Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beland (talk | contribs) at 22:53, 16 October 2004 (→‎Likely nominees: Project complete for now.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates
  1. Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or being created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies there, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas.
  3. Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
  4. Add the name of the new category and {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
  5. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
  6. 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 (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
  7. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
  8. Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

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

Old discussions from this page have been archived to:

Categorization of people works as a more or less stable guideline by now, which you may want to look at if you are thinking about nominating a people-related category for deletion. Many such disputes are ending up in /unresolved.

See also mega-discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion phrases regarding the content of the {{cfd}} template, and about advisory/non-advisory phrases to be used on this "Categories for deletion" page.


Current (tentative) cleanup practices:

  • Categories nominated immediately after creation by their creator, or due to misspelling may be speedy deleted and de-listed after 2 days if there are no objections. Presumably these discussions are not interesting, and so do not need to be saved on /resolved.
  • People-related discussions that do not have a clear consensus for deletion after 5 days are moved to /unresolved (interim measure until the current mega-controversy is resolved).
  • If there is a clear consensus for deletion after 7 days, then de-populate the category and move it to the "Delete me" section (unless it is a "red link", in which case, it is already deleted). Save interesting conversations in /resolved; discard uninteresting conversations.
  • If there is a clear consensus to keep after 7 days: 1.) Copy the discussion to the category's talk page. 2.) Remove the {{cfd}} tag from the category page. 3.) If the discussion is precedent-setting, put a note in /resolved with a link to the category's talk page.
  • There is currently a poll on Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion about what to do if there is no clear consensus.


October 16

Category:Art

It boggles the mind that Category:Arts and Category:Art both exist, and that one is a subcategory of the other, but they both cover the territory of all art(s). Some people think of "visual art" when they say "art", so perhaps "arts" should be used to mean art-in-general, and "visual art" (not merely "art") to mean visual art. I therefore propose the following:

-- Beland 21:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also note reorganization discussion(s) on Category talk:Art which should be preserved if they have not been implemented. -- Beland 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Childless orphans

-- Beland 21:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Typos

-- Beland 21:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Personal_Opinion

Does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia; has one member article: User:Togo/Holomovement -- Beland 21:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Table_Tennis_players_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics

Capitalization should be Category:Table tennis players at the 2004 Summer Olympics instead. —Mike 20:35, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Genera

Is it really a good idea to list all genera, regardless of how closely related (or not) they are? - UtherSRG 20:23, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comics people

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)

Category:Arts occupations

Not needed, use Category: Art and design workers

I'm a little bit behind on my followup on these, so I've got several categories to list here. —Mike 18:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Beach volleyball players

Category too specific with not enough articles, use Category: Volleyball players —Mike 18:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • But these are two different sports! Might as well merger Rugby union footballers with Rugby league players! jguk 20:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Construction occupations

Not needed, use Category:Construction trades workers —Mike 18:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Cricketers of the United States

Not needed, use Category: American cricketers (maintains naming consistency). —Mike 18:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Dance persona

Not needed, unnecessary layer of categorization. This category only contained two subcategories which could easily fit into this category's parent categories. —Mike 18:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Law enforcement officers

I created this, but misnamed it. It should be Category:Law enforcement workers. —Mike 18:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Religious occupations

Not needed, use Category: Religious workers —Mike 18:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Sportspeople of the United States

Not needed, use Category: American sportspeople (maintains naming consistency). —Mike 18:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Category:U.S. athletes

Not needed, use Category: American sportspeople (maintains naming consistency). —Mike 18:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Category:U.S. sportspeople by specialty

Not needed, the subcategories in this category should be subcategories of Category: American sportspeople. —Mike 18:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Category:U.S. volleyball players

Not currently needed, it would only contain Category:Olympic volleyball players of the U.S.A. at this time. (Also it should more properly be named "American volleyball players" to maintain naming consistency. —Mike 18:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Category:USA Olympians

Should use Category:Olympic athletes of the U.S.A. instead. —Mike 18:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Empty orphans

Slovak vs. Slovakian

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)


Category:List of Video Game Music

Should be at Category:Lists of video game music. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Category:Super Villains

Duplicates existing Category:Supervillains. (Muwahahahahaha!) —tregoweth 06:31, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Social Democratic parties

Redundant with Category:Social Democratic Parties. Probably should be parties rather than Parties but there are 55 articles in Parties. Rick Block 14:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Long-distance footpaths

Created by myself a few minutes ago ; I changed my mind quickly about how to categorize hiking paths (mostly because it was not so obvious as I thought that trail=US, footpath=Europe). This is an empty, orphan, textless category and I created it, I suppose deletion will be easily granted... --French Tourist 17:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 15

Category:French military

Category:Military of France is the category in use. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:UK Tory politicians

Redundant due to the existence of Category:UK Conservative Party politicians. No need to merge because it is empty. Tim Ivorson 14:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't that only apply to politicians after the reformation of the Whigs and Tories into the Liberals and Conservatives? 132.205.15.4 23:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wouldn't this make the Category:British conservatives redundant? 132.205.15.4 23:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 14

Category:American liberals and Category:American conservatives

Delete both—per our resolution to delete "liberal leaders", I don't see how these are anything but POV. These are classifications that do not have stable meanings over time or even for the most part at any given time. And do we go by self-identification, a set list of issue positions... There is no way to resolve these objectively. Postdlf 03:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • What about Category:Neoconservatives? Do not the same apply to that--do we use self-identification, a list of positions, etc? -KG
    • Sure. Delete that too. And please sign your comments. Postdlf 15:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • What about Category:Conservatives ? (already listed, no comments found) 132.205.15.4 00:16, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Aerobatics aircraft 1960-1969

I think this was confused for Category:Italian sports planes 1960-1969. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 03:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Category:Computer architectures

The category in use seems to be Category:Computer architecture. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Communes of the Calvados departement

Correct spelling: Category:Communes of the Calvados département. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 20:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 13

Category:Ecco_the_Dolphin

This cat previously only held two articles, after discussion on talk page with original author, I move to delete. The page is over-catagorization and the Ecco the Dolphin franchise fits well on the Category:Computer and video game franchises page and not as a sub-category of its own. Hobie 02:12, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Category:Pediatrics

Was created to be a redirect to Category:Paediatrics "to avoid confusion". But category redirects don't really work, and it's even more confusing as a redirecting sub-category. Needs to be deleted or else there needs to just be a message pointing to (but not redirecting to) the correct category. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note that articles "in" Category:Pediatrics don't currently show up under Category:Paediatrics. Rick Block 01:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Sega Megadrive games

Apparently attempting to be a redirect to Category:Sega Genesis games (Sega Megadrive being an earlier Japanese version of Sega Genesis), but category redirects don't really work. Rick Block 01:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 12

Category:Dead people

Is this a joke? Gamaliel 05:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. - Isn't it a common denominator of the two subcategories? Besides, the description reads: "Do not add articles directly to this category; instead, add them to the appropriate subcategory.". -- User:Docu
Name seems kinda trite, but with above listed qualifications, I see no reason to not keep it. --ssd 12:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - what next? Category: Alive people???? jguk 23:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep only if it is restricted to those subcategories. Delete on sight if it metastisizes beyond that. Postdlf 23:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - The two categories could easily be part of the parent category (People), and thus eliminating an uneeded level of catagorization. Hobie 02:54, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
Keep: useful parent for other categories and not intended to be used for categorization of individual articles. -Sean Curtin 03:37, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Should we also have a Category:People who have lived as a parent to Category:Births by year, and any hypothetical Category:People born by Caesarian section and Category:People born in strange places categories? This is not a vote.-gadfium 05:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Gary D 06:29, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It's against common sense. Etz Haim 20:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Cleanup

Use instead: Category:Wikipedia cleanup -- Beland 06:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:ToL Cleanup

Use instead: Category:ToL cleanup -- Beland 06:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject_Chemicals

Unused. -- Beland 06:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia:Copyright

Use instead: Category:Wikipedia_copyright -- Beland 06:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Construction_occupations

Unused. -- Beland 06:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Foundation:Gallo_World_Family_Foundation

Unused, bad style. -- Beland 06:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Knot_theory/Racks

Unused, bad style. -- Beland 06:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does this perhaps need to be moved to ARTICLE Knot racks or something? --ssd 12:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Maritime_universities

Unused by Category:Universities and colleges. -- Beland 06:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Photojournalism

Use instead: Category:Photography -- Beland 06:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Photojournalism is a proper subtopic of photography and journalism(both of which it is...or was...a subcategory)—not all photographers are photojournalists. Postdlf 01:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Looking at the current category structure, Category:Visual journalism is what should go. Photography and graphic design are in no way subtopics of journalism. Photojournalism is the obvious overlap between photography and journalism, it is the subject of its own article, and there are many photographers and works of photography properly classified as photojournalists and photojournalism, in a manner separable from photography in general. Postdlf 01:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Category:Graphic Design fits nicely in Category:Visual journalism but not in Category:photojournalism, so I can't agree. --ssd 12:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • It doesn't fit in either, because not all graphic design is for a journalistic purpose. I wasn't suggesting that photojournalism replace the function that visual journalism serves now—Category:Visual journalism simply isn't a discrete category in the sense it is being used, and the topics within it now are hardly mere sub-subtopics of journalism. Postdlf 23:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Stubs_by_country

Unused. -- Beland 06:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:United_States_Navy_destroyers

Unused by Category:United_States_Navy_ships -- Beland 06:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 11

Category:Energy Development

Redundant with Category:Energy development. Rick Block 23:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • delete -- JTN 14:53, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

October 10

Category:Eccentrics

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)

Category:Towns in Japan

Duplicate of Category:Japanese towns. Rick Block 17:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oops (although not maybe completely oops): I created this one, on the model of other cats in other countries. The category in many other countries is "Towns in X"; others (most?) have "Cities in X" (but villages of 200 people are hardly cities); some few had both — before I did anything — and I took a useful cue from Category:Coastal cities where a city is reasonably defined as >100,000); France has "Category:Cities, towns and villages of France; and the provinces of Canada and some few others have "Communities in X" ... A uniform scheme would be good, grandfathering maybe some few categories with very large populations. Inconsistent nomenclature is going to have to be dealt with at some point, probably via robot. ("U.S." vs. "American", etc.) — Bill 21:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
On looking a bit closer at Category:Japanese towns: most of the subcategories are of the form Towns of X, and as the number of town articles increases, they could usefully be moved into cats for each prefecture, and the prefectures into (Towns in Japan/Japanese towns) by prefecture — suddenly making the top category navigable for visible categories like "Coastal towns", "Town planning", "Town governments", etc.? — Bill 21:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Transportation companies of the United States by state

Category:Transportation of the United States by state and Category:Transportation companies of the United States seem to cover it. Rick Block 17:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oct 9

Category:Airports of Brunei

Brunei only has 2 airports, so only 2 things will ever be in this category, and only one has an article anyway. Do we really need a category for 2 items? Luigi30 13:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Size of categories are NOT valid reasons to delete! This has been discussed before countless times. This vote is in the wrong place anyway. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 13:27, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. —siroχo 20:56, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: because of the number of airports, Category:Airports is subcategorised by country. --Rlandmann 10:41, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. NeoJustin 23:19 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Oct 8

Category:ESPN personalities

Both articles are also under the category Category:Sports announcers, which likely makes this one redundant. If it's decided that this should stay, it should probably become a sub-category. MisfitToys 21:40, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't think we really want to start classifying people by the companies they work for, do we? —Mike 23:18, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)


Category:Island_arcs

Someone accidentally used Category:Archipelagos instead, but I like it a lot better. Or perhaps "Island chains" for the spelling-impaired. -- Beland 03:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with Category:Archipelagos? I have no idea what Island arcs are, and I imagine I'm not alone amongst non-Americans, so I agree that it should be changed. Island chain I can understand, but why not use the right word? jguk 20:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Another American, although who's lived much of his life overseas, who'd never heard "Island arc" before. Glad to notice Category:Archipelagos has already repopulated — Hey, I didn't do it :-) Bill 21:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I vote to move arcs to archipelagos! --ssd 12:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Unstructured programming languages

OK, put on your programming geek hats. Is this category necessary and proper? -- Beland 03:14, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Structured" is a quantitative term, not a qualitative one. That is, you can say that a language is highly structured or loosely structured, and you can say that FOO++ is more structured than Visual BAR but less structured than Objective BAZ, but there is no binary distinction between structured and unstructured. Tverbeek 19:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:West German people

Contains an article-free tree of categories; I assume it's redundant with Category:German_people, since most or all notable West Germans also lived in one or the other unified Germany? -- Beland 02:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oct 7

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 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)

Oct 6

Category:Olympic athletes

Noting that "athletes" means "track and field athletes" in British English, should we rename this Category:Olympians or Category:Olympic_sportspeople?

Subcategories would also need re-treatment. We currently have two styles: 

* Athletes at the 1900 Summer Olympics
* Olympians at the 2004 Summer Olympics

Could I interest you in one of these instead? 

* 2004 Summer Olympians
* Sportspeople at the 1900 Summer Olympics

These renames could be done by a bot. -- Beland 05:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sportspersons at the 1960 Winter Olympics seems like a nice pattern, or Sportspeople. Atheletes at the xxx Summer Olympics also needs to be changed to the Track and Field Atheletes at the ... 132.205.15.42 00:49, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In this context, in British English 'Olympic athletes' is synonymous with 'Olympians', so I don't see a need to change from 'Olympic athletes'. Using the word 'sportspeople' is distinctly American, and should therefore be avoided if at all possible in an International encyclopaedic. It can be avoided here, so it should be. jguk 20:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Possibly "Olympic competitors" as an alternative? MisfitToys 23:25, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Conservatives

Category:British conservatives

Personally, I think the Category:Conservatives is highly suspect, akin to the issue with liberals. At any rate, this category is very misleading, and empty. There is a political party with the name Conservative Party in the UK. If this were for members of that party (who do not necessarily hold to the conservatism ideology), it'd need a captialized C. If it isn't it's highly POV. 132.205.15.42 01:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Filipino people

There is a populated Category:People of the Philippines, which this is a subcategory of. This is probably the more appropriate name, however. For the time being, I've moved the only entry here, Category:Filipino poets, to Category:People of the Philippines for the time being.-gadfium 01:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete . There is already a People of the Philippines category. --Jondel 01:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Thong Models

Already a Category:Models; this is needlessly specific. tregoweth 05:52, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • There is a clear diffrence here, thong models model thongs and the hip/thigh reigon specifically. where as swimsuit models are more general. as a comprimise this should be added as a sub category under swimsuit models, because the diffrence is a real one.

-maximusnukeage

    • I don't think many "thong models" even have articles here, so creating a category for them is unnecessary. —tregoweth 19:04, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Creating the category allows for its use. of course the second its created, not many people will be using it. another possible candidate for "thong models" is Darlene Crawford. your right, although swimsuit models and thong models are simmilar, I feel there is a slight distinction. like I said, it should be a subcategory.

-maximusnukeage

    • No, sorry that's backwards reasoning. *If* there was a significant number of articles that could be listed in such a category, *then* it would be time to make the category. Delete. Recreate when there's actual need of it, please.Aris Katsaris 03:00, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think there are enough articles listed in Category:Models to justify thong models even if such articles existed. I think this is needless overspecification until category Models fills up. --ssd 04:28, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think this is one user's obsessive focus, because while I have heard of hand models, I have never heard of "thong models." Are there actually models who specialize in modeling thongs and thongs only? If not, they are then lingerie models and/or swimsuit models. This is useless and spurious overcategorization. It's also incorrectly capitalized. Postdlf 23:39, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oct 5

Category:Liberal parties

Same reason as for Leaders of Liberal parties that was concluded to be POV-centric. Note parties in Liberal International are listed on that page. 132.205.15.42 00:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. The same discussion is going on about the article Liberal parties. Most people at this moment voted in favour of keeping. The same should go for this category. This category is comparable with the other sub-categories in Category:Political parties by ideology (including Anarchist organizations, Christian Democratic parties, Communist parties, Conservative parties, Green political parties, Liberal parties, Libertarian parties, Nordic Agrarian parties, Right-wing populists, Social Democratic Parties and Socialist parties). If one doesn't agree with the categorization of one of these parties in this category, one should start a discussion page of that party or on the discussion page of that category. There was no category of Leaders of Liberal parties, but on Liberal leaders, which concentrated on the United States. It was POV in the US context. BTW, the list includes also many parties outside Liberal International. --Gangulf 20:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As Liberal parties was renamed to List of liberal parties, should not this category also be renamed then, to Category of liberal parties or Parties that are liberal, maybe Politically liberal parties? 132.205.15.42 00:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a easy name to handle. I made a remakr on the category page. --Gangulf 06:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Category:List of liberal parties would solve the problems. 132.205.45.110 15:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand the debate. It seems, to me, to be totally detached from my (European) reality. Keep. /Tuomas 10:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is dependant on the definition of liberal, liberalism, left wing, conservative, right wing, Liberal, and liberal. 132.205.45.110 15:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That is true, but we have an article on liberalism and an article with a List of liberal parties. At the main page of the category there is an explanation why parties are listed in this category. --Gangulf 18:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep category. Not inherently POV; the criteria for the list are explained. Cool Hand Luke 03:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep--Josiah 23:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Marxist theory

How is this different from Category:Marxism? The other subcategories there seem more useful. -- Beland 03:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not being a Marxist, I maybe don't get this, but this category seems to be more like the Marxism studied within academia (more or less critically). If so, I think it might be motivated. Keep - at least until the issue is properly discussed somewhere. /Tuomas 10:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep: Marxism is a political ideology whereas marxist theory is more about the economic/philisophic work of Marx and his successors. There is overlap of course, but in general the latter is a distinctive enough category to keep. Note also that it isn't just a subcategory of marxism, but also of category:Continental philosophy and Category:Critical theory --Martin Wisse 08:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is different. Keep. Also, I think this has been listed before. -Seth Mahoney 19:32, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Oct 4

"Non-obvious" childless orphans

  • (0) Category:Composers_by_nationality -> Obsolete; now also sorted by genre, e.g. Category:Classical composers by nationality -- Beland 05:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Sounds like it would make a great parent for all of those genre by nationality subcategories. Postdlf 06:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Should be a parent fot all the genre by nationality categories. —AlanBarrett 06:48, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • See Category talk:Musical compositions: normally it's rather "CLASSICAL composers by nationality" that should go: "classical composers" has more borderline issues (e.g. "classical music" does not equal "music of the classical music era", etc..., etc...) than "composers". Other examples: Andrew Lloyd Webber definitely composed Operas, so he should be in category:opera composers, but does that make him a "classical" composer? I wouldn't want to decide on that one... Is Frank Zappa a "classical composer" or even a "20th century classical composer", because he "composed" Bob in Dacron and Strictly genteel? Furthermore I refuse to categorize Erik Satie either as a Classical composer, or worse a 20th century classical composer (not to mention Romantic composer): see "Business Card" approach on wikipedia:categorization of people: at least he had composer (for some time) on his business card, that's the only non-problematic approach I see for this difficult to classify composer. So I would suggest to forget about the idea of "classical" composers as opposed to ...(what exactly?)... kind of composers, and in any case when starting to group composers by nationality. I.e. "classical composers" category can maybe have a limited use for some composers up to late 20th century (when for most composers boundaries become extremely fuzzy whether or not they are still "classical"), but when you start to classify by "nationality" you better stop classifying by "genre" or "style": wikipedia is rather about having multiple entrances to a field of knowledge: I see "who is composer?" as a field of knowledge, to be approached either by "style" or by "nationality", if one classifies by both at the same time the maze might get too narrow to have further significance. --Francis Schonken 14:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, as super category for classical composers by nationality and whichever other composers by nationality. Schonken's above concerns are all fine and dandy, but the fact is that a category full of classical composers is a list of classical composers and it is a lie to not label it as such. Hyacinth 22:07, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC). In practice: Composer = classical composer. Hyacinth 00:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oct 3

Category:Terrorists

An inherently POV designation. This category can never been neutral. -- Viajero 20:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • It definitely has POV problems, but how else would you categorize articles on the 9/11 hijackers, Timothy McVeigh, etc? There are quite a few individuals who are notable purely because of their substantiated connection to a violent act. One option would be to categorize them by membership (i.e., "Members of Al Qaeda", "Members of Hamas"), but that would leave out the lone guns, and also beg the question of what parent to put those categories into? We could also categorize them by their actions, but that not only seems reductionist (the 9/11 hijackeres accomplished a little more than just being "plane hijackers") but also still will run into POV problems ("suicide bombers"). So what do we do instead? Postdlf 22:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this category is ok as long as it is restricted to people officially designated as terrorists by the government. —Mike 22:14, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
    Heh. May I ask which government is the government? ✏ Sverdrup 22:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Interpol? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:48, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think we can keep this, but we should have instrutions for what to include on its talk page. ✏ Sverdrup 22:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE, A terrorist is any individual who uses terror threats, or terror acts to obtain their ends. This would be a very broad category indeed. George W Bush frequently threatens North Korea and Iran. If you limit it to acts of terror on innocent civilians, then you'd have a very large list still, since any war attrocity used as a control measure to incite fear would fall into means, and then every soldier who carried out the acts would be a terrorist. (ie. the Abu Gharib guards). Perhaps it should just be Category: religious fundamentalists and racial purists who use acts of brutality against civilians to acheive political turnover of governments and societies, but that's an awfully long name. This noticibly lets off freedom fighters who are not overly into racial purity or religious fundamentalism. (I would include communism as a form of religion, by the way, so the Shining Path would count as terrorists) 132.205.15.4 04:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately starting off with trying to equate George Bush with terrorism automatically discounts any argument being made. Also, the Abu Gharib guards are not terrorists by any normal definition. That aside I still think this category would be ok for "officially" designated terrorists or for people belonging to "officially" designated terrorist groups. The category page would need to explain the criteria. But we shouldn't be making up our own standards for who is or is not a terrorist. —Mike 05:52, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tough one, probably should be kept but closely monitored. —siroχo 08:36, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
For reference, I added following paragraph to the definition of the prisoners and detainees category (which I created yesterday):
"Wikipedia, however, does not occupy itself with determining "guilt" or "innocence" of people - that's what courts do - but it does occupy itself with recording what happened to important people."
Could this be useful for "terrorists" category too? --Francis Schonken 08:44, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The category is inherently perjorative and would have to include organizations like the CIA (Sorry Mike, once headed by Bush Sr.). It's about as valid as Category: Evil people even if you did restrict it to people "officially" designated as evil. Matt 23:56, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful, and defining terrorism is not as hard as people say, most cases admit little controversy. VeryVerily 00:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Even if we go along the lines of the definition given in Terrorism, and it's specifically applied to groups which meet those exact criteria, it's still fairly POV. Suggest replacement with a category "Paramilitary groups", which is more easily defined. Sockatume 23:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Impossible to keep free of disturbing bias. Category:Terrorist attacks would be slightly less problematic case, as also Category:Convicted terrorists, but still likely to cause Wikipedia more problems than gains. /Tuomas 10:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Our task is not to reform the language as she is spoken, or to deconstruct popular labels. Smerdis of Tln 14:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: As has been said many times, 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. Government recognition means nothing. NeilTarrant 15:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: the category clearly states that the listing is of people who were involved in deliberate attack against civilians, in pursuit of political\religion\national goals. Though they might be some POV problems, there are inviteable and it is far less worse than to not list these people at all. Since this is a list of people, there is less prolem in the old militant\terrorist NPOV arguments: was he involved in deliberately targeting civilians? he's a terrorist. MathKnight 12:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A terrorist is a terrorist. Period. JFW | T@lk 13:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Knowing his history, JFW may attempt to remove this vote.Xed 14:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Please, Xed, stick to the matter under discussion. Trolling is bannable. JFW | T@lk 16:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Your definition of trolling seems to include pointing out others mistakes - a bannable offense! But removing votes is fine in your ethical universe.Xed 17:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: can never be NPOV. Filiocht 14:44, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. An example, in Ireland, usually the term "paramilitary organisations" is used in media, etc., even by those who abhor the groups. zoney ♣ talk 15:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anyone who deliberately targets civilians for political purposes is a terrorist. Jayjg 16:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV. A few may be obvious examples, but far more cases will lead to endless arguments which the category system is not set up to handle. The sub-category of people convicted on terrorism charges should be far more useful. Warofdreams 17:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with User:Siroxo: "Tough one, probably should be kept but closely monitored." IZAK 00:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Alleged terrorists can easily be listed here as long as sources are cited where they endorse violence against civilians. --Viriditas 02:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Replace with more specific categories. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:08, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inherently POV in general. More specific categories may be OK. HistoryBuffEr 02:16, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wasn't Paul Revere also a terrorist, or was he a good guy because his side won? I forgot. mmmm, depends on whose side you were on...nothing accurate can come of this category. Hobie 03:42, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Please vote on this one

Presently the "cfd" notice displayed on the category:terrorists page says "Please do not remove this notice or empty the category while the question is being considered", which is even slightly contradictory to the "cfd" instruction given above on this page ("please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision" - empty and depopulate are not *exactly* the same).

Anyhow, in my view the best way forward for this category is removing the "cfd" notice, apply the "SCD" tool (see: wikipedia:categorization of people), so that improvements can be discussed on category talk:terrorists, and applied without being hampered by the "do not depopulate" instruction. --Francis Schonken 09:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Results:

  • Delete: 9
  • Keep: 10
  • Replace Cfd with SCD: 1


Wikipedia:Catagories for deletion/Galaxies by Constellation and subcategories The consensus appears to be that the "extrasolar system" categories should be deleted (only one keep vote and four deletes, although one was anonymous). Category:Compact stars received one clear delete vote and at least three clear keeps. Category:Neutron stars ended up with nothing but keep votes.

This page is now an archive. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Objects in the extrasolar system and subcategories

Category:Objects in the extrasolar system
Category:Compound objects in the extrasolar system
Category:Simple objects in the extrasolar system
Category:Compact stars
Category:Neutron stars

These categories are not used by anyone except User:Joseph Dwayne, and he cut off the categorizations of several things to put into his pet categories, making them lost from where they were. (Why would Category:Pulsars not be in Category:Stars? It appear in Category:Compact stars with no linkage to stars whatsoever (where it used to sit)). Compact stars is empty, so is Neutron stars. In any case they are in the wrong heirarchy of categories. Extrasolar system also has a different meaning... an extrasolar planetary system. 132.205.15.4 09:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why not simply recategorize Category:Compact stars under Category:Stars? I think it's not unreasonable to have a separate category for these kinds of objects, since they're rather different from the fusion-powered massive objects that are usually what people think of when they think "stars". The fact that they're currently empty doesn't mean they'll stay that way, I can think of several articles that could fall under them. The first three categories listed, on the other hand, are indeed poorly named and IMO probably worthy of deletion. Bryan 00:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I get your point. Compact stars and neutron stars could be recategorized under Category:Stars, though someone should populate them. 132.205.15.4 02:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that "Neutron stars" and "Pulsars" are reasonable categories, though it'll be interesting to decide which ones are notable enough to deserve articles. I'm not sure "Compact stars" is a meaningful and necessary category, though. -- Beland 05:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please also delete these childless orphans: Category:Extended_objects_in_the_extrasolar_system Category:Extrasolar_system -- Beland 05:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Woah dudes, chill out, following the convention used in the astronomical objects article. Why don't you help in filling them up instead of deleting them? *boggle* I remember cutting some cats by accident, but we can include both schemes, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical Objects, I asked there, got no answer so I started categorizing stuff since no one seems to help. But alas, I'm not an octopus and I don't have several hands to do this task alone. Some help would be nice you wacks. —Joseph | Talk 05:20, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the Astronomical objects article, I changed "Extrasolar system", which I find to be somewhat...improper...to "Extrasolar objects". I like the idea of aligning the category scheme with this table. I think that "Solar System" and all the top-level items in "Extrasolar objects" (Exoplanets, Stars by luminosity class, Compact stars, Galaxies, etc.) should also be an equivalent subcategory of Category:Celestial objects. So, keep Neutron stars and Compact stars, and delete the "extrasolar system" categories. -- Beland 05:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC).
I think that "Solar System" and all the top-level items in "Extrasolar objects" (Exoplanets, Stars by luminosity class, Compact stars, Galaxies, etc.) should also be an equivalent subcategory of Category:Celestial objects. So, keep Neutron stars and Compact stars, and delete the "extrasolar system" categories. -- (what Beland said) (extrasolar system is wacky, dude, does that mean everything not in this star system? I'm not sure, I don't get to the 'extrahouse location' much.)Seriously, though Joseph Dwayne, nice try, and we all DO appreciate the effort you are going to to try to develop a usable scheme for this... At least I do... also I think pretty much any pulsar is worthy of an article, if there's enough data. Black Holes too... but should we not call them collapsars, as it seems to me that the term Black Hole is sort of Anglocentric/America-centristic? or am I misled?Pedant 01:35, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Delete Category:Compact stars and put its subcategories into Category:Stars. Category:Neutron stars should be kept and populated. The extrasolar categories including the two listed by User:Beland should be deleted. We already have suitable subcategories under Category:Stars for most of these, and we also have Category:Extrasolar planets, Category:Galaxies etc.-gadfium 00:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oct 2

beta-lactam antibiotics

Rendering here is problematic, so I'll just note that the category at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:%26beta%3B-lactam_antibiotics should probably be written "beta-lactam antibiotics", but there are no children to be moved or anything. -- Beland 21:38, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Category:Playwrights

May arguably be subtly different from its parent Category:Dramatists, but in practice the distinction is unhelpful. Actual population of "writers who write plays" is distributed between the two at random. --Bishonen 16:01, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Difference is more than subtle: in my view problems originated from a wrong category definition of Category:Dramatists (exclusively referring to playwrights, instead of to the Dramatist article). I started the extensive work now needed: creating more subcategories for the Dramatists category (along the new definition), and re-categorizing articles that are now in the Dramatist category. Please give a hand on that! --Francis Schonken 11:06, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Francis, I'm afraid I don't agree with the new category definition. Please see note on your talk page. --Bishonen 14:56, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
See also reply, and additional questions, on User talk:Bishonen - if this keeps interesting as it is I move the discussion now on the user talk pages to Category talk:Dramatists --Francis Schonken 16:11, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
After my suggestion on Category talk:Dramatists, I proceed with the creation of Category:Dramatists and playwrights, and will re-categorize the "Dramatist" category and its present subcategories to subcategories of this newly created "supercategory". At least for "Dramatists" (but probably for "Playwrights" too) that is only a temporary measure, till all present dramatists are recategorized to the "Dramatists AND playwrights" category. The POV difference over where exactly the distinction between "Dramatists" and "Playwrights" lies seems too broad for any of these two categories to work separately in a stable way over a period of time. "Librettists" and some other subcategories of the present "Dramatists" category, on the other side, will probably work very well as subcategories to "Dramatists and playwrights". --Francis Schonken 18:31, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Operation described in previous paragraph more or less completed, at least as far as the involved CATEGORIES are concerned... Still major help needed for re-categorizing the articles in Category:Dramatists (and in Category:Playwrights) - If nobody else objects, a robotised recategorization in this sense would be fine for me! Is there somebody who can do that? Please don't destroy the categories yet (as follows from discussion, before you know somebody else would re-create them; also the content on the discussion pages should be kept & is linked from several pages, e.g. as example now from Wikipedia:categorization of people). --Francis Schonken 22:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sept 30

Category:Political prisoners

Inherent POV, breeding ground for revert wars. Have moved content to the objective (if unwieldy) Category:People considered political prisoners by Amnesty International. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:28, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

That seems a bit extreme. Most people would agree that Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner, but in his autobiography he describes how Amnesty International would not intervene on his behalf because he had engaged in armed insurrection against the state. --Saforrest 00:11, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
-> "...breeding ground for revert wars...": is that a "prophecy", or just a "self-fulfilling prophecy"?
-> "...objective...": please re-read NPOV guideline: "objecitvity" has no place on wikipedia, only a combination of POV's, which is defined as the NPOV.
-> "Amnesty International" is inherently POV (that's the reason why they exist in the first place!), so they have their place on Wikipedia, but not as the only reference for the political prisoner idea: I suggest to make the "AI" political prisoners category a subcategory of the existing "political prisoners" category.
-> For what follows I use some of the terminology of wikipedia:categorization of people, so I go from the supposition Neutrality at least read that article (note: if not agreeing to the content of that guideline, please feel invited to post your objections on its talk page):
  • I saw no attempt to start a discussion on Category talk:political prisoners, and even less an attempt to contact user:Lupin (who had started this category), or anybody who had assigned this category to a wikipedia article.
  • I saw no attempt to give a good category definition of that category, and I see no problem re. the political prisoners category that could not be solved by a good category definition.
  • In short: I saw no avoidance of dispute technique used by Neutrality, before jumping to the 3rd step of a dispute resolution procedure (a poll on CfD) - that's why I called this a "self-fulfilling prophecy" above.
--Francis Schonken 07:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note: de-problematised this category one step by applying "SCD" tool instead of "CfD" - further I move this discussion to the category's talk page: discussion to be continued there first, in the case there would still be problems regarding this category (and its present subcategory). --Francis Schonken 09:11, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Sept 29

Category:Women of Pakistan

We already have Category:Pakistani people. It seems unnecessary to categorize by gender. I know there's a major debate going on about categorization of people, but does anyone think it's necessary to have people of all countries categorized by gender? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 16:15, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Note: "...major debate going on...": well, the debate over categorization of people is drawing to a consensus by now: probably soon it will be moved from "thinktank" to "policies and guidelines".
--Francis Schonken 07:57, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Having read Wikipedia:Categorization of people, I am a bit less sure of this, but practically speaking, the category is useful. — iFaqeer | Talk to me! 19:35, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Would you consider Category:Men of Great Britain to be useful? Should Charles Dickens be categorized as a British man, in addition to being categorized as a British writer? If you wouldn't recommend adding a gender category for every biographical article on Wikipedia, then why only do so for Pakistani women? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:47, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
I am not saying I would. I see the point about gender categories in general only increasing volume of data without adding much value. Just that I have found this one useful. — iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:01, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Preliminary remark: discussion of gender-neutrality in "categorization of people" context had nothing to do with technical limitations of wikipedia system, it was rather an attempt to adapt to general ideas of gender-neutrality discussed at other places of the "wikipedia:" domain (see discussion page of wikipedia:categorization of people, you can find the links there). Nonetheless, when I open the "women of Pakistan" category page I expect to find some general explanation why it exists as a separate category (for me, not particularily acquainted with the topic, it might be as viable to split up Pakistani according to "Pakistani living in Pakistan" and "Pakistani living abroad", or whatever other split, I really don't care, but I do care that if I open the category I am informed why it exists as a separate category. Especially while deviating from the general guideline - deviation is always possible, in fact I like deviation from general rules - but if you don't want to be subjected to criticism, please try to write a text that makes other people understand why you think this category a good idea). So:
Invitation to iFaqeer: please try to give a good category definition first (presently I see only some "see also"'s and external links, nothing explains in a few words what the category is about: is it about women's rights in Pakistan? Is it about philosophical objections that men and women are in the same category? etc???)
Next recommendation: please continue this talk about this category on Category talk:women of Pakistan, I don't see this category being ready for a CfD vote before a discussion there.
--Francis Schonken 07:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 05:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Possibly unnecessary categories

These seemed to have more potential for disagreement. They were all childless orphans when I found them. -- Beland 06:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete all of them. Maurreen 05:12, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Colleges and universites in Canada

Is "universities and colleges" appropriate Canadian terminology? It is pretty standard for Wikipedia; see Category:Universities_and_colleges.

In Quebec, a "college" is sort of in-between "high school" and "university" (which are each a year shorter to leave room for two years of college) . "Universities in Quebec" is correct. Even schools that are called "colleges" in, say, the U.S., are referred to as "universities" in Quebec. See CEGEP, which is a Quebec phenomenon not shared by the rest of Canada, so it wouldn't affect the Alberta category. Category:Canadian universities does seem to include colleges. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:05, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Universities and colleges" is appropriate Canadian terminology; however, would something like "Postsecondary education in Canada" or better "Canadian postsecondary institutions" be better?
Aranel, I think that including CEGEPs on Wikipedia as 'colleges' is borderline; one could argue they are effectively senior high schools. Are all colleges in Quebec really CEGEPs? --Saforrest 23:46, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
I should add to Aranel's comments that there is a pretty sharp distinction between colleges and universities in Ontario, at least, and probably in the rest of Canada too. The ambiguity in American usage does not exist here, so if there are colleges under Category:Canadian universities, they should not be there (or better yet, the category should be renamed to something inclusive). --Saforrest 23:52, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
CEGEPs are not senior high schools. It's the combination of a technical school, pre-university prep-school, community college and liberal arts college. They should not be place in any high school category, since registration and class performance are judged by university and not highschool standards (IOW, it's up to you to pass, they will fail you, if you can't get the class you need to graduate, tough luck, try another semester, inter-CEGEP registrations are permitted, just like inter-university ones). They are also not univesities though... In Quebec, official college type of school is a CEGEP, but any school can call itself a college. As such there are elementary schools with college in their names, as there are middle schools (junior high school), senior highs, technical schools, etc. There are ofcourse subdivisions of universities that are also called college, as there are everywhere. 132.205.15.4 05:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We also have now: Category:Universities_in_Ottawa (childless orphan) Category:Universities_and_Colleges_in_Ottawa Category:Universities_and_Colleges_in_Toronto (Populated, but wrong capitalization.) Category:Universities_in_Toronto (a childless orphan) -- Beland 07:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sept 28

Category:2004 timelines

Redundant with Category:2004. Davodd 01:10, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • I see "Timelines" as a subcategory of the other. Maurreen 05:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's currently so much clutter in Category:2004 that if I were looking for a timeline there, I wouldn't be able to find one. It'd be different if these articles had 'timeline' in their title. --ssd 23:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Union Navy officers

Category:Union Navy admirals

Recommend keeping these to be consistent with Confederate Navy categories. While technically part of the United States Navy, this was a unique time in the Navy's history. Breaking them out helps clarify where people fought. The alternative is dumping everyone into "American Civil War people" which is less helpful. Jinian 17:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Works for me. Maurreen 05:28, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both. I don't think keeping these creates any consistency with the Confederate categories, because the U.S. clearly continued to exist during the Civil War, and the Confederacy was a government in opposition. That the U.S. had another nickname during this time does not justify a separate category for that nickname—it's merely going to be confusing to those not familiar with the topic, who are going to think that the U.S. and the Union were two separate things. But it is reasonable to try and subcategorize Category:American Civil War people, so the problem is more the name. We need something more along the lines of Category:U.S. military officers during the American Civil War. Cumbersome, but a more clear designation. Another thing to keep in mind is that we don't need categories for every relationship and every bit of information about a subject. But let's come up with a better solution than "Union" categories. Postdlf 23:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • How about making the Union Navy a subcategory of the US Navy? Or perhaps "Military officers during the American Civil War", with subcategories of "Confederate" and "Union"? Of course, that new category would be a subset of "American Civil War people" which would also contain politicians, activists, journalist, etc. Jinian 17:09, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Sept 26

Category:Right-wing populists

Inherently POV. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:39, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Er, how? Are any of the entries reasonably disputable? (They may not like them, but that's a different matter.) Keep - David Gerard 12:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's in accordance with general usage. /Tuomas 11:51, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • We have been deleting "liberal" categories, so why not "right-wing"? Determining who is and who is not right-wing is POV. For example, some people on the far left would want to include moderates in this category. -- Beland 02:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sept 22

Category:Miscarriages of justice

Not NPOV. -- Beland 04:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed—delete. A NPOV substitute that may collect together some of the content that the author of this category had intended may be Category:Overturned criminal convictions. Otherwise, we're totally in subjective judgmentville. Postdlf 20:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 21

SOC Occupation categories

Category:Life, physical, and social science occupations

Has been divided in more sensible Category:Science occupations and Category:Social science occupations. - SimonP 03:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations

As there is no reason to cram four different things into one non-intutive category it has been replaced with Category:Sports occupations. Category:Entertainment occupations. Category:Media occupations, and Category:Arts occupations. - SimonP 03:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - This was already discussed here on CFD (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/unresolved#Category:Occupations and all its subcategories) and the majority at the time prefer a "pre-packaged" system of top-level Occupation categories. The "new ones" Simon created can be housed with no conflict under that system, using only slightly different names. More discussion is being held at Category talk:Occupations. -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
    • Comment, I am combining these related items. I'd also like to point out that User:SimonP has gone ahead and jumbled the entire Category:Occupations tree - before allowing sufficient consensus to be reached. Only two people disagreed with the SOC system (now at Category:SOC occupations, thanks to Simon). I feel the formal SOC system, with its built-in occupation->category look-up, is a far better candidate to occupy the root "Occupations" category - and it's an excellent fit for WP. -- Netoholic @ 22:25, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say that Category:Occupations is "jumbled"—there are only 36 subcategories of it, and it's much easier to find everything by not having arbitrary conglomerate subcategories. BTW, consensus on this page means that a category is deleted or not deleted—if it is not deleted, that doesn't mean that its contents are forever locked in. SimonP was bold and fixed the system. Kudos. Postdlf 20:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an arbitrary grouping of categories, whether or not it's an arbitrary grouping that the U.S. government happens to use. It's much more helpful to see the variety of subcategories all at once under Category:Occupations than it is to submerge and obscure them under these undigested lumps. Postdlf 06:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't see the harm. Keep. anthony (see warning) 13:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I do see the harm, delete. Arbitrary groupings serve no real purpose. Gentgeen 04:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Arbitrary grouping. Andris 07:26, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Comments
There are 23 categories defined as part of the SOC groupings (Category:SOC occupations). To arbitrarily pick two to delete makes the whole categorization scheme break. The SOC categories (all 23) were already posted on CFD and survived. -- Netoholic @ 19:17, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
And now someone has wisely bypassed them with better categories—surviving CFD in no way prevents that. Postdlf 22:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 16

Category:Terrorists

An inherently POV designation. This category can never been neutral. -- Viajero 20:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • It definitely has POV problems, but how else would you categorize articles on the 9/11 hijackers, Timothy McVeigh, etc? There are quite a few individuals who are notable purely because of their substantiated connection to a violent act. One option would be to categorize them by membership (i.e., "Members of Al Qaeda", "Members of Hamas"), but that would leave out the lone guns, and also beg the question of what parent to put those categories into? We could also categorize them by their actions, but that not only seems reductionist (the 9/11 hijackeres accomplished a little more than just being "plane hijackers") but also still will run into POV problems ("suicide bombers"). So what do we do instead? Postdlf 22:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this category is ok as long as it is restricted to people officially designated as terrorists by the government. —Mike 22:14, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
    Heh. May I ask which government is the government? ✏ Sverdrup 22:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Interpol? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:48, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think we can keep this, but we should have instrutions for what to include on its talk page. ✏ Sverdrup 22:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE, A terrorist is any individual who uses terror threats, or terror acts to obtain their ends. This would be a very broad category indeed. George W Bush frequently threatens North Korea and Iran. If you limit it to acts of terror on innocent civilians, then you'd have a very large list still, since any war attrocity used as a control measure to incite fear would fall into means, and then every soldier who carried out the acts would be a terrorist. (ie. the Abu Gharib guards). Perhaps it should just be Category: religious fundamentalists and racial purists who use acts of brutality against civilians to acheive political turnover of governments and societies, but that's an awfully long name. This noticibly lets off freedom fighters who are not overly into racial purity or religious fundamentalism. (I would include communism as a form of religion, by the way, so the Shining Path would count as terrorists) 132.205.15.4 04:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately starting off with trying to equate George Bush with terrorism automatically discounts any argument being made. Also, the Abu Gharib guards are not terrorists by any normal definition. That aside I still think this category would be ok for "officially" designated terrorists or for people belonging to "officially" designated terrorist groups. The category page would need to explain the criteria. But we shouldn't be making up our own standards for who is or is not a terrorist. —Mike 05:52, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tough one, probably should be kept but closely monitored. —siroχo 08:36, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
For reference, I added following paragraph to the definition of the prisoners and detainees category (which I created yesterday):
"Wikipedia, however, does not occupy itself with determining "guilt" or "innocence" of people - that's what courts do - but it does occupy itself with recording what happened to important people."
Could this be useful for "terrorists" category too? --Francis Schonken 08:44, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The category is inherently perjorative and would have to include organizations like the CIA (Sorry Mike, once headed by Bush Sr.). It's about as valid as Category: Evil people even if you did restrict it to people "officially" designated as evil. Matt 23:56, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful, and defining terrorism is not as hard as people say, most cases admit little controversy. VeryVerily 00:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Even if we go along the lines of the definition given in Terrorism, and it's specifically applied to groups which meet those exact criteria, it's still fairly POV. Suggest replacement with a category "Paramilitary groups", which is more easily defined. Sockatume 23:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Impossible to keep free of disturbing bias. Category:Terrorist attacks would be slightly less problematic case, as also Category:Convicted terrorists, but still likely to cause Wikipedia more problems than gains. /Tuomas 10:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Our task is not to reform the language as she is spoken, or to deconstruct popular labels. Smerdis of Tlön 14:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: As has been said many times, 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. Government recognition means nothing. NeilTarrant 15:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: the category clearly states that the listing is of people who were involved in deliberate attack against civilians, in pursuit of political\religion\national goals. Though they might be some POV problems, there are inviteable and it is far less worse than to not list these people at all. Since this is a list of people, there is less prolem in the old militant\terrorist NPOV arguments: was he involved in deliberately targeting civilians? he's a terrorist. MathKnight 12:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A terrorist is a terrorist. Period. JFW | T@lk 13:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Knowing his history, JFW may attempt to remove this vote.Xed 14:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Please, Xed, stick to the matter under discussion. Trolling is bannable. JFW | T@lk 16:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Your definition of trolling seems to include pointing out others mistakes - a bannable offense! But removing votes is fine in your ethical universe.Xed 17:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: can never be NPOV. Filiocht 14:44, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. An example, in Ireland, usually the term "paramilitary organisations" is used in media, etc., even by those who abhor the groups. zoney ♣ talk 15:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anyone who deliberately targets civilians for political purposes is a terrorist. Jayjg 16:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV. A few may be obvious examples, but far more cases will lead to endless arguments which the category system is not set up to handle. The sub-category of people convicted on terrorism charges should be far more useful. Warofdreams 17:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with User:Siroxo: "Tough one, probably should be kept but closely monitored." IZAK 00:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Alleged terrorists can easily be listed here as long as sources are cited where they endorse violence against civilians. --Viriditas 02:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Replace with more specific categories. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:08, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inherently POV in general. More specific categories may be OK. HistoryBuffEr 02:16, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Please vote on this one

Presently the "cfd" notice displayed on the category:terrorists page says "Please do not remove this notice or empty the category while the question is being considered", which is even slightly contradictory to the "cfd" instruction given above on this page ("please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision" - empty and depopulate are not *exactly* the same).

Anyhow, in my view the best way forward for this category is removing the "cfd" notice, apply the "SCD" tool (see: wikipedia:categorization of people), so that improvements can be discussed on category talk:terrorists, and applied without being hampered by the "do not depopulate" instruction. --Francis Schonken 09:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Results:

  • Delete: 11
  • Keep: 9 (?)
  • Replace Cfd with SCD: 1

Category:Denver_metropolitan_area

I restored this after it was improperly deleted—comments above make it two votes to keep vs. the one deletion nomination. It makes absolutely no sense to make the metro area a subtopic of the Denver city category—that reverses the actual relationship. Including the other cities within the metro area within the Denver city category also wrongfully implies that they are not independent municipalities. Please take a look at the category's current contents. I haven't finished filling it yet (I am currently running on a ten-year old backup computer thanks to my lousy laptop burning out again), but you can see how it is supposed to work. Postdlf 02:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Education_in_Washington

Keep—intended as a parent for not only Category:Washington public education, but also Category:Universities and colleges in Washington. Allows these to be grouped together under the state category, as well as in Category:United States education by state. This format can apply to all state categories. Postdlf 00:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is this ever going to have more than two members? If not, I think these two should be listed directly in Category:Washington, and have "United States universities and colleges by state" and "United States public education by state". Can anyone name a few articles that might go here? -- Beland 06:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As we gain more content on state government and law, I'm sure we will eventually have articles on state departments of education, for one, not to mention notable private schools that are obviously neither universities nor public education. Check out Category:Education in Hawaii to see how a state-level education parent category can be used. Postdlf 14:45, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:US ethnic groups

This should be changed to Category:U.S. ethnic groups per MoS. --Jiang 21:58, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reincarnated

Athletes

  • All the subcategories of Category:Athletes need to be moved to Category:Track and field athletes and sub-sub-categories to "Country X track and field athletes" instead of "Country X athletes". Summary of discussion: British English for "track and field athlete" is "athlete", and the American English meaning of "athlete" is "sportsperson". "Sportsperson" is not standard American English, but it is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
    This doesn't seem logical. Change the contents of 50+ categories for the sake of one anomalous country? Why should those countries that use 'track and field' rarely, if at all, have to conform to the US classification, rather than the other way round? [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 13:40, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    This was debated and everyone agreed. Perhaps the debate should be revived? --ssd 13:48, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    I will soon be able to do this automatically, so it's not that much effort. Once this is changed, everyone will be able to understand what's meant, including the hundreds of millions of people who speak American English who might want to browse Wikipedia. -- Beland 05:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    If you can do it automatically, what about the 2004 Olympians? Between 2004 and the previous Olympiads, Athlete became "Track and Field only"... 132.205.15.42 00:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Good point; I'll submit this as a separate nomination. -- Beland 05:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    This is a ridiculous suggestion - it's like wanting to change Category:English footballers to Category:English soccer players because the former is ambiguous to Americans. WP policy is to use International English for topics concerning places where it is the main form of English used (i.e., effectively, everywhere except the US and Canada), and the International English form of the US English "track and field athlete" is "athlete". It's perfectly reasonable to have "track and field athletes" for the US and Canada categories, as that is the form used in those countries, but to expect every other country's category to follow suit is absurd, and certainly contrary to WP policy on the matter. Proteus (Talk) 23:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, footballers is (mostly) unambiguous, in the sense that players of American football are called exclusively "football players", never "footballers". When I see "footballers", I know it is British usage; though, I suppose not every North American would. --Saforrest 02:23, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
    This is certainly a preposterous proposal. Why must categories not relating to the United States conform to American standards? -- Emsworth 23:49, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Why? For clarity and so that people will stop categorizing articles in the wrong places. Most Americans have at least heard "football" used in the international sense, but I would never have dreamed that "athlete" meant something else, especially with all those sportspersons listed there. Using the "local" dialect is fine for making arbitrary spelling and vocabulary choices, but I think doing that here would be following a rule to a fault. I would not recommend following American English usage for "athlete" for the US, because "Sportspeople of the U.S." or whatever, is understandable to international readers, but "U.S. athletes" is not what they think. Besides, it'd be very confusing if "U.S. athletes" means something completely different than "South African athletes"...gosh, I'm not even sure which usage Canada follows. -- Beland 02:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • US is the most local dialect of all! Almost no-one else uses US spellings! zoney ♣ talk 13:45, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The United States can use whatever meaning they like, but surely it is imperialism to impose their defintion of a term upon other countries... Would it not be better to change any "U.S. athletes" catagory to a more internationaly acceptable name, and then add a disambiguation page, linking to both the American and international descriptions. --NeilTarrant 13:57, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The best way to avoid a US/UK/International English problem is to, wherever possible, adopt terms that are equally understandable to all, and which do not stand out as being distinctly American, British, or whatever. If those in the US do not use 'athlete' in the same way as it is used elsewhere, it is only proper to change it to something neutral. I see nothing word with Category:Track and field athletes. It's accurate, understandable to all, and does not stick out as being UK or US or whatever. (Usually I trot this argument to persuade Americans to let go of their US-centric words, but it applies equally here.) jguk 20:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The next step is to persuade the IAAF to rename iteself as the IATFF, of course. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 00:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Discussions moved off-page

Please see:

Empty me/Move me

The below meet the eligibility requirements for deletion at the top of this page. These categories need to be de-populated. Discussion on these items should still be listed above.

(User:Pearle will automate article reassignment if she is approved. -- Beland 05:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Delete me

The below meet the eligibility requirements for deletion at the top of this page. These categories have been de-populated, and any documentation of this decision taken care of. Admins may delete these categories at will. If there is a particular category which is replacing the deleted category (if redundant, misspelled, etc.) as noted below, that should be mentioned in the deletion log entry.

The category to be deleted is listed first, followed by the proper category that renders it obsolete.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=6634215"