Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, and how to do cleanup.
How to use this page
- 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.
- 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. (See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
- Please read the new policy at Wikipedia:Categorization of people if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
- 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.
- 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.
- Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
- 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).
- Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
- 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Old discussions from this page have been archived to: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.
December 24
Due to a recent move I proposed at Wikipedia:Requested moves, rhythm video game is now music video game (the more popular term); for consistency, it makes sense to change "rhythm" to "music" in this category name, and I'd like to use User:Pearle to do so. Furthermore, I believe the "computer" in the name is redundant (as is the case with Category:Fighting games and other computer/video game genres), so all articles in the category should be moved as soon as possible to Category:Music games, which I've already moved a few articles to. --LostLeviathan 23:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Update:I've moved the articles back to Category:Rhythm computer games, in accordance with the depopulation policy. I'd still like to see all articles in the category moved to Category:Music games. --LostLeviathan 01:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Redundant with Category:Amtrak routes. --SPUI 22:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This has been moved to Category:Tolkien stubs. There's no need for a redirect. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Empty. Main article Nobel Peace Prize is quite comprehensive. There is a well-populated separate Category:Nobel Peace Prize winners There may be a need of a Category:Peace prizes. See Category:Peace--agr 14:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan. — Sortior 06:29, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
- And already covered by Category:UK Liberal Democrat politicians. Mpntod 16:11, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan —Sortior 06:28, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan malformed duplicate of Category:Confederate Army generals —Sortior 06:27, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan duplicate of Category:Argentine cyclists —Sortior 06:25, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan duplicate of Category:Argentine chess players —Sortior 06:23, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan duplicate of Category:Argentine athletes —Sortior 06:22, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan category —Sortior 06:20, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty, Orphan, Malformed duplicate of Category:U.S. National Historic Sites — Sortior 06:18, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
misspelling of the ever popular Category:Metamorphic rocks — Sortior 06:09, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Is malformed but full of articles. There is a well formed Category:Indian literature that is almost empty. If okayed here, I will move articles. — Sortior 05:57, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan malformation. Category suggests it could be used to list articles that could be useful for wikiatlas. Name is wrong for that. —Sortior 05:49, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
There is a Category:British artillery, and there is too much overlapping categories in weapons in general...this is an empty orphan best served by a list. —Sortior 04:36, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
empty orphan duplicate of Category:Western films —Sortior 04:34, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
- However, keeping this for use as a more general category for Westerns of all media (films, books, TV series, etc) would work, with Category:Western films becoming a subcategory. -Sean Curtin 04:52, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan malformations. There is a Category:U.S. Wilderness Areas — Sortior 04:34, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan, unneeded there is a Category:United States military academies to cover them all with subcategories for graduates. — Sortior 04:31, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Yet another empty orphan weapon category best suited to a list. — Sortior 04:26, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan malformation of Category:U.S. detainees — Sortior 04:24, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan malformation of Category:Union Army —Sortior 04:24, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan category, with see list of 4 other categories all having to do with towns or villages in Durham. —Sortior 04:20, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan...virtually everything in artillery is towed, as there is a subcat for self-propelled... — Sortior 04:18, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Malformation of the existing Category:Think tanks —Sortior 04:15, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan not specific. There are categories for various media, including VHS, DVD, etc.. — Sortior 04:10, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
LIke the other tank weapons categories...empty orphan best suited to a list. — Sortior 04:08, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan. There is a Category:Shinto which appears to satisfy the need. — Sortior 04:06, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan duplicate of Category:The Hives songs. — Sortior 04:04, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Just 1 article (which can be added to Category:Computer and video games), wordy name, mostly redundant with Category:Computer game mods. --Mrwojo 04:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Computer role-playing games, as mentioned on Category talk:Role-playing computer games. --Mrwojo 03:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan,orphaned by creator soon after creation. There is a populated Category:Anti-tank missiles. No need for this category. — Sortior 03:02, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Isn't the title a little redundant as well? Missiles (as opposed to the other meaning of missile) are always self-propelled. (Yes, if you dug into a dictionary, missile also means a ballistic projectile, which is not propelled, but that's not an AT-missile) 132.205.15.43
Empty orphan. There is a category:Superguns which can cover this weapon. — Sortior 02:49, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Not all railway guns are superguns. It'd have to be a special railway gun to be a supergun. 132.205.15.43 04:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Malformed duplicate of Category:Priory of Sion hoax. —Sortior 02:45, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Created and orphaned by user on same day. See Category:Political parties which has a fairly extensive categorization scheme. — Sortior 02:43, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan there is a Category:Los Angeles area museums that is populated. —Sortior 02:23, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Inapproapriate category. It's an attempt to document all the veterans of WW2. Currently it has 18 of the nearly 30 million veterans.N3apollo 01:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. It's, however, rather an attempt to document all the veterans of WW2 that have a Wikipedia article. -- Naive cynic 09:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It looks like it's redundant with Category:World War II people (wouldn't it contain the same articles?). It would be better to categorize articles into more specific sub-categories of Category:World War II people. -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 23
Empty orphan duplicate of Category:Latter Day Saints — Sortior 23:05, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan. Best done as a list anyways for auxillary weapons used on a tank, which is what I guess the intent of this is. —
Was an apparent mistake by user who wrote article as a category rather than as an article. Text of the category is in article Miracle Monday — Sortior 23:01, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan, created and orphaned by same user in a few days. No apparent need for category. — Sortior 22:59, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Malformation empty orphan. There are a numner of Latter Day Saint categories. — Sortior 22:58, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Malformation of the existing Category:Japanese religion — Sortior 22:55, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Malformation of the existing Category:Iranian intelligence agencies — Sortior 22:54, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
This was originally made up of cemeteries in the Los Angeles area that held the remains of show-biz people. However every cemetery in the area qualifies, so the cemeteries were moved to the more general Category:Cemeteries in Los Angeles. One cemetery in Nashville with some musicians was added, but it has also been moved to its geographic category, Category:Cemeteries in Tennessee. Essentially every notable cemetery has either show-biz people or politicians in it, so the term is overly broad. Finally, the term show-biz cemetery is vague and unencyclopedic. It conjures the image (in my mind) of show girls with tambourines dancing around the graves. -Willmcw 22:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan malformed duplicate of the preferred form Category:Airlines of Iran — Sortior 22:44, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
I'm actually to blame for this malformation ... empty orphan there is a Category:Illinois high schools — Sortior 22:41, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan, created and then orphaned by creator a few days later. No apparent need to subdivide artillery categories into types of artillery this way. — Sortior 22:39, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan. United States coins has details for all coins no real distinguishment made for "historical". — Sortior 22:38, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan there is a Category:U.S. detainees — Sortior 22:35, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- might be useful, it would be a subcat of US detainees at any rate. 132.205.15.43 04:57, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Created an orphaned same day. It was parented to images...so I am assuming it is a mistaken duplicate of Category:Great War Primary Documents Archive images — Sortior 22:33, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan. Best done as a list anyways for auxillary weapons used on a tank, which is what I guess the intent of this is. —
Empty orphan empty from June...orphaned in October..of no apparent use. — Sortior 22:30, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan. Best done as a list anyways for auxillary weapons used on a tank, which is what I guess the intent of this is. —
Empty orphan duplication of Category:Elections by country — Sortior 22:27, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- DELETE Gangulf 22:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan duplicate of Category:Documentary filmmakers — Sortior 22:21, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan there is a Category:C and D class destroyers which may need to be renamed to include Royal Navy...though I don't know if anyone else shares that class name. — Sortior 22:17, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Shouldn't C and D be separate categories? Yeah... Royal Navy probably would be needed, especially if the RCN also called the C's C-class. 132.205.15.43 04:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan duplicate of proper Category:Coats of Arms — Sortior 22:12, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan. Best done as a list anyways for auxillary weapons used on a tank, which is what I guess the intent of this is. —
Replaced by Category:Redirects from related words, through the edits to Template:R from related word. -- Paddu 21:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Redirects from alternate spellings, through the edits to Template:R from alternate spelling. -- Paddu 21:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yet another prefecture category that should be deleted. This one is already empty and the properly capitalized version (Category:Okinawa Prefecture) already exists. -- Rick Block 20:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan duplicate of Category:Chief executives — Sortior 18:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan. Best done as a list anyways for auxillary weapons used on a tank, which is what I guess the intent of this is. — Sortior 18:44, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan malformation of the existing Category:Black Swan class sloops — Sortior 18:25, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan duplicate of Category:Divisions of the United States — Sortior 18:22, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Has only 1 article - Orion Nebula. -- Naive cynic 16:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Improperly named, duplication of Category:Nebulae. -- Naive cynic 16:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
State government
Something like 39 of the categories listed in Category:State governments of the United States are of the form "Government of STATE". This appears to be the emerging standard. The following categories would need to be changed to reflect this as a standard:
- Category:Government in California -> Category:Government of California
- Category:Government in Connecticut -> Category:Government of Connecticut
- Category:Government in Delaware -> Category:Government of Delaware
- Category:Government in Florida -> Category:Government of Florida
- Category:Government in Georgia (U.S. state) -> Category:Government of Georgia (U.S. state)
- Category:Government in Indiana -> Category:Government of Indiana
- Category:Government in Iowa -> Category:Government of Iowa
- Category:Government in Kentucky -> Category:Government of Kentucky
- Category:Government in Maine -> Category:Government of Maine
- Category:Government in New Jersey -> Category:Government of New Jersey
- Category:North Carolina government -> Category:Government of North Carolina
-Aranel ("Sarah") 14:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan — hike395 05:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan duplicate of the prefered Category:Armored divisions of the United States — Sortior 04:49, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
See below..this is the same only not malformed. — Sortior 04:47, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners is inappropriate for accidents not involving commercial airliners. 132.205.15.43 05:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- MOVE/RENAME to Category:Accidents and incidents in the aviation sector, make Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners a subcategory of this, and cleanup that category to make sure it involves commercial airliners, and not other things, such as the Ramstein airshow disaster 132.205.15.43 05:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- rename to Category:Accidents and incidents in aviation or something similar. --Rlandmann 11:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If there was anything in this category, I'd suggest it be renamed, but as there is not, I suggest delete. We already have Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners which has a good parent category. I don't see any members of Category:Accidents and incidents on noncommercial airliners and I don't see the point of a more generic category. --ssd 16:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It's improper categorization, if you include what is currently included in that "good cat". Several items have nothing to do with commercial airliners. 132.205.15.43 05:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan malformation of the existing Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners — Sortior 04:46, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- As this is malformed, I'll comment above. 132.205.15.43 05:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Duplicate of the Category:105 mm artillery which is the format the other calibre categories are in. — Sortior 04:43, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan misspelled Category:Theologians — Sortior 04:25, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan misspelled Category:Theology — Sortior 04:25, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Possibly not a misspelling. The word thealogy is used by some feminist theo... thealogians, and the term even has an article on Wikipedia (see thealogy). This is not a vote. / Tupsharru 12:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What about a category redirect, then? (I'm afraid it's too close to Category:Theology to be entirely useful as a separate category. It will be confused.) --Aranel ("Sarah") 13:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- As noted above, this was not really a vote, and I agree the categories are too close. I don't know what need there would be for a category like this at the moment in any case, but if there is or will be in the future (which is very likely), Category:Feminist theology and Category:Feminist theologians would probably do. But with the way theologians tend to see significant dogmatic distinctions not obvious for people outside their own particular faith, I wouldn't be surprised if some day somebody will try to recreate the "Thealogy" categories... / Tupsharru 14:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Wow that is what I like about wikipedia.... learn something new every day.... I'll make theaology a redirect to theology, with comments if folks agree Sortior 15:47, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- As noted above, this was not really a vote, and I agree the categories are too close. I don't know what need there would be for a category like this at the moment in any case, but if there is or will be in the future (which is very likely), Category:Feminist theology and Category:Feminist theologians would probably do. But with the way theologians tend to see significant dogmatic distinctions not obvious for people outside their own particular faith, I wouldn't be surprised if some day somebody will try to recreate the "Thealogy" categories... / Tupsharru 14:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What about a category redirect, then? (I'm afraid it's too close to Category:Theology to be entirely useful as a separate category. It will be confused.) --Aranel ("Sarah") 13:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to make a redirect category, or is this empty category just a one time typo? --ssd 16:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I made it a redirect with additional verbiage. We can delete or keep as redirect. Sortior 22:52, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- It doesn't hurt anything to keep it. (I don't particularly care, though.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 22
Redundant with Category:San Francisco, as San Francisco is a consolidated city-county, therefore, they have the same territory and a unified government. There is nothing that would be placed in one category that would not also be proper to place in the other. Gentgeen 21:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I don't have a substantive keep/kill opinion, but if the consensus is to delete, I think this category should be kept as a "redirecting category," since all the other entries in the parent category, Category:California counties take the form, "[Name] County, California", and the category entry "San Francisco" without the county denomination my be confusing to those who only know it as a city and so may think the entry misplaced. --Gary D 21:19, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- As San Francisco is the only consolidated city-county in California, it is fitting that its entry be somewhat unique. I would hope that anyone who saw the "different" subcategory would click on it to find out why it's different before simply thinking it's wrong. Gentgeen 19:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Badly capitalised categories. Category:London Rivers may be better named Category:Rivers in London. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - these were amongst the first-created categories and (personally - ymmv) and just as there is the 'London Borough of xxx' I feel that this word order better reflects usage and meaning. --Vamp:Willow 23:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- While we do tend to prefer the older category if they are both equally good, this is clearly not the case here (unless "District" is somehow a proper noun, but in the category description it is not). If not part of a proper name, words in a category or article title are not capitalized. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I agree; a capital D does not fit Wikipedia's downcase style. "Borough of Foo" is a proper noun, and thus must be capitalized. In this case, "districts" is not part of a proper noun. -- Beland 05:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:London districts; Category:London Rivers is miscapitalized and should be renamed to either Category:Rivers in London or Category:London rivers is ok, but it would be best to try to match prevalent convention. --ssd 16:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Badly capitalised categories. Category:London Rivers may be better named Category:Rivers in London. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - these were amongst the first-created categories and (personally - ymmv) and just as there is the 'London Borough of xxx' I feel that this word order better reflects usage and meaning. --Vamp:Willow 23:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The current standard for government categories is "Category:Government of X". See, for instance, Category:Government of Israel, Category:Government of the UK, and Category:State governments of the United State. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support Government of X. -- Beland 23:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Badly capitalised categories. Category:London Rivers may be better named Category:Rivers in London. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose although I'm slightly more agnostic on this one. Again one of the early categories it has already gone through a number of variations and this one seems to have held long enough to stick imho. --Vamp:Willow 23:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support "London River crossings" instead. Capital Crossings is clearly not in compliance with the Wikipedia downcase style specified by the Manual of Style and used almost universally throughout the site. -- Beland 23:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I could support "London river crossings", but not "London River crossings", which implies crossings of the London River. The current (all cap) form is against usual Wiki practice and ambiguous. Grutness|hello?
00:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Badly capitalised categories. Category:London Rivers may be better named Category:Rivers in London. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral: I would support a change but not the alternative given: They are either "London's Rivers" or "Rivers of London" sfaiac. --Vamp:Willow 23:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The standard form for rivers categories is "Rivers in X". (This is less of a standard that some of the others, but "Feature in X" is pretty much the standard for geographical features.) Take a look at the siblings in Category:British rivers (noting that "British rivers" should probably be "Rivers in Great Britain", but definitely not "British Rivers"). -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The above four listings reformatted by me so that content appears at each target --Vamp:Willow 23:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If recent category clean-ups suggested below are anything to go by, there is a gradually approaching consensus of "Natural features of X", "Artificial features in X". Thus "River crossings in London", "Rivers of London" ("Rivers in..." is not the standard! See Landforms tidy-up below!). Government is a little different, not being a geographic term. Personally I'd favour Government of London, but ymmv. As far as Districts is concerned, "Districts in London" makes sense, but there are several other "X districts"-type categories, so just dropping it to a minuscule would be okay by me. Grutness hello? 
01:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. Thanks for that catch. It's one of the two, anyway. -Aranel ("Sarah") 13:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Rivers should definitely not be capitalized unless it is the first word in the title (after Category:). -- Beland 23:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Was listed as a speedy deletion by its creator, but has not been orphaned off and doesn't meet the criteria. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This category should be renamed to be more uniform with pages names, and it also just 'sounds better'. Most of the pages in this category are controlled by a template (Template:VictorianStations), so it is no big deal moving pages to the new name. -- Somebody in the WWW 00:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Also "Victorian" often implies the Victorian era. Timrollpickering 10:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. When I first saw the title I assumed it refered to the era not the place. Icundell 12:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- WP:CFD is the appropriate page to handle Category deletes. Categories can not be moved. - UtherSRG 12:22, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Orphan malformed category, linked to only by a user page. Already is an extensive Category:Aviators. — Sortior 05:04, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Should be Category:Aviators or Category:Lists of Aviators depending on what is in it. User pages should not be linked into the main namespace. --ssd 16:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For speedy. Empty, an apparent misstart. Missing the space after the comma. Pales beside its properly spaced twin, Category:San Bernardino County, California. --Gary D 03:25, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
December 21
Material more suited for a list or incorporated into an article. This is a very bad precedent as there is potentially no limit to which works of literature could have a category to identify "articles of interest to readers and students" of that work. older≠wiser 14:59, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- As the creator of this category, I obviously want to keep it; more generally, I fail to understand the reason for the listing. By the same logic, there is potentially no limit to the number of works of literature that might have articles written about them, so we should also forbid the practice of writing such articles. I would also argue that The Cantos is one of those works of literature most likely to benefit from this kind of treatment because of its demands on the reader's knowledge of a wide range of cultural references. No single article could contain all the links required. Believe me, I know from the work I've done on the main article to date. Potentially, this category could become the best online resource for students of the work anywhere. Filiocht 15:27, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, I agree that a list is a much better choice in this situation. I don't think that information that is not important enough to make it into the text of the article deserves the prominence of a category. - SimonP
- Delete. The Category is clearly much to vague like Bkonrad says, nearly limitless.--[[User:TheGrza|TheGrza]] 21:32, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Make a list. Categories are to go from an instance to other instances of a group, but a non-Pound student is never ever going to care that two random articles have the literary relationship. As someone who has created some of WP's monster lists, 2,000 entries and up, I can say there's no danger of the list of cultural references in The Cantos being too large. Lists also have the advantage that they can be annotated, for instance to note briefly where and why each item is on the list; no way to make categories do that. Stan 22:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- While I disagree profoundly with the arguments put forward here, I've gone ahead and created the list anyway. Whi is a near limitless list OK but a category isn't? Filiocht 09:10, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Because categorization modifies all the articles, and because the general consensus on categorization requires a strong relationship, otherwise there's nothing to prevent every article from being added to every category ("everything is related", right?), thus rendering the category system useless. The final deal-killer is that there isn't really any use for the category; for instance, Category:Plant families helped find some dups and misnamed articles, because it shows articles by real names rather through redirects or piping, which a list can't be relied on to do. In the case of Category:The Cantos, I thought about it a while, couldn't come up with any purpose like that. Stan 17:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- While I disagree profoundly with the arguments put forward here, I've gone ahead and created the list anyway. Whi is a near limitless list OK but a category isn't? Filiocht 09:10, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Sets bad precedent. There are articles with names like List of cultural references in Dead Like Me. It would be overwhelming if those lists all became categories. -Willmcw 22:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Term appears to have been made up by category's creator. —tregoweth 12:32, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This is clearly nonsense. Tomato 01:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Seems like an attempt to reintroduce category:World cities which was listed for deletion (and deleted) this past September. This version is a category form of a list in the World city article. As far as I can tell, wikipedia has no article about the GaWC making this category at best obscure. -- Rick Block 03:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - A GaWC designation as a world city is not notable enough for a category. - SimonP
I stumbled across this recently-created category. More standard disambiguation would be Category:Risk (game) or Category:Risk (board game). (The game itself is at Risk (game).) -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'm the one who came up with the name. I couldn't find a clear policy nor an example of a category that used the parentheses disambiguation convention used for articles. The closest I could find in Wikipedia:Categorization is "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories. Example: "Wikipedia policy precedents and examples", not "Precedents and examples" (a sub-category of "Wikipedia policies and guidelines")." If parentheses disambiguation is in fact the way to do it, I think Risk (game) should be the choice to match the article. I'd be happy to make the corrections, based on whatever is the consensus. --agr 01:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 20
This was listed for deletion once before. It was deleted (5 to 1). Here is a copy of the previous discussion:
I think this should be deleted for three reasons:
- It makes no indication of what the person's relationship is to the city, whether they were born there, or lived there for two weeks etc.
- If we are going to have this, then surely we should have one for every city, and what happens if a person lived in a number of cities.
- There is already a list of people from Birmingham at the main Birmingham article, so this isn't needed. G-Man 19:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Agree. Delete – Quadell (talk) (quiz)[[]] 20:06, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm wary of any categorization of people below the country level, because people move around too much these days and are not often going to be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry just because of what they've done in a particular city. A category such as Category:People of Birmingham, England could be viable only for people whose notability is inherently tied to that location, but not otherwise, and mere residency is far too ephemeral to provide a sensible basis for classification. Postdlf 00:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete --Conti|✉ 22:06, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Half of them are dead, so they are hardly residents! Who is going to keep track of this on a day-by-day basis? Noisy | Talk 13:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. 1) so? 2) if we decide to have one for every city, which doesn't have to happen as a result of keepinig this, then people would be categorized under multiple cities. Again, so? 3) Categories are not lists. anthony (see warning) 13:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not encyclopedic. If we tagged every person's article with the list of cities they've lived in, the list for some would be longer than their article, and if we only tag the article if they currently live there, it'll be a maintaince nightmare and/or horribly inaccurate. --ssd 04:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It now contains quite a lot of articles (it was not recreated by the same account that originally created it). I think this is a bad idea. We could start listing every single person by every single town in which they ever lived, but is having lived in Birmingham one of the four of five most important things about most people who once lived there? (Even the town in which I was born is not all that important to me!) Other, more significant, cities (see, for instance, Category:London) do not have such a category. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Alaska boroughs
We currently have both Category:Boroughs in Alaska (which is in keeping with several sisters) and Category:Alaska boroughs (which has been around longer and is in keeping with county categories). Is a borough in Alaska more like a city (where "A in B" is standard) or a county (where "Bian As" is standard)? Are they really the same sort of thing as the siblings in Category:Boroughs in the United States? Which should we keep? -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I vote for Boroughs in Alaska... I think it is more consistent and proper that way. Having my druthers I think Counties in Alaska is better and more consistent overall than the Alaska counties too... Sortior 04:53, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Boroughs in Alaska are the equivalent of Louisiana's parishes and counties in the other states. Boroughs in other US states (except New York City) are municipalities. The correct form, given the current practice for counties, is "Category:Alaska boroughs". "Counties" would not be the right term to use for Alaska, but it might not be a bad idea to change the convention from "StateName counties" to "Counties in StateName". If there's interest in doing that, it should be brought up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Counties and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. -- Beland 02:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Per Cities and towns entry below, this category should be renamed Category:Cities and towns in Saga Prefecture. -- Rick Block 19:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There are two Town classes, categorized at Category:Town class cruisers (1910) and Category:Town class cruisers (1936). So Category:Town class cruisers is ambiguous and should be deleted. Gdr 10:08, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Hawaii media per the naming standards at Category:United States media by state. Neutrality/talk 07:24, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan duplicate of the preferred Category:152 mm artillery — Sortior 05:42, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Heart categories
Category:Heart and Category:Heart anatomy are obsoleted categories. Articles are categorized in category:cardiovascular system and category:cardiac anatomy instead. Fuelbottle | Talk 00:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 19
Several "photographers by nationality" categories
Here is a list of several subcategories of Category:Photographers which IMHO can be safely deleted without any loss of information. The main reason is that e.g. the criterion for inclusion in Category:French photographers is exactly membership in Category:French people as well as Category:Photographers. In other words, a French photographer is precisely a French national who happens to be a photographer. For purposes of searching WP, some future search facility will hopefully allow boolean combinations of categories, so that French photographers can be found quickly and easily. For now, all of these subcategories are underpopulated; even Category:Photographers itself is fairly small at the moment, especially when compared to the much longer List of photographers. Even if you don't agree with the first argument that "photographers by nationality" is redundant and doesn't add any new information, you might agree that this subdivision is simply unnecessary at the moment and could be added later if and when Category:Photographers becomes too large. --MarkSweep 21:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Number of articles in assigned to this category: 0.
Number of articles assigned to this category: 1.
Number of articles assigned to this category: 1.
Number of articles assigned to this category: 2.
Number of articles assigned to this category: 1.
Number of articles assigned to this category: 2.
Number of articles assigned to this category: 23.
- Unnecessary at the moment, yes. Suggest deleting all these subcategories and replacing with new article List of photographers by nationality. If the categories become necessary later they can always be replaced, but for now I don't see them as vital. Grutness hello?
- Agree. People by occupation and people by nationality should be kept separate unless there is a need to combine them. -Willmcw 21:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Should be merged with Category:Stubs, which has the proper (plural) name. For some reason, most of the articles are in the singular cat, even though almost all the subcats are properly plural. —Tkinias 20:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It appears that all articles using Template:Stub appear in Category:Stub and all article using Template:Sect-stub appear in Category:Stubs. —Mike 02:10, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
- I think it would be an extremely bad idea to touch this category at all. Rather than renaming this category, just empty it by moving its contents into subcategories of Category:Stub categories. Likewise, Category:Stubs should be emptied before it is allowed to grow further. --ssd 04:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Category:Stubs apparently was already empty, so I deleted it. --ssd 05:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For consistency with other categories, these should be renamed as Category:Districts in Shizuoka Prefecture and Category:Shizuoka Prefecture. Note Category:Shizuoka prefecture currently exists (and is included in the categories discussed in the next item). -- Rick Block 19:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Empty, orphan, miscapitilization of the existing Category:World War II Pacific theatre. — Sortior 05:27, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete – [[User:ABCD|User:ABCD/sig]] 17:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
World War II sub categories
Within the weapons category the following are empty orphans. Discussion with the group has shown that these are too specific of subcategories and are not needed. These are all empty orphans. &mdash Sortior 05:25, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Category:World War II British anti-tank guns
- Category:World War II British self-propelled artillery
- Category:World War II German anti-tank guns
- Category:World War II German assault guns
- Category:World War II German self-propelled artillery
- Category:World War II anti-tank guns
- Agree to these and ALL of the "equipment" stubs. Those were actually my fault as I made the equipment stubs for WWII which then were copied for use in other conflicts. I've since adopted the much more manageable "by Decade" system. Oberiko 01:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan malformation of the concensus Category:Ukrainian actors — Sortior 05:01, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan malformation of the concensus Category:Swiss actors — Sortior 04:59, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan malformation of the correct Category:Steel guitarists — Sortior 04:59, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan duplicate of Category:Spam filtering — Sortior 04:53, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Categories Tanks of Decade
- Category:Soviet_and_Russian_tanks
- Category:Soviet_tanks_(1930-1939)
- Category:Soviet_tanks_(1940-1949)
- Category:Soviet_tanks_(1970-1979)
- Category:German_tanks_(1930-1939)
- Category:Tanks_(1930-1939)
Per tank category tanks will be categorized by period not by decade. These are empty orphans — Sortior 04:44, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Duplicate of populated Category:Russian and Soviet tanks — Sortior 04:36, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
War equipment categories
- Category:American Civil War equipment
- Category:Austro-Prussian War equipment
- Category:Boer War equipment
- Category:Crimean War equipment
- Category:English Civil War equipment
- Category:Falklands War equipment
- Category:Franco-Prussian War equipment
- Category:Gulf War equipment
- Category:Gulf War American equipment
- Category:Gulf War Argentine equipment
- Category:Gulf War Australian equipment
- Category:Gulf War Bahranian equipment
- Category:Gulf War Bangladeshi equipment
- Category:Gulf War Belgian equipment
- Category:Gulf War British equipment
- Category:Gulf War Canadian equipment
- Category:Gulf War Czech equipment
- Category:Gulf War Danish equipment
- Category:Gulf War Dutch equipment
- Category:Gulf War Egyptian equipment
- Category:Gulf War French equipment
- Category:Gulf War Greek equipment
- Category:Gulf War Honduran equipment
- Category:Gulf War Iraqi equipment
- Category:Gulf War Italian equipment
- Category:Gulf War Kuwaiti equipment
- Category:Gulf War Moroccan equipment
- Category:Gulf War Norwegian equipment
- Category:Gulf War Omani equipment
- Category:Gulf War Pakistani equipment
- Category:Gulf War Polish equipment
- Category:Gulf War Portuguese equipment
- Category:Gulf War Qatari equipment
- Category:Gulf War Romanian equipment
- Category:Gulf War Saudi Arabian equipment
- Category:Gulf War Senegalese equipment
- Category:Gulf War South Korean equipment
- Category:Gulf War Spanish equipment
- Category:Gulf War Syrian equipment
- Category:Gulf War United Arab Emirates equipment
- Category:Konfrontasi equipment
- Category:Korean War equipment
- Category:Korean War American equipment
- Category:Korean War Australian equipment
- Category:Korean War Belgian equipment
- Category:Korean War British equipment
- Category:Korean War Canadian equipment
- Category:Korean War Chinese equipment
- Category:Korean War Colombian equipment
- Category:Korean War Danish equipment
- Category:Korean War Dutch equipment
- Category:Korean War Ethiopian equipment
- Category:Korean War Filipino equipment
- Category:Korean War French equipment
- Category:Korean War Greek equipment
- Category:Korean War Indian equipment
- Category:Korean War Italian equipment
- Category:Korean War New Zealand equipment
- Category:Korean War North Korean equipment
- Category:Korean War Norwegian equipment
- Category:Korean War South African equipment
- Category:Korean War South Korean equipment
- Category:Korean War Swedish equipment
- Category:Korean War Thai equipment
- Category:Korean War Turkish equipment
- Category:Kosovo War equipment
- Category:Kosovo War American equipment
- Category:Kosovo War Belgian equipment
- Category:Kosovo War British equipment
- Category:Kosovo War Canadian equipment
- Category:Kosovo War Danish equipment
- Category:Kosovo War Dutch equipment
- Category:Kosovo War French equipment
- Category:Kosovo War German equipment
- Category:Kosovo War Greek equipment
- Category:Kosovo War Italian equipment
- Category:Kosovo War Norwegian equipment
- Category:Kosovo War Portuguese equipment
- Category:Kosovo War Spanish equipment
- Category:Kosovo War Turkish equipment
- Category:Kosovo War Yugoslavian equipment
- Category:Napoleonic Wars equipment
- Category:Napoleonic Wars Austrian equipment
- Category:Napoleonic Wars British equipment
- Category:Napoleonic Wars Danish equipment
- Category:Napoleonic Wars French equipment
- Category:Napoleonic Wars Neapolitain equipment
- Category:Napoleonic Wars Ottoman Empire equipment
- Category:Napoleonic Wars Papal States equipment
- Category:Napoleonic Wars Piedmontese equipment
- Category:Napoleonic Wars Portuguese equipment
- Category:Napoleonic Wars Prussian equipment
- Category:Napoleonic Wars Russian equipment
- Category:Napoleonic Wars Saxon equipment
- Category:Napoleonic Wars Spanish equipment
- Category:Napoleonic Wars Swedish equipment
- Category:Six Day War equipment
- Category:Spanish-American War equipment
- Category:Suez Crisis equipment
- Category:Vietnam War equipment (this category actually has articles and can be kept)
- Category:Vietnam War American equipment
- Category:Vietnam War Australian equipment
- Category:Vietnam War Filipino equipment
- Category:Vietnam War New Zealand equipment
- Category:Vietnam War North Vietnamese equipment
- Category:Vietnam War South Korean equipment
- Category:Vietnam War South Vietnamese equipment
- Category:Vietnam War Thai equipment
- Category:World War I equipment
- Category:World War I Albanian equipment
- Category:World War I American equipment
- Category:World War I Austro-Hungarian equipment
- Category:World War I Belgian equipment
- Category:World War I British Empire equipment
- Category:World War I Bulgarian equipment
- Category:World War I French equipment
- Category:World War I German equipment
- Category:World War I Greek equipment
- Category:World War I Italian equipment
- Category:World War I Japanese equipment
- Category:World War I Montenegran equipment
- Category:World War I Ottoman Empire equipment
- Category:World War I Portuguese equipment
- Category:World War I Romanian equipment
- Category:World War I Russian equipment
- Category:World War I Serbian equipment
- Category:Yom Kippur War equipment
It appears all of these empty categories were created back in July. See also the previously nominated Category:First Arab-Israeli War equipment and subcats (below). —Mike 01:10, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. These categories are clearly not necessary right now. Furthermore, their function could, and probably should, be fulfilled with a list or lists. Tomato 01:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 18
Empty orphan in the current categorization scheme breakout by nationality isn't happening at this level. — Sortior 21:46, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan duplicate of Category:Russian and Soviet armored fighting vehicles — Sortior 21:34, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty, orphan, malformation of the concensus Category:South Korean actors — Sortior 21:24, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Seems like what you would call a "vanity category". Wikipedia categories are for articles, not users, right? TheNewAuk 06:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is one of a set of categories specifically for users to add themselves to. You'll notice that it isn't a subcategory of Category:Journalists, but only of Category:Wikipedians. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Wikipedian_categories for a discussion about it.-gadfium (talk) 06:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. In the discussion noted above, I proposed Wikipedian categories on December 12, and no one objected. Maurreen 06:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I was just thinking that the Wikipedia is for articles, and that, just as matter of principle, we should keep Users out of the main namespace. Would it be possible to make categories within the User namespace for this purpose? That would allow catergories of User pages but keep them separate from the actual Wikipedia. TheNewAuk 05:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I added my two cents to the discussion noted above. TheNewAuk 05:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Note that Category:Wikipedia and its many subcats entirely consists of pages not in the main namespace, so the precedent has already been established. Stan 14:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oh. I didn't think of that. ...I still think it would be neat to separate the Wikipedia from "meta-Wikipedia" material, but if it can't be done easily, and since we have the precedent, and it's not really a big deal anyway, I hereby withdraw my deletion nomination. TheNewAuk 21:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan. I have the feeling this category might have some future use, though there is no concensus on the word shaman within wikipedia. As it has been an empty orphan for a while, let someone recreate it when there is a demonstrated need and concensus. — Sortior 21:16, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty malformed orphan duplicate of Category:Self-propelled artillery — Sortior 21:08, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan category orphaned by creator soon after creation. Current psychology subcats are sufficient. — Sortior 21:04, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan duplicate of the concensus format Category:Romanian actors — Sortior 20:52, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
A duplicate of Category:WB network shows. I depopulated this one (there were only three entries) and transferred them to the larger category. PedanticallySpeaking 19:26, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan duplicate of the existing Category:RAFAEL Armament Development Authority. — Sortior 05:04, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
By concensus the correct category is Category:Quebec actors which already exists. This is an orphan empty. — Sortior 04:59, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. There is already a category for this. Tomato 01:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan, created then orphaned by creator on the same day. One of many in the Category:Cryptography and its children. Apparently not useful. — Sortior 04:51, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan. Too specific to be useful. — Sortior 04:37, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan category. Has been around for 6 months with no entries. Too vague to be useful. — Sortior 04:34, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan created and then orphaned by user in a single day. Assume it is a mistake. — Sortior 04:29, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan of the already existing Category:People of New York which matches what is used in the other states. — Sortior 04:23, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan malformed category of the proper Category:Presidential aircraft — Sortior 04:14, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
This is an empty orphan category. By concensus the correct category is Category:Polish actors. — Sortior 04:02, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan. The Category:Paleontologists has subcategories by nationality already only. There is no perceived need to parent those to a super category of by nationality. — Sortior 03:48, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan, has gotten no articles in 6 months. Can be recreated if there is any demonstrated need. — Sortior 03:37, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Should have been Category: Culture of Northern Ireland anyway. "Northern Irish" is an invalid term. Grutness hello?
Empty orphan category of unclear purpose. — Sortior 02:05, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan category. Categorization scheme that didn't work.
Empty orphan malformed of the proper Category:NBDL teams. National Basketball Development League for the curious. — Sortior 01:47, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan malformed of the proper Category:Music festivals — Sortior 01:42, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan malformed of the proper Category:Mood disorders — Sortior 01:38, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan category. No concensus as to the use of the word modern in the category. Not used. —Sortior 01:30, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan with a note asking for it to be deleted. Not used in current airplane categorization. — Sortior 01:22, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Empty orphan, note in category asking for it to be deleted. No real definition of "attack" aircraft. — Sortior 01:18, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
December 16
Move to Category:Billion-dollar companies? -- Beland 02:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- ...My first thought, seeing that, would be that it meant market capitalization, though. Then revenue would be bouncing around somewhere with profit. Is "Billion-dollar-revenue companies" idiomatic enough? Samaritan 07:39, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, is Category:Companies_with_annual_revenue_exceeding_U.S.$1_billion OK? Or should this be "Top companies by revenue"? Maybe it be in a list instead, so it can be sorted by revenue and annotated. -- Beland 04:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Related moves
Also for your consideration. -- Beland 02:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Category:Virgin_Islands_(USA) -> Category:U.S._Virgin_Islands
- Category:Virgin_Islands -> Category:U.S._Virgin_Islands
- Category:World_Heritage_Sites_in_USA -> Category:World_Heritage_Sites_in_the_United_States
I'll chip in another one, connected to the last one Beland mentioned. Grutness hello? 06:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Category:UN World_Heritage_Sites_in_India -> Category:World_Heritage_Sites_in_India
- I did the rest (redirected one), but that last one didn't have a cfd notice, so let's give it a few days. -Aranel ("Sarah") 14:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 14
This really should be renamed to Category:Birmingham, AL or Category:Birmingham, Alabama. Yes, there is a category Category:Birmingham, England (a far more famous Birmingham, but let's not argue that point), but Birmingham points to the English city, not the Alabama one. Precedent for state in category name: Category:Minneapolis, MN. Precedent for disambiguation geographical category: Category:Georgia. Dryazan 18:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Agree, but please do not use Category:Birmingham, AL. Category:Minneapolis, MN should really be moved to either Category:Minneapolis or Category:Minneapolis, Minnesota. older≠wiser 20:27, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Should we make it policy that all categories for places should have the same name as the article about the place? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oh please no. It would mean moving all the New Zealand categories that were moved last week to yet another name! Move Category:Birmingham to Category:Birmingham, Alabama and move Category:Minneapolis, MN (I thought that was Maine...), too. If there's another Minneapolis somewhere move it to Category:Minneapolis, Minnesota; if not, move it to Category:Minneapolis. Grutness hello? 12:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The reason for this suggestion is to stop duplicate categories from being created. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 15:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- As long as there's a logical, consistent way of doing things (as there now is with the NZ articles), I don't think that's likely. The problems arise when there are inconsistencies. Take the NZ goegraphy example, for instance. There is a category:Thames-Coromandel, of which the main article is Thames-Coromandel (district), New Zealand. The category is named to keep it consistent with the other new zealand geographical distinctions, all of which simply have the names of the one or two areas concerned, some of which are governmental districts and others of which are not. The article is named to keep it consistent with the other articles about NZ administrative districts. Changing the category name to keep it consistent with the article name would lead to it being inconsistent with the other subcategories of New Zealand geography. Surely there's less likelihood of duplicating categories if all the category names are formed in the same way? Grutness hello? 00:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oh please no. It would mean moving all the New Zealand categories that were moved last week to yet another name! Move Category:Birmingham to Category:Birmingham, Alabama and move Category:Minneapolis, MN (I thought that was Maine...), too. If there's another Minneapolis somewhere move it to Category:Minneapolis, Minnesota; if not, move it to Category:Minneapolis. Grutness hello?
Same reasons as Category:List of galaxies below. -Sean Curtin 00:35, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Seems that the {{cfd}} template was left off the page. Does the clock start from now, as I just added it? 132.205.15.43 05:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I hope you can subcategorize stars, because there are not enough at the moment, and it really does clutter the main stars page alot. Try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Category:Stars. 132.205.15.43 00:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- How about a rename to Category:Stars by designation (or Category:Stars by name) ? 132.205.15.43 00:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Not sure. See the discussion at Category:Weapons by name, below. JYolkowski 21:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Category talk:Stars#Category: List of stars
- Delete and move contents to sub-categories of Category:Stars. - SimonP 02:35, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- aside from there being no subcategories to subcategorize with...
- I just created some subcats, but not enough. Do note, that stars would go under multiple subcategories: spectral type, constellation, location on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, and several others (ie. Neutron star). Not as neat as galactic classification. You'll have to come up with a categorization policy, if my newly created subcats aren't up to snuff. 132.205.15.43 04:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think that would be a wise move. IRude 09:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I just created some subcats, but not enough. Do note, that stars would go under multiple subcategories: spectral type, constellation, location on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, and several others (ie. Neutron star). Not as neat as galactic classification. You'll have to come up with a categorization policy, if my newly created subcats aren't up to snuff. 132.205.15.43 04:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- aside from there being no subcategories to subcategorize with...
- Delete and subcategorize contents under Category:Stars. --David Iberri | Talk 06:18, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, categories are not lists. As well, we should probably consider cleaning up Category:Stars, as most of the things in there are not stars. JYolkowski 21:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- They seem to be stars, agglomerations of stars or information about stars 132.205.15.43 02:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Seems that the {{cfd}} template was left off the page. Does the clock start from now, as I just added it? 132.205.15.43 05:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sure, but delete it anyway. We don't do generally do categories "by name" (it's redundant—categories are inherently "by name") or as lists. Lists should be presented as lists. If the articles in this category were lists, it should be renamed "Lists of stars". But they're not, so they should fit into appropriate sub-categories of Category:Stars. If this results in too much clutter, then that means the sub-categories need work, not that they should go in this category instead. -Aranel ("Sarah") 05:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Move the articles and categories that are about specific stars to the Category:Star and put the ones that are about stars in general in the Category:Stars or something. At least some subcategory somewhere should have ALL stars and ONLY stars in it, right? Pedant 00:45, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
- That was part of my reasoning, but apparently not according to most people voting. 132.205.15.43 04:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- So, voters, can you guys also help with Star Categorization policy at the WikiProject page? 132.205.15.43 04:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 11
Pointless duplicate of Category:Galaxies. - SimonP 03:05, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, possibly rename. The current content of Category:Galaxies is articles about types of galaxies and galaxy-related topics, while Category:List of galaxies is a list of particular galaxies. Maybe a name like "Galaxy names" would be more appropriate, though. Mpolo 07:50, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
- All the article in Category:List of galaxies can be found on the subpages of Category:Galaxies. - SimonP 08:00, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. Not all galaxies listed can be found under other subcategories. For instance, the Starfish Galaxy. 132.205.45.110 16:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- All the article in Category:List of galaxies can be found on the subpages of Category:Galaxies. - SimonP 08:00, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep but move to Category:Galaxy, seems a better name and fits the hierarchy: Galaxies>Galaxy>Star>Planet>Moon>etc. Pedant 11:18, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
- KEEP because not all galaxies can be currently categorized under other subcategories of Galaxies. And it avoids cluttering up the Galaxies page with galaxies that aren't otherwise categorized.132.205.45.110
- Should there be a list of galaxies where all galaxies appear, akin to the Category:Genera thing? The biology project has a totality of genus in genera, aside from being otherwise categorized. Note WikiPedia can categorize in multiple ways. And list of galaxies is an easy to find repository of galaxies, that doesn't need maintenance, unlike the list of galaxies article. 132.205.45.110 17:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If they can't fit into a sub-category they belong in Category:Galaxies. - SimonP 17:29, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Should Galaxies be cluttered up to make navigation less useful, with tons of galaxies that are potentially articles? 132.205.15.43 18:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete (or rename to "Lists of galaxies" and populate with lists). The way categorization normally works is that articles about X (whether individual Xs or type of X or whatever) go under "Category:Xs". "Category:List of X" is redundant, anyway. A category is already a type of list. If the problem is clutter, then there should be more sub-categories of Category:Galaxies. Perhaps a Category:Galaxies by type could be introduced, but this one has to go. It's just not how categories work. Category:Galaxy should probably be listed for deletion. Plurals are standard. (Is there a word that astrophysicists use for "the study of galaxies"?) -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: categories are not lists. All content in this category should be placed in list of galaxies and either Category:Galaxies or one of its subcategories. -Sean Curtin 23:55, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps this should be turned into a page instead of a category, like any number of other Wikipedia lists: List of sovereign states. A2Kafir 00:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Should either be a list or merged into Category:Galaxies. DCEdwards1966 00:46, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- How about a rename to Category:Galaxies by designation (or Category:Galaxies by name) ? 132.205.15.43 00:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Not sure. See the discussion at Category:Weapons by name, below. JYolkowski 21:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The discussion on Category:Genera was to keep that, and it's also a category as a no-maintenace list. 132.205.15.43 04:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Not sure. See the discussion at Category:Weapons by name, below. JYolkowski 21:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Category talk:Stars#Category: List of stars
- Delete, categories are not lists. As well, we should probably consider cleaning up Category:Galaxies, as most of the things in there are not galaxies. JYolkowski 21:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- They seem to be galaxies, or agglomerations of galaxies, or information on galaxies 132.205.15.43 02:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rename to Category:User-contributed public domain images. Neutrality/talk 03:03, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Isn't everything here user contributed?Pedant 11:59, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
- No. 'User-contributed' in this sense means that the uploader is the creator (and thus copyright holder), and releases it into the public domain. If I upload some old art that's in the public domain because of age, that would use a different copyright tag. (Note that the tag's text refers to a 'creator'.) grendel|khan 15:07, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
- Support the change. It'd only require changing the one template, wouldn't it? grendel|khan 15:07, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be clearer to use Category:User-created public domain images, if the point is that the images are created by Wikipedia users?--MaxMad 12:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with MaxMad. But as to what grendelkhan asked, whether it would be just switching one template, actually one'd have to switch PD-user and Template:PD-self, and (for all I know) possibly some hand-categorized pictures also. —msh210 22:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I agree also, but unfortunately, the cfd tag on this one was removed on the 14th. I replaced it, but we should probably wait for a few days to give folks a chance to see the category and respond. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with MaxMad. But as to what grendelkhan asked, whether it would be just switching one template, actually one'd have to switch PD-user and Template:PD-self, and (for all I know) possibly some hand-categorized pictures also. —msh210 22:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 8
Redundant with Category:U.S. Executive Cabinet. Postdlf 10:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. repetitive. --MPerel 23:49, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is offered as part of a part of a wise reorg. However, the title is wrong:
- This term, "Executive Cabinet", is unknown to most educated Americans with an interest in national politics, so it needs justifying in a 'Pedia that has entries like Oireachtas.
- This Cat has (except for the * subcat) only subcats suitable for Bios. Its title should end with "members" or "people", e.g., Category:U.S. Executive Cabinet members, or, well, the title it was created to replace: Category:U.S. presidential cabinet members
- --Jerzy(t) 21:52, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
December 7
This does not require a deletion. However, a demand has been raised for moving - a bot will be useful, as quite a lot of articles are concerned - this to a theoretical Category:Shahs of Persia. There is no objection on my part (me being the creator of this category). -- Itai 22:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, a Shah is a King. IZAK 18:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think the trend has been to create a general "monarchs" category, but if all such monarchs went by a particular designation, I don't see the point in doing that here. Were all monarchs of Persia called Shahs? Postdlf 00:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Shah is a corruption of caesar, the term for a Roman Emperor, so no, not all Persian monarchs were called Shah, AFAIK, since the Persian Empire existed at various points in history, before the Roman Empire. 132.205.15.43 04:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Move to Category:Monarchs of Persia. Shah != king, but equivalent to German Kaiser or Russian tsar, both of which are normally translated emperor. Most of the monarchs in the category, however, were neither kings nor shahs. (That category is a big mess, BTW... At least three different spellings of "Muhammad", titles like Abbas I of Safavid ["of Safavid"?], etc... Massive cleanup is needed.) —Tkinias 23:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There appears to be a consensus that this should be Category:Bohemian monarchs. (The category has been depopulated and all articles have been moved thence.) In an ideal world Category:Czech monarchs would redirect there - the two are, for all intents and purposes, one and the same - but this is not currently available. -- Itai 22:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What about Samo and the rulers of Great Moravia? Shouldn't we attach them to the "Czech rulers" categories branch in some way? Martg76 00:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- (1) Bohemian means referring to Bohemia (=western Czechia/Czech lands), Czech means today referring to Bohemia or referring to Czechia/Czech lands (= Bohemia + Moravia + other terr.), but historically Czech is simply the Czech word for Bohemian (there is no equivalent for Bohemia or Bohemian in Czech, only in German or French); so actually both Czech and Bohemian is correct, Bohemian historically probably more correct, (2) Samo and Great Moravia do not belong below Bohemian or Czech monarchs. Major reasons: (a) Samo is 7th century, GM basically 9 th century, the state of Bohemia arose only in the late 9th century as a western neighbour of Great Moravia, (b) Samo was a Frankish person who ruled the territory around the southern Moravia river and also conquered the later Bohemian territory for some time. In the 7th century there were no Czechs whatsoever, there were only generally "Slavs". Great Moravia was a state of proto-Slovaks and proto-Moravians. Since it existed parallely with Bohemia, it's rulers cannot be Bohemian rulers - except for Svatopluk, who conquered Bohemia for some 5 years. They can only be "rulers of on a part of the territory of what is now the Czech Republic". (3) The term monarch is somewhat confusing for me. I think ruler would be better, because it is more general: for example the Czech rulers were princes and dukes first and only then kings: does "monarch" include local princes?? Juro 03:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks Juro for this clarification. So let's delete Category:Czech monarchs. I agree that the term monarchs is not ideal, especially in a medieval feudal structure where the degree of independence varied over time. "Monarch" seems to imply a completely sovereign state to me. I would also prefer the term ruler, as we have it in Category:Rulers of Austria, which includes everyone from the first Margraves to the Emperors up to 1918. Ideally, there should be subcategories. Martg76 23:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Used to categorize people ostensibly "who are against abortion and who are Pro-Life." Never mind the fact that abortion opponents are not singular regarding what exceptions or reasoning they may believe in, but categorizing individuals by their position on a single issue is simply inappropriate. Postdlf 02:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice. Neutrality/talk 02:19, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Unlike another contentious category, terrorists, Pro-life people call themselves as such and so I vote to leave the cat open. --Hooperbloob 02:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Rick Block 02:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- KEEP Perfectly legitimate category. I think some people's personal beliefs are getting in the way of logical thinking. Categories are all single issues. I mean, since the Category: People from New York is one issue, should it also be deleted? People who play guitar? Murderers? If there are people who identify themselves as being for or against something and they have made statements or done things to make this known then they should be allowed to be in a category. FroggyMoore 03:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Whether or not someone is from New York is not an opinion that individual holds. And my personal beliefs are not the issue. I don't want to see a category for pro-choice individuals either. Postdlf 05:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: misnamed - shouldn't it be something like "Pro-life supporters" instead of just "Pro-Life"? --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with FroggyMoore in that some folks are finding it hard to drop their POVs--Hooperbloob 05:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether the category be kept or not, the term "pro-life" is not NPOV. Dysprosia 05:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Cat name is very much not NPOV; if such a cat is necessary it should be Category:Abortion opponents or Category:Opponents of abortion. The term pro-life is not in any way neutral; its very use implies an acceptance of the ideology's tenets. (Note that I also objected to Category:National liberation movements on the same grounds; the name, although that's what they may call themselves, makes a judgement in the group's favour.) —Tkinias 06:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Reorganize In looking at the general issue we currently have Category:Political advocacy groups in the U.S. but within it we have a similar problem: Category:White supremacist groups in the U.S. How would the NAACP article fit in relation to that cat? Create a counter-cat? I'd suggest we reorganize it as follows:
Advocacy groups
Advocacy groups by issue
Abortion
Race relations
Gun control
etc..
Listing the topic as opposed to the names of the groups themselves might be an easier way to go --Hooperbloob 17:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Jxg 21:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete or Rename - Bad category. For one, despite its widespread use, it's part of the whole political doublespeak, and thus, POV. If you interpret the term literally it should only include people who are opposed to abortion and the death penalty. And hey, I'm opposed to both, even though I believe in preserving a woman's right to choose (since I believe that it is none of my business). Secondly, categorising people on the basis on their political views seems rather strange - do we have categories Republican (American), Democratic (American), Independent (American)? Or worse yet, "Pro-Germ Theory of Disease" (or Pro-Wearing Clothes of More than one Fibre" vs. "Biblical Literalist"? "Anti-Abortion Activist" (or, if you must give in to the doublespeak, "Pro-Life Activist") might be a valid category. Guettarda 23:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Either DELETE because it is POV (using the term Pro-Life is inherently POV), or rename to Anti-abortion activists. Quite a few suppposedly Pro-Life people support the death penalty, so they are categorically *not* Pro-Life, and are just hypocrites. Ofcourse there are also the vegan animal rights extremists who question the use of pro-life term, when so many of the pro-lifers eat meat, and don't give a damn about non-human life. Atleast the Pro-Choice people are honest in saying what they are, when they label themselves. 132.205.15.43 23:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- By this argument, the Pro-Choice label is completely meaningless. Do "Pro-Choice" people support the right of any person to make any choice? For example to choose to speed, committ fraud, marry their sister, or muder their child? Of course not. Would you say that their failure to support "choice" under all circumstances makes them hypocrites? Johntex 20:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I wonder if there's a pro-abortion category for China and Japan, where abortion is a favoured means of birth control (especially in Japan, where the Pill is banned).
- I'm totally fine with Category:Anti-abortion activists, because it is proper to categorize people by what they are notable for doing, and activism is necessarily active conduct rather than expressed opinion. Simply categorizing people based on their opinion on a single issue is inappropriate, however. Otherwise, I'm creating Category:PATRIOT Act supporters, Category:Bush tax cut opponents, Category:People who support prayer in schools, Category:People who are against Ten Commandments monuments on public property, Category:People who supported the invasion of Iraq, Category:People who believe in a right to privacy, and Category:People who disagreed that Titanic should have won the Oscar for Best Picture, and all their opposites. Postdlf 00:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Anti-abortion activists and Category:Anti-abortion activist groups or delete. -Sean Curtin 01:37, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete or Rename. The current name is POV. --Gene s 08:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice is the common nomenclature used to describe supporters of respective sides of the abortion debate in their own terms. --MPerel 09:46, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. If this is to be kept, then the category "Terrorists" must be renamed to "Freedom fighters". The term "Pro-life" is biased and subjective. Some argue that it should be kept, as the anti-abortion activists refer to themselves as "pro-life". However, using the same argument, you could say Al-Quaida don't refer to themselves as "terrorists", thus they should be put in "freedom fighters" category. The same goes for most every terrorist organization in the world. A violent criminal is not referred to as "innocent", even if this is what he claims to be for himself. The whole point is; that if we are to be objective, we cannot give anyone the priveledge of naming themselves this way, no matter what our subjective opinions are. This cannot be stressed enough. TVPR 12:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- When it comes to controversial topics, terminology is inherently subjective. The only way in these cases to preserve a neutral POV is to make sure opposing sides are equally represented. In the case of Al-Qaida, there's no reason why the organization couldn't be classified under multiple categories, "terrorists" AND "freedom fighters". Likewise with the abortion issue, the neutral way would be to include proponents of each view under multiple categories, the ones described by themselves, and the ones described by opponents. --MPerel 23:10, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
- In reality, I agree with you, but this would make things a tad too complicated. But you are correct, naturally; there is no way in which we can name any group in a neutral way. The closest would be Category:Pro-Life -> Category:Anti-abortion activists, and Terrorist groups -> Non-governmental semi-military activist groups. This won't work either. So I'm at a loss. I still think "pro-life" gives a false connotation, seeing as many anti-abortion activists both eat meat and warmly support the death penalty - hardly pro-life, or even pro-human-life. My view is that the most correct, least biased way would still be classifying pro-life in particular, and everything else in general, in the most NPOV way possible. Pro-choice, for instance, would be Pro-abortion activists, as "pro-choice" also is a connotative phrasing. Okay, I'm rambling, so: whenever possible, use least biased title. Any group of people called "pro-x" where x has clearly positive or negative connotations should be promptly renamed. Any with the word "terror", "liberty" etc. should also be renamed, as these are very emotionally laden words. The page Terrorism should naturally remain, as it serves to give the word a definition without pointing out particular groups, while on the other hand, the pages Terrorist groups and Freedom fighter groups (should this ever appear) should both contain only a link to a page with a more correct, less POV name in which both lists could be merged. --TVPR 08:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I would not find "Pro-abortion activists" an appropriate NPOV term to substitute for "Pro-Choice". Many pro-choice advocates, including moi, are not "pro" abortion, and actually find it an abhorent choice, but support the autonomy of women facing such a situation to make reproductive decisions about their own bodies rather than having governments deciding for them. As for the hypocrisy of the term "pro-life", I agree, however the two movements identify themselves as the "pro-life" movement and the "pro-choice" movement, and each has its advocates. NPOV doesn't necessarily mean everyone agrees with how a movement identifies itself. For example, does everyone believe members of Hizbullah really belong to "the" party of God? --MPerel 04:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
- How about "Pro-Choice" -> "Abortion access activists" ? 132.205.15.43 05:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I would not find "Pro-abortion activists" an appropriate NPOV term to substitute for "Pro-Choice". Many pro-choice advocates, including moi, are not "pro" abortion, and actually find it an abhorent choice, but support the autonomy of women facing such a situation to make reproductive decisions about their own bodies rather than having governments deciding for them. As for the hypocrisy of the term "pro-life", I agree, however the two movements identify themselves as the "pro-life" movement and the "pro-choice" movement, and each has its advocates. NPOV doesn't necessarily mean everyone agrees with how a movement identifies itself. For example, does everyone believe members of Hizbullah really belong to "the" party of God? --MPerel 04:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
- In reality, I agree with you, but this would make things a tad too complicated. But you are correct, naturally; there is no way in which we can name any group in a neutral way. The closest would be Category:Pro-Life -> Category:Anti-abortion activists, and Terrorist groups -> Non-governmental semi-military activist groups. This won't work either. So I'm at a loss. I still think "pro-life" gives a false connotation, seeing as many anti-abortion activists both eat meat and warmly support the death penalty - hardly pro-life, or even pro-human-life. My view is that the most correct, least biased way would still be classifying pro-life in particular, and everything else in general, in the most NPOV way possible. Pro-choice, for instance, would be Pro-abortion activists, as "pro-choice" also is a connotative phrasing. Okay, I'm rambling, so: whenever possible, use least biased title. Any group of people called "pro-x" where x has clearly positive or negative connotations should be promptly renamed. Any with the word "terror", "liberty" etc. should also be renamed, as these are very emotionally laden words. The page Terrorism should naturally remain, as it serves to give the word a definition without pointing out particular groups, while on the other hand, the pages Terrorist groups and Freedom fighter groups (should this ever appear) should both contain only a link to a page with a more correct, less POV name in which both lists could be merged. --TVPR 08:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- When it comes to controversial topics, terminology is inherently subjective. The only way in these cases to preserve a neutral POV is to make sure opposing sides are equally represented. In the case of Al-Qaida, there's no reason why the organization couldn't be classified under multiple categories, "terrorists" AND "freedom fighters". Likewise with the abortion issue, the neutral way would be to include proponents of each view under multiple categories, the ones described by themselves, and the ones described by opponents. --MPerel 23:10, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I didn't nominate this for deletion because it used the designation of "pro-life" for abortion opponents. I listed it because it tries to classify people by their position on abortion. I really don't care what terminology is used—categorizing by opinions on specific issues should be per se invalid. Categorize instead people notable for being anti-abortion or reproductive rights activists. Or make a list article, and annotate the source of the alleged position ("Britney Spears said in a Rolling Stone interview that abortion was 'wrong'") and the substance of their position ("...but agrees there should be exceptions for cases of rape and incest.") Please keep the discussion on this point, and then if the wrong decision is made to keep this type of classification, then talk about terminology, and about what kind of meaningful limiting principle would then keep individuals from being categorized by every conceiveable specific opinion. Postdlf 00:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying, I didn't realize until after taking a closer look that the items in this category are all people. I disagree though with your statement that "categorizing by opinions on specific issues should be per se invalid". I think if public figures publicly identify themselves as supporters of particular movements, in this case the pro-life movement, there's nothing wrong with categorizing them as such. Since the items in this category are all people, however, I do think it would be appropriate to rename the category "Pro-Life Advocates" and that there should also be a "Pro-Choice Advocates" category. Supporters aren't necessarily "activists" though, so "advocates" or "supporters" probably better describes their status. There are lists out there of advocates of each of these movements: Pro-Life Supporters, Pro-Choice Supporters.
--MPerel 04:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Just because that's what people label themselves as doesn't mean it's an NPOV position. So... if we rename Pro-Life to Category:Anti-abortion advocates and Pro-Choice to Category:Abortion access advocates, as this is in fact what they are all about, access to abortion, versus no abortion, wouldn't that make it NPOV? Notice that categories about Conservatives and Liberals have been deleted because of the POVness of it. There should probably be a Category:Pro-abortion advocates, since some people are pro-abortion as a means of population control (no choice, government edict instead). 132.205.15.43 00:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I agree with Postdif that this kind of categorization is not encyclopedic. DCEdwards1966 00:36, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: A list of people who advocate a certain position is useful, so long as opposite sides of the issue are given exposure, and so long as it is kept NPOV. On the subject of the name itself, both the "Pro-Life" movement and the "Pro-Choice" movement identify themselves, and often each other with these terms. Sure, they have chosen names partly for their positive connotation. You don't see very many people identify themselves as "Anti-Choice" or "Anti-Life". That does not mean that use of the commonly accepted names is POV. Johntex 20:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: both a self-identification and in widespread use in the media and public discourse. And I hate to have to mention this, but I don't think Life should be capitalized here (or choice in a parallel)... Samaritan
- COMMENT: Anti-Abortion is also a term in widespread use in the media and public discourse. 132.205.15.43 03:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, I don't think we need categories for every opinion, and if we do it should be called "for the right to abortion" and "against the right to abortion" or something. �xfeff; --fvw* 03:38, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree we don't need categories for every opinion. I'd be OK with Category:Anti-abortion activists for people who've invested time and energy on that side of the issue, as opposed to merely expressing a position when asked by a reporter. JamesMLane 19:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 5
Sigh. This one's my mistake. It should be Category: Bays in New Zealand Grutness talk 07:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
General Category:Landforms tidy-up
Hmm... a bit more research shows the following categories for different landforms referring to individual countries (continents seem to work differently). The following formats are found (numbers in brackets indicate number of categories) -
- Canyons (1), Fjords (1), Glaciers (3), Craters (8), Hills (1), Mountain ranges (1), Mountains (9), Peninsulas (3), Rock formations (10), Valleys (1), Volcanoes (64), Waterfalls (4). These use only Feature X of Country Y
- Islands - Islands of Y (26) of, Y islands (3)
- Lakes - Lakes of Y (10), Y lakes (7)
- Forests - Forests of Y (1), Y forests (1)
- Rivers - Rivers in Y (1), Y rivers (2)
- Bays - Bays of Y (1), Bays in Y (2)
- National parks - National parks of Y (32), Y national parks (2)
Unless there's a good reason for this inconsistency, I'd like to suggest making Feature X of Country Y a standard. It would mean moving 18 categories:
- Category: Japanese islands ->Category: Islands of Japan
- Category: Portuguese islands -->Category: Islands of Portugal
- Category: Swedish islands->Category: Islands of Sweden
- Category: Finnish lakes -> Category: Lakes of Finland
- Category: New Zealand lakes -> Category: Lakes of New Zealand
- Category: Philippine lakes -> Category: Lakes of the Philippines
- Category: Scottish lakes -> Category: Lakes of Scotland (actually, Category: Lochs of Scotland is probably better still)
- Category: Swedish lakes -> Category: Lakes of Sweden
- Category: Swiss lakes -> Category: Lakes of Switzerland
- Category: United States lakes -> Category: Lakes of the United States
- Category: New Zealand forests ->Category: Forests of New Zealand
- Category: Rivers in Hong Kong -> Category: Rivers of Hong Kong
- Category: Australian rivers -> Category: Rivers of Australia
- Category: New Zealand rivers -> Category: Rivers of New Zealand
- Category: Bays in Hong Kong -> Category: Bays of Hong Kong
- Category: Bays in the Philippines -> Category: Bays of the Philippines
- Category: Swedish national parks -> Category: National parks of Sweden
- Category: U.S. National Parks -> Category: National parks of the United States
What’s more, there’s also -
- Geography - Geography of Y (34), Y geography (11). Australia, Canada, Egypt, France, Iran, Israel, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United States are the odd ones out here.
Cities, buildings, bridges, towns and communities seem to work the other way, with a distinct minority of Feature X of Y categories - perhaps "in" works better for human-made features?
Features by continent or other country group seem to work in a different, but no less inconsistent, way. More on that later, perhaps...? Grutness talk 23:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with the above suggestion. Feature X of Y specifically notes where the feature is located, while Nationality Feature can be confusing. Confusion can come both from contested claims: "On Island X they speak language Y, even though it belongs to country Z", and from the fact that there probably are a lot of places called "French Mountain", "Swedish Creek" etc, especially in the US. Also, some nationalities are dissimilar to the name of the nation, e.g. "The Netherlands - Dutch", and are American features part of the North America, South America or just the US?--MaxMad 09:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. This is also a problem for people categories, I think. The 'Thingies of Foo' form is much better than the 'Fooian Thingies' one. grendel|khan 15:12, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
Olympic <x> of the U.S.A.
The following categories have all been replaced by categories with names more similar to the parent category category:American Olympians.
- Category:Olympic athletes of the U.S.A. -> category:American Olympians
- Category:Olympic softball players of the U.S.A. -> category:American Olympic softball players
- Category:Olympic water polo players of the U.S.A. -> Category:American Olympic water polo players
- Category:Olympic weightlifters of the U.S.A. -> Category:American Olympic weightlifters
- Category:Olympic wheelchair racers of the U.S.A. -> Category:American Olympic wheelchair racers
-- Rick Block 06:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The Parent Category should instead be changed to Category:Olympians of the U.S.A, the current replacement now places undue emphasis on the controversial nature of what American is taken to mean by people not in the USA. It's discussed in other US/USA/American related category names here several times. 132.205.45.110 14:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Actually it should be Category:Olympic athletes of the U.S., in keeping with sibling categories. (Unless Olympic competitors is chosen instead...) At any rate, we should wait for a decision regarding the whole set of siblings. (See #Olympic_athletes_of_X.) It looks like we're doing "of country" all around.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Category uses erroneous ethnic label ("English") when many members are not English at all (includes Scottish, Belgian, Argentinian, German, etc.); category should be Category:British zoologists, as the link is that they are/were British subjects or worked in Britain. I believe none come from before the Act of Union 1707. —Tkinias 23:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't this also include Category:English biologists and Category: English naturalists - although one in that group was born pre-Act of Union (Mark Catesby, 1683-1749) Guettarda 00:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yes IMO. Better call an Englishman British than call a Scot English, no? British is the more inclusive category. —Tkinias 00:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The name isn't as POV as it seems; it refers to "games which are biased in a particular player's favor, assuming equal skill." In any event, it only has one item, and doesn't look like it will grow much. —tregoweth 04:50, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - unfair games are mentioned in game theory as a game where a given player has an advantage. According to this definition, the game does not have to be un-winable. A google search for "game theory"+"unfair game" turns up 608 hits. Among these hits is this one claiming Dreidel is an unfair game: http://mathforum.org/library/resource_types/games/?keyid=11792260&start_at=51&num_to_see=50 This is a well known game so perhaps it will be added to this category with others.
December 4
Move to Category:State of California images or Category:California government images. Neutrality/talk 20:28, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Move to Category:U.S. federal government images. Neutrality/talk 20:24, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Currently contains Category:California Government images. While California is a part of the US Government structure, it is not part of the US federal government. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Moved out. Neutrality/talk 03:38, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
Move to Category:Pre-1994 Poland images to come into line with Category:Pre-1973 Soviet Union images. Neutrality/talk 20:23, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
First, verify the leagal status of these images. If they're legal, then move to [[Category:Pre-[Date here] Iraq images]] to be consistent with Category:Pre-1973 Soviet Union images. Neutrality/talk 20:23, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
December 3
I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between this category and Category:International economics. Even if we vote to retain Category:International trade, however, it is clearly a subset of Category:International economics and not the other way around (which is the way it currently is). —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 00:58, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Category:International economics instead. How much use of that phrase do you hear in business, law, and politics compared to "international trade"? Browsing through the content of Category:International economics, it was added later to some of the articles already in Category:International trade (which has over 80 articles). I should also note that while we have international trade, we do not have international economics. What do we gain by keeping such a category? Postdlf 04:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Currently, the two categories have way too much overlap. The problem is that international trade is a subset of international economics. Therefore, if we only retained the category international trade, we would be unable to properly categorize some articles pertaining to international economics. And the term "international economics" is often used. A Google search for "international economics" turns up 1,500,000 hits—not as many as "international trade"'s 8,660,000, but still far from insignificant. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:55, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - The subject of international economics as taught in economics schools and the subject of international trade as taught in business schools are quite different. There is however an overlap (as there is between any subjects). This is complicated by the fact that some economists use the term international trade to describe a subcategory of international economics. Mydogategodshat
This request for deletion is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Inconsistent criteria
Duplicates Category:Nordic countries. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Not really. How would Scandinavian Mountains and Scandinavian Peninsula qualify as "Nordic countries"? Make Category:Nordic countries a subcategory of Category:Scandinavia, remove any redundant category listings, and the problem is solved. Postdlf 04:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yep. keep, and do as postdlf said. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 19:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep I agree completely with postdlf; he's come up with a perfectly logical reason to keep it and a way to resolve keeping both categories. Lokifer 07:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The problem with this is that Category:Nordic countries can't be a subcategory of Category:Scandinavia, as the Nordic countries include three countries and several other territories outside geographical Scandinavia (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Greenland and various atlantic and arctic islands). / Tupsharru 07:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Tupsharru. I'd suggest Keep and put See also comments in both categories. The two overlap but not enough to be part of the same category. Grutness talk 23:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep As Tupsharru indicated, merging the categories would be outright erronenous. Scandinavia and The Nordic Countries are not the same, period. Scandinavia, from the Scandinavian viewpoint, includes Norway, Sweden and Denmark, whilst the Nordic Countries span a much larger area. An absolute keep. As for the argument that the two overlap; The same can be said about "America" and "The USA" - the one covering a large geographic region (aka Continent), the other being a collective of states. TVPR 12:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is a weak association of people at best. As a category it would take tremendous upkeep as many of the folks on this list will get married. And then will we have a sister category of Category:Spinsters. Note this is also ill formed as it should be Category:Bachelors. —Sortior 03:38, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ill formed. -Willmcw 09:01, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- KeeP Pitchka 17:17, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Other than Oil for Food program, articles added to this category have at best a peripheral connection to this topic. -- Rick Block 00:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, though we will have to find a home for some of the articles. —Sortior 03:34, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep I disagree. One of the reasons that there seems to be a peripheral connection is because the UN has not been releasing most of the information that it knows about the subject. The little bits of information that has been uncovered has taken forever for the UN to acknowledge. Additionally, not all the linked articles have alot of information on the scandal (but this is again because the UN has not being willing to be transparent). Since the scandal appears to cover a large number of people and companies, a category such as this will help people to sort through the names. An article will not be able to cover every person, company, document, etc that encompasses this vast subject. This appears to be the reason that Watergate has a category (two in fact), and Watergate did not have as many people involved as the Oil for Food.Lokifer 21:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, SimonP 08:58, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Served better by giving the relevant facts in the relevant articles. Otherwise, there's not enough context to merit inclusion. -Sean Curtin 02:47, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Users should be able to find their way around Oil for Food articles and persons easily, as the importance of this field is huge and still growing. gidonb 13:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Moved a few rogue entries to the more correct Category:New Jersey state highways. This was used by lion's share of the articles and is more correctly formed. —Sortior 03:11, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- delete with comments - Looks like it was the three named highways that were moved. These have secret numbers that redirect to them (except for 700, which should probably be merged with NJTP, which I may do at some point). However, something like New Jersey roads or the to-be-deleted New Jersey highways (though this one should be deleted, since it's capitalized) might be useful, since not all important roads in NJ are state highways (example: Kennedy Boulevard). Personally I'd recommend a treatment like I'm doing for Florida State Roads - not having a category at all, except for the named state roads. That way, the big number listing will include the secret numbers, while the main article remains the more common name. As a replacement for the category text at the bottom of each article is Template:flsr. I may do this at some point, if I get bored or finish with Florida. --SPUI 21:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- A related issue is how to name county roads. I've been using Foo County, State Road XXX in my Florida stuff. List of New Jersey state highways uses Foo County, State, County Highway XXX. There are three issues - whether to repeat County, whether to use Road, Route, or Highway, and whether to use a second comma. In Florida, Road is always used (as for state roads). In New Jersey, I'm not sure. That part should probably be on a statewide and maybe sometimes countywide basis. As for repeating County, I feel it's somewhat redundant and simply makes it take longer to write an article. As for a second comma, it just seems out-of-place to me. Someone please move this discussion somewhere better; I'm not sure where. --SPUI 21:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Do the numbers repeat from county to county, so that there may be a Foo County Highway 7 and a Boo County Highway 7 in the same state? How about [[Foo County Highway 7 (state)]]? Postdlf 04:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, in almost every state. Those that don't repeat, or have two systems, one that repeats by county and one that doesn't (like New Jersey's 5XX system) could use say New Jersey County Highway 583. The (state) syntax might work, though I still think Foo County, State Road XXX is clearer as to the intent - especially for stuff like Washington County Road 375 (Florida). That could be interpreted as a Washington County in Florida or a Florida County in Washington. --SPUI 06:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Do the numbers repeat from county to county, so that there may be a Foo County Highway 7 and a Boo County Highway 7 in the same state? How about [[Foo County Highway 7 (state)]]? Postdlf 04:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Incorrect capitalization; also, Flash cartoons are rarely notable enough for articles here. —tregoweth 05:59, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- completely disagree. There are at least 50 pages on here derived from 1 flash cartoon in particular (Homestar Runner) methinks people simply are unware of this categories existance hence why it is sparsely populated. Perhaps this should become a peer review topic? I'm sure there are many more flash cartoon articles that deserve to be on here Joe Cartoon and other stuff that deserves being added. KEEP Alkivar 06:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It would need to be at Category:Flash cartoons in that case. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Flash cartoons. Certainly Homestar Runner, JibJab, Gonads and Strife among many others are notable and have had influence outside of just their URL. Jewbacca 08:11, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
December 2
I want to delete Category:Computational models and Category:Automata and put their contents into the new Category:Automata theory. Category:Cellular automata would be moved as a subcategory into Category:Automata theory.
Automata theory (which is in very bad shape and has to be rewritten) is the more common term and cellular automata would be natural subcategory.MathMartin 22:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- are all models of computation based on automata? I don't remember recalling that tidbit. Are all models of computation equivalent to an automaton? I don't recall that tidbit either. Isn't the Turing O-machine (Oracle machine) a non-automaton based model? 132.205.95.65 03:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Not all models of computations are based on automata - in fact, I dare say most aren't. It would be more appropriate to delete Category:Automata and move Category:Cellular automata to a subcategory of Category:Computational models (or maybe keep Category:Automata as an intermediate category between Category:Computational models and Category:Cellular automata. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 20:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What is an Automaton ? Is a Turing machine an automaton ? Is automaton a synomyn for finite state machine ? I think automaton is a synonym for computational model ? Perhaps someone can clear this up MathMartin 19:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Not all models of computations are based on automata - in fact, I dare say most aren't. It would be more appropriate to delete Category:Automata and move Category:Cellular automata to a subcategory of Category:Computational models (or maybe keep Category:Automata as an intermediate category between Category:Computational models and Category:Cellular automata. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 20:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Woops, the headings confused me. I say, make automata a subcategory of computational models and keep both. I think it's better to have "collection" categories, as a rule, than "related concepts" categories. The article automata theory should function as the hub of automata theory articles, not a category. But that's just my opinion. Deco 02:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Since some very interesting models of computation are *not* equivalent to a finite state machine, which is what wikipedia claims is the definition of a computer science automata. (Although I do wish Category:Computational models was renamed singular Category:Computational model) --DavidCary 20:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - automata is a subset of computer models. -Willmcw 09:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Category:Artists by period and Category:Artists of Antiquity are also included in this request for deletion.
- Strong delete. There are only two entries in all three of these categories. These two articles are already categorized (properly) as Category:Greek painters. It looks as though someone created this other categorization scheme for just these two stubby articles. The 3 categories were created all on the same day. Clubmarx 18:18, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Awkward title, duplicates existing categories,
- Delete. This is covered by other categories, and the title is indeed awkward (I tried painting antiquity once, but it kept falling over). Grutness hello? 11:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 1
- Delete. This is one of those stupid categories that tries to group together people on the most vacuous of grounds and, apart from being grossly POV, appears to violate the general guidelines regarding categorisation of people. Most famous people listed here had few or tenuous, if any, connections to Judaism - cf. Leon Trotsky, for ex., the well-known communist and, obviously, atheist. There is no substantial or direct evidence that the majority of those listed here considered themselves essentially Jewish, or contributed in some significant way to Jewish culture. The abitrary grouping of people solely on the basis of their perceived ethnicity is offensive, if not racist. -- Simonides 10:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- There is in fact a category Category:Ethnic groups of Russia already. So Category:Jewish Russian people is just an extension of that. IZAK 11:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: How can you have Category:Jewish history in any place without mentioning the Category:Jews (Jewish people) who were part of it??? (How about Category:Jewish Americans (which I did not create, is that too "racist" as well???) The category is NOT about "Judaism" as such, how could it be? It's about people associated in one form or another with the Jewish people. I created this category because many people had simply placed the people into Category:Jews (which is being voted on below for renaming to Category:Jewish people) which was very broad, and another way of categorizing was to place them into Category:Jewish Russian and Soviet history BUT they are people who make and fit into this history. Since there were so many names in the Category:Jewish Russian and Soviet history section and to make things SPECIFIC, the Category:Jewish Russian people was created. Why is that racist? The ARTICLES themsleves mention that these people are Jewish, is that "racist" too? You are NOT making any sense. If an article can mention the Jewish ORIGIN, parentage or practice of an individual (or their family ancestors) in history so can the category! It is NOTHING to be ashamed of if it is done in a respectful and proper context! Thank you. IZAK 11:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It makes perfect sense to anyone who thinks about it. Firstly you should click on the link I provided above and see what is written about non-"Business card" designations - this is obviously a sensitive topic and a list is preferable to a category; secondly, stating that someone has Jewish origins, or held Jewish beliefs at some time, is not at all the same thing as lumping a large group of people together on that basis - but that is what anti-Semites like to think; thirdly, just because a Jewish history is made up of Jewish people doesn't mean that every single person with Jewish associations needs to be mentioned, or that practically anyone can be chosen to represent that history on the basis of some vague/ arbitrary associations. In Isaac Babel's case it makes sense to speak of a "Jewish writer"; in Osip Mandelstam's case his Jewishness is a matter of trivia - knowing what to include and when makes for too contentious a category, which is also on the stated guidelines against having a category. -- Simonides 12:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Here's a simple question for you: Why then is it acceptable for almost each article on the 30+ people in this category to mention their Jewish ancestry/parentage/family/names, and is that "racist" too ??? IZAK 12:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've already answered your question above. Can you read? And please format your replies properly so I don't have to. -- Simonides 12:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Jewish history (see Category:Jewish history) considers these people important even though they were estranged or antagonistic to their own Jewish identity and religion (just as Category:Jesus is part of Category:Jewish Christian topics) it's a paradox but it's VERY relevant indeed, as you cannot deny the obvious problems of these people's connections with the Jewish people, from the Jewish people's point of view and from the world's point of view, and obviously there are enough people in the world and on Wikipedia who consider the Jewish origins of major personalities to be important. It's part of the Category:Jews and Judaism and not just part of the non-Jewish politics or nations these people were involved with. Cut the insults won't you, and stick to the discussion/s please. IZAK 12:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- There is no "paradox" here, don't elevate your prejudices. It doesn't matter what "people consider important" (yet another completely unsubstantiated generalisation), it matters whether this category is feasible or not; it is not, IMO, and others have yet to vote; discussion over. -- Simonides 12:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It makes perfect sense to anyone who thinks about it. Firstly you should click on the link I provided above and see what is written about non-"Business card" designations - this is obviously a sensitive topic and a list is preferable to a category; secondly, stating that someone has Jewish origins, or held Jewish beliefs at some time, is not at all the same thing as lumping a large group of people together on that basis - but that is what anti-Semites like to think; thirdly, just because a Jewish history is made up of Jewish people doesn't mean that every single person with Jewish associations needs to be mentioned, or that practically anyone can be chosen to represent that history on the basis of some vague/ arbitrary associations. In Isaac Babel's case it makes sense to speak of a "Jewish writer"; in Osip Mandelstam's case his Jewishness is a matter of trivia - knowing what to include and when makes for too contentious a category, which is also on the stated guidelines against having a category. -- Simonides 12:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Discussion over" ? Why? Was there a power outage or short circuit? On Wikipedia, "discussions" are NEVER "over", unless one needs to sleep or something. IZAK 14:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, but Rename to "Russian Jews"--67.41.186.222 15:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Weak delete. While I disagree with Simonides' view that this category is offensive or racist – many of the people here would have had "Jew" written on their Soviet ID cards under ethnicity, irrespective of their personal beliefs – I agree that this is not typical "business-card" categorisation, and is best handled in a list and in the biographies themselves. Juko 18:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, possibly rename as Category:Russian Jews, but this should be here. This is not about Judaism, the religion, this is about Jewish ethnicity in a Russian context. It was and is almost impossible for a Russian Jew not to self-identify (not to mention identification by others) with a dual national/ethnic identity. This category is exactly as appropriate as Category:African Americans. It's not about religion, it's about ethnicity and identity. Even in the case of an extreme secularist Marxist like Trotsky, believe me, at the time he was alive both his comrades and his White Russian enemies were eminently aware that he was the former Lev Davidovich Bronstein. Classifying these people as "Russian people" would simply be wrong; equally so, classifying them as Jews without mentioning their Russian-ness. & Simonides, why is the "discussion over" less than 24 hours after the nomination? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:50, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Keeep, strong, spicy and juicy. In the Soviet Union, the passport had an infamous "5th record" (5-ya grafa), "Ethnicity". Also, in America most of post-Soviet Jews are primarily known as "Russians". It may sound extremely ridiculous and offensive to Russian people, but for me (I am in San Francisco Bay Area) it looks like the (post)-Soviet Jews are the primary bearers of the Russian culture in the United States. Well, it gave me a thought about a new article, Ex-Soviet Jews in the United States. Mikkalai 19:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
May I suggest Former Soviet Jewish people in the United States (in any case, "Former" is a better word than "Ex-" for an article) however you word the title. IZAK 11:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thoughts about Soviet Union gave me still another thought. "Russian Jews" is wrong name. The same kind of Jews of elusive definition were in Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan. I was thinking along the lines "Jews of Russian language", "Jews of Russian culture", but these are somewhat wrong as well. How about Category:Jews of Russian and Soviet descent? It would cover Imperial Russia, Soviet Union and Russian Federation. Mikkalai 19:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Category:Jews of Russian and Soviet descent may have an important subcategory (or this category may be valid in itself): Category:People that chose to renounce or conceal their Jewishness. In Soviet Union they had more than serious reasons to do so. But again, the same can be true for other places as well, especially throughout the history. I even know examples of Jews that pretended to be blue-eyed blonde Aryan Nazis. Mikkalai 19:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, Good category. GeneralPatton 12:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "Keep" But rename to Russian Jews,too. --ThomasK 18:00, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, but rename to Russian Jews. The circumlocution "Jewish people" is offensive and should be avoided. See below at Category:Jew. Jayjg 17:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- (This comment is addressed both to Simonides and Jayjg) See my comment at Category:Jews for why removing or renaming content as “offensive” offends me. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Russian Jews. --MPerel 17:27, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, but rename. How's Category:Russian and Soviet Jews? Even though Mikkalai's suggestions are more accurate, the Russian/Soviet Jews is by far more common term. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and categorize everyone once as a 'Jew' and once as 'Russian' or 'Soviet Citizen' (Jews in the USSR were *NOT* Russians, even if they lived in Russia) gidonb 11:31, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, certainly, under some name. Charles Matthews 09:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, or rename to Russian Jews, or something. Keep at any rate. Andre (talk) 01:41, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Silverchair, etc.
Category:Silverchair, Category:Silverchair_albums, and Category:Silverchair members are all empty. One not-very-influential band with four albums doesn't need so many categories, or any at all. -℘yrop (talk) 23:56, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Also, Category:The Dissociatives and Category:The Dissociatives members, a spin-off of the above band. -℘yrop (talk) 23:58, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and populate the album category (parent to Category:Albums by artist). I'm neutral on the others. - 01:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
- Disregarding the influence and popularity of Silverchair - Pyrop obviously isn't Australian and isn't fully aware of the situation - I originally created these categories way back when the category feature was first introduced, to demonstrate its capabilities. Eg
- Daniel Johns, Ben Gilles, and Chris Joannu are members of Category:Silverchair members
- Daniel Johns and Paul Mac are members of Category:The Dissociatives members (BTW: How does the fact that one person is in two completely different groups mean that one is a spin off of the other?).
- Category:Silverchair members and Category:The Dissociatives members were both members of Category:Australian musicians
- Category:Silverchair albums is a member of Category:Australian albums and Category:Rock albums
- Category:The Dissociatives albums is a member of Australian albums and Category:Electronic albums (This one didn't get done as they only have one album so far)
- And so on. But people didn't understand it, so they just created Category:Silverchair and put them all into that (I think.. I lost track, when I realised that it would take too much of my time to correct other peoples changes) -- Chuq 01:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Correcting other people's changes is one of the specialties of CfD!
- The albums categories are pretty well established—there have been a couple of recent cases of album categories for artists who only ever released one album, and they have passed. The current standard is not to categorize albums-by-artist categories based on the genre of the band; although I can see why that might be useful, it would need to be a widespread change. It would probably be wise to bring this up with the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums if you are interested in pursuing it.
- At the moment there aren't a whole lot of bands that have their own categories, but I think there's enough of a precedent that you can get away with it. I'm not sure if there is a standard. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music would be a good place to start.
- In general, members categories seem to be few and far between. For example, Category:The Beatles members is the only band-specific sub-category of Category:British musicians. How many articles would these categories be likely to contain? -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I believe most band member categories would have three-five articles, and most musician categories would only be a member of one band category, but there are a few exceptions. The best use of the band member categories would be the other way round - when a single person is in more than one band. I used Daniel Johns as an example, but Dave Grohl is another one, being in about five well known bands (Nirvana, Foo Fighters, Queens of the Stone Age, Tenacious D, PROBOT) and maybe a few others. Grohl's Queens of the Stone Age colleague Josh Homme has himself been involved in a couple of other bands/side projects. -- Chuq 23:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Unnecessary blending/redundancy of Category:North Carolina landmarks, Category:North Carolina geography and Category:North Carolina municipalities. "Places" is a term beyond vagueness, and the other subcategories are quite proper to have in the root level of Category:North Carolina—there is no need to jumble them together in a manner that is furthermore inconsistent with the structure of all other state categories and does not fit into the parent structure for states and their subcategories within Category:United States. Postdlf 22:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I dunno. With the proliferation of categories for unincorporated communities, census-designated places, cities, towns/townships, and villages (and in NC military bases), I've thought about doing something similar to organize all these populated places. I agree that "places" is a vague name, but some sort of holding category for all of these other related categories might be useful. So, for now I support this specific deletion, but I think I'd like to see essentially the same category with a more meaningful name--maybe "Populated places in xxxx"? older≠wiser 23:21, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- "Communities in xxxx"? -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If it has no legal designation and is not recognized locally as a community, why should there be a separate article? It seems rather silly to me. But putting the towns, cities, and villages in separate categories also seems a bit overdone for my taste. —Mike 07:31, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- CDPs are a grab-bag. Many ARE communities (or a least there is a community with the same name that the CDP approximately corresponds to). However, some are simply the urbanized area around a municipality, but outside the municipal boundaries. In other cases they are an aggregation of several nearby unincorporated communities. I find the demographic information useful, though it requires some research to determine what exactly the CDP represents. older≠wiser 12:58, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- If it has no legal designation and is not recognized locally as a community, why should there be a separate article? It seems rather silly to me. But putting the towns, cities, and villages in separate categories also seems a bit overdone for my taste. —Mike 07:31, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- One solution would be to put all such "places" in the state geography subcategory, with the municipalities also cross-categorized under the state government subcategory. I believe "geography" is broad enough to include politically defined places, as well as physical features of the landscape, isn't it? Postdlf 21:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Bizarre list of articles which are entirely from the point of view of the US. - Xed 17:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I propose fixing the list rather than killing the category. --Gary D 23:03, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
NOTE: There was already a VOTE on this a few weeks ago and the vote was to KEEP because it was UNRESOLVED see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/unresolved#Terrorism [1], why is this here again now? IZAK 13:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep nearly everyone agrees on the existence of Terrorism. Disagreement revolves around which acts are and which acts are not. Lance6Wins 21:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. The solution to systemic POV is not to curtail information, but to add more. -Willmcw 00:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Wiccan people, to parallel our decision on moving "Christians" to "Christian people". - Beland 08:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I started this change, and I support following through with it. --Gary D 23:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Do not rename. Why is the addition of "people" necessary? What else would Wiccans be...Wiccan Animals? Wiccan Aliens? --MPerel 17:32, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
- It presents a more visually distinctive and clear category title when appearing near similarly titled sibling categories. Hence, if there are Wiccan animals and Wiccan aliens, "Wiccan people" stands out more clearly, as opposed to a single-word plural. I started this change over in the Christian subtopics, where the extensive collection of similar sibling subtopics makes the reasons for such a change more apparent. --Gary D 07:42, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Jxg 22:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Rename as initially suggested. Keep things consistent. Grutness talk 00:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Strong Keep and do not delete. Appropriate Content. User:Chan Han Xiang
Rename to Category:Muslim people, to parallel our decision on moving "Christians" to "Christian people". - Beland 08:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P.S. The correct form should be Category:Islamic people and not "Muslim people". IZAK 13:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I started this change, and I support following through with it. --Gary D 23:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It is not easy to determine how "Muslim" the majority of famous Muslim people were, any attempts to do so here will be inevitably POV, and it is both arbitrary and racist to group together people merely on the basis of their perceived beliefs. Also, importantly, such a category violates the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization of people. -- Simonides 10:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep or change to "Muslim/Islamic people" as it is all quite straightforward and NO Wikipedia guidelines are being "violated". IZAK 13:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and move to "Muslim people" (or whatever). This is a useful category. It does not contain every single person mentioned in Wikipedia who has been identified as Muslim. It's useful to group together people who are known specifically because they are Muslims, especially Muslim religious leaders. If you don't think the ones who aren't Muslim leaders should be included, it might be more useful to list those specific sub-categories for deletion and see what people have to say. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Change to 'Muslim people' - This is the correct form. 'Islamic' is used for objects i.e. 'Islamic art'; 'Muslim' is used for people i.e. 'Muslim artists'. Clubmarx 20:20, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, if you are certain, fine, but I just wanted to mention that the word "Islamic" is also used. IZAK 10:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and do not rename. Adding "people" is unneccessary since there is nothing ambiguous about the term "Muslim" that would indicate anything other than a categorization of people. --MPerel 17:40, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as "Muslims". MPerel is right. Jayjg 21:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and don't change. Muslims are muslims. Not a people, but do they refer to themselves as a community (ummah). Stop comparing everything to Christians! Other people, religions and cultures do exist on our planet! gidonb 11:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Not sure yet. I don't understand why "Christians" was moved to "Christian people". Could you please provide a link to that discussion?--Erri4a 20:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Rename as "Muslim (or Islamic) People". Either that or move "Christian people" back to "Christians". Irrespective of differences between different religions, it makes sense to treat the categorisation of all religious groups consistently. Same with Jewish people, Wiccan people, Animist people and followers of whatever other religious discipline you wish to name. Grutness hello? 11:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Jewish people, to parallel our decision on moving "Christians" to "Christian people". This category also needs a clear charter, since people may be Jewish by religion, by ethnicity, by matriarchal decent, by culture, etc. (See Jew.) I assume this category mixes the various classes without distinction. -- Beland 08:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep (or rename to "Jewish people"): Hi Beland, I don't know if you have looked at all the TALK pages of the article on Jew so I don't know what you mean by "charter"? The category is all inclusive as you suppose. Category:Jewish people sounds OK. IZAK 11:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I would guess that what is meant is that the category description should explicitly state this, if this is to be the guiding principle. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I started this change, and I support following through with it. --Gary D 23:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- "Jews" or "Jewish people" what's the difference in any case, since a Jew is usually a member of the "Jewish people", which is NOT the case in Islam or Christianity. IZAK 09:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It is not easy to determine the "Jewishness" of the majority of famous Jewish people, any attempts to do so here will be inevitably POV, and it is both arbitrary and racist to group together people merely on the basis of their perceived ethnicity. Also, importantly, such a category violates the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization of people. -- Simonides 10:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, the ethnicity of Jews is usually quite easy to determine; generally the information is readily found in their biographies. Jayjg
Hi Simonides: Firstly, this is NOT just about "perceived ethnicity" as the Jews are ALL of an established religion (Judaism), people or nation, culture AND non-exclusive ethnicity. Secondly, can you explain EXACTLY which "guidelines" are being "violated" as you just leave it up in the air and expect people to swallow your non-reasoning by a mere "reference" (and please explain how you would reconcile what you claim with having the Category:Christian people which IS accepted by Wikipedia???) Thirdly, the "Jewishness" of many people is known and accepted, so what is wrong with that? Fourthly, in the article on Jew ALL the various ways of defining Jews and Jewish people are stated, to include religious, ethnic, and cultural definitions with long-standing historical roots and references. Finally, is this just another way of "doing away" with Jews on Wikipedia (how convenient for those who don't like them, isn't it?) And please remember this is a vote to rename Category:Jews to Category:Jewish people which is a reasonable thing, and it is NOT an attempt to "delete" Jews from Wikipedia permanently.Thank you. IZAK 11:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- A typical factually-incapacitated, rambling, nonsensical reply from a well-known Wikipedia POV pusher. Firstly, no one is "deleting" Jews - the Jewish origins of famous people are mentioned in their biographical sections, but unless there is some direct relevance to the person's achievements/ career/ personality, or unless the person him/herself wished for it, there is no need to emphasize their Jewishness with a redundant category; and this has nothing to do with people who "dislike" Jews, because the same principle applies equally well to other such categories, like the one above, "Muslims", where exactly the same objection has been made. More importantly, it is gross and factually unsupportable POV to state that all people with some Jewish ancestry or Jewish beliefs "are ALL of an established religion (Judaism), people or nation, culture AND non-exclusive ethnicity" - such a broad generalisation is self-evidently rubbish; and finally, I have already linked the page which states the violated guidelines, and if you bother to read it, it is possible you will find the guidelines, but in case even that proves too difficult, here are more straightforward links at the same page (you have to click on them to read their contents): 1 , 2, 3 . -- Simonides 11:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Simonides I have NEVER encountered you or "crossed swords" with you on Wikipedia. I looked at all the links, and I don't see any violations at all! (Calling people "Jewish" is not insulting like calling them "Prostitutes" as one link syas. And connecting people with their ETHNIC origins, especially in RUSSIA is done sionce they have hundreds of nationalities including a province that was set aside for Jews once.) You are only using those points to push YOUR own POV and make it sound like opposing it makes me into a "POV pusher" which I resent! So do me the courtesy of NOT insulting me or my intelligence! You cannot squeeze religions and ethnicities onto "business cards", but you can classify and categorize the OBVIOUS facts, and the Jewish origins and connections of many people can be done according to either ethnic or Judaism's standards. I know it's a contentious issue, but it cannot be avoided as everyone has an objection to all types of Jewish "categories" secular or religious. Have you seen Jew#Famous Jews and List of Jews and Category:Lists of Jews with all the types of people on them? Do you plan to get rid of all that too? What nonsense and denial of history that would be. Many Wikipedia Users/editors think it's all very viable, and now, late in the day, you come along with "objections" that have already been re-hashed a hundred times in the talk pages of the Jew article. Go read it (and ALL its Talk pages) please, won't you. IZAK 12:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here is something [2] that "got lost" due to some faulty editing so I am re-posting it IZAK 13:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC):
"If you don't see any violations you might be 1) batty 2) not literate enough 3) simply very slow to understand things. As for POV, you state yourself that such categorisations can be made according to "ethnic or Judaism's standards", and refer further to an anti-Semitic decision by Russians to keep Jews in the same area, thus proving my point that your category is inherently POV; this is different from merely making a general list. No more information is needed. -- Simonides 12:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)" [3]
Again I ask that you NOT break the rules of Wikiquette by insulting me. To call someone (1) "batty", or (2) "not literate enough" or (3) "slow" definitely count as a Personal insult and attacks and grounds for a RfC and possible RfA, so please stop it now and talk facts. Please do not confuse the way Russian Anti-Semites "think" or "not think" with legitimate scholarly and Judaic ways of understanding and categorizing facts, people, and events logically and correctly. Thank you. P.S. And please try to be polite at all times on Wikipedia. IZAK 13:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the semantic difference between "Jew" and "Jewish" is that the former denotes an identity; the latter, an attribute. As far as I can tell, Jewish people tend to prefer referring to themselves as "Jewish" rather than as "Jews," whereas antisemites tend to prefer referring to us as "Jews" rather than "Jewish." In dealing with the outside world, a person may be a plumber, and his/her Jewishness is entirely incidental. In a synagogue, we are a congregation of Jews. By what criteria you are Jewish will depend on the person describing himself/herself as such - some apply religious criteria, other ethnic, other cultural, etc. I vote for changing the category to Jewish because I think the attribute is more relevant than the identity. Issues of Jewish identity deserve their own article(s), but that's another discussion. --Leifern 12:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- As far as I know, Jews prefer to be called Jews, whereas non-Jews tend to use "Jewish people", because they think the term "Jew" is somehow a bad word, which is in itself offensive. See my comment below. Jayjg
- Hi Leifern, I have no real objection to the renaming of the Category:Jews to the proposed Category:Jewish people. What Simonides is saying is far more radical, he would like to have no such category or any sub-category for a more acceptably named "Jewish people" category because he feels its "racist" in essence, which is a very shallow argument since the fact of a person's Jewish identity, be it ethnic or religious, is important when considering the role of the Jews in history and in world events. We are talking about objective facts and obviously not anything related to "racist" POV opinions. It can be a fine line to deal with, but it should not be avoided on an encyclopedia that wants to include everything important. Thanks again. IZAK 13:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep or rename. Also, can some of you who are knowledgable weigh in on Talk:Atheism#Jewish_Views_on_Atheism. Thanks. Sam Spade Arb Com election 13:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Rename. I find these categories useful. For example, note that Category:Christian people groups together Christian religious leaders, as well as articles about specific sub-groups. It's possible that some restructuring may be necessary, but I don't see anything wrong with having such categories. People who are known for being Jewish ought to be listed in some sort of category. I agree that people who were only sort of "incidentally" Jewish might be better categorized elsewhere, but that doesn't meant that the category itself is inappropriate. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Jews are Jews. I can identify Jews: Moses, David, Jesus, all the apostles....Albert Einstein, Milton Friedman, Robert Rubin, Marc Chagall, Leonard Bernstein. God only knows what Jewish people are....do they eat rye bread more often? Prefer mustard to mayonaisse(sp) on sandwiches? Prefer a "good discussion" to a "quiet evening"? Does that include the recent fad of new-age Kaballah that Madonna and others have adopted? Lance6Wins 21:02, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Note that most of the articles in this cateogry are not individual biographies, but entries that related to groups or lists of Jews. Juko 22:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, could be renamed to Category:Jewish people if needed. GeneralPatton 12:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and rename. Filiocht 12:12, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. We have Category:Baptists and not Category:Baptist people (sounds strange doesn't it). Category:Jews is a perfectly cromulent category. Jewbacca 11:59, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC) (I suppose I should go change my nickname to Jewishpeoplebacca !)
- Keep. Jewish people is a circumlocution, Jew is fine. In fact, avoiding the word "Jew" can be seen as offensive. As the American Heritage Dictionary points out in its Usage Note: It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun. Jayjg 17:13, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Encyclopedia content should not be judged on what is “offensive”; everything is offensive to someone, and it is a quick way to let activists impose POV language on the project. Words that may be slurs should be judged on their POV content, and I fail to see any POV either in “Jews” or “Jewish people”. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Encyclopedia content is often tailored to avoid using terms that people find offensive. For example, the user of the term "Islamist" rather than "Muslim", to describe more extreme or traditional Muslim views. And in any event "Jewish people" is an unnecessary circumlocution. Jayjg 18:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and do not rename. Adding "people" is unneccessary since there is nothing ambiguous about the term "Jew" that would indicate anything other than a categorization of people. --MPerel 17:45, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Jxg 22:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and don't change. Don't add anything. Jews are not similar to christians and moslims, but to Druze and Sikhs which are also ethnicities with internal religions. Hence Sikhs in Manchester live in the Haredi enclave and Druze in Israel serve in the IDF. gidonb 11:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Leave this important (for history anyway) and complex category alone. Did I miss the discussion about Category:African Americans? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep at current name. Andre (talk) 01:41, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Olympic athletes of X
We have a mixed convention in Category:Olympic competitors by country:
- Category:Australian_Olympians
- Category:Austrian_Olympians
- Category:Canadian_Olympians
- Category:Greek_Olympians
- Category:Puerto_Rican_Olympians
- Category:Soviet_Olympians
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Argentina
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Australia
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Austria
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Belarus
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Belgium
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Brazil
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Bulgaria
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Canada
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Chile
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_China
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Croatia
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Denmark
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_France
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Germany
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Great_Britain
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Greece
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Hungary
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_India
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Iran
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Israel
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Italy
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Japan
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Latvia
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Mexico
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_New_Zealand
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Norway
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Pakistan
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Poland
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Puerto_Rico
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Romania
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Russia
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Slovenia
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_South_Africa
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_South_Korea
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Spain
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Sweden
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Switzerland
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Thailand
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Turkey
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_Zimbabwe
- Category:Olympic_athletes_of_the_Netherlands
We previously deleted the category "Olympic athletes" in favor of "Olympic competitors" because "athletes" means all competitors in US English, but means "track and field athletes" in UK English. I propose renaming all the "Olympic athletes of X" categories to "X Olympians". "Olympic competitors of X" sounds like it should be an athletics enemies list of country X, instead of a manifest of its representatives. -- Beland 08:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Also note the following, some of which are on /unresolved:
-- Beland 10:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The Olympic website uses "athletes" and their commission is named the "Athlete's Commission". You can't get any more official than that. Also it was mentioned at one time by someone (I realize that's pretty vague) in a previous discussion that "Olympic athlete" in Britain refers to the people who compete at the Olympics and not just the track and field competitors. Also I prefer the "-- of country" form rather than the "countrian --" form because categorization is less ambiguous. Take Nate Ackerman as an example; he was born in the U.S. and might have dual citizenship since he competed for Great Britain (I don't know if the rules require citizenship to compete for a country's team). I don't know if calling him a British athlete would be correct, but saying he was an Olympic athlete of Great Britain is most certainly correct. —Mike 08:11, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- My primary reason for preferring competitors is that it is something that does not cause arguments. (At least, none so far.) Even if the Olympics officially use athletes, there are folks who strongly dislike the term. Would you consider it wrong to use competitors?
- As for the "of country" form, I agree. It's more accurate. (But please, let's use "of the United States", not "of the U.S.". Less potential for confusion of punctuation.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It isn't wrong since we can call them anything we want, but it just sounds a bit odd to me since I don't hear "Olympic competitors" much. —Mike 06:05, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
(CFD tags added 4 Dec 2004. -- Beland 08:03, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC))
OK, so then current proposal is to change all of these to "Olympic competitors of CountryName"? Does "Olympic competitors for CountryName" sound better or worse? -- Beland 08:03, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Although I prefer the "athletes of", "competitors for" would likely be less ambiguous than "competitors of". —Mike 05:57, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
How about "Olympians of X"? --MPerel 17:51, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
- I prefer the "competitors for" over "of" Sortior 04:46, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Irish categories of inconsistency
I've begun to take a more detailed look at the Irish categories, so more to come here later and on Category talk:Ireland. These are the easy ones. -- Beland 05:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Category:Northern_Ireland_sportspeople -> Category:Northern_Irish_sportspeople
- Category:Irish_Newspapers -> Category:Irish_newspapers
- Category:Geography_of_Northern_Ireland (empty) -> Category:Geography_of_Ireland
- Category:History_of_Republic_of_Ireland (empty) -> Category:History_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland
- Category:People_from_Northern_Ireland (empty) -> Category:Northern_Irish_people
- Category:Transport_in_Ireland (mostly empty) -> Category:Transportation_in_Ireland
- You need to have Category:Sportspeople from Northern Ireland and Category:People from Northern Ireland. "Northern Irish" is a modern "fudge", not accepted by many people in the region. Ultimately, people from the area are likely to call themselves Irish, British, both or simply say they are "from Northern Ireland". It's a sticky issue - certainly the crude use of "Northern Irish" is to be avoided. zoney ♣ talk 10:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If we need to declare that there is simply no acceptible adjective form to refer to the people of Northern Ireland, that's OK with me. There are other countries where is form is akward, like Trinidad and Tobago, or controversial, as in the United States. Rather than decide this haphazardly, we should try to come up with uniform guidelines. In general, the noun forms are clearer but longer. We can: 1.) Be consistent, and always use the adjective forms, and accept some akwardness; 2.) Be consistent and always use the longer noun forms; or 3.) Adopt a mixed usage, preferring short adjective phrases when they flow cleanly, but using noun forms in akward cases. One benefit of consistency is slightly easier navigation - you can just change the appropriate word and go to a different country, as opposed to having to guess the correct wording or click your way there through category links. But most people just click around, I'm sure. Consistent naming would also cut down on the number of broken links that editors make when they guess the wrong form (or assume a convention is universal when it's really not) and don't check their work. (At least, for those editors who notice conventions and attempt to follow them.) -- Beland 02:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "Transport" should be used rather than "transportation". Transportation is the usual US term, while "Transport" is the term used in its place in Britain/Ireland. Hence we in Ireland have a "Department of Transport", "Minister for Transport". Please do not force inconsistent English on a non-US topic. zoney ♣ talk 10:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to force usage on anyone; that's why we have a discussion instead of just implementing these things by fiat. But once again, there are several different places where this issue comes up, and it'd be nice to come up with a general solution. If you take a look at Category:Transportation by country, you will see that all the "countries" there, including "Ireland" have a "Transportation in X" article and a "Transportation in X" category. Again, this makes it easy to know what the article or category you are looking for (or are linking to) would be called. But as you rightly point out, this may not follow local usage. We have 87 or so X_by_country categories so far. I assume we should pretty much pick either 1.) Be consistent and use the same term for the same thing everywhere, or 2.) Follow local usage; and do either 1 or 2 for all ~87 topics. Personally, I vote for consistency. Wikipedia's audience is worldwide, and so is the category system. Americans will be reading all about Ireland, just as much, if not moreso, than about their own country, and vice versa. I don't care whether we use a US term, a UK term, or vary depending on the topic. Following local usage would be my second choice because it seems a bit untidy. It makes a little more sense for articles, where you actually have to use these vocabulary terms in proper nouns and whatnot, and the locals will probably dominate the editing, anyway. I think of the category system more like your library catalog, which references all history books under "History" and not half under "History" and half under "Things that happened in the past". But I'm sure there are good arguments for doing the opposite...discuss, discuss... -- Beland 02:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I would definitely oppose the use of Northern Irish as an adjective. People from Northern Ireland (for example) is clearly more in keeping with common usage here on the island. One specific I have seen is Northern Irish soccer, which is a thing that does not exist. The two governing bodies are the Irish Football Association and the Football Association of Ireland (north and south respectively), avoiding the NI issue completely. I agree with Zoney re transportation. I think Transportation in Ireland should be moved to Transport in Ireland and Category:Transportation in Ireland should be emptied to Category:Transport in Ireland and then deleted. Filiocht 08:28, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to force usage on anyone; that's why we have a discussion instead of just implementing these things by fiat. But once again, there are several different places where this issue comes up, and it'd be nice to come up with a general solution. If you take a look at Category:Transportation by country, you will see that all the "countries" there, including "Ireland" have a "Transportation in X" article and a "Transportation in X" category. Again, this makes it easy to know what the article or category you are looking for (or are linking to) would be called. But as you rightly point out, this may not follow local usage. We have 87 or so X_by_country categories so far. I assume we should pretty much pick either 1.) Be consistent and use the same term for the same thing everywhere, or 2.) Follow local usage; and do either 1 or 2 for all ~87 topics. Personally, I vote for consistency. Wikipedia's audience is worldwide, and so is the category system. Americans will be reading all about Ireland, just as much, if not moreso, than about their own country, and vice versa. I don't care whether we use a US term, a UK term, or vary depending on the topic. Following local usage would be my second choice because it seems a bit untidy. It makes a little more sense for articles, where you actually have to use these vocabulary terms in proper nouns and whatnot, and the locals will probably dominate the editing, anyway. I think of the category system more like your library catalog, which references all history books under "History" and not half under "History" and half under "Things that happened in the past". But I'm sure there are good arguments for doing the opposite...discuss, discuss... -- Beland 02:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, it looks like these are approved:
- Category:Irish_Newspapers -> Category:Irish_newspapers
- Category:Geography_of_Northern_Ireland (empty) -> Category:Geography_of_Ireland
It sounds like we want to do this:
- Category:Transportation_in_Ireland -> Category:Transportation_in_Ireland
- Transportation_in_Ireland -> Transport_in_Ireland
If we're going to do this, then we should do it for all the countries that use "Transport" instead of "Transportation". I will make a new nomination to this effect, then, as part of an examination of all the _by_country categories. -- Beland 03:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And we also want to do:
- Category:Northern_Irish_people -> Category:People_from_Northern_Ireland
- Category:Northern_Ireland_sportspeople -> Category:Sportspeople_from_Northern_Ireland
I'll make a new post regarding the Fooian bar vs. Bars of Foo issue for _by_country categories across the board, then, and run a scan for all instances of the unacceptable "Northern Irish". -- Beland 03:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Contains many people who aren't, strictly speaking, campaign managers (e.g. Karen Hughes). I'd like to depopulate and rename to "U.S. campaign professionals". OK? Meelar (talk) 03:49, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, campaign manager is the term used for these people, even if some of them have never been head of a presidential election campaign. - SimonP 05:50, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, that's not true, especially since many of these figures worked on the same campaign. For example, in the Bush campaign, Karl Rove was not and has never been the campaign manager; that role was filled by Ken Mehlman. Media accounts referred to Rove as chief strategist--I can't think of any major publications that referred to him as campaign manager. The same argument is true for many of the figures in this category. The term "campaign manager" means a very specific individual in the campaign hierarchy. Meelar (talk) 05:57, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Every campaign has a person known as the campaign manager, but the profession of a number of the top members of a presidential campaign is campaign manager. It would be incorrect to call Karl Rove Bush's campaign manager, but his profession is campaign management. - SimonP 00:45, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- I've not heard it used that way myself. Sorry to bug you, but a few citations? Meelar (talk) 00:53, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- This is kind of odd if it is the case. Citations would be good, because then it could be worked into campaign manager, and if there are no citations, it will surely come up again. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Doing some research it seems is that the more general usage of campaign manager is being reduced, perhaps because campaigns are becoming more formally structured. In previous decades the top figures were referred to as "the campaign mangers" see The Selling of the President or watch The War Room. In the 2000 campaign it was not uncommon to refer to Karl Rove as a campaign manager [4], [5], [6], but in 2004 I could find almost no news organizations referring to him as a campaign manager. It is interesting to note that in 2000 the American Association of Political Consultants' Pollie Awards for Campaign Manager of the Year was abolished in favour of a more nebulous MVP award, perhaps indicating that it was no longer acceptable to call any top campaigner a "manager". (Outside of the U.S. it still seems to be common practice to call the top directors of a campaign "managers".) - SimonP 19:31, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Every campaign has a person known as the campaign manager, but the profession of a number of the top members of a presidential campaign is campaign manager. It would be incorrect to call Karl Rove Bush's campaign manager, but his profession is campaign management. - SimonP 00:45, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, that's not true, especially since many of these figures worked on the same campaign. For example, in the Bush campaign, Karl Rove was not and has never been the campaign manager; that role was filled by Ken Mehlman. Media accounts referred to Rove as chief strategist--I can't think of any major publications that referred to him as campaign manager. The same argument is true for many of the figures in this category. The term "campaign manager" means a very specific individual in the campaign hierarchy. Meelar (talk) 05:57, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Campaign manager refers to a specific position which virtually every campaign has. However, in most campaigns of the past few years, including both 2004 presidentials, the campaign manager is not the chief strategist; this role usually falls to a separate political consultant (i.e., Karl Rove for Bush, Bob Shrum for Kerry, rather than Keh Mehlman and Mary Beth Cahill). People do sometimes speak of campaign management or, more commonly, political management (a field for which there are several graduate schools) as a field, but I can't imagine anyone in it worthy of an article who hasn't worked either as a political consultant or a campaign manager (most of the senior staff for presidential campaigns come to them directly from consulting firms, the party, or the Hill). For that reason, I'd propose two separate categories Category:U.S. presidential campaign managers (managers of lower-level campaigns are unlikely to be notable for that alone), and Category:Political consultants, with the understanding that there will be significant overlap. RadicalSubversiv E 03:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of creating Category:Political consultants, adding everyone applicable from the campaign managers category to it, and, of those, removing people who don't appear to have served as campaign managers. After thinking about it, both could probably be subcategories of some broader category, in the odd case we find a political pro who doesn't fall into either. Perhaps "political professional" would be better than "campaign professional," though, so we could also have lobbyists (Ed Gillespie) and political staff (John Podesta). I don't see a point in specifying U.S.-only (the same category of people exist in other well-developed democracies, though to a lesser extent) unless a category is created for presidential campaign managers. BTW, those trying to get a grasp on the whole field and how it's connected might find http://gspm.gwu.edu/ helpful. RadicalSubversiv E 10:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "Political professionals", I assume, would include all elected politicians. (Was that the idea?) Good work! (How about you sort out where all of these articles need to end up and tell me if you think the category needs to be deleted when you are done?) -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It's not as common a term as the others mentioned here, but I've definitely heard it used as so as to specifically exclude politicians -- i.e., political professionals are the people who work for them. I'm not coming up with a better term at the moment, though. Maybe it could just be explained on the category page? RadicalSubversiv E 21:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "Political professionals", I assume, would include all elected politicians. (Was that the idea?) Good work! (How about you sort out where all of these articles need to end up and tell me if you think the category needs to be deleted when you are done?) -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Are we going to have a parallel category, "Political volunteers"? -Willmcw 23:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of creating Category:Political consultants, adding everyone applicable from the campaign managers category to it, and, of those, removing people who don't appear to have served as campaign managers. After thinking about it, both could probably be subcategories of some broader category, in the odd case we find a political pro who doesn't fall into either. Perhaps "political professional" would be better than "campaign professional," though, so we could also have lobbyists (Ed Gillespie) and political staff (John Podesta). I don't see a point in specifying U.S.-only (the same category of people exist in other well-developed democracies, though to a lesser extent) unless a category is created for presidential campaign managers. BTW, those trying to get a grasp on the whole field and how it's connected might find http://gspm.gwu.edu/ helpful. RadicalSubversiv E 10:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. (and prune non-managers). A logical extension is state subcategories. Campaign manager is a definite role in politics and in the case of presidential politics, it may be the most significant job an individual ever holds. It may become a subcategory of "US political professionals", next to "political spokespersons." -Willmcw 23:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
November 29
An awkward phrase, it gets only 810 Google hits. It should be replaced with the much more widely used Category:Evangelical Christianity -- Decumanus 06:15, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
"You say, to-MAY-to, and I say, to-MAH-to..." I'm not sure the Google test is the appropriate one for deciding which way to phrase an admittedly encyclopedic concept. The current phrasing is parallel to the great bulk of categories and articles in this area, which are almost all "Christian [noun]," instead of "[Adjective] Christianity." There are actually a few category topics in this area where the latter phrasing might be better, such as "Charismatic Christianity" as opposed to "Christian Charismaticism(?)," but overall, consistency is probably the strongest virtue. (And "Christian art" stands little chance of making it over to "Artistic Christianity," LOL—oh, I just kill me!) On balance, I would say the current system reads better, especially when all these categories and articles appear together on the Category:Christianity page. So, Keep. --Gary D 06:29, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
- I think the analogy with "Christian art" is entirely a false one. "Artistic Christianity" is not a movement of Christianity, whereas "Evangelical Christianity" is. I see nothing wrong with invoking Google test is appropriate here. After all, everything in Wikipedia should be encyclopedic. I see the virtue in parallelism, and if people want to keep it that way, that's fine, but I think parallelism should not be at the expense of the using more widely used version. -- Decumanus 19:27, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
The word, surely, is Evangelism. So why is the category not Category: Christian evangelism? A phrase, by the way, which gets close to 20,000 Google hits. Grutness talk 06:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It turns out there is a distinction; evangelism is the activity, while evangelicalism is more of a movement. My recommendation: read all about it in Wikipedia! ;-) --Gary D 08:22, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Christian evangelism is absolutely not what is meant. But evangelicalism is a somewhat peculiar word. Evangelism is an activity; Evangelical Christianity is a movement (or whatever); evangelicalism is just plain difficult to type. The Pentecostal category needs emergency first aid, but please, please, for the sake of all the typos we would have to correct, let's not have Christian Charismaticism and Pentecostalism. It's possible to carry our interest in consistency so far that we forget that this system is being used by real people. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I agree the category is misnamed, but not in the way described in this discussion. It should simply be Category:Evangelicalism. The root word 'evangel' is defined as 'the Christian gospel'. The word 'evangelicalism' means 'evangelical beliefs or doctrines' (or adherence to a church or party professing such) where the word 'evangelical' means 'of, pertaining to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel'. Saying "Christian evangelicalism" is like saying "spicy spice", "star Sun" or "erasing eraser". —Mike 07:30, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Mike, it should just be Category:Evangelicalism. Kevin Rector 20:27, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't sure on the best name but I sure agree "Christian" is redundant in "Christian evangelicalism".--Erri4a 20:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Category:Evangelical Christianity is the best name; Category:Evangelicalism is awkward-sounding, while the present name is both awkward and redundant. Category:Baptist needs to go to Category:Baptist Christianity, too, as there is AFAIK no -ism form, and the use of the adjective alone is quite out of place in the subcategory list. (I'm not sure what Category:Amish ought to be, but it needs fixing too...) The best approach, I believe, is to use -ism forms when they exist and are not awkward or ugly, and use X Christianity for the others. —Tkinias 20:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- 'Evangelicalism' would be ok to use. Most likely it sounds awkward because people don't use it much, and I wouldn't disqualify any valid "-ism" word just because it may seem awkward. Also, 'Baptist' and 'Amish' are nouns which can also be used in the adjective form. I don't see any problem with keeping those categories. —Mike 05:04, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Category:Christian evangelicalism sounds as bad as Islamic Jihad. gidonb 17:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We do not need a category containing categories linked to from the main page through the category browse bar. Brianjd 12:08, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
- Keep I have no problem with this category. --ssd 13:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't see any use for this. All it does it creates confusing circular navigation possibilities like: Categories -> Main page -> Wikipedia -> Fundamental -> Categories. jni 13:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: useless. —msh210 18:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Tentative delete: what useful purpose does this category serve? I can't see any, so I would say delete—but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. —Tkinias 20:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Not only is this category useless, it is also possibly inaccurate (it is easy to check, but that's not a good excuse). Duplication should be avoided wherever possible. Brianjd 08:31, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
- Delete, unless it serves some unknown administrative function. It is an almost random collection of links that would require constant maintenance. (subsequently appended signature -Willmcw 22:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC))
- Note: That was posted by Willmcw on December 24, 2004 at 07:42. Brianjd 06:31, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that -Willmcw 22:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You're right. I've just noticed that it is not getting that maintenance. Category:Religion was in the category but not on the browse bar. This appears to be a silly mistake, or perhaps the user forgetting about it after they realised they couldn't edit the browse bar. Category:History and Category:Technology were on the browse bar but not in the category. Both of these appear to be vandalism. These all took some time to be spotted. Brianjd 06:31, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
- Note: That was posted by Willmcw on December 24, 2004 at 07:42. Brianjd 06:31, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
November 28
"By name" categories are inherently redundant, since categories already sort their member articles alphabetically. In the near future Wikipedia will have the ability to aggregate all members of subcategories in a listing, so just putting articles into various subcategories of Category:Weapons should be sufficient. Bryan 07:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed - Category:Weapons is sufficient. Brianjd
- DISAGREE do you folks even bother to LOOK at the category before cfd'ing? Category:Weapons is a category by TYPE. This sub-cat serves a very useful purpose towards removing clutter of the main cat. Alkivar 07:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- These categories are nothing more than a way to make a run around subcategories by creating a dumping ground that has no internal organization. It also adds unnecessary clutter to articles; categories should function as classifications of articles. This does not classify. Delete this and all others of its ilk. Postdlf 19:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- COMMENT most weapons are not listed by name in this category, they're just dumped there. Most weapons don't have names in this cat, only designations, and some don't even have that. There is a difference between Name and Designation. For instance, the Dora is a railway gun, it's calibre is 80cm, and it's designation is K (E). If this category is kept, it needs a rename to Category:List of weapons, because Weapons by name is a wholly inappropriate name for the current contents. 132.205.45.110 23:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Any given weapon is going to have a type, a country, an era, and possibly a conflict. It is logical to have those categories. Specific weapons may also have a name,a nickname, a color, and a size. I do not think it is useful to categorize a weapon as to whether or not it has a name (or a color). -Willmcw 23:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
November 26
- This category should be capitalized, as it is the formal name of an Act of Parliament (the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971). See [7]. —Tkinias 02:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Since Category:U.S. controlled substances law for the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (Controlled Substances Act) is thus, probably this should be renamed Category:UK misuse of drugs law instead, replacing British with UK and act with law. 132.205.15.43 00:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
November 23
Decision: Keep.
Revised entries to Category:Newspapers of Washington state for clarity. MisfitToys 23:24, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see how this is necessary for clarity—if it's meant to disambig it from Washington the city, the lack of "..., DC" does that. Postdlf 11:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I did some poking around. All of the other categories for Washington state simply have "Washington". I don't see that disambiguation is necessary. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- (The "state" in "Washington State" should be capitalized, BTW.) -- Beland 09:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Cleanup overhead
Discussions moved off-page
Please see:
Discussions to be archived
- Category:Bible stories -> Empty - see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Bible stories.
- Will someone please take care of this? I said I wasn't going to, but someone needs to do it. I just looked over it again and there is still a consensus to delete. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Done. - UtherSRG 21:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, CheeseDreams has restored the entire category and the articles that were in it. --ᓛᖁ
ᑐ 01:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It was deleted again and recreated again. I discussed it with Cheese Dreams, who apparently was under the impression that the 80% I mentioned was the necessary figure for deletion. (In fact, 2/3 is the generally accepted figure.) I explained this and have deleted the category. I know I said I wouldn't, but it sat around for a whole day. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Will someone please take care of this? I said I wasn't going to, but someone needs to do it. I just looked over it again and there is still a consensus to delete. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
.gif?lang=en){kind=small}
Cities and towns
(These need to be documented on /resolved, and perhaps Manual of Style, Categorization, and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities.
- "Cities in CountryName" is preferred to "Cities of CountryName".
- "Towns in CountryName" is preferred to "Towns of CountryName".
- "Cities and towns in CountryName" is preferred to "Towns and cities of CountryName" or "Towns and cities in CountryName".
The results of this decision should be posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. -- Beland 09:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Approve. Sounds like a good idea. As long as I don't have to do the work! -Willmcw 22:03, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Approve - but, how do I make the changes? Do I have to make the changes on the pages that link there, or would that be done automatically? Also, having created the Category:Towns_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago I was wondering if the preferred syntax is "Towns in..." or "Cities and Towns in ..."? Guettarda 23:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Disapprove - in fact, I feel it should be the other way round! Most of the geography categories (landform types, in particular) seem to use "Feature X of Country Y" as standard. Why would this one be the other way round? I know that Towns aren't landforms, but it seems inconsistent. See note on "Bays of New Zealand" (Dec 5, above)Grutness talk 07:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Approve - if this is the way most of them are setup, then it should be standardized. There's no reason to have two different categories for identicals categorizations. Euphoria 08:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, now working on this. -- Beland 02:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, for Guettarda, I'm using Pearle, a bot, to fix these. It would be way too much work for a human editor. We haven't established a worldwide standard for whether cities and towns should be distinct from one another. There's an ongoing work on the matter in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities, right now involving sorting this out for U.S. states. We're mostly making a distinction in category space when there's some concrete criterion we can use, like incorporation or official designation. I can say that "Cities and towns" is preferred to "Cities and Towns" because of Wikipedia's downcase style for titles. -- Beland 03:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- FWIW, I'm responsible for most of the activity on the New Zealand "Cities and towns" category at the moment (and created it, too). The plan is possibly to eventually split it, but for now it's a lot more easy keeping all the urban areas in one place, especially since there is a lot of confusion in NZ as to what constitutes a city (In NZ, there was a big local admin shake-up in about 1990, with about a dozen cities losing their official city status. These places are still referred to by the public -and the local councils! - as cities, but are officially towns or districts). Grutness hello? 07:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Categories to be emptied or moved
- Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/US vs U.S. - there is a consensus to move the lot of these. -Aranel ("Sarah") 14:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Having problems
Most of these were not moved properly due to a whitespace-handling bug in Pearle that should be fixed shortly. -- Beland 11:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Category:Cities_and_towns_of_New_Zealand -> Category:Cities_and_towns_in_New_Zealand
- Category:Cities,_towns_and_villages_of_France -> Category:Cities,_towns_and_villages_in_France
- MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS Category:Towns_of_São_Paulo -> Category:Towns_in_São_Paulo
- Category:Cities,_towns_and_villages_of_France -> Category:Cities,_towns_and_villages_in_France
- Protected article: Rennes-le-Château
- Category:The Greatest Canadian has 99 articles and needs to be emptied. I would rather not do this manually. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I tried using Pearle de-populating this, but User:Earl_Andrew started reverting my edits. I restored the discussion of this category below, so he can read it. -- Beland 01:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Results of a poll for a television special, The Greatest Canadian; seems barely more encyclopedic than the late Category:FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World. —tregoweth 23:21, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed, such trivia is not category worthy. - SimonP 23:30, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Make into a list article and then delete. Postdlf 20:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Full list already exists at The Greatest Canadian. - SimonP 09:01, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
- I also agree. Anyone with a notable position on the list can have an external reference to the CBC external pages on the Greatest Canadian in their bio, but this page should be deleted.--Cogent 18:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Keep" There are also greatest British and etc. --ThomasK 18:03, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete since full list already exists. Mandel 05:58, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Spinboy 03:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep This was a national poll that received quite a bit of attention. A category page doesn't seem unreasonable. CJCurrie 01:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Samaritan 05:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Noisy | Talk 05:24, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Are people voting "keep" because they think this information should be in the encyclopedia, or because they think there should be both a category and a list, or a category and not a list? -- Beland 09:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The second. Samaritan 06:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - not encyclopedic. Clubmarx 17:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete me
The below meet the eligibility requirements for deletion at the top of this page. These categories have been de-populated, and any documentation of this decision taken care of. Admins may delete these categories at will. If there is a particular category which is replacing the deleted category (if redundant, misspelled, etc.) as noted below, that should be mentioned in the deletion log entry.
The category to be deleted is listed first, followed by the proper category that renders it obsolete.