Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alberuni (talk | contribs) at 05:26, 12 December 2004 (→‎[[:Category:Palestinian children killed by Israelis]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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

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


How to use this page

  1. Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or being created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies there, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas. (See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
  3. Please read the new policy at Wikipedia:Categorization of people if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
  4. Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
  5. Add the name of the new category and {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
  6. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
  7. Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
  8. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
  9. Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

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

Old discussions from this page have been archived to:

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

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

December 12

Category:Palestinian children killed by Israelis

Inherently POV; created to extend the Israel-Arab conflict into Wikipedia. Jayjg 00:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 11

Category:List of galaxies

Pointless duplicate of Category:Galaxies. - SimonP 03:05, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Category:User contributed public domain images

Rename to Category:User-contributed public domain images. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 03:03, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Supermarkets in Alaska

Unnecessary subcategorization—entire content was one article, which I split into Category:Companies based in Alaska (of which it is presently the only one) and Category:Supermarkets in the United States. Postdlf 01:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alaska is a US state? Oh, sorry. Pardon my ignorance— please do delete it. Mr. Jones 09:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Zurich Premiership teams

Currently subcategory of Category:English rugby union teams. I don't think there is any need for the subcategory as the teams in the Zurich Premiership are listed in English Rugby Union teams and the ZP relegates one team a year which means adjusting the teams in the Category:Zurich Premiership teams category.GordyB 19:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 10

Category:Fortune telling

Subsumed by Category:Divination. --Gary D 09:10, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Sects

Too broad and insufficiently descriptive to be useful; there is nothing categorizable here that is not better and more tightly categorizable elsewhere within the religion category trees. --Gary D 10:05, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Delete. Postdlf 01:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Israeli student

Malformed category s/b students, but I don't think students should have a category either. Almost by definition students aren't notable. If they are notable it is for something other than being a student. Sortior 14:58, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Please delete. User:IZAK categorized this better. Please also delete and .Gidonb 04:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 8

Category:Fasion designers

Orphan misspelled category. Sortior 22:32, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Maine authors

Replaced by Category:Maine writers. Jalnet2 06:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Villages in Minnesota

Like Towns in Minnesota below, a mistakenly created category as there are no municipalities officially known as villages in Minnesota. older≠wiser 23:54, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Correct. Delete. Postdlf 01:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Locations in Minnesota

Vaguely-named category. Apparently created for unorganized territories that had zero population. Content shifted to Category:Unorganized territories in Minnesota. older≠wiser 23:45, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • At least some of those do have a positive population listed. I don't understand yet what these signify. How are these different from CDPs? Why is there specific census information on these things, and if the population is 0, why do we want to keep the articles on uninhabitated unorganized places? Postdlf 01:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • These differ from CDPs in that there is no organized local government at all in these areas. They are technically part of a county, but that is it. So the Census Bureau in cooperation with the states (I think only Maine, Alaska and maybe one or two other states have such areas) defines these "unorganized territories" to ensure complete statistical coverage of the entire area of the U.S.
  • Maybe we should merge the articles into the county articles then? Are their statistics already included in the county figures? Postdlf 00:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Minnesota

Another case of a Town category in a state where no municipalities are officially known as towns. older≠wiser 23:28, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Category:English bands

Redundant with Category:British musical groups; doesn't fit with "musical group" standards. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 20:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Mitsubishi automobile engines

Redundant with Category:Mitsubishi engines. --SFoskett 15:31, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Category:U.S. presidential cabinet members

Redundant with Category:U.S. Executive Cabinet. Postdlf 10:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. repetitive. --MPerel 23:49, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Category:U.S. federal Executive Branch electees

Cumbersome name combined with lack of function—this was created to house within Category:U.S. politicians the only two such positions, President and Vice-President, and only serves to obscure the two most important categories of U.S. politicians. Postdlf 10:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Defense Department officials

Replaced by better-named Category:U.S. Dept. of Defense officials. Postdlf 10:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:U.S. Defense organizations

Poorly named category replaced by Category:U.S. Dept. of Defense agencies. Postdlf 10:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Terrible_independant_reading_books_assigned_by_Mr._Buckley

  1. This looks like some student's personal gripe cateory. It only contains Kon-Tiki, which I am going to delink. I fear that i actually created the category by cfd'ing it, sorry for that. --MaxMad 08:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. nonencyclopedic. --MPerel 09:27, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Causes célèbres

  1. This category is inherently POV. Why some events or people significant enough for listing in this Wiki are causes célèbres and some are not? There is no clear criteria. It's either all persons and events are causes célèbres or none. Even if 50% or articles are eligiable for listing in this category, what's the point of such categorization?
  2. This is an English wiki. This category uses a French expression with non-English characters in the title. Such characters are difficult to type, the articles/categories with them are hard to link to.

--Gene s 05:45, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The caption sometimes appears as a non-existent category (red instead of blue). This happens due to a problem with some browsers which incorrectly convert non-English characters. The category exists and populated as of time of this writing. --Gene s 07:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Causes célèbres are a form of media/grassroots sensations, jocularly known as nine-day wonders, only in many cases far more than that. The category page links to the article Cause célèbre, which seems to accurately describe the phenomenon. As a way the media and the public react to the event, whether it be the battleship Maine or the Scott Peterson trial, is what binds these topics together. However I do agree that it's a hard phrase to remember or type. Any suggestions for a replacement? "Media sensations"? -Willmcw 06:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Look what is currently listed there: Sacco and Vanzetti, Joan of Arc, Joseph Brodsky. They are clearly NOT "nine-day wonders". Besides, we already have a template {{current}} and related cagegory Category:Current event --Gene s 07:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:WTO member states

needs to be renamed to "WTO member economies" to reflect the WTO's true status. For example, Hong Kong and the EU are not "states." The WTO uses the term "economies." --Jiang 03:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support That's correct. --ThomasK 04:11, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • I thought Hong Kong (and Taiwan) had the designation of "customs territory" under the WTO...or maybe that's just under U.S. import/export laws. Anyway, I wonder if it would be easier to categorize countries that aren't members of the WTO, because most countries are, right? Same thing if anyone ever creates a category for "UN members". No vote, just commenting randomly. Postdlf 06:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support rename in general; perhaps just rename to "WTO Members". --MPerel 09:32, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, and I agree with the above comment. - Jerryseinfeld 21:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Asterims of stars

Category:Legendary movie creature experts

Vague and subjective (assuming "legendary" is referring to the experts and not the movie creatures). —tregoweth 00:34, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

December 7

Category:Kings of Persia

This does not require a deletion. However, a demand has been raised for moving - a bot will be useful, as quite a lot of articles are concerned - this to a theoretical Category:Shahs of Persia. There is no objection on my part (me being the creator of this category). -- Itai 22:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, a Shah is a King. IZAK 18:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think the trend has been to create a general "monarchs" category, but if all such monarchs went by a particular designation, I don't see the point in doing that here. Were all monarchs of Persia called Shahs? Postdlf 00:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Czech monarchs

There appears to be a consensus that this should be Category:Bohemian monarchs. (The category has been depopulated and all articles have been moved thence.) In an ideal world Category:Czech monarchs would redirect there - the two are, for all intents and purposes, one and the same - but this is not currently available. -- Itai 22:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • What about Samo and the rulers of Great Moravia? Shouldn't we attach them to the "Czech rulers" categories branch in some way? Martg76 00:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • (1) Bohemian means referring to Bohemia (=western Czechia/Czech lands), Czech means today referring to Bohemia or referring to Czechia/Czech lands (= Bohemia + Moravia + other terr.), but historically Czech is simply the Czech word for Bohemian (there is no equivalent for Bohemia or Bohemian in Czech, only in German or French); so actually both Czech and Bohemian is correct, Bohemian historically probably more correct, (2) Samo and Great Moravia do not belong below Bohemian or Czech monarchs. Major reasons: (a) Samo is 7th century, GM basically 9 th century, the state of Bohemia arose only in the late 9th century as a western neighbour of Great Moravia, (b) Samo was a Frankish person who ruled the territory around the southern Moravia river and also conquered the later Bohemian territory for some time. In the 7th century there were no Czechs whatsoever, there were only generally "Slavs". Great Moravia was a state of proto-Slovaks and proto-Moravians. Since it existed parallely with Bohemia, it's rulers cannot be Bohemian rulers - except for Svatopluk, who conquered Bohemia for some 5 years. They can only be "rulers of on a part of the territory of what is now the Czech Republic". (3) The term monarch is somewhat confusing for me. I think ruler would be better, because it is more general: for example the Czech rulers were princes and dukes first and only then kings: does "monarch" include local princes?? Juro 03:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks Juro for this clarification. So let's delete Category:Czech monarchs. I agree that the term monarchs is not ideal, especially in a medieval feudal structure where the degree of independence varied over time. "Monarch" seems to imply a completely sovereign state to me. I would also prefer the term ruler, as we have it in Category:Rulers of Austria, which includes everyone from the first Margraves to the Emperors up to 1918. Ideally, there should be subcategories. Martg76 23:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Famous California streets

Category is POV. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is the suggested alternative? California streets? -Willmcw 23:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Category:Streets in California might be more in keeping with sibling categories. I agree that the famous is unnecessary—it is unlikely that there will need to be articles on streets that are not famous, after all. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree. I vote that the category be moved to Category:Streets in California. -Willmcw 00:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes. "Famous" accomplishes nothing valid in the category header, especially since nonnotable subjects aren't accepted on wikipedia. Either "Streets in California" or "California streets" is proper. Postdlf 00:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How would we define street? Would it include named highways like the Pacific Coast Highway that are surface roads? If we say that it's anything that doesn't have a suffix of Highway, that's a rather arbitrary distinction, as it's often arbitrary whether a main rural road is called a highway, road, boulevard, or something else. --SPUI 03:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Pro-Life

Used to categorize people ostensibly "who are against abortion and who are Pro-Life." Never mind the fact that abortion opponents are not singular regarding what exceptions or reasoning they may believe in, but categorizing individuals by their position on a single issue is simply inappropriate. Postdlf 02:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Delete with extreme prejudice. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:19, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Unlike another contentious category, terrorists, Pro-life people call themselves as such and so I vote to leave the cat open. --Hooperbloob 02:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Rick Block 02:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP Perfectly legitimate category. I think some people's personal beliefs are getting in the way of logical thinking. Categories are all single issues. I mean, since the Category: People from New York is one issue, should it also be deleted? People who play guitar? Murderers? If there are people who identify themselves as being for or against something and they have made statements or done things to make this known then they should be allowed to be in a category. FroggyMoore 03:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Whether or not someone is from New York is not an opinion that individual holds. And my personal beliefs are not the issue. I don't want to see a category for pro-choice individuals either. Postdlf 05:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: misnamed - shouldn't it be something like "Pro-life supporters" instead of just "Pro-Life"? --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with FroggyMoore in that some folks are finding it hard to drop their POVs--Hooperbloob 05:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether the category be kept or not, the term "pro-life" is not NPOV. Dysprosia 05:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Cat name is very much not NPOV; if such a cat is necessary it should be Category:Abortion opponents or Category:Opponents of abortion. The term pro-life is not in any way neutral; its very use implies an acceptance of the ideology's tenets. (Note that I also objected to Category:National liberation movements on the same grounds; the name, although that's what they may call themselves, makes a judgement in the group's favour.) —Tkinias 06:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Reorganize In looking at the general issue we currently have Category:Political advocacy groups in the U.S. but within it we have a similar problem: Category:White supremacist groups in the U.S. How would the NAACP article fit in relation to that cat? Create a counter-cat? I'd suggest we reorganize it as follows:
  Advocacy groups
    Advocacy groups by issue
      Abortion
      Race relations
      Gun control
      etc..

Listing the topic as opposed to the names of the groups themselves might be an easier way to go --Hooperbloob 17:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Jxg 21:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rename - Bad category. For one, despite its widespread use, it's part of the whole political doublespeak, and thus, POV. If you interpret the term literally it should only include people who are opposed to abortion and the death penalty. And hey, I'm opposed to both, even though I believe in preserving a woman's right to choose (since I believe that it is none of my business). Secondly, categorising people on the basis on their political views seems rather strange - do we have categories Republican (American), Democratic (American), Independent (American)? Or worse yet, "Pro-Germ Theory of Disease" (or Pro-Wearing Clothes of More than one Fibre" vs. "Biblical Literalist"? "Anti-Abortion Activist" (or, if you must give in to the doublespeak, "Pro-Life Activist") might be a valid category. Guettarda 23:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Either DELETE because it is POV (using the term Pro-Life is inherently POV), or rename to Anti-abortion activists. Quite a few suppposedly Pro-Life people support the death penalty, so they are categorically *not* Pro-Life, and are just hypocrites. Ofcourse there are also the vegan animal rights extremists who question the use of pro-life term, when so many of the pro-lifers eat meat, and don't give a damn about non-human life. Atleast the Pro-Choice people are honest in saying what they are, when they label themselves. 132.205.15.43 23:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wonder if there's a pro-abortion category for China and Japan, where abortion is a favoured means of birth control (especially in Japan, where the Pill is banned).
  • Delete. If this is to be kept, then the category "Terrorists" must be renamed to "Freedom fighters". The term "Pro-life" is biased and subjective. Some argue that it should be kept, as the anti-abortion activists refer to themselves as "pro-life". However, using the same argument, you could say Al-Quaida don't refer to themselves as "terrorists", thus they should be put in "freedom fighters" category. The same goes for most every terrorist organization in the world. A violent criminal is not referred to as "innocent", even if this is what he claims to be for himself. The whole point is; that if we are to be objective, we cannot give anyone the priveledge of naming themselves this way, no matter what our subjective opinions are. This cannot be stressed enough. TVPR 12:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
When it comes to controversial topics, terminology is inherently subjective. The only way in these cases to preserve a neutral POV is to make sure opposing sides are equally represented. In the case of Al-Qaida, there's no reason why the organization couldn't be classified under multiple categories, "terrorists" AND "freedom fighters". Likewise with the abortion issue, the neutral way would be to include proponents of each view under multiple categories, the ones described by themselves, and the ones described by opponents. --MPerel 23:10, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
In reality, I agree with you, but this would make things a tad too complicated. But you are correct, naturally; there is no way in which we can name any group in a neutral way. The closest would be Category:Pro-Life -> Category:Anti-abortion activists, and Terrorist groups -> Non-governmental semi-military activist groups. This won't work either. So I'm at a loss. I still think "pro-life" gives a false connotation, seeing as many anti-abortion activists both eat meat and warmly support the death penalty - hardly pro-life, or even pro-human-life. My view is that the most correct, least biased way would still be classifying pro-life in particular, and everything else in general, in the most NPOV way possible. Pro-choice, for instance, would be Pro-abortion activists, as "pro-choice" also is a connotative phrasing. Okay, I'm rambling, so: whenever possible, use least biased title. Any group of people called "pro-x" where x has clearly positive or negative connotations should be promptly renamed. Any with the word "terror", "liberty" etc. should also be renamed, as these are very emotionally laden words. The page Terrorism should naturally remain, as it serves to give the word a definition without pointing out particular groups, while on the other hand, the pages Terrorist groups and Freedom fighter groups (should this ever appear) should both contain only a link to a page with a more correct, less POV name in which both lists could be merged. --TVPR 08:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would not find "Pro-abortion activists" an appropriate NPOV term to substitute for "Pro-Choice". Many pro-choice advocates, including moi, are not "pro" abortion, and actually find it an abhorent choice, but support the autonomy of women facing such a situation to make reproductive decisions about their own bodies rather than having governments deciding for them. As for the hypocrisy of the term "pro-life", I agree, however the two movements identify themselves as the "pro-life" movement and the "pro-choice" movement, and each has its advocates. NPOV doesn't necessarily mean everyone agrees with how a movement identifies itself. For example, does everyone believe members of Hizbullah really belong to "the" party of God? --MPerel 04:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I didn't nominate this for deletion because it used the designation of "pro-life" for abortion opponents. I listed it because it tries to classify people by their position on abortion. I really don't care what terminology is used—categorizing by opinions on specific issues should be per se invalid. Categorize instead people notable for being anti-abortion or reproductive rights activists. Or make a list article, and annotate the source of the alleged position ("Britney Spears said in a Rolling Stone interview that abortion was 'wrong'") and the substance of their position ("...but agrees there should be exceptions for cases of rape and incest.") Please keep the discussion on this point, and then if the wrong decision is made to keep this type of classification, then talk about terminology, and about what kind of meaningful limiting principle would then keep individuals from being categorized by every conceiveable specific opinion. Postdlf 00:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, I didn't realize until after taking a closer look that the items in this category are all people. I disagree though with your statement that "categorizing by opinions on specific issues should be per se invalid". I think if public figures publicly identify themselves as supporters of particular movements, in this case the pro-life movement, there's nothing wrong with categorizing them as such. Since the items in this category are all people, however, I do think it would be appropriate to rename the category "Pro-Life Advocates" and that there should also be a "Pro-Choice Advocates" category. Supporters aren't necessarily "activists" though, so "advocates" or "supporters" probably better describes their status. There are lists out there of advocates of each of these movements: Pro-Life Supporters, Pro-Choice Supporters. --MPerel 04:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

December 5

Category: Bays of New Zealand

Sigh. This one's my mistake. It should be Category: Bays in New Zealand [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 07:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Belay that... perhaps it's the one of the three that's OK! [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 23:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

General Category:Landforms tidy-up

Hmm... a bit more research shows the following categories for different landforms referring to individual countries (continents seem to work differently). The following formats are found (numbers in brackets indicate number of categories) -

  • Canyons (1), Fjords (1), Glaciers (3), Craters (8), Hills (1), Mountain ranges (1), Mountains (9), Peninsulas (3), Rock formations (10), Valleys (1), Volcanoes (64), Waterfalls (4). These use only Feature X of Country Y
  • Islands - Islands of Y (26) of, Y islands (3)
  • Lakes - Lakes of Y (10), Y lakes (7)
  • Forests - Forests of Y (1), Y forests (1)
  • Rivers - Rivers in Y (1), Y rivers (2)
  • Bays - Bays of Y (1), Bays in Y (2)
  • National parks - National parks of Y (32), Y national parks (2)

Unless there's a good reason for this inconsistency, I'd like to suggest making Feature X of Country Y a standard. It would mean moving 18 categories:

What’s more, there’s also -

  • Geography - Geography of Y (34), Y geography (11). Australia, Canada, Egypt, France, Iran, Israel, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United States are the odd ones out here.

Cities, buildings, bridges, towns and communities seem to work the other way, with a distinct minority of Feature X of Y categories - perhaps "in" works better for human-made features?

Features by continent or other country group seem to work in a different, but no less inconsistent, way. More on that later, perhaps...? [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 23:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree with the above suggestion. Feature X of Y specifically notes where the feature is located, while Nationality Feature can be confusing. Confusion can come both from contested claims: "On Island X they speak language Y, even though it belongs to country Z", and from the fact that there probably are a lot of places called "French Mountain", "Swedish Creek" etc, especially in the US. Also, some nationalities are dissimilar to the name of the nation, e.g. "The Netherlands - Dutch", and are American features part of the North America, South America or just the US?--MaxMad 09:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Olympic <x> of the U.S.A.

The following categories have all been replaced by categories with names more similar to the parent category category:American Olympians.

Category:Olympic athletes of the U.S.A. -> category:American Olympians
Category:Olympic softball players of the U.S.A. -> category:American Olympic softball players
Category:Olympic water polo players of the U.S.A. -> Category:American Olympic water polo players
Category:Olympic weightlifters of the U.S.A. -> Category:American Olympic weightlifters
Category:Olympic wheelchair racers of the U.S.A. -> Category:American Olympic wheelchair racers

-- Rick Block 06:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • The Parent Category should instead be changed to Category:Olympians of the U.S.A, the current replacement now places undue emphasis on the controversial nature of what American is taken to mean by people not in the USA. It's discussed in other US/USA/American related category names here several times. 132.205.45.110 14:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually it should be Category:Olympic athletes of the U.S., in keeping with sibling categories. (Unless Olympic competitors is chosen instead...) At any rate, we should wait for a decision regarding the whole set of siblings. (See #Olympic_athletes_of_X.) It looks like we're doing "of country" all around.) -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:English_zoologists

Category uses erroneous ethnic label ("English") when many members are not English at all (includes Scottish, Belgian, Argentinian, German, etc.); category should be Category:British zoologists, as the link is that they are/were British subjects or worked in Britain. I believe none come from before the Act of Union 1707. —Tkinias 23:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this also include Category:English biologists and Category: English naturalists - although one in that group was born pre-Act of Union (Mark Catesby, 1683-1749) Guettarda 00:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes IMO. Better call an Englishman British than call a Scot English, no? British is the more inclusive category. —Tkinias 00:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Unfair games

The name isn't as POV as it seems; it refers to "games which are biased in a particular player's favor, assuming equal skill." In any event, it only has one item, and doesn't look like it will grow much. —tregoweth 04:50, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

December 4

Category:California Government images

Move to Category:State of California images or Category:California government images. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 20:28, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Category:US Government images

Move to Category:U.S. federal government images. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 20:24, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Currently contains Category:California Government images. While California is a part of the US Government structure, it is not part of the US federal government. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Pre-1994 Polish images

Move to Category:Pre-1994 Poland images to come into line with Category:Pre-1973 Soviet Union images. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 20:23, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

First, verify the leagal status of these images. If they're legal, then move to [[Category:Pre-[Date here] Iraq images]]</nowiki> to be consistent with Category:Pre-1973 Soviet Union images. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 20:23, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

December 3

Category:International trade

I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between this category and Category:International economics. Even if we vote to retain Category:International trade, however, it is clearly a subset of Category:International economics and not the other way around (which is the way it currently is). —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 00:58, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Currently, the two categories have way too much overlap. The problem is that international trade is a subset of international economics. Therefore, if we only retained the category international trade, we would be unable to properly categorize some articles pertaining to international economics. And the term "international economics"　is often used. A Google search for "international economics" turns up 1,500,000 hits—not as many as "international trade"'s 8,660,000, but still far from insignificant. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:55, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)


Category:Scandinavia

Duplicates Category:Nordic countries. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Not really. How would Scandinavian Mountains and Scandinavian Peninsula qualify as "Nordic countries"? Make Category:Nordic countries a subcategory of Category:Scandinavia, remove any redundant category listings, and the problem is solved. Postdlf 04:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yep. keep, and do as postdlf said. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 19:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep I agree completely with postdlf; he's come up with a perfectly logical reason to keep it and a way to resolve keeping both categories. Lokifer 07:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The problem with this is that Category:Nordic countries can't be a subcategory of Category:Scandinavia, as the Nordic countries include three countries and several other territories outside geographical Scandinavia (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Greenland and various atlantic and arctic islands). / Tupsharru 07:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with Tupsharru. I'd suggest Keep and put See also comments in both categories. The two overlap but not enough to be part of the same category. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 23:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep As Tupsharru indicated, merging the categories would be outright erronenous. Scandinavia and The Nordic Countries are not the same, period. Scandinavia, from the Scandinavian viewpoint, includes Norway, Sweden and Denmark, whilst the Nordic Countries span a much larger area. An absolute keep. As for the argument that the two overlap; The same can be said about "America" and "The USA" - the one covering a large geographic region (aka Continent), the other being a collective of states. TVPR 12:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Category:Bachelor

This is a weak association of people at best. As a category it would take tremendous upkeep as many of the folks on this list will get married. And then will we have a sister category of Category:Spinsters. Note this is also ill formed as it should be Category:Bachelors. —Sortior 03:38, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Oil for Food

Other than Oil for Food program, articles added to this category have at best a peripheral connection to this topic. -- Rick Block 00:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree, though we will have to find a home for some of the articles. —Sortior 03:34, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I disagree. One of the reasons that there seems to be a peripheral connection is because the UN has not been releasing most of the information that it knows about the subject. The little bits of information that has been uncovered has taken forever for the UN to acknowledge. Additionally, not all the linked articles have alot of information on the scandal (but this is again because the UN has not being willing to be transparent). Since the scandal appears to cover a large number of people and companies, a category such as this will help people to sort through the names. An article will not be able to cover every person, company, document, etc that encompasses this vast subject. This appears to be the reason that Watergate has a category (two in fact), and Watergate did not have as many people involved as the Oil for Food.Lokifer 21:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, SimonP 08:58, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Served better by giving the relevant facts in the relevant articles. Otherwise, there's not enough context to merit inclusion. -Sean Curtin 02:47, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)


Category:New Jersey Highways

Moved a few rogue entries to the more correct Category:New Jersey state highways. This was used by lion's share of the articles and is more correctly formed. —Sortior 03:11, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • delete with comments - Looks like it was the three named highways that were moved. These have secret numbers that redirect to them (except for 700, which should probably be merged with NJTP, which I may do at some point). However, something like New Jersey roads or the to-be-deleted New Jersey highways (though this one should be deleted, since it's capitalized) might be useful, since not all important roads in NJ are state highways (example: Kennedy Boulevard). Personally I'd recommend a treatment like I'm doing for Florida State Roads - not having a category at all, except for the named state roads. That way, the big number listing will include the secret numbers, while the main article remains the more common name. As a replacement for the category text at the bottom of each article is Template:flsr. I may do this at some point, if I get bored or finish with Florida. --SPUI 21:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • A related issue is how to name county roads. I've been using Foo County, State Road XXX in my Florida stuff. List of New Jersey state highways uses Foo County, State, County Highway XXX. There are three issues - whether to repeat County, whether to use Road, Route, or Highway, and whether to use a second comma. In Florida, Road is always used (as for state roads). In New Jersey, I'm not sure. That part should probably be on a statewide and maybe sometimes countywide basis. As for repeating County, I feel it's somewhat redundant and simply makes it take longer to write an article. As for a second comma, it just seems out-of-place to me. Someone please move this discussion somewhere better; I'm not sure where. --SPUI 21:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Do the numbers repeat from county to county, so that there may be a Foo County Highway 7 and a Boo County Highway 7 in the same state? How about [[Foo County Highway 7 (state)]]? Postdlf 04:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, in almost every state. Those that don't repeat, or have two systems, one that repeats by county and one that doesn't (like New Jersey's 5XX system) could use say New Jersey County Highway 583. The (state) syntax might work, though I still think Foo County, State Road XXX is clearer as to the intent - especially for stuff like Washington County Road 375 (Florida). That could be interpreted as a Washington County in Florida or a Florida County in Washington. --SPUI 06:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Flash Cartoons

Incorrect capitalization; also, Flash cartoons are rarely notable enough for articles here. —tregoweth 05:59, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

completely disagree. There are at least 50 pages on here derived from 1 flash cartoon in particular (Homestar Runner) methinks people simply are unware of this categories existance hence why it is sparsely populated. Perhaps this should become a peer review topic? I'm sure there are many more flash cartoon articles that deserve to be on here Joe Cartoon and other stuff that deserves being added. KEEP Alkivar 06:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It would need to be at Category:Flash cartoons in that case. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 2

Category:Automata

Category:Computational models

I want to delete Category:Computational models and Category:Automata and put their contents into the new Category:Automata theory. Category:Cellular automata would be moved as a subcategory into Category:Automata theory.

Automata theory (which is in very bad shape and has to be rewritten) is the more common term and cellular automata would be natural subcategory.MathMartin 22:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • are all models of computation based on automata? I don't remember recalling that tidbit. Are all models of computation equivalent to an automaton? I don't recall that tidbit either. Isn't the Turing O-machine (Oracle machine) a non-automaton based model? 132.205.95.65 03:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Category:Painters of Antiquity

Category:Artists by period and Category:Artists of Antiquity are also included in this request for deletion.

  • Strong delete. There are only two entries in all three of these categories. These two articles are already categorized (properly) as Category:Greek painters. It looks as though someone created this other categorization scheme for just these two stubby articles. The 3 categories were created all on the same day. Clubmarx 18:18, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Awkward title, duplicates existing categories,


December 1

Category:Jewish Russian people

  • Delete. This is one of those stupid categories that tries to group together people on the most vacuous of grounds and, apart from being grossly POV, appears to violate the general guidelines regarding categorisation of people. Most famous people listed here had few or tenuous, if any, connections to Judaism - cf. Leon Trotsky, for ex., the well-known communist and, obviously, atheist. There is no substantial or direct evidence that the majority of those listed here considered themselves essentially Jewish, or contributed in some significant way to Jewish culture. The abitrary grouping of people solely on the basis of their perceived ethnicity is offensive, if not racist. -- Simonides 10:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: How can you have Category:Jewish history in any place without mentioning the Category:Jews (Jewish people) who were part of it??? (How about Category:Jewish Americans (which I did not create, is that too "racist" as well???) The category is NOT about "Judaism" as such, how could it be? It's about people associated in one form or another with the Jewish people. I created this category because many people had simply placed the people into Category:Jews (which is being voted on below for renaming to Category:Jewish people) which was very broad, and another way of categorizing was to place them into Category:Jewish Russian and Soviet history BUT they are people who make and fit into this history. Since there were so many names in the Category:Jewish Russian and Soviet history section and to make things SPECIFIC, the Category:Jewish Russian people was created. Why is that racist? The ARTICLES themsleves mention that these people are Jewish, is that "racist" too? You are NOT making any sense. If an article can mention the Jewish ORIGIN, parentage or practice of an individual (or their family ancestors) in history so can the category! It is NOTHING to be ashamed of if it is done in a respectful and proper context! Thank you. IZAK 11:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It makes perfect sense to anyone who thinks about it. Firstly you should click on the link I provided above and see what is written about non-"Business card" designations - this is obviously a sensitive topic and a list is preferable to a category; secondly, stating that someone has Jewish origins, or held Jewish beliefs at some time, is not at all the same thing as lumping a large group of people together on that basis - but that is what anti-Semites like to think; thirdly, just because a Jewish history is made up of Jewish people doesn't mean that every single person with Jewish associations needs to be mentioned, or that practically anyone can be chosen to represent that history on the basis of some vague/ arbitrary associations. In Isaac Babel's case it makes sense to speak of a "Jewish writer"; in Osip Mandelstam's case his Jewishness is a matter of trivia - knowing what to include and when makes for too contentious a category, which is also on the stated guidelines against having a category. -- Simonides 12:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Here's a simple question for you: Why then is it acceptable for almost each article on the 30+ people in this category to mention their Jewish ancestry/parentage/family/names, and is that "racist" too ??? IZAK 12:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I've already answered your question above. Can you read? And please format your replies properly so I don't have to. -- Simonides 12:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Jewish history (see Category:Jewish history) considers these people important even though they were estranged or antagonistic to their own Jewish identity and religion (just as Category:Jesus is part of Category:Jewish Christian topics) it's a paradox but it's VERY relevant indeed, as you cannot deny the obvious problems of these people's connections with the Jewish people, from the Jewish people's point of view and from the world's point of view, and obviously there are enough people in the world and on Wikipedia who consider the Jewish origins of major personalities to be important. It's part of the Category:Jews and Judaism and not just part of the non-Jewish politics or nations these people were involved with. Cut the insults won't you, and stick to the discussion/s please. IZAK 12:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • There is no "paradox" here, don't elevate your prejudices. It doesn't matter what "people consider important" (yet another completely unsubstantiated generalisation), it matters whether this category is feasible or not; it is not, IMO, and others have yet to vote; discussion over. -- Simonides 12:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Discussion over" ? Why? Was there a power outage or short circuit? On Wikipedia, "discussions" are NEVER "over", unless one needs to sleep or something. IZAK 14:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, but Rename to "Russian Jews"--67.41.186.222 15:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. While I disagree with Simonides' view that this category is offensive or racist – many of the people here would have had "Jew" written on their Soviet ID cards under ethnicity, irrespective of their personal beliefs – I agree that this is not typical "business-card" categorisation, and is best handled in a list and in the biographies themselves. Juko 18:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, possibly rename as Category:Russian Jews, but this should be here. This is not about Judaism, the religion, this is about Jewish ethnicity in a Russian context. It was and is almost impossible for a Russian Jew not to self-identify (not to mention identification by others) with a dual national/ethnic identity. This category is exactly as appropriate as Category:African Americans. It's not about religion, it's about ethnicity and identity. Even in the case of an extreme secularist Marxist like Trotsky, believe me, at the time he was alive both his comrades and his White Russian enemies were eminently aware that he was the former Lev Davidovich Bronstein. Classifying these people as "Russian people" would simply be wrong; equally so, classifying them as Jews without mentioning their Russian-ness. & Simonides, why is the "discussion over" less than 24 hours after the nomination? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:50, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keeep, strong, spicy and juicy. In the Soviet Union, the passport had an infamous "5th record" (5-ya grafa), "Ethnicity". Also, in America most of post-Soviet Jews are primarily known as "Russians". It may sound extremely ridiculous and offensive to Russian people, but for me (I am in San Francisco Bay Area) it looks like the (post)-Soviet Jews are the primary bearers of the Russian culture in the United States. Well, it gave me a thought about a new article, Ex-Soviet Jews in the United States. Mikkalai 19:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

May I suggest Former Soviet Jewish people in the United States (in any case, "Former" is a better word than "Ex-" for an article) however you word the title. IZAK 11:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Category:Jews of Russian and Soviet descent may have an important subcategory (or this category may be valid in itself): Category:People that chose to renounce or conceal their Jewishness. In Soviet Union they had more than serious reasons to do so. But again, the same can be true for other places as well, especially throughout the history. I even know examples of Jews that pretended to be blue-eyed blonde Aryan Nazis. Mikkalai 19:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep, Good category. GeneralPatton 12:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "Keep" But rename to Russian Jews,too. --ThomasK 18:00, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename to Russian Jews. The circumlocution "Jewish people" is offensive and should be avoided. See below at Category:Jew. Jayjg 17:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • (This comment is addressed both to Simonides and Jayjg) See my comment at Category:Jews for why removing or renaming content as “offensive” offends me. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to Russian Jews. --MPerel 17:27, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename. How's Category:Russian and Soviet Jews? Even though Mikkalai's suggestions are more accurate, the Russian/Soviet Jews is by far more common term. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Silverchair, etc.

Category:Silverchair, Category:Silverchair_albums, and Category:Silverchair members are all empty. One not-very-influential band with four albums doesn't need so many categories, or any at all. -℘yrop (talk) 23:56, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Disregarding the influence and popularity of Silverchair - Pyrop obviously isn't Australian and isn't fully aware of the situation - I originally created these categories way back when the category feature was first introduced, to demonstrate its capabilities. Eg
And so on. But people didn't understand it, so they just created Category:Silverchair and put them all into that (I think.. I lost track, when I realised that it would take too much of my time to correct other peoples changes) -- Chuq 01:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Correcting other people's changes is one of the specialties of CfD!
The albums categories are pretty well established—there have been a couple of recent cases of album categories for artists who only ever released one album, and they have passed. The current standard is not to categorize albums-by-artist categories based on the genre of the band; although I can see why that might be useful, it would need to be a widespread change. It would probably be wise to bring this up with the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums if you are interested in pursuing it.
At the moment there aren't a whole lot of bands that have their own categories, but I think there's enough of a precedent that you can get away with it. I'm not sure if there is a standard. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music would be a good place to start.
In general, members categories seem to be few and far between. For example, Category:The Beatles members is the only band-specific sub-category of Category:British musicians. How many articles would these categories be likely to contain? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 03:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I believe most band member categories would have three-five articles, and most musician categories would only be a member of one band category, but there are a few exceptions. The best use of the band member categories would be the other way round - when a single person is in more than one band. I used Daniel Johns as an example, but Dave Grohl is another one, being in about five well known bands (Nirvana, Foo Fighters, Queens of the Stone Age, Tenacious D, PROBOT) and maybe a few others. Grohl's Queens of the Stone Age colleague Josh Homme has himself been involved in a couple of other bands/side projects. -- Chuq 23:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Category:North Carolina places

Unnecessary blending/redundancy of Category:North Carolina landmarks, Category:North Carolina geography and Category:North Carolina municipalities. "Places" is a term beyond vagueness, and the other subcategories are quite proper to have in the root level of Category:North Carolina—there is no need to jumble them together in a manner that is furthermore inconsistent with the structure of all other state categories and does not fit into the parent structure for states and their subcategories within Category:United States. Postdlf 22:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I dunno. With the proliferation of categories for unincorporated communities, census-designated places, cities, towns/townships, and villages (and in NC military bases), I've thought about doing something similar to organize all these populated places. I agree that "places" is a vague name, but some sort of holding category for all of these other related categories might be useful. So, for now I support this specific deletion, but I think I'd like to see essentially the same category with a more meaningful name--maybe "Populated places in xxxx"? older≠wiser 23:21, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
"Communities in xxxx"? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, "Communities in xxxx" would be nice except that many of the census-designated places are not exactly communities in any traditional sense of the term--many are just arbitrary areas defined for statistical purposes. older≠wiser 01:56, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
If it has no legal designation and is not recognized locally as a community, why should there be a separate article? It seems rather silly to me. But putting the towns, cities, and villages in separate categories also seems a bit overdone for my taste. —Mike 07:31, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
CDPs are a grab-bag. Many ARE communities (or a least there is a community with the same name that the CDP approximately corresponds to). However, some are simply the urbanized area around a municipality, but outside the municipal boundaries. In other cases they are an aggregation of several nearby unincorporated communities. I find the demographic information useful, though it requires some research to determine what exactly the CDP represents. older≠wiser 12:58, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
One solution would be to put all such "places" in the state geography subcategory, with the municipalities also cross-categorized under the state government subcategory. I believe "geography" is broad enough to include politically defined places, as well as physical features of the landscape, isn't it? Postdlf 21:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Category:terrorism

Bizarre list of articles which are entirely from the point of view of the US. - Xed 17:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I propose fixing the list rather than killing the category. --Gary D 23:03, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

NOTE: There was already a VOTE on this a few weeks ago and the vote was to KEEP because it was UNRESOLVED see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/unresolved#Terrorism [1], why is this here again now? IZAK 13:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep nearly everyone agrees on the existence of Terrorism. Disagreement revolves around which acts are and which acts are not. Lance6Wins 21:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Cities and towns of countries and states

(A message has been posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities.)

As of the 15 Nov 2004 database dump, There are 22 Cities_of_X categories, and 134 Cities_in_X categories. I propose changing all the "of" to "in". To implement this, I would run:

With special consideration for special characters:

We also have the following:

I would propose the following substitutions:

For the "Towns and citis of" categories, I propose "Cities and towns in" as a replacement phrase. -- Beland 09:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Add to that 181 Towns_in vs 43 Towns_of_, so add to the above:

With special characters:

The results of this decision should be posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. -- Beland 09:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Approve. Sounds like a good idea. As long as I don't have to do the work! -Willmcw 22:03, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Approve - but, how do I make the changes? Do I have to make the changes on the pages that link there, or would that be done automatically? Also, having created the Category:Towns_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago I was wondering if the preferred syntax is "Towns in..." or "Cities and Towns in ..."? Guettarda 23:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Disapprove - in fact, I feel it should be the other way round! Most of the geography categories (landform types, in particular) seem to use "Feature X of Country Y" as standard. Why would this one be the other way round? I know that Towns aren't landforms, but it seems inconsistent. See note on "Bays of New Zealand" (Dec 5, above)[[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 07:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
After some more research (see under General [[:Category:Landforms] tidy-up above), I'll change that to a tentative approve - but I think you're just scraping the tip of an ugly great iceberg here! [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 09:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Approve - if this is the way most of them are setup, then it should be standardized. There's no reason to have two different categories for identicals categorizations. Euphoria 08:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Wiccans

Rename to Category:Wiccan people, to parallel our decision on moving "Christians" to "Christian people". - Beland 08:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I started this change, and I support following through with it. --Gary D 23:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Do not rename. Why is the addition of "people" necessary? What else would Wiccans be...Wiccan Animals? Wiccan Aliens? --MPerel 17:32, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • It presents a more visually distinctive and clear category title when appearing near similarly titled sibling categories. Hence, if there are Wiccan animals and Wiccan aliens, "Wiccan people" stands out more clearly, as opposed to a single-word plural. I started this change over in the Christian subtopics, where the extensive collection of similar sibling subtopics makes the reasons for such a change more apparent. --Gary D 07:42, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jxg 22:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Rename as initially suggested. Keep things consistent. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 00:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Muslims

Rename to Category:Muslim people, to parallel our decision on moving "Christians" to "Christian people". - Beland 08:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. The correct form should be Category:Islamic people and not "Muslim people". IZAK 13:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I started this change, and I support following through with it. --Gary D 23:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. It is not easy to determine how "Muslim" the majority of famous Muslim people were, any attempts to do so here will be inevitably POV, and it is both arbitrary and racist to group together people merely on the basis of their perceived beliefs. Also, importantly, such a category violates the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization of people. -- Simonides 10:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or change to "Muslim/Islamic people" as it is all quite straightforward and NO Wikipedia guidelines are being "violated". IZAK 13:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and move to "Muslim people" (or whatever). This is a useful category. It does not contain every single person mentioned in Wikipedia who has been identified as Muslim. It's useful to group together people who are known specifically because they are Muslims, especially Muslim religious leaders. If you don't think the ones who aren't Muslim leaders should be included, it might be more useful to list those specific sub-categories for deletion and see what people have to say. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Change to 'Muslim people' - This is the correct form. 'Islamic' is used for objects i.e. 'Islamic art'; 'Muslim' is used for people i.e. 'Muslim artists'. Clubmarx 20:20, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Ok, if you are certain, fine, but I just wanted to mention that the word "Islamic" is also used. IZAK 10:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and do not rename. Adding "people" is unneccessary since there is nothing ambiguous about the term "Muslim" that would indicate anything other than a categorization of people. --MPerel 17:40, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as "Muslims". MPerel is right. Jayjg 21:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Jews

Rename to Category:Jewish people, to parallel our decision on moving "Christians" to "Christian people". This category also needs a clear charter, since people may be Jewish by religion, by ethnicity, by matriarchal decent, by culture, etc. (See Jew.) I assume this category mixes the various classes without distinction. -- Beland 08:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep (or rename to "Jewish people"): Hi Beland, I don't know if you have looked at all the TALK pages of the article on Jew so I don't know what you mean by "charter"? The category is all inclusive as you suppose. Category:Jewish people sounds OK. IZAK 11:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I would guess that what is meant is that the category description should explicitly state this, if this is to be the guiding principle. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 20:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Aranel, it is a complex subject that is discussed within the Jew article where the various points of view are discussed. Have you read it yet? IZAK 09:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I started this change, and I support following through with it. --Gary D 23:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

"Jews" or "Jewish people" what's the difference in any case, since a Jew is usually a member of the "Jewish people", which is NOT the case in Islam or Christianity. IZAK 09:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not easy to determine the "Jewishness" of the majority of famous Jewish people, any attempts to do so here will be inevitably POV, and it is both arbitrary and racist to group together people merely on the basis of their perceived ethnicity. Also, importantly, such a category violates the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization of people. -- Simonides 10:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, the ethnicity of Jews is usually quite easy to determine; generally the information is readily found in their biographies. Jayjg

Hi Simonides: Firstly, this is NOT just about "perceived ethnicity" as the Jews are ALL of an established religion (Judaism), people or nation, culture AND non-exclusive ethnicity. Secondly, can you explain EXACTLY which "guidelines" are being "violated" as you just leave it up in the air and expect people to swallow your non-reasoning by a mere "reference" (and please explain how you would reconcile what you claim with having the Category:Christian people which IS accepted by Wikipedia???) Thirdly, the "Jewishness" of many people is known and accepted, so what is wrong with that? Fourthly, in the article on Jew ALL the various ways of defining Jews and Jewish people are stated, to include religious, ethnic, and cultural definitions with long-standing historical roots and references. Finally, is this just another way of "doing away" with Jews on Wikipedia (how convenient for those who don't like them, isn't it?) And please remember this is a vote to rename Category:Jews to Category:Jewish people which is a reasonable thing, and it is NOT an attempt to "delete" Jews from Wikipedia permanently.Thank you. IZAK 11:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A typical factually-incapacitated, rambling, nonsensical reply from a well-known Wikipedia POV pusher. Firstly, no one is "deleting" Jews - the Jewish origins of famous people are mentioned in their biographical sections, but unless there is some direct relevance to the person's achievements/ career/ personality, or unless the person him/herself wished for it, there is no need to emphasize their Jewishness with a redundant category; and this has nothing to do with people who "dislike" Jews, because the same principle applies equally well to other such categories, like the one above, "Muslims", where exactly the same objection has been made. More importantly, it is gross and factually unsupportable POV to state that all people with some Jewish ancestry or Jewish beliefs "are ALL of an established religion (Judaism), people or nation, culture AND non-exclusive ethnicity" - such a broad generalisation is self-evidently rubbish; and finally, I have already linked the page which states the violated guidelines, and if you bother to read it, it is possible you will find the guidelines, but in case even that proves too difficult, here are more straightforward links at the same page (you have to click on them to read their contents): 1 , 2, 3 . -- Simonides 11:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Simonides I have NEVER encountered you or "crossed swords" with you on Wikipedia. I looked at all the links, and I don't see any violations at all! (Calling people "Jewish" is not insulting like calling them "Prostitutes" as one link syas. And connecting people with their ETHNIC origins, especially in RUSSIA is done sionce they have hundreds of nationalities including a province that was set aside for Jews once.) You are only using those points to push YOUR own POV and make it sound like opposing it makes me into a "POV pusher" which I resent! So do me the courtesy of NOT insulting me or my intelligence! You cannot squeeze religions and ethnicities onto "business cards", but you can classify and categorize the OBVIOUS facts, and the Jewish origins and connections of many people can be done according to either ethnic or Judaism's standards. I know it's a contentious issue, but it cannot be avoided as everyone has an objection to all types of Jewish "categories" secular or religious. Have you seen Jew#Famous Jews and List of Jews and Category:Lists of Jews with all the types of people on them? Do you plan to get rid of all that too? What nonsense and denial of history that would be. Many Wikipedia Users/editors think it's all very viable, and now, late in the day, you come along with "objections" that have already been re-hashed a hundred times in the talk pages of the Jew article. Go read it (and ALL its Talk pages) please, won't you. IZAK 12:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here is something [2] that "got lost" due to some faulty editing so I am re-posting it IZAK 13:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC):

"If you don't see any violations you might be 1) batty 2) not literate enough 3) simply very slow to understand things. As for POV, you state yourself that such categorisations can be made according to "ethnic or Judaism's standards", and refer further to an anti-Semitic decision by Russians to keep Jews in the same area, thus proving my point that your category is inherently POV; this is different from merely making a general list. No more information is needed. -- Simonides 12:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)" [3]

Again I ask that you NOT break the rules of Wikiquette by insulting me. To call someone (1) "batty", or (2) "not literate enough" or (3) "slow" definitely count as a Personal insult and attacks and grounds for a RfC and possible RfA, so please stop it now and talk facts. Please do not confuse the way Russian Anti-Semites "think" or "not think" with legitimate scholarly and Judaic ways of understanding and categorizing facts, people, and events logically and correctly. Thank you. P.S. And please try to be polite at all times on Wikipedia. IZAK 13:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the semantic difference between "Jew" and "Jewish" is that the former denotes an identity; the latter, an attribute. As far as I can tell, Jewish people tend to prefer referring to themselves as "Jewish" rather than as "Jews," whereas antisemites tend to prefer referring to us as "Jews" rather than "Jewish." In dealing with the outside world, a person may be a plumber, and his/her Jewishness is entirely incidental. In a synagogue, we are a congregation of Jews. By what criteria you are Jewish will depend on the person describing himself/herself as such - some apply religious criteria, other ethnic, other cultural, etc. I vote for changing the category to Jewish because I think the attribute is more relevant than the identity. Issues of Jewish identity deserve their own article(s), but that's another discussion. --Leifern 12:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As far as I know, Jews prefer to be called Jews, whereas non-Jews tend to use "Jewish people", because they think the term "Jew" is somehow a bad word, which is in itself offensive. See my comment below. Jayjg
Hi Leifern, I have no real objection to the renaming of the Category:Jews to the proposed Category:Jewish people. What Simonides is saying is far more radical, he would like to have no such category or any sub-category for a more acceptably named "Jewish people" category because he feels its "racist" in essence, which is a very shallow argument since the fact of a person's Jewish identity, be it ethnic or religious, is important when considering the role of the Jews in history and in world events. We are talking about objective facts and obviously not anything related to "racist" POV opinions. It can be a fine line to deal with, but it should not be avoided on an encyclopedia that wants to include everything important. Thanks again. IZAK 13:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or rename. Also, can some of you who are knowledgable weigh in on Talk:Atheism#Jewish_Views_on_Atheism. Thanks. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 13:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Rename. I find these categories useful. For example, note that Category:Christian people groups together Christian religious leaders, as well as articles about specific sub-groups. It's possible that some restructuring may be necessary, but I don't see anything wrong with having such categories. People who are known for being Jewish ought to be listed in some sort of category. I agree that people who were only sort of "incidentally" Jewish might be better categorized elsewhere, but that doesn't meant that the category itself is inappropriate. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Note that most of the articles in this cateogry are not individual biographies, but entries that related to groups or lists of Jews. Juko 22:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, could be renamed to Category:Jewish people if needed. GeneralPatton 12:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename. Filiocht 12:12, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have Category:Baptists and not Category:Baptist people (sounds strange doesn't it). Category:Jews is a perfectly cromulent category. Jewbacca 11:59, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC) (I suppose I should go change my nickname to Jewishpeoplebacca !)
  • Keep. Jewish people is a circumlocution, Jew is fine. In fact, avoiding the word "Jew" can be seen as offensive. As the American Heritage Dictionary points out in its Usage Note: It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun. Jayjg 17:13, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Encyclopedia content should not be judged on what is “offensive”; everything is offensive to someone, and it is a quick way to let activists impose POV language on the project. Words that may be slurs should be judged on their POV content, and I fail to see any POV either in “Jews” or “Jewish people”. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and do not rename. Adding "people" is unneccessary since there is nothing ambiguous about the term "Jew" that would indicate anything other than a categorization of people. --MPerel 17:45, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jxg 22:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Olympic athletes of X

We have a mixed convention in Category:Olympic competitors by country:

We previously deleted the category "Olympic athletes" in favor of "Olympic competitors" because "athletes" means all competitors in US English, but means "track and field athletes" in UK English. I propose renaming all the "Olympic athletes of X" categories to "X Olympians". "Olympic competitors of X" sounds like it should be an athletics enemies list of country X, instead of a manifest of its representatives. -- Beland 08:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also note the following, some of which are on /unresolved:

-- Beland 10:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Olympic website uses "athletes" and their commission is named the "Athlete's Commission". You can't get any more official than that. Also it was mentioned at one time by someone (I realize that's pretty vague) in a previous discussion that "Olympic athlete" in Britain refers to the people who compete at the Olympics and not just the track and field competitors. Also I prefer the "-- of country" form rather than the "countrian --" form because categorization is less ambiguous. Take Nate Ackerman as an example; he was born in the U.S. and might have dual citizenship since he competed for Great Britain (I don't know if the rules require citizenship to compete for a country's team). I don't know if calling him a British athlete would be correct, but saying he was an Olympic athlete of Great Britain is most certainly correct. —Mike 08:11, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
My primary reason for preferring competitors is that it is something that does not cause arguments. (At least, none so far.) Even if the Olympics officially use athletes, there are folks who strongly dislike the term. Would you consider it wrong to use competitors?
As for the "of country" form, I agree. It's more accurate. (But please, let's use "of the United States", not "of the U.S.". Less potential for confusion of punctuation.) -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It isn't wrong since we can call them anything we want, but it just sounds a bit odd to me since I don't hear "Olympic competitors" much. —Mike 06:05, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

(CFD tags added 4 Dec 2004. -- Beland 08:03, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC))

OK, so then current proposal is to change all of these to "Olympic competitors of CountryName"? Does "Olympic competitors for CountryName" sound better or worse? -- Beland 08:03, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although I prefer the "athletes of", "competitors for" would likely be less ambiguous than "competitors of". —Mike 05:57, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

How about "Olympians of X"? --MPerel 17:51, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

National economies

We currently (15 Nov) have inconsistent usage for categories for national economies:

I propose "Economy of X" as the standard. There are some awkward and sometimes controversial situations in English when using the adjective form, so maybe best to avoid those altogether. I'd be happy with the alternative, as long as there's some consistency. -- Beland 05:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(CFD tags added 4 Dec. -- Beland 10:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC))

For my convenience, I'm including the machine-readable version below, to be run if this proposal is approved. -- Beland 10:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) 

* MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS [[:Category:Australian_economy]] -> [[:Category:Economy_of_Australia]]
* MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS [[:Category:Chinese_economy]] -> [[:Category:Economy_of_China]]
* MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS [[:Category:Finnish_economy]] -> [[:Category:Economy_of_Finland]]
* MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS [[:Category:French_economy]] -> [[:Category:Economy_of_France]]
* MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS [[:Category:German_economy]] -> [[:Category:Economy_of_Germany]]
* MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS [[:Category:Greek_economy]] -> [[:Category:Economy_of_Greece]]
* MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS [[:Category:Irish_Economy]] -> [[:Category:Economy_of_Ireland]]
* MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS [[:Category:Japanese_economy]] -> [[:Category:Economy_of_Japan]]
* MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS [[:Category:Norwegian_economy]] -> [[:Category:Economy_of_Norway]]
* MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS [[:Category:Polish_economy]] -> [[:Category:Economy_of_Poland]]
* MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS [[:Category:Russian_economy]] -> [[:Category:Economy_of_Russia]]
* MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS [[:Category:Soviet_economy]] -> [[:Category:Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union]]
* MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS [[:Category:Spanish_economy]] -> [[:Category:Economy_of_Spain]]
* MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS [[:Category:Swedish_economy]] -> [[:Category:Economy_of_Sweden]]
* MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS [[:Category:United_States_economy]] -> [[:Category:Economy_of_the_United_States]]
Agreed. It also gets round the hassle we had with Nigerian/Nigerien a week or two back. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 10:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Irish categories of inconsistency

I've begun to take a more detailed look at the Irish categories, so more to come here later and on Category talk:Ireland. These are the easy ones. -- Beland 05:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You need to have Category:Sportspeople from Northern Ireland and Category:People from Northern Ireland. "Northern Irish" is a modern "fudge", not accepted by many people in the region. Ultimately, people from the area are likely to call themselves Irish, British, both or simply say they are "from Northern Ireland". It's a sticky issue - certainly the crude use of "Northern Irish" is to be avoided. zoney ♣ talk 10:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If we need to declare that there is simply no acceptible adjective form to refer to the people of Northern Ireland, that's OK with me. There are other countries where is form is akward, like Trinidad and Tobago, or controversial, as in the United States. Rather than decide this haphazardly, we should try to come up with uniform guidelines. In general, the noun forms are clearer but longer. We can: 1.) Be consistent, and always use the adjective forms, and accept some akwardness; 2.) Be consistent and always use the longer noun forms; or 3.) Adopt a mixed usage, preferring short adjective phrases when they flow cleanly, but using noun forms in akward cases. One benefit of consistency is slightly easier navigation - you can just change the appropriate word and go to a different country, as opposed to having to guess the correct wording or click your way there through category links. But most people just click around, I'm sure. Consistent naming would also cut down on the number of broken links that editors make when they guess the wrong form (or assume a convention is universal when it's really not) and don't check their work. (At least, for those editors who notice conventions and attempt to follow them.) -- Beland 02:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Transport" should be used rather than "transportation". Transportation is the usual US term, while "Transport" is the term used in its place in Britain/Ireland. Hence we in Ireland have a "Department of Transport", "Minister for Transport". Please do not force inconsistent English on a non-US topic. zoney ♣ talk 10:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not trying to force usage on anyone; that's why we have a discussion instead of just implementing these things by fiat. But once again, there are several different places where this issue comes up, and it'd be nice to come up with a general solution. If you take a look at Category:Transportation by country, you will see that all the "countries" there, including "Ireland" have a "Transportation in X" article and a "Transportation in X" category. Again, this makes it easy to know what the article or category you are looking for (or are linking to) would be called. But as you rightly point out, this may not follow local usage. We have 87 or so X_by_country categories so far. I assume we should pretty much pick either 1.) Be consistent and use the same term for the same thing everywhere, or 2.) Follow local usage; and do either 1 or 2 for all ~87 topics. Personally, I vote for consistency. Wikipedia's audience is worldwide, and so is the category system. Americans will be reading all about Ireland, just as much, if not moreso, than about their own country, and vice versa. I don't care whether we use a US term, a UK term, or vary depending on the topic. Following local usage would be my second choice because it seems a bit untidy. It makes a little more sense for articles, where you actually have to use these vocabulary terms in proper nouns and whatnot, and the locals will probably dominate the editing, anyway. I think of the category system more like your library catalog, which references all history books under "History" and not half under "History" and half under "Things that happened in the past". But I'm sure there are good arguments for doing the opposite...discuss, discuss... -- Beland 02:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would definitely oppose the use of Northern Irish as an adjective. People from Northern Ireland (for example) is clearly more in keeping with common usage here on the island. One specific I have seen is Northern Irish soccer, which is a thing that does not exist. The two governing bodies are the Irish Football Association and the Football Association of Ireland (north and south respectively), avoiding the NI issue completely. I agree with Zoney re transportation. I think Transportation in Ireland should be moved to Transport in Ireland and Category:Transportation in Ireland should be emptied to Category:Transport in Ireland and then deleted. Filiocht 08:28, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


Category:U.S. campaign managers

Contains many people who aren't, strictly speaking, campaign managers (e.g. Karen Hughes). I'd like to depopulate and rename to "U.S. campaign professionals". OK? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 03:49, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, campaign manager is the term used for these people, even if some of them have never been head of a presidential election campaign. - SimonP 05:50, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, that's not true, especially since many of these figures worked on the same campaign. For example, in the Bush campaign, Karl Rove was not and has never been the campaign manager; that role was filled by Ken Mehlman. Media accounts referred to Rove as chief strategist--I can't think of any major publications that referred to him as campaign manager. The same argument is true for many of the figures in this category. The term "campaign manager" means a very specific individual in the campaign hierarchy. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:57, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • Every campaign has a person known as the campaign manager, but the profession of a number of the top members of a presidential campaign is campaign manager. It would be incorrect to call Karl Rove Bush's campaign manager, but his profession is campaign management. - SimonP 00:45, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
        • I've not heard it used that way myself. Sorry to bug you, but a few citations? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:53, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
        • This is kind of odd if it is the case. Citations would be good, because then it could be worked into campaign manager, and if there are no citations, it will surely come up again. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Doing some research it seems is that the more general usage of campaign manager is being reduced, perhaps because campaigns are becoming more formally structured. In previous decades the top figures were referred to as "the campaign mangers" see The Selling of the President or watch The War Room. In the 2000 campaign it was not uncommon to refer to Karl Rove as a campaign manager [4], [5], [6], but in 2004 I could find almost no news organizations referring to him as a campaign manager. It is interesting to note that in 2000 the American Association of Political Consultants' Pollie Awards for Campaign Manager of the Year was abolished in favour of a more nebulous MVP award, perhaps indicating that it was no longer acceptable to call any top campaigner a "manager". (Outside of the U.S. it still seems to be common practice to call the top directors of a campaign "managers".) - SimonP 19:31, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
            • Interesting! Thanks for your work. Apparently, that usage is becoming less common; do you think we should move to "U.S. campaign professionals"? Other suggestions? Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:33, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)


November 29

Category:Christian evangelicalism

An awkward phrase, it gets only 810 Google hits. It should be replaced with the much more widely used Category:Evangelical Christianity -- Decumanus 06:15, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

"You say, to-MAY-to, and I say, to-MAH-to..." I'm not sure the Google test is the appropriate one for deciding which way to phrase an admittedly encyclopedic concept. The current phrasing is parallel to the great bulk of categories and articles in this area, which are almost all "Christian [noun]," instead of "[Adjective] Christianity." There are actually a few category topics in this area where the latter phrasing might be better, such as "Charismatic Christianity" as opposed to "Christian Charismaticism(?)," but overall, consistency is probably the strongest virtue. (And "Christian art" stands little chance of making it over to "Artistic Christianity," LOL—oh, I just kill me!) On balance, I would say the current system reads better, especially when all these categories and articles appear together on the Category:Christianity page. So, Keep. --Gary D 06:29, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I think the analogy with "Christian art" is entirely a false one. "Artistic Christianity" is not a movement of Christianity, whereas "Evangelical Christianity" is. I see nothing wrong with invoking Google test is appropriate here. After all, everything in Wikipedia should be encyclopedic. I see the virtue in parallelism, and if people want to keep it that way, that's fine, but I think parallelism should not be at the expense of the using more widely used version. -- Decumanus 19:27, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

The word, surely, is Evangelism. So why is the category not Category: Christian evangelism? A phrase, by the way, which gets close to 20,000 Google hits. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 06:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It turns out there is a distinction; evangelism is the activity, while evangelicalism is more of a movement. My recommendation: read all about it in Wikipedia! ;-) --Gary D 08:22, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Christian evangelism is absolutely not what is meant. But evangelicalism is a somewhat peculiar word. Evangelism is an activity; Evangelical Christianity is a movement (or whatever); evangelicalism is just plain difficult to type. The Pentecostal category needs emergency first aid, but please, please, for the sake of all the typos we would have to correct, let's not have Christian Charismaticism and Pentecostalism. It's possible to carry our interest in consistency so far that we forget that this system is being used by real people. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree the category is misnamed, but not in the way described in this discussion. It should simply be Category:Evangelicalism. The root word 'evangel' is defined as 'the Christian gospel'. The word 'evangelicalism' means 'evangelical beliefs or doctrines' (or adherence to a church or party professing such) where the word 'evangelical' means 'of, pertaining to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel'. Saying "Christian evangelicalism" is like saying "spicy spice", "star Sun" or "erasing eraser". —Mike 07:30, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mike, it should just be Category:Evangelicalism. Kevin Rector 20:27, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


Category:Main page

We do not need a category containing categories linked to from the main page through the category browse bar. Brianjd 12:08, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

  • Keep I have no problem with this category. --ssd 13:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)



Category:Pages on votes for extreme deletion

More deletion process mockery by Radman1. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Votes for extreme deletion. jni 11:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sigh. -Sean Curtin 00:05, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE, this would probably confuse users not familiar with extreme deletion wars on VfD. 132.205.15.43 03:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Just look at the start of this category:
{{cfd}}
{{attention}}
{{contradict}}
{{cleanup}}
{{disputed}}
{{xdelete}} <!-- hell why not add them ALL?!?!? -->

Something with that many templates is clearly unlikely to be worth keeping. Brianjd

I'd love to delete this category, but not until it's empty. So, wanna delete the article, or remove the category from it? --ssd 14:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Surely there is no choice...the article is so stupid it MUST be deleted! Brianjd

November 28

Category:Weapons by name

"By name" categories are inherently redundant, since categories already sort their member articles alphabetically. In the near future Wikipedia will have the ability to aggregate all members of subcategories in a listing, so just putting articles into various subcategories of Category:Weapons should be sufficient. Bryan 07:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • DISAGREE do you folks even bother to LOOK at the category before cfd'ing? Category:Weapons is a category by TYPE. This sub-cat serves a very useful purpose towards removing clutter of the main cat. Alkivar 07:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • These categories are nothing more than a way to make a run around subcategories by creating a dumping ground that has no internal organization. It also adds unnecessary clutter to articles; categories should function as classifications of articles. This does not classify. Delete this and all others of its ilk. Postdlf 19:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • COMMENT most weapons are not listed by name in this category, they're just dumped there. Most weapons don't have names in this cat, only designations, and some don't even have that. There is a difference between Name and Designation. For instance, the Dora is a railway gun, it's calibre is 80cm, and it's designation is K (E). If this category is kept, it needs a rename to Category:List of weapons, because Weapons by name is a wholly inappropriate name for the current contents. 132.205.45.110 23:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


November 26

Category:British misuse of drugs act


Category:Forbes World's Richest People

Contents will change over time. Effectively duplicates list of billionaires (but without the net worth information or the ability to include people without articles). -- Rick Block 17:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete But, if we keep this, it should be renamed category:billionaires and the intro text revised to something like "people believed to have had at any time in their lives a net worth of $1B or more". -- Rick Block 17:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Note: I originally nominated this category for deletion. -- Rick Block 05:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly defined criteria - they are either on the list or not - and other categories will change over time as well. Gamaliel 17:14, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Clearly defined, but ephemeral (the Forbes list will change from year to year). -- Rick Block 05:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 18:00, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
  • Keep. - Jerryseinfeld 18:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Forbes list is undoubtably trademarked as well and shouldn't be in the category title. Sortior 19:24, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • What does the trademark have to do with whether or not we should delete a category? Gamaliel 19:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:High Schools in Singapore

  • since WikiPedia tries to keep the number of highschools down, this category encourages creation of articles that will inevitably show up on VfD. 132.205.45.110 15:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with such a category. JYolkowski 02:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • VfD always has deletions on highschools, which by default are not notable. I fail to see how there could be sufficient numbers of highschools in Singapore that could be notable for this category to be useful. Further, someone might make a

highschool hierarchy of categories from its inspiration. 132.205.45.148 17:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • IMO should be moved into "schools in singapore" and add primary school and pre-u ed schools too. Frankchn 11:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


November 23

Category:Newspapers in Washington

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

  • I don't see how this is necessary for clarity—if it's meant to disambig it from Washington the city, the lack of "..., DC" does that. Postdlf 11:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I did some poking around. All of the other categories for Washington state simply have "Washington". I don't see that disambiguation is necessary. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 20:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

November 21

Category:National liberation movements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administratorsFor example, administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith Any anon can vote. If administrators choose to ignore anon votes, they should atleast think about it, because Administrators necessarily must use their best judgement, attempting to be as impartial as is possible otherwise they are not being impartial. 132.205.94.52 01:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To the above user, it is impossible to take seriously someone who does not have a user name, please get one so that your comments can be acknowledged. Thanks. IZAK 09:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

People do acknowledge my comments. If I make a sensible suggestion, usually the registered users pick up on it. OFcourse there are some people with elitist tendencies who choose to ignore all anons, whatever they say. But that violates the best judgement and impartial principles in the guidelines. Is wikipedia supposed to be a clique of wikipedioholics or something open for anyone to contribute to? It does go to the heart of what the wikipedia project is about, and openness. It's not like there's a whole mob of vandalizing anons rampaging across the deletion administrative pages either. Que sera sera, whatever will be will be. 132.205.15.43 05:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, now that CfD is a large page, shouldn't it switch over to the subpaging format that VfD uses?
  • Keep, mostly agreed with Halibutt. —No-One Jones (m) 17:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a formal term. It doesn't matter what this movement actually do. Mikkalai 18:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hopelessly POV by definition (as is Category:Terrorist organizations) and likely to give cause for endless arguments. Elf-friend 19:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • KeepAndyL 22:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Thinking about this more, the category name is not NPOV. NPOV would be Category:National independence movements, which would easily include both groups like the Tamil Tigers or ETA which use violence and those like the Parti Quebequois which largely don't. We could also create a group Category:Revolutionary movements, which would include groups -- whether they engaged in terrorism or not -- intending to overthrow a government (Contras, Bolsheviks), rather than gain independence for what they perceive as a submerged nation. --Tkinias 03:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • ^^^ What He Said, I like the cut of your jib sir, we agree. Alkivar 05:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • *blush* —Tkinias 08:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete -- I agree with Tkinias too. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 19:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Hesitant delete. This sort of categorisation is too facile for an extremely complex and involved topic. Looking at the category, there's a lot of stuff that I'd barely consider qualified (NPOV issues aside), like the SLA, the OAS, and the White Rose. To pare it down properly means defining what a National Liberation movement is–and getting a decent consensus on that definition. Mackensen (talk) 05:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Why not replace this and Category:Terrorist organizations with the two I proposed plus a more-NPOV Category:Groups employing terror (this is less of an essentialization of the group as terrorist but acknowledges the group's use of terror attacks). Thus we categorize by goals and by tactics, but do not make POV judgements. On your examples:
      • SLA: not an independence movement, but a revolutionary movement which employed terror
      • OAS: quite the opposite of an independence movement, it was a right-wing armed group which employed terror to oppose independence
      • White Rose: revolutionary movement, not seeking independence
      • Al-Qa'ida (not on your list, but relevant): revolutionary movement, not seeking independence (seeking to merge several secular states into one theocratic state), employs terror
      • PLO (on the other hand): national independence movement, employed terror —Tkinias 08:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai is correct to point out that it is a formal term, but as Mackensen is pointing out above, this sort of categorization will likely generate too much confusion-- note the NPOV disputes above-- for it to be a workable one on Wiki. 172 08:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep The category makes a useful and important distinction. Unfortunately the category also is in need of some cleanup because there is currently stuff that doesn't belong, and articles that it doesn't have that should be there. I am wondering if part of the problem with this category for some people might be the wording. Would it be better to describe these groups as Independence Movements or Secession Movements (although those descriptions do not fit well for groups that cross national boundaries, such as the Kurds)? [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 10:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a useful category that brings together a specific type of related articles. Just because some (or even many) of them can also be put in another category (i.e. terrorists) does not make it irrelevant. As with the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, this seems to be an attempt to get rid of controversy by trying to ignore it. Get involved in the cleanup and discussion, don't delete it. That said, I agree with Tkinias and gK above that it could be renamed in a more NPOV way. mennonot 10:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Liberation" is highly charged POV. Even if renamed to something else (like Category:National independence movements), the category's contents will still probably show quite a bit of POV. -Sean Curtin 01:01, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Conditional vote: Keep, but only if renamed to "National independence movements" or some such. I agree that "liberation" is too charged a term. I wouldn't consider Jefferson Davis to have been leading a national liberation movement, but some people would. By contrast, we could neutrally apply a definition like "an organization seeking the establishment of an independent state in an area controlled by or part of another polity". I really don't understand why so many people talk about terrorism in this context. As has been pointed out, there are independence movements that use terrorism, those that don't, terrorists who aren't independence movements, and those who are. JamesMLane 07:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. Will forever cause POV arguments. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 22:48, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

By my count, there are enough delete votes to justify the deletion of this category. (14 delete; 7 keep, including one anonymous voter; three merge-or-rename. Note that "rename" requires deletion of this category since there is no category move option.) However, there are enough keep votes and enough people who seem to support a name change that I don't want to just delete this one out of hand.

I propose the following compromise:

  1. We create a Category:National independence movements, which seems to be supported by several folks as less POV.
  2. We examine the articles in Category:National liberation movements and move them to the new category if the expressed goal is some form of independent status.
  3. We then delete Category:National liberation movements.

Any objections? We can always list the newly-created category for deletion to see if it stands on its own merits. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Prepetual POV arguement starter. →Raul654 20:23, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - the keep arguments convinced me Guettarda 00:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup overhead

Discussions moved off-page

Please see:

Categories to be emptied or moved

Manual empty/move requested

Automated moves

Delete me

The below meet the eligibility requirements for deletion at the top of this page. These categories have been de-populated, and any documentation of this decision taken care of. Admins may delete these categories at will. If there is a particular category which is replacing the deleted category (if redundant, misspelled, etc.) as noted below, that should be mentioned in the deletion log entry.

The category to be deleted is listed first, followed by the proper category that renders it obsolete.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=8355027"