Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:47, 7 February 2010

< January 31	February 2 >

February 1

Russian Empire

Propose renaming:

Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in Imperial Russia to Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire
Category:Lists of government ministers of Imperial Russia to Category:Lists of government ministers of the Russian Empire
Category:Military of Imperial Russia to Category:Military of the Russian Empire
Category:Military units and formations of Imperial Russia to Category:Military units and formations of the Russian Empire
Category:Politics of Imperial Russia to Category:Politics of the Russian Empire
Category:Political parties in Imperial Russia to Category:Political parties in the Russian Empire
Category:Secret services of Imperial Russia to Category:Secret services of the Russian Empire
Category:Branches of the secret services of Imperial Russia to Category:Branches of the secret services of the Russian Empire
Category:Armies of Imperial Russia to Category:Armies of the Russian Empire
Category:Corps of Imperial Russia to Category:Corps of the Russian Empire
Category:Fronts of Imperial Russia to Category:Fronts of the Russian Empire
Category:Regiments of Imperial Russia to Category:Regiments of the Russian Empire

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. Right now, the subcategories of Category:Russian Empire use either of/in "the Russian Empire" or "Imperial Russia". I thought it would be a good idea to standardize this usage to match the parent category and the main article Russian Empire. "Imperial Russia" should be used when it's used in a proper name, and "Imperial Russian" is probably the best adjective to use for something from the Russian Empire (e.g., Category:Imperial Russian people), but if it's a generic "in FOO" or "of FOO" category, "in/of the Russian Empire" is best for consistency, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support standarisation. Debresser (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - consistency is the 99% rule imho - good work! Satu Suro 06:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The main article was located at Imperial Russia for several years, but consensus seems to be that Russian Empire is the most correct title and scope; the categories should follow.- choster (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Support and put into the "speedy remaning list", not to waste poeple time any more. - Altenmann >t 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WE only need one term for this empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Child molestation survivors

Category:Child molestation survivors - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure that this category is a good idea. Similarly-named categories have been deleted in the past, but it's been a while so I thought a new nomination could be useful: 2007 JUL 31 2007 MAY 4. It may be defining for some, but the potential BLP problems are obvious. Although the category definition is careful to set out that this is for people who have publicly stated they have been molested as children, another potential problem is how this affects living people who are accused of committing the child molestation by the person who makes the public statement. What if the accused person denies it and there's been no legal adjudication of the issue? If the accused person is alive, that creates a BLP problem because the category affirms that the person was indeed molested. If kept it's going to need some fairly dedicated patrolling. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a horribly tactless category and a BLP headache, synonymous with previously deleted "victims" category. Ruodyssey (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the BLP minefield. Sheer decorum would be enough to move me to delete this. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The existence of this category will encourage articles on NN people who have been molested. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:C21

Category:C21 - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small, eponymous category that contains only the main article C21 (Danish band) and the subcategory Category:C21 albums. We usually have required a bit more to justify an eponymous category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I generally prefer this structure, guidelines notwithstanding. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Visa free travel

Propose renaming Category:Visa free travel to Category:Visa requirements by nationality

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category contains a bunch of articles named "Visa requirements for FOOian citizens". Each article is about more than just visa-free travel. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

excellent idea Good Ol’factory,but im sad for you,Happenstance,the king and the owner of wikipedia wont accept that.he wants that name.wanna see how can such a simple user ignore 20 editors and force his own kingdom rules in wikipedia? read Talk:Passport then but hey sshh you have no right to say to him no.yep,admins are sleeping — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.92.36 (talk • contribs)
Rename per nominator. All subcategories have this format. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. The articles are more than just 'visa-free travel' --Ozguroot (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Passport covers

Suggest merging Category:Passport covers to Category:Images of passports

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories. The target category contains images of covers as well as inside pages of passports. If we want to separate the images of the covers it should be Category:Images of passport covers but the target category is small and I don't see a reason to separate them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per the second suggestion. I think that the cover of the passport and the indentification page of the passport should each have a category. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Workers Party of Ireland politicians

Propose renaming Category:Workers Party of Ireland politicians to Category:Workers' Party of Ireland politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename category to match grammatically correct name of party with apostrophe, which is Workers' Party of Ireland. Snappy (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More important than a name change to reflect an apostrophe I would suggest that it is necessary to differentiate more clearly between current and former Workers' Party politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolavokig (talk • contribs)
- All party politicians categories have current and former members of the party in them. Snappy (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American liberal organizations

Category:American liberal organizations - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: There is no objective criteria for inclusion, so on its face this category fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. In the past it was agreed that only organizations that self-identify as Liberal should be included (as that is the only objective criteria) but that seems to have broken down. This category is continually expanded based not on objective criteria, but on the opinion of the editor (or the opinion of a third-party). I favor deletion as this serves little navigational or organizational purpose (articles are generally added because an editor wants to "label" them as such). But if this category is to be kept, it must be made crystal clear what the standard for inclusion is. Loonymonkey (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are insisting on doing this piecemeal, especially when there is a complete lack of consensus on the identically situated Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_22#Category:American_progressive_organizations. Please nominate all of the political categories at once, not one at a time. Please withdraw this nomination to avoid the WP:MULTI problem and the potential WP:NPOV problem. THF (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Deletion discussions are done individually and WP:MULTI has nothing to do with nominations. The two categories are related, so there should probably be consensus across the board which is why I nominated this category. The discussion continues there but consensus is pretty evenly split (with many of the "Keeps" agreeing that it needs to be clarified that this is for self-identification only). And I'm not really sure what WP:NPOV has to do with this unless that's just a backhanded way to accuse me of bad faith. Do you have any comments on the subject of this discussion? --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My comment is that this is a disruptive POV-pushing nomination that shouldn't have been made, and it's hard to see how it was made in good faith when you're singling out just one adjective, ignoring all of the related categories in the subject, making edits where you delete the adjective "liberal" but keep the adjective "conservative" to refer to other organizations in the same article, and ignoring the fact that the consensus is against your disruptive edits or this disruptive nomination. Speedy keep. THF (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations like this happen all the time, often as "test" nominations for other similar categories. I think you are over-reacting and need to assume good faith and stop labelling a within-process nomination as "disruptive". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This category just went through this process and it was decided that it needed to be kept. Once again I simply suggest merging this category with "American progressive organizations" into "American progressive and liberal organizations"--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the discussion you refer to that just considered this category? I cannot find it. According to "what links here" it was discussed in May 2008 but not since. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I misread when the last discussion was but I thought it was more recent than that. Besides thats not too long ago. Anyway I guess it's immaterial to the real discussion. I see no reason to delete this category just as I see no need to delete any category of organizations by their political orientation.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK; though I think 16–17 months is probably a sufficient gap between nominations of the same category, especially given that the result was an ambiguously worded, "Keep. No consensus." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True enough; you make a good point as well. I think it probably is time this category and the progressive category come up for review. As I've noted, since those who name themselves as either or both descriptors often end up on the same side in US politics, I suggest simply merging the two categories. As for what would belong in the category I would suggest adding whatever organizations call themselves by those two descriptors obviously. Additionally however, I think organizations that work closely with defined progressive or liberal organizations should be in the category as well. For example, the NAACP defines itself as neither liberal nor progressive but often supports those causes and often sides with the Democrats on legislation and works very closely with other organizations that do label themselves as such; therefore it should be added to that category hypothetically. That's just an example and the criterion may be hard to define as to what groups would belong in such a category. No doubt the very people who oppose these categories would be against such a proposal and limit it to only groups that self-identify as these labels, but it's an idea that needs discussing--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, then this category would not only fail WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE but would fail WP:OC#ASSOCIATED as well. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Iterated placing of CfD is not really helpful. Category is not shameful, and is valid. Collect (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your rationale for keeping it, in light of wikipedia policy stated above (specifically WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE) Loonymonkey (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep pointy nomination is disrespectful of all those article editors who placed this category in their articles because the article content supports this category. Only those who are grossly ignorant of American politics do not see the point of this and the related, but not overlapping, progressive categories Hmains (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that your comment above is appropriate, Hmains. People can disagree without being "grossly ignorant", and a CFD nomination is not "disrespectful" to other users who have populated the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disrespectful, yes. The deletionists are saying that all the article writers are wrong by having placed the articles into this category. If the contents of the article say that organization is liberal, then categories are there to help to navigate to it. If the article contents are wrong and not supported by references, then the article contents need to be changed--not by POV edits either. Until that time, the category system of navigation is not helped by POV category deletions trying to push points about content. Hmains (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - When someone suggests your comments are inappropriate, it's generally not a good idea to repeat them and expand them. My comment was to suggest that you stop, and I repeat that again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The specific political bent of these organizations is their defining characteristic and we only harm navigation by trying to rob users of this category as a navigation aid. Alansohn (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In most of these cases, it's hardly their defining characteristic, it's just a pejorative label hurled by those who oppose them. But more to the point of this discussion, who defines it? How is it defined? What is the definition, even? --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. As I've seen in most cases the label is a defining characteristic and is not used as a pejorative.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been a substantial depopulation of this category. Is this proper? Collect (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's incorrect. Dozens and dozens of articles were added to the category a couple days ago based not on self-identification or even reliable sources but on the editor's POV. I reverted these, but a couple of editors are repeatedly adding these categories back in and claiming that self-identification is no longer necessary. This kind of proves my point about WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. There is no defining characteristic for this category other than an editor's subjective opinion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We need to stop this back and worth, most people seem to agree that this category needs to be kept. I agree with Hmains that the content of the article should decide whether or not a page be placed in this category. If the article is labeled as liberal then there should be an appropriate and valid reference but that's not the point of this discussion. The point is that I think we can all agree that if something is labeled as liberal then it needs to be in this category. If it doesn't deserve to be in this category then the article needs to be changed just as Hmains said. For navigational purposes I say we keep the category; for instance, if someone is looking for liberal organizations then it stands to reason we provide them with a way to access more pages for liberal organizations. However, as some have noted, liberal and progressive can sometimes mean the same thing, in that case those looking for liberal organizations could likely be looking for progressive organizations as well, so why not merge the two into a single category with both descriptors so as to more easily facilitate navigation amongst similar topics? In doing we can still maintain that whatever goes into this category must be liberal and/or progressive based on the article content. Any thoughts on this idea? Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as vague and subjective per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Category:American liberals was deleted at CfD 2007 January 19, and all the same problems apply to this category as to its parent. There seems to be no clear and objective definition of "liberal", and in an American context "liberal" is often used as an attack-label, so however much some editors insist that ITSUSEFUL, even the "keep" editors seem unclear about how exactly to determine what it should contain.
Since there is no generally-accepted definition of the word "liberal" in an American context, any attempt to apply inclusion criteria fails WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Sparrowhawk's suggestion of basing it on article content doesn't help resolve the problem, because even though any such labelling should not be in the article unless referenced, the absence of a shared meaning for the term means that an article can end up in the category simply because somebody somewhere has decided for whatever reason to label them that way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will never have an objective definition of any political ideology and to simply say we should throw out any and all categories or organizations of any ideology is simply, as the term goes, "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." It does not matter if the label liberal is used as a pejorative, it's still an ideology. And as for the possibility that anybody anywhere can label an organization as liberal in bad faith is true, but anybody anywhere can label any organization or any page for that matter anything they want. There are other editors out there who monitor vandalism. The point was entirely missed in my suggestion. There will always be those who mislabel things either out of ignorance or their own biased opinion. I think the inclusion criteria for a page being placed in my idea of a merged category would be if there was a reputable and unbiased source for naming an organization as such.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that will never have an objective definition of any political ideology is precisely the resaon why ideologies make bad categories. All the arguments you make to keep the category are based on a) ignoring the consensus against subjective categories and b) ignoring the deletion at CfD of the parent category Category:American liberals.
All your talk of "mislabelling" is irrelevant, because unless the term has a clear definition, any use of the label is subjective. The idea of an "unbiased source" which can magisterially apply political-ideology labels is quite funny: have you read WP:NPO#'BIAS? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin None of the Keep comments so far actually address the specific Wikipedia policy problems described above. There are four "votes" to keep, but of course Wikipedia is not a democracy. Saying "I like it" (or, conversely, "I don't like the person who nominated this") is not a valid rationale for keeping a category that on its face fails basic policy. Particularly disturbing is that this discussion seems to be compromised by improper canvassing and vote-stacking. At least two of these Keep "votes" came here after THF left non-neutral messages asking them to weigh in on this and related discussions, knowing that they were already in agreement on the subject. See [1] and [2]. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That is not true in the slightest! I have done absolutely nothing inappropriate and find it terribly offensive to suggest any sort of collusion. He messaged me after I was already discussing on the nominations of both liberal and progressive. Not only that but he messaged me about a discussion board to talk about your POV, a discussion in which I did not even take part in and in fact, I deleted the message because I realized his attempt to draw me into labeling you as not being neutral was inappropriate. I'm discussing on both pages because I was looking for liberal and progressive organizations and noticed both were nominated for deletion. Many people have made valid arguments but I fail to remember anyone simply saying "I like it" and using that a rationale. I certainly hope you didn't mean to implicate me in any improper conduct and I find it disturbing that you would imply improper conduct in an attempt to push your point of view. Additionally, no one is counting votes; consensus, by definition, is general agreement and it seems most people say we should keep this category with a few people vociferously opposing.Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notwithstanding the judgement of a nom, the arguements for Keep are not somehow weak <g>. "Liberal" and "progressive" are not pejoratives, nor do any dictionaries or other sources list them as such. As the words are not pejorative, no WP policies say to delete them. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument is a red herring. The nominating rationale is not that the word liberal is pejorative (which is not a reason for deletion anyway), but that the category is arbitrary and subjective (which most certainly is a reason for deletion). That specific policy problem still has not been addressed by anyone "voting" to keep. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons set out by BrownHairedGirl—it's subjective, there is no accepted definition in the U.S. sense, it can be used as a perjorative, previous consensus has been to delete categories that use this term in the American context, etc. This entire discussion is troubling to me. There has been apparent vote stacking, personal attacks, and a number of misrepresentations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to the examples in WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE (e.g. "great"), the word "liberal" does have reasonably specific meaning, the category has been applied in good faith, and generally the subject organizations self-identify or would agree with it. (For example, People for the American Way emphasizes 'progressive', but links readily to sources that call it liberal, which supports Sparrowhawk64's suggestion to merge the two categories. The late Walter Cronkite even chose a PFAW dinner to proclaim himself liberal and encourage all Americans to do likewise. Perhaps the nominator thinks Walter simply got lost, went to the wrong dinner, or didn't know American politics?) Otherwise the argument from subjectivity could apply equally to any political category, for example George W. Bush and a Republican Congress were called conservative but ran up record budget deficits, which some would say is not conservative. Categories are almost always imperfect, as inherently they group different but related things into one rubric, but that is not sufficient reason to eliminate them. In this context it is worth noting that the "vast majority" of the Nominator's 'contribution' to Wikipedia consists of "simple reversions"[3] and deletions; if everyone followed the Nominator's proffered rationale, there would be nothing left of Wikipedia.TVC 15 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Don't tell us, show us.
Rather than simply asserting that the word "liberal" does have reasonably specific meaning, please set out a clear and concise definition of "American liberal" which is neutral and reliably-sourced. Without such a definition the category is subjective, because the word "liberal" is just a Humpty Dumpty term which means simply whatever the speaker wants it to mean:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
None of the plentiful and verbose ILIKEIT comments by the "keep" !voters have even tried to answer Humpty Dumpty's question of which meaning is to be master. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated you will never have an objective definition for any political ideology, it changes from person to person, politician to politician, ideologue to ideologue and even from academic to academic. If you're so desperate to find one I suggest you read the Wiki pages of the ideologies for some place to start. If the pages in the category have an unbiased and reputable source then why shouldn't they be placed in a category where users can find other similar organizations?--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we're getting somewhere. I'm not desperate to find a definition, but if you want to keep the category then you need one, to stop the category from being subjective ... but as you say, the definition changes from person to person, politician to politician, ideologue to ideologue and even from academic to academic. I agree 100% with you on that, which is why the category is fails the subjectivity test.
As to your suggestion that labelling by "an unbiased and reputable source" removes the need for a stable definition, that's like saying that we could have a category for "tasty food" so long as one reputable source describes it as such. (And if you think there is such a thing as an unbiased source, read WP:NPOV#Bias). --20:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)

If you think "liberal" is too subjective, what would you propose as an alternative? Left vs. right? American organizations tend to identify as liberal/progressive vs. conservative, not "leftist" vs. "rightist." There are some variations, e.g. libertarian, although in recent years libertarian has often been called "conservative" (notwithstanding libertarians' support for legalizing drugs and abortion rights); yet, you don't seem to call for deleting "conservative" as a category. At least in American politics, which are polarized along what is usually considered a left-right spectrum (libertarians would call it a 2-dimentional grid), sorting begins with a familiar bifurcation, like eastern states vs. western states (with the midwest along the Mississippi River). Your "tasty food" example does not really illuminate because taste is a classic example of subjectivity; a nearer analogy would be to categorize organic matter as "food" and "not food," where you could probably find broad consensus on most examples, with some differences of opinion. In answer to your question, words mean what most people generally understand them to mean, which is why dictionaries get updated; we don't look to Humpty Dumpty for definitions, but we also don't allow the evolving nature of language to strike us all dumb. Specifically with regard to WP:RS, if reliable sources like the New York Times call an organization liberal or conservative, that description probably matches the definition of most readers and most participants in the organization itself (especially if the organization's website links to the publication).TVC 15 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I could not have said it better myself. The food argument is reductum ad absurdum used at its finest. Ridiculously simplifying the argument by following the logical train of thought to the most extreme premise. There is no reason, none whatsoever, that as long as the page has been accurately described as such that users should not be able to find more like it. Again I reiterate my call to merge this category and the progressive category so users may more easily find organizations of similar strains by using this category for navigational purposes.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Liberalism and American Progressivism are of a similar tradition, but they are not at all identical as a reading of the relevant WP articles readily show. CfD is to help categories to help readers navigate to articles. The Liberal and Progressive articles are not going to be combined and neither should be their categories. Such action would only serve to confuse navigation and the reader. Hmains (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they are of a similar tradition and are not identical. That being said most every political organization on the left in the United States uses the words interchangeably and there is hardly any difference between those who call themselves liberal and those who call themselves progressive. In just about every context, from candidates to columnists and pundits, progressive and liberal are interchangeable and therefore should share a category even if they're not identical because they both align left of center and users should be able to navigate to both types of organizations since they always work towards similar ends. It would not confuse a reader if, at the bottom of the page, there is a category called American progressive and liberal organizations. I agree Progressive and Liberal pages should not be combined but look for yourself on the progressivism in the United States page and you will see that in the modern context, the goals of the ideologies and the people that work towards them, are the same. So should readers be confused because liberal Democrats call themselves progressives? No because the two ideologies share much in common and work towards similar goals. That's why they should share a category, because users may want to find other similar, not identical, organizations.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, coming back to the topic of this CfD, the argument to keep the categories separate is an argument to KEEP both categories because they are intrinsically different and thus not WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. That's fine with me. Hmains makes good arguments for keeping both, and Sparrowhawk64 makes good arguments for merging them, and either would be better than deletion.TVC 15 (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That argument makes no sense. That it might be considered different than another word has nothing to do with whether it is subjective or not. The core issue here has yet to be addressed, other to proclaim "It's not subjective!" If it is not subjective, then what is the objective criteria for inclusion? --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This gets more bizarre all the time. TVC15's argument amounts to a claim that that a subjective judgement is not subjective if it is published in The New York Times. Presumably they now print the paper on tablets of stone? --20:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, I think we already had the answer to that, above: the keep logic is that a subjective term becomes objective when printed in The New York Times, which is apparently unbiased and unimpeachably reliable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Late Night (NBC)

Category:Late Night (NBC) - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Limited content base - articles on 3 iterations of the same show, one which has it own also included, subcategory. J Greb (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep has a subcategory, and another should be created for Letterman's iteration. Since it is the show, and a version of the show has its own subcategory... useful for navigation as a parent container. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 7 articles and two subcategories at present, so it seems useful. postdlf (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a defining characteristic of the articles included here. Alansohn (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hurricanes and tropical depressions of the Gulf of California

Category:Hurricanes and tropical depressions of the Gulf of California - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily duplicate of Category:Pacific hurricanes. No precedence exists for by-region storm categories. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep with 28 entries including an established list, this is a reasonable way to categorize a large number of storms and the only practical way to place these storms into one of its parents: Category:Gulf of California, regardless of precedent Hmains (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Category:Pacific hurricanes and its other subcategories seems to be the way all other hurricanes are classified. Land areas affected appear to be covered by lists as is also the case here. A quick check shows that the articles are also in another category so deletion and retaining the list would mean nothing was lost. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And what about Category:Atlantic hurricanes in Mexico, which is the comparable category for the Atlantic basin? Hmains (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:RSDLP members

Propose renaming Category:RSDLP members to Category:Russian Social Democratic Labour Party members

Nominator's rationale: Rename to expand abbreviation and match main article name. Darwinek (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. While I have been pushing for "politicians" categories for parties of modern states, that scope may be too restrictive in cases where the organization was banned (either explicitly or because the state was non-democratic and did not recognize any political parties), or a large part of its operation was non-electoral in nature. That applies to the RSDAP as well as some revolutionary/liberation movements which became political parties such as the ANC.- choster (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to spell out full title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake

Convert to article Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake to article People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake

Nominator's rationale: "Associated with" is too vague; list will allow for definition of criteria and subdivision by degree and/or character of association. While currently in something of a holding pattern as the result of an aborted CfD that resulted in the splitting off of the Category:Casualties of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, this is a category that could conceivably grow to include a thousand politicians, celebrities and talking heads somehow weighing in on this tragedy (however positively or notably). This is overcategorization and gives undue weight to what, for many, may be the widely reported but fleeting presence for a couple of hours chatting with donors at a phone bank, or an off-hand remark on a talk show or in a speech. This group should instead be placed in a list. To do otherwise conflates an impactful but more distanced level of involvement with the serious and persistent efforts of individuals who, for example, chose to put their lives on the line to travel to the region in the immediate aftermath. Additionally — preposterously — it could conflate a relatively detached level of involvement with those who lived through the earthquake or even were injured or died as a result.

A list would allow us to give an explanatory preamble of what is (and what is not to be) a threshold for inclusion. A list would also allow us to create subsections dividing, say, elected officials from NGOs from private citizens; hands-on volunteers from fundraisers; or whatever the parameters are or are decided to be, which is currently unclear.

The victims' notability may have begun, and presumably ends, with the tragedy, so a category seems fitting; the politicians' or celebrities' does not. While I wholeheartedly support anyone who has any level of positive involvement, I think it could be more of an embarrassment than a point of pride to have Wikipedia shining such a bright light on this good work as to place a cat tag in their bio. Delete the Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake and create a list with the same title, with subsections that separate by degree or character of their association. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suport per Category talk:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a collection of loosely-associated topics. Unlike the category for victims of the earthquake, which is clearly-defined, this category is problematic for the very reasons expressed in the nomination: any person who was in Haiti at the time of the earthquake or in its aftermath, who issued a statement in response to the earthquake, or who was, is, or will be in any way involved in rescue or recovery efforts could be classified as being "associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake".
Here is a breakdown of the articles in the category
Haitian public figures
Jean-Max Bellerive - current Prime Minister of Haiti

Paul Antoine Bien-Aimé - current Minister of the Interior of Haiti

Elisabeth Delatour Préval - First Lady of Haiti

Paul Denis - Haitian politician who was reported kill during the earthquake but actually was not

Jean Yves Jason - mayor of Port-au-Prince

Raymond Joseph - Haitian ambassador to the United States

René Préval - President of Haiti

Donors and people involved in fundraising efforts
Charlie Simpson (fundraiser) - "seven year old schoolboy ... known for his fundraising efforts in the wake of the 2010 Haiti earthquake"

George Hook - "has been on the radio urging people to donate, donate, donate"

Denis O'Brien - owner of Haiti's telecom company; "pledged ... €3.5 million of his money" as assistance

People who have made statements regarding the earthquake
Max Beauvoir - Haitian houngan who "expressed ... disapproval of the mass graves" dug for Haitians who died in the earthquake

Even if we ahere strictly to verifiability requirements, we still are left with a category that could include any person who was mentioned in any publication about the earthquake. Any information concerning the relationship between these individuals and the earthquake should be in the individual biographies and in 2010 Haiti earthquake or its sub-articles, such as Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake (Simpson, Hook, and O'Brien are all mentioned in that article).

If listifying is the only way to be rid of the category, however, then listify to List of people associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake (please note the addition of "List of" to the title suggested by the nominator). –Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Black Falcon as a collection of loosely associated articles. I don't think there's even a need to listify this: anyone important enough to be in such an article will be mentioned in the article 2010 Haiti earthquake. Seems to primarily be a remnant of some recentism excitement. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- For the Haitian politicians, this is too like a "current" politicians category which we always merge into an equivalent non-timelined one. Fundraisers, donors, commentators - too much of a hotchpotch with no clear boundary. The non politicians might be listified which would provide an opportunity to set out in a few words what their role was. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Telangana freedom fighters

Category:Telangana freedom fighters - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Blatantly POV category. "Freedom fighter" is listed as a term to avoid, in WP:FREEDOMFIGHTER. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a person is called a "terrorist" by some, and a "freedom fighter" by others, then just have him at both categories on Wikipedia. As long as there are sources. Wikipedia should be neutral. Neutral is not "avoiding information that is POV". Neutral is "presenting POV information in a neutral way". All information is POV after all, one way or the other. Debresser (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding two POV categories does not make for neutrality, and the idea of also adding a "balancing" terrorist category doesn't work, because We now longer have a Category:Terrorists; it was deleted at CfD 2009 April 27.
  This is not a question of "avoiding information that is POV"; it is about whether or not we use the category system to label articles with POV terms. WP:NPOV says "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion" ... but categories are an unqualified editorial statement and do not allow that sort of attribution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not having Category:Terrorists is ridiculous. I mean, Osama is on all Interpol and CIA lists as a terrorist... We might design a disclaimer, that inclusion is based upon reliable sources and does my no means imply a POV by Wikipedia or any of its editors. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and primarily because all the "terrorists" categories were deleted. Now we have the opposite POV cropping up in categories? No, these are best avoided. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nom says it all, the term "freedom fighter" should avoided per WP:FREEDOMFIGHTER. --Defender of torch (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename -- This category seems to be about the insurgent participants in the Telangana Rebellion, a Communist rebellion in Hyderbad, India (beginning 1946). This is thus a legitmate category. I have added a headnote to the category to that effect. The question is what it should be called. Suggest Category:Particpants in Telangana rebellion. This is perhaps not wholly satisfactory, as those engaged in suppressing it might also be "participants". Perhaps some one else can suggest something better. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC) (edit conflect with last contribution)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification, Peter. I'll support a keep-and-rename is we can find an appropriate name for the category. How about "Rebels of the Telangana rebellion"? There is a well-organised Category:Rebels into which this would fit nicely, under Category:Indian rebels. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Peterkingiron and to avoid POV labelling of "freedom fighter".--Beloved Freak 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Rename The characteristic is defining. As the name is the issue, an appropriate rename would address any legitimate concerns here. Alansohn (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still vote rename as above. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scandals with -gate suffix

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 February 6.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete G4 from this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_11#Category:-gate

Category:Scandals with -gate suffix - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Completely arbitrary naming convention. The only common link is the lack of imagination of the first journalist who perpetuates each ~gate. Falcadore (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The -gate suffix is a phenomenon called a snowclone. See List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. I'm not sure what the naming convention should be for this (-gate suffix snowclones sounds odd). Gobonobo ^T ^C 04:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Royal Canadian Mounted Police forts

Propose renaming Category:Royal Canadian Mounted Police forts to Category:North-West Mounted Police forts

Nominator's rationale: Rename. At the time that the Canadian police went around building forts, they were the NWMP. It's possible there were some honest-to-God "forts" built after the 1920 merger/rename, but they are surely exceedingly rare, and we certainly don't have any articles about them. Canada's frontier era was over by then in all places except the far north. But up there, there was no need for quasi-military forts, just ordinary detatchments/barracks. The actual forts were built in the 1870s because of the fear of the Fenians, American whiskey traders and wolvers, and a possible Indian rebellion like the North-West Rebellion.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategorize 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note previous discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Royal Canadian Mounted Police forts" is an anachronism; the rationale that North-West Mounted Police redirects to Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a fallacy, as IMO the NWMP should be a separate article, on the one hand, and the forts were built and operated under the aegis of the NWMP/RNWMP acronym/name, not that of the RCMP; it's rather like saying British Columbia Provincial Police should redirect to RCMP "E" Division (which is the BC branch of the RCMP, built largely out of the BCPP upon the latter's abolition/merger). Similarly, North West Company does not redirect to Hudson's Bay Company despite their 1821 merger, and the NWC has its own categories.Skookum1 (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National parks of Canada

Propose renaming Category:National parks of Canada to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: Listed for discussion. A "National Park of Canada" is a specific legal title bestowed on parks by the Canadian federal governement through legislation, for parks administered by it's parks service, Parks Canada. However there are other parks national parks in Canada. Specifically, the National Parks of Quebec. The province of Quebec has chosen to name all it's provincial parks as "national parks", (see Quebec nationalism). Therefore WP categories should disambiguate between the two, without taking any specific position on Quebec's nationhood. One solution would be to rename this category Category:National parks in Canada and include both types as sub-cats. My prefered solution is to use the cat only for federal parks and indicate this by capitalizing "Parks", i.e. Category:National Parks of Canada, and listing Quebec's National Parks elsewhere.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects Canada, Quebec, and Protected Areas have been notified.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Category:National Parks of Canada. This category really has nothing to do with the Quebec parks (other than name), so moving it to include the Quebec parks would just add unneeded complexity. Furthermore, even without the Quebec parks issue, the cat should be renamed with uppercase "Parks" due naming use at National Parks of Canada and elsewhere. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Category:National Parks of Canada, at least as much because it's the actual proper name of the system as because of the Quebec issue. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kevlar's prefered solution to use the cat only for federal parks and indicate this by capitalizing "Parks". -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Category:National Parks of Canada, per M.nelson. DigitalC (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. Abrazame (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
 :::*Right, we're getting somewhere.  I'm not desperate to find a definition, but if ''you'' want to keep the category then ''you'' need one, to stop the category from being subjective ... but as you say, the definition changes from person to person, politician to politician, ideologue to ideologue and even from academic to academic.  I agree 100% with you on that, which is why the category is fails the subjectivity test.<br />As to your suggestion that labelling by "an unbiased and reputable source" removes the need for a stable definition, that's like saying that we could have a category for "tasty food" so long as one reputable source describes it as such. (And if you think there is such a thing as an unbiased source, read [[WP:NPOV#Bias]]). --20:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] ([[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
 ::::*If you think "liberal" is too subjective, what would you propose as an alternative?  Left vs. right?  American organizations tend to identify as liberal/progressive vs. conservative, not "leftist" vs. "rightist."  There are some variations, e.g. libertarian, although in recent years libertarian has often been called "conservative" (notwithstanding libertarians' support for legalizing drugs and abortion rights); yet, you don't seem to call for deleting "conservative" as a category.  At least in American politics, which are polarized along what is usually considered a left-right spectrum (libertarians would call it a 2-dimentional grid), sorting begins with a familiar bifurcation, like eastern states vs. western states (with the midwest along the Mississippi River).  Your "tasty food" example does not really illuminate because taste is a classic example of subjectivity; a nearer analogy would be to categorize organic matter as "food" and "not food," where you could probably find broad consensus on most examples, with some differences of opinion.  In answer to your question, words mean what most people generally understand them to mean, which is why dictionaries get updated; we don't look to Humpty Dumpty for definitions, but we also don't allow the evolving nature of language to strike us all dumb.  Specifically with regard to [[WP:RS]], if reliable sources like the [[New York Times]] call an organization liberal or conservative, that description probably matches the definition of most readers and most participants in the organization itself (especially if the organization's website links to the publication).[[User:TVC 15|TVC 15]] ([[User talk:TVC 15|talk]]) 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::*This gets more bizarre all the time. TVC15's argument amounts to a claim that that a subjective judgement is not subjective if it is published in ''[[The New York Times]]''.  Presumably they now print the paper on [[tablets of stone]]? --20:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 :::::*Thank you, I could not have said it better myself. The food argument is reductum ad absurdum used at its finest. Ridiculously simplifying the argument by following the logical train of thought to the most extreme premise. There is no reason, none whatsoever, that as long as the page has been accurately described as such that users should not be able to find more like it. Again I reiterate my call to merge this category and the progressive category so users may more easily find organizations of similar strains by using this category for navigational purposes.--[[User:Sparrowhawk64|Sparrowhawk64]] ([[User talk:Sparrowhawk64|talk]]) 01:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 ::::::*American Liberalism and American Progressivism are of a similar tradition, but they are not at all identical as a reading of the relevant WP articles readily show.  CfD is to help categories to help readers navigate to articles.  The Liberal and Progressive articles are not going to be combined and neither should be their categories.  Such action would only serve to confuse navigation and the reader. [[User:Hmains|Hmains]] ([[User talk:Hmains|talk]]) 06:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
@@ Line 106: / Line 105: @@
 :::::::*First, coming back to the topic of this CfD, the argument to keep the categories separate is an argument to KEEP both categories because they are intrinsically different and thus not [[WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE]].  That's fine with me.  [[User:Hmains|Hmains]] makes good arguments for keeping both, and [[User:Sparrowhawk64|Sparrowhawk64]] makes good arguments for merging them, and either would be better than deletion.[[User:TVC 15|TVC 15]] ([[User talk:TVC 15|talk]]) 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 ::::::::*That argument makes no sense. That it might be considered different than another word has nothing to do with whether it is subjective or not.  The core issue here has yet to be addressed, other to proclaim "It's not subjective!"  If it is not subjective, then what is the objective criteria for inclusion?  --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 22:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
+:::::::*This gets more bizarre all the time. TVC15's argument amounts to a claim that that a subjective judgement is not subjective if it is published in ''[[The New York Times]]''.  Presumably they now print the paper on [[tablets of stone]]? --20:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 :::::::::*Loonymonkey, I think we already had the answer to that, above: the keep logic is that a subjective term becomes objective when printed in ''[[The New York Times]]'', which is apparently unbiased and unimpeachably reliable. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 22:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)