Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

[[:|WP:CFD]]

Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day. Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. While all categories listed here should be emptied and orphaned, this can't always be done for large categories.

Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page.
Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
If the category has more than a few items, edit it and add the template {{cfd}}

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

August 15

August 14

1961,2,3 comics

Category:1961 comics, Category:1962 comics, and Category:1963 comics have been merged into Category:1960s comics, since they only had one item each and I don't think they would have expanded much. If they do, they can be re-created. -- Beland 03:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. Either keep the individual categories, or delete them and also delete Category:1960s comics. As far as I can tell, the idea of the original categories was to group comics by the initial year of publication, like the Category:Films by year subcategories. -Sean Curtin 05:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Legislatures

Redunant with Category:Deliberative bodies. Not that I like the new name much. -- Beland 06:11, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I prefer Legislatures. Deliberative bodies doesn't seem to mean the same thing at all, but seems almost...deliberately vague. If anything, delete that and move the articles back to Legislatures. Postdlf 06:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Postdlf's idea sounds good to me. -- Beland 03:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've cleared Category:Deliberative bodies and deleted it. In the proces, I reorganized Category:Legislatures a little bit. Items that were already link deeper in the tree (through Category:National legislatures or a child thereof) I did not link back inthe Category:Legislatures. Some other items I linked into one of the national subcategories. - UtherSRG 16:22, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Pennsylvania

Ain't no such animal. All the articles listed were in fact census-designated places, and the only municipalities in Pennsylvania are cities, boroughs, and townships, which each have separate categories. I have moved all the articles that were grouped under this to Category:Unincorporated communities in Pennsylvania, a process I have started in some other state categories as well after researching whether a bot-labelled "town" was in fact a CDP or something else. (Check out this site to see for yourself how even the most obscure communities should be classified in any state; the lack of a designation after the community name indicates a city.) Postdlf 02:12, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I stand corrected. There is one incorporated town in the whole state. Now to figure out what the hell to do with it... Postdlf 17:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Town in Pennsylvania? :) -- Cyrius|✎ 20:00, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 13

Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people

So right after we got rid of Category:Gay people, this popped up. I'm not going to restate the reasons as to why this should be deleted—see discussion below under both Category:Gay people and Category:African Americans. I will give one illustration of another reason why this category is so problematic...I noticed Marlon Brando was included. Not only have I never in my life heard anything about his homosexuality, but the article itself includes no such information (it doesn't even give a description of the one movie I know of in which he played a gay character). Despite the category author's attempt to limit the criteria for inclusion, it appears that this will just be another rumor dumping ground. But see especially the reasons given below. Postdlf 16:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying we should get rid of List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people? This category is almost identical to the list of "confirmed" gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. If someone is miscategorized, it's because someone incorrectly listed the person. Guan aco 18:51, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No. Lists are definitely less problematic than categories. Lists can explain the rationale for inclusion (i.e., self-identification), while categories are unannotated and can't offer support or explanation for inclusion. Furthermore, lists don't function to brand the subject like a category does. Categories classify. We shouldn't be classifying people by their sexuality (or race), however proper it may be to list who has self-identified themselves a certain way. Postdlf 19:31, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categories link to the individual articles which do explain why they are categorized in a certain way. Most of the listings at List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people have no explanation beyond "American painter" or "actress, bisexual". This category is no worse than the list. Guan aco 19:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If the list is broken, then fix the list. The category is not needed. - UtherSRG 19:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The same argument could be used to delete all categories. Do you think we should do that? Guan aco 20:07, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Most categories are purely objective—it's rather clear who was or wasn't a U.S. Senator or whether something is a city in Ohio, and these are the most banal and uncontroversial ways of categorizing something or someone. Valid categories may have boundary issues as to who gets included, but when there are distinct policy concerns over such a category, as have been expressed on this page numerous times, then it is better not to have it and to include the information in article-form where it can be qualified and contextualized. Postdlf 20:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that a list like this can be problematic, but I don't think that is necessarily reason to delete it. It is more a reason to keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. I do think, however, that a category like this is more likely to be vandalized than, say, a category of baseball players. This isn't due to an inherent property of the categories in question, but due to people's immaturity, which again isn't a good reason to delete the category - we shouldn't give in to the immature whims of vandals. I also, as a gay person, don't think it is necessarily wrong or offensive, as stated below on this page, to classify people based on their sexuality. There can be good reasons for doing so. A category like this can be helpful to anyone researching gay history, social identity, gay and gender issues, queer studies, and so on. The reason a category like Category: Straight people isn't necessary, and the reason the existence of a category like the one being discussed here doesn't warrant one, is because in our society heterosexuality is the presumed default. Putting self-identified gay people (the category shouldn't be used to try to out people) in a category like this helps to identify them to those who are interested. -Seth Mahoney 20:20, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

We classify people all the time, but whenever Wikipedia touches anything gay with a 10 foot stick it gets listed for deletion. There is no reason that we can't classify people by one category if we categorize them by any. Classifications only become non-neutral when they are false (I am of course discounting here the fact that, for example, we would use "Category:People who like pie" rather than "Category:People who are dumb enough to like pie"). Hyacinth 20:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree 100%. For the record, I vote keep. Another option is to keep this category but with no articles, only subcategories like Category:Gay activists, Category:Gay philosophers, Category:Gay historians, etc., and fill those categories with articles. -Seth Mahoney 20:52, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

If their sexuality is a (significant?) part of their notoriety then I agree, but categorizing for categorizing's sake is not valid. Noting their sexuality in the article, and listing why in the full list suffices for the resst. And then those categories should go in Category:LGBT. - UtherSRG 22:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In case anyone is thinking that I'm some kind of jerk homophobe: I may be a jerk, but I'm an out bi man. - UtherSRG 23:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you're a jerk homophobe just because we don't so much agree. I'm more ambivalent about this category than I let on, but ultimately I think we should keep it. I also totally agree with what you said above, and there are many philosophers, filmmakers, writers, poets, and so on whose work is clearly and definately affected by their being gay. The reason I propose the subcategory idea is because there are fields of study in, say, queer literature and gay history. Hell, in some colleges you can major in queer studies, which covers all that and more. Basically, the idea is that if we subcategorize rigorously it will be obvious that we aren't just categorizing for the sake of categorizing. -Seth Mahoney 23:58, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Delete - hello? We just got rid of Category:Gay people for a reason. Are we now going to be categorising Category:Fat people? Or Category:Black people? Or Category:People who stand out. This is ridiculous. As said before, the list is sufficient - it shows a clearly defined list of people who identify as gay and are also famous, and those who are speculated as such. Not only is it offensive, but Category: Gay, lesbian and bisexual people is far too vague. -Erolos 23:19, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Fat people" has no standard definition. "Black people" has a different meaning in different places. And "people who stand out" is just POV nonsense. If the name of the category is the problem, it can easily be renamed. Guan aco 23:30, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No the name is not the problem. The category is the problem. Gay is POV nonsense, then. People's sexuality cannot always be defined, in case you didn't know. It's a completely POV and no-encyclopedia-relevence category.-Erolos 23:33, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My sexuality is very easily defined, as are many of the people who would be categorized. Thanks. Hyacinth 23:45, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good for you. Some people's sexuality isn't. Those who sexuality is defined - who are famous and have publicly announced or let it be known what sexuality they are - are clearly listed with those notes in the List. The category is irrelevent. -Erolos 23:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All things on wikipedia are hard to prove, most are vague. They just aren't gay, so they don't get listed for deletion. Hyacinth 23:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why does it make a difference if it is in a category or a list? They are both equally managable, they serve pretty much the same purpose, they have pretty much the same titles. The only difference is that categories give the reader more access. -Seth Mahoney 23:58, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a difference. The list stands alone and can have a rationalization for why the person is included in the list, right at their name. The category method puts the label at the top/bottom of the article, without any explanation. Any explanation would have to be in te article, but would not be able to be included in the category's page, which become the replacement for the list. - UtherSRG 01:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that a list gives editors (like me) an excuse to not bother rationalizing the inclusion in the main article itself. Categories (all categories) should be rationalized in the article, or we should expect that someone will come along and remove the category tag in question. For example, if I add someone to Category:Painters the article should already have some mention of the new member's status as a painter, or I should add it. Same with Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Just wondering, is your main issue with people being added to the list who aren't clearly gay, lesbian, or bisexual? -Seth Mahoney 01:59, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

After considering it for all the three seconds it took my edit to save, it seems to me that it is also better to have the article in a category than on a list, because that way it is more obvious to every reader of the article that it is included in a list, and thus the inclusion is more open for debate. Consider: scroll to the bottom of the page and look at the categories, or scroll through the sometimes several pages of "what links here" articles. -Seth Mahoney 02:02, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Why should you force a person to care about the characteristic of a person that's not significant enough to warrant mention in the primary article itself? Aris Katsaris 03:11, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I never said anything about forcing anyone to do anything. What I said was that we shouldn't include people in Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people when it isn't listed in the article, or we should edit the article so that an explanation is included before categorization. In other words, for the people it would be appropriate to include in this category, their sexuality does warrant mention in the article. -Seth Mahoney 07:54, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

If a person's sexuality is not easily defined, the person won't be listed as "gay, lesbian or bisexual". It's very simple and NPOV. If we were to list and/or categorize Adolf Hitler as gay, that would be biased. He could, however, be in a "People of questioned sexual orientation" or similar category. You have not given any reason why the category is inherently POV except that "gay is POV nonsense". Guan aco 00:01, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) (3 edit conflicts)

This category is inherently POV because nobody has proposed creating a category of "Straight People", it therefore is used as a sort of "beacon" where gayness is signified as categorizing a person but straightness not so. It's also inherently POV because it groups bisexuals alongside gay people. It's also rude because it categorizes people by something belonging in their *personal sphere* and therefore it would be like having a "Presumably virgin people" or "People that have claimed participation in orgies" categories: it reduces Wikipedia to the kind of gossip that only tabloid rags care about. Categorizing a person by the career that made him famous is one thing, categorizing him by his personal life seems quite another. If there was a category about "Gay-rights activists" or something like that, meaning the ones who've made it part of their lives to strive for gay rights, that'd be a different thing: because then you'd be moving to the political sphere of the issue, not just the gossipy sphere.Aris Katsaris 03:11, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is not a POV category, inherently or otherwise, because being gay, unlike being straight, places the gay person in a cultural minority, by default in a subculture. It is no more POV than a category of any other subculture would be. Further, as far as it becoming a rumor mill goes, we've already covered that above. -Seth Mahoney 07:54, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

The basic objections are:

It is to hard to figure out if people are gay
- Thus the list is hard to create and make accurate
It is not neutral to point out that people are gay
- Because being called gay is insulting, and thus non-neutral
- Because gay doesn't mean anything/Because no one really is gay

Am I close or way off here? Hyacinth 00:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The distinctions of a list versus a category. Whether someones sexuality is a part of their notoriety, or just another facet of their being. - UtherSRG 01:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Please reread the comments above (and below) on why categories are different than lists, particularly in the context of an individual's race or sexual orientation. It is very different to describe a supposed trait of someone than to classify them by that trait. Articles explain and describe. Categories merely classify. Postdlf 02:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This cuts to the heart of it: lists are pseudo-articles, but categories are meta-text inserted into articles. I vote to merge and delete, for reasons noted in the other discussion. If a self-avowed heterosexual is revealed to have had one or more same-sex sexual experiences, do we add this category to their article despite their not being gay or bi? If we add the person to the list, we can explain in the list that they self-identified as heterosexual despite their apparent bisexuality. A category isn't equipped to do that; it can only flag a person up as belonging to that category or people. Disputes like this are why lists and categories need to remain separate sorting systems. -Sean Curtin 05:36, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Definitely delete --- there's no category called "Straight people", and therefore there should be no category called "Gay People" and definitely no category that says "Gay and bisexual" as if the categories belong together more than "Bisexual and straight" people do. Categories impose themselves upon the articles in a way that lists do not. If a list uses a trivial criterion then nobody minds because no one will care to read the list either way --- but a category *imposes* itself on the article in an intrusive rude way that says "This is one of the most important things you should know about the person in question". *NO*. The presence of such a category is offensive. DELETE. Aris Katsaris 02:58, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you think we should have a list of straight people? I believe "list of heterosexuals" or something similar was deleted on VfD a while back. Guan aco 03:43, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. The category is too broad to be meaningful, and it could attract attention to a person for the wrong reason. For instance Bjorn Lomborg happens to be gay but he is known for is environmental views, not for his sexual orientation. : Vincent 06:27, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why should being gay be "the wrong reason"? What if, for example, someone is researching gay people with particular environmental views? Its perfectly plausable, and something that including a category for gay people would facilitate. And how is this category more broad than, say, Category:1949 books? Or, say, Category:Culture? -Seth Mahoney 07:49, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

It's the difference between causal and accidental co-incidence. To expand my example, Bjorn Lomborg's sexual orientation has nothing to do with his environmental views. BL's homosexuality is as relevant to the world as my brother-in-law's and my brother-in-law Claude is not famous. On the other hand, BL's environmental views are well known and influence the world more than do Claude's (or mine for that matter). Therefore BL is included in Wikipedia on the strength of his environmental, which matter to the world, and not on the strength of his gayness, which does not matter to the world any more than does Claude's, or than does my own heterosexuality. In Lomborg, there is only an accidental relationship between his sexual orientation and his environmental views, not a causal one.

On the other hand, you could have a category that links two apparently accidental attributes. For example, the British mathematician and computer theorist Alan Turing could be included in a category called "notable people persecuted for being gay" because he lost his government post and his security clearance when his sexual orientation became known. In contrast, Lomborg lives in a time and place that views sexual orientation as irrelevant to one's professional qualification, and Alan Turing did not. In this case Alan Turing's sexual orientation contributed to his fame because it is, justifiably, a cause celebre for gay activism. Vincent 08:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right, but you still haven't answered my main question: why is looking up someone for being gay the wrong reason to look them up? It may not be obviously connected to the main reason for the person's celebrity, but who are we to judge the way people may or may not want to look up their information? We are, on the other hand, people who should be facilitating every reasonable route we can, and it is perfectly reasonable to believe that someone will come along, click on Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people and browse the list, maybe learning something new in the process. I have heard no real reason, other than a POV against categorizing people as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, for preventing this sort of browsing. For the record, the BL article states that he is openly gay under a section titled "Trivia" - how is this fundamentally different from a link on the bottom of the page saying "Gay, lesbian or bisexual people" - its not justified, its just text included in the article, and people can still find the article on an environmentalist who happens to be gay through that text. -Seth Mahoney 20:19, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I'm happy with a category that is something to do with gay topics, but this one is too much of a mixed bag. Even then it should only be used on articles where that person is predominantly connect with gay issues, not just because they happen to be gay. If you add too many parenthetical categories to an article, they stop being useful. -- Solipsist 07:32, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Useful information people will want to have. We only need list uncontroversial cases, as we do now. V V 22:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 12

Category:Towns in Florida

~~Replaced with Category:Cities in Florida, to match the naming style of the other states' categories. Tregoweth 00:52, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)~~

Why would you categorize communities as cities that weren't in fact cities? "City" isn't a generic term for a community, but refers to a particular kind of incorporated municipality. If you look at the other state categories, they are divided by what kind of municipality they are—cities are classified as cities, villages as villages, etc. The only issue with "town" is whether it refers to an unincorporated census-designated place or an actual legally organized "town". But until those articles are actually researched further beyond the bot-derived content to determine what they actually are, they certainly shouldn't all be lumped together as cities. Postdlf 03:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK, I removed all the articles from the category that weren't actually cities. I did not yet recategorize them under "Towns", however; those articles are currently just grouped by county. What needs to be done is to research what those communities in fact are—does Florida have a "town" municipal form of government, or are those all just unincorporated CDPs? One option is to categorize them as towns until they can each be individually researched, because that is what the articles currently say they are. But they shouldn't just all be lumped into a cities category without regard to whether they are in fact such a thing. Postdlf 04:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I withdraw my request. I've de-orphaned Category:Towns in Florida, for the eventual sorting out of cities, towns, and communities in Florida. [[1]] lists how each community is organized. Since I know the area, I reorganized Hillsborough County's three cities, zero towns, and many communities into appropriate subcats, and modified each article (mostly changing "town" to "community"), and will probably do the same for other counties that I'm familiar with. Though with the above list from Florida's State Department, anyone with the patience and a faster connection than I have can make the changes. Tregoweth 18:07, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Category:African Americans

This is to delete the category tags of all articles about individuals from this category, not the category as such, which I think we need to do something else with. There are articles and subcategories that are appropriately placed under this: these include List of African Americans, List of African-American-related topics, African Americans in the United States Congress, Category:Historically black universities and colleges in the U.S., and Category:African American culture. The reasons why individuals should not be categorized as African Americans, however, have been discussed elsewhere and I will now summarize:

It is offensive to classify people by sexual orientation, race, or religion, and POV to think that people should or can be classified in such a way. People are not reduceable to their race, and the very lack of a Category:Caucasian Americans means that Category:African Americans is inherently POV in their construction. It is made with the implication that they are different from the norm or the default, which is the (white) state of not needing a classification. All others are instead classified based on how they differ from that norm. This should stop.
Inclusion in this categories is largely a matter of self-identification—what of multiracial people? Or worse, old racist cultural constructs—"if you have one drop of black blood in you, you're black." Race is an actual concept, but not an objective group in terms of membership.
Lists are less problematic than categories. Lists (or text in articles) can explain the rationale for inclusion (i.e., self-identification), while categories are unannotated. Furthermore, they don't function to brand the subject like a category does. Categories classify.

Once again, this nomination for deletion is only for the inclusion of articles on individuals under this category, that serve to classify individuals by race. Postdlf 22:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Formerly Delete. Hyacinth 23:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neutrality 00:09, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It is not offensive to classify people by attributes, it is in fact what we do here. The text of the category can explain any surrounding issues; yes, these are fuzzy sets, as are Category:Musicians (who qualifies?), etc., which we can live with. There is no need for Caucasian-American category just as we wouldn't need a list of right-handed Americans, but could have one of left-handers; it's simple numbers, not POV. We had this discussion re the (deleted) "list of white people", if you can find it. V V 00:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete as per Postdlf. In addition, rename it (perhaps to Category:African American topics) so as to discourage users from categorizing people. - UtherSRG 12:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Identity. Hyacinth 15:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: fuzzy sets can be contextualized by lists but not by categories. -Sean Curtin 06:52, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. These categories seem to be made by narrow-minded straight white men. The logic of them is lost to me.-Erolos 23:51, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. As per UtherSRG. Noisy 11:43, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
keep. 桜花 23:17, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Gay icons

Stereotyping is not encyclopedic. - UtherSRG 21:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. This is a good illustration of why categories need to be managed according to strict criteria. First, the name is confusing, because while the content is supposed cultural icons of gay people, it could easily be read instead as "icons that are gay." Second, the status of being a gay icon is not something that can really be verified (however little argument the inclusion of Judy Garland and Madonna would get). Third, being a gay icon is not necessarily anything inherent about the subjects of these articles—it is about how others have possibly perceived them rather than something integral to the subjects themselves. There is valid information on this subject, but it should be included in an article's text as "Some consider _____ a "gay icon", because..." This is an inappropriate use of the unannotated classifications that are categories. Postdlf 21:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, for all of Postdlf's reasons. --Gary D 22:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ditto. - UtherSRG 22:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I was going to oppose, as I think it's quite an important aspect of "gay culture" who we idolise and who we don't, but the arguments above are relatively persuasive, so I can be convinced… — OwenBlacker 11:30, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Ok. Here's more. *grins* Not all gay people idolize "gay icons". Not all gay people are in "gay culture". Not all people in the gay community (where gay culture is more relevant vice outside of the community) subscribe to all aspects of gay culture, including idolizing "gay icons". The category is inherently POV - it doesn't give recognition to these facts, which aids in stereotyping all gay people as idolizing these people. It would be more apprpriate to make note of each person's impact on gay culture in the individual articles. Some are seen more as icons for their political work, some for being associated with Judy Garland, etc. - UtherSRG 11:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Convert. It's useful to have in one place a list of all things which some people consider to be gay icons. But given the controversial nature of the issue, perhaps a unifying article would be better than a category structure. -- Beland 02:53, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Convert/merge into a list and delete. -Sean Curtin 06:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 6

Category:Radio DJs & Category:Radio personalities

I'm asking for advice here, not wanting these categories to be deleted just yet. I created Category:Radio personalities some time ago because I wasn't aware of the existence of Category:Radio DJs, since it wasn't a subcategory of Category:Radio. Now that I'm aware of the DJs, I should move the articles linking into Radio personalities there, except that I think my title is better. It may just be me, but I think a DJ is someone who plays music (and the category above is grandparented by Category:Musicians), whereas a radio personality is someone who may be involved in talkback, or interviews, or a magazine-style radio program.

Should I merge all into the Radio DJs, or into the Radio personalities, or is there room for both categories? -gadfium 02:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You'll be pleased to know I think your category is better, for the reasons of breadth that you gave. Let's kill Category:Radio DJs. --Gary D 07:01, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
First, as no notice was placed on Category:Radio DJs, I'm afraid that anyone working on that category and its subcategories may not know about this discussion. Second, in doing a survey of many of the articles under both categories, I'm not convinced if these two terms are significantly similar. Most of the people under DJs mention "DJ" in the first sentence of their article; a few mention radio personality but most do not. Some, like Paul Harvey are clearly not DJs. A cursory search in wikipedia found no article defining radio personality, which does not help. I think there is at least some merit for having both categories, especially if both can be expanded without a large amount of overlap. --ssd 11:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with ssd. Bonalaw 12:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I've put a notice on the two main pages in question. I don't plan to do anything drastic for a week, to give people a chance to respond.-gadfium 02:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The response seems to be two-to-one to keep both categories, so unless I hear otherwise, tomorrow I'll put appropriate messages on both pages so everyone is aware of both categories, and move this discussion to the Radio DJs talk page.-gadfium 04:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 2

South Africans

There are two categories for South Africans: Category:Notable South Africans and Category:South African people. They should be merged into one. --Auximines 08:29, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no problem with having two different categories. South African people takes a more layered approach and has different sub-categories. I do not find this very useful for my purposes - ascertaining which articles there are to be written about notable South Africans. It may also be that a person (Dawie de Villiers for example) is listed under one category (sports people, for example), which a person looking for his contributions in another category (his political career, for example), might not necessarily look at/search for.

Notable South Africans is more of a "telephone book" approach, where everybody is just listed in alphabetical format. It was actually created by me as a way of automating the "article" List of South Africans which was not very well maintained, and it was onerous to add all the articles "by hand". If you delete this category, you should delete that article as well - it contains the same "duplication".

Also, I would like to point out that the South African people category was/is singularly badly maintained. The majority of people on the Notable South Africans list wasn't even on the South African people list.

So, I find that there is enough space to justify keeping both categories, for now anyway. I hope that if the majority vote is for delete, that one of those voting to delete it will take it upon her/himself to enter all the "missing" South Africans that is on the Notable South Africans list into the South African people list. I certainly will not do it and, judging by the sad state that the South African people list was in, nobody else will either. (As a matter of fact, the South African people list was so "low profile" that I only encountered it towards the end of my search for South Africans to add - it even had "Bushmen" as an entry!)

So, I vote keep (unsurprisingly :-) ).

Wikigreetings, Elf-friend 18:22, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merge. There are different implications for maintaining a list and maintaining a category that would often merit a list where no category is justified. --Gary D 20:15, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge (into Category:South African people). I agree with User:Gary. Usually a "People" category is exactly the same as the "Notable" category that User Elf-friend is introducing, and I have yet to see the usage of the word "Notable" in any Wiki category so far, so let's keep things consistent and reduce redundant categories. IZAK 23:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge. The primary use of a category should be to give a quick bit of information and a link to ther articles in the same tight category. The next major use of categories, via the sub-category structure is to be able to programmatically create the full list of all the articles underneath a given category. Having a separte 'full list' category is not needed. - UtherSRG 23:57, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge. Hyacinth 23:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Gay people

From Wikipedia talk:Categorization: Am I the only one who finds Category:Gay people odd, and slightly 'point finger'-ish. We have a List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people, which is fair enough as a clearly explained article about those who identify themselves as homosexual, and are famous. The (very incomplete) 'Gay people' category strikes me as mildly offensive. Afterall, think of the upset Category:Black people, Category:Posh people, or Category:Fat people, categories would have. -Erolos 22:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As recommended, I propose it for deletion. -Erolos 14:02, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree—delete. But we actually do have the equivalent of Category:Black people, by the categorizations under Category:African Americans and Category:Asian Americans. I think both should go too, though maybe just drop the "s" off the end of each to discuss topics relevant to either (such as the NAACP, Chinatowns, etc.). It is offensive to classify people by sexual orientation, race, or religion, and POV to think that people should or can be classified in such a way. Inclusion in those categories is largely a matter of self-identification—what of multiracial people? It's a different matter to classify someone as a Jewish Orthodox scholar or Christian Evangelical leader, or Gay rights activist, because that is what they have done, as opposed to pushing them into a box of what or who they supposedly are. The same goes for classifying people by nationality—this should be done only to associate people with the countries in which they have been notable or done notable things (a question of simply where they are or where they have done stuff), but not to just tack on their birth country or ethnicity. Postdlf 15:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. This is the first one to come up of the categories with controversial connotations and fuzzy boundaries. May its death be a harbinger of trimming to come. And if Postdlf cares to formalize his/her mentioned category deletion/modification proposals, I will vote in favor of them as well. --Gary D 20:15, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
One further thought, I think the very lack of a Category:Straight people or a Category:Caucasian Americans means that categories such as Category:Gay people and Category:African Americans are inherently POV in their construction, because they are made with the implication that they are different from the norm or the default, which is the white n' straight state of not needing a classification. All others are instead classified based on how they differ from that norm. We need to stop this now. Postdlf 16:49, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- This is a very good point. I agree that all ethnicity, rather than nationality, and sexuality categories are POV and should be deleted. -Erolos 17:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: I share Postdlf's opinion. --positron 12:50, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

Neutral. Merge into the aforementioned list if possible. -Sean Curtin 20:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I think that lists are definitely less problematic. As noted above, they can explain the rationale for inclusion (i.e., self-identification), while categories are unannotated. Furthermore, they don't function to brand the subject like a category does. Categories classify. We shouldn't be classifying people by their sexuality (or race), however proper it may be to list who has self-identified themselves a certain way. Postdlf 20:07, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! --Gary D 20:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay... so I'm getting general consensus that the list suffices and the Category should be deleted. But I don't know how to delete an article/category - I assumed that was someone else's job... help! -Erolos 12:26, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only way to do it is to remove the category tag from every article. An admin needs to delete the category itself, but that won't remove any of the links to it. Postdlf 21:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I just noticed this category when it was added to the article on Michel Foucault, the philosopher. It's a bit irritating to say the least (to have him categorized in that manner, not his gayness.) -- Simonides 04:06, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Hyacinth 23:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've started ensuring that the list is updated and move folks off the category. - UtherSRG 21:29, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The category is now blank and ready for deletion. Postdlf 22:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Identity. Hyacinth 15:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 1

County categories containing only the article on the county

I can see the value of having a category for every county, however, these categories were created before any articles existed other than the article on the county. The article is already categorized in the "counties in..." category; do we also need a category for the county even if there are no other articles of interest? It seems a bit premature to me, and will lead readers on an unnecessary extended link path. I propose removing the category link from each county article unless the category is filled out (or there is overwhelming objection) by August 6. --ssd 17:24, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This list includes only categories with ALL of the following criteria:

no description
exactly one article with the same name
single article is already in the appropriate counties article for the state
name 'county' in the name

Barber County, Kansas, Allen County, Kansas, Anderson County, Kansas, Atchison County, Kansas, Barton County, Kansas, Bourbon County, Kansas, Brown County, Kansas, Butler County, Kansas, Chase County, Kansas, Chautauqua County, Kansas, Cherokee County, Kansas, Cheyenne County, Kansas, Clark County, Kansas, Clay County, Kansas, Cloud County, Kansas, Coffey County, Kansas, Comanche County, Kansas, Cowley County, Kansas, Crawford County, Kansas, Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, Payette County, Idaho,

But these will eventually all be filled in with the articles on the communities in each. I don't see any sense in deleting categories that will clearly be populated eventually. Why didn't you start categorizing the cities and towns in these counties so that they wouldn't just contain one article, rather than taking the time to delete what we will eventually just have to recreate anyway? Postdlf 04:44, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I guess I'm annoyed that those categories exist in an orphaned state. I'd like to either delete them or create them, but I suppose I could just leave them in limbo, unconnected until they are filled. I'm not going to fill them, because I'm not a geographer. I'll leave it up to the right experts for that while I do things I do better. --ssd 04:59, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the red links above tells me those were already deleted, but limbo is the better solution because you know those are going to be populated eventually. The articles exist, it's simply a matter of someone doing it, and it's easier if the category structure already exists to fill in.

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.

The one complication is unincorporated communities that function as CDPs, many of which are still listed as "towns" due to bot-derived information, even though this has no political reality. When I populated Category:Franklin County, Ohio, I researched all the communities that I was unfamiliar with to see what they really were (and I even found a city mislabelled as a village). The ones that were unincorporated CDPs, I only categorized under the county, though I'm thinking about starting Category:Unincorporated communities in Ohio to group these all together too. Unincorporated neighborhoods, on the other hand, are grouped by the city they are part of, such as Category:Washington, DC neighborhoods. Postdlf 05:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like good material...above comments should probably go on one of the Wikipedia:geography pages somewhere. --ssd 12:10, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Noticing these are mostly Kansas counties, I will confess that I am the "guilty" party. After considering where to focus my energies with Wikipedia editing I decided to stick with what I know best: my home state of Kansas. I will be periodically fleshing out the county pages in much greater detail (see Doniphan County, Kansas for an idea of what I mean). As I categorized these I felt it was a good idea to do all appropriate categories at the same time. I did not actually create any of the categories in question because it was not needed until the cities (and other items) were also categorized. But considering how long it will take me to finish the 105 different counties in Kansas, don't expect all the cities to be properly categorized any time soon. Although if ssd has a map handy and would like to chip in on the city categorization effort, I would greatly welcome the help! Mike 03:19, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and your efforts. I have no problem with letting the categories sit as is, uncreated but with the one article, as long as there is a chance they will be filled in in the near future. I would majorly oppose actually creating these (and more to the point, linking them into the state's county list) until there is more than just the one article in it (which is already linked into the state's county list). Since I bothered to collect this list, I think I will move it to each state's category page, to list categories needing work. --ssd 11:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Theosophists and Category:Theosophist organizations

I think we may have gone a little too far into subcategorization with these. Category:Theosophists has 4 articles and Category:Theosophist organizations has 4 articles. The parent Category:Theosophy has 3 articles. This topic area is unlikely to grow substantially. I propose we delete these subcategories and merge their articles into Category:Theosophy, giving it 11 articles. --Gary D 22:38, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Satanist subcategories

Similar over-subcategorization as with Theosophy above:

Category:Satanist gods: 3 articles
Category:Satanist organizations: 3 articles
Category:Satanist texts: 1 article
Category:Satanists: 1 article

Merging these articles with the 5 articles in Category:Satanism will give it 13 articles total. (Ooh! Spooky number!) --Gary D 22:55, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, and a note

First of all, thanks to UtherSRG for doing the depopulation and deletion on the categories in the above two sections. At the same time, if anyone has a problem with these consolidations and deletions, I don't want it to seem like I tried to sneak anything through too quickly. I'm certainly willing to engage in discussion on these, and will support undeletion if the consensus goes against me. --Gary D 02:49, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As long as we don't make a general habit out of doing this. I agree that the Satanist categories were unlikely to grow, but normally, specific categories are better because they more precisely classify articles. It is easier to structure information overall with specific categories, because all you have to do is categorize a category to show a relationship, rather than retagging every article. The complete opposite way to do it is to, say, classify a single article with Category: People, Category:Politics, and Category:United States, rather than Category:U.S. politicians, which through various strata would be grouped with all of the following (and even that is a broad category that is properly subdivided). I think as a rule we should aim for the more specific category (which also makes them easier to navigate, when all the articles are of the same kind within, such as all about people, or all about places), though I agree that there are cases where it just isn't worth it, and I don't necessarily disagree that this was the case with the Satanist categories. Postdlf 04:42, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In another discussion, it was suggested that near-empty categories be left for a fixed time period (a month?) before being merged & deleted. This should give time for potential growth while not allowing overspecified stuff to hang around. And if the parent category does get too big, it can always be resplit later. Is this something worth formalizing? --ssd 05:02, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be a case by case decision rather than a uniform rule. It's all a question of whether or not it will be populated—are there more notable subjects that fit under that classification but simply haven't been written yet? An under populated category may serve the same function as lists of red links in articles, by inspiring people to complete the series or grouping of content. And I think it's a no-brainer if the articles actually exist but simply haven't been tagged yet—those categories should definitely be kept. If there are definitely going to be more articles to come, there shouldn't be a time limit. Postdlf 05:40, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, would kind of like a loose but time-based guideline. It may help clean up after episodes of intially overzealous overcategorization. I tend to go for categories that are sufficiently populated and diverse to give the reader a good overview of a topic at a glance rather than requiring the reader to drill up and down to see everything. --Gary D 07:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree there should be no firm rule, and that everything should be decided on a case by case basis. However, there are a large number of single article categories. How many of those might actually grow and how many are overzealous categorization I couldn't say. I propose bringing up such topics here (slowly as we are doing already), and if nobody steps up to defend and/or expand a category, it gets merged after some decent time period. A month I think is quite generous; a new template like template:Cfm might help. Again, it can always be re-split later when the material shows up. If you're worried about structure getting lost, put the structure on the talk page or even in the category main page for later use. Does this sound like a workable compromise? --ssd 12:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think something like that would work. --Gary D 17:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Religious organizations

If the Theosophy and Satanism deletions above are effected, Category:Religious organizations will be empty. It follows the wrong taxonomy for religion and so is too scattershot to be of use, since the major dividing lines of religion are denominational, not functional. --Gary D 22:55, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not a problem... The organizations can be put in Satanism/Theosophy, and Religious organizations. - UtherSRG 00:57, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Besides... i just added a few more to religious organizations. - UtherSRG 01:15, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, one of the reasons I proposed deleting it was that it did not appear as though a significant number of people were using it. If people do want to populate and use it, though, I certainly have no opposition to the category. --Gary D 02:40, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

July 31

Category:United States Presidential Candidates

Ok, this is a complicated listing—first, it should be Category:United States presidential candidates instead, so the articles should be retagged and the original category deleted.

I started Category:U.S. presidential candidates, but I refrained from moving all of the articles over there until we decided exactly who gets to be included. Postdlf 18:26, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But I also wanted to have a nonbinding discussion here over whether this should be kept at all, without yet outright proposing that it get deleted (and why not here, since no one seems to do anything with category talk pages). I honestly don't know yet if I support it, I think it would be interesting to have it, but I don't know if it can be reasonably limited. What would qualify someone to be in it? Actual party nomination? Lasting through at least one primary? Just announcing a candidacy for President, no matter how quickly they dropped out? And do we list only the failed candidates in here? Obviously, all the candidates would include the ones actually elected, but it would look really stupid for an article to be tagged with Category:Presidents of the U.S. and Category:United States presidential candidates, and possibly even kind of confusing. However, that could be solved just by crosslinking Category:Presidents of the U.S. under the candidates category though, because I don't believe there has ever been a President who didn't run at some time (even if their stint in office wasn't the result of being elected, as with Ford).

If we can come up with a sensible way to handle it, then I'd support it. Right now it's looking pretty damn troublesome though. Postdlf 05:28, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If we do keep such a category, I think it should be higly limited. Certainly those who make it to election day would be in. I'm not sure how many others should. All those who made it to (in modern times) televised/radio broadcast debates? - UtherSRG 07:05, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Then there's the problem of excluding every modern third party candidate except for Ross Perot. Of course, if we don't limit minor candidates, then we're just including every yahoo in the country who ever managed to finegle their way onto a ballot (which isn't as hard as you'd think) no matter how insignificant, and we run into the problem of having to decide how many states in which they'd have to be on the ballot to be included—one? a majority? just enough to cover the requisite electoral votes necessary to win? all 50 states? Blah. More trouble. Who would've thought that "presidential candidates" would be a hard classification to narrow down? Unless we can figure out some objective standard, a presidential candidate may be just about anyone who says they are. It may be damn difficult to be elected in this country, but it's too damn easy to run. ; ) Postdlf 07:20, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should only include candidates that actually ran (and lost) against the President in the November elections. Obviously, inclusion of the president category would by implication include those that won. Perhaps the category should be Category:United States presidential candidates that lost in November. (Naah, too long.) Of course, the next question, should this include candidates that lost once and won in a later year? --ssd 13:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest simply grouping Category:Presidents of the U.S. under the candidate category, but unfortunately I just read that four presidents that succeeded to the office due to death never actually ran for president, before or after. I am really opposed to retagging president articles with a "presidential candidate" category (which would just look stupid), so I think we should limit the category to candidates who never achieved the office. Postdlf 17:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Another viewpoint here -- If they have an article in Wikipedia already, perhaps that alone is a good enough criteria to add them to the category no matter how minor they might be. However, there's no need to generate stub articles or make lists of candidates that may or may not have even made it to the primary. --ssd 13:35, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds fairly sensible. Postdlf 17:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think a fair definition is any person who was on the ballot or registered as a write-in candidate for any US Presidential election in any state. anthony (see warning) 15:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are you really a candidate for president if you're not even on the ballot in enough states to actually win the election? I don't like the idea of including write-ins. Postdlf 17:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, technically you don't even have to be on the ballot in any state to win the election, do you? After all, the electors' votes are the ones that matter. Looking at the dictionary.com definition, a candidate is "a person who seeks or is nominated for an office, prize, or honor." It seems that anyone registering as a write-in is seeking the office, and anyone on the ballot is essentially nominated. We should probably add anyone on the ballot or registering as a write-in for a primary too. anthony (see warning) 17:58, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Once again, we're looking for limiting factors to actually make inclusion in this category meaningful. Postdlf 18:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since no write-in candidate has ever won the presidential seat (that I know of), I think it is silly to include them at all. On the other hand, Ross Perot did make it on the November ballot, so he'd definately be included, and not as a special case. --ssd 21:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see how the definition I have given is not meaningful. If someone famous enough to have an entry in Wikipedia has gone to the trouble of registering as a write-in candidate for election, this is something that should be listed here. If you want a subcategory for those who were on the ballot, fine. Alternatively I guess we could have a subcategory for those who weren't on the ballot. But in those very rare cases of people who weren't on the ballot, yet still registered as a write-in, and have an entry in Wikipedia, I don't see the harm of including them somewhere in this category (see Dick Gregory). The number of people who have registered as a write-in for President is certainly very small. anthony (see warning) 15:09, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

BTW, Category:United States presidents needs to be deleted—blank and redundant with the fully populated Category:Presidents of the U.S.. Postdlf 18:28, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

June 27

Category:Left-Hand_Path/Category:Right-Hand_Path

(Don't know if it's the right place) Category:Left-Hand_Path and Category:Right-Hand_Path both seems useless to me. If they are to be kept, articles like Paganism should be only in Left-hand_path and not in Religions (the mother) but I'm not convinced that this would help visitors to find they way. I have a very bad connection (in China) and I'm not sure I can delete all this without asking, so I write my concerns here. gbog 04:59, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of dividing up religions in this way—it seems rather subjective, and I have serious doubts as to how legitimate these concepts are for purposes of academic classification. Perhaps I read the articles wrong, but it seems as if there would be some degree of moral opprobrium attached to being associated with the left-hand path. I would delete both categories. --Postdlf 17:11 27 June 2004 (UTC)

In favor of deletion - making this our way to classify religions makes the distinction seem more important and generally accepted than it actually is. - Andre Engels 10:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would be in favor of merging the examples cited into the discussion in Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path if they aren't there already, and then deleting these categories. Few religions are monolithic in practice, and there would probably be debate between adherents and outsiders and even among the adherents to any one religions about how to clasify a given tradition. Most, if not all religions should probably be listed in both categories to retain NPOV, and this makes the distinction useless.-- Beland 04:15, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merge Sam [Spade] 00:46, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete the categories. The content can be merged with the appropriate article(s). older≠wiser 12:12, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Merge and delete. -Sean Curtin 06:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)