Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Instantnood (talk | contribs)
32,683 edits
Line 486: Line 486:
*'''Keep''' until consensus is reached in [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)]]. --[[User:Umofomia|Umofomia]] 06:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' until consensus is reached in [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)]]. --[[User:Umofomia|Umofomia]] 06:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. From the "discussions" which has taken place in [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)]], it seems like there is finally one point all have agreed on. That set of conventions will '''not''' dictate how all categories should be named when it comes to the Mainland China-PRC question. Which means that we are now judging each instance on a case-by-case basis, as what is happening now. Some of you might wish to relook at this issue for its own merit then.--[[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei]] 06:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. From the "discussions" which has taken place in [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)]], it seems like there is finally one point all have agreed on. That set of conventions will '''not''' dictate how all categories should be named when it comes to the Mainland China-PRC question. Which means that we are now judging each instance on a case-by-case basis, as what is happening now. Some of you might wish to relook at this issue for its own merit then.--[[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei]] 06:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
***Right. The set of conventions will not dictate all categories. How it should be applied will be determined on a case-by-case basis. — [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 06:55, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)


===Malformed stub category names===
===Malformed stub category names===

Revision as of 06:55, 29 March 2005

Shortcut

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

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.

How to use this page

  1. Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or being created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies here, 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:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
  3. Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
  4. Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
  5. Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. (If you are recommending that the category be renamed, you may also add a note giving the suggested new name.) 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.
    1. Alternately, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
    2. If you are concerned with a stub category, make sure to inform the WikiProject Stub sorting
  6. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
  7. Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
  8. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
  9. Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

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

Old discussions from this page have been archived to:

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

See also meta-discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion phrases regarding the content of the {{cfd}} template, and about advisory/non-advisory phrases to be used on this "Categories for deletion" page.

Request for comment

Discussions

March 28

Category:American administrative case law

Should be replaced by Category:United States administrative case law. Postdlf 01:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Schools in Maryland

Empty category, goes against naming convention of Category:High schools in Maryland, etc.--BaronLarf 22:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Category:RuneScape stubs

Emptied stub category, unlikely to be used again and overspecific. Now contains only the stub template, which is on TfD. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Type-D stars

White dwarf stars stars are class D stars. There is also Category:White dwarfs making this category obsolete. This category is has only a redirect.--Jyril 21:36, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as a matter of clean-up. Courtland 00:08, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

Category:Type-N stars

Category:Type-R stars

Stellar spectral types N and R have been combined to type C so these categories are redundant. They are also empty.--Jyril 21:36, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Type-W stars

Wolf-Rayet stars are class W stars. There is also Category:Wolf-Rayet stars making this category obsolete. This category is empty.--Jyril 21:36, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as an matter of clean-up. Courtland 23:57, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Category:Swiss history

We already have Category:History of Switzerland. Ideally, "Swiss history" would just be another name for "History of Switzerland", but since apparently category redirects don't work as expected, it's best to delete the recently-created "Swiss history" before it acquires a lot of articles. The much older "History of Switzerland" already has quite a few articles, plus a sub-category. Lupo 19:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree. -Kbdank71 19:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a matter of clean-up. Courtland 00:11, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

Category:High schools in Washington, DC

Duplicated by Category:High schools in the District of Columbia. Should all "Foo in Washington, DC" be changed to "Foo in the District of Columbia?" It falls in line more with the "Foo in State" method of categorization. --BaronLarf 16:58, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Sailboat types

Propose deleting this category because it misuses the English language. This is a related to the Category:Sailboat Names proposed for deletion on 26 March.
The reason is that sailboats, in normal usage, are the generally smaller vessels used in sports and personal use. Yet the introduction of this category (almost identical to that of "Sailboat Names") says (paragraphs run together) that "Category Sailboat types captures the the type name or class name of all types/classes of boat whose primary means of propulsion is by sails. e.g Dinghies, Warships, Merchant Ships, Racing Yachts, Skiffs, Windsurfers, Exploration Ships, Clippers etc etc. This Category does not capture the names of specific sailing yachts/boats/ships etc whos names are gathered in the Sailboat Names category." This is just plain wrong. Let each member of this category proposed for deletion be placed in Category:Sailing ships or Category:Sailboats or some other category which is appropriate. Each might have to be reviewed. Gene Nygaard 12:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Rather than deleting it, let's rename it to something that matches its purpose and includes both boats and ships. "Category:Types of sailing vessel", perhaps? Bryan 23:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Foreign banks in Hong Kong

This category appears to be created to display all foreign banks with operations in Hong Kong. Not exactly an issue with that, but imagine what happens when other cities, territories, and countries follow suit. Are we going to have our pages on banks filled up with a gigantic list of categories listing all the geographic entities they operate in, considering many of our banks worth to be mentioned here are usually major TNCs? Rather unneccesary, in my opinion, considering that detailed listings on areas of operation can be in the text, and listings detailing the banks which operate in territories such as in List of banks in Hong Kong can be created too.--Huaiwei 05:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose. This is a category for licensed banks not incorporated in Hong Kong, or subsidiaries of foreign-owned banks in Hong Kong. — Instantnood 14:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please consider nominating Category:Foreign banks in Canada as well. — Instantnood 10:17, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree, it's not necessary. This is similar to "Banks not in Hong Kong". -Kbdank71 14:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Codename: Kids Next Door stubs

Contains two articles. Not being actively populated. Not used by WP:Stub sorting (proposal there is delete). Unneccessary subcategory, and a dangerous precedent - do we really want stub categories for every TV series with more than one stub? Grutness|hello? 04:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Beta Theta Pi

The only article is Beta Theta Pi, and the information on the page is already in the main article. --BaronLarf 02:56, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, I don't think adding the category to every member article would be very useful. ··gracefool |☺ 08:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Kbdank71 14:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Movie and music websites

Category:Entertainment websites would be a better idea; grouping movie and music websites together is just arbitrary. —tregoweth 20:05, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. There are already separate categories that are children of the Category:Entertainment websites. On the other hand, if the creator was actually thinking "Movie music", that's a whole different kettle (drum) of fish. Courtland 03:05, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant. -Kbdank71 14:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 27

Category:Air defense systems

An empty category that seems to have lived for only ten days a few months ago. --ZeroOne 19:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. -Kbdank71 14:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Territory of Korea

There is no such country as "Korea". Feigenbaum 03:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Investing

This is a sub-cat below Category:Finance, but Investing is too broad a term to be of use here. The articles and sub-sub-cats under Investing can be better classified. Having a sub-cat of Investing is akin to having a sub-cat of Money here... it's not useful. Feco 08:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 26

Category:Something by country

Some categories have subcategories as "category:Something by country" or "category:Xers by nationality", while some do not. Should it be standardised that all category:Something of Foo or category:Xers of Foo/category:Fooish xers be categorised under "category:Something by country" or "category:Xers by nationality"? Or should all "category:Something by country" or "category:Xers by nationality" be deleted? — Instantnood 17:50, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Examples:
category:Islands vs. category:Peninsulas/category:Peninsulas by nation,
category:Rivers vs. category:Lakes/category:Lakes by country, and
category:Trade unionists vs. category:Economists by nationality/category:Economists — Instantnood 19:03, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • No to both. Gene Nygaard 20:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: If you think they shouldn't be deleted, then should they be created for all categories of the same sort? (e.g. category:Islands by country created as a subcategory of category:Islands) — Instantnood 21:00, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Those the the two things you proposed. Those are the two things I say no to. Different factors are involved in different categories, including number of elements. Lakes are usually in one country or shared by a couple; rivers are often in several countries. You are also being dishonest about Category:Trade unionists which has had subcategories by country created on an as-needed basis; there is no reason just to make them for all countries. Gene Nygaard 22:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Why can't "category:Fooian trade unionists" be arranged under "category:Trade unionists by nationality"? — Instantnood 13:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
          • Whether it can or not is totally irrevant to both points you were making here. Gene Nygaard 16:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No to both. We should and do have some standards for naming of categories, but categories should not be made just because other categories like them exist; let the weight of content and need drive category formation and not adminstrative rules. This particular discussion has shown up in multiple forms and I personally don't think a blanket one-rule-for-all is the way to go. Courtland 21:19, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
    • Comment: Agree. But some sort of guidelines seem necessary. The situation has now ended up with category:Islands vs category:Peninsulas/category:Peninsulas by nation, and category:Rivers vs. category:Lakes/category:Lakes by country, which is clearly confusing. — Instantnood 21:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • You are using the "Categories for deletion" resource as a forum for hashing out guidelines, then, rather than as a place to propose and discuss deletions of categories? Courtland 22:48, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
        • Umm. If the decision is not to delete these categories, we should proceed to elsewhere to discuss on whether they should be created for cases alike. — Instantnood 13:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
          • agreed; suggestions? Courtland 17:45, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
            • First thing to agree on is the suggestion "we should proceed to elsewhere". Abandon this discussion which is going nowhere and send it to the archives. Gene Nygaard 17:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • no to both, I agree with everything Courtland said. Thryduulf 00:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose No such sweeping change required. Sensitivity to context it more important. Wincoote 01:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • no to both, I agree with everything Thryduulf said. -Kbdank71 14:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Sub Pop

Only one article seems to belong here (grunge speak), and even that's iffy. The rest are musicians added just for having been on Sub Pop, despite many of them also having been on other labels. The subcategory is fine, but doesn't need the parent category. -- LGagnon 07:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • So what? That's a silly argument. Jon Brion isn't exclusive to record producing... Articles don't have to fit into categories exclusively to qualify to be categorised. I think a category that links all articles related to Sub Pop, all people involved in the label, is a good idea. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm with Blankfaze on this. Articles only have to be related to the category to belong; we don't need to be stingy with categories - they don't cost money to have. - Mark 07:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The bands in Sub Pop are there by chance, not because of some unique quality they all share. This fails one of Wikipedia's tests for cats: "If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there?" Extra cats add work for us to maintain, and cheapen the value of all cats. When we have more categories that articles, all of them will be useless. --A D Monroe III 13:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Sub Pop was an extremely notable label and as such this deserves to remain. It shows the potential relations between bands such as Nirvana and The Postal Service who would potentially have no other obvious relationship.  ALKIVAR™ 17:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sub Pop is fine as an article, and can be linked to. The "no other obvious relationship" comment says it shouldn't be a category. --A D Monroe III 15:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with LGagnon. The inclusion of the bands would only be appropriate under Category:Sub Pop recording artists. Maybe it's a good idea to categorize musicians by their label, but if so it needs to be done explicitly. Without that qualifier, the articles do appear to be mere subtopics of Sub Pop. Categories may be "cheap", but they express relationships. Postdlf 04:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the record, this vote currently stands at 3 votes delete (LGagnon, A.D. Monroe, Postdlf), 3 votes keep (Blankfaze, Mark, Alkivar). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Leeds Railways

Apart from this article being misnamed - it is not about "Leeds Railways" but about the rail services operated by the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority (Metro) - I have now written an article Metro (West Yorkshire) to replace it. There is in any case another category Category:Transport in Leeds which mimics this one. Peter Shearan 06:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Sailboat Racers

Improper capitalization, rename to Category:Sailboat racers. Bryan 05:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Sailboat Names

The name of this category is incorrect, since the articles contained within are about the sailboats in general rather than specifically focused on their names. IMO the articles in this category should go to Category:Sailboats and the category should be deleted (admission: I already moved the subcategories from here to Sailboats, hope that isn't a major transgression of the process :) Bryan 05:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't Category:Sailing boats be better? I for one have never heard the term "sailboat", jguk 07:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You ought to get out more. Gene Nygaard 19:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and move to Category:Sailboats. Gene Nygaard 19:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The relationship to Category:Sailing ships needs to be looked into as well. It seems upside down to me. "Sailboats" should be a subcategory of "sailing ships", not the other way around. Gene Nygaard 19:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I only suggested "sailboats" because that category already existed, I'm no expert on nautical terms. Whatever proposals the more-knowledgeable come up with for where to put these articles is fine by me, as long as the category doesn't have "names" in the title. :) Bryan 18:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but do not merge into Sailboats without reviewing entries. Somebody got the bright idea that "sailboat" would be a good word for a supercategory including sailing ships and whatnot else, wheher commercial or navy or whatever, see the introductory material in Category:Sailboat Names. However, the term "sailboat" is generally applied to relatively small vessels used in sport and personal use, see List of sailboat types to get an idea. Gene Nygaard 08:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The "somebody" you're referring to is probably me, I don't know a lot about nautical terms and based my assumptions off of what was already in the category structure. Rather than removing the category from the "sailing" heirarchy entirely, I think a better approach would be to pick or create a better supercategory for these things. How about Category:Sailing vessels? Bryan 22:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Basic financial mathematics

Created a long time ago... empty. The parent category (cat:Financial mathematics) lends itself to a different sub-categorization scheme than basic-vs-advanced. Will work on sub-cat scheme of equity-option-fixed-currency. Feco 00:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Financier

This category only holds one member and is redundant with Category:Bankers. Feco 00:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 25

Category:Tollways

We have Category:toll roads; I moved the three articles in tollways into there (two of which were already there). --SPUI (talk) 04:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Triumph automobiles

Redundant with correct Category:Triumph vehicles. SFoskett 19:05, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mortal Combat

Already transposed to the correct title series, Category:Mortal Kombat. User:Marcus2:Marcus2 15:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete since it is now empty and its name was a misspelling. Zzyzx11 17:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I change my vote to just a normal delete just in case someone thinks the topic of mortal combat might be a category to keep. Zzyzx11 05:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • It would be miscapitalized then. 132.205.15.43 14:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hiv

Should be at Category:HIV. RickK 07:18, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Category:HIV/AIDS, actually. -- Beland 02:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:National parks

Should be merged with subcategories of Category:National parks by country (moving in from Category:Protected areas by country after a previous WP:CFD vote was clarified - I originally misinterpreted the decision). -- Beland 02:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree. There aren't any NPs that aren't in a country are there?--ZayZayEM 04:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the word national gives us a clue there... :) agree. Grutness|hello? 10:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I beleive there are at least three that are in more than one country, but I don't suppose that matters. Wincoote 13:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If you follow the reasoning of all these pro/anti China categories then China has no national parks. (Course, I think that's ridiculous, just sayin') SchmuckyTheCat 20:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • (response to Grutness) There's a matter of name. In the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and some other parts of the world, the term "country park" is used instead. — Instantnood 05:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't understand the proposal. What gets lost in the merger? What name/names are kept? I think that Category:National parks with the country categories under it and eliminating Category:National parks by country would be good. Multinational ones would also logically fit into each relevant subcategory (in unusual cases could be in the supercategory if necessary). It seems pretty redundant to include both "national" and "by country". Maybe not strictly so, but people going to "national parks" won't be surprised to see it subdivided by country, and should actually expect it since this isn't the type of thing that each country normally has only one of. Gene Nygaard 18:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Sounds logical, and to me, "natural reserves" or "protected areas" sound more all-encompassing. There is at least one airport serving three States on the border, and the airport itself is on the soil of two States (Switzerland and France). It is categorised in three [[category:Airports of Foo]] categories. — Instantnood 05:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Childless orphans, 9 March 2005

The following had no article or subcategories as of 9 March 2005. Some of them have obvious replacements which were auto-detected; others may as well, but I haven't bothered looking for them, since empty categories are generally just deleted unless someone says something. -- Beland 02:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedians with wikistress level 1-4 are categorized to Category:Wikistress, under the subset of the Category:Wikipedia culture. --Shinjiman 03:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Elections in Bosnia Herzegovina

This category appears to have been superceded by Category:Elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it's empty. I would have just gone ahead and deleted it as a trivial matter, but it's got block-compressed revisions so I couldn't. Bryan 00:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So marked. --ssd 17:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Neat, I didn't know there was a template specifically for that purpose. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. :) Bryan 04:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't either except for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Also note, it helps to put a comment on the page so that when it is deleted, the real reason ends up in the log (like, moved to whatever...) --ssd 06:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Coup d'états → Category:Coups d'état

Wasn't thinking about the French meaning of the words when I created this category... - BanyanTree 00:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

rename to correct french (and English) spelling. Grutness|hello? 23:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
COMMENT shouldn't this be Category:Coups des états or Category:Coups d'états? 132.205.15.43 14:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wondered about that... it may be one of those weird plurals like fish and fishes - if the coups are all in one state they're coups d'état, if they're coups in more than one state they're coups des états. I don't know. Anyone? Grutness|hello?
  • Rename to Category:Coups d'etat; this is a word which has been assimilated into English without the diacritical marks. Webster's Third New International lists the plural as "coups d'etat also coup d'etats" so keeping it as is is better than using the French spelling, which would be proper in the French Wikipedia. Gene Nygaard 15:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Type II U-boat

Category:Type IX U-boat

Propose merge Category:Type II U-boat redundant category with Category:Type II U-boats and delete the former.
Propose rename Category:Type IX U-boat (and article Type IX U-boat) to Category:Type IX U-boats. This will make them parallel to Category:Type VII U-boats, Category:Type XIV U-boats, and Category:Type XXI U-boats. Gene Nygaard 15:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 24

Category:Murdered philosophers

Ridiculous category. Intersection of two unrelated things. One might as well have a category "Serb vegetarians". -- Jmabel | Talk 21:09, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I see it already has a questionable entry - Socrates, who is generally considered to have committed suicide in order to fulfill a state-imposed death sentence. -Willmcw 22:22, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.
  • Delete MadreBurro 17:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or, how about we create "Murdered Serb vegetarian philosophers"? Postdlf 04:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There existed very few professional philosophers. You know, some people were murdered and everyone of us is a philosopher once in a while. I suggest that we create "Murdered part-time philosophers" and list Leon Trotsky, Che Guevara and maybe Francis Bacon who was murdered by a frozen chicken (a TV dinner experiment gone astray) under it. Maybe we need another category: "Philosophers murdered when they were not doing philosophy". -- Toytoy 00:22, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Rivers of Hong Kong

This category only contains two actual rivers, of which the Sham Chun River forms the boundary between Hong Kong and Guangdong. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 19:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. There are not only two rivers in Hong Kong, and more articles are yet to be created. Besides Sham Chun River and Shing Mun River, Tsak Yue Chung is a river flows into Quarry Bay (the Quarry Bay article talks about the place, the river and the bay). The name of the river gives the place the Chinese name, and the Bay gives the English name. This website has a partial list of the rivers in Hong Kong. — Instantnood 21:55, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it only if you Chinese fanatics agree to populate all Rivers of Some Province of China and not get into spitting wars. Throw it away if it is just another place to argue about who is or isn't part of China. MadreBurro 18:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Hong Kong is not just a province, unlike Hawaii or Alaska to the other 48 states of the US. — Instantnood 05:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • comment. States are not provinces. They are states. Provinces are provinces. Grutness|hello? 23:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • COMMENT States are provinces and provinces are states. Each country calls their political subdivisions whatever, and have whatever powers they are given, where some are more or less powerful than others. Hence Prefectures in Japan, Departements in France, the Cantons of Switzerland, the Republics of Russia, national cities of China, Federal District of Columbia (Washington DC) ... (Note that Australians also refer to the Northern Territory as a state, even though it isn't) 132.205.15.43 14:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:British rivers

Rename to Category:Rivers in Great Britain to match the subcats (Rivers in Foo). -Kbdank71 14:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • support
    • Sorry, the above is me forgetting to sign. Thryduulf 23:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support moving to category:Rivers of the United Kingdom. — Instantnood 21:57, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - BanyanTree 00:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm must be a blue moon - I agree with Instantnood! :) But with two provisos: 1) Consensus for most natural geographic forms is "X of Foo", but rivers are being treated differently because, by their very nature, they tend to go over national boundaries; 2) "Rivers of the United Kingdom" would, by definition, include rivers in Northern Ireland, which "Rivers of Great Britain" would not. The category name should reflect the intention of whether or not to include these rivers. Grutness|hello? 01:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think all river categories should be Rivers of Foo. This should also be United Kingdom, not Great Britain. (So, Rivers in/of the United Kingdom.)-- Beland 02:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it should be Great Britain not United Kingdom, becuase for most (all?) geographic and flora/fauna purposes, including rivers, the island of Ireland is treated as a whole, separate from the Great Britain articles. Thryduulf 15:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to United Kingdom AND create a Rivers of Great Britian if there are enough rivers solely in one part of it. A river that crosses national boundaries can obviously be in multiple categories. MadreBurro 18:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Should be "Great Britain" because no rivers flow in both "Great Britain" and "Ireland". Gene Nygaard 18:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Should be Rivers of the United Kingdom because it is a state entity with main category at category:United Kingdom. The whole island of Ireland is not independent, and the Republic of Ireland should not be allowed to appropriate the rivers of the six counties of Northern Ireland any more than Portuguese rivers should be included in Spanish rivers. Individual rivers can be included in two national menus where necessary in this case, just as in any other. Wincoote 01:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT should be however: 132.205.15.43 14:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Rivers of the Republic of Ireland
      • Rivers of Northern Ireland
      • Rivers of Wales
      • Rivers of Scotland
      • Rivers of England
    • Rivers of the United Kingdom
      • Rivers of Northern Ireland
      • Rivers of Wales
      • Rivers of Scotland
      • Rivers of England
    • Rivers of Great Britain
      • Rivers of Wales
      • Rivers of Scotland
      • Rivers of England
    • Rivers of Ireland
      • Rivers of the Republic of Ireland
      • Rivers of Northern Ireland
    • Comment: Agree with 132.205.15.43. — Instantnood 15:29, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • comment: The above summarises much more effectively what I was thinking of further up this debate. If you wanted to you could even add categories for the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and make all of them subcategories of Rivers of the British Isles! Grutness|hello? 00:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support change to 132.205.15.43's suggested section. James F. (talk) 01:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Safien

Created by User:68.79.21.71. Pointless, only contains three substubs. Delete.- Mike Rosoft 12:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Noisy | Talk 14:47, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 19:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Isn't this patent nonsense? MadreBurro 18:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This user probably means well, but has been causing problems in other areas, too, by creating meaningless stub categories. Grutness|hello? 23:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Loan

Improper non-plural form. --Hooperbloob 04:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • If this category were a list of loans, I would agree that it should be called Loans. However, the contents appear to be about credit topics, so I say rename to Category:Credit. --Azkar 18:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename I'm not looking at the whole issue. Azkar's suggestion is even better if that isn't already a category. MadreBurro 18:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 23

Category:Cities_in_mainland_China

No articles in it. Never will be, as they either belong in Cities of China or Cities of the People's Republic of China.
Delete! SchmuckyTheCat 00:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Redundant to Category:Cities in China.Zzyzx11 07:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's a standard set of definitions of city (i.e. prefecture-level city and county-level city) in the mainland China, but not elsewhere within the PRC. Hong Kong and Macao, nor the places within the them, do not fit into same set of definitions. — Instantnood 07:48, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. — Instantnood 07:48, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. As argued before...a city in Mainland China is also a city in the People's Republic of China. We should be creating the later and not the former, as it has little usage, and neither should it be in the Category:Cities by country category.--Huaiwei 08:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Important information: Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): "Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, but are under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting Mainland China." ". Obviously "mainland China" is the appropriate term to describe the situation which Hong Kong and Macao (and the territories under the ROC) are excluded. — Instantnood 09:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Here we go again... I'm sticking clear of this one. Have fun... Grutness|hello?
      • Thanks. Many are not following, or might be ignoring it. — Instantnood 22:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Important information: That "convention" is constantly under review, and even as we speak, the idea of using "Mainland China" over that of the "PRC" is still under despute. Each category can be discussed based on their own merit, as is the case here.--Huaiwei 11:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Important information: in any case, that "convention" is irrelevant because it doesn't say that there is a requirement to distinguish mainland China, only that it can be distinguished. Gene Nygaard 14:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Not-so-important information: Hawaii and Alaska are not considered to be a part of the Continental United States, and yet we tend not to make such a distinction when creating US categories. -Kbdank71 17:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Hong Kong and Macao are special administrative regions of the PRC, while Hawaii and Alaska are states of the US. — Instantnood 21:59, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
            • Po-TAY-to, Po-TAH-to. Federal government, state government. -Kbdank71 22:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Is there any state in the US which the departments of agriculture, labor, the treasury, etc. of the federal government have no jurisdiction to? — Instantnood 22:40, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's disruptive of current cats. --A D Monroe III 12:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Kbdank71 14:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Gene Nygaard 15:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The dispute surrounding China vs mainland China is unresolved. See discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). -- Felix Wan 22:32, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
    • Comment. As mentioned, it is clear that concensus has not been reached. And even if that were to occur in its present state, the conventions did not explicitely indicate that the term "Mainland China" should replace the "People's Republic of China" in all circumstance to the extent that they cannot be put up for deletion or renaming here.--Huaiwei 22:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Nobody in the discussions ever said "in all circumstances". — Instantnood 23:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • So it it dosent mention that, why should we not debate over these on a case by case basis?--Huaiwei 12:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- ran (talk) 23:20, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's especially annoying that so many people presume that the special situation in this case can be written off as negligible and we can just use PRC vs China categories instead, since most of these people have no understanding or only a partial understanding of the situation... --Node 05:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I dont think you can assume that all those who voted "delete" are inherently ignorant. In actual fact, this is not a debate over PRC vs China, but the use of term Mainland China over the PRC. In fact, a XXX of the PRC categoey can go under XXX of China...there is nothing factually wrong with that.--Huaiwei 12:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP due to the fact that this is a non-political instance and, if any, the cat should be about "mainland China", not "China". Penwhale 05:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and populate. Use non-political terms for non-political topics. This can be a subcategory of cities of china. --Jiang 08:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I have heard of this "non-political" argument before, but I must point out it is highly contestable. There is a difference between the subject matter being political or not, and that of the way the subject matter is being presented. When, in this case, cities are being categorised by countries, which is obviously a political construct, can we claim that no politicis is involved? As an anlogy I have talked about before. If we consider "Music" as non political, do we condone the creation of, say, "Music in Tibet", and list it in a master category called "Music by country" seperately from "Music in China" or "Music in the PRC"? Yes...music is supposedly non political. But categorising it in a political framework IS making a political statement!--Huaiwei 12:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and populate them. --Shinjiman 06:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A consensus is still pending. People have opinion on this voting should participate the process forming consensus in the Naming convention.--Mababa 08:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep until consensus is reached in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). --Umofomia 06:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hong_Kong_sociologists

Another useless category with only one scientist in it. This scientist is double-listed in the parent category already. There aren't enough notable socioligists in HK to populate this. Additionally, none of the other sociologists are categorized by nationality, so this sub-cat sits alone, unless someone wants to take on the project of sub-dividing all the other sociologists. There are only 61 of them, so the sub-division doesn't gain Wikipedia anything. Delete! SchmuckyTheCat 19:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. -Kbdank71 20:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • So how else do sociologist articles get categorized by their country of origin? In the base level of the "[Country X] people" category? How would someone navigate from a "[Country X] by occupation" to find a sociologist from that country without this? Postdlf 02:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • that'd be great if the rest of the sociologists were categorized by country. when this came up with botanists everyone said it was worthless until somone took the time and effort to categorize every botanist. volunteering? SchmuckyTheCat 15:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • then start writing, and try to do more than three sentences and a stub link. SchmuckyTheCat 15:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • It takes time. There are two articles currently. — Instantnood 22:16, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A small step in the right direction. All biographical articles should be classified by country and occupation. Wincoote 00:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • A category containing nothing but one (or sometimes two) stub article(s) has no use. Delete both this and the rest of subcategories in Category:Hong Kong people by profession. - Mike Rosoft 01:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is a work in progress. Deleting the efforts of people who are pushing it in the right direction is not helpful. Wincoote 01:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and be populated. --Shinjiman 06:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:English rivers

Empty category: all rivers in England are in county categories, e.g. Category:Rivers in Cumbria.Markussep 12:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 22

Category:White History

Besides being a nonsense category designed to prove a point, the editor is incorrectly editing the articles into the category page, instead of listing the category on the individual pages. RickK 06:21, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

deleteSchmuckyTheCat 16:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete' Nonsense! MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
comment not nonsense from a white-minority perspective (though I live in a white-majority environment). Courtland 14:42, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Category:Companies of mainland China

This category was created by User:Instantnood, and it simply does not make sense, considering there is also Category:Companies of the People's Republic of China. Is it neccesary to split up the category into those who have a global presence and those without?--Huaiwei 03:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macao are different economies and trade entities. — Instantnood 08:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there is already a Category:Companies of the People's Republic of China, then this isn't needed. -Kbdank71 14:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE! SchmuckyTheCat 14:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Superfluous! MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Just realise I didnt even make a vote myself. :D To reiterate: Classifying companies of the PRC under that name does not contravene the one country two systems fomular, nor does it discount the existing of differences in corporate governance between the PRC and her two SARs. The above concerns should be easily (and already) settled by setting up sub-classifications of Category:Companies of Hong Kong etc. What other forms of differentiation is needed? In addition, the creation of XXX of Mainland China often entails the co-existance of XXX of the PRC simply because the former is not a country, and using it together with other classifications by country is making the suggestion that Mainland China is a country. Do we need to have every subject matter having a category of XXX of PRC, and the three subcategories of XXX of Mainland China, XXX of HK, XXX of Macau, when we can just group the PRC entries in the XXX of PRC category itself?--Huaiwei 18:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's disruptive of current cats. --A D Monroe III 02:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: IMPORTANT INFORMATION: There was a precedant on moving category:Insurance companies of the People's Republic of China → category:Insurance companies of mainland China here. The archive can be viewed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Insurance companies of the People's Republic of China. I believe precedant should be respected and followed.
    Furthermore, I would like to urge everybody who's cast a vote, or will cast a vote, to read the mainland China article, and the articles related to the statuses of Hong Kong and Macao, and the arrangements of the special administrative regions and One country, two systems. If you are not well-informed with the situation, although your comment will still be respected, I don't think it's responsible to vote. Please be also noted that there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#..of China or of the PRC → ..of mainland China. — Instantnood 07:39, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Articles or sections let you more familiar with the issue: One Country, Two Systems, History of Hong Kong, History of Macau, Sino-British Joint Declaration, Basic Law of Hong Kong, Politics of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement, Hong Kong dollar, Pataca, Hong Kong International Airport#Customs and Immigration, Economy of Hong Kong, Court of Final Appeal, Mainland China, Talk:Mainland China, Category talk:Cities in China, Category talk:Airports of the People's Republic of China, Category talk:Cities in China, Legal system of Hong Kong, Legal system of Macau — Instantnood 07:39, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: With regards to category:Insurance companies of mainland China, it seems apparant in the discussion and voting, that arguments are split down the middle. I am actually quite curious as to why the motion was passed when the results was not clearly in favour of either position? Any explainations from User:Kbdank71?--Huaiwei 08:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • It was moved to #To be emptied or moved, and the result was 4 to 2. — Instantnood 09:11, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • The vote was not 4 to 2. Do your maths.--Huaiwei 11:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Mind your language. At the time when it was moved to #To be emptied or moved, Kbdank71 hasn't cast his vote. Click here to see more. — Instantnood 16:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Response: All I did was archive the discussion from Cfd when I found out the redirect had been put in by User:Instantnood on March 6. At the time it was a 4-2 vote, although mine and User:SchmuckyTheCat's would have made it 4-4. Schmucky's vote was removed from the archive by Instantnood. But regardless of what happened, there is nothing that says we have to follow that precedent, especially when most people here seem to want this change. Perhaps we can put the Insurance Company category up for another vote? -Kbdank71 17:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • He deleted my comment?!? SchmuckyTheCat 22:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Kbdank71's vote was cast when it has already been moved to #To be emptied or moved, and SchmuckyTheCat's vote was cast after the section was archived.
        • Mind my language? I told you to count again. I counted it as 3-4. And so you deleted someone's vote as well. Beautiful. Try adding mine, and you get 5-4 against your favour. Indeed I see something fishy going on in that vote, and I demand a revote!--Huaiwei 22:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Read this. — Instantnood 22:43, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
            • What for? Isnt it simply an even more outdated vote compared to the other one? How long did you guys wait before carrying out the renaming exercise? And who did the actual renaming?--Huaiwei 23:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Read the section #To be empited or moved of the link above. — Instantnood 23:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Important information: Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): "Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, but are under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting Mainland China." ". Obviously "mainland China" is the appropriate term to describe the situation which Hong Kong and Macao (and the territories under the ROC) are excluded. — Instantnood 09:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • It may be an appiopriate term when refering to the geographical entity of the PRC, and we need to exclude mention on the two SARS. The issue, thou, is that when seen from the PRC's perspective, you are denying them the right to use the name of their own country when refering to the fact that their cities, companies, or any other entity are located in their country. As I asked above, how does a classification of PRC companies in the PRC category, and that of HK companies in HK categories be anything inferior to having to classify them under "Mainland China", and then have the "Mainland China" category classified under that of the "PRC"? Is it factually inaccurate? No. Is it making a political statement? No. Redundancy? Yes. Its getting plain obvious. Perhaps you are freaking over the idea of having Hong Kong classified under the PRC thats why?--Huaiwei 11:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • It is factually inaccurate. A company of mainland China is only considered a domestic company within mainland China, but not in the rest of the PRC. A city in mainland China is based on a definition which is only applicable and applied within mainland China, but not elsewhere in the PRC. Their use of the name is not denied, as the mainland category is a subcategory under the PRC category. By voting them to deletion you're in fact denying the use of "mainland China", or putting forward an agenda. — Instantnood 16:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • You are putting every single province of the PRC into one category, and putting HK and Macau into their own seperate categories. That is extremely POV. You did this after lots of edits removed HK and Macau from categories EQUAL to the entire country. You are a POV pushing HK patriot attempting to denigrate the entire nation in order for HK to stand out. HK is special and should standout, but you cannot pigeonhole the ENTIRE nation into a subcategory because of that specialness. Put explanatory text into the article if you think a national law/article/category/whatever doesn't apply to HK. The country is called "The People's Republic of China" and HK is part of that country, whether you like it or not.
        • As to companies, which this vote is about, the lines between what is a mainland company and which is an HK or Macau company are blurring fast! The distinction of where they started or where they are based is quickly becoming irrelevant except to the taxman. SchmuckyTheCat 21:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I deny the existance of a country called "Mainland China", and hence, I object your insistance on using the term to refer to the country of the People's Republic of China. Is my agenda not obvious enough?--Huaiwei 22:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I have never said "mainland China" is a country, and I am not using "mainland China" in the place of the "People's Republic of China". — Instantnood 23:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have to say you're not familiar with the situation, and what you've said is not true. Hong Kong and Macao are separate economies and trade entities, but not the other provinces and autonomous regions. The rest of the PRC is one economy and trade entity. Almost all laws (except a handful which deal with national flag, emblem, anthem) of the PRC are not applicable, valid and applied in Hong Kong and Macao. The line between mainland companies and Hong Kong/Macao companies isn't blurring. CEPA is just like any other free trade aggreements between two economies/trade entities. — Instantnood 22:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • It seems like the same argument put forth by User:Instantnood in every discussion regarding Mainland China, and again, I ask. How does the use of the PRC category over the Mainland Chinese one undermine the whole issue of differing economic/social, and to some extent, political systems of the central government in Beijing, and that of the local SAR government in HK? You keen insisting they are different, but notice this argument only works to enforce the creation of XXX of HK categories? How do they apply to the XXX of PRC vs XXX of Mainland China categories?--Huaiwei 22:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The PRC is three economies, three trade entities, and three seperate customs territories. — Instantnood 22:43, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Nice way of putting it. You are seemingly assuming these three entities are of equal level?--Huaiwei 23:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Hong Kong and the PRC are separate members at the WTO, and the PRC delegation only represents the mainland's interests. — Instantnood 23:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The dispute surrounding China vs mainland China is unresolved. See discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). -- Felix Wan 22:36, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
    • Comment. Resolved? Far from it. In addition, I wonder how many people noticed the convention did not imply that the term "Mainland China" should be used to replace "People's Republic of China" in every circumstance?--Huaiwei 22:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Nobody in the discussions ever said "in every circumstance". — Instantnood 23:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau are three separate economies. -- ran (talk) 23:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This one is not as iffy as one of the others, while not as clear cut. I'd say that if you have a Cat for Co. in HK or Macau (I'm not really sure if such cats. exist) then Mainland China would be more appropriate due to the exclusion of overlapping.
  • Keep Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau are separate economies. Keep the categories separate. --Jiang 08:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Classifying PRC companies under the PRC category does NOT contravene the fact that different economic systems exists in HK and Macau. Calling a company a Mainland Chinese company or a PRC company does little to have any impact on that. Insisting that they should remain seperate simply based on the above argument is looking at things from the SARs' POV. When seen from the other side, it would be highly ridiculous why PRC companies cannot be called so just because of different economic systems within their own country.--Huaiwei 12:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. since the Naming Convertions are still disputing, These categories should be retained until the Naming Convertions are resolved. --Shinjiman 06:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep RefShinjiman's comment. People have opinion on this voting should participate the process forming consensus in the Naming convention.--Mababa 08:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep until consensus is reached in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). --Umofomia 06:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. From the "discussions" which has taken place in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), it seems like there is finally one point all have agreed on. That set of conventions will not dictate how all categories should be named when it comes to the Mainland China-PRC question. Which means that we are now judging each instance on a case-by-case basis, as what is happening now. Some of you might wish to relook at this issue for its own merit then.--Huaiwei 06:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Right. The set of conventions will not dictate all categories. How it should be applied will be determined on a case-by-case basis. — Instantnood 06:55, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Malformed stub category names

Incorrect (or non-) pluralisation

The following stub category names seem inconsistent with the vast majority Grutness|hello? 02:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support renaming of all 4. -- Lochaber 09:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree: first move would presumably be to fix the appropriate stub templates? --Phil | Talk 10:27, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • yup - template, then category name, then do null saves on everything currently in the category (templates work oddly for that). The when they're empty delete the original categories. Grutness|hello?
  • Support rename. James F. (talk) 11:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support! go do it! MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, name them like all the other stub cats. -- Mgm|(talk) 12:32, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Guettarda 00:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support all four but I do question the need to do this at this time. Courtland 14:52, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Category: Math stubs → category:Mathematics stubs

Category: Math stubs also seems wrong, for two reasons. Firstly, "Math" is a very Americocentric abbreviation (the rest of the English speaking world uses "Maths", as there is no such thing as a mathematic). Secon, it should have the full name (Category: Mathematics stubs) anyway. Grutness|hello? 02:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

category:Industrialists and subcats

This category and its two subcats, category:American industrialists and category:Italian industrialists contain ten articles (not counting nine in sub-subcat category:U.S. oil industrialists which is also categorised elsewhere and should probably stay). category:businesspeople and it's subcats have at least five hundred and probably over a thousand. There are a number of useful specific categories for types of businesspeople, but I don't think "industrialists" is one of them. It is a really vague and somewhat old fashioned term, and it seems to me that it is simply a duplication of "businesspeople" which has gone largely unnoticed (I put the subcats in "businesspeople" so the articles won't be overlooked), and that the three categories specified should be deleted. Wincoote 02:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Laws of mainland China

This category was created as a subterfuge by User:Instantnood. His request to move a category Laws of the People's Republic of China to Laws of mainland China was rejected by nearly everyone at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Instead of renaming the category, he just made the new one and started moving articles into it (and marking the edits of the articles as minor edits). This was done in a fit after "Category:Laws of the People's Republic of China" was moved into the category "People's Republic of China" away from "mainland China" - which he also opposed. At this moment "Category:Laws of mainland China" is depopulated. (And to preempt his whining, PRC laws that don't apply to HK should have explanatory text in the article, or an HK specific article, or both.) SchmuckyTheCat 23:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:British jurists

This was created by a well meaning American who was unaware that the term "jurist" is obselete in the UK. The Oxford English Dictionary describes it as "now US". Plenty of well informed British adults have little or no idea what a "jurist" is. See it's talk page for further details. The subcats should be moved to a category:British lawyers to give the articles more chance of being visited. Wincoote 20:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As the well-meaning American in question, what term is used in British English to refer to legal professionals, including judges, barristers, solicitors, and academics generally? I'd support a renaming to that term, if there is one, so that it mirrors the grouping function performed by Category:American jurists. Postdlf 21:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As I've said before the only term available is "lawyers". We just don't feel the need for a term that definitively encompasses academics the way you seem to in the U.S. It's just one of those things that reveal two cultures' different ways of thinking. There must be other examples. How about "single-family home"? That's also a broad term which we don't use, have a precise equivalent for, or miss.
No British person is going to be confused by "British lawyers" or be surprised to find judges and academics in it, and I can't see that it will be a problem for others when they see it as a subcategory of the global category. Wincoote 00:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For the group of people referred to I would expect to see them called "Lawyers". To me, a "Jurist" is a person serving on a jury. Thryduulf 08:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe British legal professionals? I don't know that I'd expect to find judges and academics in a lawyers category, to be honest I'd expect to find them all in different categories. I would definitely think that a jurist was someone serving on a jury, though I know now that I would be wrong ;-) -- Lochaber 09:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"British legal professionals" looks fine to me. James F. (talk) 11:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I still think it is unnecessary and clumsy, in that it isn't everyday English in the way that "lawyers" is, but if other people want it "British legal professionals" will do. Wincoote 11:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'd go for "lawyers". All British judges are lawyers, after all, and term is often used to mean anyone with a law degree, not just someone who practises (since they're either solicitors or barristers/advocates in the UK). Law academics are known as "academic lawyers", so "lawyers" seems to cover everyone perfectly well and is less clumsy than "legal professionals" (which is certainly not the first term I'd think of). A person who serves on a jury is a "juror", incidentally, not a "jurist". And "jurist" is still used in Britain, but these days only for an academic lawyer (or a law student, although that's not a common usage). -- Necrothesp 14:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment Everyone so far has supported renaming, but we need to choose which name to use. Could any further voters please be sure to express a preference between "lawyers" and "legal professionals". Wincoote 13:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Legal professionals

  1. Renaming as "legal professionals". — Instantnood 14:24, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I'm gonna go for British legal professionals. I've always take a lawyer to be someone who is licensed to practice - a solicitor or a barrister - though I take the point that all judges are licensed (can the licence lapse? and if so how does this affect their status as judges?). Jurist may be more correct as a collective term but since it seems to be largely unknown in the UK it's probably best to rename. -- Lochaber 15:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. I prefer this to Lawyers as I wouldn't expect to see academics in that category. This supercedes my comment above. Thryduulf 15:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. Better than "lawyers", no better suggestion given. Postdlf 04:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lawyers

Category:Amateur wrestlers

Category:Amateur wrestling

Delete. Both have been marked as cfd since Jan 14. Both are empty. -Kbdank71 18:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:People from Northern Ireland

Delete. As per the discussion page, this category was created to replace Category:Northern Irish People. However, the category is empty. -Kbdank71 18:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Move all articles from category:Northern Ireland people to Category:People from Northern Ireland, and delete category:Northern Ireland people. -Kbdank71 14:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep, or restore Category:Northern Irish people. There is a clear need for a category specific to Northern Ireland. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 18:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd have no problem keeping the current category if it weren't empty. As such, I don't see a clear need to keep it. -Kbdank71 18:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's because the active category is category:Northern Ireland people. Wincoote 19:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Then perhaps we should move category:Northern Ireland people to Category:People from Northern Ireland, as People from Northern Ireland was created first, and it makes more sense. -Kbdank71 20:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Consolidate all into "People from Northern Ireland". James F. (talk) 00:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per JamesF and Kdbank71 move all other relevant articles to this cat. zoney ♣ talk 12:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - As per zoney. Filiocht 12:41, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Unique scripts

There seems to be a general consensus that categorizing writing systems that are only used by a single language is misleading and controversial: it ignores the complex nature of many of the writing systems listed. Gareth Hughes 11:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it leaves out some information, but I think that it is a worthwhile category to keep. I would be happy with a name change, as you can see, I came up with 'Unique scripts' after not finding anything more suitable. When I am talking about unique, I am talking about as applied today, for information available on the internet. I realise that a lot of the writing systems/scripts listed under this category are related in some way (particularly the ones from the Indian subcontinent). But does any other language you will find on the internet use the Cherokee, Armenian or Yi scripts?). - FrancisTyers 17:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and possibly rename. This is a useful distinction, and highlights the evolving nature of language. It is useful to know which languages are more isolated in their orthography. The category is not misleading, costs little, and has no replacement (e.g., can't be duplicated by a simple search). -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 18:14, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Delete , useless clutter. And tends to be wrong in a number of cases, because this is not a question with a clear yes/no answer. --Pjacobi 21:02, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
If an article is mis-filed under this category, un-file it. Just because some of the articles are incorrectly filed does not make for a bad category. Re: yes/no, care to name any languages apart from Korean written in Hangul? (And no reples Re: North/South, both are still Korean). As I have maintained all along, I am amenable to a rename. - FrancisTyers 21:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As per talk page, propose rename to 'Unilingual writing systems' - FrancisTyers 23:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Much better name. The current one is ambiguous. Cyrillic is a "unique script", in that there isn't another one like it - but it is used for numerous languages. Another possibility would be "language-specific writing systems". Grutness|hello? 00:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I vote to keep it. Personally, I like categories that make it easier to explore wikipedia's content, like this. They also provide some structure to the content. Either "Language-specific" or "Unilingual" sounds good to me for a name (or even "Writing systems used by only one language"). --Xcriteria 01:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rename. It is an interesting category. I have often wondered about such writing systems. I like the 'Unilingual writing systems' name. --Stereo 06:59, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
Keep. Maybe a bit obscure, but potentially useful. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 07:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Rename or not, it's interesting enough. MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've voted above to delete I'm just wondering about the keeps. In the widest interpretaion, as judged by current category assignment, all but perhaps four (obvious cases: Latin, Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew) to eight scripts are "unique scripts". So, to make this distinction, you want to add a new category to 200 writing system articles? It still looks like a joke to me. --Pjacobi 12:19, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
That is a wild interpretation, the name has changed, I expect that the number of articles in this category will be wildly less than you anticipate. I just made a brief survey of the writing systems I know off the top of my head and I counted 14 of them as being used for more than one language. - FrancisTyers 19:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Scylla and Charybdis then? If you start looking critically, whether the writing systems are used for more than one language (as you must have done to come near 14), you must e.g. throw out all the Indic scripts, because they are used not only for "their" language, but for a varying degree also for Sanskrit. This re-enacts my first point of criticism: It isn't a clear cut yes/no decision and is best handled by prose in the article, not by inventing a new category. --Pjacobi 23:12, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
Please remove writing systems from the category that you don't agree are Unilingual. - FrancisTyers 16:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Almost every single thing there is wrong, wrong, wrong. With the sole exception of (perhaps) Tai Le and Yi, all of those scripts are now or have been at some point in time the most common scripts in multiple languages (Sinhala, for example, is used for not only Sinhala but Veddah and sometimes Prakrits). Most Indic scripts are used not only for Sanskrit and their own language, but often for minor (or in some cases major) local languages: for example, Bengali is used to write both Bengali and Assamese (although Assamese as a language is a relatively recent development, having trampled the Ahom language - the last Tai-Kadai language of India - which is now being revived in Assam), Sylheti at times (otherwise written in its own script), and various other languages spoken in Bangladesh and West Bengal. --Node 05:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Remove those then, as I mentioned on Category talk:Unique scripts, I may have been over zealous in applying this category. Also, I think you are exaggerating when you say sole exception. :) - FrancisTyers 16:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rename. Perhaps "writing scripts used by less than three/five languages" would do. By the way, there's a list of languages by writing script isn't it? — Instantnood 05:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete There is no saving this category. I have already pointed out that the instant any Anglophone kid in Oklahoma tries to write his name in Cherokee, Cherokee ceases to be a "unique script". My name in Cherokee is ᎹᎢᎧᎵ ᎡᏩᏐᏂ Maikali Ewasoni. Not a bit of it is Cherokee. And no, Unilingual writing systems is just as bogus. This is a "dead-end" category, with nothing to offer. Evertype 14:38, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
Keep This is a good bit of information, that can come in handy. --Dejan Cabrilo 07:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Experimental Technique

Weird category within Category:Science. Incorrect capitalisation, and it is sufficiently non-specific that the 2 articles within this category could be placed in other categories--nixie 04:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Maybe a category for Weird Science! exists already. MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 21

Category:Republic_of_Singapore_Navy_naval_bases

  • Delete The Republic of Singapore Navy has only two bases. This category is small and has little potential for growth. --Travisyoung 00:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Er... and you removed the article in the category before submitting this? Anyway there is potential for a full set of categories of naval bases arranged by country in the Navy bases category, much in line with that created for air forces and armies.--Huaiwei 11:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Category to be deleted was non-controversial, I removed the article (the one and only article that was present) from the category following instructions from point 4 above. A cfd tag was placed as well. Travisyoung 18:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment If you are referring to point 4, it says you should clear the category only if it is a case of vandalism or a duplicate.--Huaiwei 03:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment But point 4 says, "[u]nless the category to be deleted is non-controversial... please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision." In any case, I took it that the category to be deleted was non-controversial. Please correct me if I interpreted it wrongly. --Travisyoung 09:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep. — Instantnood 08:59, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ONLY if someone grows the category. MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:LGBT rights opposition

I wish we could do away with theocrats on Wikipedia, but the name of this category is just not NPOV. Perhaps we could rename it to Category:Against same-sex marriage or similar. Vacuum c 19:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I think this name is much better than your suggestion and I'm an atheist. Wincoote 13:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not standard run-of-the-mill Christian either, but think this name is far better than the suggested alternative. Grutness|hello? 00:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this category will encourage hate campaigns by liberal bigots against those on the list. Clear POV with the only purpose to give ammo to those who harrass those who hold views that are not "politically correct", jguk 06:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick there. This group was nominated by a liberal and it was presumably created by a conservative. Wincoote 11:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not NPOV, indeed clear POV that boosts such opposition without merit. We may as well have 'xxx rights opposition' for every 'xxx' there is (irony). --Vamp:Willow 11:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Vamp. -Kbdank71 14:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this has a horrible name but nobody has a good one. What is the opposing category called? This'll do for now to group up the witch burners. MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but the category shouldn't include any movie star who happens to have answered an interviewer's question by expressing opposition to gay marriage. It should be reserved for people or institutions who are significantly involved in issues of marriage, adoption rights, workplace discrimination, etc. I took a quick glance at the category just now and it seemed to have been applied with reasonable care so far. JamesMLane 22:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete - Nothing by spite generating propaganda 216.153.214.94 23:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename or delete. Category:Anti-LGBT rights activists maybe? -Sean Curtin 00:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well, the language that these groups use to express their position is that they don't want "special rights" for these groups, and their opponents say they do want "equal rights". Both groups are talking about "rights", so I'm not sure how this name is POV. "Anti-LGBT rights activists" is just more convoluted. The most trouble I have is actually with the "LGBT" part. It's confusing to people who aren't already familiar with the subject, but most alternatives are very long. There's also the question of whether or not to separate out "T" (transexual) issues, which I haven't really considered in any depth. (Some people - including LBG and T - are offended by the lumping together of sexual orientation and sex/gender identity; others consider the civil liberties questions, at least, to be closely intertwined for all of these populations.) If there's any concerns about inclusion criteria, I recommend writing a good header for the page which clearly defines the class. I agree that most or all of the current members do seem to belong here.
    • I forgot to mention that the "rights" in question are broader than marriage. They include, for example, discrimination in employment, hate speech, and adoption rights. -- Beland 05:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Category:Landmark cases

  • POV grouping of what are supposedly the most important court decisions. I can't fathom any clear criteria for inclusion/exclusion. Articles on court decisions are already properly categorized by the court and the subject matter and/or area of law; this adds nothing to that system. Postdlf 16:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur. And the decisions across different countries would be particularly impossible. Who is going to decide which Moldovan court decisions constitute landmark cases? Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:47, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems to be an inheritly POV grouping. What NPOV criteria are we going to use to judge what is a landmark? Zzyzx11 22:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename as Category:Legal precedents and populate accordingly. Grutness|hello? 00:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Rename iawtc Grutness. SchmuckyTheCat 03:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Rename like Grutness.
    • Every case is a legal precedent unless it is reversed or overruled. Postdlf 01:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep To me, I'd expect "Landmark cases" to be a narrower category than the more vague and inclusive "Legal precedents." Gene Nygaard 18:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Let me expand upon this idea a little bit. We can have a case which is "legal precedent" for the interpretation of some obscure section of the Internal Revenue Code. In other words, it is terminology that is generally used with regards to its applicability to a particular issue in a particular case. However, at least in North American English, the term "landmark case" implies some principle of more general applicability. If that term isn't understood outside North America, point that out and suggest any better alternative you might think of. Gene Nygaard 19:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Hm. Interesting. That (surprise!) means that US English is the opposite of International/British English, where a Legal precedent is one which is a sspecific kind of landmark case relied upon for further judgements, whereas a landmark case is one which catches the attention of either the legal prfession (in that it sets a precedent) or the public (in that it is a cause celebre). Landmark case is by far the wider and more subjective category - Legal precedents are specific, well-defined cases. Grutness|hello? 02:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparently the intention is to identify court decisions that are especially well-known, or especially important in the development of the law, but both of these alternatives are too subjective to be useful. That's particularly true in light of the problem of comparing decisions across multiple legal systems. JamesMLane 20:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename = Keep in agreement with User:Grutness above. I agree that a legal precedent in one country might likely be inapplicable to other countries' legal systems, but that should not stand in the way of highlighting cases within particular legal systems, as long as the scope of the precedence is included as part of the case article. Courtland 14:46, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rename to Landmark decisions in line with Landmark decision (which I was convinced to vote to keep instead of delete). Once again, all court decisions not reversed or overruled are legal precedents. "Legal precedents" is simply an awful name for the category. Postdlf 04:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rename. I think the article Landmark decision is worthy to keep but this category is possibly not. You may selectively list several undisputed cases as examples of landmark decisions. It's another business to assign other marginal cases this attribute.In the end, it can be too POV. -- Toytoy 00:04, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Writers_who_have_killed_themselves

From the discussion on the category's talk page:

Category talk:Writers who have killed themselves
  • Delete and merge into Category:Suicides: Unpractical name, unneeded subcategorization. -- User:Docu
  • Delete. Unnecessary. Postdlf 16:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Change name to Category:Writers who committed suicide. Still a relative clause, but a more succinct one. It is a reasonable category, and I suspect is (or could be) moderately heavily populated. Grutness|hello? 00:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That main category is overpopulated and in chronic need of subcategorisation in my opinion. Wincoote 00:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not "Writers who have committed suicide" or even "category:suicides:writers"? The one in use is just too informal. --Theoretique 10:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with the first suggestion as an improvement. Wincoote 00:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Category:Suicides seems good enough. john k 00:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, Suicides is fine, and writers as a sub if there are enough of them. MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wikipedia:Categorization says: Don't hard-code the category structure into names. Example: "Monarchs", not "People - Monarchs". "Category:Suicides:Writers" does not conform to this guideline. -- Beland 05:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary categorization. RedWolf 01:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please delete. --Pjacobi 14:52, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Category:Lists_of_Australian_Mayors_and_Lord_Mayors

From the category's talk page:

Category talk:Lists of Australian Mayors and Lord Mayors
  • Rename to Category:Lists of Australian mayors: a shorter name. Possibly merge back into Category:Lists of mayors-- User:Docu
  • Keep Accurate and harmless. Such things should be categorised on a national basis. Wincoote 15:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP: The idea of categorising is to group specifically related articles, so that a user may navigate with more purpose. This category achieves such. And, as I have already stated, the category title is in keeping with the articles and other categories. Besides, to have nominated this category and not it's Canadian counterpart seems biased. -- Cyberjunkie
    • It's mainly a nomination for renaming (with possible deletion -- there are fewer entities) and the Canadian category is already labelled that way. -- User:Docu
The Canadian category is named so because Canadian cities do not have Lord Mayors, and is, for that reason, appropriately named.
  • Rename All lord mayors are mayors. There's nothing imperative about maintaining a distinction in the titles of these categories (or articles such as "List of ..." which include both mayors which are and are not lord mayors). Make the distinction in the bodies of the articles, and introductionary text of the categories. Gene Nygaard 14:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That's like saying all prime ministers are ministers or whatever. The distinction is genuine and it matters to those who are interested in such things. Wincoote 19:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Whether the distinction is "genuine" or not, it has no relevance to our classification.
  • Your "prime minister" example is a bunch of malarky! That is a horse of a different color entirely. Countries have many ministers in addition to prime ministers. No Australian city has a lord mayor and a non-lord mayor at the same time.
  • The distinctions in the included articles are all chronological; plain mayors up to some date, lord mayors thereafter.
  • There are only 10 cities with lord mayors, and only half of them are in this category. No other cities are in this category.
  • The distinction is made quite clearly in the five articles which are in these categories, with two tables broken by the year of changeover if both are included in that article (at least one doesn't have any that are not lord mayors).
  • If this category were split into two categories, each of the articles currently here would likely fit into both categories, even though at least one currently lists people in only one of them.
  • To quote Lord Mayor: "The Lord Mayor is the mayor ..."
  • You can also put an explanation in the introductory text of the category page. Gene Nygaard 20:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I still think it would be better to have it in the name of the category. The name is clearly phrased and accurate. It is hard to grasp why anyone could be against it so passionately. Wincoote 20:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The distinction is, while not apparent at present, a necessary and genuine one. As the category grows - and it will - Lord Mayor will become distinguishing feature: In Australia, the title of Lord Mayor is generally (has only ever been) conferred on the head of the council in control of the CBD of a city. All others in the metropolitan-area are titled Mayors only.
  • The fact that there is a distinction in the titles of categorised articles should be reason enough for the category.
  • Seeing as though the Mayor is the chief, of course s/he doesn't serve with another - although, for some reason of which I know not of, the date on the Adelaide indicate that two Lord Mayors served concurrently.--Cyberjunkie 13:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's a useless distinction. It offers no advantages as a finding aid.
In fact, it needlessly makes finding something more difficult.
Perhaps an apt analogy is Category:State supreme court judges in the U.S. which quite properly has that name despite the facts that:
  • in many states these are called "justices"
  • in the state of New York the Supreme Courts are minor trial courts. What is included in this category is Category:New York Court of Appeals judges and you can see the introductory text of the state supreme court judges category to see how a brief explanation on the text of the category page can deal with this minor difficulty. -- Gene Nygaard 14:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename. I agree with the precedent Gene pointed out. -Kbdank71 15:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 20

Empty orphans, 7 Jan 2005

The following have been childless orphans since 7 Jan 2005. -- Beland 03:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete both. The Brits like to claim that they are metric, so they should not be using an acronym based on "two thousand feet". It is time for them to invent a new silly word for hills greater than 600 meters (they can call them metres, of course, but that has the same beginnings for an acronym). Gene Nygaard 14:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A few Brits perhaps, but millions of us still loathe metrification.

Meta cleanup

The following are listed in Category:Categories for deletion but not on this page. (Selected items from the A-R batch only.) Your help is needed in figuring out what to do with them.

  • If an item was previously approved to be deleted, please remove it from this list and add it to the "Delete me" section.
  • If an item is mentioned on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/resolved or Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/unresolved, or was previously supported for "keeping", please remove it from the category and from this list.
  • If an item should be nominated for deletion, then please give it its own section and remove it from this list.

Thanks! -- Beland 03:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

People

Country-related

Astronomy

  • Category:Modern constellations
    • Keep this, since Category:Constellations also contains constellations that are not recognized by the IAU, the Former constellations. Category:Constellations should be reformatted to have Modern constellations as a subcategory, or IAU constellations. (Hmm... IAU constellations would be better than the somewhat ambiguous modern). Former constellations is problematic as it's ethnocentric. 132.205.15.43 02:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Category: IAU-recognised constellations and Category: Non-IAU-recognised constellations, perhaps? Grutness|hello? 10:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Category: IAU constellations, with non-IAU constellations left as culturally identifiable subcats (ie. Greek constellations, Babylonian constellations, Chinese constellations, ...) perhaps? Since most IAU constellations are Greek, they'd show up in both sub-cats. IAU constellations and Other constellations? 132.205.45.110 18:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • what do you do then with proposed constellations and former names which didn't survive various IAU culls/changes (e.g., Avis Indica, Argo Navis, Lilium, and Robur Caroli)? Grutness|hello? 00:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Traditional Western constellations or Constellations by civilization/culture 132.205.45.110 22:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • The ones I named are Western constellations, but ones invented and no longer officially in use. They wouldn't easily fit either of those categorries. Grutness|hello? 01:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unsorted

Category:Places

Assuming Category:Places by country and Category:Populated places are deleted, this overly general category should go as well. -- Rick Block 19:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Places by country

... and its subcategories Category:Places in Belarus, Category:Places in Russia, and Category:Places in Ukraine. Countries are places, so IMO these categories are redundant with the the corresponding country categories. -- Rick Block 18:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Countries are hardly the only type of place. The intention of these categories is perfectly clear to me. A number of common subcategories of national menus belong in them, but most do not. I designed more of the architecture of the category:United Kingdom menu than anyone else, and chose not to have a places category, putting the relevant categories in the main menu or one tier down instead, but I don't object to this form of category as an intermediate link if some people think it is useful. Wincoote 20:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree, it's too broad a category, and it is a superfluous step between Category:Russia and Category:Cities in Russia. Delete. Radiant_* 08:46, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Kbdank71 14:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even though the proposer's reasoning is wacky; it's an unhelpful intermediate step. Gene Nygaard 18:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 19

Category:Political_parties_in_Palestine

No good. This needs to be moved either back to the original title, or to Category:Political_parties_in_the Palestinian National Authority. "Palestine" (unlike other entries on this list) is not a country. -- uriber 21:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Palestinian National Authority is not a country either, it's a government. There are several non-country categories in the by-country categories; I certainly wouldn't recommend re-classifying all "Palestine" categories under "Israel". We've decided on the "Foo of Bar" form in general for this type of category, so this should either be "Political parties of the Paestinian people" or "Political parties of (some term referring to the geographic area in question)", or whatever is appropriate for what the category is for. The general issue of what to call the land in question was left unresolved the last time we attempted to answer it. Settling this question is part of that. Prior discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Palestine. -- Beland 06:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The accepted convention for by-country articles is to go by the name of the main country or territory article to which the category refers, and/or coordinate with the list of sovereign states or the list of dependent territories. "Palestinian National Authority" is neither a country nor a territory - again, it's a government. It doesn't seem appropriate any more than "Political parties of the government of the United States" would be.
Though neither Åland nor Palestine are listed in either of those articles, but West Bank and Gaza Strip are in the list of disputed or occupied territories and Åland is in Special member state territories and their relations with the EU. As you can see at Palestine, the term is ambiguous and can be used to refer to the territory of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. -- Beland 07:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand what you're suggesting. I'm fine with any solution, EXCEPT a category which implies that there is a country named Palestine. In other words, as I said above, I am voting delete. OK? Rhobite 02:00, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but what should the replacement category be called? You said "whatever fits the accepted convention", but by rights that should be "Political parties in the West Bank and Gaza Strip". Would that be acceptable? -- Beland 03:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As I said above, I am fine with Category:Palestinian_political_parties, Category:Political_parties_in the Palestinian Authority or Category:Political_parties_in_the Palestinian National Authority. I know that the PNA is a government, not a country. It's an exceptional situation and it requires special treatment in our category scheme. Rhobite 04:16, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Del. Agree with Uriber. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please also see [2] for a previous discussion on the same topic, which was removed without taking any action, in spite of consensus being reached on most issues. -- uriber 12:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Elections_in_Palestine

This is the exact same problem, and already has a CfD notice on it. -- uriber 22:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Best Supporting Actor Oscar Nominee (film), Category:Best Supporting Actress Oscar Nominee (film)

Related to #Various Oscar categories (redux), below, I favor deleting at least some (if not most) of the Academy Award categories. Reading the renaming discussion below there is some confusion about whether there are two or four categories per award. For the awards where the winner is a person (acting, directing, ...) there are four: a category for the winners, a category for the non-winning nominees, a category for the movies in which winners appeared (or directed or whatever), and a category for movies in which nominees appeared. IMO, the categories for movies in which winners or nominees appeared are not of sufficient widespread interest to warrant existence as categories. This information is readily available from the articles about these awards which have lists which can be cross referenced and sorted however the user would like. IMO, the categories for non-winning nominees are similarly not of sufficient widespread interest to warrant existence as categories (again, this information is readily available from the articles about the individual awards). Rather than use categories to convey this bit of information in the articles about these movies and nominees, I'd prefer some mention in the text of the article (perhaps in a standard "awards" section) with a wikilink to the article about the award. Conveying this information via categories strikes me as a complete misuse of the categorization feature. In particular, from WP:CG, If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there?, implies the text of an article about a movie with an award winner should mention the award winner (in fact, if there is simply an unadorned category there's no particular way to know which of perhaps several actors/actresses won or was nominated). Similarly, an article about an actor/actress tagged in a category "nominee for x" does not (by itself) let the reader know which movie the award was for. If the consensus is to delete these two categories, I'll nominate some others. -- Rick Block 17:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've never once advocated the deletion of either a list or category in favor of the other. I think both have their merits and both have their places. Lists allow you to add more information (e.g., List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes) and link non-existant articles. Categories let you directly link the articles together (e.g., Category:Star Trek: Enterprise episodes). I'll always advocate the use of both (ok, I can't think of an example where I wouldn't). Cburnett 20:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notes:

  1. This issue was also discussed in the previous CFD attempt. Zzyzx11 20:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. This issue is not about renaming these categories, but deleting them. Although this is in some sense a generic issue, please try to stay focused on the specific suggestion which is to delete the two categories for movies which have cast a non-winning nominee for best supporting actress or best supporting actor. -- Rick Block 23:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. The second CFD is done below #Various Oscar categories (redux) Cburnett 17:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. For an example of differently sorted lists, please see List of Best Supporting Actor nominees and List of Best Supporting Actor nominees (films) (compare to Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor). -- Rick Block 05:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  • Keep some points to be made:
    • It seems like these categories are gonna be the next Gay Nigger Association of America by consistently being on CFD.
    • People win awards BECAUSE of the films they are in and that makes them worthy of having a category.
    • If the article doesn't say who won (or nominated) the award then that's the fault of the article (and all it takes is looking at the category since I put the winner in a comment for *precisely* this reason)
    • After categorizing them, my intention is to put an awards heading on articles. Being apart of a category (with the comments in the article) will make this 20 times easier to do. Which is faster? Looking at the category listing or searching nearly 3 dozen listings.
    • What Rick is really arguing for is the removal of categories in favor of lists, something I completely disagree with (the specific purpose of said categories aside).
  • Cburnett 17:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
These categories have previously been on CFD for renaming not deletion, and I'm arguing the information conveyed by these specific categories (movie casting nominee for non-winning best supporting actor/actress) is better suited for a list. -- Rick Block 19:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And IMO they all still need renaming, too. The last time around I proposed new names that turned out to be unpopular, but that doesn't mean the current ones are good by default. Bryan 00:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

English historic houses by county and gardens by county categories

I created three subcategories of category:historic houses in England for English counties: category:Historic houses in Bedfordshire, category:Historic houses in Buckinghamshire, and category:Historic houses in Norfolk. I now thing this was a mistake and that visitor attraction categories such as category:visitor attractions in Leicestershire are more appropriate at county level as only a minority of the historic house categories would reach double figures any time soon. This proposal does not apply to category:historic houses in London however. That one has over 30 articles aleady and should double that and more eventually, and it is a subcategory of two categories which already have over two hundred entries each, and will acquire plenty more. There are some notable historic houses which are not visitor attractions, but they can be placed in "buildings" categories. Wincoote 14:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The same applies to the two gardens by county categories I created: category:gardens in Buckinghamshire and category:gardens in Norfolk. There are lists by county for both historic houses and gardens. Wincoote 22:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Kbdank71 20:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Historic houses by county is fine; no reason not to keep them. They should, of course, be sub-cats of their county's visitor attractions category, but we should keep them. Same goes for gardens. James F. (talk) 00:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


March 18

Category:Tourist attractions in California

This is a redundant, POV version of Category:California landmarks—when I created all the subcategories in Category:Landmarks of the U.S. by state, I chose "landmark" because it more properly reflected that notable places are notable to both "tourists" and "locals". Other than to marginalize an article by designating its subject to a narrower function (implying that it only exists to entertain people who don't live near it), I don't see what "tourist attractions" would accomplish that "landmarks" doesn't. Postdlf 00:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Nixon and Reagan Presidential Libraries are apparently "tourist attractions", btw. Postdlf 00:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As a European who visited California last summer, the 'tourist' list is more relevant than the 'landmark' list. One would expect them to be identical, but they are not. For example, where is Disney in the Landmark list? - ClemMcGann
I think you're misunderstanding the point. It doesn't matter what is presently in either of them right now because it's about the nomenclature. The object is to get the category named "tourist attractions" deleted and its contents moved to the "landmarks" category. Postdlf 00:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So are you saying Disneyland should be in the landmarks category? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 04:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't find Disneyland in Postdlf's landmarks page --ClemMcGann 22:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object I don't know about U.S. English but in British English landmarks just means obelisks and the like. Many users will ignore this if it is called "landmarks" because they won't appreciate what it contains. I think the idea that "tourist attractions" is pov is laughable. However in the UK we use "visitor attractions" categories, and if that phrase is at all familiar in the U.S. I would recommend it here. Wincoote 10:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • See the contents of Category:Landmarks; it means something notable at that location that people take notice of. Are only visitors attracted to such places? Postdlf 14:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's less POV than landmarks. If they're on advertisements for tourists, it's a tourist attraction. --A D Monroe III 13:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • And only a tourist attraction? "Landmark" and "attraction" both imply a subjective valuation that something should be noticed/visited (I believe "attraction" does more so—"landmark" may just record that something has been noticed). However, "tourist attraction" just means that tourists go there. It's much narrower than "landmark", which basically, as it's been used in the categories, means a notable place. Every notable place is in some way a tourist attraction as well, just in differing degrees. Please look at the contents of the various landmark categories and tell me if you think it's proper to classify them all under the label "tourist attractions". Or tell me if you think there's some way the two categories can coexist. Postdlf 14:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • No, landmarks should probably be abolished. Your definition of the word is one I have never heard before and it seems to me that it is wrong. As I have already said, "visitor attractions is superior to both. Wincoote 15:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I've never heard the awkward phrase "visitor attractions" used. You've honestly never heard someone say something like "Ben's Chilli Bowl is a D.C. landmark", or "Big Ben is perhaps the most recognizeable London landmark"? Perhaps it is only common in the U.S., but that's surprising. I still don't know what you meant by "obelisks and the like". Simple monuments? Postdlf 16:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • "Visitor attractions" is standard in the UK and less bothersome than the options you have available in US English. I think you should take it up. Wincoote 16:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both this and the various landmark categories, both are POV terms. - SimonP 16:02, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • And then do what with the contents? The only possibility I can think of that would serve the same function is to replace them with a "Notable places in..." system. Simply removing them would leave numerable articles with either no clear category or dumped in the base state-level categories without organization...which is how I found them when I grouped them into "landmarks", which is the most elegant solution I can think of. The subjects wouldn't exist on wikipedia unless they were notable, and they wouldn't be placed in the landmark category unless they are notable as a particular place. I believe that addresses the POV concern. Postdlf 16:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The main "notable places" in California are LA and San Francisco. It wouldn't do for the present purpose at all. Wincoote 17:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Rather than use a vauge term like landmark we should describe what the thing is. All landmarks are a monument, building, bridge, mountain or some other thing we already have a system of categories for. There is no need for a vauge and POV terms like landmark or attraction. - SimonP 16:50, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • That kind of specific categorization is great at the country level, but at the state level it simply doesn't work. Most states aren't going to have more than one or two zoos, for example, or even a bare handful of monuments. So what do you do with all of the articles that have no suitable state-level category? What other term groups together all the notable non-community places within a state? Postdlf 23:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • California is not most states, and has more than two zoos (there are at least two in San Diego). If other states don't have anything interesting to look at, that's not really important to this discussion. Landmarks also has additional meanings - a noticable object used to help navigation, such as a mountain peak, a tall building, etc; a National Landmark, which is kinda like a small <a href="" onmouseover="window.status='national park'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=; return true;">national park</a>; a historic landmark, which shows where something someone considers important happened. Gentgeen 10:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as nobody above has come up with a better name, and clearly tourist attractions are not landmarks and vise versa. I don't think calling something a tourist attraction or a landmark is usually controvertial or POV, this argument seems silly to me. --ssd 15:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel-guide. There is no objective way of determining what what places will attract tourists, so the list is arbitrary. It overlaps existing "landmark" categories. It includes entire cities! How can Santa Monica and Venice be attractions, but not Los Angeles and Hollywood? -Willmcw 23:29, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an example of excessive finickityness about "neutrality" which harms Wikipedia rather than helps it, by ignoring the practical needs of users for ways to find articles on related subjects. It is not arbitary, just a little fuzzy around the edges - a very little fuzzy around the edges. But so are vast numbers of categories: politicians, poets etc Wincoote 00:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep at ... tourist attractions. James F. (talk) 12:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! Useful! MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment What is a landmark vs. a tourist attraction? It's not clear. Is a resort a type of tourist attraction? For me, a landmark is either a place with historical significance or a prominent landscape feature. That does not sound like a tourist attraction. The Golden Gate Bridge is a good example of a landmark and a tourist attraction. Are all places with a historical significance a tourist attraction? I think the answer may be yes.Vegaswikian 09:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)



March 15

Category:Weapons of the Czeck Republic

There's an obvious spelling error "Czeck" -> "Czech", but I also wonder if it should talk about the Czech Republic if it will include stuff older than 1993. Something more generic should be used if so. --Joy [shallot] 23:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reinstate Category:Czech weapons or rename to something else more sensible than "Weapons of the Czech Republic" which didn't exist until 1993. It was much better under the old name, before some fool changed it. It was Category:Czech weapons before. That's what it should be returned to; in English Czech is often used as the adjective relating to Czechoslovakia before it split into the Chech Republic and Slovakia. Gene Nygaard 15:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Category:Czech weapons as suggested by Nygaard. I know the standard is "Weapons of Foo" instead of "Fooian Weapons", but in this case (and a few others), the state of Foo is too limited, only the culture of Fooian covers the category. --A D Monroe III 13:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • We should treat this the same as we did the Russia/Soviet Union problem. Any given article will go in one, the other, or both, as appropriate. We just need new categories for predecessor countries, unless they already exist. (Sorry about the slip of the finger, BTW.) -- Beland 07:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, sure, we could fragment everything down into Category:Weapons used by Slovakia and Weapons used by Czechoslovakia and Weapons used by the Czech Republic, as well as Category:Weapons sold by the Czech Republic and the like. But what's the point? (Granted, there are likely more of them than the three now listed in the wrongly named category, but so what?) Furthermore, an article listing all the categories that some weapons fit into is just going to be an invitation for some editor to bitch about excess categorization and take out a few of them.
There are several differences between this and the Russia/Soviet Union problem.
Of course, for the World War I weapons, we'd also have to create Catgory:Weapons of Bohemia (see History of the Czech lands) and the like. Or would you lump it into a Category:Weapons of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, rather than having Bohemia as a subcategory of that? Gene Nygaard 14:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Category:Castles in America

Properly named (yet mysteriously empty) Category:Castles in the United States already exists. Postdlf 04:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. -Kbdank71 14:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - move entries into Category:Castles in the United States Greg Robson 15:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I recommend more radical surgery. Delete both castles categories. All the entries are for pseudo castles, and I don't believe America has any real castles so it isn't a helpful category. Then rename category:houses in the United States as category:Historic houses in the United States and merge these into it. Wincoote 14:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect to Category:Castles in the United States They may not be "castles" in the truest sense of the word, but they look like castles and are called castles in their formal names. Also, some people may look for the category as "Castles in America" redirecting will make finding the catergory easier oirvine 02:12am, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • At the very least it should be a subcategory of the houses category, or some of the most famous houses in America are likely to stay missing from that. Wincoote 14:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this one, and keep Castles in the United States. A castle is a castle even if it's never been besieged by men with swords. Bryan 18:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • A castle is a military installation. Non-military castles are fakes. Anyone can call their house a castle if they wish because the word isn't legally protected, just as they can call it a palace. But it isn't a castle or a palace. Anyway, I've put it in the houses category. Wincoote 18:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That's one of the meanings for "castle", but another (from American Heritage Dictionary via [3]) is "A large ornate building similar to or resembling a fortified stronghold." It doesn't have to actually be a military installation to fit the definition. Bryan 02:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, create a category titles Palaces in the United States. Alensha 22:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect as oirvine states. MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Quality Comics characters

Quality Comics is a long defunct publisher, most of whose characters have been owned by DC Comics for decades. I do think there should be a seperate category for them because of historical interest, but there isn't a need for two. There's Category:Quality Comics superheroes which had 7 items and Category:Quality Comics characters, which was a parent of the former and had one additional item, Blackhawk (comics), which I moved to the later category. Granted, the Blackhawks don't have superpowers, but then neither does Batman and everyone calls him a superhero. Regardless, two cats for this is one too many, and Category:Quality Comics characters doesn't seem to have a reason to exist other than to be an unnecessary parent category. Gamaliel 14:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Although I'd prefer to see "characters" stay instead of "superheroes". Nothing to do with superpowers, it's just more inclusive. -Kbdank71 15:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The category structure follows existing precedent - see for instance Category:Charlton Comics characters, which likewise contains only a single subcategory and has never been challenged that I know of. Also, like Kbdank71, I think that if one category has to go, it should be Category:Quality Comics superheroes. (Furthermore, I don't think the Blackhawks belong in a "superheroes" category - I don't think Batman is a relevantly similar example, because he fits the superhero mould despite the lack of inherent powers, while the Blackhawks don't fit the superhero mould at all - but I don't know that this is the right forum for that discussion.) --Paul A 03:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:I don't care if we keep "superheroes" or "characters", but one should go. No useful purpose is served by separating the 8 articles on Quality characters into two different groups. The Blackhawks may be pilots, but they are pilots who fight dinosaurs and team up with Superman, so exculding them from being superheroes seems like hairsplitting. Gamaliel 08:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Having "X Comics superheroes" as a subcategory of "X Comics characters" is the de facto standard: it's set up like that for DC, Dell, Fawcett, Image, Milestone, and Valiant (not to mention Charlton) - and I see no advantage in breaking the pattern. --Paul A 08:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I see the point about redundancy, but if you're going to do this, do it the other way round and put them all into QCChar and delete QCSH - SoM 09:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -Sean Curtin 00:01, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this category, but delete the subcategory. — Gwalla | Talk 01:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fandom rubbish! MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 14

Category:Geek Holidays

Moved discussion off-page to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Geek Holidays

Category:Airports of Hong Kong and Category:Airports of Macau

Category:Airports of Hong Kong

This should be up-merged to Category:Airports of the People's Republic of China. Hong Kong is an SAR but fully and completely part of China. Furthermore, there are only two airports in Hong Kong and one of those is military. It is unlikely there will ever be another, except possibly a small civil aviation field. The single airport they have is entirely built from land reclamation in the ocean. To support a category, you need a minimum number of articles, this has five. One is the main entry, which is very good. One is historical, which is also well written, one doesn't exist yet (the military field), and the other is a list of the items in the category (more superfluosity) This isn't enough to support a category. SchmuckyTheCat 01:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. To repeat myself (copied from category talk:Airports of Macau), Hong Kong is a special administrative region. Civil aviation is part of its autonomy, and it concludes bilateral aviation agreements on its own right. Flights from Hong Kong to airports in mainland China are international flights. — Instantnood 08:34, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • this isn't about the politics of airflight, that can be mentioned in the article - you know, the ONE article that is actually about THE airport in Hong Kong. SchmuckyTheCat 09:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • If it is not politics I see no reason why airports are categorised according to political boundaries. There are quite a number of categories of airports with only one or two articles. Are you going to "up-merge" them according to continents and regions? — Instantnood 10:12, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not claiming a solution for anything but these two categories. That does seem like a reasonable solution! SchmuckyTheCat 18:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • It doesn't seem to be, to me. — Instantnood 19:26, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. I'm not an expert on China, so I'll just base my decision on the number of airfields. It doesn't make sense to have a cat for one or two of them. -Kbdank71 14:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or MERGE with Macau. 132.205.45.110 20:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly Keep this category. Hong Kong is a special administrative region and different as People's Republic of China, but suggested to merge with category:Airports of Macau to increase the articles in that category. Shinjiman 07:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Despite all insistance that "Hong Kong" is not "People's Republic of China", Hong Kong remains a part of the People's Republic of China. The only reason it can stay as a seperate category is probably because of the one country two systems formular. I agree that merging the Macau category with this one will make its existance much more viable.--Huaiwei 12:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Is there any precedant? (please reply below) 16:09, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep When people think of Hong Kong, people think Hong Kong, not People's Republic of China. Futhermore the Hong Kong Internation Airport and the Kai Tak International Airport are both airports of note and would be easier found in a Category "Hong Kong Airports" oirvine

02:27am Mar 17 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete! Upmerge. MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hong Kong is part of PRC but it is an SAR, and it is common practice to list Hong Kong and Macau among PRC and other sovereign nations in areas where PRC have granted the two SARs autonomy. Removing this category will make it more difficult to find things. I am OK with merging it with Macau. -- Felix Wan 01:10, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Category:Airports of Macau

This should be up-merged to Category:Airports of the People's Republic of China. Macau is an SAR but fully and completely part of China. Furthermore, there will never, ever, be more than one airport in Macau. The single airport they have is entirely built from land reclamation in the ocean. To support a category, you need a minimum number of articles. One ain't it. It's also NPOV but the minimum article category is enough. SchmuckyTheCat 01:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. To repeat myself (copied from category talk:Airports of Macau), Macau is a special administrative region. Civil aviation is part of its autonomy, and it concludes bilateral aviation agreements on its own right. Flights from Macau to airports in mainland China are international flights. — Instantnood 08:34, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • How does this category make itself useful? "Categories should be on major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article." Can a user click the category to find more airports in Macau? No. Can they click the category and find out more about Macau? No. Can they find out the definition of the word "of"? No. SchmuckyTheCat 18:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. I'm not an expert on China, so I'll just base my decision on the number of airfields. It doesn't make sense to have a cat for one or two of them. -Kbdank71 14:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am still undecided on this one, although it does seem strange to have a category which will never see a second entry for the foreseeable future.--Huaiwei 15:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or MERGE with HK. 132.205.45.110 20:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - one item does not a category make. CDC (talk) 02:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weakly Keep for this category, and maybe suggested to merge with Airports of Hong Kong, then rename to Airports of Hong kong and Macau to containing more articles. Shinjiman 10:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment:  Is there any precedant for combining the categories of two related and geographically close entities? — Instantnood 16:09, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: I dont see why we need a precedent just to avoid doing this. Afterall, Current events in Hong Kong and Macao exists? ;) --Huaiwei 16:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I did not say a precedant is a must. I just asked if there's any. If there is, it will be more reasonable to do so.
          Current events in Hong Kong and Macao was created later than British and Irish current events, i.e. the latter is the precedant. — Instantnood 16:53, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
          • Yeah...so when whoever created British and Irish current events, did he/she wonder if he was justified to do so because it was the first? I simply do not see why precedence has to be mentioned here at all.--Huaiwei 17:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Fine. Should I say I wanted to know out of curiosity? — Instantnood 17:20, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
          • As you wish. I just hope subsequent discussions dont keep ending up sweeping the floor when it comes to intellectual standards. The above is coming quite close to that.--Huaiwei 17:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: In fact, many of the subcategories of category:Airports are filled with only one article or two. To name a few, category:Airports of Aruba, Austria, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Brunei, the Cayman Islands, Kuwait, Singapore and Vanuatu. Some of the countries or regions may have more than 5 airports (including uncreated articles), but many have just one or two. — Instantnood 16:14, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm not going to jump into the who is in what and why argument here, but I'm curious as to your reasoning of why we should keep any category with one, even two articles. -Kbdank71 17:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That's exactly what I am thinking. If the argument for deleting is because the number of articles categorised under it, these two categories are not the only ones. All the reasoning to these two categories applies to other categories. — Instantnood 18:37, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Those categories should probably be deleted too. If Aruba, for instance, only has one airport, it's article should be floated up to the parent category. SchmuckyTheCat 18:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Did you mention Singapore? Dont worry. Singapore has a total of 7 airports and airbases today. You can be rest assured it will be filled up sooner or later. Meanwhile, how many of the above actually involves uncreated articles rather than the entire country having only one airport? And secondly, how many of them are not countries, and not overseas dependencies?--Huaiwei 16:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for telling about Singapore. I am referring to Vanuatu. The article Transportation in Vanuatu says it has 32 (3 paved) as at 1999. Dependent territories are dependent territories, no matter overseas or not. — Instantnood 16:53, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • And Macau and Hong Kong are not dependent territories, but that is another story. You refering to Vanautu? You listed a whole bunch of categories...so how we know who you talking about? And as far as a check with CIA goes, only Aruba has 1 airport. Needless to say, Macau only has one too. No...that helipad dosent count. I am wondering you treated a helipad as a heliport!--Huaiwei 17:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't care whether you consider it is or not, and you don't have to agree with me.
        You didn't know which I am talking about because you didn't know much about the countries and territories I listed, other than your home town.
        And please tell me why that is a helipad but not a heliport. — Instantnood 17:20, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • Wow...this is getting close to a blow below the belt. I seek clarification, and btw, only Aruba has one airport out of all those listed above. And of coz, Macau has only one too, as far as the CIA is concerned. Meanwhile, it is a helipad, because they call it that themselves? [4] And of coz, dont think I didnt notice you edited all those categories again while these discussions are still on-going!--Huaiwei 17:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • If you were seeking for clarification, you were jumping several steps, and I apologise for having misunderstood.
        The Macau tourist office used "heliport" and "helipad" interchangeably on the web page you quoted. A google search of "heliport" on gov.mo gives 17 hits, 4 hits for "helipad", and 25 for "aerodrome". This document uses both "aerodrom" and "heliport". If you have been there, you could have told it's a heliport. Macau does have a helipad at a hospital. — Instantnood 18:37, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes...and you know the flow of the conversation is going to come to this...why are heliports being listed in airport categories? Now of coz this applies to ALL heliports...not just these in the above categories.--Huaiwei 18:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • And you know there I will say there's something to do with the definition of heliport. — Instantnood 19:16, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • And when we scroll down that page and click on the category "Heliports", what do we see?--Huaiwei 19:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • COMMENT, jetports, airports, heliports, airship fields are all aerodromes, so there may be a need to reform the WikiProject? 132.205.45.110 19:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete One? Rubbish! Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining! One isn't even a list. If your precious little country or province or whatever is so important then list it on the continent. MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, or merge with Hong Kong. Also, please stop adding new categories and stop requesting removal of categories before the dispute is resolved at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). -- Felix Wan 01:13, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)


Category:Japanese sports and Category:Sport in Japan

Merging required. I would prefer the latter. It presents less confusion (not <a href="" onmouseover="window.status='all sport'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=; return true;">all sport</a>/sports/sporting events that exist/occur/involve Japan may be considered a "Japanese sport")--ZayZayEM 14:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ZayZayEM 00:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I prefer the latter, since adjective forms can be problematic. They exist due to inertia and because someone happened to create some like that, not because there has necessarily been serious discussion of the matter. But as long as the U.S. and UK are allowed to use their proper adjectives, the adjective forms don't bother me. Category:Sports by country seems to contain a mixture of sports and sport, though, so we need to either declare one standard or just accept the mixture. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not "inertia" if something was implemented by many people, presumably because it came naturally to them, and it survives because most people are happy with it. You are abusing the term. Wincoote 22:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • We most certainly need to accept the mixture. "Sports" is American English and "sport" is British English. If the former is imposed Wikipedia will cease to be a global encyclopedia and become an American national encyclopedia. Wincoote 22:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Ever hear of Chicken Little? Somehow, I don't think the global nature of Wikipedia hinges on "sports" vs "sport". -Kbdank71 15:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Category:Sport in Japan. I agree that the current "consensus" most likely isn't a consensus at all. There are many articles and categories that are "Foo in Bar". Besides, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) states that "It is recommended that adjectives be redirected to nouns." -Kbdank71 21:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you have any evidence for that? I suggest it is merely wishful thinking that you are in the majority. Categories should be in normal English as far as possible, and that means the adjective form here. Wincoote 22:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I don't, but then again, I suggest that you don't either. Unless you mean proof of "There are many articles and categories that are 'Foo in Bar'." or proof of "It is recommended that adjectives be redirected to nouns.", either of which I'll be happy to supply. As for "normal English", I'm confused. What do you mean by "normal", and why "should" categories be in it? -Kbdank71 14:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe he did link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives). Nouns are preferred to adjectives.--ZayZayEM 02:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Personally speaking, Category:Sport in Japan makes more sense than Category:Japanese sports. Why? Because when I think of "Japanese sports", I think of stuff like sumo wrestling - sports that originated in Japan. Obviously, the scope of these categories goes beyond traditional Japanese sports. --Azkar 15:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That problem doesn't apply with "Japanese sport"
      • This is a P.O.V. statement. To some people, the problem obviously does exist.--ZayZayEM 02:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and move to Category:Japanese sport as most common useage. James F. (talk) 12:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)



March 9

Category:Magicians

It's a duplicate of Category:Professional magicians and had only two entries (I depopulated it). Paranoid 17:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • KEEP While content may be duplicated, I think that Professional magicians should be a subcategory of Magicians, and it should not be a People by occupation subcat, just of Magic, since there are amateur magicians of some note (like Johnny Carson). 132.205.45.148 20:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Should probably be renamed. Not all magicians are amateur or professional performance artists - many, particularly in history, genuinely profess(ed) to having magical power. They should be in separate, distinguishable categories. Also, I wonder whether Category:Professional magicians shouldn't be re-categorised. It is currently under Category:Magic, which is a sub-category of Category:Occult. Stage magic is hardly occult and the other entries in Category:Magic all seem to refer to the occult, as opposed to entertainment, kind. -- Necrothesp 15:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree w/ re-categorizing. It should be a subcat of "entertainers", not "occult." -Willmcw 22:20, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: name is too ambiguous. Category:Professional magicians should likewise be renamed to Category:Stage magicians. -Sean Curtin 18:31, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Support this. -- Necrothesp 18:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: What about parlor magicians or up-close magicians (as opposed to stage magicians)? Where do they fit in? —Caesura 20:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Stage magicians, per User:Gtrmp's suggetion. -Willmcw 22:20, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Where does Merlin (or, for the young ones, Harry Potter) play into this? Fictional (but actual) magicians shouldn't be thrown in with Doug Henning.
    • That would be Category:Fictional musicians. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Surely you mean Category:Fictional magicians? -Sean Curtin 05:53, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, that was at least a fairly entertaining mental slip. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • They're not magician's Potter and Merlin are wizards. Magicians use tricks to reach their intented effect, wizard use some magical power. Mgm|(talk) 13:12, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt any amateur magicians are notable enough to even be in Wikipedia, so making a distinction between professional and amateur won't make sense. Also, calling them all stage magicians would be too much of a generalization. For example Michael Ammar and David Blaine rarely perform on stage. I'd say move everything to Category:Magicians as a subcategory of Category:Magic and Category:Entertainers. Potter and Merlin can go in a category of "Wizards" or "fictional wizards", they're technically not magicians as they don't use tricks to reach the effect. -- Mgm|(talk) 13:09, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Native American languages

This category is redundant. Languages are already classified by genetic affiliation (e.g. Navajo language belongs to Category:Apachean languages which belongs to Category:Athabaskan languages which belongs to Category:Na-Den languages which belongs to Category:Languages) and by region (e.g. Navajo language belongs to Category:Languages of North America which belongs to Category:Languages by country (which itself should be renamed to Category:Languages by continent or Category:Languages by region) which belongs to Category:Languages). There's also considerable inconsistency in membership: Category:Apachean languages, Category:Athabaskan languages and Category:Na-Dené languages all belong to both Category:Native American languages and to Category:Languages, while Category:Algic languages belongs only to Category:Native American languages. I would say only Category:Na-Dené languages and Category:Algic languages should belong to Category:Languages, which should really be only a category of subcategories (separate language families) as much as possible. --Angr 10:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Would this category be okay if it were more consistently applied? As a layperson who is interested in languages but completely unfamiliar with the family groupings (and therefore unable to effectively use them), I find it very helpful. -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Keep. The multi-axial classification proposed by Ish ishwar sounds reasonable. Courtland 23:24, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC) Well, there are articles for Native American languages and Native American, and the languages article has a top level genetic classification but not a complete languages list. However, it would be useful to have a simple list of Native American languages with their "full path" through the classification scheme, such as Angr outlined above; such could be a subpage of the languages article, for instance. Courtland 00:10, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
  • ???. I dont know about deletion. It is true that there is a Native American languages article that has the top level genetic groupings. But so do other specific language family articles, such as Algic languages. Here is what I think that we need if we want to be perfect:
  • a genetic classification
  • an areal classification
  1. by continent
  2. by country (?)
  3. by cultural area (which overlaps country & continent boundaries)
  • by culture/history (which would give us our Native American grouping)
I think we need a "Native American" group somewhere because many laypersons dont even know that Native Americans speak many different unrelated languages. They are just grouped all together into a kind of non-Euro-American American category. Of course we need the genetic and areal groupings because they are the standard way to classify languages. So, I think we could classify Klallam as (1) Salishan language family (2) North American (3) USA (4) Northwest Coastal (5) Native American. This would be a lot of work, esp. since most Nat. Amer. langs do not even have an article. - Ish ishwar 23:47, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
We could do that. Each language could have three nestings tracing it back to Category:Languages, thus for example:

--Angr 07:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and rework as per Angr. Thryduulf 08:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Public schools in Scotland

Rename to Category:Private schools in Scotland Rename to Category:Independent schools in Scotland (see below) as whilst fee paying schools in England are referred to as public, fee-paying schools in Scotland are referred to as private. Greg Robson 07:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep as is; Category:Public schools in the United Kingdom would look ridiculous. Mark1 04:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • But only because it is also mis-named. There's a reason that the "I" in "ISIS" stands for "Independent". Uncle G 14:08, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
  • See User:GregRobson/Schools. If we replace "Public" with "Independent" throughout we can probably keep the layout as it is. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
  • I have amended the above proposal This was an oversight when I initially came up with the categories, I didn't realise how complex it was going to be, a lot of renaming needs to be done - but hey, at least it's better than it was ;) Greg Robson 08:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


March 6

Category:Stub

Rename to Category:Stubs. Neutralitytalk 17:58, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Question ... doesn't this present a technical challenge considering the number of items in the category? Courtland 18:28, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • No change. This has come up before, and it lost before. The stub category is obsolete. The only change that should be made to it is emptying it by either extending articles or sorting stub articles into more specific stub categories. It is not worth the overhead to rename something that really should be slowly phased out. --ssd 20:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not obsolete. There are always going to be articles that are not easily sorted. I think we should mark it for renaming the next time it is discontinued and then re-added, if that makes any sense. It obviously should be stubs. If we should end up removing the category from the generic stub template and then re-adding it (as has happened a few times in the past), we should use Category:Stubs (we actually missed a great opportunity to do this when last this happened). -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • One option: Start up Category:Stubs with a new template (maybe just Template:St) and run the two in parallel for the time being. Category:Stub is dropping in size, and it would be easy for WP:WSS to change Stub to St for those stubs not able to be subcategorised. Given time, hopefully Category stub will dwindle away. Once it has dwindled sufficiently, then it can be merged with the new category. At the moment, however, I suspect it would cause too much strain on the servers to do one giant changeover. If not, simply keep as is - certainly deletion is the worst possible option. Grutness|hello? 05:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no rename - Category for the generic stub template is a server resource problem. Stub sorters can still find items with Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub . -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Throwing in my vote before it is interpreted that there are not enough stub sorters (I'm one) supporting this to keep it from changing or being deleted. Categorization seems to be happening at a brisk pace (based on some random page surveys) and the size of the category will hopefully get more manageable as time goes on. If we knew the rate of stub creation, that would help us to very roughly project when this size might be reached. Also, if we can mount a "merge or bust" campaign that encourages stub mergers over deletion (a significant number of stubs end up in the deletion queues) the rate of decline could be accelerated further. Courtland 23:57, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Spoke with User:Jamesday, rename or delete doesn't look like a good idea. Rename.Delete. The category doesn't even work properly, because of all the items in it. May as well delete. --jag123 03:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you mean? It looks like it's working to me. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • It was turned off a while back because of performance problems or something. Look at Dorama, found using the google search for stubs. At this moment, it's a normal, generic stub, part of Category:Stub, but doesn't appear in the category. There are 18,000 hits in the stub Goolgle search, and only a fraction of that listed in the category. If the stub project ever reaches a point where stubs are controlled, then the category can be re-created, but at this point it's really useless. To clarify, even if a stub can't be categorised by an existing templates, and it's decided that the generic stub template is best, there's still no guarantee that it will show up in the category. --jag123 03:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • That's a template problem, not a category problem. Articles will show up in the category as they are edited. (And if we remove the category from the template, all the articles that are currently in the category will not move out until they are edited. There is a certain amount of inertia at work in large categories like this.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I see what you mean. I changed the category of the archeology stubs and nothing happened, as expected. In that case, Category:Stubs (if created) would contain stubs created after the template was changed (which would give Courtland an idea of how many stubs are created in a given time period) and stub sorters who find a generic stub that should remain a generic stub can make a null edit so the article "moves" categories. It wouldn't take very long for C:Stub to be emptied. Hopefully people won't forget that there are still a few thousand stubs out there that won't show up in either category, though. --jag123 03:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, since the opportunity to express my opinion presents itself. I've always disliked the whole stub category heirarchy, it's a meta-category that shouldn't be mixed in with categories that are based on the actual subject matter. Things like Category:Articles to be merged are fine since they're so temporary, but few things seem more permanent than stub templates. Bryan 05:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • A quick survey of the last 200 stubs that I have changed to more specialist stub templates shows that over 20% have now been extended beyond stub length. Since I average 100 template amendments a day, that's 40 stubs lost in the last two days. How permanent were you saying that template was? Grutness|hello? 05:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Taking the opposite of "few" to be "many," I'd say they're more permanent than many things. A compromise I've been following has been to move all but one stub notice over onto article's talk: pages when I run across articles with more than one stub notice, since I'm not one to unilaterally impose my will when there isn't a consensus, but I still vote to delete the whole lot of them when the question comes up (as it has here). Bryan 00:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • OW! Baaaad move! So when the page is expanded beyond stub length, the editor takes the stub notice off the page, but it stays on the talk page permanently. Can we have a list of all the articles you've done this to so that they can be reverted? NOW? Grutness|hello? 00:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I don't keep track. You can either dig around in my contributions for summaries with "stub" in them or you can look in the stub categories themselves under "talk:" (this will get the ones that others have been doing too). Let me know if you actually go do that, though, so I can follow along and delete the extra stub templates instead. See Wikipedia talk:Template messages#Moving templates to talk pages for more discussion of this issue. Bryan 02:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Various Oscar categories (redux)

Although the last CFR failed, there are some essential renames we need to do to make these categories conform to standards. This applies to all "Oscar" and "Oscar Nominee" subcategories of Category:Academy Awards.

In general, [[Category:Blah Oscar]] should be renamed to [[Category:Blah Oscar winners]]. [[Category:Blah Oscar Nominee]] should be renamed to [[Category:Blah Oscar nominees]].

Some categories also use unofficial titles: Category:Best Director Oscar (and related nominee category) should be [[Category:Directing Oscar winners/nominees]]. There's also a problem with this category in terms of semantics. This award is awarded to the film, not the individual. The nominees category has individuals, but the winners category has films. We need to split these categories like the actor/actress categories, but in the opposite way: [[Category:Directing Oscar winners/nominees]] should be for films, with [[Category:Directing Oscar winners/nominees (director)]] for the directors themselves. Alternatively, we could just stick both people and films into the category. I don't have a huge problem with that.

– flamurai (t) 01:26, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • I stick by what I said before - do it the way they are announced Category:Academy Award winners for best director; Category:Academy Award nominees for best director, +c. Grutness|hello? 06:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Grutness on the naming. Also, I think it might be a good idea to get rid of the categories for things that aren't actually being given the awards - the film categories for awards that are actually going to actors, and the director categories for awards that are actually going to films, for example. That part's not such a big deal though as long as the names are fixed. The nominee/winner split is reasonable, IMO, and should be kept. Bryan 18:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. So for every one Oscar category, we have FOUR WP categories? Seems like overkill to me. I'd support merging the films and people together, and even winners and nominees. -Kbdank71 17:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No, only two - and two that it should be in - nominees and winners. The two are very different things... Putting them together would be like having Category: Presidential candidates of the United States but no category for presidents. Why would you possibly need four? The film isn't a director, and does not win the award for best director. The director is the director. If for some odd reason you do want to list the film as well, it can go in the same category as the director. Grutness|hello? 05:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Wrong. The award is for Directing, not Best Director, and it is awarded to the film. The director's or directors' name(s) isn't even on the ballot. The only awards that officially go to a person, not a film, are the acting awards. Note the naming of the awards. Only the actor/actress categories are named with the people nouns. The rest are named with the process nouns: art direction, writing, directing, etc. – flamurai (t) 17:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Under the above recommendation, many award categories would only require two Wikipedia categories (nominees and winners), not four. (The acting awards, for example, are awarded to individuals.) I definitely wouldn't combine nominees and winners; they are very different things in the American film world. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not all of them. Just the acting ones right now. I don't support grouping winners and nominees, but I don't mind mixing films and people in one category. – flamurai (t) 03:12, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright, then, I'll agree with the proposal for standards purposes, even though I don't see the need for a nominee cagegory. -Kbdank71 17:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I support the addition of "winners" and renaming "Nominee" to "nominees", but I vehemently oppose merging anything together. For awards like best actor, I see it necessary to categorize both the people who wonder the oscar and the films that got them the oscar (how ever you want to say it is semantics). Putting films with people together is bad. Putting nominees and winners together circumvents my entire purpose of this categorization to begin with (Category:Academy Award winning actors had both nominees and winners). For entirely picture-centric awards (best picture is the only that comes to mind) I don't see the need to categorize the acceptors of the award (usually the producer or director?) but everything else can be to the people nominated, the people that won, the films nominated, and the films that won. And I still oppose the last CFR to make them insanely long and presume this CFR won't drift toward that. Cburnett 21:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just want to further qualify my position. When I add the category to an article, I put the film or winner in HTML comment after it. Specifically, so when all of the categorization is done then the comments can be removed and the data put into a section on the article (something like "Awards"). All robots that I've seen go through categories will move comments to top of the categories, which voids the purpose of them being there. If a robot can't do the renaming without messing these comments up and no one is willing to do it by hand, then I remove my support until categorization and "Awards" section is done.
Removing the comments, or moving them so that they lose context (there's really little difference), would instill much more work to achieve the same goal. Cburnett 23:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


February 6

Cities in the United States

Most follow the format Category:Minneapolis, Minnesota, i.e. City Name, State Name, I have found the following exceptions (and suggest renamings):

  • Category:Philadelphia, PA -> Category: Philadelphia
    • Oppose - 0, Support - 1
  • Category:Seattle, WA -> Category:Seattle
    • Oppose - 0, Support - 1

I believe these should be corrected for consistency, so that editors will be able to categorize things into US cities without worrying about whether the state name belongs, whether the postal abbreviation is used, or whether it is dropped. dml 15:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unofficial voting summary: See the list above for votes that apply to each individual example; blanket votes are included above. In all there were 4 blanket Oppose and 2 blanket Support. Two votes were for alternatives not shown and those have been added to the list. All this supports Sarah's statements at the bottom of this listing. Courtland 20:53, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC) disclosure - I voted on this

For future reference, there's a Template:Cfru that you should use to label changes like this. I'm tagging all except Category:Washington, DC, because I can't imagine what you would change it to. Washington, DC is the full name.
If we can have a Category:London, I don't know why we can't have a Category:New York City (which is very seldom referred to as "New York, New York"). I would recommend going with whatever the article is titled. (We should definitely change those that use abbreviations, though.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew it was some template. The Washington DC article is actually Washington, D.C., with the periods, so the category should probaly match, the articles of US cities always are supposed to always be city, state (except apparently New York City) according to the Manual of Style dml 01:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The full name is, of course, Washington, District of Columbia. The D.C. is the traditional abbreviation like Mass. for Massachusetts. The DC is the modern two-letter (no punctuation) postal code abbreviation like MA for Massachusetts. That's not so difficult, is it? Let's proceed from there, not all the nonsense we've had so far. Gene Nygaard 04:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • ISTR that when working on the cities of another country the consensus was keep the non-qualified name if the place was by far the best known example worldwide and unlikely to be ambiguous, and add the qualification if the name was not that well known or was likely to cause confusion. If that is the case I'd say Keep: Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore, Las Vegas, New York City, and Nashville; Fix Up the correct state/district name for Philadelphia, Seattle, and Washington D.C.; and add the state name to Orlando*, San Francisco, Atlanta, and Laughlin. (*may be the best known place, but it's also a first name). Arguably San Francisco and Atlanta could do without, but I'm pretty sure there are also moderately sizeable places with those names outside the US. As for Laughlin, I doubt it's well enough known to do without its state moniker. Grutness|hello? 02:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't care either way on this, but hope that whoever is voting to change this plans to do the voluminious work themselves instead of expecting others to follow up. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:29, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • I was hoping that someone had a bot that could do this (or we could wait until mediawiki was updated) dml 20:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There's absolutely no need to change the category names of cities that don't need their states listed to be properly identified. At a minimum, this absolutely applies to L.A., San Fran, Chicago, Las Vegas, and New York City. Postdlf 09:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That'll come as a big surprise to the residents of San Francisco, Texas, and the residents of San Francisco and Las Vegas, New Mexico. --Calton 02:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Not to mention Atlanta, Illinois or Atlanta, Texas. Support for at least Atlanta, Georgia since the additional clarification certainly does more good than harm. -- uberpenguin 14:08, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
      • OpposeWell, in that case, you might as well start citing the mass lists of cities named after other cities-- London, Ontario, London, Kentucky, etc. There's only one famous San Francisco, and one famous Las Vegas. Las Vegas, New Mexico can have a category with the state name included... if it ever garners enough articles about it to merit that.siafu 01:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As an alternative to changing the category names, should the articles be renamed to match the categories? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem (aside from now having to rename the things that link to cities) is that it breaks the convention. It is much easier to link if you don't have to think about whether or not the state is in the name. dml 20:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I do support renaming the categories that have state abbreviations in them, btw: Seattle, WA and Philadelphia, PA (I believe both were my mistake originally, I'm afraid). Neither needs the state name included to clarify it. Postdlf 05:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support for the reason that otherwise one has to remember which ones are 'special' enough to lack the state name. --SPUI (talk) 10:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The state name, or the state name and the country name? Honestly, the special argument seems a little stretched to me at least; there are really only a handful of cities where this could really be an issue at all (e.g., Portland, Springfield, Salem), not a whole horde. Most of the time it's pretty obvious.siafu 00:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Category:Laughlin should even exist, as it has only one item within it. Looks like someone wants Laughlin to be more popular than it really is. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose - I think that cities that are significant enough should be findable with just their name. While there are many Nashville's in the world, there is only one that is large enough to warrant a category. Best plan though is to do what we're doing at Category:New Orleans, Louisiana. Kevin Rector 15:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • The New York City category should be left as is; the current name at New York City was that favored after considerable debate.--Pharos 07:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Many of these cities are universally recognizable without the state name. There's no reason to add the state for cities such as Chicago, Baltimore, Nashville, etc, unless we're going to enact some kind of formal policy about it. Otherwise, it seems like a waste of effort. Kaldari 06:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't mean to sound rude, but this discussion of forcing something like "Chicago" to "Chicago, Illinois" is a bit ridiculous. If that is enforced then there is a broad swath to cut through Wikipedia in order to enforce policy ... New Delhi ... Cancun ... Geneva ... ad infinitum. I would suggest not opening that particular door by forcing policy where convention and convenience point in the opposite direction. That door leads to "should we call it Chicago, United States like we might Geneva, Switzerland?" and other monstrous places. Courtland 02:19, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) P.S. I do realize that of the examples I gave, there is only a category for New Delhi
  • Support, except for Washington, DC, which was moved from DC to D.C. with only about 60% consensus, leaving undetectable double-redirs, so I believe should be moved back. The WA and PA are especially bad and should certainly be changed. New York, New York was moved arbitrarily to New York City with NO consensus, so I think that is an erroneous arguement. I believe Cats should follow the same rules as articles, so the state names should be included. That also prevents the problem of remembering which cities are 'special' enuf to stand without their states. And, yes, I am willing to help with the re-categorization. Niteowlneils 19:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I favor consistency in category names, I also favor conciseness. The Category:New Orleans, Louisiana example can be used by those who want to have it both ways. -Willmcw 22:28, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support except for Category:New York City. People should be able to deduce the category name for anywhere in the world from the article name. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 15:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There seems generally to be vague consensus to avoid making these moves. I recommend that we keep most of them as they are due to lack of clear agreement to change. (People seem to generally be in favor of retaining simple category names where they are fairly unambiguous.) In cases where duplicate categories exist, I recommend that we renominate them for individual discussion. I'll go ahead with this if no one objects within the next couple of days. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Renomination of duplicates is certainly necessary, as well as those with abbreviations in the name. Personally, I find both ways to be useful. I say we keep the status quo and kludge a redirect from the alternate. (And perhaps lobby some more about getting category redirects to work properly in the software.) Pearle is back to health and ready and willing to move large numbers of articles. -- Beland 03:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just realise I didn't comment on Boston, above. The reason is I instantly thought "Boston - that's Lincolnshire - everyone knows that..." Never even occurred to me to ask myself what it was doing in a list of American cities! Grutness|hello? 04:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: No matter the decisions are, should the ones voted down be redirects to the ones kept? — Instantnood 08:28, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

January 15

Category:Transportation_by_country

Subcategories are all "Transportation in Foo" except we have:

"Transport" is the term actually used in Ireland.

This is a precedent-setting decision. Should we have a universal form for this type of category, or should we vary the form to allow a more local flavor? Consistency might make navigation easier, but for article text, there is a precedent to use local terminology if applicable. I suspect that "Transport" is also used the UK and some other Commonwealth countries. If we decide to allow variation in this type of case, should we actively investigate usage in the countries for which categories exist, or allow passive changes over time? What should we do about non-English-speaking countries? -- Beland 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See also the next entry...

  • I would vote for Transport of Ireland, for the English forms, I think it is best to try to keep the international flavour of Wikipedia, we can easily add a category redirect for Transportation and Transport if there is confusion. But users in Ireland, England would look for transport and not transportation. Sortior 04:32, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't bother me to mix them up a bit if there are folks who seriously object to using Transportation as the standard, although it does tend to cause confusion in assigning categories. (It would always be necessary to check before assigning a transportation category.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps an energetic youngster or bot can be convinced to create the alternative redirects for all transport/transportation categories. —Michael Z. 05:08, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
  • "Transport" is the word used in most English-speaking countries, and the article on transport rests there. "Transportation" has very different connotations - particularly to an Australian! I'm guessing most Americans have no problem with understanding the Commonwealth English form of "transport", and, in the light of the different meanings of the word "transportation" (and that it's a much longer word!) it would be better if "transport" is used, jguk 18:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Attempting to impose the American word "transportation" on other English speaking countries is totally unacceptbale. Philip 03:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I created most of the transportation in blah, as part of the Wikiproject airport stuff, but I will stick with the general consensus here, even though it looks wrong to me (I am a Canadian). Burgundavia 22:05, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • What are the Australian connotations of "Transportation"? -- Beland 03:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Beland, see transportation :) jguk 19:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh. ::enlightenment:: -- Beland 03:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What if we just say that the category should match the main article? (Whether "Transport in X" or "Transportation in X". Articles can easily be moved by folks familiar with local usage and categories can then be nominated for moving individually as necessary. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. I'll take care of implementing that, if there are no objections in the next 7 days. (Resetting the clock here because this is a novel suggestion.) -- Beland 03:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Please go ahead. Wincoote 14:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup overhead

Discussions moved off-page

Please see:

To be emptied or moved

The following categories meet the requirements for deletion but are not empty. You can still review discussions, which have been moved to archive pages (in particularly controversial cases, discussion may be left intact on this page instead). This section is meant to be a summary with no discussion. Discussion should go in the previous section.

Category delete keep other rename to / why
Category:Terrorist organizations 25 4 2 delete (POV) - manual depopulation, see discussion
- - - - -

Category:Terrorist organizations

Discussion

Move to Category:Irregular military

  • Votes for replacement cat:

Non-governmental paramilitary groups (2): Iota, Jmabel
Irregular military (4): AD Monroe III, Courtland, WillMCW, KBDank71
Violent activism (1): Courtland(2)
Non-state irregular military (1): Iota(2)
Organizations using asymmetric warfare tactics (1): BanyanTree
Insurgents (1): anon
-Kbdank71 18:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

University people categories

Vote summary (categories only):

  • (4) Keep alumni: Greg Robson, James F., flamurai, Wincoote
  • (5) Delete alumni: Tupsharru, Lowellian, Postdlf, Radiant!, Neutrality
  • (2) Keep people/affiliated: James F., Wincoote
  • (7) Delete people/affiliated: Tupsharru, Greg Robson, Lowellian, flamurai, Postdlf, Radiant!, Neutrality

Moved discussion to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:University people categories

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:

-Kbdank71 16:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A lot of these seem to have the pending deletion template in them. I propose we remove the cfd template when adding pending deletion so that they are removed are from the category deletion category. --ssd 15:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Noted; this seems to be done, so de-listing these. -- Beland 03:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I deleted Category:China geography stubs yesterday - someone revived it, so I've just deleted it a second time. If it's revived again, it should be investigated... Grutness|hello? 00:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just user:Instantnood fighting the concensus again. --ssd 06:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=11640831"