Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 5

< November 4	November 6 >

November 5

Category:United Arab Emirates Public Universities

Propose renaming Category:United Arab Emirates Public Universities to Category:Public universities in the United Arab Emirates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proposed name follows the precedents of existing categories such as Category:Public universities in the United States. If the current name is kept, the capitalization still needs to be standardized (to something like Category:United Arab Emirates public universities). Stepheng3 (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support to standardize per other similar categories. Alansohn (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bush (George Herbert Walker) administration

Propose renaming Category:Bush (George Herbert Walker) administration to Category:George H. W. Bush administration

Category:Bush (George Herbert Walker) administration personnel to Category:George H. W. Bush administration personnel

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The convention for U.S. presidential administration categories appears to be "SURNAME administration", except where there is more than one president of the same surname, the standard WP article name is used, as in Category:George W. Bush Administration and Category:Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration. Here, the standard WP name for the president is George H. W. Bush. I'm agnostic w.r.t. whether or not "Administration" is needs to be capitalized; some subcategories of Category:United States Presidential administrations use the caps, some do not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom to match other sister categories; lower case 'administration' is fine Hmains (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, with a lower-case “a.” -choster (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People Who Lived in Hotels

Category:People Who Lived in Hotels - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Not defining; silly really, and unbounded - how much living does one have to do in a hotel to qualify? Perhaps the various US presidential candidates qualify after jaunting around the country for the last year or two.. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Interesting... but completely un-encyclopedic. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 22:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about all those touring rock and country bands and other itinerant musicians? And shouldn't we include motels and flop houses? I'd say limiting this to hotels is awfully elitist. I'm afraid we don't really have any choice but to delete this one. Cgingold (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, completely trivial. Postdlf (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it's silly, but it's certainly a WP:OC#NARROW issue, with little apparent prospect for growth. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bridges in Ivory Coast

Propose renaming Category:Bridges in Ivory Coast to Category:Bridges in Côte d'Ivoire

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Ivory Coast" is an English translation of the official country name. The preferred name is Côte d'Ivoire. Stepheng3 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supportive Comment While I understand that "Ivory Coast" is officially discouraged, we seem to be in another one of those untypable situations. I looked all over my keyboard and can't find one of them thar letter "o"'s with a hat on them, and we need to be prepared to set up a redirect from the hatless version. Other than that, I'd support the change. Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former liberals

Propose renaming Category:Former liberals to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: "Liberal" is a phrase with very different meanings around the world and no single category by this name makes much sense. Currently the entries are overwhelmingly from the US. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on nominator's rationale. Unnecessary category, no need to rename.--JayJasper (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This seems almost to be an attack category for people who have changed their views. Furthermore (as nom), the definition of liberal varies widely form country to country. Winston Churchill crossed the floor of the House. But would he really be an appropriate member of this category? I think not. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several other such categories as well - see Category:People by former political orientation for the umbrella. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron. Further, I imagine that in many cases we have little more than a person's own word to establish that they used to be a liberal. Postdlf (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but.... As the nominator notes, the word "liberal" means different things in different countries: witness the number of times the "Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe" had to change its name as the EU expanded. I get the impression that the category uses the slur usage of word "liberal" (somebody who is more left-wing than the speaker and whom the speaker disapproves of), rather than somebody who believes in a specific political/economic ideology. If the category is to be renamed, the question arises as to what it should be renamed to, so if the nominator can come up with a specific unambiguous meaningful description of these disparate individuals then I would support a rename. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire: I'm with Peterkingiron - this is a pretty blatant attack category in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. Now if someone wants to create a category for former members of the Liberal Party of either the UK, Canada, Australia or New York State, that's another matter. RGTraynor 03:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete US usage is a perverse twisted usage of the term "liberal" 70.55.86.100 (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have no trouble identifying Category:Liberals (or Category:Conservatives, for that matter). If we can use sources to establish that someone was a liberal and that they are no longer in that category, why should there be so much trouble in identifying former liberals? Alansohn (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the above comments again, including the nominator's. The problem is not that the term exists (it does), nor that it's sourcable (it is), but that because the word means so many different things in different countries, it's too vague to be useful (it's roughly equivalent to Category:People who believe in, y'know, stuff). Looking at the category Category:Liberals, I see it includes Alec Baldwin (a wealthy fat actor who occasionally says some left-wing things) and Ljubo Sirc (an economist who was sentenced to death in Yugoslavia and who ran for the Presidency of Slovenia).

You see the problem here?

Timrollpickering, if you're reading this and should the discussion go to a rename, have you considered modern liberals, or social liberals, classic liberals, etc, all of which have precise definitions? Looking at the category, which seems to use the Fox News definition, perhaps Category:Former modern liberals, or Category:Former social liberals would do. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are definite problems with the underlying Category:Liberals category and others like it, but I don't think we have to peg this category to whether those survive, as this one has greater and different problems. Postdlf (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or reconsider entire structure We have no problem identifying people by political beliefs, which is why we have the rather broad structure of Category:People by political orientation. Within this structure, we have no trouble identifying people as Category:Liberals, despite the fact that this is a phrase with very different meanings around the world, as the nominator points out. The liberals category is defined as including individuals who "subscribe to liberalism as a political belief. NOTE: to be included in this category, people must define themselves as liberals..." Thus, the whole issue of how liberal is defined differently around the world appears moot. We have no trouble labeling people as syndicalists, anarchists, communists or anti-communists, fascists or anti-fascists, Nazis or Neo-Nazis, or even as Conservatives. There is a whole other structure at Category:People by former political orientation which tracks people who have changed their beliefs. Despite the soapbox claim, there is an equal and opposite category called Category:Former conservatives that includes David Brock (remember Bill Clinton's Troopergate), lapsed Republican Arianna Huffington and a woman named Hillary Rodham Clinton who was a campaign volunteer in 1964 for arch-Conservative Barry Goldwater. We have no difficulty determining what people's political beliefs are. We have no trouble determining when they have changed. If there is a particular issue with this Category:Former liberals, we should address the issue at Category:People by former political orientation -- at a minimum, if not reconsider Category:People by political orientation in its entirety -- rather than arbitrarily pick on this one category, and if we have trouble with this category we should also reconsider Category:Liberals. Alansohn (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my comments above. Dealing with your other points in order:

"...We have no problem identifying people by political beliefs..." - the point is not the identification, but whether the identification is specific enough to be useful (and, as User:RGTraynor points out below, whether it's verifiable)
"...We have no trouble labeling people as syndicalists, anarchists, communists or anti-communists, fascists or anti-fascists, Nazis..." - all those terms have specific unambiguous meanings. A syndicalist/anarchist/communist/anti-communist/fascist/anti-fascist/Nazi believes the same thing, be s/he in the US, Poland, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, wherever. It's not the same for "liberal", hence this discussion.
"...We have no difficulty determining what people's political beliefs are..." - but we do have difficulty deciding what label to put on those beliefs, since a verifiable RS saying X is liberal (by one definition) can be countered by an equally verifiable RS saying X is not liberal (by another definition).

[[User:Timrollpickering| User:Timrollpickering], if you want a solution to this problem, keep Category:Former liberals as a supercategory, create Category:Former modern liberals, Category:Former social liberals, Category:Former classic liberals, et al underneath it, and move the individuals into the subcategories as appropriate. I think that'd keep everybody happy. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: As with the Enforcers debate below, you're making a common and repeated error: you're conflating labelling something with verifying the label. (Quite aside from making the same WP:WAX argument you decry below, but let's leave that sit for the moment.) Indeed, we have no trouble labelling people with every -ism and -ist under the sun, and sometimes a plurality even agrees on the same label. That doesn't make it verifiable. RGTraynor 00:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make the argument real simple and reply to both comments. We have Category:Liberals, which has no problem whatsoever labeling people as liberals, despite the fact that there is a supposed definitional problem. (Parenthetically, I will ignore the fact that there is no absolute hard and fast definition of any political belief; Leon Trotsky was a Communist, which didn't do him much good with fellow-Communist Joseph Stalin, and you couldn't possibly say that all Conservatives are alike). Some of these liberals decide that they don't want to be liberals anymore. That makes them former liberals. Just as we list people as being Category:Liberals because we have reliable sources that show them to be liberals, why should't we include them in Category:Former liberals once they change their mind, just as we do with all the other categories in Category:People by former political orientation? For example, The New York Times described how "There is certainly no question about where Medved stands: he is a leading cultural conservative with a nationally syndicated radio show... what we get is precisely what many who find his ideas objectionable profess to seek: an explanation of how a complex and decent man -- a proudly Jewish, former liberal activist yet! -- came to embrace them." The Times figured out that Michael Medved was a liberal and is now a conservative (See here). The Times, in another article, quotes Steven F. Hayward, the author of The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order 1964-1980., eulogizing conservative President Ronald Reagen, saying that "It could only be a former liberal Democrat who understood that" he could help fix the problems of big government (see here). There are ample reliable and verifiable sources to support the claims that the people in this category were liberals before and weren't later. There is nothing unique about liberals, not in it lacking a rigid definition nor in people leaving the fold. Alansohn (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historians of Canada re: Category:Canadian historians

Proposed creation: Category:Historians of Canada, as opposed to historians who are Canadian. See Category talk:Canadian historians.Skookum1 (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both categories already exist. What needs to be created? Alansohn (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No action needed -- A historian of Canada is some one (of any nationality), who researches and writes about the History of Canada. A Canadian historian might refer to the same thing, but is more likely to refer to a Canadian national or resident who is a historian, but his specialisation might be British History, Russian History, etc. These categories are distinct in concept. It is possible that "Canadian Historians" needs a headnote to the effect that concerns Historians from Canada. There is already a cross-reference to the other one. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both - These categories belong to two separate and distinct category trees, one for nationality and the other for field of study. Cgingold (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wire and Cable Industry

Propose renaming Category:Wire and Cable Industry to Category:Wire and cable manufacturers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The articles in this category appear to be manufacturers of cable and wire, so the proposed name is more descriptive and follows the precedents of existing categories such as Category:Brick manufacturers and Category:Valve manufacturers. If the intent is to cover other aspects of the industry as well (such as consumers), then the capitalization still needs to be standardized (to something like Category:Wire and cable industry). Stepheng3 (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Enforcers

Category:Enforcers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This is a 100% subjective category: "This category is a list of hockey players popularly considered to be "enforcers," that is, those who frequently get into fights." Considered by whom, exactly? Fails WP:NOR. RGTraynor 15:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all core policies (WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:NPOV). —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 16:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The inclusion criteria is highly subjective. Reso lute 16:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a well defined category. MSGJ 17:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective Fathomer (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename to Category:Ice hockey enforcers. The article enforcer (ice hockey) provides a rather excellent definition of the role. I still remember when Clark Gillies of the New York Islanders would battle Dave Schultz the enforcer for the Philadelphia Flyers, or as they were often known the Broad Street Bullies. While the role of enforcer is a bit less official than that of right wing, defenseman or goalie, we find this information from the same place we find all information in Wikipedia; we use reliable sources. Ample sources are available to show that the role exists and that it is (and certainly was in the past) a major role on any hockey team, who often had at least one big tough guy who got into lists of fights, racked up enormous numbers of penalty minutes and suspensions, and usually had far fewer goals scored in his career than remaining teeth. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to frame the issues (as I have no opinion at this time on this category), how much debate is there between sources as to who is or isn't an enforcer, or as to what constitutes an enforcer? If the term "enforcer" is more of a characterization than an assertion of objective fact, finding sources that use it in reference to certain people may not be enough to establish that it is an objective, obvious, and uncontroversial basis for categorization. Postdlf (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A great deal of debate, often hinging around whether the "enforcer" in question plays for a team you like. The very definition is disputed: should a player notable for dirty play but who seldom fought (Bryan Watson (ice hockey), Dale Hunter) be categorized as one? Should a hardnosed player who fights a good deal but is a great star (Gordie Howe, Keith Tkachuk) be categorized as one? Following Alansohn's comments (err, "enforcer" is a 100% unofficial role), there is no objective, universally accepted criteria for the role - the article which is claimed to provide an excellent definition of the role is a largely unsourced article - which means it can't support a category. RGTraynor 20:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if you could provide sources for that article, could you be confident that different sources (this or that sports reporter?) were all using that definition or criteria when they used the term "enforcer"? Postdlf (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course not. I won't claim that what an enforcer is isn't generally understood throughout the hockey world. There's just no definition that's objective enough to support assigning the label on anything remotely approaching a WP:NPOV basis. RGTraynor 21:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To reply to the various and sundry issues raised above: We have an article Enforcer (ice hockey). The article is based on definitions provided by reliable sources. We have kept the article in Wikipedia because it is supported by these sources, despite the fact that there is almost certainly no unanimity among those using the term in how they define it. Now that we have a definition based on reliable sources, the next step is to determine who is an enforcer? Again, we take a look at the sources. My search of Google News using the two terms "enforcer" and "hockey" found 499 sources, with the first page of most recent entries including "'Does 'American Gladiators' count?' Ducks enforcer George Parros asked." from here at the Orange County Register, one pair of doubles at "New York Rangers' enforcer Colton Orr obliged when challenged by Eric Boulton of the Atlanta Thrashers a mere 2:58 into the contest." (here from CNNSI) and another not so rare double at "Islanders rookie enforcer Mitch Fritz (who had a great showing Saturday against the NHL’s heavyweight champ Georges Laraque) comes from a tough, athletic family." (see here from the CBC). Of the five individuals identified in these reliable sources as enforcers, four of the five are described as such in the lead paragraph of their Wikipedia article, showing that the folks editing these articles also have a good idea as to what the term means. The same search using Enforcer and Hockey in Google News Archives turns up another 9,770 sources. Based on the number of sources, we should have no problem finding multiple sources for every person so designated. The best way to address the subjectivity issue is to let the reliable sources speak for themselves. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, as sportswriters do, they often disagree. I could easily come up with ten sportswriters on record as claiming that Gordie Howe was an "enforcer" and just as many claiming he wasn't; indeed, keeping each to only ten citations would be tough. We likewise don't have a [[Category:Superstar]] for hockey (or any other sport), however much you could get a consensus around the qualifications of Wayne Gretzky, Bobby Orr or Maurice Richard for the role. Nor do we have a "defensive forward" category, a "power forward" category, a "weak hitter" category or a "special teams specialist" category, despite that sportswriters could work consensuses for the same around this player or that. RGTraynor 03:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The argument from a borderline case never works, nor should it. For any category there will be some article that might or might not belong. The issue should be dealt with at the article level. For the record, the word "enforcer" does not appear in the Gordie Howe article, which it should with ten reliable sources available. "Superstar" is a pure subjective determination, not a specific role filled by virtually every professional hockey team. There is a reliably-sourced article for Enforcer (ice hockey); There is no Superstar (ice hockey), nor will there ever be. I agree that "defensive forward", "power forward", "weak hitter" or "special teams specialist" might be prospective subjects for categories, but the fact that no article has been written for any of these, supported by reliable sources describing the role, would be wonderful reasons to explain the absence of these proposed categories. I'm surprised you didn't mention my all-time unsung favorite, "penalty killer", for all those guys who skate around for two minutes like madmen trying to keep the puck away from the offense and attempting to score the occasional short-handed goal. Regardless of the nonexistence of all of these possible categories (and their associated articles), the WP:WAX argument itself is not a viable argument either. We have about ten thousand articles about hockey enforcers, more than enough reliable sources to establish that the Enforcer (ice hockey) article merits an associated category. Alansohn (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If kept, it should be renamed Category:Enforcer (ice hockey). No view as to retention. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or Category:Ice hockey enforcers. At present, it is ambiguous; I thought it was referring to some kind of mob role at first glance. Postdlf (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional immortals

Category:DC Comics immortals

Category:Marvel Comics immortals

Category:Wildstorm immortals

Most of these are cosmic beings, deities, legendary creatures, aliens, characters who can regenerate, and characters who use magic.

As noted in the links, we already have cats for all of those. So, the first suggestion would be to make them all subcats, and prune as appropriate.

So let's presume that we've pruned.

In addition to those, there are those who resurrect or reincarnate upon death. (Such as Immortal Man.) Or those who may live unendingly, but may be killed. (Such as Middle-earth Elves.) Though perhaps only under certain circumstances. (Such as Highlander immortals.) Or beings of "energy", for whom a physical form doesn't define whether they are "alive", much less whether they are "immortal".

If we discount the above, the number of actual humans who are noted to be immortal are few. Vandal Savage is the main example, and technically even he is now merely a being of energy in human form.

But this also brings to the fore another problem. There are a myriad "types" of immortality. Are we limiting the category to Biological immortality? To only those who are human? Are mutants considered human at least for this determination? Are Homo Magi? Are metahumans? How about someone who had themself imprinted into technology, becoming "one" with a computer or a robot? Is the imprinting considered a duplication? Or do we consider the original character to still be "alive"? What about cloning? If a character "dies", and is "imprinted" onto a physical clone, do we consider this to be a "duplication"? Or do we consider the original character to still be "alive"?

With a myriad of questions as to its appliability, the definition of what is considered "immortality" is just vague.

And when the "definition" of immortality is vague, then the category's inclusion criteria is vague as well.

And all of the above problems means that this category is simply more of a hindrance, than a help, to navigation. - jc37 13:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as nominator. - jc37 13:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all As the great philosopher Woody Allen once said "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying." Immortality is a rather strong trait assigned to a character. When the masters of fiction -- the authors, creators, producers and people in the comic book field -- create characters they endow them with a series of character traits. While hair color or name might be assigned as a whim, characters are not made immortal by coincidence. This is a strong deliberate decision made to a assign a strong defining characteristic. Every single category has potential borderline cases. If legitimate good faith arguments can be made that individual articles do not belong in this category, consideration should be give to their removal. Due recognition should also be given to the grossly disproportionate number of comic book characters involved here, noting that comic books are but a small fraction of the world of fiction, much of which still exists and is produced in book form, and is available in book stores and libraries. As the entire argument for deletion appears to revolve around rather vague claims of potential definitional issues and borderline cases, without any policy argument for deletion, and as the trait is a uniquely defining characteristic, the categories should all be retained. Alansohn (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unlike our intrepid nominator, I just don't have unlimited time to engage in an extended discussion of this subject. (perhaps if I was immortal!) So I will simply say that it would be singularly absurd and needlessly harmful to our category structure to delete this category rather than making the effort to provide useful definitions. Cgingold (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How would it be "needlessly harmful"? Removing a bloated, confusing, vague category?

And in the nomination, I attempted to "provide useful definitions". A problem is that even the experts do not agree on whether spritual immortality exists, and if we reduce the focus to biological immortality, then we have to define what is a biological structure. And we have to do so through scholarly sources, and not through our own editorial opinion.

And thanks for calling me "intrepid", nice to feel that I rank up there with Clark Kent and Lois Lane, intrepid reporters, both : ) - jc37 03:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda thought you'd like that. Cgingold (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The issue of comic book characters has come to the fore once again. It seems to me that we should give very serious consideration to completely severing those categories from the general categories for fictional characters. Time after time, these discussions have been terribly skewed by the focus on such characters, who are in many respects fundamentally different from conventional fictional characters. More often than not, the sorts of issues that have been raised with regard to these characters are of little to no concern for conventional characters. I think that both sets of categories would benefit from such a separation -- and less energy would be expended in endless unsatisfying CFD discussions. Cgingold (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, let's use a different term for characters in written fiction than "conventional characters". The visual arts can be just as 'conventional" as any other art form. Noting also that comics are a sort of a hybrid between the two.

That aside, you bring up an interesting point. Though I think it translates equally to all the visual art forms such as television, and film (and perhaps even radio). These art forms typically help form "pop culture".

So with that in mind, would you mind going through the nominated categories and finding such examples. With the exception of fictionalised versions of (or fictional examples of) legendary characters/creatures/beings, I'm not seeing any. - jc37 03:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can someone define immortal? I view it as being something like exempt from death. So exactly who does this include? The category being nominated includes Category:Fictional vampires. Vampires can be killed so are they exempt from death? If not they are not immortal. How many of these characters are really immortal? Does someone acting stupid and surviving make them immortal? Based on how it appears this category is being used, one could make a case that illusionists are immortal. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nom overstates the problems with this category. I don't see why we need to be concerned with splitting out "types" of immortality. There are those who won't die unless unnaturally killed, and those who also can't be killed; trying to separate these out in the category system will cause more problems than it would solve, and grouping them together is not confusing or misleading. As for those involving technology rather than purely biology (or magic, or whatever within the fiction), if the end consequence is that the character won't die or can't be killed (as opposed to simply having their natural lifespan extended) then it's still immortality as long as the character is still alive in a recognizeable sense (as opposed to just being a computer program, robot copy, whatever). Whether a character is immortal does not depend upon how that character obtained immortality. Postdlf (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you make quite a few presumptions with this. As I note above, the first is the question of spiritual immortality. Something which even the experts do not agree on (and haven't agreed upon ever since the topic's been discussed). And then, the question of what "biological immortality is, requires defining what a biological physical form is. And further questions about a character's "true form". If a deity creates an avatar, should that deity be listed as an immortal because they created a physical form for themselves? Theoretically, every omnipotent characters/creature/being is essentially immortal.

But then there's also an issue which I didn't even mention in the nom. Quite often, for "real life" concerns (rather than in-universe concerns), a publisher would like certain popular characters to gain immortality, simply so that they can continue to publish the character. Probably the best current example is DC Comic's problem with Batman. Of the "big 3" (the other two, Superman (an alien), and Wonder Woman (a character with a mythological background)), Batman is the only one who can't "easily" be allowed to continue unaging in seeming immortality. Hence the current plotline to have him going to look for a DC universe fountain of youth.

If User:Hiding was here, I think he might note (based upon his past comments at CFD) that an article on "Immortality in fiction" could be a valid encylopedic article. And I would agree. But just grouping characters hodge-podge based upon a term which is used semantically differently, doesn't seem to be useful. - jc37 03:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep delete all the comics related entries, since comics have stupid characterizations that are not appropriate for categorization (except graphic novels, which are self-contained) 70.55.86.100 (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African born philosophers

Merge into Category:African philosophers

These two categories are essentially redundant in term of contents. The target category is older by far, and there is no reason to include the word "born" in the category name. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, merge. MSGJ 17:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as obvious comment above. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional cyclopses

This category has similar issues to the "extra arms" cat below.

In this case it's essentialy categorising aliens and mutants who have one eye. (Noting that, technically, Biclops has 2 eyes, and Tri-Klops has 3 eyes : ) - jc37 11:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with extra arms

This is essentially a category of aliens, demons, and shapeshifters.

There are a myriad of forms that such creatures could take, with "extra arms" being just one.

So I think it would be difficult to prove that this is "defining", or even "notable" for these characters. - jc37 10:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Purely for being the most ridiculous category name I've ever seen! Actually, scratch that, delete on the grounds of what is the definition of "extra". Lugnuts (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If kept (which I'm not advocating for), it should at least be renamed to something like "fictional characters with more than two arms" to remove the "extra" nonsense. Postdlf (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: previously discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 15#Category:Fictional characters with extra arms. MSGJ 17:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional characters with more than two arms. MSGJ 17:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That wouldn't work for characters like Gil Hamilton, who developed a "psychic arm" after one of his arms was amputated, and who - arguably - should be included in this category. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's POV that two is the normal number of arms and that more than two arms are "extra". Otto4711 (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, rename to Category:Fictional characters with additional dextrous appendages 70.55.86.100 (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak keep (really delete) This category is needed to counter Wikipedia's Systemic intergalactic bias which assumes that all alien life forms exist in an essentially humanoid form with an oversize head, a pair of spindly legs, two freakishly long arms, and an ashy-gray complexion, as if we get no sun in outer space where there's no atmosphere. Hello? And what's with the gigantic eyes you think we have? It's like we've been painted on velvet next to a fluffy kitten. As Remulac is my witness, why is it that you humans assume that English is the universal language, perhaps spoken in clipped sentences with a vague foreign accent? My extraterrestrial overlords ordered me to vote this way against my best wishes, accompanied with a threat of yet another probe in the nether regions. But as always, look at the alien invasion on the bright side; they are here to serve man. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BWF World Junior Championships

Propose renaming Category:BWF World Junior Championships to Category:World Junior Badminton Championships

Nominator's rationale: The name of BWF is only use since September 2006, all the article before that already move. However, to resolve the problem, renaming to World Junior Badminton Championships will avoid the confusion about the tournament name. Aleen f1 09:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people of Muslim descent

Category:American people of Muslim descent - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: what does 'of Muslim descent' even mean? emerson7 06:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Muslim descent means at least one of their parents was a Muslim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roukas (talk • contribs) 06:19, November 5, 2008 (UTC) (Note: Roukas is the category's creator)
Delete would we have a category "people of christian descent"? Religion is not descent. Tvoz/talk 07:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably created to attack Obama. Not descent. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 07:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tvoz and YellowMonkey. Khoikhoi 07:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of the creator's motivation, we don't do categories for people by supposed "religious descent". Cgingold (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ Actually there is a category named "people of jewish descent" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roukas (talk • contribs)
- Your confusion is understandable. Being Jewish means both religion and/or ethnicity -- but being Muslim is only about religion. Also, please remember to sign your comments with 4 tildes ~~~~. Cgingold (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ this is not an attack, this is a fact. Why do you look at it as negetive? Being of Muslim descent is nothing to be ashamed of, even Obama aknowledges it and is proud of it. I advise u to listen to or read the script of Colin Powell's endorsement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roukas (talk • contribs)

- I see now that my comment was slightly ambiguous, so allow me to clarify: I'm not actually making any assumptions regarding User:Roukas's motivation. In other words, what I intended to say was, "Regardless of the creator's motivation -- whatever it may have been". Cgingold (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Feel free to continue to contribute to the discussion, but you don't get to "vote" more than once. "Jewish" is an ethnicity, not just a religion, which is why that has an "of descent" category. Postdlf (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely improper to categorize individuals by any religion any of their ancestors practiced, which is what this category ultimately does. There's no such thing as "of [religion] descent." Postdlf (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Postdlf. The religion practiced by one's ancestors is not relevant to an individual's biography. It certainly is not comparable to ethnic ancestry. Reso lute 16:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Religion is not genetic. What if a parent converted to or from a religion? What if the parent didn't practice the religion of their parents? And then, what the parent 'believes' is irrelevant. All of this makes for a WP:BLP mess. ~ priyanath ^talk 19:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Please clarify how "Jewish" is an ethinticity and "Muslim" is not? does this mean that anyone who converts to Judiasm his children are not of Jewish descent? and that anyone who has the tag "people of Jewish descent" can be traced up to the original Israelites??? I don't think this makes any sense Roukas (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alleged sacrifice

Category:Alleged sacrifice - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: "alleged x" is bound to throw up RS and POV issues. How strong do assertions have to be for it to count as seriously alleged. Needs to be renamed if kept to specify this is about Human sacrifice (as opposed to animal sacrifice). ZayZayEM (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. If you don't like the name, please suggest another one, but the category clearly matches the "real life". Notice however, there are quite a few in All pages with titles beginning with Category:Alleged . "Seriously alleged" follows standard rules of wikipedia: WP:V/WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE. Since I doubt this be hardly a politicized issue, I don't expect much POV wars here. `'Míkka >t 05:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current-day categories may be ok, but Category:Alleged tombs of Jesus should be renamed like this one - alleged is just the wrong word. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those topics are more clearly defined that are Alleged [nouns] (Alleged [events], Alleged [locations] or Alleged [occupations]). While this category appears to follow a naming convention associated with all three - it appears to have been applied as an occupation (people who are allgedly X), a location (places where X is alleged to have occured), and "miscellenous topics related to alleged instances of X ("Blood libel"). Please also consider I have suggested a renaming Category:Alleged human sacrifice, I just think we would be better off without it. Please do not take deletion noms to heart.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you concluded I am taking it to heart. However if I place Blood libel against Jews into Category:Sacrifice, I may just as well put myself into this category :-) `'Míkka >t 06:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete meaningless: alleged sacrifice makes no sense. 1st we should have no "alleged" categories unless the allegation itself is notable (true here for blood libel, but not for various dead bodies found 1000s of years later, the debate as to which if any belongs in each article but there is little to link them), 2nd whether there is a debate about whether or not something is a "sacrifice" (does this have to be human and is death the only sacrifice that qualifies) is largely POV and interpretation. Many parents "sacrifice" for their children, so do articles concerning anyone who "allegedly" has done so qualify? Those who have entered certain forms of the religious life too have sacrificed - do all monks, priests, nuns, who have sacrificed secular life, sex, money, etc. qualify? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I fail to see any reason this category should exist. Aside from the completely vague name, at present, this category's contents group two very unlike things: 1) articles about false allegations that people have committed human sacrifice (for which we already have Category:Blood libel), and 2) articles about subjects regarding whom there is some debate as to whether they were the subject of human sacrifice (e.g., bog body), for which "allegations" as a category name makes absolutely no sense, and we shouldn't be categorizing subjects based on every debated point to which they are subject; bog body would then be categorized by every speculated cause of death. This isn't central to why I think Category:Alleged sacrifice should be deleted, but as it appears to be the reason why it was created (?), I also don't see any reason why Category:Blood libel can't also be categorized by Category:Sacrifice. False allegations of human sacrifice is a subtopic of sacrifice; categorizing it as such in no way presents it as truth...particularly when the title of the article (and its eponymous category) makes clear that the subject is a libel, i.e., a falsehood. Postdlf (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename & repurpose or Delete It's surprising we don't have a category on Human sacrifice (aka ritual killing) for the bog men & many other articles, but the blood libels don't belong there - though maybe as Postdif says, the whole category could go into Category:Sacrifice. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]