scientific object or a philosophical concept is not a valid objection for a cultural description; actors are routinely identified as "character actors" within the relevant cultural discourses, and that is the only valid criterion for a wikipedia "fact" in this sphere. DionysosProteus 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 *  That an actor may also play leads occasionally in no way invalidates their membership in this category, just as a film actor is also capable of being a stage actor. Yes, that's why this category is completely useless--the category would include just about every actor, because all actors play supporting and leading roles alternatively. IrkCome in for a drink! 04:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not useless, since the industry and critical culture use it constantly, without any of the confusion you're imputing. You misunderstand its definition, it seems, or else misunderstand the nature of cultural categories. It is not merely about the difference between lead and supporting, but types of characterisation, positioning within the industry, and ways of approaching the role. "Character actor" is a profile that certain actors within the industry are given or develop. It is similar to the categorisation of films with genre; there are overlaps. These overlaps in no way invalidate the categories. You might chose to apply the term to any and all actors, but you do not constitute a verifiable source. The question is: is it possible to verify a particular actor's membership in this category? The answer, clearly, is yes, by all of Wikipedia's definitions of a "fact" in this area. The label has an independent existence outside of wikipedia. It is citable. Disputes over membership are able to be resolved with reference to objectively-existing, citable sources. Not every actor is called a "character actor" in the relevant literature. DionysosProteus 14:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't misunderstand the definition, primarily because there isn't a a standard definition. According to the Wikipedia article, nine unrelated things constitute a character actor, meaning that a character actor is somebody who chose to be one, can't get good roles, can't find work in a foreign country or is a victim of ageism. The problem is that there are no subcategories for character actors, so why is one a character actor? It could be any of the nine listed in the article, and is thus confusing. Also, since you stated that there is no clear definition about who is and isn't a character actor, that basically means it's up to one's interpretation and is thus entirely POV. Also, in reference to your categorization of movies with overlaps, I could think a movie is so laughably bad it was trying to be funny. That certainly doesn't mean it deserves to be placed in Category:Comedy films.IrkCome in for a drink! 16:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * According to TheBlazikenMaster Yes you wanted to say something to me? Ok, I admit I'm not expert on this subject. If you want to keep this, I'm not stopping you. It's just that the name looked suspicious. TheBlazikenMaster 17:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Definition is too broad and could cover virtually every actor, apart from those rare ones that only have ever played leading roles. Ubi Terrarum 10:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion means POV, OR. Carlossuarez46 23:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Eurabia
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * eurabia


 * Disputed neologism and Category:Islam-related controversies isn't so loaded it can't handle these.--T. Anthony 10:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Links please! Johnbod 22:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - by the time a word has been in the cover headlines of the Economist and the Spectator it no longer counts as a neologism for WP purposes. Forms a coherent category that would be lost in the far larger Category:Islam-related controversies, and is likely to expand.  Johnbod 23:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Link provided. :-)
 * Keep I'm rather with Johnbod on this. If its on the cover of the Economist and it seems from the title article to have arisen largely from a single source - it seems sufficiently definable. Carlossuarez46 23:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Irish politicians by party
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all as nominated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming


 * Category:Irish Clann na Talmhan politicians to Category:Clann na Talmhan politicians
 * Category:Irish Clann na Poblachta Party politicians to Category:Clann na Poblachta politicians
 * Category:Irish Fianna Fáil Party politicians to Category:Fianna Fáil politicians
 * Category:Irish Fine Gael Party politicians to Category:Fine Gael politicians
 * Category:Irish Cumann na nGaedhael Party politicians to Category:Cumann na nGaedhael politicians

Note that some of the English-language party names in Category:Irish politicians by party may also be over-disambiguated, but this will need further checking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: None of these political parties need to be disambiguated by the prefixed adjective "Irish", because the party names are not shared by any parties outside Ireland. Nor should they include the word "Party", because the names of the organisations do not include "party", either in Irish or in English. I have identified the creator of these categories, who was clearly a clueless newbie, but I will show no mercy in punishing the editor responsible for such badly-named categories.


 * Rename all per nom - & don't the newbie too hard, they sometimes turn into excellent editors! Johnbod 02:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom. Tim Q. Wells 03:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also rename these which are in Category:Irish politicians by party:
 * Category:Irish Democratic Left Party politicians
 * Category:Irish National Progressive Democrats Party politicians
 * The rest of those categories seem fine. For example, Category:Irish Green Party politicians should stay because "Party" is a part of the the name of the Irish Green Party. Tim Q. Wells 03:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply, Tim, I think you're right, but could we keep those ones for a separate nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See above, . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename all per (both) nominations. (Sarah777 14:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Rename all per noms ww2censor 17:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.