Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nick2588 (talk | contribs) at 06:50, 24 November 2004 (Spoons). 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 24

Category:Spoons

Definitely fits "small without potential for growth". It also seems pointless ("generally bad ideas"). We already have a category of food preparation utensils -- Nick2588 06:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:People known by one name

Not business card, repeats similarly named article (List of people known by one name), and judging by Talk:List of people known by one name essentially subjective. -- Rick Block 05:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Italy stubs

Merged into Category:Italy-related stubs (using Template:Italy-stub rather than Template:Italy-related). The redundant template should be deleted at the same time (see WP:TFD). -- Rick Block 02:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:4 Non Blondes albums

According to allmusic.com, 4 Non Blondes only had one album. Gamaliel 03:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:U.K. intelligence agencies

This has had a {{cfd}} tag on it since October 30, 2004, but User:Icairns didn't list it here, twould seem. We already had a Category:UK intelligence agencies before this category was created. And we don't put periods in abbreviations in British English much these days (the MOS acknowledges this). — OwenBlacker 04:23, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

November 23

Category:Newspapers in Washington

Revised entries to Category:Newspapers of Washington state for clarity. MisfitToys 23:24, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Native-American history

Duplicate of Category:Native American history --Sortior 20:11, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Category:The French are crazy philosophers including

Nonsense. --Tothebarricades.tk 19:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Politicans from Naustdal

Moved into Category:Norwegian politicians. We don't need a list from every single city in the world. Sortior 04:17, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

delete Gangulf 19:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:United States military history

There was already a U.S. military history that conforms much more to the U.S. history page which has almost all subtopics as U.S. instead of United States. Sortior 03:55, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

November 22

Category:Canadian wrestlers

Professional wrestlers are already enough, unless someone has time to make a category for each nationality -- CMC 23:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep I hope someday we will have such a category for each nationality. - SimonP 01:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
The difficulty with that is that some folks define athlethes as "track and field athletes", whereas others consider all sports players to be athletes. As for the Olympics categories, they're currently being worked on. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 14:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Towns of Texas

Category:Neo-Nazi topics

(Question: Why was Category:National Bolshevik topics placed here as it does not even exist?! Is it some sort of diversion? I will split it, see below for a separate and more accurate vote to take place.) IZAK 07:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • It did exist. It was deleted by someone (not me) and moved to the suggested new category soon after being listed here. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 14:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't these be Category:Neo-Nazism and Category:National Bolshevism? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:National Bolshevik topics

Category:National Bolshevism already exists, is anyone suggestingCategory:National Bolshevik topics take its place?

Do nothing as Category:National Bolshevik topics does not even exist. IZAK 07:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Relax. This did exist when I listed it for deletion. I didn't delete it. It was deleted early, so if anyone disagrees with its deletion, I'll undelete it. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 14:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some childless orphans

The following childless orphans have been replaced by disambiguated or correctly capitalized categories as listed:

-[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Military slang

Orphan containing one article. Perhaps move to Category:Military terms, which already includes military slang? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Orphan only because people are lazy or unaware. Slang is a 100% valid subcategory. Mikkalai 18:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How do we distinguish between military terms and military slang? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How do we distinguish slang at all? Official vs. unofficial. Mikkalai 23:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Elf-friend 19:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Category:Military terms and delete: the boundary between slang terms and non-slang terms is too vague to bother splitting the two into distinct categories. -Sean Curtin 01:02, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is dictionary stuff, not encyclopedic. --Tkinias 03:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Alberta cities, Category:Saskatchewan cities

Should be Category:Cities in Alberta, Category:Cities in Saskatchewan in keeping with naming practices elsewhere. See Category:Cities in Canada. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Move. Should follow Wikipedia norms. —Tkinias 04:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 21

Category:National liberation movements

New category with a decidedly Leftist and extremist POV, and many are definite Terrorist groups that are already listed in Category:Terrorism and Category:Terrorist organizations. IZAK 02:53, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete IZAK 22:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanse and keep, many of the movements were indeed not aimed at liberation of any nation and that needs to be corrected. The rest, however, is fine. [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|User:Halibutt/sig]]]] 22:46, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 22:55, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 00:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. It was inevitable that someone would put up a category like this as a response to the POV Category:terrorist organizations. I would vote without hesitation for its deletion except that that would amount to a double standard. Both categories should be merged into one with a neutral title. Iota 01:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How would you "merge" two absolute opposites? Would one class the Nazi Party as "liberators" (as they were for many Germans) or as criminals guilty of genocide? This is very dangerous. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Evolver of Borg 12:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP National Liberation movements and terrorist organizations are distinct groups, although overlap occurs. They are also distinct from National Revolutionary Movements, with some overlap.
    • Al-Qaeda - terrorist organization
    • PLO - National Liberation organization, and sometimes terrorist
    • Parti Quebecois - National Liberation organization
    • ETA - terrorist and national liberation
    • The Contras - National Revolutionary movement and terrorist
    • Ang Sang Suu Kyi's group - National Revolutionary movement

You did not sign your comments with the tildes ~~~~ so your comments are anonymous and your "vote" cannot be counted. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep and clean up. Previous poster and Iota have good point; while there is overlap, they're not the same thing as terrorist groups, and a list of terrorist groups is very POV. --Tkinias 04:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and help me to clean up. I'm the one who created the category. Yes there is overlap, and i might have added some groups/parties to the list that don't belong there, but there are many groups that are neither "Left Wing POV" nor "Terrorist". As an example Free Tibet movement wouldn't fit into those two categories. And even if there is overlap it [overlap] exists in many other categories... it is a necessaty that must happen.

You have not signed your name with the four ~~~~ so there is no way to know who you are or acknowledge what you have to say. (Are you "voting" twice - i.e. one "vote" above also- ?)IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How can opposites be merged, 'reflecting reality and make evreyone happy all at the same time? IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    • Terrorist organization is definitely more POV than this category, and they are *not* the same things. 132.205.45.148 16:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you please log in with a User name so that your comments can be acknowledged. Thank you. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Del - will be always a source of controversy. I am yet to see a group that admits that they are plain garden-variety terrorists. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Is the Dalai Lama a terrorist then?
    • A national liberation movement is not synonomous with armed conflict. Choosing to restrict it to such a definition is definitely POV on your part. 132.205.45.148 16:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please let us know who is making these comments with a proper User name. Thank you. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete fails to match the definition Wars of national liberation were those conflicts fought by indigenous military groups against an imperial power in an attempt to remove that power's influence. as stated in Wikipedia. Wikipedia being self-contradictory is not desirable. Contains patent nonsense such as Symbionese Liberation Army. Parti Quebecois? The rest of Canada is an imperial power occupying Quebec? Lance6Wins 14:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • That's what the Quebec politicians say. Also, you pulled up wars and military. Haven't you ever noticed that some countries become independant without war? A national liberation movement is not synonomous with armed conflict. Choosing to restrict it to such a definition is definitely POV on your part. 132.205.45.148 16:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, there is no User name here to acknowledge. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • COMMENT To everyone who thinks that all national liberationists are terrorists, tell me this, is everyone in Taiwan who belong to political parties espousing separation a terrorist? By your definition they are. And so is the Dalai Lama 132.205.45.148 16:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who is this "person" who insists on leaving anonymous messages and expects to be taken seriously? Get a User name won't you. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    • Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administratorsFor example, administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith Any anon can vote. If administrators choose to ignore anon votes, they should atleast think about it, because Administrators necessarily must use their best judgement, attempting to be as impartial as is possible otherwise they are not being impartial. 132.205.94.52 01:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, mostly agreed with Halibutt. —No-One Jones (m) 17:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a formal term. It doesn't matter what this movement actually do. Mikkalai 18:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hopelessly POV by definition (as is Category:Terrorist organizations) and likely to give cause for endless arguments. Elf-friend 19:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • KeepAndyL 22:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Thinking about this more, the category name is not NPOV. NPOV would be Category:National independence movements, which would easily include both groups like the Tamil Tigers or ETA which use violence and those like the Parti Quebequois which largely don't. We could also create a group Category:Revolutionary movements, which would include groups -- whether they engaged in terrorism or not -- intending to overthrow a government (Contras, Bolsheviks), rather than gain independence for what they perceive as a submerged nation. --Tkinias 03:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • ^^^ What He Said, I like the cut of your jib sir, we agree. Alkivar 05:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • *blush* —Tkinias 08:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Hesitant delete. This sort of categorisation is too facile for an extremely complex and involved topic. Looking at the category, there's a lot of stuff that I'd barely consider qualified (NPOV issues aside), like the SLA, the OAS, and the White Rose. To pare it down properly means defining what a National Liberation movement is–and getting a decent consensus on that definition. Mackensen (talk) 05:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Why not replace this and Category:Terrorist organizations with the two I proposed plus a more-NPOV Category:Groups employing terror (this is less of an essentialization of the group as terrorist but acknowledges the group's use of terror attacks). Thus we categorize by goals and by tactics, but do not make POV judgements. On your examples:
      • SLA: not an independence movement, but a revolutionary movement which employed terror
      • OAS: quite the opposite of an independence movement, it was a right-wing armed group which employed terror to oppose independence
      • White Rose: revolutionary movement, not seeking independence
      • Al-Qa'ida (not on your list, but relevant): revolutionary movement, not seeking independence (seeking to merge several secular states into one theocratic state), employs terror
      • PLO (on the other hand): national independence movement, employed terror —Tkinias 08:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai is correct to point out that it is a formal term, but as Mackensen is pointing out above, this sort of categorization will likely generate too much confusion-- note the NPOV disputes above-- for it to be a workable one on Wiki. 172 08:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep The category makes a useful and important distinction. Unfortunately the category also is in need of some cleanup because there is currently stuff that doesn't belong, and articles that it doesn't have that should be there. I am wondering if part of the problem with this category for some people might be the wording. Would it be better to describe these groups as Independence Movements or Secession Movements (although those descriptions do not fit well for groups that cross national boundaries, such as the Kurds)? [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 10:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a useful category that brings together a specific type of related articles. Just because some (or even many) of them can also be put in another category (i.e. terrorists) does not make it irrelevant. As with the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, this seems to be an attempt to get rid of controversy by trying to ignore it. Get involved in the cleanup and discussion, don't delete it. That said, I agree with Tkinias and gK above that it could be renamed in a more NPOV way. mennonot 10:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Liberation" is highly charged POV. Even if renamed to something else (like Category:National independence movements), the category's contents will still probably show quite a bit of POV. -Sean Curtin 01:01, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Political parties by name and subpages

Someone has put a lot of work into this, but Wikipedia:Categorization specifically uses "Category:Musicians whose first name starts with M" as an example of a category that should not exist. I don't see any reason political parties would be any different. I worry that this will be precedent of cross-categorizing every article by its first letter. - SimonP 22:29, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete all with prejudice. Postdlf 00:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: I was the one who started this categorization. Parties can be categorized in different ways. We have the categorization by nationality, the categorization by ideology. The categorization by name is a logical categorization and can help to find a party in an easy way. Since it is not possible to place them in the category political parties, because of the rule that parties shouldn't be listed in categories and sub-categories, I created this category and the sub-categories by A-Z. I do not see an argument not to do that, except for the argument in [{Wikipedia:Categorization]] that it is not useful. I do not know why it is not useful. I am ready to transfer it to one new category: Political parties from A to Z, but it would be category with a lot of parties. --Gangulf 17:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
BTW, I will wait for the development of this discussion and will - if deleted - start making the new category Political parties from A to Z.
I think you misunderstand Wikipedia's categorization system. Articles are categorized by content not by title. If you disagree with this discuss the matter at Wikipedia:Categorization. The main reason for this prohibition is that in the future lists by name will be automatically generated. For instance any user could ask to see an alphabetical list of every article in Category:political parties and all its subpages. - SimonP 17:23, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Categories already list their member articles in order by name, and as I mentioned over in Category talk:Political parties by name categories should be based on meaningful attributes of what the articles are about. I don't see the first letter of their name being particularly meaningful Bryan 00:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Oops, just noticed that Gangulf is a fellow member of the Derksen Conspiracy. Sorry, Gangulf! Hope you don't take my vote the wrong way, this just isn't the way categories are being used on Wikipedia and I hope the Wikipedia software update comes soon so you'll be able to get the complete list you're after without all this trouble.)
  • Delete any and all "X by name" categories. -Sean Curtin 01:05, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. "X by name" cats are pointless. No reason for its existing has been given. —Tkinias 04:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I gave the reason just some lines before (Gangulf)
      • See SimonP's comment above: the function to do this automatically is going to be implemented in the software. —Tkinias 15:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Since nobody except me wants to keep thes categories, I have to accept the verdict ;-). I will btw create an index in a list form, since the software update isn't here yet. --Gangulf 19:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Traitors

I question the usefulness of this category. One group’s traitor is another's hero. Benedict Arnold is America's most famous traitor, but in Canada he is viewed as a loyalist to the crown and George Washington the true traitor. A vast number of notable people have at some point been accused of treason. Do we really want Category:Traitor at the bottom of our articles on Charles de Gaulle, Julius Caesar, and Thomas Jefferson? - SimonP 20:02, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete.
  • The only truly NPOV is according to the legal definition of treason in a particular state. But here we are in trouble. Soviet dissidents by Soviet law are all traitors. Shall we put them here? Those who attempted coup against Adolf Hitler are 100% traitors as well.
  • So we are left with versions of POV: "traditionally" recognized traitors. While historical examples like Brutus will probably see no disagreememt, but the rest may be shaky. See e.g., William Joyce case. He was on the verge of escaping the treason charge. Mikkalai 20:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be best if only those CONVICTED/SENTANCED for Treason be listed? Would solve the issues in ambiguous cases, and hopefully keep some of the arguments away. Alkivar 20:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That would still include a long list of Soviet dissidents, French resistance fighters, American founding fathers, Scottish nationalists etc. - SimonP 19:39, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, delete! /Tuomas 21:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, as who is to judge "them"? IZAK 23:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete, although Category:People charged with treason or Category:People convicted of treason would be helpful replacements. -Sean Curtin 00:48, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Get ready to have some million people from the Great Purge in the Soviet Union. Mikkalai 17:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep
  • Usually I go with the consensus but, this time, I want to know of various traitors. However, maybe a "list of traitors" would be more useful because the list could include against whom the traitor was, um, traitoring. Also, the list could be broken down into categories (such as traitor to US, to USSR, etc). WpZurp 00:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree this would work as a well anotated list. - SimonP 03:51, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think Category:People convicted of treason makes more sense. AndyL 22:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep see Category:Heretics for a similiar example. One person's heretic is another's founding father. I'm a Mennonite and I added some Anabaptist founders to the list, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with them. It just means that I recognise that they were labeled as heretics by some. The same should be true of the traitor category. Like Heresy, treason has a formal definition. We need to move beyond the negative connotations of the word.Just because they are a founding father doesn't mean they weren't also a traitor. If necessary, as Alkivar points out above, we could clarify the defintion in the category heading to include only those convicted of treason. This category is relevant and useful for those interested in researching historical instances of treason and should be expanded, not axed.

Category:Superhard materials

This is a pointless melange of fact and fiction. Those looking for Silicon carbide and alike wouldn't want to find Adamantium and alike - and vice versa. --Pjacobi 19:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) With the recent clarification my original request for deletion is void. Keep. --Pjacobi 17:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I removed the fiction and left explicit statement on the category page to put fictions elsewhere. -Sean Curtin 01:03, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Why must the category be deleted if the two or three fictional substances are to be removed. The rest of the substances are quite real, and now that materals of greater hardness than diamond are being created, it is appropriate to have such a category. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF]] 02:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • If it is clear, that it's for real material only, it may stay. I consider such small categories useless, but that's another story and no reason to delete. --Pjacobi 10:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, its questionable given the nature of fullerene molecules if it will be stay small in a few years. One of the advantages of wikipedia is that it can cover emergent content like this without worrying about "small topics" taking the space that could be really used by larger explainations of the "big topics". Thusly, we can stay ahead of the curve that way by shaving small but emergent categories like this. I too dislike useless small categories, but if is a growing small category, like "stealth technologies" (I am not sure if that one exists), then it is useful than a category like "United States Presidents who have been impeached" (there are only two, and it it occurs at a rate of about one every 110 years). So if enough people aggree, can we remove the category for deletion tag. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF]] 23:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A valid and well-defined category. Mikkalai 23:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just to put into force my statements before --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF]] 03:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:NMDA antagonists

Renamed to Category:NMDAR antagonists. There are no such things as NMDA antagonists; the original creator no doubt meant NMDA receptor antagonists. --David Iberri | Talk 18:17, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

An NMDA antagonist antagonizes the effects of NMDA. Since NMDA acts through the NMDA receptor, NMDA antagonist is synonymous with NMDAR antagonist. A search of PubMed for "NMDAR antagonist" and "NMDA antagonist" will clearly show that NMDA antagonist is the preferred term. I don't know how to work this thing, so someone who does needs to fix this.

I don't believe that's proper terminology; see receptor antagonist. You're right that "NMDAR antagonist" isn't the preferred term; it should be "NMDA receptor antagonist", which clearly wins out over "NMDA antagonist" in a PubMed search (as well as in Google). So I'll rename to Category:NMDA receptor antagonists. --David Iberri | Talk 20:55, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Kent villages

Duplicate (although it actually was created first) of Category:Villages in Kent. The later category is similarly named to the other subcategories of Category:Villages in England. The intro text from Category:Kent villages should be moved. -- Rick Block 03:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Bibles

To be renamed to Category:Bible versions and translations. Current one-word name is ambiguous, and confusing with its parent category, Category:Bible (same word, singular form). --Gary D 03:02, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Christians

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

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

Category:Famous clowns

Subjective; also, non-famous clowns are unlikely to be eligible for Wikipedia anyway. —tregoweth 07:11, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Agree, Emmett Kelly is in Category:Clowns, any clown notable enough to have a wikipedia article is famous anyway... although there may be clowns in Category:Clowns that are notable for other than their clowning, like Ernest Borgnine and Lucille Ball. User:Pedant

November 20

Category:Ships named Nautilus

There's already a page by this name. No need for a category. Also, disambig pages do this work. Remove because it's redundant and not helpful. Jinian 19:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

keep Each of these categories are names of ships that have had a long historic naval and nonmilitary tradition, have had fictional craft with these names and are names which have been used for multiple countries. I'm not trying to completely change the wikipedia, just to add minor changes that are worth making because they add missing functionality and make finding information easier.Pedant 22:04, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

the discussion that led to this

Nautilus

Nice additions to the Nautilus article, 2 things though, please don't remove this article from Category:Ships named Nautilus, as it was a ship named Nautilus. Also did you use Optical character recognition to scan this data in? Would you check this phrase: "arid after provisioning" is that not supposed to be "and after provisioning"? Anyway, good job de-stubbifying the article. Looks great.Pedant 17:57, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

sorry, I think I'm not understanding your comment on index pages, categories. Would you really explain that? It seems like you're saying, well it seems like you are saying several different things and I'd rather ask you what you mean than try to interpret it, since you're online now. Would you mind explaining it as if I am an idiot, so I'm sure I understand? thanksPedant
Okay, and I'll do it here so that we can have the conversation in one place.

Most information about the style of ships' pages can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Index pages are discussed in section 2.1, but for brevity, it says Index articles about ships should include in their titles only the standard prefix used by that ship. Other identification should be omitted, so that a reader can easily locate the material sought; eg, name an index article simply "USS Enterprise." So, instead of an article entitled "Ships named Nautilus", to be in line with what every other ship article in Wikipedia looks like, it would be "USS Nautilus" (Moving the current page to one with this title is now on my list of things to do, after I noticed the problem.) See USS Enterprise for an example of what a ship index page looks like. Then each ship goes into the proper category based on the type of ship it was/is (destroyer/sloop/aircraft carrier/gunboat/tug, whatever).

Hope this helps. Jinian 18:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships needs some discussion, however, Ships named Nautilus is not a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, and I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships needs some attention regarding systemic American-centric bias, if every ship is supposed to be listed under the designation "USS". Pedant.
One, Ships named Nautilus is not intended to be an index page, it is about all ships named Nautilus. Pedant
Fine, but it's pretty redundant with the individual ships' pages.[unsigned comment User:Jinian]
No, it is not redundant. Several of those ships pages are merely copied from Ships named Nautilus. USS Nautilus is not a likely page for me to look for HMS Nautilus or Nautilus (Fulton) -- neither of which are or ever were referred to as "USS Nautilus", or or USS O-12 (SS-73) which was USS Nautilus, but was not originally named Nautilus. Pedant
Two, not all ships named Nautilus were US ships. Pedant
Your point? [unsigned comment User:Jinian]
My point is that USS is a designation for United States ships. USS is not the designation for other nation's ships, nor for merchant ships, nor fictional ships. Pedant
Three, not all ships named Nautilus that were US ships were Navy ships. Pedant
Yes? [unsigned comment User:Jinian]
No. USS is a US naval designation, generally. Pedant
Four, not all ships that were Navy ships with the name Nautilus were named USS Nautilus. Please do not move Ships named Nautilus to USS Nautilus. Pedant
I was planning to break it into several pages, to properly disambig it. Obviously it's not as easy as just moving it, which is why I didn't just do it. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]
You "didn't do it because it wasn't easy". You actually said that? Then you say, 'to properly disambig it', but there is no ambiguity in the article whatsoever. Ships named Nautilus is not a disambiguation article, but it serves the function of one far better than USS Nautilus, as it has a broader scope, and disambiguation articles should have the broadest scope possible. Pedant
USS Enterprise is not the name of HMS Enterprise, however, HMS Enterprise is a "Ship named Enterprise. Pedant
And therefore has it's own page. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]
Lots of pages actually, the point of categorisation is to simplify searching and cross referencing... how would you navigate from HMS Enterprize (1709) to USS Enterprise (1799)? Pedant
Five, Ships named Nautilus is not as you term it, a problem. It was written by 2 experts on the name Nautilus, the Officer-in-charge of the Historic ship Nautilus, and the curator of the United States Naval Submarine Force Museum, Groton, Connecticut.Pedant
It's completely different format and structure than every other page about ships on Wikipedia. That's the problem, not the text. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]
It's not about ships. Its about the naval history of the name Nautilus in fiction and the real world. Pedant
Six, There are however problems with USS Nautilus, it contains innaccurate data and weasel words as presently written.Pedant
Fix it then. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]
I don't intend to. I had 'fixed' it by changing it to a redirect. However, you pointed out that the structure that is in common use at this point is to have an article with that title. So I reverted to the earlier version. It doesn't however serve the purpose of, or have the scope of the article Ships named Nautilus. It links to less pages. I don't think the article serves the purpose it's intended to, as disambiguation pages should have the broadest scope possible.Pedant
Seven, These two articles are separate articles each of whose existence does not depend on the other's.Pedant
Huh? [unsigned comment User:Jinian]
Ships named Nautilus is a good article and is accurate, NPOV, has room for expansion and serves a purpose. USS Nautilus does not adequately serve the purpose it is intended to, and because of its name, is limited in scope, and can never adequately replace Ships named Nautilus. Except for it being as you say: "in line with what every other ship article in Wikipedia looks like" USS Nautilus is an inferior article, in terms of scope only, ie, every fact in USS Nautilus, can be (and probably is) in Ships named Nautilus, but the same does not hold true in reverse. HMS Nautilus, Captain Nemo's Nautilus, and USS O-12 (SS-73) are not likely to be looked for at USS Nautilus
Eight, there are more than one ways to categorize articles: articles and categories may be part of more than one categorization scheme. If you were going to look up for example the Nautilus whose keel was laid down in 1916, you can go to Category:Ships>Category:Ships by name>Category:Ships named Nautilus>Ships named NautilusPedant 21:36, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
This is the only category in the "ships by name" category. Look for my request to delete it and make your case to the community on that page. Jinian 19:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) [unsigned comment User:Jinian]
It is not the only category in Category:Ships by name. You listed it for deletion while I was still populating it. I won't be doing any work on any categories until we get this straightened out.Pedant 21:36, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

Might be a good idea to wait for the community to decide on this new category scheme you've developed. There's a lot of other good work to be done that won't have to be undone. If the community agrees with this, you can always to the work later. Jinian 20:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you did not exhaust the discussion before you placed categories in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. You did not inform me that you had done so for 42 minutes, while I was still working. I consider your behavior to be rude and obstructive, and I will no longer discuss this on your talk page. Since you listed these categories on CfD, I will continue this there if necessary, but I think my point is made, that it is valid, and that community consensus will support it. I'm disappointed to find you taking an adversarial position, as I had looked forward to collaborating with you.Pedant 21:36, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

VOTES

  • KEEP I hear and agree with all the points raised. Alkivar 21:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • keep in the commotion, I forgot to vote.Pedant 21:44, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
  • keep There are other ships which could easily fall into the "Ships by name" category - Endeavour comes to mind, as do Enterprise and Ark Royal.Grutness 22:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yuck yuck yuck. :-) We have a system in place of cross-referencing the handful of ships that have the same name in more than one navy - HMS Enterprise mentions USS Enterprise, and vice versa. This has been working well for over two years. Creating categories for this kind of thing is just going to encourage people with too much time on their hands to create thousands of microscopic categories that will clutter up the encyclopedia without adding any capability not already available with the use of index articles. For instance, the most common use for an index article is to choose which of several ships is the one meant by an article. The category is of little use, because it will just have dates/hulls/pennants, and unless your memory is better than mine, "HMS Neversail (1895)" is insufficient - I'll want to know type and service dates to make sure I've found the right one. Another empirical observation is that article authors almost always know the nationality; the random reference needing disambiguation is going to look like HMS Nautilus, not Nautilus (ship). So while I understand the impulse behind a category like this, I don't think it corresponds well to our experience as to what is most useful. Stan 01:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • What about the French vessel l'Entreprise?
  • Neutral. These categories doesn't do any harm. But it would have been much better for everyone concerned if User:Pedant had discussed this scheme first on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. Gdr 19:16, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
  • Delete - IMO this boils down to using a category for the same purpose as a disambiguation page, the point being that a given ship name is not unique. In such cases, the relevant articles should all have a disambiguation link (near the beginning of the article) to a disambiguation page with links to all like-named objects (real ships, fictional ships, spaceships, ...). Using this method (rather than categories) still preserves the "two click" distance from any one like-named ship to another. -- Rick Block 21:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep From all the reasons I read, it seems worth keeping Sortior 23:36, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Ships named Enterprise

See above. Same same... Jinian 19:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

keepPedant

File:Lady Washington built in Aberdeen WA and launched in 1989.jpg
one of many ships called Lady Washington that were not ever called USS Lady Washington
see [1]
I think I have plainly stated that this category is not redundant and does not replace any other category or indexing scheme.. It serves a similar purpose to Category:Ships by type Category:Ships by nationalityCategory:Ships by eraCategory:Naval ships except that it includes ships that do not fit those categories! Not all ships are named USS Shipsname, Not all ships are naval. This is a useful category because: If one is looking up a ship, and find they are looking at the wrong Enterprise for instance, they can look at the category, and find other ships named Enterprise. This won't work with the categories as set up now.
Example: HMS Enterprise (1705) but I really want USS Enterprise (1874)... with the new category Category:Ships named Enterprise the other article is 2 clicks away... so it's useful. Without this category, what process do I use to navigate between those articles? I would need to already know to look under USS Enterprise and HMS Enterprise and any other index pages, or what, do I click on the disambiguation category and navigate from there? What other category scheme allows one to navigate this easily? What harm does this category do to wikipedia that outweighs the good it does, making information accessible and structure transparent?Pedant 20:34, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
But to be complete, we'd need a Category:Ships named Lady Washington, of which I'm pretty sure, there would be only one. Numerous ships in the Indian Navy have gone by only one name, the Japanese Navy have unique names as well. Would the category only include ships' names that have been used multiple times? If so, then it would be useless to me when I go in looking for Lady Washington. Jinian 20:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Irrelevant question. there is no Category:Ships named Lady Washington, if there were, that question would belong in that discussion. The categories I added are names used many many times in many navies, as well as merchant vessels, and for which there are numerous similarly named articles. If I were looking for Lady Washington, there would first need to be an article about her.

KEEP see the points in the above entry. Alkivar 21:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

keepPedant 22:04, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

keep as above, so below Grutness 22:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Postdlf 03:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - see comments above. -- Rick Block 21:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Ships by name

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships community uses index / disambig pages for this Jinian 20:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, it uses those pages for a different, and equally laudable reason. keepPedant 22:04, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

KEEP see the points raised in the Ships named Nautilus entry. Alkivar 21:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

keep as above Grutness 22:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep it and all subcategories. Postdlf 03:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - see comments above. -- Rick Block 21:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Ships named Valiant

We can do this all day..... Jinian 20:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. Now that you have informed me you want to delete these categories, I'm done for the day. I'll get back to work on this after the community has a chance to decide what to do. I'm not the type to get into edit wars of any kind including category deletion. I beleive in discussion and consensus, am quite willing to let the community decide the appropriate course of action. I welcome any questions on my intent and purpose of this categorization scheme on my user page. Keep all these categories. Each of these categories are names of ships that have had a long historic tradition, have had fictional craft with these names and are names which have been used for multiple countries. I'm not trying to completely change the wikipedia, just to add minor changes that are worth making because they add missing functionality and make finding information easier.Pedant 22:04, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

KEEP see the points raised in the Ships named Nautilus entry. Alkivar 21:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow. Deja vu... keep as above Grutness 22:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - see comments above. -- Rick Block 21:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:People with Bipolar Disorder

There's a list, List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder, which I believe is sufficient. The category is not of the Business Card class (wikipedia:categorization of people) and I think is inappropriate. -- Rick Block 17:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 19

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)

Why is it better to have a wider stub category in this case? Isn't in normally better to have as narrow categories as possible? JesseW 12:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
DELETE, that said let me address Jesse's point. We dont want narrow stub categories because then we would end up with stubs for english pub, one for german pub, one for irish pub, etc... which to me seems rather pointless, when a stub for building/structure related articles covers all of these gracefully. Its one thing to have a Bio stub and a Geography stub as these are different fields but eventually you get so narrow as to become specific to only 1 article name. Alkivar 21:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Red_Dwarf_ships

I've just merged the articles in this category into Red Dwarf, so the category should now be removed. JesseW 12:56, 20 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)

Not everything in this category is a recipe (and thus, not all should be in the category IMHO)... Also, isn't there a category or list or something of things that need to be transwikied? --ssd 02:50, 20 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/unresolved#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)
    • I moved the previous discussion to /unresolved, since there seems to be some feeling that it wasn't resolved completely. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:11, 20 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)
  • We may have gone through this before, but it was not resolved. Final vote (best as I can count) was keep:3, merge:4. Personally, I think the hunting category is small enough it would not hurt to merge. --ssd 02:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Trust me, most of these categories could be quite a lot larger. Size ought not to be the issue. However, in the previous discussion, there were not a lot of clear and unambiguous votes, period. I could three clear keep votes, one clear delete, and three "mege into something-or-other". I translated that to "three keep, one delete, three reorganize somehow", not counting my vote, which would have been "keep". There were a couple of votes which were not clear, one which I think was meant to be a joke and one which agreed with a previous user (who had said "keep") but seemed to be in favor of some sort of name change (somewhat confusing). There has been some reorganization (which I did because I was tired of looking at it), which received hardly any comments. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps we should start a discussion entirely for the purpose of deciding whether to divide deities by gender? The Category:Gods/Category:Goddesses discussion was complicated by a number of other issues, including the fact that the organization of those categories left (and still leaves) something to be desired. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 20:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That would be a good idea I think. And to make my vote clear: Merge, which means delete this category and put its content into Category:Hunting gods. --Conti|✉ 23:46, Nov 21, 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)
  • Keep I expected to find Michael Moore and Ann Coulter listed, in which case I would have said delete. But it seems that people are using it responsibly. Wolfman 03:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. People do keep adding the tag to the Michael Moore article. It's been removed several times. There have also been a couple different threads on Talk:Michael Moore in which people make good-faith arguments to include it, i.e., it isn't vandalism. Efforts to define the category so as to make it non-POV (on Category talk:Propaganda) have failed. Wolfman, you yourself pointed out that Tom Paine could well be considered a propagandist. I'm afraid that the conclusion "people are using it responsibly" amounts to saying "the category is being applied to propaganda by Nazis, Stalinists, and others who have few or no supporters among currently active Wikipedians, but it's not being applied to Michael Moore or Ann Coulter, or even to the press releases the U.S. government puts out about the glorious march to freedom in Iraq". This isn't a sound basis for categorization. JamesMLane 19:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 19:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's just a tool for POV wars. See Talk:Michael Moore. --Key45 20:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This will suck up so much time spent arguing about the application every three months when someone tries to add it to Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh. It's not worth the trouble. Gamaliel 20:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and remove contested topics. Many of the items listed are about propaganda itself or about self-defined propagandists and propaganda techniques. AndyL 22:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep unless you provide a better replacement category. There are many controversial topics, like terrorism, traitors, list of villains, etc. Being controversial is not a reason for deletion. A consensus policy may be added that if someone objects inclusion of an article into a category on the grounds of POV, then it should not be categorized so. Mikkalai 23:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • There are a few Nazis or neo-Nazis in the world today. Under your suggested policy, if one of them were to create a Wikipedia account and then object to the inclusion of Joseph Goebbels, would that mean that the Goebbels article shouldn't be included in Category:Propaganda? In other words, a single objection would suffice for removal? JamesMLane 07:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no way this can be made NPOV. Do you want to include everything owned by Rupert Murdoch in the category? How about anything ever published in the Soviet Union? You'll never get consensus on this, unless dissident voices are suppressed. --Tkinias 03:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete This category doesn't actually help someone to find all articles related to any particular definition of Propaganda, and can be applied to so many subjects that it is, for encyclopedic purposes, meaningless. Sure, Goebbels was a propagandist. But, then, what about Voice of America, or Scientology or any country on the planet? Or any news organization that someone may feel has a slant? This category can be dilluted way too easily, and sparks lots of POV/NPOV arguments. --NightMonkey 10:12, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep If I were doing research on propaganda I would find this category very useful as it lists quite a number of articles that are relevant to better understanding the history of propaganda and how it has been used in the past. In fact, the ongoing discussion about inclusion in the propaganda category reflect the very real historical controversy in the definition and use of the word. I understand that people may be sick of that discussion, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore a concept that is clearly relevant and useful (50 articles in the category). If we get rid of the category now someone else will bring it back later because it is a needed category that brings together inherently related articles. I believe the fact that it is so controversial is in some ways a reflection of its importance. mennonot 10:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't believe that we would be "ignoring" the subject by just removing a useless and POV category, since we still have the article Propaganda to cover the subject. You are right that it could be used to bring together some related articles, but the problem is that it may bring together too many, making the category useless by not being narrow enough to make a distinction from, say, "opinion" or "news". By the definitions of Propaganda available to us, so many subjects could be labeled Propaganda as to make a large chunk of Wikipedia a part of this category, undermining Wikipedia's usefulness for research. I agree with you that, indeed, Propaganda as an adjective is controversial. But just because a word is controversial doesn't mean it should become a category. In fact, the Category Guidelines discuss how a goal should be to avoid this. --NightMonkey 20:20, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
This discussion seems pretty evenly split, we may be able to come to a compromize. Right now, this catagory is not NPOV. It's not giving the NPOV dictionary definition of "the systematic propagation of a given doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and interests" that Mike brought up, but rather gives the pejorative definition that we are all familiar with and it even has this catagory as a subcatagory of Category:Deception. If the catagory stays, we should get rid of all the "examples" listed (which means we should also delete the subcatagory Category:Propaganda examples) and stick with things like propaganda film and propaganda model. Grice 23:43, 23 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)
    • Keep as is. They're not the same thing at all, and should be kept separate. Academic institutions would indeed list actual schools (Harvard, Yale, John Q. Anyone High School, etc.). School types would instead list types of schools (elementary school, high school, middle school, preschool, etc.). The two are not interchangeable. Sahasrahla 02:37, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

"Academic institutions" currently has articles about types of schools, as well - medical and art, and general school-related articles. The subcategories of school types list specific institutions (for the deaf, for architecture). So these categories certainly aren't segregated in the proposed fashion right now. It does sound reasonable to divide things up that way, though. My only concern would be, shouldn't the terminology be consistent? Shouldn't it be "Types of academic institutions" and "Academic institutions" ...or... "Schools" and "School types"? And intuitively one might expect to find "Architecture schools" under either "Schools" (since the members of "Architecture schools" are schools") and "School types" (since "Architecture schools" represents a type). So why not just have one category where the articles are general or about classes and the subcategories organize specific instantiations? (And aren't "research institutes" academic institutions but not schools?) -- Beland 07:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep. They should be segregated properly, if they aren't. anthony 警告 23:42, 21 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)

A List is not usually monitored by the editors of the pages that it links to. It is therefore predominantly unchecked for bias. CheeseDreams 12:07, 20 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)

It is vandalism because (a) someone disputes the NPOV etc. as stated by them adding the tags (b) by removing the tags you are claiming that they don't.
  • 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." [2]

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

Negotiations? You never negotiated once. CheeseDreams 12:07, 20 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)

Dont YOU tell me that im hysterical. Its you who is rabid. CheeseDreams 12:07, 20 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
And if you dispute the validity of {{NPOV}} tags then change them to {{NPOVNPOV}} this is more honest than deleting them. CheeseDreams 12:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • 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)
exactly what is the justification in having those 4 catagories rather than just Category:Bible ?CheeseDreams 12:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Answer:Firstly you need to read up on Bible, Hebrew Bible, Torah and Tanakh. Then, know that Category:Bible includes the New Testament as per Christianity. Then know that Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and Category:Torah exclude the New Testament and a number of other works (some, but not all of the Apocrypha) as per Judaism. Know that Torah and Tanakh are not the same and they have sub-categories and hundreds of articles of their own. And know clearly that Category:Jewish texts includes post-Biblical responsa and well-known rabbinical works. Hope this helps, but you must start reading to get better informed. IZAK 08:17, 23 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)

Of course it is. You are both religious fanatics, but in this instance the fanaticism supports the same consequence. CheeseDreams 12:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hahahahaha!!!! IZAK 04:08, 21 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)

Exactly, there are already more than 1 category, so why can't there be another? CheeseDreams 12:07, 20 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)

The names are not always the SAME. This is why the list is POV. CheeseDreams 12:07, 20 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)
  • Delete. Not well thought out, jumbled mess. Redundant with extant list. --ssd 03:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 19:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Christian-centric and not useful. Use categories for Jewish, Christian, and Islamic texts. A category for stories (e.g., Joseph/Yusuf) which are common to the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions might be useful, but Bible stories is then an inappropriate name. (I can't suggest what might be a good one; the collective term I know is Ahl al-Kitab -- "peoples of the Book" -- unsuitable for a category name.) --Tkinias 03:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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: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)
  • Comment. Technically free software and open source software are not the same thing, althought there is a high degree of overlap. —Tkinias 15:41, 23 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)

I've done the same for Category:Florida State Roads pre-1945 and Pre-1945 Florida State Roads. --SPUI 03:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 14

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)

I thought (after someone corrected me) that it should be capitalized, but see Talk:Prefectures of Japan. It seems that prefecture can be used generically, as state or county or town, but if you are referring to a specific one (i.e. it's part of a proper name), it may be appropriate to capitalize. Most of the articles for individual prefectures seem to have been moved to capitalized version of the names, with little or no attempt to arrange for the text in the article to agree. See for example Gunma Prefecture. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:00, 22 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)
  • OK then - looks like a degree of consensus for the following. Actually, given the names, the "New Zealand" suffix is probably unnecessary on all of them:
  1. Category:Bay_of_Plenty/East_Coast,_New_Zealand
  2. Category:Hawkes_Bay/Wairarapa
  3. Category:Manawatu/Wanganui
  4. Category:Wellington/Kapiti
  5. Category:Thames/Coromandel,_New_Zealand to become
    1. Category:Bay_of_Plenty-East_Coast
    2. Category:Hawke's_Bay-Wairarapa (with the apostrophe)
    3. Category:Manawatu-Wanganui
    4. Category:Wellington-Kapiti
    5. Category:Thames-Coromandel
  • any objections to that? If the answer is "no objections" we might as well run the bot routine...? [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 10:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Here's how I count the votes: one keep, 1 keep with and, 3 keep with -. The articles with these names use -. I think that's a consensus for -. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
...and as far as the "keep with and goes, that's not a way that New Zealanders ever describe the regions. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 03:34, 24 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)




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.


Automation available

If you would like a bot (Pearle) to move the articles from "Category:X things" to "Category:Y frobs", then make a line in this section like this:

MOVE_CONTENTS Category:X_things Category:Y_frobs

or like this:

MOVE_CONTENTS [[:Category:X things]] -> [[:Category:Y frobs]]

Note that the order is very important. If you don't use links then underscores are required (instead of spaces). The second style is preferred so that others can more easily check the categories in question. Beland will feed this input to Pearle as time permits.

Use MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS instead of MOVE_CONTENTS if you want Pearle to blindly move over any subcategories. Look at the subcategories before you leap; this is not always the right thing to do.


MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Census designated places in Connecticut -> Category:Census-designated places in Connecticut

Postdlf 00:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Partially completed moves

MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Comics_artists Category:Comic_strip_creators MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Comics_artists Category:Comics writers

The above are completed. What about Category:Comics writers by nationality and Category:Comics artists by nationality and subcategories?-- Beland 03:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I would say that those should receive the same treatment.

Cleanup also needed for cross-references:

BTW, these categories were not tagged with {{cfd}} This is a no-no. Please add this tag when you nominate categories for deletion, so that people who are watching it will notice and participate in the discussion. Not everyone interested in categories watches WP:CFD. -- Beland 03:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have noticed that (I usually do). I thought these were marked for deletion weeks ago. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 04:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Cleanup Category:Wikipedia_cleanup

  • The template that all or most of these articles are using has been fixed. Waiting for the system to update to check for stragglers. -- Beland 04:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just did the following run:

MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Olympic athletes Category:Olympic_competitors REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Olympic_athletes_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes_by_year REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Olympic_athletes_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Olympians_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Olympians_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics ADD_TO_CAT_NULL_OK Category:Olympic_competitors_by_year Category:Olympic_competitors MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Athletes_at_the_1900_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1900_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Athletes_at_the_1904_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1904_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Athletes_at_the_1960_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1960_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Athletes_at_the_1964_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1964_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Athletes_at_the_1980_Winter_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1980_Winter_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Athletes_at_the_1984_Winter_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1984_Winter_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Athletes_at_the_1988_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1988_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Athletes_at_the_1988_Winter_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1988_Winter_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Athletes_at_the_1992_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1992_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Athletes_at_the_1992_Winter_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1992_Winter_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Athletes_at_the_1994_Winter_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1994_Winter_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Athletes_at_the_1996_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1996_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Athletes_at_the_1998_Winter_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1998_Winter_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Athletes_at_the_2000_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_2000_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Athletes_at_the_2002_Winter_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_2002_Winter_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Athletes_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics ADD_TO_CAT_NULL_OK Category:Competitors_at_the_1900_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_competitors_by_year ADD_TO_CAT_NULL_OK Category:Competitors_at_the_1904_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_competitors_by_year ADD_TO_CAT_NULL_OK Category:Competitors_at_the_1960_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_competitors_by_year ADD_TO_CAT_NULL_OK Category:Competitors_at_the_1964_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_competitors_by_year ADD_TO_CAT_NULL_OK Category:Competitors_at_the_1980_Winter_Olympics Category:Olympic_competitors_by_year ADD_TO_CAT_NULL_OK Category:Competitors_at_the_1984_Winter_Olympics Category:Olympic_competitors_by_year ADD_TO_CAT_NULL_OK Category:Competitors_at_the_1988_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_competitors_by_year ADD_TO_CAT_NULL_OK Category:Competitors_at_the_1988_Winter_Olympics Category:Olympic_competitors_by_year ADD_TO_CAT_NULL_OK Category:Competitors_at_the_1992_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_competitors_by_year ADD_TO_CAT_NULL_OK Category:Competitors_at_the_1992_Winter_Olympics Category:Olympic_competitors_by_year ADD_TO_CAT_NULL_OK Category:Competitors_at_the_1994_Winter_Olympics Category:Olympic_competitors_by_year ADD_TO_CAT_NULL_OK Category:Competitors_at_the_1996_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_competitors_by_year ADD_TO_CAT_NULL_OK Category:Competitors_at_the_1998_Winter_Olympics Category:Olympic_competitors_by_year ADD_TO_CAT_NULL_OK Category:Competitors_at_the_2000_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_competitors_by_year ADD_TO_CAT_NULL_OK Category:Competitors_at_the_2002_Winter_Olympics Category:Olympic_competitors_by_year REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Athletes_at_the_1900_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Athletes_at_the_1904_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Athletes_at_the_1960_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Athletes_at_the_1964_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Athletes_at_the_1980_Winter_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Athletes_at_the_1984_Winter_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Athletes_at_the_1988_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Athletes_at_the_1988_Winter_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Athletes_at_the_1992_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Athletes_at_the_1992_Winter_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Athletes_at_the_1994_Winter_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Athletes_at_the_1996_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Athletes_at_the_1998_Winter_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Athletes_at_the_2000_Summer_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Athletes_at_the_2002_Winter_Olympics Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Australian_Olympians Category:Olympic_athletes REMOVE_X_FROM_CAT Category:Austrian_Olympians Category:Olympic_athletes ADD_TO_CAT Category:Australian_Olympians Category:Olympic_competitors_by_country ADD_TO_CAT Category:Austrian_Olympians Category:Olympic_competitors_by_country

MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Olympic_athletes_by_country Category:Olympic_competitors_by_country MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Olympic_athletes_by_sport Category:Olympic_competitors_by_sport MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Olympians_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Athletes_at_the_1900_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1900_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Athletes_at_the_1904_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1904_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Athletes_at_the_1960_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1960_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Athletes_at_the_1964_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1964_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Athletes_at_the_1980_Winter_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1980_Winter_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Athletes_at_the_1984_Winter_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1984_Winter_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Athletes_at_the_1988_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1988_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Athletes_at_the_1988_Winter_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1988_Winter_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Athletes_at_the_1992_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1992_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Athletes_at_the_1992_Winter_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1992_Winter_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Athletes_at_the_1994_Winter_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1994_Winter_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Athletes_at_the_1996_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1996_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Athletes_at_the_1998_Winter_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_1998_Winter_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Athletes_at_the_2000_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_2000_Summer_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Athletes_at_the_2002_Winter_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_2002_Winter_Olympics MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Athletes_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics Category:Competitors_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics

The following should have remain unchanged:

  • Category:Figure_skaters_at_the_1960_Winter_Olympics
  • Category:Olympic_medalists

It may take a while for the system to update these categories to reflect these changes. If there are any articles or categories which should have had "athletes" changed to "competitors", please either fix them or list them here.

After that, these categories should be ready for deletion:

  • All done. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Note that I have not done anything with incoming links. See the "What Links Here" pages for each of the deleted categories if you would like to fix them. There should probably be an automated scans for links to categories that don't exist, to aid in cleanup after category deletion.

I have also not bothered to preserve any introductory text; most or all of the categories should be intuitive. Feel free to add intro text if you think it's warranted.

Feel free to drop a line on my personal talk page if I've reassigned any of these articles or categories in error and you need me to revert something.

I was also nervous about changing the subcategories of Category:Olympic_athletes_by_country. What should be done about them? Do we need to nominate them separately? - Beland 07:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should we keep the more specific "athletes" categories to contain track and field athletes specifically? There doesn't seem to be another category for them. And yes, I suppose we probably should nominate some of the sub-categories in order to give folks at least a chance to see what we are doing!
Another note: Is it necessary to post such detailed logs here? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On second thought, keeping "Olympic athletes" at all would result in repeats of the original problem and was covered by the previous discussion; the ambiguity remains. I would say "track and field athletes" would be necessary for such categories. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fully completed runs

Manual attention required

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=7805970"