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. If a category structure is developed that requires this as a parent, it can be recreated. However, I think this information should be listified. That would allow grouping by country played in and by country from, both of those items seemed to be of concern in the discussion. Also if you included the year signed, sorting by this could show the increase of these players over time. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The supercategory is really unnecessary; there are quite a few categories delineating where players are born, and being born outside of one specific country doesn't make it specifically notable. It looks like cruft to me and could spawn Category:Major League Baseball players born outside of Canada, etc. Where a player is born is notable and worth categorizing. Where they are not born, not so much (per WP:CATEGORY. KV5(Talk • Phils)20:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is useful. It is an umbrella category. One doesn't always want specific countries of origin, but just non-U.S. origins. There's no other way to do this than to have an umbrella category. Kingturtle (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Baseball is becoming more and more a globalized american sport. The vast majority of Major Leaguers have been American born. If someone is researching or needs a reference to foreign born Major Leaguers this would the only category or article that list list all them. I think that there should be a link on the category to each nationality's category as well. It does not list where players were not born, that would be this Category: Major League Baseball Players not born in Sri Lanka, which would be useless.Racingstripes (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an awfully big list - nearly 2,000 players historically have been born in other countries according to Baseball Reference. That's why it's broken down as it is. -Dewelar (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This might be legitimate as a parent category, but should generally only contain categories, not articles. However it sounds as if theat category scheem already exists. Anyway Should it not be "United States Major League Baseball Players ...". Peterkingiron (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reiterate: This category, an umbrella category, is useful. Having specific categories for different countries does not allow one to easily see non-American born players. I don't understand why we would delete something that is useful. Also, although the list may be large, it is finite. Kingturtle (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion is contrary to the Wikipedia guideline on subcategorization. The general rule is that if a subcategory exists that is part of a systematic scheme for breaking down the parent category, then pages classified in the subcategory should not also be categorized in the parent category . For example, players categorized in Category:Major League Baseball players from Japan should not be categorized in the parent category Category:Major League Baseball players by national origin. It follow that if this new category is kept, then Category:Major League Baseball players from Japan would be subcategory, and Japanese MLB players should only be categorized in the subcategory and not in this as a parent category. With that general guidance, I don't see any rationale for keeping this category, since completing the categorization of MLB players by national origin would make it quite simple to pull out all of the subcategories except players born in the United States. The approach of categorization by national origin is also more flexible; for example, you could easily modify your criteria to exclude players born in the United States and Canada. The effort should go into finishing the categorization of MLB players by national origin, not for creating a special category of limited usefulness. BRMo (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, you can't pull up those names with or without this category, because (a) this category hasn't been completed (it currently only shows 400 players, compared to 1,552 born outside the U.S. as shown at bb-ref); and (b) the categorization within Category:Major League Baseball players by national origin also hasn't been completed, and is currently only available for Japan and Taiwan. Since effort will be required to complete either categorization, I think it would be better spent on completing the breakdown by national origin, which would allow you greater flexibility since it would allow you to include or exclude any countries you wished. BRMo (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know then, if this category cannot be completed, what other plan can we initiate to be able to create lists of U.S.-born and non-U.S.-born players? Kingturtle (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use as a parent category In essence, you've got binary categories - born in the U.S., and not born in the U.S. Then you get into issues of players that are U.S. citizens but were born in overseas U.S. military bases and/or U.S. territories. Which group do they fall into? There's also the matter of managing it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots08:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ultimately this is trivial. If the child of two American citizen parents happens to be born outside the United States and goes on to be a major leaguer, how does this define that player? It doesn't. Otto4711 (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. There are frequent occurrences of players representing countries other than the country they were born in. Most frequently you have American-born players choosing not to play for USA and instead playing for a country that they might've had an ancestor from. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the country where one is born does not determine WBC status or much of anything baseball-related, really. Enigmamsg21:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However it is done, I think it would be useful to be able to do a search for foreign-born player, and for players born in a specific country.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. I understand the concerns raised by those wanting to keep the current naming. However at this point an overall consensus on how to deal with this is needed. I suspect that even if that discussion happened and it resulted in a change to what has been happening, Louisville might not be affected since it is ambiguous give other places with the same name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per many successful "City, State" nominations over the last two weeks. Louisville is a problem city because the metro area stretches across two states. I personally would purge at least anything on the Indiana side from these categories. I'm not a big fan of using metro area categories except when it's impossible to figure out city borders, and I don't think that's the case here. But we should make one decision or another on these. FYI, I don't like the "architecture and infrastructure" pairing at all, so I recommend picking one, and purging any outliers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason I would give is that we've been adding a state or metro area indicator to every US city category. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for some recently closed ones. Certain of these categories have all their entries in the city (the businesses, sports teams, and choirs, for example), and others may need to be metro area (as with the museum one). We should pick.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. The purpose of an encyclopedia and WP is to inform people and not assume they already know the information. Providing the US state helps readers place what they are reading. This needs to be done for all US cities and their categories. No city is an exception; city supporters should eagerly support these city/state names. Hmains (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename categories to use "Louisville, Kentucky" instead of "Louisville", but always indicate that it's about a metropolitan area (if it's not indicated that way already). All major city categories should include subjects/articles from their metropolitan areas. Metro areas exist for a reason -- there are many bonds between the central city and the surrounding suburbs/exurbs, including a somewhat common culture, not to mention media market. The Louisville metro area is a 13-county region, and to exclude subjects from Louisville categories simply because they're not inside of Louisville/Jefferson County proper is ignoring how metro areas are so cooperative in their nature. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work17:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two more "mixed ethnicity" categories, of the type that have recently been deleted for being overcategorization. We delete Category:Multiracial people, and that means we just get more and more specific in explaining how the mix breaks down? Crazy. See also nomination immediately below. Good Ol’factory(talk)06:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete British mixed race people of Booian and Fooain descent should be categorised as British People of Fooian descent AND British people of Booian descent. The present categories goive rise to triple intersections too easily. The first item might conceivably have existed as a parent category, if it could have subcategories, but it cannot. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People of mixed Black African-European 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.
Delete British mixed race people of Booian and Fooain descent should be categorised as British People of Fooian descent AND British people of Booian descent. The present categories goive rise to triple intersections too easily. The first item might conceivably have existed as a parent category, if it could have subcategories, but it cannot. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete The category isn't needed. We already have a Category for American Methodists and most Methodists in America are United Methodists and all Methodists identify themselves as Christians so this category seems pointless. Protostan (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Category:United Methodists. (Yes that's right; I am opposing the deletion a Pastorwayne-category!). Many of Pastorwayne's categories were badly ideas badly implemented, but this one is a good idea badly implemented. This category is not actually pointless in concept, because it is useful to category UMs separately from other methodists; it was useless in implementation because it wasn't a sub-cat of Category:United Methodist Church. The UM church is by far the largest Methodist denomination in the world, and unlike others it organises internationally (with 3 million members in Africa). At the moment this category is underpopulated, but there is no reason why it shouldn't be, just as other christian denominations are separately categorised. I think that Protostan is being a little American-centric in his view: the UM church is indeed the largest Methodist denomination in the US, but it's not the largest in many other countries. Also, although ⅔ of the UM church membership is in the United States, there are 4 million UMs elsewhere in the world. So keep it, rename it, and add {{popcat}}. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is all true. I have no objection to Category:United Methodists, although it would be nice if someone could find a few UMs (mentioned and preferably sourced in their article) who are not clergy and put them into the category. Occuli (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't hate the united methodists or anything but I don't think there's any need to Categorize them since they are all Categorized by country and that Category is listed under Mrthodism as a Category. It might be a good idea though to give members of the United Methodist Church there own page though. --Protostan (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. If a breed of dog has originated elsewhere, it should be removed from an "originating from" category. I'm not sure about the difficulty; what does a reliable source say? Kbdank7113:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. There has been difficulty and argument about whether some dog breeds, especially ones that originated with nomadic people in Central Asia, "are Russian" (that is to say, were developed as a breed in Russia) or have "originated in Russia" (never having been anywhere else.) Changing would just provoke more argument.--Hafwyn (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Surely the reasoning applied above could apply to any of the other subcategories as well? Or do people only argue about the Russian ones? I don't see why they all shouldn't be in the same format. Good Ol’factory(talk)08:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. "Small with no potential for growth" is a reason to merge/delete. "Small with potential for growth" is a reason to delete/merge with recreation possible. This may be small, but it has grown since the discussion began. And on a side note, "could be written and no doubt will be one day" is not a reason to keep. It's my experience that "could be written" rarely turns into "has been written", and never by the editor who wanted to keep with that reason. There is nothing wrong with "recreation when", as it separates those those who "keep and care enough to do something about it" from "keep for keeps sake; someone else can do the work" (making no assumptions about the basis of the reasonings of anyone here, of course) Kbdank7113:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The identification of a document as an apostolic exhortation has relevance in the study of Catholic doctrine, as it is somewhere in the middle of the ranking of papal writings (constitutions and encyclicals being of central importance, letters and messagesn not so). But every apostolic exhortation may not be notable. FWIW I count 28 being issued since John XXIII at www.vatican.va, of which four have WP articles thus far.-choster (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a short main article could be written, & no doubt will be one day. The category seems highly likely to expand, given some of the editors we have. That the titles of all these things are in Latin, & not very explanatory even if you understand them, is an argument for allowing fairly precise categories. There are better merge targets anyway, I think. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a sudden surge in articles about apostolic exhortation in general or specific apostolic exhortations then the category can always be recreated. For now it isn't needed. Feel free to suggest any alternate merge targets. Otto4711 (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to the nom, "small" is not a reason for deletion mentioned in WP:OCAT. "Small with no potential for growth" is, but that does not apply here. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by shared name characteristic. The people grouped in this category have nothing in common other than happening to have been dubbed with a collective name that includes a number. Otto4711 (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, by all means. This is pure overcategorization by shared name characteristic. A list could be created, but even that would be pure trivia more than anything else. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is false to state, as the nominator has stated, that the only thing in common is the fact that their name contains a number. Significantly, these are all groups of defendants who have had names assigned to them for the purposes of rallying public support, all in the (by now) traditional manner, enumeration. Quatloo (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me some evidence that supports the claim that all of these groups were dubbed with enumeration "for the purposes of rallying public support"? Jena Six is a Featured Article and does not appear to mention this. Neither does Colombia Three, Cuban Five, Charleston 5, Buffalo Six or any of the other articles I checked. I find it very hard to believe that the Watergate Seven were so dubbed out of some bid for public sympathy. This still appears to be nothing more than a grouping by shared naming style. Does it tell us anything about the M25 Three that they happened to be dubbed this rather than the "Raphael Rowe gang"? Is there some insight to be found in the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti were not dubbed the "Massachusetts Two" or that Leopold and Loeb didn't become known as the "Chicago duo"? Are there sources that indicate that the enumeration of groups of defendants has been the subject of scholarly research? Otto4711 (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Quatloo. This is not categorisation by shared named: this a category for groups of defendants whose cases have become cause celebres. The mechanism used involves the foo number label, but the reason for the category is not the naming, its' the fact that these cases are sufficiently controversial to have been given name. Take a look at the articles in this category: they are all cases where there has been a public campaign of support for the defendants, and Otto is entirely wrong to say that they these groups have nothing in common apart from the naming method. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly rename in some fashion. It's a pleasure to be aligned with BrownHairedGirl in supporting this, as I had reached the same conclusion regarding the fundamental rationale for this category. But I do think that the current name is less than ideal, as it does seem to suggest a fairly superficial characteristic while, in effect, camouflaging the underlying basis for the category. Cgingold (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Named and numbered defendants (or something like that). The category page will need a headnote to explain it. However some of the content should perhpas be navboxes (see Haymarket Eight discussion), rather than articles, if that is possible. Such named groups are those who are perceived as victims of a miscarriage of justice or at least of an injustice, for whose release, pardon, or rehabilitation a campaign delvelops. This means that they are notable. I heard yesterday of the Shrewsbury 24 (though the campaign used to be for the Shrewsbury Three - the three of those convicted who were imprisoned). Peterkingiron (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm thinking it might be better to have a slightly more inclusive name (I'm leaning toward Category:Named groups of defendants per VW.), that would not be limited strictly to "numbered" groups, just in case there are some that don't happen to specify a number in the name of the group. (Nothing comes to mind at the moment, but I have a feeling there are a couple.) Cgingold (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing any evidence in support of the contention that the naming format including a number is either the subject of scholarly research, nor for the notion that numbering a group of defendants is done as a way to generate public sympathy or to denote that the defendant group has become a cause celebré. Certainly that isn't the case with one of the most notoriously mishandled defendant groups the Scottsboro Boys (although there has been what appears to be a somewhat PC-motivated effort to re-christen them the "Scottsboro Nine", probably because of the issue of calling African American adult males "boys"). So the supposed bases for the category appear to be little more than speculation on the part of Wikipedia editors. Otto4711 (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Can anyone address Otto's concerns that have been put out there a couple of times now? I've been wondering the same thing and have been waiting for someone to reply. Where is the evidence that numbering defendants in this way is done to generate public sympathy, or for any other consistent reason? To me it appears to just be a shorthand way the press begins to refer to groups of defendants because it's easy and it sounds cool—and if that's the case there is nothing inherent that connects the various groups and is just categorization by shared name feature, which is a classicly uncontroversial reason to delete. If someone could back up some of the claims being made, which at this point just appear to me to be guesses or surmises, then perhaps we'd have some reason to keep. But without some sort of back up for these claims, this is just blowing smoke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Good Olfactory (talk • contribs)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete as a template was created. Otto's last comment comparing the size of this category to the examples given at WP:OC#SMALL was compelling. The navbox will do the same job as the category, probably better. Kbdank7113:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Neutral on category but] this strikes me as the sort of group that should perhaps be converted to a navbox template that can go on each of the articles. Cgingold (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge - category is not needed for the single sub-cat. Should there be in future a proliferation of articles or categories for various MMA media, no prejudice to recreation but for now not needed. Otto4711 (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Signatories of the Manifesto of the Sixteen
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. If anyone wants to create the template the information is contained in the article so I'm not making that a requirement before the category is deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - having reviewed a number of articles for signatories, it does not appear that signing this document is a defining characteristic of the signers. A list in the main article would suffice to link the signatories together. Otto4711 (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the Manifesto of the Sixteen article. These individuals are notable for being anarchist activists. Their association with the Manifesto led to furious backlash by their peers, completely dividing the European anarchist movement and leading them to be shunned for the rest of their lives. This is far more a defining characteristic than, say, Category:French anarchists in the case of Jean Grave or Category:Orthodox converts to Atheism/Category:Russian zoologists in the case of Peter Kropotkin. These men are remembered for having betrayed the international anarchist movement by their signing of the Manifesto, not for these trivialities. Nor does the argument that a category may be redundant to a potential list carry any weight, as list/category redundancy has long been supported. Deletion is a last resort, and I see no effort whatsoever on the nominator's part to discuss this issue. Skomorokh02:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the article before making the nomination and it still seems that a category for the signers is not needed. If you believe that other categories are inappropriate, you are free to remove them from the affected articles or nominate the categories for deletion. I did not suggest that a category "may be" redundant to a list so that portion of your argument is irrelevant. Otto4711 (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should be a template, not a cat - there are lots of letters and manifestos which are significant in their spheres, 36 manifestos alone in the Category:Political manifestos; and lots of manifestos that are somehow not categorized there, like Russell-Einstein Manifesto. To have cats on all of them would be OCAT. Most of these people were famous before signing things like this - they weren't posted on the internet so that we all could weigh in. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete - having signed this manifesto does not appear to be a defining characteristic of its signatories. I did not check every single article in the category but those I did check do not mention the manifesto. A list of signatories in the manifesto article seems the way to go. Otto4711 (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I signed this one myself, but I don't think that qualifies me for a Wikipedia article. :) Delete as categorisation by non-defining characteristic. Robofish (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a meaningful category. Def Leppard is not a band whose former members have gone on to form other notible bands (such as Black Sabbath), nor was it formed from members of other notible acts (such as Whitesnake). J04n (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – the ones I looked at did have some connection with DL (a band member in common at some point in the last 30 years) but this is not a basis for categorisation. (Fleetwood Mac would be in about 60 of XXX-related bands on this criterion.) Occuli (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete. In days past, a hell of a lot of people were accused of heresy—for a time, pretty much anyone who came up with an original thought that had the potential to upset the status quo was accused of heresy by somebody. Also, in the view of the medieval (Christian) Church, weren't pretty much all Jews said to be guilty of a kind of heresy just by nature of the fact that they continued to reject Jesus as the Messiah? I don't think we need Category:People accused of heresy, much less this subcategory of Jewish people who were so accused. I can understand having Category:People executed for heresy, but just being "accused" of it is probably not defining in most cases. The category also isn't clear on who has to have done the accusing. It it accusations of heresy from a Christian perspective or a from a Jewish perspective, or from either? Does it have to have come from as a formal accusation from a religious body or official or can it be an accusation by anyone? Good Ol’factory(talk)01:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - and as Good Olfactory notes "accused" is a bad idea usually, and we don't know who is doing the accusing; I would hazard a guess that we could find more than one source that all Jews are accused of heresy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. In the minds of some religious believers, anyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs down to the last letter is a heretic, and should be burnt at the stake (see The best God joke ever - and it's mine!). So this category should by definition include all Jewish people who have not renounced their faith, and the same would apply to a category "Christians accused of heresy" etc. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am very skeptical of this category for all of the obvious reasons that have already been touched on. But I'm wondering if there might possibly be a rationale for a category for people who have been formally or officially accused of heresy such, i.e. by a religious body or authority designated as having the power to do so -- if there is, in fact, any such thing. (I freely confess to not knowing the answer.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The biggie was the Spanish Inqusition, but I'm sure there were others as well. The most recent heresy trial I know of was this one in Ireland in 2002, though it was an internal Christian affair. But in general, I don't see much point in having a category for people charged with heresy (or with anything else); what matters is whether they were convicted. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category appears to include both formal and casual accusations of heresy, and in at least one case (Jacob Frank) a person who was convicted of heresy by the Catholic Church after having converted to Christianity. And certainly we should not have a category that refers to people being "accused of heresy" when the "accusation" was merely an objection from their critics and not part of a charge from a formal authority. --Metropolitan90(talk)05:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another "double occupation" category of the kind that have recently been nominated. These people can be categorized as photographers and as filmmakers, but I don't see any need for combining the two: it is a trivial intersection. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there is also an implied status of 'former photographer' and we rarely catgorise by 'former' status. (There is only one article, already in a photographer cat and a film director one.) Occuli (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To reflect the purpose as stated in the introduction of the category. This will require the removal of some subcategories if renamed. For some of those subcategories we actually have a list and a template so the need to even have those categories is something to consider if this rename happens. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as the top level articles are indeed lists; and remove any non-lists and in particular the 'subcats' which are not of lists. Occuli (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose : The category was not only of list articles but many other articles a few days ago. Somebody unlinked the subcats and remove the non-list articles in the given category. Need to investigate further -- TinuCherian - 04:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that we need categories, lists and templates for some of these. Based on the introduction, if we decide to do something like this, Category:Business acquisitions might be another option but what exactly would the scope be? Do have have more to cover that can not be included in a list? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The scope would be something like 'Businesses which were taken over by other businesses' (as opposed to 'went bankrupt', 'were nationalised'). This is a defining characteristic of a business, indeed terminal. (I am not business-minded and hope someone else will supply suitable wording. There are plenty of very recent examples of terminal conditions for businesses.) Occuli (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this. If you look at Primm Valley Resort, it was built by Primadonna Resorts, acquired by MGM Mirage, acquired by Terrible Herbst Gaming and shortly to be acquired by a new company. As for adding terminal, that would be difficult since many acquiring companies retain the old name as a subsidiary for many years, maybe even owning the same properties. Clearly some thought would be needed before this new structure is set up. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Category:Acquisitions can be used for any category as it is rather ambiguous. Do we include sports players that were acquired by a team? Clearly new names are needed, so the rename as proposed seems the best at this point. The new categories can simply be created as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Assuming the Juniper subcategory is deleted (I nominated it as unnecessary), name will reflect the contents—list articles are appropriate, not full categories. Good Ol’factory(talk)09:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge. Noting that there maybe some cleanup and creation of at least one other category after the move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. These categories are at first glance duplicates, but some degree of differentiation between the two has been attempted in the definition of Category:Personal bodyguards. This definition reads in part: "Non-combat personal bodyguards providing primarily ceremonial bodyguard services and acting as personal attendants upon Sovereigns and Princes. Security is often their secondary function, with appearance the primary aim." Which would leave Category:Bodyguards for those who actually were "true" bodyguards and not just "for show". This seems like a very tenuous distinction. Is it suggesting that a "personal bodyguard" would not actually pull down and lay on top of the person they were "protecting" if shots rang out? I doubt it. And how do we know if someone is a "real" bodyguard or a "just for show" one? Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but this distinction seems one that should be eliminated within WP categorization by merging the categories. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with the definition as quoted is that today's ceremonial bodyguard of old gents was yesterday's bunch of thugs bristling with weapons. I'd incline to split off from both Category:Bodyguard units & merge the rest to bodyguards. Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
