Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/resolved

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RedWolf (talk | contribs) at 04:17, 5 February 2005 (→People). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

These are resolved (but interesting) issues from Categories for Deletion.

Note: This page is meant to be organized by topic, to make things easier to find. The topics (which are not mutually exclusive) may be somewhat arbitrary.

See also Category:ToL cleanup and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities for delete/keep guidelines on these topics. Other WikiProjects may have their own guidelines for categories.


"By country" categorization

The following is an attempt to collect discussions and precedents involve the question of formatting for country- or culture-specific categories, especially those taking place after January 15, 2005. (E.g. "Lakes of X", "Xian lakes", "Lakes in X", "X lakes", etc.) Note that ther may be other, similar precedents listed under other categories on this page.

Economics

  • "Economy of CountryName" is preferred to "CountryNamian economy".

Education


Geography

Here's the simple rule: communities get cross-categorized by the type of municipality they are (i.e., Category:Cities in Ohio, Category:Villages in Ohio) and the county they are in. I've seen at least one instance of further subdivision of Cities in _____ County, but I think this is unnecessary, it hinders the purpose of grouping all cities in a state together and all places in a county together, it and simply won't work in rural counties that may only have a handful of communities. Postdlf 05:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Irish categories of inconsistency

I've begun to take a more detailed look at the Irish categories, so more to come here later and on Category talk:Ireland. These are the easy ones. -- Beland 05:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You need to have Category:Sportspeople from Northern Ireland and Category:People from Northern Ireland. "Northern Irish" is a modern "fudge", not accepted by many people in the region. Ultimately, people from the area are likely to call themselves Irish, British, both or simply say they are "from Northern Ireland". It's a sticky issue - certainly the crude use of "Northern Irish" is to be avoided. zoney ♣ talk 10:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If we need to declare that there is simply no acceptible adjective form to refer to the people of Northern Ireland, that's OK with me. There are other countries where is form is akward, like Trinidad and Tobago, or controversial, as in the United States. Rather than decide this haphazardly, we should try to come up with uniform guidelines. In general, the noun forms are clearer but longer. We can: 1.) Be consistent, and always use the adjective forms, and accept some akwardness; 2.) Be consistent and always use the longer noun forms; or 3.) Adopt a mixed usage, preferring short adjective phrases when they flow cleanly, but using noun forms in akward cases. One benefit of consistency is slightly easier navigation - you can just change the appropriate word and go to a different country, as opposed to having to guess the correct wording or click your way there through category links. But most people just click around, I'm sure. Consistent naming would also cut down on the number of broken links that editors make when they guess the wrong form (or assume a convention is universal when it's really not) and don't check their work. (At least, for those editors who notice conventions and attempt to follow them.) -- Beland 02:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Transport" should be used rather than "transportation". Transportation is the usual US term, while "Transport" is the term used in its place in Britain/Ireland. Hence we in Ireland have a "Department of Transport", "Minister for Transport". Please do not force inconsistent English on a non-US topic. zoney ♣ talk 10:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not trying to force usage on anyone; that's why we have a discussion instead of just implementing these things by fiat. But once again, there are several different places where this issue comes up, and it'd be nice to come up with a general solution. If you take a look at Category:Transportation by country, you will see that all the "countries" there, including "Ireland" have a "Transportation in X" article and a "Transportation in X" category. Again, this makes it easy to know what the article or category you are looking for (or are linking to) would be called. But as you rightly point out, this may not follow local usage. We have 87 or so X_by_country categories so far. I assume we should pretty much pick either 1.) Be consistent and use the same term for the same thing everywhere, or 2.) Follow local usage; and do either 1 or 2 for all ~87 topics. Personally, I vote for consistency. Wikipedia's audience is worldwide, and so is the category system. Americans will be reading all about Ireland, just as much, if not moreso, than about their own country, and vice versa. I don't care whether we use a US term, a UK term, or vary depending on the topic. Following local usage would be my second choice because it seems a bit untidy. It makes a little more sense for articles, where you actually have to use these vocabulary terms in proper nouns and whatnot, and the locals will probably dominate the editing, anyway. I think of the category system more like your library catalog, which references all history books under "History" and not half under "History" and half under "Things that happened in the past". But I'm sure there are good arguments for doing the opposite...discuss, discuss... -- Beland 02:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would definitely oppose the use of Northern Irish as an adjective. People from Northern Ireland (for example) is clearly more in keeping with common usage here on the island. One specific I have seen is Northern Irish soccer, which is a thing that does not exist. The two governing bodies are the Irish Football Association and the Football Association of Ireland (north and south respectively), avoiding the NI issue completely. I agree with Zoney re transportation. I think Transportation in Ireland should be moved to Transport in Ireland and Category:Transportation in Ireland should be emptied to Category:Transport in Ireland and then deleted. Filiocht 08:28, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

OK, it looks like these are approved:

It sounds like we want to do this:

If we're going to do this, then we should do it for all the countries that use "Transport" instead of "Transportation". I will make a new nomination to this effect, then, as part of an examination of all the _by_country categories. -- Beland 03:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And we also want to do:

I'll make a new post regarding the Fooian bar vs. Bars of Foo issue for _by_country categories across the board, then, and run a scan for all instances of the unacceptable "Northern Irish". -- Beland 03:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All of the above have been implemented. -- Beland 08:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

September 16, 2004: Category:Residents of Birmingham, England

I think this should be deleted for three reasons:

  1. It makes no indication of what the person's relationship is to the city, whether they were born there, or lived there for two weeks etc.
  2. If we are going to have this, then surely we should have one for every city, and what happens if a person lived in a number of cities.
  3. There is already a list of people from Birmingham at the main Birmingham article, so this isn't needed.

G-Man 19:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree. Delete – Quadell (talk) (quiz)[[]] 20:06, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm wary of any categorization of people below the country level, because people move around too much these days and are not often going to be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry just because of what they've done in a particular city. A category such as Category:People of Birmingham, England could be viable only for people whose notability is inherently tied to that location, but not otherwise, and mere residency is far too ephemeral to provide a sensible basis for classification. Postdlf 00:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --Conti|✉ 22:06, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Half of them are dead, so they are hardly residents! Who is going to keep track of this on a day-by-day basis? [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 13:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. 1) so? 2) if we decide to have one for every city, which doesn't have to happen as a result of keepinig this, then people would be categorized under multiple cities. Again, so? 3) Categories are not lists. anthony (see warning) 13:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Slovak vs. Slovakian

  • One vote for Slovakian, three for Slovak. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Convert Slovakian to Slovak in the titles of the following categories:

See Slovakia and Category:Slovakia regarding usage. -- Beland 18:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Surely Slovak=ethnicity Slovakian=nationality. Many Slovakians are ethnic Hungarians or ethnic Gypsies and not therefore Slovaks, an ethnic Slovak might live outside Slovakia and therefore not be a Slovakian. In the light of this I think 'Slovakian' is correct.GordyB 22:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is an analogy from some places further south. But nearer to home, Czech means both nationality and ethnicity. You wouldn't use *Czechian. --Henrygb 19:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Slovakian is a real word, Czechian is not.GordyB 20:38, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • According to Slovak language, "The correct American English adjective for the language, people, and culture of Slovakia is Slovak". But British English uses Slovakian where American English would use Slovak, so it begins to look like another one of those issues. We just need to pick one standard to use. I'm going to try to figure out which set of categories was created first. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Hey, that was easy! The three Slovakian categories were created on October 12, 2004. Category:Slovak people was created on June 18. Shall we declare that the official scheme of choice? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:North Carolina places

Unnecessary blending/redundancy of Category:North Carolina landmarks, Category:North Carolina geography and Category:North Carolina municipalities. "Places" is a term beyond vagueness, and the other subcategories are quite proper to have in the root level of Category:North Carolina—there is no need to jumble them together in a manner that is furthermore inconsistent with the structure of all other state categories and does not fit into the parent structure for states and their subcategories within Category:United States. Postdlf 22:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I dunno. With the proliferation of categories for unincorporated communities, census-designated places, cities, towns/townships, and villages (and in NC military bases), I've thought about doing something similar to organize all these populated places. I agree that "places" is a vague name, but some sort of holding category for all of these other related categories might be useful. So, for now I support this specific deletion, but I think I'd like to see essentially the same category with a more meaningful name--maybe "Populated places in xxxx"? older≠wiser 23:21, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
"Communities in xxxx"? -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, "Communities in xxxx" would be nice except that many of the census-designated places are not exactly communities in any traditional sense of the term--many are just arbitrary areas defined for statistical purposes. older≠wiser 01:56, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
If it has no legal designation and is not recognized locally as a community, why should there be a separate article? It seems rather silly to me. But putting the towns, cities, and villages in separate categories also seems a bit overdone for my taste. —Mike 07:31, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
CDPs are a grab-bag. Many ARE communities (or a least there is a community with the same name that the CDP approximately corresponds to). However, some are simply the urbanized area around a municipality, but outside the municipal boundaries. In other cases they are an aggregation of several nearby unincorporated communities. I find the demographic information useful, though it requires some research to determine what exactly the CDP represents. older≠wiser 12:58, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
One solution would be to put all such "places" in the state geography subcategory, with the municipalities also cross-categorized under the state government subcategory. I believe "geography" is broad enough to include politically defined places, as well as physical features of the landscape, isn't it? Postdlf 21:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moved to Category:North Carolina geography.

General Category:Landforms tidy-up

Hmm... a bit more research shows the following categories for different landforms referring to individual countries (continents seem to work differently). The following formats are found (numbers in brackets indicate number of categories) -

  • Canyons (1), Fjords (1), Glaciers (3), Craters (8), Hills (1), Mountain ranges (1), Mountains (9), Peninsulas (3), Rock formations (10), Valleys (1), Volcanoes (64), Waterfalls (4). These use only Feature X of Country Y
  • Islands - Islands of Y (26) of, Y islands (3)
  • Lakes - Lakes of Y (10), Y lakes (7)
  • Forests - Forests of Y (1), Y forests (1)
  • Rivers - Rivers in Y (1), Y rivers (2)
  • Bays - Bays of Y (1), Bays in Y (2)
  • National parks - National parks of Y (32), Y national parks (2)

Unless there's a good reason for this inconsistency, I'd like to suggest making Feature X of Country Y a standard. It would mean moving 18 categories:

What’s more, there’s also -

  • Geography - Geography of Y (34), Y geography (11). Australia, Canada, Egypt, France, Iran, Israel, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United States are the odd ones out here.

Cities, buildings, bridges, towns and communities seem to work the other way, with a distinct minority of Feature X of Y categories - perhaps "in" works better for human-made features?

Features by continent or other country group seem to work in a different, but no less inconsistent, way. More on that later, perhaps...? Grutness talk 23:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree with the above suggestion. Feature X of Y specifically notes where the feature is located, while Nationality Feature can be confusing. Confusion can come both from contested claims: "On Island X they speak language Y, even though it belongs to country Z", and from the fact that there probably are a lot of places called "French Mountain", "Swedish Creek" etc, especially in the US. Also, some nationalities are dissimilar to the name of the nation, e.g. "The Netherlands - Dutch", and are American features part of the North America, South America or just the US?--MaxMad 09:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is also a problem for people categories, I think. The 'Thingies of Foo' form is much better than the 'Fooian Thingies' one. grendel|khan 15:12, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
  • Bugger it. Forgot to put CfD notices on any of them until today... this list should stay here a little longer, perhaps. I've also noted a few more: Category: English islands, Category: Scottish islands, Category: Welsh islands. At some point it will be useful to look at the geographic items for subnational entities too, like US states, which seem to be equally haphazard. There are also further subcategories listed within tyhe "Geography of" categories which arent listed in landforms by vountry, which will also need to be looked at. But not now. It's all very messy. Grutness|hello? 10:05, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. I was just creating some national and state cemetery categories. "Arkansan cemeteries"? "Belarusan cemeteries"? No thanks. -Willmcw 12:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Me again :) Temporarily, I'd like to withdraw my suggestion for changing the "Rivers" categories... it's a real hornets nest. All the other suggestions stand, though. The reason? Feature X of Y works well for individual countries, but for continents the rule seems to be different. Rivers flow across so many borders that many of the river categories follow continental rather than individual country rules. Trying to track all the river categories down could be a full time job for several weeks for a hardened team of wikipedians armed with machetes. Grutness|hello? 12:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I strongly object to the U.S. National Parks change. This is specifically in this format for consistancy with the other types of national parks listed in the linked parent category Protected areas of the United States. Also I notice that no attempt was made to discuss these changes on the appropriate Wikiproject, where I tried to raise category issues several days ago: Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas.
    • There's a wikiproject? It's clearly not well advertised... Sounds like there must be some more categories in Category:Protected areas of the United States that need changing, too. Note that the parent directory follows the same format as that suggested above, as do all other "National parks of X" categories except one - that makes 32 of 34. Oh, and who wrote that? Grutness|hello?
    • This would be what the CfD notices are for. They're supposed to attract the attention of anyone following the category. Sometimes they are neglected, however. It's very difficult to keep track of all the relevant projects. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A little bit late, I would like to express my gratitude for this initiative ...and to them having energy to carry it out! /Tuomas 17:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure who's doing all the donkey-work on it, but whoever it is, thanks. I certainly can't take any credit for that Grutness|hello?

Category:London River Crossings

Badly capitalised categories. Category:London Rivers may be better named Category:Rivers in London. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose although I'm slightly more agnostic on this one. Again one of the early categories it has already gone through a number of variations and this one seems to have held long enough to stick imho. --Vamp:Willow 23:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support "London River crossings" instead. Capital Crossings is clearly not in compliance with the Wikipedia downcase style specified by the Manual of Style and used almost universally throughout the site. -- Beland 23:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I could support "London river crossings", but not "London River crossings", which implies crossings of the London River. The current (all cap) form is against usual Wiki practice and ambiguous. Grutness|hello? 00:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I precisely agree with User:Grutness on this one, River crossings in London are entirely distinct from crossings of the London River... except crossings of the London River in London. Support London river crossings Pedant 01:00, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
    • Ah, I thought these were crossings of the London River. In that case, shouldn't this be Category:Bridges in London? along with all the Foo Bridges categories (which would require a separate nomination)? -- Beland 05:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bridges and river crossing categories are being renominated.

Category:London Rivers

Badly capitalised categories. Category:London Rivers may be better named Category:Rivers in London. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral: I would support a change but not the alternative given: They are either "London's Rivers" or "Rivers of London" sfaiac. --Vamp:Willow 23:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The standard form for rivers categories is "Rivers in X". (This is less of a standard that some of the others, but "Feature in X" is pretty much the standard for geographical features.) Take a look at the siblings in Category:British rivers (noting that "British rivers" should probably be "Rivers in Great Britain", but definitely not "British Rivers"). -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If recent category clean-ups suggested below are anything to go by, there is a gradually approaching consensus of "Natural features of X", "Artificial features in X". Thus "River crossings in London", "Rivers of London" ("Rivers in..." is not the standard! See Landforms tidy-up below!). Government is a little different, not being a geographic term. Personally I'd favour Government of London, but ymmv. As far as Districts is concerned, "Districts in London" makes sense, but there are several other "X districts"-type categories, so just dropping it to a minuscule would be okay by me. Grutness hello? 01:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) Rivers should definitely not be capitalized unless it is the first word in the title (after Category:). -- Beland 23:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Renominated.

Military

  • November 28, 2004: Category:Weapons by name was deleted (redundant, "by name" is inherent to categories). See discussion.
  • August 19, 2004: Airforce categories (for individual nations) - the consensus was to delete categories containing only one article. The discussion is archived at Category talk:Air forces.

History

Category:Czech monarchs

There appears to be a consensus that this should be Category:Bohemian monarchs. (The category has been depopulated and all articles have been moved thence.) In an ideal world Category:Czech monarchs would redirect there - the two are, for all intents and purposes, one and the same - but this is not currently available. -- Itai 22:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • What about Samo and the rulers of Great Moravia? Shouldn't we attach them to the "Czech rulers" categories branch in some way? Martg76 00:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • (1) Bohemian means referring to Bohemia (=western Czechia/Czech lands), Czech means today referring to Bohemia or referring to Czechia/Czech lands (= Bohemia + Moravia + other terr.), but historically Czech is simply the Czech word for Bohemian (there is no equivalent for Bohemia or Bohemian in Czech, only in German or French); so actually both Czech and Bohemian is correct, Bohemian historically probably more correct, (2) Samo and Great Moravia do not belong below Bohemian or Czech monarchs. Major reasons: (a) Samo is 7th century, GM basically 9 th century, the state of Bohemia arose only in the late 9th century as a western neighbour of Great Moravia, (b) Samo was a Frankish person who ruled the territory around the southern Moravia river and also conquered the later Bohemian territory for some time. In the 7th century there were no Czechs whatsoever, there were only generally "Slavs". Great Moravia was a state of proto-Slovaks and proto-Moravians. Since it existed parallely with Bohemia, it's rulers cannot be Bohemian rulers - except for Svatopluk, who conquered Bohemia for some 5 years. They can only be "rulers of on a part of the territory of what is now the Czech Republic". (3) The term monarch is somewhat confusing for me. I think ruler would be better, because it is more general: for example the Czech rulers were princes and dukes first and only then kings: does "monarch" include local princes?? Juro 03:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks Juro for this clarification. So let's delete Category:Czech monarchs. I agree that the term monarchs is not ideal, especially in a medieval feudal structure where the degree of independence varied over time. "Monarch" seems to imply a completely sovereign state to me. I would also prefer the term ruler, as we have it in Category:Rulers of Austria, which includes everyone from the first Margraves to the Emperors up to 1918. Ideally, there should be subcategories. Martg76 23:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Politics and government


Category:Nigerian political parties

Category:Nigerese political parties

Should be Category:Nigerien political parties if anything; "Nigerese" isn't a word. And the cat only contains a list, which is just redlinks. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Category:Occupation of Palestine

  • I count 10 delete votes (including nominator and one anonymous IP) and three keeps. Consensus to delete. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV duplicate of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Author moved one page into this category. The page in question just survived VfD and is currently being merged (by consensus) to a page already contained by Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Note, same author as Category:Advocacy --Viriditas 21:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • KEEP. The term "occupation" is widely accepted as fact. There is NO consenus to merge the article; Viriditas apparently thinks that agreement by one side (ie. her band of Palestine deniers) is consensus (!?). Using a euphemism (in this case: "conflict") is egregiously POV (see Jimbo Wales) because it places the occupier and the occupied on equal footing and denigrates the rights and suffering of victims. HistoryBuffEr 22:47, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Usual attempt to create a POV fork. Jayjg 23:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious POV aside, what would go into one category that wouldn't go into the other? -Sean Curtin
  • delete - redundant and POV. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. As a matter of fact, conflict is as neutral as can be, while occupation is POV. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Mrfixter 11:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete--Josiah 22:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Truthaboutchabad 21:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as we already have the full range of articles in Category:Palestine and Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict already lists articles from all sides of the dispute. This is just another example of User:HistoryBuffer wasting everyone'e precious time with obfuscatory diversions. IZAK 03:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • KeepCheeseDreams 19:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • 'Delete The term "conflict" is much more widely accepted terminology, and semantically, it includes crucial chapters of the relations between the parties prior to June 4th, 1967. The term "Occupation of Palestine" is vehemently POV and, I think it's fair to presume, would probably concern exclusively Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, ignoring Egypt's and Jordan's respective 19-year-long occupation and ultimately representing an anti-Israeli POV perspective of history. 217.132.221.56 17:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I realize that I'll never understand how English words get perceived as "POV" or contaminated by a pro-or-contra position. /Tuomas 22:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Oil for Food

Other than Oil for Food program, articles added to this category have at best a peripheral connection to this topic. -- Rick Block 00:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree, though we will have to find a home for some of the articles. —Sortior 03:34, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I disagree. One of the reasons that there seems to be a peripheral connection is because the UN has not been releasing most of the information that it knows about the subject. The little bits of information that has been uncovered has taken forever for the UN to acknowledge. Additionally, not all the linked articles have alot of information on the scandal (but this is again because the UN has not being willing to be transparent). Since the scandal appears to cover a large number of people and companies, a category such as this will help people to sort through the names. An article will not be able to cover every person, company, document, etc that encompasses this vast subject. This appears to be the reason that Watergate has a category (two in fact), and Watergate did not have as many people involved as the Oil for Food.Lokifer 21:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, SimonP 08:58, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Served better by giving the relevant facts in the relevant articles. Otherwise, there's not enough context to merit inclusion. -Sean Curtin 02:47, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Users should be able to find their way around Oil for Food articles and persons easily, as the importance of this field is huge and still growing. gidonb 13:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Kings of Persia

This does not require a deletion. However, a demand has been raised for moving - a bot will be useful, as quite a lot of articles are concerned - this to a theoretical Category:Shahs of Persia. There is no objection on my part (me being the creator of this category). -- Itai 22:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, a Shah is a King. IZAK 18:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think the trend has been to create a general "monarchs" category, but if all such monarchs went by a particular designation, I don't see the point in doing that here. Were all monarchs of Persia called Shahs? Postdlf 00:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Shah is a corruption of caesar, the term for a Roman Emperor, so no, not all Persian monarchs were called Shah, AFAIK, since the Persian Empire existed at various points in history, before the Roman Empire. 132.205.15.43 04:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, I only know one certain monarch who didn't use the term "Shah" to refer to himself, Karim Khan. roozbeh 17:20, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Category:Monarchs of Persia. Shah != king, but equivalent to German Kaiser or Russian tsar, both of which are normally translated emperor. Most of the monarchs in the category, however, were neither kings nor shahs. (That category is a big mess, BTW... At least three different spellings of "Muhammad", titles like Abbas I of Safavid ["of Safavid"?], etc... Massive cleanup is needed.) —Tkinias 23:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • In Persian, King is translated shāh or sometimes pādeshāh. Emperor is either shāhanshāh or emperātūr. So while these guys were more like emperors than kings, they rarely used a title of Emperor recently. Only Mohammad Reza Pahlavi called himself a shāhanshāh after the Arab invasion, as far as I know. roozbeh 17:20, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Move. You can't go wrong with Monarchs of Persia. -Willmcw 11:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Category:Monarchs of Persia as easiest/less likely to be wrong. Pedant 23:40, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
  • I was going to agree with Move to Category:Monarchs of Persia, however if one looks at the Category:Monarchs, the vast majority use the convention XXXX monarchs with only a few using Monarchs of XXXX. RedWolf 19:31, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

People

The policies at Wikipedia:Categorization of people may post-date some of these decisions.

Category:Palestinian children killed by Israelis

21 votes; 17 delete, 4 keep. Category deleted. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inherently POV; created to extend the Israel-Arab conflict into Wikipedia. Jayjg 00:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Extend into"? Too late; already here. --Gary D 10:21, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
How is this not NPOV? Maybe not a good choice for a category - I agree that "Killed in Intifadah II" would be a more inclusive category - covering both Israelis and Palestinians - but I don't see how this is inherently not NPOV. Guettarda 19:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Alberuni, your arguments against Jayjg here don't hold water IMHO, by being significantly out of context. The reason is that his user page lists, for example, the "Partial list..." and the "Terrorism against..." categories as "Articles created solely for the purpose of promoting a political POV". BACbKA 07:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possibly merge into another, broader category, as suggested above. -Sean Curtin 05:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Forget that this names Palestinians or Israelis and focus on the underlying concept. What nation or nationality someone has been killed by is simply not an appropriate basis for a category. Postdlf 06:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have no objection to an article (or even a category) about Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians, but this is a category of tiny articles that are bound to remain tiny, as the vast majority of eight-year-olds have done nothing worthy of having their own encyclopedia article. I'm not going to go call for deletion of the articles, but given the length of the two I looked at in detail, they might do better all lumped into one article... Mpolo 07:46, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Same reasons as Mpolo. BACbKA 23:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inaccurate category name. --Viriditas | Talk 08:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • delete, I'm inclined to think we should keep this, we might just as easily have a list of American children killed by the British in Colonial America, because the (assumed) 'fact' that "the British government didn't 'have a policy of killing American children' " wouldn't be a good reason to exclude a list of such. The creation of this category might be appropriate for wikiprojetct:Lists of all children of nation ''x'' by persons of nationality ''y'' and I wouldn't oppose it as part of a larger effort. However, the problem with this category is that omitting its sister categories would be a POV issue and on that basis, I'm weighing in against it. Pedant 10:46, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
  • delete categorize as 'Killed in the Second Intifadah'. gidonb 11:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename 'Killed in the second Intifadah' (see my comment above). Guettarda 19:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Xed 20:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. →Raul654 21:48, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Duh. Tendentious category name. Vast majority killed unintentionally during military operations. Could just as easily have category named "Algerian children killed by Frenchmen" (in Algerian War of Independence) or "Chechen children killed by Russians". Both would be created to prove a point, not to help users of Wikipedia find and classify information, which is what categories are for. A2Kafir 23:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with MPerel. -gadfium (talk) 23:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 00:44, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, it fails to mention that the children's blood was used to make matzos and doesn't include William of Norwich. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Dryazan 23:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Assuming the lists are correct, why not have this information in the wikipedia? The fact people will argue over it is not a reason to not include it. No-one has suggested another name for this category. What is wrong with "Algerian children killed by the French", "Chechen children killed by Russians", "Israeli children killed by Palesinians", etc? War is horrible. It has a devastating effect on children, and the families of children who are killed. Wikipedia should not cower from those facts. Should we remove "Victims of 9/11"? After all, that could be argued to have been "created to extend the Neo-conservative/Al Quaeda conflict into Wikipedia", no?
    • OTOH, I take User:Mpolo's point, but for comparison, do we have 9/11 victim articles? What about deaths in the Iraq war?
    • User:pedant: That's a weak argument. We wouldn't have an encyclopedia at all if it were followed to its logical conclusion. Mr. Jones 21:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same reasons as Mpolo. One article should be sufficient for a list. -Willmcw 08:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Category:Christians

  • Note: I still like Category:Christians better, but I don't particularly mind the other and since I am the only one who objects, then let's go for it. This should be a precedent for sibling categories. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To be renamed to Category:Christian people. Current one-word name is ambiguous, and too close to—therefore confusing with—a number of its sibling and child categories that use the singular form of its current name, "Christian", such as child category Category:Christian leaders. Puts this category into parallel phrasing with those categories, and also more in line with its parent category, Category:People by religion. --Gary D 03:02, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Note that if this is done, it will be necessary to rename all of the siblings in Category:People by religion. I'm not convinced that this is necessary, though. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 03:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think such a renaming would be a good idea. Single word categories split between singular and plural have generally turned out to be less than optimal, because they are unclear and ambiguous. (Note that the parent category here was not called "Religionists".) --Gary D 04:08, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
But there is no Category:Christian. Or, for that matter, Category:Jew, Category:Muslim, etc. These are generally adjectives used as nouns—it's not the same as relgion and religions. Christian people is redundant. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Indeed there is no category titled "Christian," and for that I am grateful. I agree the confusion with "religion" and "religions" may be worse, but I hope "not as bad confusion" does not justify inaction. It's not clear to me that "Christian people" is redundant, since there are non-Christian people, and "Christian people" is useful in distinguishing from "Christian denominations" and "Christian texts", to give examples of two of its sibling categories that have the parallel form, "Christian [plural noun]". Certainly "Christian people" could be called redundant to "Christians" in the sense that they mean the same thing; my goal here is simply quick and clear reader visual understanding upon browsing the subcategory list, and I intend no change in category scope. I recognize that the single-word plural noun system has something of a foothold here, but I consider that insufficient to justify the system's retention when it is less than optimally clear to the reader, and may fail to announce its differences from its siblings and parent categories. If this is a better way, the sooner we move over to it, the better. --Gary D 19:32, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
In that case, perhaps it would be wise to nominate the sibling categories in order to give folks who may be following them a chance to weigh in? (What do you intend to do with "Zen masters"?) -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I posted notices in the sibling categories (except "Zen masters"), inviting people to come over and weigh in on this issue. I intend to do nothing with "Zen masters" (except maybe move it under a "Buddhist people" category) since it's a two-word phrase unambiguous in its context. I would feel differently if its parent category were "Zen mastery", for which I would then want the child categories to be "Zen master people", "Zen master doctrines", "Zen master organizations", Zen master history", etc. --Gary D 02:01, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


Category:Eccentrics

  • After some confusion (the request to merge and delete was removed from the Categories for deletion page before it had been completed), the merge has been done and the category has been deleted. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Round one: October 10, 2004

  • I count four delete votes (including those from the category's talk page), one keep, and one "at least change the name". -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed cfd notice from category and this discussion to category talk:eccentrics.

Reason: No form of discussion had taken place on that discussion page, prior to CfD listing. The category definition seem pretty much OK and workable (referring to definition on List of notable eccentrics). All the rest to be done before re-listing here is described in wikipedia:categorization of people.

--Francis Schonken 10:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) Definition cited above:

"Eccentricity is necessarily a relative definition. An eccentric is someone whose behaviour, beliefs and/or hobbies deviates in significant way from the accepted norms that the rest of the society that defines that person recognizes as proper or as traditional. He or she may be regarded as strange, odd or at least unconventional, irregular and erratic. Other people usually regard the eccentric with apprehension but also with considerable amusement."

Although I am an eccentric, (by this definition most wikipedians are -- who does this kind of thing for free but an eccentric?) I might be offended to find that an article about me was listed at the bottom as being part of Category:Eccentrics, but it might not bother me to see Category:Notable eccentrics, and any article on any eccentric in wikipedia is likely to be a notable eccentric. Maybe we could change the category name?Pedant 01:52, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Splitting this discussion onto two pages makes this confusing. There is no rule that states that there must first be discussion on the talk page for an article or category listed for deletion. But at Category talk:Eccentrics, there are currently three delete votes. There is one keep here, and one request to at least change the name. Anyone else? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 20:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. And stop removing listings from CfD. Postdlf 23:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From Category talk:Eccentrics

Moved here from CfD:

This is POV. If person A is eccentric to person B, then person B is eccentric to person A. Zh 04:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, this one is also redundant because there already is a list of notable eccentrics. Sietse 08:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, because this is ridiculously POV and a waste of time. Revolver 20:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've restored the listing on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, which is where such proposals should be discussed. I copied the votes and comments above to CfD. Further votes and comments should be placed on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Eccentrics. JamesMLane 04:09, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Round two: December 13, 2004

Apparently this category was listed on CfD in October. Thereafter the CfD discussion was moved to Category talk:Eccentrics, but the CfD notice stayed on the article (although now directing people to a nonexistent entry on this page). Copied below is what's on the category talk page, including the original CfD listing by Zh; I've added my vote after that. JamesMLane 04:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is POV. If person A is eccentric to person B, then person B is eccentric to person A. Zh 04:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, this one is also redundant because there already is a list of notable eccentrics. Sietse 08:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, because this is ridiculously POV and a waste of time. Revolver 20:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV. JamesMLane 04:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If some people are widely considered to be cranks/kooks/eccentrics, how is that POV? jni 09:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think list of notable eccentrics covers it. we only need people who are notable for being eccentric, not everyone notable who is regarded as something of an eccentric. For example, I think a large portion of famous artists would qualify as eccentrics, but they should still be listed as painters, actors or musicians.--MaxMad 12:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: The list is sufficient. DCEdwards1966 00:42, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Absolutely keep. Dbiv 21:46, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/resolved#Category:Eccentrics. The consensus was to delete the category. It just wasn't deleted. (Which may have been my fault.) I don't believe it's necessary to go through this again. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it was listed for a merge to List of notable eccentrics. See [4]. It was apparently removed (perhaps accidentally) before that merge had taken place. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Just as long as the category gets deleted. Postdlf 04:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Comics people

  • Consensus appears to be: 1-The current categories are confusing and should be changed. 2-It is useful to distinguish between people who work on comic strips, people who work on comic books,and cartoonists. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do these need to be merged? -- Beland 19:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about this: 

Comics
  Comics people
     Comic book artists/writers
     Comic strip artists/writers

[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:53, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

I've depopulated Category:Comics_book_artists and Category:Comics_book_writers so they can be summarily deleted. For what it's worth, I vote for Category:Comic_book_artists over Category:Comics_artists and I think artists and writers should have different categories, even if there is some overlap. Also, using a term like artist/writer in a category may cause confusion as people who do both tasks are usually called writer/artists, so putting non-drawing writers or non-writing artists in that cat might make people think they do both tasks. Gamaliel 20:03, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And I would also dispose of the "Comics people" category since there should not be very many subcategories and there shouldn't be any articles within that category. —Mike 20:41, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
And please note that there is also Category:Cartoonists to consider, a heavily populated category. It could easily take the place of the "Comic strip artists/writers" subcategory suggested above. MisfitToys 18:58, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
Do you need separate comic book, comic strip, graphic novel artists (and also writers) categories? Why not one each for penciller/artist, inker/colorist, scenarioist/editor, and dialogist/writer? 132.205.15.4 17:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete Category:Comics artists and Category:Comics writers and instead use Category:Comic book artists and Category:Comic book writers, respectively, adding crossreferences to Category:Cartoonists to both for the cases of notable writer-artists. -Sean Curtin 01:32, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Works for me -- the hierararchy Neutrality suggested, delete the 2 depopulated/defunct categories, Keep: ; Category:Comics; Category:Comic book artists; Category:Comic book writers; Category:Cartoonists. I'm neutral on Category:Comics people, if someone feels it's needed, it won't bother me, but doesn't seem too useful to me, if it was just me I'd delete that one.Pedant 05:30, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
Is the idea that all comic strip writers and artists should go under Category:Cartoonists? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If people want to suggest these categories for deletion, they should put the appropriate template messages on the categories. I only just now realized that these categories were up for deletion. Now, my take on this: comic book writers/artists are not the same people who work on comic strips or cartoons, hence there should be separate categories. I strongly feel that merging people who work only on comic strips or cartoons into comic book categories is a bad idea, as is the reverse (merging people who work only in comic books into a category about cartoons or comic books). Out of the categories, these should be deleted:
The rest, given here, should be kept:
—Lowellian (talk)[[]] 15:57, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Let me put it this way, people like Mort Walker, Bill Watterson, and Scott Adams are clearly comic strip writers and artists. They are clearly also not comic book writers and artists. People like Todd McFarlane and Frank Miller are clearly comic book writers and artists, and clearly not comic strip writers and artists. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 16:02, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
How would you feel about moving from Category:Comics artists to Category:Comic strip artists for clarity? Category:Comics artists is somewhat ambiguous. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 16:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
One thing no-one has mentioned in all the above is that cartoonist and comic strip artist are not interchangeable terms. Technically, a cartoon has a single frame, a comic strip does not. Gary Larson is a cartoonist, for instance, whereas Bill Watterson is a comic strip artist. I think the distinction is worth hanging on to. Grutness 11:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I did mention it. That's why I advocated keeping the categories apart, including comic strip creators and cartoonists. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 15:33, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, how about we use these four categories:
These four categories make all the necessary distinctions (comic strip creators tend to be both writers and artists). —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 15:33, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
What's more, Cb writers and Cb artists are natural subcategories of Cb creators.Grutness 00:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Category:Mute recording artist

  • There seems to be consensus to delete this category. The related categories were not listed for deletion, so this doesn't cover them. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Currently tagged with {{movecat|catname=Mute Records recording artists}}, but I think more appropriately simply delete since:

  1. Lots of artists record for lots of labels
  2. I think most people aren't aware of (nor particularly care) for which record label an artist records

Seems like a fine topic for a list article. Same argument applies to other artist by label categories under category:Record labels, which currently includes category:Kill Rock Stars, category:ZTT Records artist. -- Rick Block 15:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - This is a confusing category label. Even though I am familiar with Mute Records, I first thought this was about recording artists who are mute. Clubmarx 18:20, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto Clubmarx. Delete. If appropiate, relace with Category:Mute Records or similar. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 20:59, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the suggestion is to delete the category (and, by extension, the other artist by label categories) NOT to rename this category. I don't think there's any question that if kept the category should be renamed. How about using Delete or Rename rather than the usual Delete/Keep? -- Rick Block 00:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Jews

See archive of original votes and discussion at Category talk:Jews#Majority votes to keep Category:Jews

Majority to Keep: Voting began Dec 1, 2004. Closed Jan 10, 2005: 9 votes to Keep; 3 votes to Keep or rename; 2 votes to Rename; 2 votes to Delete. The proposal was to rename to Category:Jewish people which is now defeated. (See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies#Normal closure: "Wait at least 7 days after nomination. Make sure there is a clear consensus to keep.") There is thus a "clear consensus to keep" Category:Jews unchanged. IZAK 05:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Jewish Russian people

See archive of original votes and discussions at Category talk:Russian Jews#Renamed to Category:Russian Jews.

Voting began Dec 2, 2004. Closed Jan 10, 2005: 8 votes to Keep but rename to Russian Jews; 3 votes to Keep; 3 votes to Delete. (See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies#Normal closure: "Wait at least 7 days after nomination. Make sure there is a clear consensus to keep.") The proposal was to delete the category which is now defeated. There is now a "clear consensus to keep" and in line with the votes the category will be renamed Category:Russian Jews. IZAK 06:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Residents of Birmingham, England

The consensus was to delete. RedWolf 17:29, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

This was listed for deletion once before. It was deleted (5 to 1). Here is a copy of the previous discussion:

I think this should be deleted for three reasons:

  1. It makes no indication of what the person's relationship is to the city, whether they were born there, or lived there for two weeks etc.
  2. If we are going to have this, then surely we should have one for every city, and what happens if a person lived in a number of cities.
  3. There is already a list of people from Birmingham at the main Birmingham article, so this isn't needed. G-Man 19:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. Delete – Quadell (talk) (quiz)[[]] 20:06, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm wary of any categorization of people below the country level, because people move around too much these days and are not often going to be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry just because of what they've done in a particular city. A category such as Category:People of Birmingham, England could be viable only for people whose notability is inherently tied to that location, but not otherwise, and mere residency is far too ephemeral to provide a sensible basis for classification. Postdlf 00:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --Conti|✉ 22:06, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Half of them are dead, so they are hardly residents! Who is going to keep track of this on a day-by-day basis? Noisy | Talk 13:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. 1) so? 2) if we decide to have one for every city, which doesn't have to happen as a result of keepinig this, then people would be categorized under multiple cities. Again, so? 3) Categories are not lists. anthony (see warning) 13:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. If we tagged every person's article with the list of cities they've lived in, the list for some would be longer than their article, and if we only tag the article if they currently live there, it'll be a maintaince nightmare and/or horribly inaccurate. --ssd 04:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It now contains quite a lot of articles (it was not recreated by the same account that originally created it). I think this is a bad idea. We could start listing every single person by every single town in which they ever lived, but is having lived in Birmingham one of the four of five most important things about most people who once lived there? (Even the town in which I was born is not all that important to me!) Other, more significant, cities (see, for instance, Category:London) do not have such a category. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Bad idea for a category - too ephemeral, encourages articles of non-notables, etc. -Willmcw 01:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Several "photographers by nationality" categories

Here is a list of several subcategories of Category:Photographers which IMHO can be safely deleted without any loss of information. The main reason is that e.g. the criterion for inclusion in Category:French photographers is exactly membership in Category:French people as well as Category:Photographers. In other words, a French photographer is precisely a French national who happens to be a photographer. For purposes of searching WP, some future search facility will hopefully allow boolean combinations of categories, so that French photographers can be found quickly and easily. For now, all of these subcategories are underpopulated; even Category:Photographers itself is fairly small at the moment, especially when compared to the much longer List of photographers. Even if you don't agree with the first argument that "photographers by nationality" is redundant and doesn't add any new information, you might agree that this subdivision is simply unnecessary at the moment and could be added later if and when Category:Photographers becomes too large. --MarkSweep 21:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unnecessary at the moment, yes. Suggest deleting all these subcategories and replacing with new article List of photographers by nationality. If the categories become necessary later they can always be replaced, but for now I don't see them as vital. Grutness hello?
Agree. People by occupation and people by nationality should be kept separate unless there is a need to combine them. -Willmcw 21:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:English_zoologists

Category uses erroneous ethnic label ("English") when many members are not English at all (includes Scottish, Belgian, Argentinian, German, etc.); category should be Category:British zoologists, as the link is that they are/were British subjects or worked in Britain. I believe none come from before the Act of Union 1707. —Tkinias 23:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this also include Category:English biologists and Category: English naturalists - although one in that group was born pre-Act of Union (Mark Catesby, 1683-1749) Guettarda 00:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes IMO. Better call an Englishman British than call a Scot English, no? British is the more inclusive category. —Tkinias 00:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I noticed today that there was not a CFD on this category (I added Cfr) and it was recently made a subcategory of Category:British_zoologists. Do they need merging, or left alone??? --ssd 07:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Transportation

Category:Maryland State Highways

Malformation of Category:Maryland state highways. I made the new category and moved the one article. This is now an empty orphan. — Sortior 22:38, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose, I think, based on how it works in Florida. The original agency was the State Road Department, and they maintained the State Road system. State Road is always in caps in Florida, at least in the legal definitions designating the roads, and I believe most other places. I don't have enough info in Maryland, but the agency is the State Highway Administration. They call them 'MD XX' on their site, but this is likely not the legal name, and anyway, we wouldn't call the category List of MD's. So I'd say keep the caps how they are. --SPUI 01:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The difference is in the capitalization of collective nouns versus proper nouns. The correct form is Florida State Route 1 which is a proper noun. But the correct form is Florida state routes for the collective. Sortior 06:09, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
See my response in Virginia State Highways; this completely fails in some states. --SPUI 19:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Science and technology

Astronomy

Objects in the extrasolar system and subcategories

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Objects in the extrasolar system and subcategories.

Biology

Category:Fish by nationality

I made this category. Now changed to Category:Fish by region - a little more practical. Also I ended up with three Category:Australian freshwater fish in Ctaegory:Australian fish in my haste and irritance at my computers wiki-allergies. If this could be fixed, tah. --ZayZayEM 14:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Australian freshwater fish.
I didn't know fish had nationalities. Do they have citizenships too? 8-P ssd 07:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hunh. I'd like to see an Australian fresh-water fish try and make it to, say, the Mekong! :-) Noel (talk) 05:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know nothing about nationalities, but last christmas I almost choked to death with my carp's ID card. Halibutt
I don't see a problem with Category:Australian freshwater fish but I feel Category:Freshwater fish of Australia would be more in line with what I understand of naming conventions. Also prefer Category:Freshwater fish of North America to Category:Freshwater fish of the United States and Category:Freshwater fish of Canada. Pedant 23:51, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
I agree with Pedant as to naming conventions. Using XXXX fish is going to lead to Category:Indian fish, Category:German fish, etc. RedWolf 19:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Programming languages

Spelling and usage


Category:Pages containing IPA

Basically this category is a list of unrelated articles that have characters on the page that are using the International Phonetic Alphabet(IPA).. -- Sortior 00:05, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

The articles are related by the fact that they contain IPA in Unicode.Nohat 07:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
keep, listing this is purely idiotic. Alkivar 23:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What's next, Category:Pages containing Greek letters? Why not? And why is accidental relationship uninteresting? Nohat 20:13, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the goal was to categorize the topic of the article, not the technical components of the article. Wouldn't a more useful way of finding articles with IPA be to look at what links to the IPA article? There is nothing intrinsically IPA-related about many of these articles. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Categories are used for many purposes. There are lots of articles that link to the IPA article but don't include any IPA. This category contains only those pages that actually have IPA characters. Nohat 01:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
KEEP. There are also categories for stubs, and also a category for disambiguation pages. Two unrelated disambig pages (and similarly, stubs) falling in the same category would also be a similar case. -- Paddu
It's considered good (by some) to have e.g.:
  • a list of articles that are stubs, so that e.g.
    • someone willing to do research on the web/in a library/wherever & add content to stubs can easily find them.
    • someone forking/mirroring Wikipedia can remove these easily if he/she so decides.
    • etc.
  • a list of articles that are disambigs, so that e.g.
  • a list of articles that use special characters, so that e.g.
    • someone forking/mirroring Wikipedia can remove these characters if he/she wants to better support systems that can't render these.
    • someone who has just upgraded their browser/installed some fonts so as to be able to read more pages in Wikipedia can get a few test pages to see if the upgrade/install was successful in making more pages readable
    • etc. (I don't have enough time for an exhaustive list)
There might be better reasons to have these categories, of course.
In all such cases "Special:Whatlinkshere" of a template can be used, but that limits the no. of links displayed, and also, doesn't show dependencies across templates (e.g. subcategories) -- Paddu 13:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references#In the Template and Category Namespaces for more such examples. IMHO either all such categories and templates must be allowed, or all of them disallowed. DISCLAIMER: I've just been editing that page; the version before my edits is here -- Paddu 14:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Sports


Religion and philosophy


Category:Bible stories

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Bible stories. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Category:Advocacy

  • Three keep, eight delete. Category deleted. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Advocacy is a duplicate category already covered by Category:Activism. Also, please note that the author who created this category, fabricated a definition for advocacy that does not exist in any dictionary. --Viriditas 09:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • KEEP. (Viriditas desperately needs a link to a dictionary, but I've already wasted too much time on this lame joke.) HistoryBuffEr 10:37, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
From the Oxford English Dictionary: Advocacy - The function of an advocate; the work of advocating; pleading for or supporting. I think it's clear that you fabricated a definition for advocacy and duplicated the category for Activism so that you could remove pages you disagree with from that category and place them in a category where you associate them with propaganda. You've already done this with two articles, Hasbara and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and as usual, you did it without any discussion. You're not only pushing your POV again, but you are ignoring categories already setup to handle these pages, as well as inventing definitions out of thin air to support your weak argument for a new category that already duplicates an existing category (Activism) that contains advocacy groups. --Viriditas 11:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all three categories (Propaganda, activism and advocacy) and replace with a united list. These POV fights are the silliest around. Gady 14:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why do you want to delete the Activism category? In any case, advocacy groups are contained by the Activist cat. What cat would you replace them with? Even a list should be categorized. Can you explain? --Viriditas 19:33, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete--Josiah 02:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant and misleading. -Sean Curtin 02:39, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - make it a subcategory of C:Activism. It is distinct enough. Perhaps a new definition is in order. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Del - what's next, Category:Support? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, as this is just another one of HistoryBUffer's time-wasting ploys and it is not concerned with the welfare of honest scholarship on Wikipedia or elsewhere. How sad that we have to waste precious time on such drivel. IZAK 12:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another time-wasting POV fork. Jayjg 03:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 23:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • KeepCheeseDreams 01:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Wikipedia

Category:Main page

Decision: Delete.

We do not need a category containing categories linked to from the main page through the category browse bar. Brianjd 12:08, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

  • Keep I have no problem with this category. --ssd 13:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't see any use for this. All it does it creates confusing circular navigation possibilities like: Categories -> Main page -> Wikipedia -> Fundamental -> Categories. jni 13:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    I don't think its confusing, but I do think its useless. Brianjd 07:24, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC) (strike Brianjd 09:08, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC))
    Actually, I think that is a confusing, realistic possibility. Brianjd 09:08, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
  • Delete: useless. —msh210 18:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Tentative delete: what useful purpose does this category serve? I can't see any, so I would say delete—but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. —Tkinias 20:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not only is this category useless, it is also possibly inaccurate (it is easy to check, but that's not a good excuse). Duplication should be avoided wherever possible. Brianjd 08:31, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless it serves some unknown administrative function. It is an almost random collection of links that would require constant maintenance. (subsequently appended signature -Willmcw 22:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC))
    • Note: That was posted by Willmcw on December 24, 2004 at 07:42. Brianjd 06:31, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
      • Thanks for catching that -Willmcw 22:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You're right. I've just noticed that it is not getting that maintenance. Category:Religion was in the category but not on the browse bar. This appears to be a silly mistake, or perhaps the user forgetting about it after they realised they couldn't edit the browse bar. Category:History and Category:Technology were on the browse bar but not in the category. Both of these appear to be vandalism. These all took some time to be spotted. Brianjd 06:31, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
  • Cleared, ready for deletion. -- Netoholic @ 02:55, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Entertainment

Category:Cheech and Chong Movies

The consensus was to keep (3 to keep, 2 to delete). To follow proper naming conventions, the original category was deleted and a new category Category:Cheech and Chong films was created. RedWolf 20:15, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

malformed, best served by a list in cheech and chong. — Sortior 20:08, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

if we can do Ashley Simpson albums, and ARTIST NAME HERE albums, I dont see a problem with Cheech and Chong movies. Fix capitalization and keep. Alkivar 22:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's better to keep the movie categories general. -Willmcw 02:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well the main reason I created the category was because other movie series (Alien, Predator to name a few) had their own category, so why not Cheech & Chong; KEEP! --FarQPwnsJoo 12:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Cheech and Chong movies are more than just movies in which Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong performed, they are in fact their own genre. Pedant 23:03, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Silverchair, etc.

The consensus seemed to be to keep Category:Silverchair and Category:Silverchair_albums but delete Category:Silverchair members. The discussion has been moved to Category talk:Silverchair. RedWolf 21:43, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Lemon Jelly albums

There was no overwhelming consensus to delete so it has been kept. Discussion moved to Category talk:Lemon Jelly albums. RedWolf 22:41, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Misc

Category:Megatokyo

  • Just for the record, there seem not to be any webcomics with their own categories at the moment. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 20:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Webcomic related category. However, the webcomic in question is no where big enough to justify its own category. :: DarkLordSeth 23:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, and merge and redirect the two short articles on the comic's characters. -Sean Curtin 00:08, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 00:39, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: too small. RJFJR 02:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Megatokyo has been running for years; there are over fifty major and minor characters in the Megatokyo plotline, as well as numberous fictitous items and places. Almafeta 03:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's notable (for a webcomic), but we're not talking about the webcomic, we're talking about the category for articles relating to Megatokyo. Currently there are four such articles, two of which are nigh-impenetrable and assume that the reader already knows who these fictional characters are. -Sean Curtin 23:27, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Seven Sisters schools

Changes made per discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Women's colleges categories and list (no objections there after 2 weeks):

Sub-category was unhelpful and is no longer needed. Seven Sisters (colleges) and Template:Seven Sisters (used on all member pages) also provide ample coverage of this topic. —Bsktcase 21:54, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Category:Parental discretion advised

  • Didn't we just go over this elsewhere? There's too much room for POV issues and argument here - I won't rehash the arguments too much, you've heard them before... Dysprosia 09:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What arguments? Where... please give a link....
For example, see the failed proposal Wikipedia:Rating system. Other systems have been disucssed on the Village Pump at times, however, I don't think it'd be that necessary to trawl through the archives in this instance. Dysprosia 09:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Let's just add [[Category:Parental discretion advised]] to the standard Wikipedia page template and be done with it? Tverbeek 20:51, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Just delete it. We provide information. It's up to parents to try and restrict their children from reading it. We have no obligation to help, and no way to do so effectively because of the wide variety of moral judgments on this matter. Postdlf 23:31, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The only purpose it could serve would to be to direct interested to the juicy content. /Tuomas 10:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Here is the crux of the issue: as a parent, I would let my children read Britannica unsupervised, but not Wikipedia in its current state. Why? Because I don't want them reading articles on porn stars including their complete filmography, or detailed descriptions of perverse sexual acts. This attitude, while maybe not universal, is very common among parents in our society. I know there are no such things to be found in Britannica; I know for a fact that such articles exist in Wikipedia. Now, if the community would just decide to mark the Wikipedia articles which Britannica would not include as being un-family-friendly (and that is one reason why Britannica has made the commercial decision not to include articles on those topics), I could set up my web filter to block these articles, and this major disadvantage of Wikipedia v.s. Britannica would disappear; while those who insist on keeping their porn star articles can get their way too. --137.111.13.34 14:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • We could filter out all the evolution articles for your fundamentalist mindset, if you were so inclined... We could filter out all the weapons articles too... Afterall, some people consider violence worse than sex. We could filter out articles on magic, LotR, Harry Potter, hell, general fiction, for those inclined to think it corrupts minds. (Remember all those so-called "good Christians" heeing and hawing over Harry Potter promotion of witchcraft and satanism?). If there's an age filter setting, then it should be General, 6+ and 13+ (13 the traditional age of majority, also when people generally run at puberty, when historically, people started to go to war, when girls start being able to carry babies to full term, etc) 132.205.15.42 06:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We do need some facility to allow filtered viewing (at the least, removing some pages from appearing in "random page" results) but using a category is a crude mechanism, which is unlikely to help. Categories are for categorising content, not flagging it. zoney ♣ talk 14:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. This is a real issue, but not the solution. I'm also a parent and am very reluctant to let my kids near Wikipedia. Filiocht 14:36, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
As a parent, you should watch over their shoulders like a hawk whenever they get close to the internet, or what they watch on TV... 132.205.15.42 06:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, if this is not the solution, what is? Do nothing and pretend there is no problem, while children's minds are poisoned by filth, as usual, I suppose. --137.111.13.34 00:18, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Are they really being poisoned, or rather, are they experiencing what they should actually have experienced, had we still been living as hunter-gatherers? (I've sometimes wondered how peverted our minds are, by the artifices of civilization; afterall, adolescence as a state separate from young adult and as a category of childhood, is a fictional creation of the Victorians) 132.205.15.42 06:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Way too POV. I vote for filth. Gamaliel 00:43, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE, POV, and I'd rather not have some mullah decide that everything is to be banned. 132.205.15.42 06:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Category:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake victims

Frankly, because it is distasteful and already being abused. Clearly we will need to address the issue of listing enclycopedia-notable people who have been killed in this major disaster, and acknowledge the countless thousands we will never be able to list. But the blunderbus binary include or exclude nature of categories is not the right way to address such a current and sensitive issue. From a policy point of view, it violates the following from Wikipedia:Categorization of people:

Consider whether a list or other grouping technique would be more appropriate for very sensitive material (e.g. racial or religious categorizations of people)

From an abuse point of view, we have already seen inclusion of a film actor because he hurt his foot on floating furniture (!) and an ex-politician because he had to be evacuated by helicopter. Using a list article for this purpose would at least allow a definition of what a victim is, and some words to deal with the unknown thousands. -- Chris j wood 21:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: In poor taste: too soon and too many many thousands dead and orphaned to begin to single out for special mention only those notable who may have been killed, sustained injury or merely been there. Giano 21:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree. I concur that a list would be best and should include all victims. Sortior 22:02, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: For all the above reasons, and I don't believe that any sort of meaningful list will every be created: one line for Helmut Kohl being airlifted to safety and one line for 50,000 Acehnese fisherfolk believed dragged out to sea? BanyanTree 01:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Shmuel 21:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Edit Walter Simons 11:03 AM, Jan 02 2005 (UTC): Categorize the list in countries, and just write there, e.g. India: 100,000 victims, Malaysia: 200,000 victims, etc... Just make it a death toll, no names.
    • Could you clarify this vote please. The vote is for deleting a category, not an article, and I don't really understand how to achieve what you suggest in a category. -- Chris j wood 00:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the above. When 'victim' can be defined adequately and *every* victim can be listed then I'd agree, but otherwise to list a few and not the many is in poor taste and not meaningful. --Vamp:Willow 11:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have taken this as a clear consensus for deletion. The only dissension was not coherent, and did not respond to my request for clarification. -- Chris j wood 01:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Category:British misuse of drugs act

Decision: Renamed to Category:British Misuse of Drugs Act.

Category:Pro-Life

Used to categorize people ostensibly "who are against abortion and who are Pro-Life." Never mind the fact that abortion opponents are not singular regarding what exceptions or reasoning they may believe in, but categorizing individuals by their position on a single issue is simply inappropriate. Postdlf 02:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Delete with extreme prejudice. Neutrality/talk 02:19, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Unlike another contentious category, terrorists, Pro-life people call themselves as such and so I vote to leave the cat open. --Hooperbloob 02:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Rick Block 02:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP Perfectly legitimate category. I think some people's personal beliefs are getting in the way of logical thinking. Categories are all single issues. I mean, since the Category: People from New York is one issue, should it also be deleted? People who play guitar? Murderers? If there are people who identify themselves as being for or against something and they have made statements or done things to make this known then they should be allowed to be in a category. FroggyMoore 03:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Whether or not someone is from New York is not an opinion that individual holds. And my personal beliefs are not the issue. I don't want to see a category for pro-choice individuals either. Postdlf 05:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: misnamed - shouldn't it be something like "Pro-life supporters" instead of just "Pro-Life"? --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with FroggyMoore in that some folks are finding it hard to drop their POVs--Hooperbloob 05:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether the category be kept or not, the term "pro-life" is not NPOV. Dysprosia 05:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Cat name is very much not NPOV; if such a cat is necessary it should be Category:Abortion opponents or Category:Opponents of abortion. The term pro-life is not in any way neutral; its very use implies an acceptance of the ideology's tenets. (Note that I also objected to Category:National liberation movements on the same grounds; the name, although that's what they may call themselves, makes a judgement in the group's favour.) —Tkinias 06:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Reorganize In looking at the general issue we currently have Category:Political advocacy groups in the U.S. but within it we have a similar problem: Category:White supremacist groups in the U.S. How would the NAACP article fit in relation to that cat? Create a counter-cat? I'd suggest we reorganize it as follows:
  Advocacy groups
    Advocacy groups by issue
      Abortion
      Race relations
      Gun control
      etc..

Listing the topic as opposed to the names of the groups themselves might be an easier way to go --Hooperbloob 17:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Jxg 21:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rename - Bad category. For one, despite its widespread use, it's part of the whole political doublespeak, and thus, POV. If you interpret the term literally it should only include people who are opposed to abortion and the death penalty. And hey, I'm opposed to both, even though I believe in preserving a woman's right to choose (since I believe that it is none of my business). Secondly, categorising people on the basis on their political views seems rather strange - do we have categories Republican (American), Democratic (American), Independent (American)? Or worse yet, "Pro-Germ Theory of Disease" (or Pro-Wearing Clothes of More than one Fibre" vs. "Biblical Literalist"? "Anti-Abortion Activist" (or, if you must give in to the doublespeak, "Pro-Life Activist") might be a valid category. Guettarda 23:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Either DELETE because it is POV (using the term Pro-Life is inherently POV), or rename to Anti-abortion activists. Quite a few suppposedly Pro-Life people support the death penalty, so they are categorically *not* Pro-Life, and are just hypocrites. Ofcourse there are also the vegan animal rights extremists who question the use of pro-life term, when so many of the pro-lifers eat meat, and don't give a damn about non-human life. Atleast the Pro-Choice people are honest in saying what they are, when they label themselves. 132.205.15.43 23:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
By this argument, the Pro-Choice label is completely meaningless. Do "Pro-Choice" people support the right of any person to make any choice? For example to choose to speed, committ fraud, marry their sister, or muder their child? Of course not. Would you say that their failure to support "choice" under all circumstances makes them hypocrites? Johntex 20:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wonder if there's a pro-abortion category for China and Japan, where abortion is a favoured means of birth control (especially in Japan, where the Pill is banned).
  • Delete. If this is to be kept, then the category "Terrorists" must be renamed to "Freedom fighters". The term "Pro-life" is biased and subjective. Some argue that it should be kept, as the anti-abortion activists refer to themselves as "pro-life". However, using the same argument, you could say Al-Quaida don't refer to themselves as "terrorists", thus they should be put in "freedom fighters" category. The same goes for most every terrorist organization in the world. A violent criminal is not referred to as "innocent", even if this is what he claims to be for himself. The whole point is; that if we are to be objective, we cannot give anyone the priveledge of naming themselves this way, no matter what our subjective opinions are. This cannot be stressed enough. TVPR 12:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
When it comes to controversial topics, terminology is inherently subjective. The only way in these cases to preserve a neutral POV is to make sure opposing sides are equally represented. In the case of Al-Qaida, there's no reason why the organization couldn't be classified under multiple categories, "terrorists" AND "freedom fighters". Likewise with the abortion issue, the neutral way would be to include proponents of each view under multiple categories, the ones described by themselves, and the ones described by opponents. --MPerel 23:10, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
In reality, I agree with you, but this would make things a tad too complicated. But you are correct, naturally; there is no way in which we can name any group in a neutral way. The closest would be Category:Pro-Life -> Category:Anti-abortion activists, and Terrorist groups -> Non-governmental semi-military activist groups. This won't work either. So I'm at a loss. I still think "pro-life" gives a false connotation, seeing as many anti-abortion activists both eat meat and warmly support the death penalty - hardly pro-life, or even pro-human-life. My view is that the most correct, least biased way would still be classifying pro-life in particular, and everything else in general, in the most NPOV way possible. Pro-choice, for instance, would be Pro-abortion activists, as "pro-choice" also is a connotative phrasing. Okay, I'm rambling, so: whenever possible, use least biased title. Any group of people called "pro-x" where x has clearly positive or negative connotations should be promptly renamed. Any with the word "terror", "liberty" etc. should also be renamed, as these are very emotionally laden words. The page Terrorism should naturally remain, as it serves to give the word a definition without pointing out particular groups, while on the other hand, the pages Terrorist groups and Freedom fighter groups (should this ever appear) should both contain only a link to a page with a more correct, less POV name in which both lists could be merged. --TVPR 08:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would not find "Pro-abortion activists" an appropriate NPOV term to substitute for "Pro-Choice". Many pro-choice advocates, including moi, are not "pro" abortion, and actually find it an abhorent choice, but support the autonomy of women facing such a situation to make reproductive decisions about their own bodies rather than having governments deciding for them. As for the hypocrisy of the term "pro-life", I agree, however the two movements identify themselves as the "pro-life" movement and the "pro-choice" movement, and each has its advocates. NPOV doesn't necessarily mean everyone agrees with how a movement identifies itself. For example, does everyone believe members of Hizbullah really belong to "the" party of God? --MPerel 04:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
How about "Pro-Choice" -> "Abortion access activists" ? 132.205.15.43 05:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I didn't nominate this for deletion because it used the designation of "pro-life" for abortion opponents. I listed it because it tries to classify people by their position on abortion. I really don't care what terminology is used—categorizing by opinions on specific issues should be per se invalid. Categorize instead people notable for being anti-abortion or reproductive rights activists. Or make a list article, and annotate the source of the alleged position ("Britney Spears said in a Rolling Stone interview that abortion was 'wrong'") and the substance of their position ("...but agrees there should be exceptions for cases of rape and incest.") Please keep the discussion on this point, and then if the wrong decision is made to keep this type of classification, then talk about terminology, and about what kind of meaningful limiting principle would then keep individuals from being categorized by every conceiveable specific opinion. Postdlf 00:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, I didn't realize until after taking a closer look that the items in this category are all people. I disagree though with your statement that "categorizing by opinions on specific issues should be per se invalid". I think if public figures publicly identify themselves as supporters of particular movements, in this case the pro-life movement, there's nothing wrong with categorizing them as such. Since the items in this category are all people, however, I do think it would be appropriate to rename the category "Pro-Life Advocates" and that there should also be a "Pro-Choice Advocates" category. Supporters aren't necessarily "activists" though, so "advocates" or "supporters" probably better describes their status. There are lists out there of advocates of each of these movements: Pro-Life Supporters, Pro-Choice Supporters.

--MPerel 04:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Just because that's what people label themselves as doesn't mean it's an NPOV position. So... if we rename Pro-Life to Category:Anti-abortion advocates and Pro-Choice to Category:Abortion access advocates, as this is in fact what they are all about, access to abortion, versus no abortion, wouldn't that make it NPOV? Notice that categories about Conservatives and Liberals have been deleted because of the POVness of it. There should probably be a Category:Pro-abortion advocates, since some people are pro-abortion as a means of population control (no choice, government edict instead). 132.205.15.43 00:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I agree with Postdif that this kind of categorization is not encyclopedic. DCEdwards1966 00:36, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: A list of people who advocate a certain position is useful, so long as opposite sides of the issue are given exposure, and so long as it is kept NPOV. On the subject of the name itself, both the "Pro-Life" movement and the "Pro-Choice" movement identify themselves, and often each other with these terms. Sure, they have chosen names partly for their positive connotation. You don't see very many people identify themselves as "Anti-Choice" or "Anti-Life". That does not mean that use of the commonly accepted names is POV. Johntex 20:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: both a self-identification and in widespread use in the media and public discourse. And I hate to have to mention this, but I don't think Life should be capitalized here (or choice in a parallel)... Samaritan
    • COMMENT: Anti-Abortion is also a term in widespread use in the media and public discourse. 132.205.15.43 03:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't think we need categories for every opinion, and if we do it should be called "for the right to abortion" and "against the right to abortion" or something. &#0xfeff; --fvw* 03:38, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree we don't need categories for every opinion. I'd be OK with Category:Anti-abortion activists for people who've invested time and energy on that side of the issue, as opposed to merely expressing a position when asked by a reporter. JamesMLane 19:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. But a list of notable advocates of this position would be fine. Gdr 12:23, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. It seems to me that allegations that those in favor of deletion can't drop their POV is unfounded. In addition to being quite poorly named, this category inherently obfuscates what it intends to categorize. The dichotomy Pro-Choice/Pro-Life is a false one if it is not enumerated and explained, for the issue has many nuances and distinct points of view. A category of abortion activists that subcategorizes with these different views would be perhaps acceptable, but it would be hard to do so without muddying and oversimplifying views. It's the insistence on polar opposition in this issue that makes progress, and even actual discussion, so incredibly hard. IMHO, that's not something in which Wikipedia should be engaging. Timbo 02:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Also, if anyone attempts to rename/recategorize it, he/she should definitely take into account the concerns expressed by Timbo.
  • Strongly keep Pro-life is a core value that goes beyond issues like abortion and euthanasia. It also includes things like respect for the individual, the healing arts, food supply issues, war and peace issues and more. Calling it simply anti-abortion, is simplistic POV spin-doctoring, even to the point of being somewhat pejorative. Pollinator 04:08, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • That would be great if it were that simple. How exactly are we defining Pro-Life? It's a term that has been so politicized that it has little meaning. As has been said above (I think) there are certainly plenty of anti-abortion, pro-death penalty people who describe themselves as pro-life. I know people who are anti-death penalty and pro-choice; they consider themselves pro-life in the sense that they think that human lives should be preserved, although they think abortion does not equal the killing of human lives. So if we want to make a category that describes advocates of the pro-life definition you describe (and not the simplistic and often inconsistent definition commonly bandied about in the media), then Pro-Life is a decidedly inadequate category name. Timbo 03:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Fortune Global 500

Wikipedia:Categorization says that an article shouldn't belong to a category unless it is self-evident, belonging to some Fortune list isn't. Using a fortune list isn't NPOV for categorization. The category members have to be updated annually, which doesn't sound like a good idea for a Wikipedia category. Information like this is better suited in a list or in Wikisource. RustyCale 12:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that it isn't NPOV as it's a well known list based on an objective criteria, not a qualitative judgement. But I agree that it should be deleted as it cannot be relied upon that companies which cease to be in the Fortune 500 will be removed annually. Philip 13:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you that the Fortune list itself is NPOV, however I don't think using it for categorization on Wikipedia is. Why? Because there are other lists out there like Forbes or S&P that uses different calculations. Since everyone has got their own favorite list and it would be against the purpose of categorization to use every list out there I don't think it's neutral to pick one and ban all others. RustyCale 21:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There are only 2 globally famous ones, and they are prepared on different bases. They would both make legitimate categories if it could be relied upon that they could be kept up to date. Anyway, I am agreeing that the category should be deleted, so it hardly matters. Philip 11:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. We should categorize according to attributes that aren't subject to change. Category:Fortune Global 500 as of 2004 would be a more legitimate category since it isn't subject to change, but obviously lists are better for this kind of thing. Gdr 11:28, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

  • Delete. That type of material is better handled in a list. -Willmcw 22:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:New Jersey Highways

Moved a few rogue entries to the more correct Category:New Jersey state highways. This was used by lion's share of the articles and is more correctly formed. —Sortior 03:11, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • delete with comments - Looks like it was the three named highways that were moved. These have secret numbers that redirect to them (except for 700, which should probably be merged with NJTP, which I may do at some point). However, something like New Jersey roads or the to-be-deleted New Jersey highways (though this one should be deleted, since it's capitalized) might be useful, since not all important roads in NJ are state highways (example: Kennedy Boulevard). Personally I'd recommend a treatment like I'm doing for Florida State Roads - not having a category at all, except for the named state roads. That way, the big number listing will include the secret numbers, while the main article remains the more common name. As a replacement for the category text at the bottom of each article is Template:flsr. I may do this at some point, if I get bored or finish with Florida. --SPUI 21:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • A related issue is how to name county roads. I've been using Foo County, State Road XXX in my Florida stuff. List of New Jersey state highways uses Foo County, State, County Highway XXX. There are three issues - whether to repeat County, whether to use Road, Route, or Highway, and whether to use a second comma. In Florida, Road is always used (as for state roads). In New Jersey, I'm not sure. That part should probably be on a statewide and maybe sometimes countywide basis. As for repeating County, I feel it's somewhat redundant and simply makes it take longer to write an article. As for a second comma, it just seems out-of-place to me. Someone please move this discussion somewhere better; I'm not sure where. --SPUI 21:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Do the numbers repeat from county to county, so that there may be a Foo County Highway 7 and a Boo County Highway 7 in the same state? How about [[Foo County Highway 7 (state)]]? Postdlf 04:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, in almost every state. Those that don't repeat, or have two systems, one that repeats by county and one that doesn't (like New Jersey's 5XX system) could use say New Jersey County Highway 583. The (state) syntax might work, though I still think Foo County, State Road XXX is clearer as to the intent - especially for stuff like Washington County Road 375 (Florida). That could be interpreted as a Washington County in Florida or a Florida County in Washington. --SPUI 06:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Virginia State Highways

There was 1 entry in this malformed category, so I created Category:Virginia state highways. I orphaned the malfomation. — Sortior 00:22, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

At least in Florida, the State Roads are always referred to as 'State Road XX', with capital letters. I wish I had more info on Virginia - current stuff calls them 'Route XX', but the same is true in New Jersey while the original shields said State Highway XX. Bah, I need more info. --SPUI 01:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think the idea behind the naming is 'state highways' in general, not as a proper noun. —Mike 02:39, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
This unfortunately doesn't work in every state. For example, in Massachusetts, there are many state-maintained roads that have no numbers, and many locally maintained roads that have State Highway numbers. The state-maintained roads are state highways but not State Highways. --SPUI 19:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can you provide any evidence that unnumbered roads in Massachusetts are considered state highways? A state-maintained road is not necessarily the same as a state highway. I don't see that this is a cause for confusion. older≠wiser 20:11, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
MassHighway uses "STATE HIGHWAY ENDS" and "STATE HIGHWAY BEGINS" signs to mark state-maintained roads, not numbered roads. See [6] and [7] (under the park map near the bottom) for evidence. Now that I think of it, I'm not so sure that the numbered routes are called State Highways at all; the official site uses State Route, as does common parlance (though usually dropping the 'state'). --SPUI 20:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes it is easier for folks to get around if the category is the same for all the states. The articles can make it clear that they are called State Routes. The route itself is a proper noun by the way, but the collective is not... so Florida State Route 1 is correct, but it is Florida state routes. Sortior 05:12, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
See my response to Mike above. --SPUI 19:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
While an individual road may need to be capitalized the collective is not. In no state should the category be State State Higways or Routes,... the category should be lower case, the individual roads may be capitilized. Since this is a collective category, and not a proper noun it should follow standard wikipedia naming and thus be Virginia state highways. For ease of use for casual users, I would propose that it be a standard category for all states, then within the category, there can be an article describing the individual state's naming. So in Florida, the main article can say that they are called Routes, and give history etc... Sortior 20:28, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
Eh, I don't understand it, but I don't really care about the category anyway. I assumed that this was being done in conjunction with a changing of all the separate articles. However, calling the categories 'foo state highways' fails on account of Massachusetts (see above). --SPUI 20:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
By the way, a similar question is whether Interstate and US routes should be in these categories. On the one hand, they're assigned and numbered with federal approval. On the other hand, they are maintained (usually) and signed by the state. In many states, common parlance makes no distinction between different types of road. --SPUI 20:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No this is just for the category. The articles should stay "as is" most if not all should be capitalized. As to Interstates and US Highways, they go into a seperate categories. Then everything gets parented to Tranportation in STATE. Sortior 22:48, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I had forgotten about the Interstates in Foo and U.S. Highways in Foo categories. --SPUI 00:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Autobiography (album)

Creating a category solely for a general pop album isn't a good idea. Lots of pop albums are released every year that don't make an impact on society and solely exist just for the music industry to make money. 0987 03:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but be warned - this album has recently been the subject of a major edit war... removing the category might start it up again! Call my tastes old-fashioned if you like, but the fact that the album's article is 25% longer than the one for "Sgt. Pepper's..." should be warning enough that there are some pretty obsessive fans of it out there. Grutness|hello? 04:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree too, an entirely unnecessary category. Worldtraveller 05:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, or at least rename to Category:Ashlee Simpson. If anyone ever has any luck getting Everyking to 'allow' other users to trim the Autobiography article, congratuations. -Sean Curtin 05:47, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the articles about Ashlee Simpson are too long and plentiful (I put two of them on VfD), but you have to admit, there are (unfortunately) enough articles to support a category. Most of them shouldn't exist, but until someone can subdue Everyking, here we are. (Also, I added line breaks between the individual comments here; I hope no one minds.) —tregoweth 23:11, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: this category is inane and pointless. The articles in it should be moved to Category:Ashlee Simpson. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 00:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This category is a bad idea even in theory. Not only should there not be a category for an individual album, certainly not for an album this bad. Yuk! Arminius on Vacation 00:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just stupid. Make an Ashlee Simpson category if you absolutely have to, but for god's sake, do we need individual categories for individual albums? [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 00:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neutralitytalk 01:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - if we could cut down on the pointless expansion of this article into subarticles, we wouldn't need the category at all. Adam Bishop 01:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete and move articles to Category:Ashlee Simpson - although given the work Everyking spends on that, maybe an Ashlee-Simpson-Wiki might be more appropriate. -- AlexR 01:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete and merge articles with Ashlee Simpson albums not Ashlee Simpson (since its album related). User:Alkivar/sig 01:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete and merge into Category:Ashlee Simpson, as said above. - Vague | Rant 06:08, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, recategorize articles to Category:Ashlee Simpson, Category:Ashlee Simpson albums, and Category:Ashlee Simpson songs. Dbenbenn 15:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I didn't create this category, but I believe it's useful and should stay. Everyking 16:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • uh-oh...
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/resolved&oldid=10055637"