Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 20



Category:Indy Pro Series drivers

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Indy Pro Series drivers to Category:Indy Lights drivers
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, The Indy Pro Series has changed its name to the Indy Lights Series, the same name as a previous series that held a similar spot in the racing ladder. After discussion at WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing we have decided to treat these two series as a single contiguous history and merged their articles at Indy Lights. We would like to do the same for their driver categories. Drdisque (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:WWE Kings of The Ring

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * wwe kings of the ring


 * Nominator's rationale: Having this category for previous winners of King of the Ring is pointless to have in articles. If the category is kept, where will it stop if other categories are created for winners of other tournaments and stuff. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Like ThinkBlue said, it's pointless. iMat  thew   20  08  22:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete - like most other award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

Useless plant cats created by Bot, Episode IV

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nominator's rationale: Some more plant categories created by User:Polbot which are either obsolete or are genera that contain only a couple species. Specific reasons to follow. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx. Cheers, IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Homalanthus - genus which is now a synonym of Omalanthus. New articles will use the latter name. Delete and upmerge to Category:Euphorbiaceae.
 * Category:Rheedia - obsolete genus, species now belong in Garcinia. I already moved single article to Category:Garcinia; Delete.
 * Category:Tovomitopsis - genus which is now a synonym of Chrysochlamys. Delete and upmerge to Category:Clusiaceae.
 * Category:Aerisilvaea - genus which is now a synonym of Lingelsheimia. Delete and upmerge to Category:Malpighiales.
 * Category:Joannesia - genus contains only 2 species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Euphorbiaceae.
 * Category:Trigonobalanus - genus contains only 3 species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Fagaceae.
 * Category:Aristogeitonia - genus contains only 3 species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Picrodendraceae.
 * Delete is it, per nom. Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:People by race or ethnicity

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming


 * Category:Zulus to Category:Zulu people
 * Category:Acadians to Category:Acadian people
 * Category:Ndebele to Category:Ndebele people
 * Category:Afrikaners to Category:Akrikaner people
 * Category:Eurasians to Category:Eurasian people
 * Category:Ndwandwe to Category:Ndwandwe people
 * Nominator's rationale: all the remaining like category pages are named ethnicity + people (see Category:People by race or ethnicity) Mayumashu (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - ther eis no reason why Zulus cannot be a subcategory of Category:People by race or ethnicity without the suffix "people" being added. However is not "Eurasian" an ambiguous term, having different connotations in different places or at different times? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * the nomination is merely to rename, not to remove Category:Zulus as a subcategory of Category:People by race or ethnicity or argue that a particular member of the list should possibly be deleted (which it may) Mayumashu (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Too close to call, a tough one for sure - mostly neutral, but leaning toward rename. --Wassermann (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment; these racial categories are nothing but trouble. I've been going through Category:Eurasians, removing entries that are not backed up by references. Over 90% of the entries have been improperly added. Rename it? Sure. Delete it? Even better. In the 21st century we should not need to categorise people by their "race". If we are to have categories like this, they must be better policed and referenced to conform with WP:BLP and WP:V. --John (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom and established Wikipedia practice. Terraxos (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Personal name puns

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * personal name puns


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorizes based on the properties of the titles rather than the subjects of the articles. Better suited as a list anyway.  Powers T 17:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - a form of overcategorization by name and also trivial. Doubtful of its utility as a list given that the two included articles to date don't strike me as particularly "punny" so a list would be pretty well subjective. Otto4711 (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, for all the reasons given above - subjective, non-notable and pretty much useless as a category. Terraxos (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Neo-Creationism

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Neo-Creationism to Category:Intelligent design
 * Nominator's rationale: Intelligent design is the only existent example of Neo-Creationism. Intelligent design is the name by which this viewpoint is most commonly known. Of the articles in Category:Neo-Creationism, all but one (Neo-Creationism itself) is explicitly on the subject of intelligent design. HrafnTalkStalk 15:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My original nomination was for "merging", but would be open to deletion (per "delete per nom" below), if this helps reach WP:CONS. HrafnTalkStalk 20:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; the need for the main article as a separate one is debatable. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Fictional portrayals of Satan

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * fictional portrayals of satan


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - category came to my attention when it was added to Doctor Septimus Pretorius, which addition illustrates the problem with the category. It's being used to capture characters for which editors have decided through WP:OR are "allegories or representations of the devil." What it's being used for in many cases is simply to categorize really, really bad people or creatures. Suffers many of the same problems as the previously-deleted Category:Fictional personifications of evil and indeed includes a number of the characters referenced in that discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. One can imagine such a category (mainly for works, not character articles) being useful, but this is hopeless. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sorry, that was me. It's just that the character of Septimus Pretorius is portrayed as an allegory of Satan in Bride of Frankenstein. He himself remarks on his resemblance to the Devil. I'll remove him. I think we should change the category to include works as well as characters or even just works. It is a useful category. It downsizes the somewhat overcategorised Fictional deities and Fictional demons cats, both of which are useful categories in their own right. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of these are demons that don't actually have any direct connection to Satan. -Sean Curtin (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The fact that Palpatine is included is a telling example of the problem Otto is highlighting here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh for the love of God: Why is it whenever there is a slight problem with a category everyone decides to delete it instead of trying to sort it out. Palpatine is an allegory of Satan, George Lucas himself has said so. I agree that some of the characters in the category do not belong in there however and they should be removed. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with a category that is going to be populated almost if not entirely on the basis of the POV or original research of editors cannot reasonably be characterized as "slight." Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then maybe we need to be more strict as to who goes in it. If you delete the Fictional portrayals of Satan category then you might as well delete Category:Fictional portrayals of God. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, the long drawn out silence. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not looked at the category in question, but whether it exists or not is irrelevant to whether this one should. Otto4711 (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An allegory for Satan is not the same thing as a portrayal of Satan. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well, we shall change it. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - has both religious and socio-historical importance to a certain degree. Echoing User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus - why must so many categories always be outright deleted instead of simply reorganized? --Wassermann (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said sir. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Too vague a category: seems to be used for simply listing various fictional 'Big Bads', and in many cases, placing such a character in this category would count as original research. If this category is kept, it should be used only for those characters that are specifically portrayals of Satan, not just supreme villains - so, Satan (Image Comics) can stay, but Palpatine should go. Terraxos (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely pathetic. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Noosphere

 * 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * noosphere


 * Nominator's rationale: According to its article, noosphere is "the 'sphere of human thought'." This doesn't seem like a topic that needs any sort of category, and the person who created seems to be randomly adding articles to it that seem to have absolutely nothing to do with the topci, including people, topics, and an anime series. Collectonian (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: This category for the "sphere of human thought" is to encompass all those articles, people, topics, and the anime series, since they are a collective reflection on the "style of 'atmosphere,'" and "phases of development" of a/the noosphere. This category is a work in progress, where the first steps of summation and categorization were to surmise relevant material and include previous inclusions/mentions by other editors/users on the main topic of Noosphere. Further analysis of each category's listing and tangency is obviously necessary for continual and optimum Wikipedia standardization. It is also very welcome and appreciated any commentary/advice/suggestions for further discussion/solidarity and not simply a rush to trial by fire or a burning at the stake. I sincerely hope the reason for this category's nomination does not involve an ideological/religious bias or prejudice by the nominator, Collectonian, due to the assumed context of the Noosphere/Noogenisis versus religion and its supplemented origin by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, "a Jesuit priest who trained as a paleontologist and geologist and took part in the discovery of Peking Man" and who "...was opposed by his church superiors, and his work was denied publication during his lifetime by the Roman Holy Office". - IdealisticRealist (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - muzzy-headed category based on a lead article without a single source or citation, that is so broad that it could potentially contain any category or article related to any field of human endeavour. I am troubled by the failure of the above comment to assume good faith on the part of the nominator with veiled accusations of ideological or religious intolerance. Otto4711 (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: mostly nonsense and full of unrelated material.  Noosphere as a concept is fine to relate to its creator and his direct descendents, but tha tonly requires links.--Buridan (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Using the term "Noosphere" as the name for a Category makes no more sense than it would to use any of scores of other philosophical constructs as the name for a category. However, I am reserving judgement on the possible merits of the category itself until IdealisticRealist provides us with a succinct -- I emphasize s-u-c-c-i-n-c-t -- rationale for its intended purpose. (In other words, I'm leaving open the hypothetical possibility that it might be turned into a valid and useful category if it was properly named and clearly defined.) Cgingold (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete IdealisticRealist is adding a lot of noosphere cross-linking without citations. I may be wrong, but it seems to come from some sort of new-age reinterpretation somewhere.  I'm pretty sure it is non-consensus, but without the cite, I can't be 100% sure. Jok2000 (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Is this not a neologism? Maybe I am wrong: it does at least seem to be made from two Greek words, unlike so many pseudo-classical neologisms thast are bastards made from a mixture of languages. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, at least in its current format and under its current name. -Sean Curtin (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the noosphere is the entire sphere of human thought, then doesn't that more or less encompass every single article on Wikipedia anyway? Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.