Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aranel (talk | contribs) at 00:58, 20 November 2004 (→[[:Category:Genera]]: remove entry, consensus to keep, see Category talk:Genera). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, and how to do cleanup.

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


How to use this page

  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. Please read the new policy at Wikipedia:Categorization of people if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
  7. 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).
  8. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
  9. Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.


Special notes

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

Old discussions from this page have been archived to:

In light of various new policies, some /unresolved disputes will be re-listed here in the near future.

See also meta-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.

November 19

Category:Chinese fighters

There is Category:Chinese fighter aircraft already. Pibwl

Category:Pub stub

This category and its counterpart Template:Pub-stub should be deleted because there is something much more useful: Category:Buildings and structures stubs and Template:Struct-stub --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 10:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 18

Category:Recipies

First, it should be spelled "recipes". Second, my understanding is that recipes belong in the cookbook. So, the articles in this category should be transwikified anyway. Wolfman 00:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Hunting goddesses

Seems sort of redundant, there's already Category:Hunting gods and I don't see a reason to differ by gender in this case. --Conti|✉ 19:50, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. I was under the impression that the consensus regarding Category:Gods and Category: Goddesses was that this is generally a useful distinction to make (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/resolved#Category:Gods_and_Category:Goddesses—if that wasn't the consensus of that discussion, some input would be appreciated). It's very interesting to be able to see at a glance the variety of female deities associated with hunting, especially since hunting was done by men in most cultures. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. We've just been through all this. Very useful to have category differentiation from Gods.Grutness 01:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I wasn't aware that there was already a discussion about this issue, but I still do not really see a reason for that. But if there was already a consensus to keep things as they are, so be it. --Conti|✉ 12:39, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Propaganda

Delete. Since the word "propaganda" has pejorative connotations, I believe that makes this catagory POV. This sort of thing would be more appropriate at Disinfopedia (which is ironically listed) rather than here. Grice 12:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete--Josiah 22:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Jayjg 22:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete RedWolf 01:08, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep E.g. Joseph Goebles. CheeseDreams 01:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Goebbels deserves to be linked in an article on Propaganda, but no category is necessary, and any category will quickly degenerate into POV additions. Grutness 02:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. See also the subcategory Category:Propaganda examples. -Sean Curtin 03:15, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is always a shame when good words go bad, but I don't think that propaganda can be called Point-Of-View (POV). It is very well defined in the dictionary: "the systematic propagation of a given doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and interests". If you had a category like "Good propaganda" or "Bad propaganda" it would be POV. But because Category:Propaganda makes no distiction in the type, it is not POV. Additionally, without this category where would you put articles like Propaganda model, Propaganda film, and Cold War propaganda in Germany, to name just a few. —Mike 03:49, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well the fact that "propaganda" is a legitimate word in the dictionary is a good justification for its own article, which does already exist here at wikipedia, but not neccessarily for its own catagory. Articles like Propaganda model and Propaganda film can be linked to from the propaganda page. Grice 12:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      Just because something can be linked to doesn't mean it can't be categorized. Every page should be linked to many other pages in some way or another. —Mike 23:06, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The fact that a category may be abused as POV vehicle does not mean it should be deleted. Currently there are no POV inclusions (from a cursory glance) in it, so why the fuss? And if we are talking about future potential, any category can be abused. For example, Category:Medicine currently includes links to Acupuncture, but does not include a link to Prayer. There is ample evidence that Acupuncture does not work as medicine and some slim evidence that Prayer does. Shall I take the inclusion (or omission) of an article in that category as an endorsement of certain medical practices by Wikipedia? Aren't we biased? Removing the Category:Propaganda would be a huge mistake. :( In fact, by trying to avoid all bias people here sometimes make the encyclopedia more biased, biased against facts, because some facts are just not reported. Paranoid 17:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Academic institutions vs. Category:School types

If there is a difference between these two categories, I can't fathom it. I think they should probably be merged, maybe under a third title. If you support keeping them both, it might not be a bad idea to articulate definitions that can be posted in the intros for future reference. -- Beland 07:24, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • School types should be under Academic institutions instead of vice versa. School types seems to be a category for articles about types of schools. Academic institutions seems to be actual schools. 132.205.45.148 15:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Bible stories

New Category:Bible stories (started November 17) is very confusing and not needed. Into it have been added anything that is randomly a Bible "story", be it an entire book, person, or anecdote article. Here are some problems with it:

  1. First of all there is a big difference between the Old Testament which is referred to on Wikipedia as Hebrew Bible (as many people of the Jewish faith who accept and believe in the Bible are offended by the name "Old" Testament) and the New Testament accepted by Christians.
  2. BOOKS of the Bible , such as Book of Daniel, Book of Job, Book of Exodus are tossed into this category of "stories" with articles that are just "one topic pieces" such as Creation according to Genesis or New Testament view on Jesus' life.
  3. There are already categories Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh, Category:Torah, Category:Jewish texts and Category:Bible, Category:Holy scripture, Category:Christian texts that comprehensively deal with these topics and categorize them carefully, correctly and accurately.
  4. The category is NOT being careful enough, therefore this Category:Bible stories category should be deleted as it is not needed and confusing (it also seems to be promoting only a secular POV as its creator User:CheeseDreams has placed many {{cleanup}}{{NPOV}}{{expansion}} signs on many pages causing much new dispute on all those pages. IZAK 05:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Counterpoint
  1. The article is just as valid as List of Bible stories where the majority vote is currently keep. In fact more-so, as it is automatically maintained, and therefore has a wider group of editors, so is less likely to be POV than an obscure article linked from only one or two places. CheeseDreams 19:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Lists" and "Categories" are different methodologies. A "List" on Wikipedia is a much looser collection of items and articles, whereas a "Category" has to be much more exact and becomes itself either a sub-category of something or has many of its own sub and sub-sub-categories etc. In this case the Category:Bible already exists and one can follow it either according to the Christian tradition via Category:Christian texts and its many sub-categories or the Jewish tradition via Category:Jewish texts as well as other category choices. IZAK 02:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  1. If you note the tags I added, I chose them with care, the combinations are not the same on all pages. NPOV is usually due to the assumption of biblical inerrancy, or failing to take a critical view. Expansion is either due to lack of content, lack of content about historians/archeaologists opinions, or sections consisting of one sentance, often stating "editors note: put content in". Cleanup is because the article is poorly structured, or predominantly quotes rather than commentary, or because there is zero wikification. CheeseDreams 19:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"You" may have chosen the tags with "care", but on Wikipedia these tags are a serious matter and if you are going to paste them on 50 articles without explanation to other users you are courting controversy and opposition. You must give some explanation why you think three tags are needed in many cases, citing the actual content and not just by "laying down the law" here as you see fit.IZAK 02:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  1. I regard it as vandalism to remove the tags.

It's not "vandalism" just because it angers you. On the contrary it is you that was reported on the vandalism page at: Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#CheeseDreams. I went to the trouble of placing an explanation on each page where tags were placed and removed. IZAK 02:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately in the article Esther: See User:CheeseDreams most Un-Wikipedian rantings as he placed these comments in bold (sic) on the actual article page (subsequently deleted by another editor): (NPOV) BECAUSE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE VIEW OF THE BIBLE STORIES MEANING.IT FAILS TO POINT OUT THAT HERODITUS LIVED VERY VERY MANY YEARS LATER THAN THE STORY IS SET. IT FAILS TO POINT OUT THE ACTUAL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE STORY AND THAT OF ISTAR MORE THAN SUPERFICIALLY. ((expansion)) BECAUSE THERE IS HARDLY ANY CONTENT HERE AND MANY MANY MANY PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN MANY MANY TRACTS, DISSERTATIONS, PAPERS, SERMONS, MEDITAIONS, ETC. ON EVERY BIT OF THE BIBLE, NO MATTER HOW SMALL." [1]

Is this how the negotiations and talks will end? This should not tolerated. IZAK 05:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete very soon! IZAK 05:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I take objection to your listing of this category. For the record I have never written anything on any of the religious articles of Wiki. But it would appear to me your basis for listing this is because you take objection to content of the Torah being listed with the X-ian part of the book. And as an objection to them being listed as "stories". KEEP and give it some time to get organized, it was started less than 24hrs ago. I would almost consider this Abuse for being listed so soon. Alkivar 05:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me, this has nothing to do with what you perceive. The fact remains that there are already established categories for this subject according to normative and reliable religious and scholarly Christian, Jewish, and academic standards, and that to create a "new" category by throwing every topic remotely related to the Bible into the pot and labeling it a "story", like a new list of "Fairy stories", and part of maybe Category:Fiction or akin to Category:Short stories, is not a helpful "category" but a recipe for chaos and confusion. IZAK 06:14, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also regard it as abuse to attempt to delete it with its existence being less than 8 hours old. CheeseDreams 19:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please be accurate, NO-ONE "attempted" to delete it, it was placed here for a vote for those who are experienced with this kind of thing to consider the matter and vote on it. That's all. Please tone down the note of hysteria. Thank you. IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep and reorganise. It is a legitimate fact that there are some narrative parts of the Bible that are more famous than others - if this category listed the famous ones, linking to a page about that episode (from a narrative perspective, although it could certainly be to a part of a longer article about the actual book of the Bible) and if links to books of the Bible, places and people were removed, I think it would be a useful category. At the moment it is pointless. Can categories have descriptions? If so, a paragraph describing the nature and scope of the category ("famous" narrative elements) will make it more NPOV. Frikle 06:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Frikle, the category is a mess, it throws in entire books like Exodus with stories like the Last Supper. Take a look at it. IZAK 09:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I said that references to entire books or personalities should be removed. However, now that I've visited List of Bible stories, it seems that that page already does everything this one is meant to do without throwing in whole books or people, so both are unnecessary. As the list page is the better one, I think this one should be deleted.Frikle 00:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I understand the frivolous nature of this category. :( However, it seems to me that we should wait and see if the proponents :) of this category can develop a tool that would be useful for readers. At this time, there seem to be serious NPOV and logical problems with this category. But couldn't these problems be worked out on the TalkPage for this category? ---Rednblu | Talk 07:10, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, User:CheeseDreams has made many edits serious edits such as adding these signs: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} to about 50 Bible-related pages without explaining why he did so. IZAK 09:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
1) You stated that already above
2) See my counter CheeseDreams
  • Rename to Bible narratives and split into Old and New Testament. JFW | T@lk 07:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again the problem is that entire books are not just "naratives", and, personalities that he has put into this category like Moses and Solomon's Temple are not "naratives" either, it just breeds inaccuracy. IZAK 09:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The items in the category are EXACTLY THE SAME as the links on List of Bible stories. If you object to the list of items placed in the category then CONSISTENCY REQUIRES that you object to the list of items in List of Bible stories. I got filled the category precisely with the items in that article. Whether or not my POV regarded it as sensible. CheeseDreams 00:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Jfdwolff's suggestion is a good one, though, and I would support doing that. The Category was started to replace a "List page" (which I thought was silly, though harmless), but the Category is certainly better than the list page. I've reconsidered after IZAK's comment. Not that it matters, since it has already been deleted. Mpolo 08:21, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
There are already many sub-categories and sub-sub-categories, see all of them in Category:Christian texts and Category:Jewish texts and tell us what is missing still? IZAK 09:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Not only does the term "Bible" mean different things to different people, but lumping every topic related to the Bible into this inchoate grab-bag makes no sense either. This category goes against the basic encyclopedic standards of hierarchy and precision... Please stick with the existing categories mentioned above by IZAK, e.g., Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh, Category:Torah, Category:Jewish texts and Category:Bible. 172 10:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but, rename, perhaps to "Bible stories (Christian). Limit contents to the classic stories commonly used in Sunday School in Christian churches. Anyone who is familiar with the curriculum knows what these are. Fred Bauder 12:16, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
The choice of content and name simply came from my replacing the silly article List of Bible storiesCheeseDreams 19:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is very poor form to create a new category that is ill-fitting and imprecise as a kind of "protest manoeuvre" because you don't like the way a vote is going on a diffent page for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Bible stories. Sorry, but there is a major difference. IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, with consideration of Mr. Bauder's proposal for a new catagory. I don't think this one (and the sorts of things in it) would be able to easilly transition into that, and I also think its primary advocate (cheese) would be unsuited, since it would appear he is unfamiliar with Sunday school curriculum? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:10, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note:This is an instance where User:IZAK and User:Sam Spade are in full agreement. IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. This category is unnecessary in light of so many other categories relating to Jewish and Christian scriptures. Fred Bauder's suggestion seems confused. At least it seems to me unintuitive to claim that the story of Joseph and his Brothers is particularly a Christian Bible story. Stories told in Sunday schools depend on age of the children. I suppose one could make a category of "Bible stories that often appear in retellings intended for young children" or something of that kind. Jallan 15:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BTW, there already are categories like Category:Holy scripture, Category:Christianity with many clear sub-categories (please see them). IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm not voting yet, but I'd like to point out (again) that very few of the articles listed in the category at the moment are actually about Bible stories, and most of them would be much better categorized elsewhere. (For example, Moses might belong in a "Biblical figures" category or something of the like. He's not a story.) Good Samaritan is the only one that I am certain actually fits there. Prodigal son could also be included. What else is there? "Adam and Eve" is not a story. Book of Ruth belongs in a category for books, not stories. Solomon's Temple is mentioned in some stories, but it's a building,temple not a story. Pretty much the entire point of this category is to replace List of Bible stories, which at the moment is surviving VfD by a wide margin. The category was created by User:CheeseDreams in an effort to get rid of the list; the problem is that the list accomplishes the intended purpose much better, since it is possible to link to articles that relate to stories rather than claiming that the articles themselves fall under "Bible stories". -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aranel, there are in fact clear sub-categories in existnce, such as Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh people with over 180 entries so far, Category:Torah people with over 140 entries, and other precise categories for "events" and "places" etc, making Category:Bible stories look "childish" in comparison. IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

List of Bible stories is highly subject to POV, and is little watched by the editors of articles it links to, or those it doesn't. Catagories automatically fill, and thus editors of articles can clearly see whether the article is or is not in the catagory. In addition, it removes POV descriptions, as it simply uses the article titles.

Could you please sign your comments with the ~~~~ so that we can know who made the above unsigned comment/s. Thanks. IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  1. What you call "POV descriptions", I call "the actual name of the story". The names of the stories themselves are what should be listed. The potential for POV is in what they link to (but note that we often link to articles that relate to text and are not identical with what is named in the link text).
Since when did the bible stories have names? The bible doesn't name them. Any interpretation of what the names should be is thus subjective, and thus POV. CheeseDreams 00:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Over the millenia and centuries both Judaism and Christianity (as well as Islam) have accepted and adopted "names" for many important events in the Bible. This is an acceptable convention among almost all (religious and non-religious) Bible scholars, and it's no use saying "the Bible doesn't 'name' them" as the Bible does not "do" many "things", yet we do many things with it (some "kosher" and some not). IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  1. Categories are often little watched by editors. The fact that something has slipped under the radar is not grounds for deletion. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:24, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Various editors have different interests, the categories on Wikipedia are very widely used and watched by many, so they are of great importance. IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - in this case, a List of Bible stories is a much better solution. -- Netoholic @ 18:53, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Rename - Biblical narratives or Biblical related topics is appropriate and would make a useful category. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:01, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
How would this be any different from Category:Bible? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:24, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Category:Bible doesn't sound terribly useful. What goes in it? Bible? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:27, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Dante, well why don't you click on the Category:Bible or Category:Torah and see where that leads you. It has both many of its own sub-categories and is a sub-category of its own. But the word Bible is very clear as a starting point. IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Frivolous. Jayjg 22:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but CheeseDreams must stop his vandalism.--Josiah 22:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You must stop your vandalism. What constitutes vandalism is in the eye of the beholder. POV. CheeseDreams 00:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete in its current form. If the only things placed in this category were actual stories, not texts or books or people or places, but actual stories and parables and Biblical events, then I would vote keep. -Sean Curtin 23:51, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Eh? We are discussing the category, not its content. The content can easily be changed.

Again, please sign your comments with a ~~~~ so that we can track who is saying what to whom at all times. Thank you.IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the content can be changed, but it probably won't be. Some users don't seem to get the distinction in context between the list and the category, and so long as this category attempts to replicate the list, it'll be both redundant and inferior. A category could exist alongside the list, but in the current state of the two pages, the list should definitely be kept and the category be deleted. -Sean Curtin 03:11, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, for two reasons. One is the disagreement between Jews and Christians (and to a lesser extent, within Christianity) of what exactly constitutes the Bible. Secondly, most stories already characterized properly as being from the Torah are already compiled. A list of "Christian Sunday School stories" or some such would be merely or nearly a reiteration of "Torah stories", at least from my upbringing in Sunday school. It is essentially useless, and hopelessly POV, for Wikipedia to try to determine which parts of the Bible are the most important, best, or whatever, which is where this will head if experience is any guide, and it is, so delete. Rlquall 12:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:San Francisco Giant field personnel

Bad pluralization, see category:San Francisco Giants field personnel

you sure this isn't just a list of tall farmers? ;) Grutness

Category:San Francisco Giant managers

Bad pluralization, see category:San Francisco Giants managers

November 17

Category:U.S. controlled substances law

Contains only one article (Controlled Substances Act) and seven subcategories. All eight items are also contained within the subcat Category:Controlled substances, which also contains two UK-specific subcats. The category is redundant (as Category:Controlled substances is sufficient) and inaccurate (as a subcategory of it contains non-US-specific information). — OwenBlacker 19:03, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Wonders of the World

Unless this category is restricted to a very specific list, by turning it into, for example, Category:Seven Wonders of the World (and listing only the ancient list given by Antipater of Sidon), this category will be inherently always POV: who's to say whether any ancient structure qualifies or does not qualify as a "Wonder of the World"? —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 17:40, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Agree. Delete -- Kpalion

It was me who originally created the category. I just listed the explanation for this on Category talk:Wonders of the World.

So I think it should be kept. Paranoid 20:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also see the discussion about this category at Category talk:Wonders of the World.

November 16

Category:Columbus Township, St. Clair County, Michigan

Accidentally created by Pearle. Township categories are unnecessary, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. -- Beland 04:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:4th millennium, Category:5th millennium etc

Several categories appear to have been created that only contain one article each (up to Category:10th millennium). This makes a little more sense at Category:3rd millennium, but is a nonsense thereafter. Not quite candidates for speedy deletion, but certianly not far off… — OwenBlacker 23:06, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Category:Years in the future is more than sufficient. -Sean Curtin 01:28, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Delete. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 15:34, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Open source

Currently a "redirect" to category:free software, but category redirects don't work. -- Rick Block 19:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Deletable. A redirect is appropriate, though, to keep it from being recreated - David Gerard 21:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Florida State Roads

This is now at Florida State Roads; I decided it was better to use a table that I can edit than a category.--SPUI 00:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 14

Category:Airports in Iceland

I created this, but the airport categories are named Airports of Place, not in, thus it needs to be deleted. Burgundavia 04:46, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Deleted. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 15:41, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Amusement ride people

I just created this, but realized it should be Category:Amusement ride makers because most of the entries are organizations, not people. It should be deleted. JesseW 04:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Iroquois tribe

Should be Category:Iroquois as the Iroquois are not a single tribe, but a nation of many tribes. -- Decumanus 22:50, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Possibly Category:Iroquois nation would be better, so as not to confuse with the helicopter? Grutness 04:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Misc naval categories

Gdr 16:35, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Category:Montreal Expo field personnel

Misnamed, see Category:Montreal Expos field personnel -- Rick Block 16:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Montreal Expo managers

Misnamed, see Category:Montreal Expos managers -- Rick Block 16:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Empty orphans auto-detected 23 Oct 2004

These were empty when Pearle found them. -- Beland 05:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization of "prefecture"

Shouldn't "prefecture" should be capitalized when part of a proper noun? We have inconsistent usage. -- Beland 05:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) says "Capitalize suffixes in place names. For example, Tochigi Prefecture". Gdr 16:34, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Hong Kong categories with bad capitalization

-- Beland 03:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New Zealand categories

These appear to violate the general policy of showing a heirarchy inside the category name. -- Beland 03:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, I think these might have been intended to be Area X/Area Y categories, where X and Y are nearby but distinct. I'm not sure these are particularly good names. -- Beland 03:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps rename to e.g. Category:Hawkes Bay and Wairarapa? I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that some of these are the English and Maori names for the same place. --03:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
KEEP. You are wrong about that - they are not the same places with Maori and European names. The reason for the creation of these categories in this form is straightforward,m and not too dissimilar to what Beland says, with one exception. the regions are neighbouring and not precisely defined. In each case the pairs of regions overlap to a significant degree, and as such it would be impossible for them to be categorised separatelyy. Some towns in the Wairarapa, for example, can also be said for some purposes to be in the Hawkes Bay. There is certainly no hierarchy in the category names, any more that there would be if there was a category for Minneapolis-St Paul, Dallas-Fort Worth, or Bosnia-Herzegovina. The most obvious example of this is Manawatu/Wanganui, a region controlled by the Manawatu-Wanganui District Council. The Thames/Coromandel region is similarly controlled by the Thames-Coromandel District Council. They may not be particularly "good" names, but they are definitely the names by which they are known in New Zealand. As such, they serve a definite and useful purpose - surely the fact that they are the local names counts for something. It may be that the categories will later be split into separate constituent parts, but unless someone draws exact points on a map that everyone can agree with, I don't see it happening in a hurry. Please leave them as they are. Grutness (former inhabitant of Thames/Coromandel!)
PS from Grutness - would it make everyone happy if they were renamed as Category:Bay_of_Plenty-East_Coast,_New_Zealand, Category:Hawke's_Bay-Wairarapa, Category:Manawatu-Wanganui, Category:Wellington-Kapiti, and Category:Thames-Coromandel,_New_Zealand? Not with "and"s, though. (Hawke's Bay should have an apostrophe anyway).
If the region is actually called Manawatu-Wanganui, then that should be the category name (but not with the /). The policy is to use the name that is actually used for that region, except where disambiguation is necessary, in which case nation/stave/province information can be appended. I'm trying to find evidence of Thames-Coromandel, Hawke's Bay-Wairarapa, and Bay of Plenty-East Coast, all of which seem, in the articles here, to be broken into distinct districts or regions. Wellington (region) actually says that it includes the Kapiti Coast district; if this is the case, then there should be one category for Wellington and perhaps a sub-category for Kapiti Coast. If the district is a sub-set of the region, then the category should be named for the region, shouldn't it? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
1) Try Thames-Coromandel (district), New Zealand for one of the remainder; 2) as I said, the regions overlap to such an extent that separating them out would be nigh-on impossible. The city of Porirua, for example, is in Wellington, and in Kapiti. People in Wellington city are not in Kapiti, people in Paekakariki are in Kapiti but not in Wellington. This is distinct from the "Wellington Region", which is a purely administrative term and has little bearing on how the people of the region see themselves. The article goes on to say that the Wellington region also covers the Wairarapa and Manawatu, putting those terms in quotation marks to indicate they are in some way unofficial terms. If you went to any of the town or cities in the area and told them they were part of the Wellington region, you would be run out of town. (Actually, this article is one of the ones that needs a thorough overhaul - some of the "facts" in it are a little odd, to say the least). It is worth noting that several of the articles in this category mention the overlap of the two regions; 3)As for the articles not indicating any overlap, that's because the ones that do are still in preparation. The New Zealand geographical articles are a major ongoing project at the moment, and the southern North Island is an area which is going to be tackled over the next two to three weeks. PLEASE PLEASE KEEP these regions. They are the accepted usages within New Zealand. As such, according to Aranel/Sarah's own comment "The policy is to use the name that is actually used for that region", and as such to change them would go against that policy.Grutness
If they are legitimate terms then they are legitimate terms and there is no reason not to use them, as long as there is an attempt to be more or less consistent. (Don't worry, a CFD listing is often just an expression of confusion.) I would prefer to see categories without the /, however. More typical style would be to use a hyphen. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 02:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agreed - hence the PS earlier. To refer back to Beland's earlier comment, the oblique stroke is more often used (in NZ at least) when places have both English and Maori names (cf. Mayor Island/Tuhua). I think my biggest concern about the change (other than the common usage of the names) is that NZ geography is a highly volatile part of Wikipedia at the moment (I've added some 200 articles to it in the last month, for example. I need to get a life  ;) Grutness 04:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC).
  1. Keep yes these are all the accepted names for these regions which do have indistinct boundaries/over-lapping areas. However I do support changing the / to a - for all. - Drstuey 10:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • With - instead of / would be much improved. -- Beland 07:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 13

Category:Occupation of Palestine

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

  • KEEP. The term "occupation" is widely accepted as fact. There is NO consenus to merge the article; Viriditas apparently thinks that agreement by one side (ie. her band of Palestine deniers) is consensus (!?). Using a euphemism (in this case: "conflict") is egregiously POV (see Jimbo Wales) because it places the occupier and the occupied on equal footing and denigrates the rights and suffering of victims. HistoryBuffEr 22:47, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Usual attempt to create a POV fork. Jayjg 23:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious POV aside, what would go into one category that wouldn't go into the other? -Sean Curtin
  • delete - redundant and POV. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. As a matter of fact, conflict is as neutral as can be, while occupation is POV. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Mrfixter 11:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete--Josiah 22:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Truthaboutchabad 21:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as we already have the full range of articles in Category:Palestine and Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict already lists articles from all sides of the dispute. This is just another example of User:HistoryBuffer wasting everyone'e precious time with obfuscatory diversions. IZAK 03:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • KeepCheeseDreams 19:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Advocacy

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

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

November 12

Category:Major League catchers

Miscapitalized duplicate of category:Major league catchers. -- Rick Block 19:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isn't Category:Major league catchers the one that is miscapitalized? —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 15:39, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
10 subcategories of Category:Major league baseball players by position as well as Category:Major league baseball players by team are named "Major league baseball ...". There's perhaps an argument that all of these should be named "Major League Baseball ..." ("Major League Baseball" is a service mark of Major League Baseball Properties, Inc.). This would be an intrusive enough change that I think we might want to vote on it. -- Rick Block 19:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The lower-case usage is appropriate when referring to "the major leagues" as opposed to the governing entity "Major League Baseball" (which I doubt existed prior to 1920, and perhaps not until long afterward). This category is the one that should be dropped. MisfitToys 23:14, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Georgia

Should be merged into Category:Towns in Georgia (U.S. state) to avoid confusion with Category:Georgia (country). Sortior 15:01, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Cities of Colorado

Empty, duplicate of Category:Cities in Colorado. -- Rick Block 05:24, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 11

Category:Controversial candies

Empty category --Andyabides 04:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Science fiction books

Redundant (should be Category:Science fiction novels), created by mistaken analogy with Category:Fantasy books which I am going to try moving to Category:Fantasy novels. --Phil | Talk 16:46, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • I think books makes more sense than novels. A book of short stories would not fit in the novel category. DCEdwards1966 18:23, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Not all books are novels. The definition of novel varies([2])—it has some connotations that are not always appropriate for the books that ought to fall into that category. (I feel very unfortable calling The Lord of the Rings a novel for some reason.) By the most general definiton, a novel is a long(ish) work of narrative fiction. "Science fiction books" already implies a long(ish) work of narrative fiction (since it's a fiction genre). Novel is unnecessarily specific here. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object to delettion. Agree with above; "books" is a better term. The "novels" category shouldbe might a subcategory of the "books" one and contain only novels, maybe? --Whosyourjudas (talk) 01:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, for reasons already given. SF anthologies and reference books, for example, would fall under the books category despite not being novels. -Sean Curtin 02:56, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Keep this category, make Category:Science fiction novels a subcategory along with Category:Science fiction anthologies, Category:Science fiction reference books, if such categories are required (and they should be!). Grutness 04:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 10

Kazakhstan

Category:Kazakhstani people duplicates Category:Kazakh people and Category:Kakazh people by occupation duplicates Category:Kazakh people by occupation. Susvolans 11:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Category:Kakazh people by occupation that looks like a typo 132.205.45.148 16:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Kazakh refers to an ethnic group, or its language, whereas Kazakhstani refers to an element of the country of Kazakhstan... So these would be different, no? 132.205.45.148 16:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I did some poking around, and you seem to be right. Perhaps we need to delete Category:Kazakhstani people, etc., since they seem to be in use as "People from Kazakhstan"? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Computer workstations

Argh, I was too quick with this one -- realised a couple of minutes later that Category:Workstations was a better name for the cat ... --Wernher 23:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, "Computer workstations" is a better name. The term "Workstation" is also used in contexts that have nothing to do with computers. —AlanBarrett 18:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, I must admit I was in a dilemma when choosing the category name. I thought the general term would be better as it was more concise, and because "workstation" without a context qualifier is more often used meaning "computer workstation" than other types of workstation -- which when I think of it may just be my own geekly bias... So, I guess I wouldn't protest if someone now feels the urge to move the affected articles from Category:Workstations to Category:Computer workstations and do a {{cfd}} on the former instead.
--Wernher 01:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
given Alan's comment that it's used in other contextx,m is is a close enough meaning that Category:Computer workstations would be a natural subcategory of Category:Workstations?Grutness 06:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 8

Misc naval ships

Gdr 00:17, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the first three. No one has commented on the last two and they've been on CfD for a week, so if it were just this I would go ahead and delete them (since they are empty and redundant and I don't think there is any cause to move all of those articles to one of the other categories—the discussion elsewhere has been that "U.S. Navy" is more workable for the child categories, which tend to have long names, but is it worth changing this, the parent category?), but see also #Category:US naval ships. I've been involved in this discussion, so I shouldn't be the one to make the call on CfD. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 1

Category:BBS software and Category:BBS

Unnecessary abbreviation, the proper categories are Category:Bulletin board system software and Category:Bulletin board systems. Rhobite 02:57, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

better known by the abbreviation BBS than "Bulletin Board System" (3 720 000 results) vs "BBS" (32 300 000 results) which is the case in some rare cases like "NASA" for example Alkivar 03:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also think BBS is more clear than Bulletin Board System for general consumption 132.205.45.148 15:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See RAM (20,300,000 on google) vs. Random Access Memory (400,000 on google) for precedent. Even though "RAM" is more widely used, the article here is Random access memory. This isn't a jargon file, we should not use initialisms. This especially applies to categories, which are self-descriptive. Rhobite 18:17, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)



October 21

Category:Slovakian people

Redundant with Category:Slovak people. -- Rick Block 02:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This has already been nominated. Delete Category:Slovak people and keep Category:Slovakian people, for my reason see further down the page.GordyB 20:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 19

Category:Towns in Hungary, Category:Hungarian towns

Obsolete, use Category:Cities in Hungary. Markussep 10:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does Hungary not distinguish between towns and cities? In many places, putting a community called a "town" into the cities category would be factually incorrect. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 14:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please explain the justification for making Hungarian towns the same as cities? --wayland 12:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) The distinction between towns and cities is an Anglo-Saxon thing. I doubt Hungarians make any such distinction.GordyB 23:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


October 18

Category:Goddesses of hunting, Category:Celtic Goddesses, Category:Goddesses by type

Should be Category:Hunting goddesses, Category:Celtic goddesses, Category:Deities by association. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be Category:Goddesses of the hunt? Hunting goddesses a patron goddess of hunting need not actually hunt, while a hunting goddess, is a goddess that does hunting, and not necesarily the goddess of the hunt either. 132.205.15.4 17:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's more accurate. — Bill 10:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As a parallel to the other goddess categories (Category:Sky and weather goddesses, Category:Lunar goddesses, etc.), it's fairly clear that the intent is to imply goddesses associated with hunting. The adjectival forms work better for most of the other categories; can't there be goddesses who are associated with hunting but could not properly be called "goddess of the hunt"?. Although I didn't create any of these categories so I would not be heartbroken if the scheme were changed. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 03:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think Category:Goddesses by type should be kept to ease navigation. Take a look at Category:Goddesses—the subcategories of goddesses by culture are mixed in with the subcategories of goddesses by type. Why not separate these out? Postdlf 03:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)




October 16

Category:US_naval_ships

Seems to be redundant with Category:United_States_Navy_ships. -- Beland 22:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's also Category:U.S. Navy ships. I've been trying to figure this out (without much success) at Category talk:United States Navy ships. I think "United States Navy ships" is to be preferred. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Unresolved; see Category talk:United States Navy ships and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships. -- Beland 02:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Problematic childless orphans

Please help decide whether these childless orphans should be deleted; or kept, parented, and populated with articles. If you are voting to keep, please suggest a good parent category. -- Beland 22:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

People

Heavy Equipment



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

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)

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


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) Definition cited above:

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

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

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

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)

Merge and moveCategory:Japanese towns to Category:Towns in Japan Note though, that the number of people does not define the difference between a town and a cityPedant 01:44, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

  • Whether the town/city distinction is useful in all cases or not, we need to officially decide to keep either "Japanese towns" or "Towns in Japan" (as a formatting pattern). "Towns in X" seems to be the format preferred by the largest number of related categories. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 20:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Cleanup overhead

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.

Category:Religious systems

Replaced by Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements --Gary D 20:17, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=7665435"