The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was 50 opp, 28 rename. no clear consensus to rename so keep. (delete votes not counted per previous discussion, and were minority here anyhow). Syrthiss13:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is agreed that it is an administrative category. It was intensensly unpopular when nominated for deletion, but Jimbo Wales will not consider deletion. Therefore the idea of giving it the least noticeable possible name has been floated a couple of times on the talk page. Renaming it to a symbol should reduce the risk of subcategories popping up when they are not appropriate. RenameCategory:*Choalbaton23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I disagree that it was intensely unpopular when nominated for deletion. A handful of AfD regulars voted against it, but that's hardly a community process. I consider this renaming poll to be nothing short of trolling.
The idea that the category is 'too broad' or 'useless' is directly contradicted by the fact that we have literally dozens of categories which are just as broad or broader.--Jimbo Wales11:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to *, it takes up minimal space, does not tempt people to try to navigate with it, and because it doesn't actually say "this is a living person" it can be used for other things which equally require monitoring like a band article containing biographical info (or in fact anything we like). Incidentally the CFR tag has been removed from the category [1] , not sure if it was intentional or not. Kappa00:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's supposed to be uninformative. The hope is that casual readers (ie. nearly everyone) will ignore it. When people see it they only need click on it once to find out what it is about, and then they can forget about it again. Much better than having the absurdity of "living people" under your nose all the time. Choalbaton01:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I'd also agree to Category:Watched bio. Nobody is advocating that this is a useful category for browsing, its creation is just for administrative purposes. For this reason I think it should have a very low profile. If it has a longer name, the TALK page should be categorized instead of the article page. At present, that would make it difficult to look at related changes for all the articles, so a compromise is to make this name as unobtrusive as possible. -- Samuel Wantman00:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at least with "living people" one can figure out which articles are in there. A name such as " * ", might be acceptable for a template based category. If one wants to make it disappear, it might be possible to do this on the custom CSS. -- User:Docu
Comment. I'm tuning in late on this one, and amn't fully up to date (though I'm vaguely aware of there being an edict in effect) so sorry if this has been covered already. Can't we simply keep the category as-is, but use it on talk pages only, as is fairly usual for "advisory" or "administrative" categories? Alai06:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested this several times with no "official" response. I suspect the problem is that currently the category is being monitored using Related changes. Putting the category on the talk page would defeat this. -- Samuel Wantman06:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-hah. Sorry, missed your comment above. So if this is indeed the thinking behind this being a non-negotiable requirement, would be vote of delete and replace by a humungous list (re-partitioned to taste) still be out of order, then? Alai04:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about lists here, apparently a category is the only way to generate the lists without software changes. Note that repartitioning defeats the purpose, because people would have to watch more than one place. Kappa07:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not being done automatedly anyway, is it? Subcategorisation of "Living people"'s already been mooted, so it's not clear to me that a single place to watch is an absolute requirement. Or even that it's a good idea, given the scale of the monitoring task. Splitting by initial letter, or by nationality, would give feasibly-sized pages to watch. Alai08:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's automatic in the sense that editing the article puts it in the category, whereas editors would have to edit the (huge) lists themselves if there was no category. I suppose we should try to get a definite answer on whether partioning is an option. Kappa08:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. When I saw this category existed it made me twitch a little bit. Far, far too broad a category. Anything to make it less visible. Rob13:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: what kind of stupid name is "*"? Are we trying for the special category in the obfuscated code competition again? What is the problem with having a biographical article belong to the appropriate category according to the subject's death date, with a handy little enormous box for those who haven't yet had the courtesy to drop dead and provide us with a proper date? Stop mucking around and get categorising! HTH HAND —Phil | Talk15:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I agree that "Living people" isn't a category that I'd create, but making it unobtrusive by making it obfuscated is just bad form. Let's keep it as "Living people" and work to make the category invisible using a software change, if it really shouldn't be visable to users browsing. It's not a usable category, but at least we know what it is by looking at it. JRP15:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that... when I saw this category, I thought it was way too broad for the average person to really care about, and would be more of an administrative category. I'd say don't rename the category, but make it invisible somehow on the articles about living people. FreakyFlyBry20:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming, obfuscation is not the way to make this idea more useful. Skin-modifications for hiding/separating administrative categories may be. -- nae'blis(talk)17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- suggested change is uninformative. Another idea... We've already got a tickbox for indicating a minor edit. What about a similar tickbox like 'this is a living person'? Or something similar to the current image upload system where we choose a licence? The 'living flag' set could be disabled from view via changes to the skin, or enabled for those who want to view it. This idea needs some work but I'd much prefer something along these lines than using a category. - Longhair21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. When I first saw this category, I thought it was a rather odd idea (and would become ridiculously large), but per Jimbo, it should be kept, and under an informative name. * is used when we're indexing something particularly important, that a reader would be specifically looking for, into a category - plus the other uses that * has in wiki code. To have a category by that same name would be quite confusing. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This really is essential to stop this becoming a massive burden through creation of subcategories. If it is not renamed we should have a policy that all subcategories can be speedy deleted on sight. CalJW22:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THIS IS INSANE--A CATEGORY FOR ALL LIVING PEOPLE--DO WE HAVE 6 BILLION WIKIPAGES TO SPARE??!!!
If we had 30 KB (very large article, in other words, about half the length of GWB's page) on each of 6,000,000 people, that would be 180 TB extra. There are about 38.7 million page revisions stored; taking 2 KB from here as a rough mean of page size, that's around 80 GB counting metadata. So yes, I think it may be correct to say that a 2000-fold increase in database size might be impractical. :) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the category is only for noteworthy living people, not all living people, so there isn't a need for 6 billion articles in the category, because only a fraction of the 6 billion people are noteworthy. Q012:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It'll only be 57,000. The thinking is this will allow them to monitor all 57,000 for potential lawsuits. This is supported by the fact that this category has been around ten whole days and there hasn't been a Wikipedia related libel scandal in that vastly long stretch of time. If you don't think this proves the case for it, as I don't, you should bring that up in a more appropriate venue.--T. Anthony13:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with 67.101 etc. This has to be the most dumbass category outside the various "Wikipedian" cats. It will also require constant monitoring, every time a few hundred thousand people per day pop off, they will all have to be shifted to Category:Dead people. Or don't they count? Anyway, it will only draw still more time away from RESEARCHING AND WRITING INTELLIGENT AND ACCURATE ARTICLES on the several billion topics not even yet identified in Wikipedia, not to mention adding all the living people yet to be included in this cat. Wikipedia at the breaking point... 12.73.195.18501:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete" is not an option, by decree of Jimbo. I've taken the liberty of striking that out, please choose another option. Kappa06:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On thinking on it I'm erasing my previous comments. I went to the category talk page and got a sense of its true purpose. The purpose is simply stupid and there's no rename that could really alter that. The purpose intended will inevitably fail for reasons that would take too long to get into. I vote Delete.--T. Anthony06:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. I still prefer delete, and consider it the best idea, but the template idea mentioned below is acceptable if delete is not allowed.(Or not allowed right now, it might be allowed later)--T. Anthony06:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: how would you be proposing that we tell the difference between an article on a living person but without a "Death Year" category and an article on an animal or a fictional location which would obviously not have such a category either? You would have to label all the articles on people, right? So why not put them into this category? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk09:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete" is not an option. There has to be an actual category, no just an absense of other categories, so that that the articles can be monitored. Kappa06:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And how... and who will monitor tens of thousands of articles this category will eventually have? If I have the answer for this I will be able to give a better opinion. At this point it is still "Delete". --Vizcarra07:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"How" is by visiting the category page and clicking on "related changes". "Who" is people who want to help wikipedia by monitoring monitor the most potentially damaging pages. Kappa07:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if that sounded condescending. I don't follow the "how" part though, under your proposal, what will I click on to see a list of all the most recent changes to articles about living people? Kappa09:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the living people category page click on the "Related Changes " link situated on the left side of the page. This will generate a page similar to "Recent Changes" but only showing changes to articles in this category. This can then be patrolled in the same way as the Recent Changes patrol. Look out especially for any edit by anons. Lumos313:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Living People is at least informative. "Oh, horrors, 12 whole additional characters in a box at the bottom of the page, whatever shall we do?" Give me a break. Besides, using * for a textual label when it can be avoided? The vast quantities of code that use wildcarding alone make that not even an option under most circumstances. -- Jake07:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Very "useful" category. Rename to more invisible variant. Oh and btw. create also "Dead people", to be ironic. - Darwinek10:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Anything to make this inane category less visible. Perhaps Category:☥ (see ☥) would be better, and use Category:† (see †) for the dead? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:41, Jan. 25, 2006
Oppose per Sean Curtin. If the goal is to make maintenance categories disappear, change the MediaWiki software to do that instead of having Category:! and Category:@, etc. --Interiot14:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. When I first saw this category, I thought "this is the worst category I have ever seen in my life" until I looked into it a bit. A rename to make the category more obviously administrative and less obviously seen is alright by me. Lord Bob16:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I don't really even see the point of the category (why do admins care?), but if deletion isn't a possibility, definitely rename it to something like *.
Oppose proposal to rename. "Living people" is a straightforward and simple way to describe the category. "*" is not at all descriptive. I don't believe this category will clog up the list of categories for an article because the words "Living people" only takes up about the same amount of space as something like "1984 deaths", and there will never be an article with both "Living people" and a deaths by year category. Q022:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my vote to support rename. I suspect that there are articles on Wikipedia that are not frequently watched by informed people. I believe that if the subject of an unwatched article dies, the article might remain categorized as "living people" a period of time after the person has died, and I don't think it would be a good thing for deceased people to be classified as "living people". I therefore believe that this is an "administors need to watch these articles" category rather than a "these people are alive" category. I do believe that if it is renamed to "*", the category's page should explain that it is an administrative category so that the reader is not confused as to what "Category:*" means. Q016:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- How many people are going to look at this category and say, "Gee, this should really be named '*'?" Perhaps an "administrative category" template or something similar would work better --Fermatprime01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (original author of vote)[reply]
Delete - the category is pretty redundant. I have no idea what purpose you are trying to accomplish by changing it to an asterik. (Ibaranoff2404:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
But * doesn't actually mean anything: it's the "universal wildcard", you might as well categorise all articles into it. What happens the next time we want to make a big category like this for administrative purposes? We have to name that one Category:**? how would we ever tell the difference? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk13:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The category is meaningful when placed next to the appropriate year of birth category in an article as it provides confirmation the person is still alive. It will also provide an alphabetic list of all notable living people , a sort of global Wiki Whos Who. This is being created to combat possibly expensive and damaging libel suites. It needs to be as plain and open as possible about its function so no coded names please. Lumos313:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we wanted to hide the category it would be better to do that technically. However, I don't agree it shouldn't be hidden. Why on earth is this debate happening here? Morwen - Talk13:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a kludge. Create an option in user preferences to hide this and other administrative categories. As this is not useful to ordinary readers, it should not appear on the article by default. This is not the way to accomplish that. Derex15:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose s/w should be modified to hide it. In either event someone should create a bot so that any bios without a "died" date get tagged with the category. Carlossuarez4618:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename - While the category is going to be huge, renaming it to category:* will make it huge and confusing. This way, at least people know who should and shouldn't be part of the category. Sue Anne18:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If my vote counts in this CfD, then: Ask Jimbo to reconsider deleting this category otherwise, rename or keep, but don't use the category. This is a stupid category that doesn't need to exist. Is their a link for Jimbo's reasoning regarding keeping this category, or does he just not want to part with it? It's just an extraneous category that doesn't need to exist, and renaming it is really not going to do much, b/c people are just going to remove the category from articles if the category name makes no sense to the article in question. If Jimbo makes us keep it, then we should just not use it at all, and maybe he'll reconsider if enough people boycott it's use.--Azathar05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a category and introduce, if it is really necessary, a new kind of administrative category accessible only to administrators and not to us mere mortals. Then those who wish to use it for administrative purposes can do so to their heart's content, and it can be out of everyone else's hair. Can I point out that I have up for vote (25th January) the deletion of a real category I initiated (Wagnerites) which even those who don't like it would concede fits Wikipedia criteria rather better than this one does --Smerus09:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename. If we have to have it, its name needs to make sense so that it's not misunderstood and misapplied. ×Meegs23:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the rename proposal, though bizarre at first glance, makes sense. But I'm wondering if we might do better to consistently do this via a template that will make sense to editors, e.g. {{living-bio}} or some such. -- Jmabel | Talk06:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RenameSupport Category name "living" is silly. I would prefer deletion but a discreet symbol would be okay. Symbols are not "meaningless". People will understand them Bwithh15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only people who are dead but their articles lack a precise year of death are and should be in that category. There are loads of people in this case. Same as the case of year of birth missing.--Vizcarra23:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would it be possible to categorize the talk pages of articles instead of the articles themselves? That way editors can be encouraged to look at the category but non-editors would not be. Q020:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason (I understand) for this cat is to monitor related changes to the articles. If the cat was placed on the talk pages, we would see which talk pages have changed, but not which articles have change. --Rob20:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Neither of these is ideal, hopefully either would simply be a stopgap until something better is implemented. Current name is longer, but has less of a "huh?" factor. Alai21:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understand the parameters of the vote. The question isn't whether to keep the category; this category is being put on every Wikipedia biography page, period, by decree of Jimbo. The only question is what to call it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename. It's deliberately obscure. And it's more likely to attract attention, get deleted by anon ips if it's not clear what it is. Megapixie03:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it exists it should have a real name. Not sure why it's not allowed for CfD, not that I particularly care either way. grenグレン?06:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Asterisk what? People from the outerspace? Living people is lame enough (I don't get the point how this category helps in administration except if wikipedia were the world government), a star for everyone alive is even more stupid. --Starryboy12:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The asterisk is meaningless, I think we should strive to be as clear as possible in all matters. Although, that being said, I am not sure why we need to create a category to keep tabs on what is being written on Wikipedia. There are other ways of doing this which are less intrusive to our readers. Rje13:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an improvement, but it's still a kludge. If what we really need is a way to know all people not yet dead, we should build that into wikipedia. If we really need is invisible categories, we should build that into wikipedia. Regards, Ben Aveling07:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. An asterisk is uninformative. The argument seems to be that the category sounds inane so we should hide it. An asterisk wouldn't hide it, however, and as long as the catgeory is properly explained I don't see what harm is done. John FitzGerald13:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with those who say this is insane - although not to that degree of intensity. Simply put, this is a bad idea because Category:* doesn't really make sense and doesn't really explain anything. I understand, from above discussion, that this is intentional, but it's still a bad idea. Since actually deleting this category is not an option, vote to leave it where it is. -155.42.20.24115:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The purpose is for monitoring, not navigation. BD2412T 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose renaming strongly. Not only are we proposing to subvert the main purpose of categories, but now we're trying to hide what we're doing by making the name of a category "*"?! Good grief. That's like trying to shove a round peg in a square hole and then painting it bright pink and drawing a smiley face on it in the hopes that nobody notices it ain't fittin' in the hole. Turnstep01:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is really a technical problem, and isn't amenable to a fix via social mechanisms. Jimbo wants a way to keep track of all articles on living Wikipedians. The community - much of it, at least - finds it silly to have a category called "Living people" that shows up at the bottom of many thousands of articles. What we really need is something like Special:Living people to be added to the software, either auto-populated via birth/death info or manually populated, but not showing up as a regular category. The current Wiki code just doesn't support what Jimbo wants to do very well. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS)04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you do realize that Jimbo Wales is more or less the absolute ruler of Wikipedia, and reserves the right to overrule community consensus on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation at any time? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I still feel that this entire category is a a misguided and ultimately dangerous placebo cure for a serious problem, and, as a information professional, and I am profoundly unhappy at the way it essentially subverts the navigational usefulness of categories. Obscuring the title isn't going to fix that, and is only going to set a precedent for this sort of thing. I personally suggest deletion, but it seems that option isn't even on the table as far as Jimbo is concerned. Ultimately, we can say that this is for administrative purposes only, but if we're putting out there in the main article namespace, we're exposing it to the public. This needs to be addressed technically: this is not a satisfactory solution, even as an interim measure. – Seancdaug05:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. Why in heaven's name substitute an obfuscated name for a clear one? In the latter instance, mistakes can be caught by readers, in the latter, this is less likely. DemiT/C06:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Living people is a laughable category, so renaming it to * would make it less noticeable and thus less irritating. --Jannex10:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If we must have such a category, then it is much better that it should have a meaningful name. Personally I'm not convinced of its utility, but I can live with that. Having a meaningless name is just dumb. -- Chris j wood13:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Do not Delete - This is not a duplicate category. And it has not already been debated. The only related debate has been on the failed POV claim of another antisemtism category. A key difference is that this category is not a list of Anti-Semitic people. It is a list of people whose works have been influential in the history of Antisemitism even if that was not their intention. It allows the WP user to quickly identify and link to the history of the ideas and people related to Antisemitism. For example, Martin Luther is one of the most widely cited theologians among Nazis to justify their anti-Semitism. Luther was even cited as a defense by Nazis at the Nuremberg trials. Therefore, Luther is important in the history of Antisemitism. This category allows the WP user to track the relationships among the history of ideas and people related to anti-Semitism. Those that claim this is a duplicate category are merely making a straw man arguement to push their own POV. Doright03:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Duplicates Category:Anti-Semitic people. Discussion is underway at that talk page about renaming that page. Suggest the discussion be conducted there as to the appropriate name for such a category and a definition that all sides of this very emotional topic can accept. Creating a new category simply skirts the hard work of achieving consensus. --CTSWyneken03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Self-expanatory? What do you think a category named "Antisemitism (People)" refers to? Your complaint falls on its face when one looks here Wikipedia:Browse and compares the level of self-explanation of this category to all other existing categories. One can't help wondering why an editor makes such an argument. The additional text provided in the category description is merely a recognition that some editors will delete any association of their beloved person with Antisemitism, just as some editors will attempt to delete such an entire category.Doright18:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously a whole lot of people think that "Antisemitism (People)" would refer to "Anti-Semitic people". If you want a category for people who are not, were not, may not be, or may not have been Anti-Semites personally but whose life/writings/work/etc influenced or inspired Anti-Semites or Anti-Semitism (and I am not saying that such a category is a bad idea), come up with a unambiguous name that does not need to be explained in a category description. "Antisemitism (people)" on the face of it could be anyone associated in any way with Anti-Semitism, whether supporting, opposing, inspiring, or condoning. Do you propose adding Jesus to this category? His actions (particularly his death) "play an important role in the continuing history of antisemitism". JHCC (talk)19:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I will agree that there are obviously a whole lot of people that do not want their beloved person identified as being associated with Antisemitism in any way whatsoever. Plus there may be some that feels this category is an infringement on what they may inappropriately view as their proprietary category. Based upon your argument that such a category is not a bad idea, but is merely "ambiguously" named, why do you vote for deletion rather than renaming? Why don't you propose a better name, if one exists, and not one that is an absurd caricature of a name like you did above where you say, "(God help us) Category:People whose works have been influential in the history of Antisemitism even if that was not their intention"? It would certainly be a well-received good faith gesture. Frankly, since no one has come up with a better name, one might conclude that the current name may be the best name. Then, one is left with the conclusion that those advancing this argument are doing so because they do not want the category to exist by any name. Respectfully,Doright21:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Wrong and misleading. "Anti-Semitism" contains (but is not limited to) "Antisemitism (people)" which contains (but is not limited to) "Anti-Semitic people." Again, not all people associated with Antisemitism were Anti-Semitic people themselves. Therefore, none is identical to the other. So, if you want to call this category a "duplicate" because some (but not all) of its members may be anti-Semites, following that "reasoning" you would have to call most WP categories "duplicates," since some but not all of their members may be contained in other categories. NB: This category has been purged of its article members which I believe is a violation of WP policy since the category deletion template explicitly says not to. Doright22:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unnecessary category that will never be populated by more than a handful of articles. Currently it contains one article, namely Norwegian photography, as well as the subcategory Category:Norwegian photographers (there clearly is ample precedent for the latter). I don't think the topic of Norwegian photography will ever have more than one or two articles, because there seems to be very little that is distinctive about Norwegian photography, or that would set it apart from, say, Danish photography or Swedish photography. Articles about Norwegian photographers will go into Category:Norwegian photographers; then, aside from the overview article on Norwegian photography (which is rather sparse to begin with), what else is there? --MarkSweep(call me collect)21:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vehemently keep - in fact this nomination is abusive, and MarkSweep has absolutely no way of knowing whether it will be populated by more than a handful of articles. You've got to give editors some time to write articles, and if you'd taken the trouble of reading the articles about Norwegian photographers, you'll see that there is plenty to write about. This is ludicrous. --Leifern21:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Norwegian photographers have their own category, which is not being contested. What else is there about Norwegian photography that makes it so unique that it needs to be separated from Category:Photography? And if there really is such a thing of country-specific photography, how come we don't have categories like Category:French photography or Category:Brazilian photography? I'm not contesting the overview articleNorwegian photography, but the associated category seems entirely pointless. If and when we more than a handful of uncontested articles about Norwegian photography–related topics, we can consider re-creating this category. --MarkSweep(call me collect)21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are photography collections, at least one dedicated photography museum, schools of photography, just for starters. As it turns out, the whole field of photography is undercovered in Wikipedia, and I guess it'll stay that way if people like you continue to happily delete categories. You'll note that someone also tried to delete Category:Norwegian photographers, too, based on a similar rationale. --Leifern21:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then the solution is to write those missing articles first and worry about categorization once there are more than a handful of articles. The absence of categories does not stop anyone from writing articles. --MarkSweep(call me collect)21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the solution; that is your renegade interpretation that bears no resemblance to anything Wikipedia-related. It doesn't even follow a deletionist mindset. As for country-specific articles on photography, that would be a valid argument if you didn't find country-specific articles on any other expressions of art, say painting, sculpture, drama, etc. This nomination is frivolous. --Leifern23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has starter-level content and growth potential. There is little point in deleting a populated category which is sure to be needed one day. After all, just about every topic which could conceivably have an article is probably going to get one of the next few years, especially for countries with the internet access and English language skills quotient of Norway. Choalbaton23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category is not populated at the moment: it contains one article that is more or less redundant with the category. I personally don't see the growth potential, but if you do, please share. Also keep in mind that deletion is not permanent: if and when we see an explosion of articles that are clearly and unmistakably appropriate for this category, we can recreate it. This said, I don't see that it has a distinctive purpose. We don't have Category:Swedish photography or Category:Norwegian electrical engineering either, and for good reasons. --MarkSweep(call me collect)20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For all I know, there will be a category about Swedish photography in the future if someone makes the effort to start it - this applies to any body of knowledge within Wikipedia. Photography, by the way, is an art form much like painting, composition, etc., is. --Leifern00:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to assume that a detailed knowledge of Norwegian photography is a prerequisite for voting here. This is not the case. Rather, a basic familiarity with Wikipedia style guidelines, policies, and precedents is expected. --MarkSweep(call me collect)20:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In order for you to determine that a field of knowledge is too small to justify its own category, you need to make some kind of assumption. The fact that a limited amount of it has been captured in Wikipedia so far provides no proof that the body of knowledge is small, or this whole enterprise would never have gotten off the ground. There is no basis in Wikipedia style guidelines, policies, and precedents for what you have done. --Leifern00:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate as a works by nationality category. Even if the number of articles remains small, it is worthy to remain. Josh22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note from closing admin - Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball, and as such this category should be deleted. I better go make a category on Underwater Eastern Germanic toad wrangling because I suspect someone will populate it someday. However, the consensus was to keep so I kept it. --Syrthiss13:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep -- whilst this category could (and previously, has) become a collection ground for articles on films considered to be controversial, I feel it's still a valid category. Many films meet controversy upon release, be it on religious, political or whatever grounds. If an article on a film cites sources detailing the controversy, I don't see a problem. All this category needs is a little monitoring to keep out those seeking to hype or talk up films in this way. It certainly doesn't deserve deletion. -- Longhair23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Categories are for navigation, not information. Lots of films are considered controversial in some form of another (from any POV). There isn't a problem categorizing them as such. SchmuckyTheCat17:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. The "keep" votes are irrelevant because the only way to undo a deletion vote is through a consensus on WP:DRV, which has not occurred. Postdlf16:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. I hope the information can be saved and put into a list. With text and citations this POV subject could be made into an interesting NPOV article about what makes films controversial and a historic overview of films that have been controversial. A category does none of this, so delete. -- Samuel Wantman09:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete, since cat is empty. if BD2412 or others decide new name, feel free to create a new cat and populate. Syrthiss13:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Currently there is no one listed, but I would think that U.S. Representatives from Puerto Rico differs from people representing Puerto Rico in the U.S. Congress. A person born in Puerto Rico is a U.S. citizen; he or she may move to any state and be elected to the House. He or she is then a U.S. Representative from Puerto Rico. Is there one? Are there enough to make a category? dunno... Carlossuarez4622:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Puerto Rico uses a different designation than other territories (and their representative is elected to a 4-year term, rather than for 2 years). I'll look it up when I have the appropriate references available, but they are inherently notable and should have a category that matches the title. BD2412T 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete this "(1960s)" version per nominator. "(AFL)" version contains good disambiguation for this special case, and its naming matches similar articles. Barno02:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Deborah: "Orthodox" is short for Orthodox Judaism so that makes it a noun. You are confusing it with the English term "orthodox" which can be used as an adjective... Anyhow, "Orthodox" alone can be used the same way you note about "Chabad." Furthermore, Conservative Judaism is a form of Judaism. BUT the word "Jewish" is not exclusively for the Jewish religion, because "Jewish" often refers to the Jewish people as an ethnicity which need not have any connection with the Jewish religion i.e. Judaism or one of it's "streams" or "denominations": Conservative Judaism. Your suggestion is thus imprecise and would create confusion. IZAK09:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "The Orthodox" doesn't parallel "Conservative Judaism"; "Orthodoxy" or "Orthodox Judasim" parallel "Conservative Judaism", and "Orthodoxy" would be extremely misleading in that sense. And while "Jewish" refers to the Jewish people as an ethnicity, "Conservative Jewish" clearly refers to a specific stream of the religion, and not to, say, members of the ethnic group who vote Republican or Tory. I disagree that my suggestion is imprecise (and in that case, Category:Jewish schools is probably imprecise -- are there really schools in that category that have an ethnic and not a religious affiliation?). I'm not wedded to Conservative Jewish schools, but I am wedded to parallelism. If you keep Conservative Judaism schools, then rename the other to Orthodox Judaism schools. Deborah-jlTalk23:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per this Cfd below, "schools" is an inappropriate usage for a category that includes seminaries, anyway. Though whether that should be answered by creation of a higher education category or renaming of the entire cat is another question. Deborah-jlTalk23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
This category takes "churches" to refer to denominations, whereas the rest of the churches hierarchy is for church buildings. Rename to remove unnecessary confusion. Also probably needs to be subdivided by country. I've tidied Category:Religion in the United States a little, but that only makes it look more likely that it is far from being fully populated. Choalbaton02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Support -- The term "church" can mean denomination (Reformed Church in America), a congregation (The Marble Collegiate Church in New York), or the building (Marble Collegiate Church as architectural site). The category should be specific enough not to need disambiguation itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amherst5282 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nothing in this particular category at present, but a monastery or convent, for instance, is a place of religious living, not of worship per se. - choster21:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strict speaking, a religious site is not neccesary a place of worship. Sites of religious significance are not neccesarily buildings, for entire cities can be religious sites too. While this category in question may not include such sites yet, I would still think the distinction need to be explained.--Huaiwei14:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
---Note from closing admin - I have put a note in the category that says it shouldn't be used for religious sites. There is one muslim shrine in the category I believe, but the goal in this rename is to make the categorization standard. The subcats are "buddhist temples" and "mosques" and "churches", which look to me like places of worship and not religious sites. --Syrthiss12:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Rename per nom. BD2412T 20:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment See my comments below. However, leaving these aside, it would appear baseball is organised on a North American-wide basis with Canadian teams (or it may be a Canadian team) involved in the same leagues as the US ones. In which case the name Category:Baseball outside North America might be preferable. (I make no claim to any knowledge of baseball. Is it like rounders? :-) ) Valiantis05:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a category called Category:Baseball in Canada so either that has to go or the proposal can't be changed to "outside North America". The Canadian category only contains two articles, presumably because the Canadians don't care about splitting it up any more than the Americans do. After all they play their baseball in the same shared leagues. But I'm reverting to the orginaal proposal. None of these options are ideal, but I just don't think carving out the American articles makes sense. It means splitting up the leagues, and what do you do about Canadians playing in the U.S. or Venezualans playing for a Canadian team in a mainly U.S. league? The person who started the U.S. category didn't make a serious effort to populate it, I'm not going to, I don't think many U.S. baseball fans would want to, and all in all I don't think it should be done. Choalbaton06:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
There just isn't enough point. Set up over 2 months ago and populated with a tiny fraction of the relevant content. I looked into populating it, but apart from Category:Baseball by country every single subcategory of Category:Baseball (which used to be a subcategory of Category:Sports in the United States and which I will reinstate) is mainly about American baseball. I'm not an American and this isn't an American arrogance thing, just practical. Category:Australian rules football is directly in the Australian sport category, with a subcategory called Category:Australian rules football outside Australia. With basketball there is enough non-U.S. material for it to make sense to have a U.S. subcategory, but I just don't think it helps to have one for baseball. I will add a note to basketball by country directing people to the main category. On a practical point, even if this were to be populated once, American baseball fans will probably mostly go direct to category:Baseball so it is unlikely this would be adequately maintained. Choalbaton00:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Are you sure? I've had a quick look and I'd estimate a significant minority of the subcats are on general baseball issues e.g. Category:Baseball rules, Category:Baseball positions, Category:Baseball teams (which includes non-American teams), Category:National baseball teams, Category:Baseball equipment. The issue with Australian Rules football is that no-one plays that at any serious level except in Australia; baseball is much more widely played at a serious level (for example, unlike Australian rules football, it has been an Olympic sport). It's not your intention, but your suggestion would pander to systemic bias. You might want to raise this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball, which at first glance reeks of systemic bias - I can see no mention of non-US baseball. Valiantis05:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to change it to North America. I'm aware of the general categories and I include them. I don't think systemic bias comes into it. The percentage of users who are interested in baseball who are in North American will not be much less than for Australian Rules. I think the system I am proposing will work - the alternative isn't. The category system is a navigational tool, and I would say that slicing up the baseball category damages navigation. Choalbaton06:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate, as it is consistent with naming policy for baseball categories. There are likely many articles that relate particularly to baseball in the U.S. Josh23:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Set up by an Englishman and no one over here out of about a hundred million baseball fans has added anything to it. I'm an American baseball fan, and I can tell you, chances are no American will. Therefore useless. Golfcam05:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Oppose. I agree that the category could be named better, but the proposed renaming would mean that nearly every Major League Baseball player should be added to the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EurekaLott (talk • contribs)
I think EurekaLott's point is that most other categories for sports teams and leagues are not limited to current players (e.g. Category:Detroit Tigers players). A category limited to current minor league players should probably have a name to match, since it breaks this convention. I'm not sure such a category is such a good idea, though, as its membership would be highly transitory.×Meegs11:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this category has several non-current minor leaguers in it too, most of whom also had long careers in the majors. ×Meegs11:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The pattern seems to be that all of these league categories are broken-up into teams when they get too large to be useful — and I think this one would get there really quickly. Especially considering most major leaguers played on at least as many farm teams as major league clubs. I have concerns about the usefulness of the category, whether it's divided or not, as well as the interest-level among editors to fill and maintain it/them. I actually recommend deleting the category unless it can be recast as a reasonably-sized project (maybe for AAA-all stars, or players that never made the majors [who're probably notable for something else]). ×Meegs17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This one's bugged me for a while. The key article to categorize here is Koby Clemens. He's not on a major league team, yet he deserves inclusion in some way in Category:Baseball players. I would like a category name that could include him and not include anyone ever in the majors. I think the proposal is the best name I can think of, and the text in the category should be clear that no one in the majors should be here. (Note that this logic puts Michael Jordan in this category.)--Mike Selinker02:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As long as it's limited as in Mike Selinker's suggestion, such a category would be quite useful. I wish there were a better name, but I can't think of one at the moment. Not everyone visits the category and reads such disclaimers, though, so it might require regular policing to remove major leaguers. ×Meegs10:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Current Minor League Players and root out as the players progress. In agreement with EurekaLott that just Minor League Players would result in every baseball player having to be added. -- Jjjsixsix(talk)/(contribs) @ 06:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Current is an unnecessary qualifier unless we are also going to create categories for historical players. If it is a problem, a note can be added that players who only touched down on their way through to the majors need not be put in the minors category. Josh23:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
