Knowledge (XXG):Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 26

412:

said, I know the underlying argument behind these cats, I respect that. However, these cats are becoming less and less purposeful and more and more unmanagable as hundreds of articles are created every day. In any case, I think that there is nothing wrong with categorizing people depending on their occupation, eg "cat:X theologians", and sub them directly under the main religion cats. As for something else that another editor mentioned above, "cat:Christian rock singers/artists" makes sense, since there is an actual genre of music Christian rock, and there is an academic purpose to grouping artists/groups who are in that genre since someone interested in Christian rock would also like to learn about other Christian rock singers. However, I simply can't see the same happening with broad categories like these ones. Someone looking up on an Egyptian football player is not likely to wonder too much about a 12th century Turkic prince, or a 18th century Indian poet. Most of those people are already categorized in more purposeful ways with cats like "cat:poets", "cat:"Egyptian football players" etc. They make sense since they do provide the rationale that people who share an interest in an occupation are likely to wonder about people who also practice that occupation (someone who is interested in Pakistani cricket would also be probably interested in other Pakistani cricket players). I really cannot see it with these categories. I am afraid that they are fast becoming the yellow pages, and that sometimes based on ambigious criteria.

256:

Christianity and Islam cats, not simply by saying "cat:Muslims" or "cat:Christian people". These cats are simply becoming nothing more than spam as they are now. Knowledge (XXG) is getting bigger every minute, and, even though these categories might have served something three years ago, I only see the potential of them becoming some sort of unmanageable Frankesteins. More so because they spawn other inappropriate categories like Muslim musicians etc. Why not also create Cat:left-handed musicians, Cat:Blonde musicians, Cat:Capitalist musicians, Cat:Communist musicians, Cat:Liberal musicians etc and paste them all over biographies? That's the problem: the cats should serve a purpose, they shouldn't be the yellow pages for any sort of classification that comes to mind. But moreover, unlike nationality-based categories, whose criteria for inclusion is pretty straightforward, such belief based cats group completely irrelevant biographies based on people's undefined beliefs. "Cat:Irish musicians" might make sense, since those people share something that is very fundamental in their lives: Music, and it is pretty easy to determine someone's nationality, and to a lesser extent, ethnicity. Even though many people consider religion to be something fundamental in their lives as well, I just cannot see why a Senegalese football player and a Turkish pianist would need to be categorized together. Not to mention the fact that certain inclusions of these categories might break WP:BIO rules, particularly for living persons.

481:(edit conflict - reply to Sumahoy's comments before self-modification) It was not at all in a moment of temper. I am still behind my arguments. There has been a debate about these categories for a long time, and I felt that the time for a CfD had come. These cats are not at the forefront of my preoccupations in Knowledge (XXG). I just finished an article that is getting great reviews on FA review, so Knowledge (XXG) is definitely not getting me down. My arguments were listed above, nobody is demanding the deletion of any pages or any other categories. What I have suggested is to group the sub-categories under more relevant and more academic cats like "X theologians" to sub 2042:. By-language classifications clearly make sense when it concerns works produced in the language (books, films, newsbroadcasts, etc). However, in cases where the affect of the person is more based on location and interactions with people there (like a religious or educator or such), location seems to make more sense. Yes, language might play a role, but there's little else in common between an English-speaking religious leader in the US or UK compared to an English-speaking one in Argentina or Iran or Ghana or China. 301:

and paste them all over the biographies? That's all.. Even with the clean up, it's hard. Most of those categories are not taken care of at all. For something else it could be easy, however with such huge categories as christian and muslim people, there practically needs to be someone who does the cleanup work every day for hours on end. And, frankly, I can see no-one taking up the slack.

3463:. A category for a wrestling promotion that didn't last long. There is likely to be no more articles for it, and the 3 articles in it currently: all have good categories for them. This is a good example of category "cruft" if such a thing exists. The logic of "other promotions have categories so this should too" doesn't apply to this much, in my opinion. 1947:, the language of a Pastor is extremely significant, every bit as significant as for a writer or a teacher or a film director. The occupation of Pastor is heavily language-related, since so much of what a Pastor does is language-based, therefore entirely appropriate as a sub-cat of this Cat. This is only overcategorization if EVERY subcat of 2546:

Bishops and priests are one of the few occupations left nowadays where there are remnants of a codified discrimination based on gender. So I'd agree with the above comments that this is an exception to the general rule against gender-specific subcategories, since it's still extremely notable to be a

2976:

Immediately following the sentence you refer to it says "A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of

2116:

You misunderstand me: I have no interest in seeing these cats deleted. I believe they are all very helpful, appropriate cats! But I do desire consistency. Those of you anxious to delete certain cats ought to be as consistent in deleting all similar cats, as I am consistent in desiring these cats

2054:

You must please understand that preaching is the primary task of the Pastor (really, the category should be Preachers. But Pastor is more descriptive here at least than Clergy). Writing and delivering sermons is every bit as creative an activity as writing a book or making a film. Therefore, if a

310:

I agree that there should be no people in any of these categories unless their religion is a defining characteristic. Such people should be placed in a subcat. I disagree that prohibiting individual people from the main cat would require a tremendous amount of upkeep. I check Cat:Albums every couple

300:

Why do we need to group people because of their religions to begin with? My question was one of purpose.. This category is spawning irrelevant and simply pointless cats like "cat:Muslim musicians". Should we also create "cat:Blonde musicians", "cat:Left-handed musicians", "cat:vegetarian musicians"

2468:

At the moment, the appointment of a woman bishop is extremely newsworthy through most of the world, and illegal in a large part of it. Therefore, I would argue that female bishops is a significant category. Perhaps in 20 or 50 years, female bishops will have become common, and I would then support

541:

Essentially the initial argument seems to say "I don't like it" or "how can you put a citizen of Turkey and Senegal in the same category?" The first is just a matter of taste and not a deletion criteria. The second is more interesting, but needlessly nationalistic. Besides we have categories where

3490:

It looks like all three articles are already categorized under other promotions, so providing links to those related topics in the XWF main article should suffice. If down the road, though, there are new articles added for XWF-only wrestlers or events that can't be naturally subcategorized under

259:

The case-by-case solution is also not workable in my opinion. I have been spending a lot of time in the last months to track down users who have been inappropriately adding these cats to certain biographies without any regard for the contents of the biography itself. As I said, Knowledge (XXG) is

411:

Well, we should start somewhere :) Look, the main argument is not the religion. Seriously. The thing is, these categories are becoming more and more unmaintanable as Knowledge (XXG) is growing exponentially. Just twenty minutes ago, an anon tried to paste these cats to fifteen biographies.. As I

263:

So, I propose that these categories be deleted, and the categories listed as sub to be redirected directly under more appropriate academic titles like "X scholars", "X theology" or "X theologians" etc and link them directly under the religion cats and/or find/create suitable and more appropriate

260:

getting bigger by the minute and it is becoming harder to track down such small changes. I know of anons who insist on pasting these categories over and over and over again across a wide range of articles without bringing any sort of source acceptable per WP:BIO, particularly for living people.

255:

I understand the underlying argument behind these categories, however I also think that they are arbitrary and not appropriate for Knowledge (XXG). If someone is a theologian, then he should be listed under cat:Islamic scholars/etc or cat:Christian scholars/etc which would in turn sub the main

251:

I am nominating the three for deletion after having endured the spam like paste of these categories to a wide range of biographies. I propose that the sub-categories listed under these article should redirect either to "Cat:Islam" or "Cat:Christianity" by, for example, redirecting Cat:Islamic

2067:- Sorting people by spoken language is overcategorization and will lead to category clutter. Besides, how many people are going to look up people in a specific profession based on their spoken languages? For example, imagine "French-speaking politicians" or "Spanish-speaking astronomers". 457:

If you have problems with the subcategories it is the subcategories that you should be nominating. Deleting these very useful major categories will not stop creation of inappropriate religion categories, but it will make them harder to spot and knock on the head promptly.

2055:

category like this is useful for those occupations, it is every bit as much for Pastors, and even more so given the much greater output of Pastors (WEEKLY sermons vs. yearly films, e.g.?). Obviously the language is key to any of this creative type activity. Thanks.

471:

By the way Knowledge (XXG) is not growing exponetially. Growth in size is levelling off, but the number of editors is still increasing, giving us good reason to be optimistic about our long term capacity to handle admin tasks like deleting inappropriate categories.

2218:

seems to miss the point. Supporting merger has nothing to do with the fact that language is used in the profession. The question is whether the exact language is of significant value to readers of the Knowledge (XXG). I don't believe that in this case it is.

3212:) prisoners. The Japanese, especially, during W.W.II, held many non-military persons prisoner. It it confusing to place these civilians in a category meant for soldiers, etc. (i.e. military persons). Also see recategorization of this subcat. Thanks. 2738:

per nom. Unlike the exception above of Bishops, women in space is not all that uncommon nowadays, nor is there a specific official sanction against women going into space (unlike official sanctions against women becoming priests, for example.)

485:

to the relevant religion cat. For Christian rock, it should sub a cat "Christian music" that will sub "Christian culture" that will in turn sub "Christianity" or something similar. I think that you have misunderstood my proposal. These cats

668:

I'm not certain about these categories, but the distinction of "English-language" is often much more useful and beneficial than organizing taxonomies by nationality. For example English-language poets, film-directors, etc... --

1708:

They are not duplicates. I am going to redesign the whole system to reflect the global nature of football, the difference between club and international football, and the fact that managers often work outside their own country.

1449:

as somehow the least worthy, whether this is the opening salvo in a campaign against all such categories or what. Not that your motivation would necessarily have any bearing on anyone's opinion but I'm, as I say, curious.

2029:

I'm not sure about this specific category, but categorizations by language often make more sense than categorizations by nationality. For example, poets by language, film-directors by languge, etc... --

717:

could be listed as "English-language astronomers" as well as "English-language teachers" and "English-language educators" (since many astronomers do teach). This type of categorization is not useful.

335:

per nom. Certain subcategories make sense to keep, for instance when a band is a "Christian rock" band then that's valid to keep, but those and similar examples are pretty much the extent of it. —

2130:

one pastors/preaches in is anything but "peripheral!" Without language, there would be no pastoring! The language sermons are written in, e.g., is absolutely important and central to a Pastor!!

311:

of days and remove a couple of articles. Ten minutes a week? No big deal. As long as we can get project members to agree to watch, I don't think it would a problem at all. Shall we ask at

2341: 1399: 829: 42: 37: 550:

has Japanese guitarists and Spanish synthesizer players, etc. The idea that nationality matters more than religion or culture is also a modern notion not accepted by much of the world.--

1494:

were deleted, then this subcategory should be too. So if you feel the parent category is not a valid way to subcategorize suicides, then I'd recommend making a seperate cfd for it.

2824: 2997:

to a wiki domain that would not only welcome such a project, but contributors get to keep the Google AdSense revenue their Directory pages might generate. Read all about it

1055:

Richie222/Tabcoop, that category is not much of a precedent. It's been nominated for deletion many times, each time achieving nothing more conclusive than "no consensus".

277:

The category is useful for collecting the subcategories of types of people belonging to the religions. Place a notice at the top of the page saying something like,

490:

are simply too vague. That's all. It's all about going for a more academic categorization system, not about abandoning worhtwhile parts of Knowledge (XXG).

1481:. So long as that parent is kept and subdivided as intended, it makes sense to have a subcategory for people who committed suicide by various methods. 422: 1338:

Racist is too non-specific and therefore any names involved may not have a notable intersection. Anti-National people is a separate issue as seen in

3554: 3140: 920: 21: 1979:

Just totally useless. "Pastor" is not the right overall word to choose and this adds almost nothing that can't be gleaned from other categories.

3183: 1095:

I can't help noticing that most users in the Delete camp come from the same country most of the original "population" of the category originate

1948: 1944: 1445:- I'm curious as to whether you nominated this particular category after finding it randomly, whether you selected it out of the children of 1375: 1144:

Vicious attack category. The precedent is spurious as it looks like a majority has been in favour of deletion of that too more than once.

116:

Per nom, consensus seems to be not to have guest actor categories for TV series. (Regular cast categories are another topic altogether).

17: 289:. We have to periodically clean out the cat of articles about specific albums, but we have an active community, so it's not too tough. - 2967:

In fact, WP:CATGRS says "Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered." - and it only says that they are permitted, not banned.

2017:

Knowledge (XXG) should use a more inclusive term like "religious leader", but then the by-language categorisation is redundant anyway.

1826:

perhaps ever more specification (i.e., subcategorization) is needed, since there are many languages spoken/writen by Filipino people?

1797: 1257:

Probably most articles placed in there will be POV, even though there are some who would clearly belong in such a category (such as

2328:, speedy deletion, POV and slander category created by user whose sole occupation on Knowledge (XXG) is spreading POV and slander. 1668:

should also contain the categories for international team managers (I assume there are some, but if not they should be created).

371: 2103:

is encouraged to nominate other inapporpriate categories for merging or deletion. However, Pastorwayne is encouraged to review

3568: 990: 3322: 429:

into the categories. If we say these categories should not be used directly, then that should be less of a problem. There's a

282: 3572: 1610: 3179: 3543: