Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 28: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 290: Line 290:
*Proposal: There seems to be some consensus that it is desirable to have a category that includes areas that were not entirely in Chinese control before the war, but have been under Chinese control since then; and so the category should not be deleted. Taking into account the objection to the word 'occupy' as being biased, I propose that the category be renamed to [[:Category:Areas controlled by China since the Sino-Indian War]]. I have modified the description of the category, removing the incorrect term 'International Border' and specifying that China may have had some degree of control prior to the war, thus not implying a pure 'occupation'. I am also adding the articles that meet the definition back to the category.[[User:The Discoverer|The Discoverer]] ([[User talk:The Discoverer|talk]]) 10:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
*Proposal: There seems to be some consensus that it is desirable to have a category that includes areas that were not entirely in Chinese control before the war, but have been under Chinese control since then; and so the category should not be deleted. Taking into account the objection to the word 'occupy' as being biased, I propose that the category be renamed to [[:Category:Areas controlled by China since the Sino-Indian War]]. I have modified the description of the category, removing the incorrect term 'International Border' and specifying that China may have had some degree of control prior to the war, thus not implying a pure 'occupation'. I am also adding the articles that meet the definition back to the category.[[User:The Discoverer|The Discoverer]] ([[User talk:The Discoverer|talk]]) 10:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
::The problem is there is no neutral source that says China occupied any place that it did not already control before the war. All you have is non-neutral Indian sources, which you kept citing as if they were undisputed facts. In fact, all neutral sources I've read say that China retreated to the prewar border after declaring ceasefire at the end of the war. Also, why do you keep adding articles like [[Lanak Pass‎]] and [[Khurnak Fort‎]] to the category that even Indian sources say were under Chinese control before the war? -[[User:Zanhe|Zanhe]] ([[User talk:Zanhe|talk]]) 02:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
::The problem is there is no neutral source that says China occupied any place that it did not already control before the war. All you have is non-neutral Indian sources, which you kept citing as if they were undisputed facts. In fact, all neutral sources I've read say that China retreated to the prewar border after declaring ceasefire at the end of the war. Also, why do you keep adding articles like [[Lanak Pass‎]] and [[Khurnak Fort‎]] to the category that even Indian sources say were under Chinese control before the war? -[[User:Zanhe|Zanhe]] ([[User talk:Zanhe|talk]]) 02:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
:::For the second time, you have removed all articles from the category. The Indian sources may or may not be neutral; however, their statements cited are undisputed. Further, these same sources also criticise the Indian side. These two reasons lead us to believe that they are neutral, and what they have stated are facts. In addition, it seems that you are unwilling to accept the central idea of the category: The region between the traditional boundary and the new claim line of 1960 was by and large controlled by neither China and India upto the late 1950s, but both patrolled the region. Eventually, China set up posts in the region and finally after defeating India in the war, established full control over the region. The definition of the category says 'the years before the war'. It is clear that [[Lanak Pass]] and [[Khurnak Fort]] were not under full control until around the late 1950s. Hence, I request you not to dismiss the Indian sources while they are undisputed.[[User:The Discoverer|The Discoverer]] ([[User talk:The Discoverer|talk]]) 05:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


==== Category:Wonders of the world ====
==== Category:Wonders of the world ====

Revision as of 05:20, 1 September 2013

< August 27 August 29 >

August 28

Category:Wikipedians by profession

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: keep. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting (merging some of these)

Delsort:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalle: I fail to see how these categories are relevant to encyclopedia-building - except to the degree that they represent interest in the subject, where I propose merging into the interest category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incredibly strong keep. Interest and profession can be two very different things. People may have professions which they have little interest in writing about, but for which their knowledge can be of great use in explaining things to laymen. Furthermore, the proposed upmerging of highly specialized areas into general categories of interest (such as merging Category:Wikipedian mycologists into Category:Wikipedians interested in biology) would destroy a great deal of useful information. If I have a mycology question, should I ask every Wikipedian "interested in biology" until I chance upon a mycologist? bd2412 T 20:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep as per above, a useful search tool which I have used. Within each category is the field of knowledge that the editor can choose to share if they so wish.Edmund Patrick – confer 20:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am so tired of the same old line "I fail to see why this is useful." Please see: Wikipedia:Chesterton's fence. Greg Bard (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User Categories can help, even the most obscure can help rarely, and none of these have alleged harm. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, with the recommendation to the nominator to do something useful. This is a traditional area of self-expression on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: These are required for encyclopedic community building. You can't build an encyclopedia if you don't have people do to it with... Technical 13 (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Technical 13. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are quite useful for editor coordination and for discovering ways to involve new editors, as well as a resource for finding people who know about a subject but might not edit there or care to register an "interest" in it. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding a delsort notice to the collapsed box. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:05, 29 August 2013 (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.

More Turkey categories

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Turkey was not a country (according to WP) usage until 1922. Before that we use Ottoman Empire, Byzantine Empire and the like. The Turkish aspect to some articles (mostly related to wars, battles, and sieges) is adequately covered by sub-cats of Category:Early Turkish Anatolia and Category:Sultanate of Rum. All relevant articles have a Byzantine century category. There is not enough content to require a split by century for Rum. For the 14th and 15th centuries, there are also Ottoman categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly:
In this case Seljuks in Dobruja may not be adequately categorised, but this is in Roumania, not Turkey.
In this case, Sarukhan, Bey of Magnesia may need further categories. He appears to have eben an independent Turkish ruler and does not easily fit into the category structure but is categorised as a "Turkic ruler".
In this case, one article needed an extra category (added)
Also:
Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. We have gone to the view Turkey was born in 1922, and we avoid using that term before then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and per comments from Johnpacklambert. Also, some of these are empty anyway. Kumioko (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't these be renamed to "Anatolia" ? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because European Turkey is not part of Anatolia. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those would be recategorized as part of the rename -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors from Palo Alto, California

  • Rename Category:Actors from Palo Alto, California to Category:Actors and actresses from Palo Alto, California
  • Nominator's rationale Though actor can be gender neutral, it is often used specifically for males. Currently we have Category:Actors from California which largely holds males, and Category:Actresses from California which holds females. Acting is divided by gender, not only in casting, but in awards. This is the conclusion that multiple previous CFDs have come to, so that we have Category:American male television actors and Category:American television actresses. Still, no matter how explicit Wikipedia is on this matter, the common usage still sometimes interprets actor=male, and we have seen that some people wanted to keep the actress categories but argued "male actor" was redundant. Thus some will always think actor is male specific, so to make it entirely clear that this is both for males and females we need to use the "actors and actresses" phrasing. Now to the issue of, why not just split by gender. Well, looking at the category, there are 16 entries, maybe 3 of which are females. It just does not seem worth splitting such a small category by gender at this time. So I think this rename is the best course for now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If we are going to have profession by place, I do not think (in contrast to most acting categories) we need a gender split. The fact that it includes actresses can be dealt with in a head note. Actors from a place will usually be a small category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do currently have say Category:Actors from Duluth, Minnesota and Category:Actresses from Duluth, Minnesota. With only 13 articles between the two categories but with 6 in actors and 7 in actresses (the actresses was not a sub-cat of that actors category until today). Whether we should have such categories is another issue, but we don. On the other hand, considering the size of Category:Actresses from New York City, it probably would not make sense to upmerge it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is in line with what I proposed in the CFD for Category:Actors from Pennsylvania. There is a debate as to whether that and other state categories are large enough to warrant gendered subcats, but surely when it comes to the smaller categories for cities there is no compelling reason to divide by gender (with perhaps exeptions for a tiny number of very large city cats). As I have said elsewhere, we should completely avoid using the stand-alone term "actors" in our category names because it is intrinsically ambiguous. Cgingold (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong oppose. The convention of Category:Actors and its hundreds of subcats is that "actors" is used in its gender-neutral sense. If there are gendered sub-categories those use "male actors" or "actresses".
    If the nominator or Chingold believe that the gender-neutral usage of "actor" is ambiguous in this context, then that applies to the whole of Category:Actors, not just to this one small subset of it. Either do a large group nomination of the high-level categories, or the leave them all alone ... but nowhere in any of the rationales above do I see any argument for making Palo Alto an exception to such a widely-used convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So is your solution to 1-split this category by gender, like almost all other city cats are done, 2-to leave it unsplit or 3-to upmerge it on the grounds it is too small to be split?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#PERF Nymf (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by gender and subcats

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: keep. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Rationalle: I fail to see how these categories are relevant to encyclopedia-building. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep: These categories are used for demographic information about "who edits Wikipedia" which is very important information when designing WikiProjects and other programs to encourage new editors. I wouldn't be opposed to Category:Androgynous Wikipedians being merged into Category:Unspecified gender Wikipedians, as it is probably redundant. Technical 13 (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Community building - forming social bonds between members, which can later be exploited to perform important work - relies on our ability to conceive of other volunteers as complete people with personal, differentiating characteristics. This nomination is emblematic of the increasing lack of understanding of community building as an essential ingredient in the long-term health of the community and the project, and is akin to an office enforcing a policy that employees never discuss their families. Dcoetzee 15:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dcoetzee. I would also state away from the community building aspect, these categories have a practical use, unlike, say Category:Wikipedians who wear striped socks. Articles can often benefit from both male and female input, now as most editors are only male or only female, there needs to be a mechanism to locate an editor of the opposite sex so you can gain their input. Nick (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meta categories (and maybe we should namespace them) are relevant to encyclopedia-building in exactly the same way as all other other meta material. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Useful for research purposes in understanding the community and on issues related to the gender gap. Useful for identifying possible contributors to outreach aimed at specific genders. Useful for establishing social bonds. --LauraHale (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, exactly per Technical 13. bd2412 T 20:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How useful are they for research purposes though when lots of people are not in them. For example, I am not in Category:Male Wikipedians, but this has not stopped people from attacking me as a sexist male who is supposedly making categorization decisions with the goal of marginalizing women.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please refer to these before nominating again. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_August_27 & Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_5#Category:Female_Wikipedians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Technical 13. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This was discussed fairly recently and the "keep" decision was supported by a sizable majority. Yes, technically it was only for one category, but no rationale is presented here that would distinguish the other nominated categories from that one. As for the substance, the previous CfD and this one explain it perfectly well and I have nothing to add. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:38, 29 August 2013 (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:Wonders of the World

Nominator's rationale: The head article Wonders of the World includes many such lists, which have been compiled from a wide variety of perspectives in may different eras. Some of those lists may themselves meriit standalone list-type articles, but inclusion on one or more of these many lists is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the topics.
It may be appropriate to group the lists themselves in a category, but any such category should be named "Lists of ..." (per the convention of Category:Lists) and exclude the topics in those lists. Most such lists are not in this category, so it would be better to delete and create any such list-category from scratch. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructure -- This cateogry will not do as it is. Appearance in it is a POV issue. As BHG points out, there are a lot of lists in Wonders of the World. In some cases, it may be appropriate to have a category for each such list (or at least some of them). This categopry could be a parent to those. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too many POV issues to be workable, especially as a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So it needs harmonizing with Wonders of the World. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge of articles about specific waterfalls etc (most/all of which have recently been added to this category) and add text explaining that this category is not for articles about specific things that have been described as "wonders". Rename if the remaining articles are just lists. DexDor (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / cleanup as needed A strong defining characteristic and effective aid to navigation across the articles in the category. Alansohn (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what reliable sources do we have that these are the "Wonders of the World". Akin to a category: Category:Awesome rock bands or Category:Teams of destiny or the like... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NPOV: the name of the category is blatantly non-neutral. And there's no counterpart Category:Areas occupied by India after the Sino-Indian War. Zanhe (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a well-defined category. The areas were within the borders of British India, but conquered by China in 1962. The Chinese POV is no doubt that they were recovering lands anciently theirs. I do not think that India captured anything from China in the 1962 war, so that the converse category would be empty. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's far from a well-defined category as who controlled what before the war is also a matter of debate. And the areas were not within the borders of British India, as there was no mutually agreed border in that remote area, which is the root of the dispute. Please educate yourself on the subject by reading a few neutral sources such as this analysis by the US Navy. Also, India did "occupy" Arunachal Pradesh after 1962. They first occupied the area in the 1950's, lost it to China during the war, but reoccupied it after China withdrew after the war. But I don't think any category should contain non-neutral words like "occupy". See my proposal above. -Zanhe (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The defining aspect of articles in this category is that the Chinese army took control of an area that it did not control or claim before the build up to the war, rather the area was under Indian control and claim. I term this change in control/claim as 'occupation'. Not many areas unambigously fulfil this criteria. It must be noted that China did not claim anything to the west of the MacDonald line until their new claim line in around 1959-60. Perhaps Category:Disputed areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War could be a better NPOV name for the category. For an article to be included in the counterpart Category:Areas occupied by India after the Sino-Indian War, the area should have been under Chinese control before the war and under Indian control after it. Arunachal Pradesh does not fulfil this criteria. Category:China-controlled places disputed by India and Category:India-controlled places disputed by China really need to have only one article each: Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh respectively :) The Discoverer (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Most of the places (if not all, I haven't checked all of them) you added to this category were controlled by China before the 1962 war. A quote from an Indian source you added to several articles: "The Chinese claim line however went further west and included the Chip Chap valley, Samzungling, Kongka La, Khurnak Fort and Jara La. More importantly, as far as the Great Game was concerned, the Chinese were in occupation of all this territory by the early 1950s." Yet you added Chip Chap River, Khurnak Fort, as well as places further east of them including Lanak La to this category you just created. You assert that China occupied the places after the war as if it were an established fact, when evidences indicate the exact opposite. -Zanhe (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, Zanhe. The text in the article on cpas.org is from Mohan Guruswamy's essay 2003 essay on Rediff. I consider this essay to be of poor factual quality. I'm sure you must have noticed a couple of other big errors in the text. I had cited the cpas.org link for the maps on that page; if I had wanted to link to the text, I would have linked to the original source, Rediff. Perhaps I should go back and cite the image file directly. We know that China could not have controlled these areas before the war, because these areas are to the west of the MacDonald line, which China did not claim until the build up to the war. Neither does the US Navy source say that these was already in Chinese control. Moreover, Chip Chap valley and Kongka La saw fighting during the war with an advancing Chinese army, which would not have been the case, had these areas already been in Chinese control. The Samzungling post was established after 1959, although India probably did not control it prior to that. There are many of sources which will say that Khurnak Fort and Lanak La were traditionally within Indian territory. Lanak La was occupied in the late 1950s, but there were regular Indian patrols there till then and the Indian flag flew there until 1956. I could go on in this vein, but we have unfortunately strayed from our discussion of the category, to discussion of the contents of the articles. The Discoverer (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that you're cherry-picking your sources. There is no reason to believe that the Indian scholar Mohan Guruswamy would make erroneous statements damaging to India's cause and still get published by multiple Indian sites including its leading portal Rediff. On the contrary, his statement is confirmed by Neville Maxwell's India's China War (p 13 and p 25). I've been unable to find any neutral, reliable source that states that the places currently listed under the category were not already controlled by China before the war. -Zanhe (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maxwell is saying that all these Chinese developments west of the MacDonald line took place in 1959 (or almost 1959), not in the early 1950s as Guruswamy said. That's exactly the point I'm making.The Discoverer (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maxwell says that by the time of the 1959 clash at Kongka Pass, China had already established a post there. It does not contradict Guruswamy's statement. And even 1959 was three years before the Sino-Indian War. -Zanhe (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Zanhe, I agree with you on this point about Kongka.The Discoverer (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No need to delete a category because it's not named well - that's what renaming is for! It looks like a potentially useful category; as for which articles should be included in it, I'd just use the ones mentioned in the relevant article(s) and save the "is this really true?" questions for the articles' talk pages. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent several hours checking every article included in the category, and not a single one is supported by reliable sources. Many articles are actually proven by supplied sources to have been controlled by China before the war. The category is now completely empty. -Zanhe (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not change the definition of the category while it is under discussion. Please do not change the definition of the category after the discussion is complete unless there is consensus for any change. Thanks,The Discoverer (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your definition of the category which includes sentences like "they are located to the west of the Macartney Macdonald line" and "they were traditionally considered to be Indian territory eg. the International Border was to the east of the Khurnak Fort before the Sino-Indian War" because they are completely your POV. All sources including the US Navy report and Neville Maxwell confirm that the Macartney-Macdonald Line is simply a British proposal, not an international or traditional border. Neither India or China recognizes the line. -Zanhe (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"they are located to the west of the Macartney Macdonald line" is an objective statement because the location of the line is not in dispute. This line holds weight, because the same sources and many more say that China never explicitly accepted the MacDonald line, but tacitly accepted it as the boundary until 1959-60 when there was a new claim line. If a reliable source say that a particular area was traditionally considered to be Indian, then it can definitely be used to strengthen a claim.The Discoverer (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Macartney-Macdonald Line is no doubt important, but show me a single source that supports your claim that it was the "International Border" before the war. That being said, I'll refrain from reverting your revert until the discussion is concluded. -Zanhe (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup.. my mistake, its wrong to call it the International Border.. but I guess it can be called the "traditional boundary" The Discoverer (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal: There seems to be some consensus that it is desirable to have a category that includes areas that were not entirely in Chinese control before the war, but have been under Chinese control since then; and so the category should not be deleted. Taking into account the objection to the word 'occupy' as being biased, I propose that the category be renamed to Category:Areas controlled by China since the Sino-Indian War. I have modified the description of the category, removing the incorrect term 'International Border' and specifying that China may have had some degree of control prior to the war, thus not implying a pure 'occupation'. I am also adding the articles that meet the definition back to the category.The Discoverer (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is there is no neutral source that says China occupied any place that it did not already control before the war. All you have is non-neutral Indian sources, which you kept citing as if they were undisputed facts. In fact, all neutral sources I've read say that China retreated to the prewar border after declaring ceasefire at the end of the war. Also, why do you keep adding articles like Lanak Pass‎ and Khurnak Fort‎ to the category that even Indian sources say were under Chinese control before the war? -Zanhe (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the second time, you have removed all articles from the category. The Indian sources may or may not be neutral; however, their statements cited are undisputed. Further, these same sources also criticise the Indian side. These two reasons lead us to believe that they are neutral, and what they have stated are facts. In addition, it seems that you are unwilling to accept the central idea of the category: The region between the traditional boundary and the new claim line of 1960 was by and large controlled by neither China and India upto the late 1950s, but both patrolled the region. Eventually, China set up posts in the region and finally after defeating India in the war, established full control over the region. The definition of the category says 'the years before the war'. It is clear that Lanak Pass and Khurnak Fort were not under full control until around the late 1950s. Hence, I request you not to dismiss the Indian sources while they are undisputed.The Discoverer (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wonders of the world

Nominator's rationale: That someone has included something (e.g. a waterfall) on their list of "Wonders of the World" is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that thing. For info: There is Category:Wonders of the World (with 2 capital "W"s) which is about (and includes) the lists. DexDor (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: After this nomination the category creator moved all the articles (about waterfalls etc) to the other category (which is now also at CFD). DexDor (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schools damaged by arson

Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize articles by what events affected the subject of the article during its lifetime. For example there is Category:Ships sunk by mines, but not "Category:Ships damaged by mines" - in fact the "damaged by arson" category is currently the only category in the whole of WP:En with the word "damaged" in its title (although some buildings and structures are categorized as "burned"). This category has some similarity with the "affected by hurricane " categories deleted by this CFD). Something (e.g. a school) may be affected by many things during its lifetime (e.g. receiving a large donation), but that doesn't make those things WP:DEFINING characteristics (i.e. we don't put an article about a school under Category:Donation, however much it affected the school). An arson attack may receive (usually short term) news coverage and the attack may even be sufficiently notable to have its own WP article (which should, of course, be categorized under arson), but if an arson attack is just one of many events that may happen in the school's life (royal visit, disease outbreak, earthquake, expansion, strike...) then it's not a defining characteristic. Note: This category currently does not meet the inclusion criteria of some/all of it's parent categories, so if it is kept some changes to the category structure will still be needed. Note: This category was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_13#Category:Schools_damaged_by_arson with a no consensus result. An example of an article in this category is St. Simon Stock Catholic School - the text "On Wednesday 22nd June 2011, an arson attack was committed at the school on the science, art and food technology rooms. Nobody was harmed in the incident, which took place before normal school hours." was added, this category was added, the text was removed (presumably as being uncited and not of lasting importance) leaving the article categorized under a topic that the article doesn't even mention (bizarrely, another arson category was also later added to the article). DexDor (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being non-defining. What is "damaged"? Getting a tiny bit of smoke damage is damage. I suspect all schools could have been the target of some prank that damaged something (a window, for example). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Lugnuts. Any attempt to set inclusion criteria which specified the level of damage required for inclusion would fail WP:OC#ARBITRARY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Arson (usually by pupils or ex-pupils) against a (their own) school is regretably too common to be defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Damaged is far too low a threshold to be defining. A minor amount of damage could occur and not be at all defining for the school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subjective per my comments in the previous discussion. This point is well made in the nomination. How significant, extensive and notable does the event have to be for inclusion? Also as mentioned here, how is this defining for anything but cases where the entire building is destroyed? And if that is the case, it is destroyed and not damaged. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Even Littlehampton Community School, which reports that it was devastated by arson, has no references or further content on the arson. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_28&oldid=571036919"