Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day. Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. Do not depopultate the category (delete category tags from articles) until it has been voted for deletion.

1. 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).
2. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
3. If the category has more than a few items, edit it and add the template {{cfd}}. (This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion.)

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

August 26

Category:British Army field marshalls

Empty category that is unnecessary as there is a well-populated Category:British Field Marshals. Geoff/Gsl 07:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:1221

Merge with a suitable supercat? +sj+

• There are a very large number of single event years and such... --ssd 00:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm not sure how wise it is to delete those... I suspect someone may have gone through and created many tens of years as place holders. It would have been before my time, but wouldn't the same have been true of year pages? --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 01:45, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

August 25

Category:Winter Olympics

Merge with Category:Winter Olympic Games -- Chuq 23:15, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I found the category structure here to be a bit strange. This is what it currently looks like:

  I. Category:Olympics (containing many "Summer Olympics" and "Winter Olympics" articles)
       A. Category:Olympic athletes
       B. Category:Olympic Games
            1. Category:Olympians
            2. Category:Summer Olympic Games
            3. Category:Winter Olympic Games
       C. Category:Olympic sports

All of the miscategorizing of articles aside...what types of articles would go into Category:Olympic Games that wouldn't go into Category:Olympics. Is there enough of a difference between the two categories that they are both needed? Also notice that the only parent category of Category:Olympic Games is Category:Olympics. Could the subcategories under Category:Olympic Games be moved into the Category:Olympics and then have the former category deleted?

Second, what is the difference between Category:Olympians and Category:Olympic athletes? If they are the same, which would be the more appropriately named?

I think a more simplified (and better) structure would appear as follows:

  I. Category:Olympics
       A. Category:Olympic athletes
       B. Category:Olympic sports
       C. Category:Summer Olympic Games
       D. Category:Winter Olympic Games

Comments and suggestions please. —Mike 05:27, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Good point Mike. I'm reorganising these as I can. My eventual plan is (unless someone gets in and does it differently first!):

  I. Category:Olympics (containing many "Summer Olympics" and "Winter Olympics" articles)
       A. Category:Olympic athletes (merge with Category:Olympians)
       B. Category:Olympic sports
       C. Category:Olympic Games
            1. Category:Summer Olympic Games
                 i. Category:2004 Summer Olympics etc
            2. Category:Winter Olympic Games
                 i. Category:2002 Winter Olympics etc
            3. Category:Summer Paralympic Games
                 i. Category:2004 Summer Paralympics etc
            4. Category:Winter Paralympic Games
                 i. Category:2002 Winter Paralympics etc
       D. Other articles like Olympic torch, Olympic symbols etc

Alternatively, Paralympics can be categorised separately. -- Chuq 05:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• That looks ok. Though I'm still thinking you could have the categories numbered 1-4 as subcategories of Category:Olympics. The only reasons I would see to have Category:Olympic Games is 1.) if you have articles (or several subcategories) that belong in that category instead of the main Category:Olympics, or 2.) if Category:Olympic Games has other parents besides Category:Olympics. —Mike 06:20, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

August 24

Category:South Carolina towns

Moved contents to Category:Towns in South Carolina. -- Beland 02:42, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

World War I people categories

Category:World War I people - Austria-Hungary, Category:World War I people - Australia, Category:World War I people - France, Category:World War I people - Germany, Category:World War I people - United Kingdom, Category:World War I people - Canada have all been replaced by more conventionally named categories. They have been depopulated and can be deleted. Geoff/Gsl 06:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 22

Dungeons and Dragons planes

Category:Elysium, Category:Gehenna, Category:Limbo, Category:Pandemonium, Category:The Abyss, Category:Ysgard, Category:Bytopia, Category:Baator, Category:Mechanus - All of these are terms D&D has borrowed from elsewhere; they all are empty or have very few articles. The rest of the D&D Plane articles should probably go too; I don't think more than one category on D&D planes of existence is really necessary.

Sure, most terms are borrowed from elsewhere; however, this can be said of thousands of articles - terms are always being used in different contexts. The point is, in which context is the term used most often; a Google search on many of these words will turn up mostly pages on D&D planes.

Deleting these categories is reasonable, but not their parent, or the articles belonging in it. ··gracefool |☺ 22:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete - These articles are far too specific to keep, but the articles within should not be removed. They should all be grouped under Category:Planescape or Category:D&D Planes stuff or something similar. -Erolos 23:04, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I've added 3 categories to the list, now all the subcategories of Category:Outer Planes are listed. I've added {{cfd}} to all of them.

However I don't think Category:Outer Planes should be deleted. It currently contains 10 articles, and this number can be expected to grow. ··gracefool |☺ 23:22, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Creationism

• Some kind of half-baked notion of an anon user to combat IZAK's addition of "see also" sections to articles and is unnessecary.

Node 05:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • Keep. Just looking at the "see also"s on creationism gives four flavors: Young Earth Creationism, Day-Age Creationism, Old Earth Creationism and Evolutionary creationism. Those that are categorized are currently placed in the bottom-level Category:Religion, though they are certainly sub-subtopics rather than fundamental religious concepts. Where else should we put them? There should eventually be an article on the Institute for Creation Research, and there should also be a subcategory included for notable creationist advocates. Creationism as a phenomenon is kind of its own thing within Christianity, so these are appropriately grouped separately. Postdlf 07:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Keep. -Seth Mahoney 17:29, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:01, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Western art

Some kind of half-baked notion of mine a long time ago to subcategorize Category:Art—it never took off and is unnecessary. Postdlf 19:42, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. It doesn't look like it fits into the current scheme. -- Solipsist 09:30, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Drugs cheats in athletics

I think Category:Drugs cheats in sport and Category:Drugs cheats in athletics need to be merged. --ssd 16:09, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Do we really need either of these categories? —Mike 07:58, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Sports is one topic I will likely never write on, but the titles alone are pretty awful—"drugs cheats"? If this is going to be kept, shouldn't it be something closer to "Athletes sanctioned for drug use"? As is, it seems to be inviting categorization just based on allegations that perhaps have had no consequence, rather than actual judgments by sports authorities. Postdlf 08:08, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete both. Not only are the category names a problem, their application is also a problem (for example the World Anti-Doping Agency is in there). However, the real problem is one of POV. If you put a sportsperson into this category it implies their whole career was based on taking drugs which may not be true. The List of athletes found guilty of using banned drugs looks like it could handle this better. If it is kept, then merge and rename. Separate subcats for eg athletics shouldn't be necessary as anyone in these categories is presumably also categorised somewhere in Category:Athletes too. -- Solipsist 09:48, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. List, not category. Gdr 13:23, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Infrogmation 02:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Occupations and all its subcategories

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse... This is a highly wordy collection of subcategories based on the Standard Occupational Classification System (that article has been strangely categorized under every subcategory within Category:Occupations too, which creates a lovely traffic jam at the bottom of that article). I for one cringe at the thought of fundamental articles such as actor and journalist being classifed under Category:Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations, or astronomer being classified under Category:Life, physical, and social science occupations. These are actual examples. Let's kill this, and kill the Dewey Decimal Classifications categories before our articles and categories start reading like the tax code. Postdlf 10:47, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why Category:Occupations needs to be deleted; it serves as a category of categories. But yes the hierarchy could be trimmed; your tax code comparison is on target. VV 13:07, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right, "occupations" isn't a problem of course, but I didn't want to list every subcategory individually, and all this contains are these clumsily titled amalgamations, like they were only half-digested conceptually. Maybe I should list them all to make the point. Postdlf 18:48, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, my vote is keep them all. Right now there is no formal hierarchy for categorizing occupations themselves. This is useful in other reference media for the purposes of job comparison and research. I considered placing everything under Category:Occupations, but I think that would very quickly grow too large and pretty much require sub-categories at some future point. As such, I took a standarized system devised by the US government (not copyrighted) and created the structure. It is nice because everything is already defined on their website, so classification is a "no-brainer". The reason Standard Occupational Classification System has all the categories is to easily connect the article to the structure. I'm sure that can be changed in the future. Keep in mind, placement of actor in its occupation subcategory is not meant to be a primary classification, but articles on occupations tend to be light and I doubt this would be too intrusive. -- Netoholic 16:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As noted above, Category:Occupations isn't itself the problem—it's all of its subcategories, except for maybe one (Category:Legal occupations seems quite clear and sensible). The government seemed to make some arbitrary choices in trying to minimize the number of categories, grouping together occupations that could be linked otherwise, and under headers that are simply laundry lists of what they contain. If the category needs to list all of its contents in order to properly describe them, it's not a good classification, at least not for our purposes.

As for classification being a "no-brainer", would those in sports medicine fit into Category:Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations or Category:Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations? Both? (that would be pretty) Why is Category:Management occupations separate from Category:Office and administrative support occupations? How is the "maintenance" listed in Category:Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations separate from that listed in Category:Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations? Just because it's done in buildings rather than to objects? What about air conditioning maintenance? Why was architecture linked with engineering in Category:Architecture and engineering occupations rather than included under Category:Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations? Why is it more important that farmers work with flora and fauna (Category:Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations) rather than that they produce goods (Category:Production occupations)? It's no answer to say "read the Standard Occupational Classification System manual", because quite frankly we shouldn't care about the manual, and do you expect wikipedia readers to know the manual so they can figure out which category an occupation article is included under? Categories shouldn't depend on criteria that are external to the subject they are trying to classify, such as what the particular choices of government bureaucrats were in trying to force occupations into a small number of groupings. Nor should categories merely try to group as many things as they can together without regard to whether they form a single, unified concept (and I think as a general rule the most valid categories are ones that are defined by actual articles) rather than a mere listing of subtopics. I can't say that the SOCS doesn't effectively serve the government's need for it, but it won't serve ours. Postdlf 18:48, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I guess I feel that when there is an existing classification system we can use, it is worth exploring. If you would like to propose an alternative, I'd say the community would welcome it, but until that happens, this one should be tried out. I have a feeling though, that the task of coming up with a Wikipedia-grown system will take a long time to hash out, and itself could constantly be debated. I draw the comparison to many other established category schemes in that this one is completely valid for its purposes, and because no other better system has yet been submitted. -- Netoholic 21:57, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why not break up some of the stuck-together lumps in the SOCS system into simpler and logical groupings, such as "Sports occupations"? "Medical (or health) occupations"? And from there some parents may reveal themselves, like "Medical occupations" may be in "Science occupations" as well as one or two others, "Personal service occupations" (eh), something like that. There are two ways for a category structure to develop—start with a simple parent like Category:People or Category:History, and see what groupings of articles naturally form; or start with a specific article, figure out a specific category that it may belong to of which there are still other articles, and to which it bears a strong and useful relationship (i.e., Category:U.S. Army generals rather than Category:U.S. Army generals whose last name starts with P), and then figure out what parent categories would come together to compose it (Category:United States Army and Category:Generals), then work your way down (Category:United States armed forces --> Category:United States and Category:Militaries, etc.). It's all fairly intuitive, though you will need to know a little about the subjects to categorize them, and to check the preexisting category structure to make sure it fits and isn't redundant. Probably the best indication of how to categorize the occupation articles is the structure for categorizing the subjects of the occupations—see how art, medicine, sport, agriculture are categorized, and the occupations should be rather analogous. Postdlf 00:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The system involves only 23 categories. If you're proposing splitting them apart, you'll end up with a hundred in short order, which essentially would mirror other existing topic-based categories, and probably lead to many sub-categories cross-listed all over the place. You'd also have no guidlines for placement in them, so disputes would occur. As I said, this is a research tool for grouping similar occupations, and one that is "off-the-shelf" and ready to use for this relatively small-scale application - articles describing occupations. Don't delete it, just let it grow for a while and make changes (if the need arises) later. -- Netoholic 04:20, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Though it may have "only 23 categories", this reduction isn't a sign of simplicity because the category designations are anything but simple. Having sub-categories cross-listed in multiple places is a good thing if it shows actual relationships. If they show up in too many, however, it probably means that there's another parent category that could be formed to merge some of the connections. But categories shouldn't be merged just to reduce their number, unless of course you're the government simply looking for a method to sort data. As encyclopedists, we are trying to simplify concepts to their fundamentals, to classify an article as to what it is, and create groupings that aid to navigation of like articles. The SOCS categories don't accomplish any of these goals, but paradoxically end up complicating matters more through reduction because the reductions are arbitrary. Postdlf 07:44, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep on the reasoning that trying to replace a system the govt (not my govt by the way ;o) ) probably thought was the best they could do will probably be better than a system several hundred strangers arguing will end up with. Plus I found it fairly intuitive to add some articles to them when I felt the need. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 21:27, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. There is no one category hierarchy in Wikipedia, nor should there. Categories are merely sets. One just needs to look at the many attempts people have made of "categorizations of everything" in the tech world to see that two or more hierarchies are often equally valid, when they are viewed from different contexts. ··gracefool |☺ 04:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Dewey Decimal Classification

My heart skipped a beat when I saw this and all of its subcategories—this isn't for classifying articles about the Dewey Decimal System, but for classifying everything under it. See, for example, the categorization of Category:Psychology and Category:Philosophy under Category:Dewey Decimal Classification 100 (yes, the subcategories get that specific).

Maybe I'm alone in this sentiment, but this seems an ill-advised project, especially since, best as I can tell, it is the sole work and initiative of only one user. This would logically spread like a virus to every main article on wikipedia (though thus far (from what I've seen) it has only been used to group categories rather than articles themselves). So...we need to have a broader discussion of the pros and cons of having this.

Thoughts? Postdlf 10:07, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It does sound like a hugely ambitious project. If it succeeded though, I think it would a good one. Do you propose deletion on the grounds that it would too big an "if", or because you don't think it would be a good one, assuming it succeeded? Pcb21| Pete 11:09, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good one because it would just end up in redundant clutter. Keep in mind that the Dewey Decimal system is supposed to group together like topics...while this sounds like just what we have categories for, that's the point—that's just what we have categories for, categories that should be titled with clear and concise labels so you immediately understand the classification. Dewey Decimal is by nature an arbitrary system of designations. The numbers bear no relationship to the subjects, so seeing "Dewey Decimal 001" or whatever at the bottom of the page would just add esoterica that is utterly useless, unless you're in a library. If clicking on "Dewey Decimal 001" takes you to related articles, it's obviously a category that could have been better served with, say, words as the category title. Postdlf 11:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Multiple catagory trees can overlap (to ideally form a Directed acyclic graph if you really wanted to know). This means you can simply have several systems of catagorisation all at once, one of which might be Dewey Decimal. There's simply no problem :-) If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, if it does work it does work. Other systems of catagorisation will stand or fall independantly of there being Dewey Decimal. Kim Bruning 12:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh look, we already have lots of schemes! See Wikipedia:Category schemes. Ok, dewey decimal is just one more. Kim Bruning 12:47, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent project for librarians who are sitting behind their terminals browsing after hours, -once they get word of it, that is. O:-) Kim Bruning 11:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a specialty classification, while Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. It's clutter - this information can be given in the Dewey article, just as the subjects taught at the schools of the University of Oxford can be in that article rather than all categorized. Also, are we going to have a Library of Congress Classification set of categories? How about the New York Public Library classification, which doesn't seem to be even convered in WP yet ;( ? VV 12:39, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Dewey Decimal system is proprietary, as the article states; the public libraries in the US pay fees to the administrator. It would be unwise to use it for classification in an unfunded project. Probably the one who is attempting to categorize in this way needs to be informed that it is grounds for liability. Ancheta Wis 13:03, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I started playing with it because Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System (which is linked to by the Main Page!) was a mess. A tree of categories (instead of a tree of pages) would be easier to maintain.

I was not the first one to try to do it; User:Falcon Kirtaran also tried to use categories before, and other people tried to complete the tree under Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System. Most appear to have given up. I recreated the categories (see User talk:Falcon Kirtaran and Wikipedia talk:Dewey Decimal System) because they couldn't be renamed (and Category:Dewey Decimal Classification 100 is better than Category:Dewey Decimal 100).

So, what should be done?

• Keep with the categories?
• Keep trying to make a tree under Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System and keep it updated?
• Or erase all mention of the DDC from the Wikipedia (except for the Dewey Decimal Classification article)?

Also notice that the same "possible copyright" notice (which btw was copied from Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System together with the rest of the information in the categories) says that there is no problem if a sufficiently old version of the DDC is used. Since I'm copying the information from Wikipedia itself (Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System and subpages), I suppose there is no problem that didn't already exist (I'm just shuffling things around, not copying from external sources. If there wasn't a copyvio before, there isn't one now).

cesarb 13:54, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just thought of another possibility:

• Create a List of Categories by Dewey Decimal Classification

Should be low-maintenance enough to be kept up to date.

cesarb 15:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a great solution. Postdlf 19:44, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I think the list option would be the best way for this to go, from the point of view of reducing clutter, ease of maintenance, and simplicity. PMcM 19:57, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, what should be done now? Is this like VfD which needs 2/3 majority? If so, should we begin a vote on which of the 4 options should be used (notice that only one of them is "keep" for CfD purposes, the other three are "delete")? My vote would be abstain.

Also, what should be done about the "possible copyright" issue?

cesarb 21:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Abstain, since one of my categories is under the knife and about to be cast from paradise. Ancheta Wis 21:26, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Abstain, because I have a headache and have no idea what to do. I think its a worthwhile project that will grow into something useful, especially for those people who are used to browsing under the dewey system (lots of them) which is always used in libraries and so is in fact a fairly standard way of organising and referencing information. Falcon 21:44, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Library classification systems are not right for Wikipedia. These systems provide mappings from subject areas to codes that can be used to put books in a linear order on library shelves. But in Wikipedia there is no need to put articles in a linear order on a shelf. We can link to them or categorize them in any means we like. So we can use systems that are clearer and easier to use. I know I would rather see and use Category:Mathematics than Category: Dewey Decimal Classification 51. Gdr 22:25, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

I agree that the Dewey Decimal system is not a good match for WP's categories. I think the list suggestion is a good one. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 00:41, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also now understand that the list solution will keep everyone happy, for those keen to provide a Dewey solution do so, without it imposing on others. Doesn't really need a vote. Pcb21| Pete 09:05, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I completely support the attempt to keep a Dewey Decimal "window" on WP, whether or not it's a clean alignment. A list or lists would prevent cluttering the category heirarchy with half a dozen numerical classification systems which are similar but not quite the same as each other and the intuitive heirarchy. But the list would have to be so long that it would have to be split into multiple pages, possibly a small heirarchy. Which sound like categories to me. If we were to use the category mechanism to do numerical classification, I think the classification system's name or acronym should be in the names of subcategories, for clarity of navigation. Numerical systems have the advantage that only one backlink per system is necessary from any given category (hopefully). I vote to keep for now and try to make the category approach work and see what happens. No sense in squashing a promising experiment before it can come into its own. There's a possibility that there will be an obvious problem caused by multiple numerical systems at some point in the future, but maybe not. -- Beland 14:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The list would not be the same as categories. While with categories one is needed for each separate category, with the list a lot of the categories could share the same list (with the end result being 11 list pages against more than 1000 categories for the DDC).

I currently think the list idea is the best one (not the least of the reasons is that it would take a lot less work to create), but since I'm too involved in the situation my vote is still abstain.

cesarb 19:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We can convert to lists later if this category tree becomes a problem in an obvious way, but I think it will probably be OK.

Let's do the the list thing. --Gary D 19:49, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 21

Category:Cox Communications

A subsidiary of Cox Enterprises that doesn't even have its own article, but exists only as a redirect, so of course the category itself is empty. There are other possibly unnecessary subcategories within Category:Cox Enterprises that may be merged too, but this was really the only one that definitely has to go. Postdlf 23:48, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Schedule I, Category:Schedule II, Category:Schedule III, Category:Schedule IV, Category:Schedule V, Category:Schedule VI

These refer to the various drug classifications of the Controlled Substances Act, all parented under Category:United States law. They are mostly empty categories—they appear to each contain one article of the same name, but these are merely redirects to the categories themselves.

These were started with the intention of actually classifying the individual drug articles by these categories, though only a few have actually been categorized under these. I don't believe that drug articles should be categorized based on how they are classified under any one nation's laws, though this should certainly be described in the text of the articles.

Though the categories each contain a brief description of the inclusion criteria for each schedule, the article on the Controlled Substances Act already includes an abundance of this information, and so the articles titled Schedule I, Schedule II, etc., should merely redirect there. Postdlf 21:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While the titles reflect US law, the legal categories in general reflect the saftey, addictivenses, and medical useflness of the drugs. I think this could be a useful thing if the drugs were actually categorized. Categories should be deleted based on their usefulness, not based on how many things have actually managed to be added to the category, otherwise we'd delete 'em all in the first hour. --ssd 11:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:The Enlightenment

There is already a heavily populated (if poorly capitalized) Category:Enlightenment Philosophers. If we did need a parent category to contain all Enlightenment-related topics, it should at least follow the title of the article—The Age of Enlightenment, to which "The Enlightenment" is a redirect. Postdlf 21:24, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Possibly agree on renaming. But it might be too early to tell on the usefulness of the category - it was only created this morning. -- Solipsist 23:03, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are other philosophical traditions;Enlightenment Philosophers are western. Some eastern philosophies view enlightenment as a fundamental topic. I was led to create the category in order to encapsulate a period in history. Should I be creating infoboxes instead of attempting to follow categories? Ancheta Wis 06:04, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now what am I going to do with Eye of Providence? It is a perfect illustration piece for The Enlightenment. And what about its category, no less? Ancheta Wis 06:59, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I thought the Eye was a freemason symbol. As "The Enlightenment" is just a redirect to Age of Enlightenment, that should be the proper title for a category on that period. Furthermore, I just read the description you added to the category, and your focus on the Enlightenment as just something that provided the foundation for the American Revolution is too narrow. The Age of Enlightenment was first and foremost a European phenomenon that had effects in the colonies. Postdlf 09:51, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The difference is that the Americans did something with The Enlightenment; they started a country. That reaction then immediately reflected back to Europe and turned into something more serious, so that not even Thomas Paine could halt the murders of the French Revolution and the succeeding wars over the next two centuries. Category:The Enlightenment presents a supercategory for Category:Enlightenment Philosophers. The article Age of Enlightenment presents both names, btw. "The E, or Age of E" Ancheta Wis 12:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, that's just _totaly_ American centric POV ;-) The Americans didn't start anything. The Native Americans had been living in North America quite happily for a fair few centuries. It was the British, French and Spaniards who did all the modern country establishment, the Americans just stole it because they didn't like the taxes and caught Europe on the hop whilst they had some internal problems. You didn't even start the ball rolling on revolutions, as Postdlf says, that was down to Europe. Britain had a revolution over 100 years before the Americans even thought of it (and largely before the Age of Enlightenment) — we were just ahead of our time and didn't make it stick :-)   -- Solipsist 20:03, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am starting to understand something:Richard Feynman is currently Categorized as a US Philosopher, which is ludicrous, because he despised them. When I worked on this article, I left this categorization alone. Based on my recent experience on this very Category page, I will strike Richard Feynman from the mis-categorization. Ancheta Wis 06:48, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that looks odd. Feynman was added to Category:Philosophers on 16 Jun 2004, which would be quite early on in categorising. Since then a few people have refined the category, but until now no one has had the sense to remove him entirely. -- Solipsist 09:29, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Here's the category's current description, btw: "This category lists factors which aided the rise of the American Revolution. See The Enlightenment for positive factors; there were countervailing factors which led to the violence of the French Revolution, possibly due to social stratification in Europe." Sounds more like the subject of an article than a category. Is this just intended to be the intersection of the Age of Enlightenment with the American Revolution? It's not named as such, and I don't see how that can composed as a proper classification. Postdlf 10:37, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that my writing is more in the spirit of an article, and that the mindset needed for Categorization is new to me. But the very names of Categories are at stake here. Those who wrote the article allowed that both names are used. The administration of the names should not be grounds for deletion. It comes across as an affront. Ancheta Wis 12:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, serious hat on now. I've been doing a fair bit of work on Eye of Providence today. As far as I can tell its an interesting subject, but an irrelevance in terms of the current discussion — its really got a long history back to the Eye of Horus and isn't rooted in Age of Enlightenment thinking. As far as I can tell there is no strong connection between the Age of Enlightenment and the Eastern/Buddhist concept of Enlightenment. There is a justification for a category such as Category:Age of Enlightenment to cover a movement of thought wider than Category:Enlightenment Philosophers, including political thought and possibly scientific and artistic developments, but it would probably need a but more more examination. The situation is similar to one I'm looking at in artistic category, where vaious artistic periods and movements affect the visual arts, architecture and music at different times. Its not trivial, but I'm leaning towards 'Keep' under the name Category:Age of Enlightenment. -- Solipsist 20:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Then it sounds as if I were to rename the category in the handful of articles, it could survive in a new incarnation? as in Cat:Age of E.? It's funny what comes across on the back of a Dollar bill. The Founders still are affecting the citizens of The Republic, in unconscious subliminal ways. By the way, I am starting to understand that view among the categorizers of Wikipedia is playful, as the category names are merely tags to be shuffled and re-dealt. Ancheta Wis 21:38, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Upon reflection, Category:The Enlightenment has an implicate order, in the words of David Bohm, which is explicitly not implied in Cat:Age of E. In fact Cat:Age of E. implies an end to Enlightenment, whereas there is room for Enlightenment in the past, present and future in Cat:The E. Ancheta Wis 05:55, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But then it becomes more of a topic rather than a classificatory category, and one that would essentially be the equivalent of a personal essay, unless you can show that the groupings you intend are actually recognized in academia. The Age of Enlightenment is a distinct and recognized period in intellectual history. Enlightenment as a distinct concept reaching across cultures and time periods is significantly less so, and will mostly result in equivocation. Postdlf 22:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually there is documentation for this universal concept which exposes itself in the Western world, in Art. If you look at Kenneth Clarke's Civilisation, he shows how Enlightenment (he called it the smile of Reason) collided with European social structure (violence was the result in 1800), and we are seeing it now in our own time (terrorism, beheadings, war, 9/11 etc in 2000). But Asian cultures honor the concept. I agree that Age of Enlightenment is a distinct historical period of European intellectual history. That is exactly the point for freeing the implicate order from the explicate order. Ancheta Wis 09:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Mage: the Ascension

This is a redundant category, as it was listed as a sub category on Category:World_of_Darkness along with Category:Mage: The Ascension. The one with the lowercase "t" is empty, while the other one has the entries for Mage. There is also the fact that the game is actually called Mage: The Ascension. Asmodai 20:35, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Neo-Psychedelia Groups/Category:Neo-Prog Groups

Both terms are too vague and ill-defined to qualify as real genres. Categorizing bands with such categories is pointless because each band will end up with a dozen different styles, none of which have any set meaning. Also, the categories shouldn't be capitalized (I'm kind of anal -- this upsets me). There was one article Neutral Milk Hotel in both, but I removed it, now they are merely both part of Category:Musical groups by genre. Tuf-Kat 17:44, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete both. Genre subcategories should only be kept for broader, more recognized forms. Postdlf 21:31, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Academic institutions recategorization

We're starting to fix and merge the subcategories—see Category talk:Academic institutions. Here are a few ready for deletion: (Note: what I left is not yet empty. --ssd)

*Category:Grandes écoles—replaced with the proper capitalization, at Category:Grandes Écoles.

• • Hold on this one—it looks like the capitalization in the lead topic article may have been wrong instead, which is what I was going on. We'll work it out first. Postdlf 07:23, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Category:Grandes Écoles instead—lower case was proper, and the articles have been edited accordingly. Postdlf 07:32, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Literature from Birmingham, England

This category is pointless and not useful. It sole aim appears to be to continue controversy on Talk:The Lord of the Rings. It is not even connected to Category:Literature and no other subcategory of Category:Literature is refined below the country level. Many of the other subcategories of Category:Birmingham, England are also dubious over-categorisation as is Category:Birmingham, England. -- Solipsist 00:19, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I just happened to see some of the discussion over this mess over at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Can't say I've ever seen "civic vanity" of this kind, as one user appropriately termed it. It looks like Category:Birmingham, England itself should stay—while I didn't check to see how many more articles were senselessly added because of a tenuous connection, there were quite a few that had "Birmingham" in their very title. I don't know about the other subcategories yet, but I think a certain Birmingham-obsessed user should be sanctioned if he can't learn how to play well with others and stop editing against clear consensus. Postdlf 01:20, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I have never edited against "clear consensus". Andy Mabbett 08:41, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The history for The Lord of the Rings around the 20th Aug 2004 and the 21st July 2004 suggests otherwise. And that is not an isolated example. -- Solipsist 10:13, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • "Andy Mabbett" (really User:Pigsonthewing despite the clever pipe trick) simply doesn't believe that "clear consensus" means a vast majority of other users expressing a position, oddly enough. Postdlf 10:41, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Quite. I'm surprised that anybody would admit to being ignorant enough to think otherwise. Andy Mabbett 17:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • My ignorant dictionary says that consensus means "collective opinion" or "general agreement". What does yours say? Postdlf 22:20, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Solipsist's claim for the supposed reason for the existence of this category is fallacious, as his claim about other sub-categories of Birmingham. Andy Mabbett 08:40, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. While I have much sympathy with Andy, being from that general neck of the woods, a) the title is misleading, b) the category is poorly populated, c) the category has conflicting aims: literature by people from Birmingham; written by people who were in Birmingham at the time; and using Birmingham as a setting are three very different categories in themselves, d) I would expect to see an encyclopedic article referenced from within the category which gave a scholarly summary of what the category is about. Sorry, but my opinion is that it has to go. Noisy 16:23, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • It's poorly populated partlly because people keep deleting references to it (someone removed all the articles, recently) and partly because I'm still researching other enteries. Andy Mabbett 17:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. "Civic vanity" is an apt description. Noisy's analysis is spot on. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 16:32, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Even for Tolkien, if every person and every place that might have influenced him was made into a category, and every literary motif he used was made into a category the text produced by the number of categories would probably outrun the current text in the article. Imagine the same being done for more prolific authors whose work ranged more widely: Shakespeare, Arthur Conan Doyle, Charles Dickens, George Bernard Shaw, Rudyard Kipling. An influenced-by-category for every town mentioned, every historical person mentioned, every work at all similar that might have influenced any passage by the author, every place mentioned by the author, every place that might have in any way inspired an imaginary place, every person mentioned who might have in any way inspired an imaginary person. Jallan 17:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you. While I don't agree, that's the first reasoned comment against having such a category, that I've seen. Andy Mabbett 17:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons mentioned above. --Conti|✉ 17:27, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Last I checked The Wizard of Oz is not classified in Category:Kansas nor would I expect it to be. —Mike 18:35, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Although I in part recommended the creation of this category (Category talk:Birmingham, England) as a compromise to avoid having Lord of the Rings and Rip van Winkle inexplicably in Category:Birmingham, England, I still think it's one user's solo quest to over-categorise anything and everything that they are interested in, for no useful reason. PMcM 21:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• and... would this make an appropriate list instead? Would allow for annotations of explanation. Much more suited to someone's personal project, rather than hijacking the categorising system. PMcM 22:00, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, list articles are always the more appropriate way to group together information that may have a very trivial relationship to subjects, rather than categorization. As long as the list were annotated and titled properly ("Literature associated with Birmingham, England"?), I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it. Postdlf 22:14, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, but first either convert into a list or into the article on Birmingham, England. -Sean Curtin 02:03, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Having something to do with Birmingham is not one of the thousand most notable things about "The Lord of the Rings". Whatever next? Category:Literature that has been made into films by Peter Jackson? Gdr 22:31, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)
• Delete. Why have a category when "This book was written in birmingham" would suffice? MDCore 20:51, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 20

Category:Jewish philosophers (Secular)

A grouping of philosophers who merely happened to be of Jewish ethnicity. Postdlf 22:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm sort of torn about this one - I mean, yeah, we're talking about philosophers who just happen to be of Jewish descent, but it is a category you hear used fairly often, and unlike many other ethnicities, if we are talking about people who are raised Jewish and stopped being religious at some point in their life, there is a whole educational background that was likely a part of their growing up Jewish, and which likely affected their philosophy. -Seth Mahoney 01:11, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. Neutrality 03:26, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If kept, I think it needs to be renamed, perhaps to Jewish secular philosophers, or Secular jewish philosophers. The current name is horrid. Postdlf 03:35, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Secular Jewish philosophers sounds better to me, though Jewish Secular philosophers would alphabetize better. How about [[:Category:Secular Jewish philosophers|Jewish secular philosophers]]? I agree that parenthesis are not so good. -Seth Mahoney 05:13, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Either way the title is confusing. Is it secular philosophers on Jewish issues or Jewish philosophers on secular issues? If we're talking about Jewish philosophers in general, they should be in Category:Jewish philosophers. Jewish philosophers whose focus is religious topics should be in something like Category:Jewish theologians. —Mike 06:06, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Unless they're philosophizing about Jewish topics, I don't see the use in the category other than to classify individuals by an ethnicity. Postdlf 07:26, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is the concern here primarily POV problem? In general I'm very impressed with the categorisation of philosophers. This category looks like it was created specifically to handle a distinction with philosophers who were working in the Jewish religious tradition. Much of the history of philosophy is based in religious thought and there are similar Buddhist, Christian and Muslim Philosophers categories. I don't think you can introduce 'theologian' into the mix because many of these philosophers were working on wider issues - see the article on Scholasticism for an example of the interplay of different (religious) traditions of philosophy in metaphysics as well as theology.

I would suspect that the problem was due to not having a separate word for Jewish (religion) and Jewish (ethnicity), but the category description makes it clear that 'Jewish philosophers (Secular)' is seen as a cohesive movement in the broader Jewish tradition. Perhaps ask User:Lucidish and User:IZAK for additional input. -- Solipsist 23:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If the concern is a naming issue, I agree it would be nice to avoid the brackets. Category:Jewish secular philosophers would seem like a good suggestion, but you would also have to handle 'Jewish philosophers (Judaism)' and Category:Jewish Judaism philosophers is awkward. -- Solipsist 23:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If necessary, I'm sure Category:Jewish philosophers or Category:Jewish religious philosophers would do fine. -Seth Mahoney 17:38, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

August 19

Airforce categories

Many of the categories are unnecessary and should be deleted until they do become necessary.

• Category:Air Force of Zimbabwe — had only one article, moved to Category:Military of Zimbabwe.
• Category:Albanian Air Force — one article moved to Military category.
• Category:Bangladesh Air Force, Category:Botswana Defence Force Air Wing, Category:Egyptian Air Force, Category:Finnish Air Force, Category:Ghana Air Force, Category:Indian Air Force, Category:Iranian Air Force, Category:Israeli Air Force — ditto.

There are probably a few more of these I didn't get to. Some of the "Military of ..." categories may be questionable due to the small number of articles, but I left them and only went for the sure bets. Most certainly delete the following:

• Category:Finnish military — duplicate of Category:Military of Finland.
• Category:Finnish Army and Category:Finnish Navy should be deleted for same reason as the Air force categories above.

C'mon, there are plenty more articles to come on the world-renowned Bangladesh Air Force... ; ) Postdlf 04:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

World-renowned what?  :-) —Mike 04:52, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, eventually we should have a List of aircraft of the Bangladesh Air Force, to parallel the other inventory lists we have, as well as squadron articles. But I guess the category can wait till they appear... --Rlandmann 04:35, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Still I think it takes more than two articles to make a subcategory! —Mike 04:52, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

I guess I'm an eventualist when it comes to categorisation. Even the smallest air forces have the potential for several articles. Category:Bangladesh Air Force should eventually hold (at least):

• List of aircraft of the Bangladesh Air Force

3 current bases (and maybe other historic ones)

• Bashar AB
• Matiur Rahman AB
• Zahurul Haque AB

Other facilities, eg:

• Bangladesh Air Force Academy

Squadrons (just the ones I could easily find on-line - this implies at least 19 more...)

• No. 5 Squadron Bangladesh Air Force
• No. 21 Squadron Bangladesh Air Force

--Rlandmann 05:24, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well hell. Keep, in that case. I agree, categories should be kept if they will eventually be filled—it looks like I need to be even more careful in my assumptions about what has the potential. Postdlf 06:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm responsible for creating many of the Military of … categories. My thinking at the time was that eventually they would have to be created in an ideal world, and that they are a standard part of the article structure for country articles. David Newton 08:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't really have much of a complaint with the military categories. However some countries only have the single air force article, and that's not much to create a new category. But I could see a lot of room for expansion in this area.

Because Category:Air forces is a member of Category:Militaries along with all the "Military of..." categories, I just don't see a great need for some of the air force categories at this time. When people eventually get around to writing the additional articles then they might be needed. —Mike 21:46, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Up until yesterday, air forces were organized in a consistent and logical manner as subcategories of "Category:Air forces" and of their relevant "Category:Military of XYZ" Now we've got some in their own category and some in their parent "Military" category. I preferred it when "Category:Air forces" listed all air forces in the same alphabetical list. --Rlandmann 08:42, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The parent articles of the Category:Air forces subcategories should be included in that category as well as their own subcategory, which would put them all in the same list. Postdlf 19:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we kill the subcategories for now but put the outlines of your consistent and logical scheme into the talk page for the master category(ies), or even onto that page or those pages themselves, to alert later editors so that if and when enough articles were later created to truly merit a new subcategory, it could be created consistently with the system. That way, the system survives, but without premature category clutter.--Gary D 19:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, so what's the minimum number of articles needed to keep these categories? I'll be happy to contribute them. --Rlandmann 22:20, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would say ten to fifteen articles is a good category justification. --Gary D 19:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Idaho

From what I can tell, all municipalities in the state are cities, with a handful of CDPs. No towns, despite what a certain bot told me. Postdlf 00:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why need we be so concerned with the legal status of each urban centre in each state? Why not just list them all as "Towns of State/County X", where "town" is an English word meaning something like concentration of dwellings, not a legal term. I realise that it would be a lot of work to change everything to this for all the US states and counties, but I'm also adding various "towns" to similar categories in other countries, and frankly I don't want to decide whether I need to separate them out in this sort of way.-gadfium 04:30, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Because "town" means a particular kind of municipality with certain powers and organization in some states, while other states have no such designation, in which case it is an arbitrary informal usage. I can't vouch for other countries, but I have worked quite a bit within the various U.S. categories, and there is definitely a difference between a city, village, township, town, census-designated place, or neighborhood. Municipalities are incorporated in a particular form under state laws, such that "City" or "Village" is part of the municipality's official name. They have different forms of local government, have a differing ability to pass laws, and typically provide different levels of service (such as police or schools) to their residents. Classifications should reflect this, because the differences (and relationships) are significant to their residents as well as academically, especially when comparing municipalities to simple "concentration of dwellings." We gain nothing by obscuring such significant differences through vague categories. Postdlf 06:30, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

German companies

Category:German companies and Category:Companies of Germany need merging, in much the same way as Category:Japanese companies and Category:Companies of Japan previously mentioned on August 16th below. Lancevortex 19:58, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• German companies is ready to be nuked now (the five pages that were in it now go to Companies of Germany like the standard suggests). -- EmperorBMA|話す 01:16, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Additionally Category:German economy is now empty and not consistent with the other countries of Europe's categorizations.

Category:Hamlets in New York

Alas, I was once more misled by a pesky bot that had mislabelled an article on a CDP. Shoulda known better... Postdlf 19:52, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are actually places known as hamlets in New York. Though because they are unincorporated, they would not, in general, show up in the rambot articles. [1] Another ref from a Wikipedia article: Political subdivisions of New York State#Hamlet Perhaps the contents of Category:Unincorporated communities in New York actually belongs in this category? [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 01:27, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that it seemed to be a commonly used term, but the problem is that it has no concrete political reality. Looking at the U.S. Census data for New York, the designations of city, village, and CDP are used, but not "hamlet". Is there any kind of substantive definition as to what constitutes a "hamlet" as opposed to any old CDP or neighborhood? Maybe it could be a subcategory of Category:Unincorporated communities in New York, but without classificatory criteria, I'm thinking it would be better to just use the term in the articles rather than a category header. Postdlf 01:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that, at least in New York, "hamlet" is the term used to describe any unincorporated community. Since there is no government, I doubt that there is substantive definition beyond unincorporated community (though I don't think all CDPs would necessarily be hamlets). I'm not sure how commonly the term is used, but I have seen it a fair bit. The term is definitely not commonly used in states that I'm familiar with: Michigan, Illinois, Indiana or Ohio. But I have actually seen the term starting to crop up in discussions of planning how to revitalize urban centers--and the meaning is, guess what, any unincorporated community--often little more than a crossroads. Despite it not being a very common term, it is certainly less awkward than "unincorporated community". That alone might make it worth adopting for more general use. In fact, just looking at what the WP has to say, Hamlet (place) includes yet another mention of New York hamlets. FWIW, there are a few official type documents that refer to hamlets: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and a few unofficial refs of interest: [7] [8] [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 02:05, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would still suggest that "hamlets" be included in Category:Unincorporated communities in New York rather than a separate category. A description within the category can point out that it includes communities commonly called "hamlets", as well as CDPs and neighborhoods. Each article can describe whether the community in question is commonly called a "hamlet". Unless the designation of certain communities as "hamlets" is consistently applied, and applied with consistent criteria, it just doesn't make sense to use as a classification. Postdlf 21:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure. I don't really have a strong preference either way. You are probably right that the term "hamlet" would not apply to some CDPs and to neighborhoods within larger urban areas. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 16:43, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Suicides

For the same reasons as Category:Alcoholics: "Would anyone honestly answer, if asked what they are reading, that 'it's an article about a person who committed suicide'?" In most, if not all of the examples in the category, the person's having committed suicide is not directly related to their inclusion in wikipedia. -Seth Mahoney 21:21, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Agreed. Compile a list article (if we don't have one) and then delete. Otherwise, why don't we categorize all people by cause of death? Postdlf 21:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Disagree Removed my vote - somebody may indeed answer the above question that way, but it's spurious as an argument for deletion anyway. Someone may indeed be interested to read a number of articles about people who have committed suicide...
• ...In fact the follow up confesses as much by suggesting a list. If it's worth having a list, why not have a category? It's ridiculous to replace one with another - categories are there, in part, to negate the requirement for lists... With other controversial categories lists are proposed as allowing shades of grey - I think there will be plenty of uncontroversial suicides to fill the category.
• ...Why not categorize people by cause of death? If there's an easy way to find people who have died from a coronary, or in an automobile accident such category pages may well be of interest...
• ...indeed I've seen many feature articles in magazines that cover famous people by cause of death...
• ...However, I would suggest that suicide is a special case beyond that as it is a very notable way for a person to die.
• ...I have a suspicion that the reason this is in danger of going the way of category:alcoholics is that some people are fretful about any category that might be interpreted as tarnishing a person. However, neither alcoholism nor committing suicide are universally perceived as signifying a person has less worth, so this strikes me as somewhat provincial. If anyone can tell me where alcoholics was discussed before being deleted I'd be very pleased to see the debate.
• some content struck out after reading other debates below - I started the category, I've removed my vote, let the community decide (though I'd like to see more people involved with this page...) --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 21:18, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Potentially of interest and useful. -- Infrogmation 02:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Rensselaer County, New York and Category:Towns in Schoharie County, New York

Each had only one entry. I'm all for specific categories, but this was ridiculous. Standard form is to categorize each community by its type within the state, and then also within the category as a whole (i.e., Category:Towns in New York & Category:Rensselaer County, New York), which definitely makes them easier to navigate and is still a totally logical grouping. Many counties wouldn't even allow for such a micro-categorization because of their paltry number of municipalities. Postdlf 08:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Add to the list these, all by User:Hemanshu, randomly skipping through states and adding one article to each category: Category:Cities in Nodaway County, Missouri, Category:Villages in Cass County, Nebraska, Category:Cities in Buffalo County, Nebraska (of which there are only 3), Category:Villages in Lincoln County, Nebraska (Lincoln County has only 7 communities total, btw), and Category:Cities in Randolph County, Illinois.

He also created the following redundant categories: Category:Counties in Missouri, Category:Counties in New York, Category:Counties in Nebraska.

I am going through correcting his edits, and will post more as I find them. Postdlf 09:28, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More redundant categories created by User:Hemanshu:

Category:American actors (redundant with Category:U.S. actors and actresses), Category:Human anatomy (redundant with Category:Anatomy), Category:Physical geography (redundant with Category:Geography), Category:Comic book series (redundant with Category:Comic books), Category:American politicians (redundant with Category:U.S. politicians), and Category:Counties in Texas, Category:Counties in California, Category:Counties in Arkansas, Category:Counties in Iowa, Category:Counties in Michigan.

More to come—still cleaning up after him. Postdlf 11:31, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Make sure you send him a note.... - UtherSRG 11:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I did, but before I even saw the full extent of it. I started just going through the American city, town, etc., pages, but then realized that he was apparently just hitting the random page link and slapping a category on what he found, without any forethought. It's probably best I don't leave anything further on his talk page because I feel like wringing his neck (however well-intentioned he may have been). Postdlf 11:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More redundancies, per the above:

• Category:Rock and roll groups, redundant with Category:Rock music groups.
• Category:Television programs, redundant with Category:Television series.
• Category:Singers, redundant with Category:Vocalists.

More to come. Postdlf 11:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Counties in Georgia redundant with Category:Georgia counties, Category:Counties in Virginia redundant with...you get the idea.

Ok, back to the utterly useless categories:

• Category:Cities in Andrews County, Texas (there is only one bloody city in the county!), Category:Cities in Hancock County, Iowa, Category:Cities in Hillsborough County, Florida, Category:Cities in Jersey County, Illinois, Category:Cities in Marion County, Arkansas, Category:Cities in Van Zandt County, Texas, Category:Cities in Winkler County, Texas, Category:Towns in Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska, Category:Towns in Fresno County, California, Category:Towns in Hot Spring County, Arkansas, Category:Towns in Los Angeles County, California, Category:Towns in Sullivan County, New Hampshire, Category:Villages in Hancock County, Ohio, Category:Villages in Seward County, Nebraska, Category:Villages in Tuscola County, Michigan, and Category:Villages in Washington County, Illinois.

That's the last of what I corrected myself. Someone needs to go through and further check his edits, because he slapped categories on far more articles and topics, and I can't say I know enough about Mexican geography, for example, to classify it. Postdlf 11:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

One more: Category:Cars, redundant with the heavily populated Category:Automobiles, of which it was inexplicably made a subcategory. (?!) Postdlf 12:06, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 17

Category:Atheists

Many of the same reasons why individuals should not be classified by race or sexual preference also applies to religion (or lack thereof). Would anyone honestly answer, if asked what they are reading, that "it's an article about an atheist"? That neither says why the individual has an article, nor anything significant about them. "Atheist thinkers" may be a different story—those who have actively written on the topic of atheism and its justifications. But "atheists" is really no more a valid category than Category:People who believe in reincarnation or Category:People whose favorite movie is Star Wars. Describe it in the article, make annotated lists, but categories are inappropriate. Postdlf 05:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the category is OK, but it shouldn't be applied to everyone who 'happens to be an atheist' or is thought to have been an atheist at some time. Leave that for the List of atheists. If the category is restricted to people who are primarily (and only?) identified as being an atheist or influencial in atheism, then it would be OK - if that implies a change of category name then I'd go along with that. There is an additional problem in that it can often be difficult to draw a distinction between Atheist and Agnostic. -- Solipsist 11:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your comment is a little unclear, because what it seems like what you are saying is that the category is not OK, because currently it is just a grouping of people who happen to be atheists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are aiming more towards my suggestion of having a category for "Atheist thinkers"—people have actively advocated for/written about atheism. It is very different to categorize people by what they do rather than what they believe. Postdlf 22:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I mean I don't object to the category per se, just the way it is being used. -- Solipsist 22:18, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right, but how else can we narrow how it is used without replacing it? I have three suggestions:

---

1. Replace it with one category: Category:Atheist thinkers and activists

I think I favor this one—I don't know if I'd classify Madalyn Murray O'Hair as an atheist "thinker", nor was Bertrand Russell an "activist" per se, to my knowledge, but in many cases, the roles may be difficult to separate.

It should be thinkers or activists to my mind. Noisy 16:40, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2. Replace it with two categories: Category:Atheist thinkers and Category:Atheist activists.

3. Replace it with one category: Category:Atheist thinkers

My second favorite, because "thinker" may be broad enough to include those who were more atheist activists trying remove the importance of religion from government and society.

---

If kept, Category:Atheists will just be a dumping ground for every one lacking a belief in God, however trivial that was to their life, or however unlikely they were to self-identify as an atheist. We need to change it to one of the above suggestions. Postdlf 22:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should there not be a CfD notice posted at the category. -- Solipsist 22:18, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. Postdlf 22:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Fuzzy sets are better represented by lists. -Sean Curtin 03:42, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Guanaco 03:49, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • No thought on the alternatives? Postdlf 04:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I think it might be better to firm up the inclusion/exclusion guidelines for categories (discussed atWikipedia_talk:Categorization). Jumping through hoops with extra narrow categories like Category:Atheist thinkers and activists and Category:LGBT rights activists is starting to get a little obtuse. Contentious categories could then include further notes on how broad they should be on their category page and associated talk. -- Solipsist 20:04, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • It's certainly more difficult to control a category by a description than by naming it wih appropriate qualifiers—would you create a Category:U.S. politicians to be used only for U.S. Presidents? The categories you cite are not "extra narrow", but properly tailored to group people by what they have done and what played a role in their notability, rather than what their opinion or preference might be on a matter that they might not even care that much about. It simply doesn't make sense to classify someone based on a trait that is trivial to them. I still have not seen anyone who supports this category answer one question: what reasoning would distinguish keeping this category from keeping ones such as Category:Blondes or Category:People who believe in ESP? Postdlf 20:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Delete. Fair enough, I'm not actively in favour of keeping the category. Its just that some of the CfD's look symptomatic of wider disagreements on how categories should be used. I can certainly see why it is easier to agree that Bertrand Russell should be in Category:Atheist thinkers and activists, when not everyone can agree that he should be on List of atheists because he also made agnostic statements. -- Solipsist 21:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete/convert. Important information, but fuzzy, controversial, and possibly offensive. Better represented as an annotated list, not as a category. I think "Atheist thinkers and activists" is also important information but the category is arbitrary and possibly also fuzzy. There are atheist activists who don't believe in atheism and don't wish to promote it, but who defend atheists' freedom of belief. There are people who believe in and promote atheism, but would be offended if you called it that. There's also tremendous fuzziness between atheism and agnosticism. I'd rather see a good article or annotated list. There will be permanent in/out fighting and over-nit-picking to define what the "right" boundary is, unless inclusion can be qualified. Even worse, many mostly-the-same-but-not-quite categories might need to be created to satisfy NPOV. -- Beland 03:41, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Transpose. The destination category should be Atheist thinkers or activists, but I suppose it's a bit late to change course now. Let's face it, a lot of activists aren't actually thinkers, and thinkers about atheism may not actually be atheists themselves. Argh — am I actually arguing for two categories? Noisy 16:40, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 16

August 14

1961,2,3 comics

Category:1961 comics, Category:1962 comics, and Category:1963 comics have been merged into Category:1960s comics, since they only had one item each and I don't think they would have expanded much. If they do, they can be re-created. -- Beland 03:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Disagree. Either keep the individual categories, or delete them and also delete Category:1960s comics. As far as I can tell, the idea of the original categories was to group comics by the initial year of publication, like the Category:Films by year subcategories. -Sean Curtin 05:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Agree, there are fewer comicbook titles produced than films or books, no? — OwenBlacker 23:30, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Pennsylvania

Ain't no such animal. All the articles listed were in fact census-designated places, and the only municipalities in Pennsylvania are cities, boroughs, and townships, which each have separate categories. I have moved all the articles that were grouped under this to Category:Unincorporated communities in Pennsylvania, a process I have started in some other state categories as well after researching whether a bot-labelled "town" was in fact a CDP or something else. (Check out this site to see for yourself how even the most obscure communities should be classified in any state; the lack of a designation after the community name indicates a city.) Postdlf 02:12, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I stand corrected. There is one incorporated town in the whole state. Now to figure out what the hell to do with it... Postdlf 17:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Town in Pennsylvania? :) -- Cyrius|✎ 20:00, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You could add it to Category:Cities in Pennsylvania but include an explanatory note in the category's text. Mike 17:31, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Are "boroughs" in Pennsylvania the equivalent of villages in other states? That might be a better category to add it to, as I assume an incorporated town is probably more on a par with such a limited municipality, rather than a city. Postdlf 02:50, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 13

Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people

A sort of summary of the argument

I suppose the argument of what follows somewhere boils down to two arguments:

• General discussion on how to make use of categories most efficiently

Maybe it would be better to stop using delicate subjects like GLB as the theatre of such battles. Surely Wikipedia has enough "rooms" that are more fit for treating the "how to improve use of categories" subject more efficiently, and more to the interest of everybody using categories. And there is work to be done: "categories" as such is as yet not a "stable" device, in the sense that in a Wikipedia/Printed Encyclopedia comparison it has few examples for attaching oneself to, if considering the more elaborate possibilities of WIKI techniques, that are so much more than a reflection of the possibilties of former printed examples. In spite of what some use as a reference in the discussion below (namely the instructions published by Wikipedia regarding the use of categories), I think the "GLB people category" discussion shows that there is still a lot to be said about how categories are to be used most efficiently: but please, if having no natural interest in GLB topics as such move over to other places where to discuss this.

• Allow people having knowledge about GLB topics to use the techniques provided by Wikipedia (categories, lists, etc...) most fittingly for organising the knowledge base contained in Wikipedia about these topics.

In other words: you don't let Microsoft organise the next Linux convention.

The fact that information should be "correct" and that Wikipedia instructions should be applied "correctly" is not considered by me as an "argument" in the discussion whether or not the category should exist. Correctness is just plain common sense, but the information resulting from that part of the discussion can in my eyes only be used to improve the "GLB people category", not to abolish it ("renaming" the category COULD be argued to be such improvement, but the "contra"'s seemingly only use the renaming argument in order to get rid of the category in another way, e.g. by making it totally ineffective). I can see no "incorrectness" w.r.t. present Wikipedia rules governing categories in having a "GLB people category", and assigning people like Duncan Grant to such category. Neither an exclusively "gay" nor a "bisexual" category would fit this person without discussion, GLB is perfect (and while he was no T, better than GLBT or any other larger category).

The vote ending this section proves few things in my view: only that there are more straight people than GLB people (was proof needed?) and that the inconsistencies regarding the present use of categories in Wikipedia are fought over on the back of GLB people.

--Francis Schonken 10:58, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Detailed discussion

So right after we got rid of Category:Gay people, this popped up. I'm not going to restate the reasons as to why this should be deleted—see discussion below under both Category:Gay people and Category:African Americans. I will give one illustration of another reason why this category is so problematic...I noticed Marlon Brando was included. Not only have I never in my life heard anything about his homosexuality, but the article itself includes no such information (it doesn't even give a description of the one movie I know of in which he played a gay character). Despite the category author's attempt to limit the criteria for inclusion, it appears that this will just be another rumor dumping ground. But see especially the reasons given below. Postdlf 16:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying we should get rid of List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people? This category is almost identical to the list of "confirmed" gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. If someone is miscategorized, it's because someone incorrectly listed the person. Guanaco 18:51, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No. Lists are definitely less problematic than categories. Lists can explain the rationale for inclusion (i.e., self-identification), while categories are unannotated and can't offer support or explanation for inclusion. Furthermore, lists don't function to brand the subject like a category does. Categories classify. We shouldn't be classifying people by their sexuality (or race), however proper it may be to list who has self-identified themselves a certain way. Postdlf 19:31, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categories link to the individual articles which do explain why they are categorized in a certain way. Most of the listings at List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people have no explanation beyond "American painter" or "actress, bisexual". This category is no worse than the list. Guanaco 19:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If the list is broken, then fix the list. The category is not needed. - UtherSRG 19:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The same argument could be used to delete all categories. Do you think we should do that? Guanaco 20:07, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Most categories are purely objective—it's rather clear who was or wasn't a U.S. Senator or whether something is a city in Ohio, and these are the most banal and uncontroversial ways of categorizing something or someone. Valid categories may have boundary issues as to who gets included, but when there are distinct policy concerns over such a category, as have been expressed on this page numerous times, then it is better not to have it and to include the information in article-form where it can be qualified and contextualized. Postdlf 20:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that a list like this can be problematic, but I don't think that is necessarily reason to delete it. It is more a reason to keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. I do think, however, that a category like this is more likely to be vandalized than, say, a category of baseball players. This isn't due to an inherent property of the categories in question, but due to people's immaturity, which again isn't a good reason to delete the category - we shouldn't give in to the immature whims of vandals. I also, as a gay person, don't think it is necessarily wrong or offensive, as stated below on this page, to classify people based on their sexuality. There can be good reasons for doing so. A category like this can be helpful to anyone researching gay history, social identity, gay and gender issues, queer studies, and so on. The reason a category like Category: Straight people isn't necessary, and the reason the existence of a category like the one being discussed here doesn't warrant one, is because in our society heterosexuality is the presumed default. Putting self-identified gay people (the category shouldn't be used to try to out people) in a category like this helps to identify them to those who are interested. -Seth Mahoney 20:20, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

We classify people all the time, but whenever Wikipedia touches anything gay with a 10 foot stick it gets listed for deletion. There is no reason that we can't classify people by one category if we categorize them by any. Classifications only become non-neutral when they are false (I am of course discounting here the fact that, for example, we would use "Category:People who like pie" rather than "Category:People who are dumb enough to like pie"). Hyacinth 20:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree 100%. For the record, I vote keep. Another option is to keep this category but with no articles, only subcategories like Category:Gay activists, Category:Gay philosophers, Category:Gay historians, etc., and fill those categories with articles. -Seth Mahoney 20:52, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

If their sexuality is a (significant?) part of their notoriety then I agree, but categorizing for categorizing's sake is not valid. Noting their sexuality in the article, and listing why in the full list suffices for the resst. And then those categories should go in Category:LGBT. - UtherSRG 22:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In case anyone is thinking that I'm some kind of jerk homophobe: I may be a jerk, but I'm an out bi man. - UtherSRG 23:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you're a jerk homophobe just because we don't so much agree. I'm more ambivalent about this category than I let on, but ultimately I think we should keep it. I also totally agree with what you said above, and there are many philosophers, filmmakers, writers, poets, and so on whose work is clearly and definately affected by their being gay. The reason I propose the subcategory idea is because there are fields of study in, say, queer literature and gay history. Hell, in some colleges you can major in queer studies, which covers all that and more. Basically, the idea is that if we subcategorize rigorously it will be obvious that we aren't just categorizing for the sake of categorizing. -Seth Mahoney 23:58, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Delete - hello? We just got rid of Category:Gay people for a reason. Are we now going to be categorising Category:Fat people? Or Category:Black people? Or Category:People who stand out. This is ridiculous. As said before, the list is sufficient - it shows a clearly defined list of people who identify as gay and are also famous, and those who are speculated as such. Not only is it offensive, but Category: Gay, lesbian and bisexual people is far too vague. -Erolos 23:19, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Fat people" has no standard definition. "Black people" has a different meaning in different places. And "people who stand out" is just POV nonsense. If the name of the category is the problem, it can easily be renamed. Guanaco 23:30, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No the name is not the problem. The category is the problem. Gay is POV nonsense, then. People's sexuality cannot always be defined, in case you didn't know. It's a completely POV and no-encyclopedia-relevence category.-Erolos 23:33, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My sexuality is very easily defined, as are many of the people who would be categorized. Thanks. Hyacinth 23:45, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good for you. Some people's sexuality isn't. Those who sexuality is defined - who are famous and have publicly announced or let it be known what sexuality they are - are clearly listed with those notes in the List. The category is irrelevent. -Erolos 23:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All things on wikipedia are hard to prove, most are vague. They just aren't gay, so they don't get listed for deletion. Hyacinth 23:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why does it make a difference if it is in a category or a list? They are both equally managable, they serve pretty much the same purpose, they have pretty much the same titles. The only difference is that categories give the reader more access. -Seth Mahoney 23:58, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a difference. The list stands alone and can have a rationalization for why the person is included in the list, right at their name. The category method puts the label at the top/bottom of the article, without any explanation. Any explanation would have to be in te article, but would not be able to be included in the category's page, which become the replacement for the list. - UtherSRG 01:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that a list gives editors (like me) an excuse to not bother rationalizing the inclusion in the main article itself. Categories (all categories) should be rationalized in the article, or we should expect that someone will come along and remove the category tag in question. For example, if I add someone to Category:Painters the article should already have some mention of the new member's status as a painter, or I should add it. Same with Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Just wondering, is your main issue with people being added to the list who aren't clearly gay, lesbian, or bisexual? -Seth Mahoney 01:59, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

After considering it for all the three seconds it took my edit to save, it seems to me that it is also better to have the article in a category than on a list, because that way it is more obvious to every reader of the article that it is included in a list, and thus the inclusion is more open for debate. Consider: scroll to the bottom of the page and look at the categories, or scroll through the sometimes several pages of "what links here" articles. -Seth Mahoney 02:02, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Why should you force a person to care about the characteristic of a person that's not significant enough to warrant mention in the primary article itself? Aris Katsaris 03:11, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I never said anything about forcing anyone to do anything. What I said was that we shouldn't include people in Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people when it isn't listed in the article, or we should edit the article so that an explanation is included before categorization. In other words, for the people it would be appropriate to include in this category, their sexuality does warrant mention in the article. -Seth Mahoney 07:54, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

If a person's sexuality is not easily defined, the person won't be listed as "gay, lesbian or bisexual". It's very simple and NPOV. If we were to list and/or categorize Adolf Hitler as gay, that would be biased. He could, however, be in a "People of questioned sexual orientation" or similar category. You have not given any reason why the category is inherently POV except that "gay is POV nonsense". Guanaco 00:01, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) (3 edit conflicts)

This category is inherently POV because nobody has proposed creating a category of "Straight People", it therefore is used as a sort of "beacon" where gayness is signified as categorizing a person but straightness not so. It's also inherently POV because it groups bisexuals alongside gay people. It's also rude because it categorizes people by something belonging in their *personal sphere* and therefore it would be like having a "Presumably virgin people" or "People that have claimed participation in orgies" categories: it reduces Wikipedia to the kind of gossip that only tabloid rags care about. Categorizing a person by the career that made him famous is one thing, categorizing him by his personal life seems quite another. If there was a category about "Gay-rights activists" or something like that, meaning the ones who've made it part of their lives to strive for gay rights, that'd be a different thing: because then you'd be moving to the political sphere of the issue, not just the gossipy sphere.Aris Katsaris 03:11, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is not a POV category, inherently or otherwise, because being gay, unlike being straight, places the gay person in a cultural minority, by default in a subculture. It is no more POV than a category of any other subculture would be. Further, as far as it becoming a rumor mill goes, we've already covered that above. -Seth Mahoney 07:54, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Subculture? You are being too modern-day Westerner about this. What about e.g. ancient Greeks who may have had relationships with both genders because it was what their culture suggested as the norm, and we have no way of knowing whether they were "gay" or "bisexual" by our current attitudes about these things -- aka as a natural inclination? And either way it was no "subculture" back then. Which ones would you be listing as "gay and bisexual"? Aris Katsaris 15:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not being too anything. You're presuming I'm being too modern-day Westerner. I wouldn't argue for including, say, Socrates in the category, or many other historical figures, for two reasons: one, sexuality has been defined differently in different eras, and two: it can be difficult to find good, reliable information on individuals' sexual practices for most of recorded history. What I am arguing for is inclusion of those people who identify or identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual in a specific category for those who are interested. -Seth Mahoney 22:01, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

The basic objections are:

• It is to hard to figure out if people are gay
  • Thus the list is hard to create and make accurate
• It is not neutral to point out that people are gay
  • Because being called gay is insulting, and thus non-neutral
  • Because gay doesn't mean anything/Because no one really is gay

Am I close or way off here? Hyacinth 00:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The distinctions of a list versus a category. Whether someones sexuality is a part of their notoriety, or just another facet of their being. - UtherSRG 01:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Please reread the comments above (and below) on why categories are different than lists, particularly in the context of an individual's race or sexual orientation. It is very different to describe a supposed trait of someone than to classify them by that trait. Articles explain and describe. Categories merely classify. Postdlf 02:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This cuts to the heart of it: lists are pseudo-articles, but categories are meta-text inserted into articles. I vote to merge and delete, for reasons noted in the other discussion. If a self-avowed heterosexual is revealed to have had one or more same-sex sexual experiences, do we add this category to their article despite their not being gay or bi? If we add the person to the list, we can explain in the list that they self-identified as heterosexual despite their apparent bisexuality. A category isn't equipped to do that; it can only flag a person up as belonging to that category or people. Disputes like this are why lists and categories need to remain separate sorting systems. -Sean Curtin 05:36, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Definitely delete --- there's no category called "Straight people", and therefore there should be no category called "Gay People" and definitely no category that says "Gay and bisexual" as if the categories belong together more than "Bisexual and straight" people do. Categories impose themselves upon the articles in a way that lists do not. If a list uses a trivial criterion then nobody minds because no one will care to read the list either way --- but a category *imposes* itself on the article in an intrusive rude way that says "This is one of the most important things you should know about the person in question". *NO*. The presence of such a category is offensive. DELETE. Aris Katsaris 02:58, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you think we should have a list of straight people? I believe "list of heterosexuals" or something similar was deleted on VfD a while back. Guanaco 03:43, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. The category is too broad to be meaningful, and it could attract attention to a person for the wrong reason. For instance Bjorn Lomborg happens to be gay but he is known for is environmental views, not for his sexual orientation. : Vincent 06:27, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why should being gay be "the wrong reason"? What if, for example, someone is researching gay people with particular environmental views? Its perfectly plausable, and something that including a category for gay people would facilitate. And how is this category more broad than, say, Category:1949 books? Or, say, Category:Culture? -Seth Mahoney 07:49, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

It's the difference between causal and accidental co-incidence. To expand my example, Bjorn Lomborg's sexual orientation has nothing to do with his environmental views. BL's homosexuality is as relevant to the world as my brother-in-law's and my brother-in-law Claude is not famous. On the other hand, BL's environmental views are well known and influence the world more than do Claude's (or mine for that matter). Therefore BL is included in Wikipedia on the strength of his environmental, which matter to the world, and not on the strength of his gayness, which does not matter to the world any more than does Claude's, or than does my own heterosexuality. In Lomborg, there is only an accidental relationship between his sexual orientation and his environmental views, not a causal one.

On the other hand, you could have a category that links two apparently accidental attributes. For example, the British mathematician and computer theorist Alan Turing could be included in a category called "notable people persecuted for being gay" because he lost his government post and his security clearance when his sexual orientation became known. In contrast, Lomborg lives in a time and place that views sexual orientation as irrelevant to one's professional qualification, and Alan Turing did not. In this case Alan Turing's sexual orientation contributed to his fame because it is, justifiably, a cause celebre for gay activism. Vincent 08:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right, but you still haven't answered my main question: why is looking up someone for being gay the wrong reason to look them up? It may not be obviously connected to the main reason for the person's celebrity, but who are we to judge the way people may or may not want to look up their information? We are, on the other hand, people who should be facilitating every reasonable route we can, and it is perfectly reasonable to believe that someone will come along, click on Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people and browse the list, maybe learning something new in the process. I have heard no real reason, other than a POV against categorizing people as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, for preventing this sort of browsing. For the record, the BL article states that he is openly gay under a section titled "Trivia" - how is this fundamentally different from a link on the bottom of the page saying "Gay, lesbian or bisexual people" - its not justified, its just text included in the article, and people can still find the article on an environmentalist who happens to be gay through that text. -Seth Mahoney 20:19, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

I did answer it: the category is too broad. Classfiying Lomborg within a Gay People category is wrong because 1) the Gay People category is too broad and 2) Lomborg is not famous for being gay. By your argument we should create a "Blond People" category. After all, Lomborg is a fine example of a blond man, and many many people are very attracted to blond hair. It would be interesting for them to read a list of people who are blond and to come to discover Lomborg on it, thus finding an example of a blond person who isn't dumb. Right? Vincent 04:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you haven't answered it. You made a value judgement: "attracting attention to someone for being gay is the wrong reason to attract attention", with no explanation attached. You then tried to justify that statement by saying that the Gay, etc. people category is too broad, but never explained why it is more broad than, say, Category:Culture. You then further justified it by saying that Lomborg, for example, is not famous for being gay, though you don't seem to mind a brief mention that he is openly gay in his article, with no further explanation or justification in the article for its inclusion. You also haven't voiced any objections to, say, Category:1932 books, though I'd wager none of the books in that category are famous for having been published in 1932. You then suggested that by my reasoning we should create a category for all blond people (which I don't really have an opinion on one way or the other - if someone wants to do it, they're welcome to), explaining that many people are attracted to people with blond hair and might be interested in reading about blond people, but this has nothing to do with my reasoning, which is centered around the fact that, unlike blond people, gay people and gay culture are an object of study. That someone can take classes on gay culture and gay identity, that someone can even major in the field, suggests (to me, at least) that such a category is useful for an encyclopedia. -Seth Mahoney 21:57, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

(sigh) I did answer the objection and your problem is that you assume the word wrong implies a moral judgment when it simply means a factual evaluation. In an encyclopedia, we list people because knowledge of them matters to the world, therefore Lomborg can be listed as an environmental activist because his environmental views matter to the world, while he should not be listed as a gay person because his gayness is irrelevant to the world. In Scandinavia and Canada, the battle for gay rights has been won. Gays are accepted, they're normal everyday people, they're dull even, and their sex lives don't matter anymore outside their own bedrooms. On the other hand, Lomborg's gayness is relevant to him, so it can be mentioned in an article about HIM. So including him in a list on the basis of his sexual orientation is wrong, incorrect, and meaningless.

Now Books published in 1932 is in fact encyclopedic. The publishing date of a book is an important and defining characteristic of a literary work. Listing books in terms of date helps analyze their influence on one another. The category might be incomplete in which case it needs expanding, not deleting.

Lastly, blonds. Wot? Not a topic of study? I'm sure that many papers have been written on hair colour and that companies such as L'Oreal have sponsored numerous studies on blond hair and how people perceive blond hair. That still doesn't justify a blond category.

A last thought on "wrong". An encyclopedia seeks to turn raw data into meaningful information by establishing relevant relationships between facts. When the relationship is accidental (co-incidental, non-causal) it should be ignored. Vincent 05:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I'm happy with a category that is something to do with gay topics, but this one is too much of a mixed bag. Even then it should only be used on articles where that person is predominantly connect with gay issues, not just because they happen to be gay. If you add too many parenthetical categories to an article, they stop being useful. -- Solipsist 07:32, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful information people will want to have. We only need list uncontroversial cases, as we do now. VV 22:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • How does the category perform this function better than the list? - UtherSRG 22:29, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • You might as well ask why we have categories at all, when we can have lists. Categories serve a useful purpose in collecting related articles, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be used in this case. VV 22:33, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Useful information? In what way? If they are a gay/lesbian/bisexual activist, yes it is important. If they aren't, it is not important. Just like we would not make a category on eye colour and include a president. It really is as simple as this - either separate 'Category:Famous people who identify as homosexual', 'Category:Famous people who identify as heterosexual', 'Category:Famous people who identify as bisexual', 'Category:Famous people who do not define their sexuality' - as well as more specific sexualities - or you must admit that the category is POV, whereas the list actually gives annotations to explain the listings. -Erolos 12:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Lists not only allow for explanations, they acknowledge different subsections with varying degrees of certainty or significance. For a much narrower subset of cases than is currently included, you could use categories such as "Queer culture" or "Queer historical figures" -- people who were actively involved in queer activist culture in their era, rather than anyone who publicly acknowledged their sexuality. +sj+ 02:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

In order to make a GLB People (and expanding to consider transgendered and intersex people, for which this will no doubt come up for as well) category of manageable size and reasonably accurate, a variety of subcategories would need to be created. Each of the following might need to be created for each letter in GLBTI:

• People who publicly and primarily self-identify as GLBTI
• People who incidentally self-identify as GLBTI
• People who consider their sexuality unclassifiable
• People who are suspected of being GLBTI but we aren't sure
• People who are commonly thought to be GLBTI but who aren't
• People who engage in same-sex sexual behavior but don't self-identify as GLBTI
• People who are GLBTI activists, writers, filmmakers, etc. and GLBTI themselves
• People who are GLBTI activists, writers, filmmakers, etc but not GLBTI themselves
• People who are GLB but don't know it yet (har, har)
• People who are still in the closet (har, har, har)
• Etc.

Obviously there's a lot of overlap there. I think it'd be easier to manage these distinctions in list format, because then you can annotate each entry with whatever information is necessary from giving the wrong impression and thus unnecessarily causing offense and POV problems. Though it might be a little less machine-readable. And yeah, for people who only happen to be gay, it's a little odd to have the category link at the bottom of their bios. Anyone can check the "What links here" page. Backreferences to the lists might be useful for articles on subject that are primarily LBGTI-related. One way to do this is when someone is mentioned as being a "gay activist", those words could be linked to the appropriate list or category of lists. Another inobtrusive way is to add a "See also" link. This would put the backreference closer to the Categories box, which is good. (We don't want to obscure associations with LBGTI topics, as compared with other topics, just because the former are too complex to handle with categories.)

I disagree that the lack of a category or list of straight people is a good objection. Anyone who thinks there should be one for balance is invited to create one. Personally, I don't think that being straight, unto itself, is a very remarkable fact, and the list will be very unwieldy, but it's possible to do. Consider that we have the List of famous left-handed people, but no particular list of right-handed people. Big deal.

Whether or not someone is GLBTI, by most reasonable measures, is an ascertainable fact, at least as much as most other historical and personal facts are ascertainable. Having a list of GLBTI people, by whatever measure, is critical to debating GLBTI issues in the political realm, for discussing stereotypes and culture, and topical lists by field and whatnot are very useful for specialized research. Choosing a particular measure of GLBTI-ness and applying that to everyone might be considered to endorse a particular POV, but creating lists that incorporate multiple measures (including self-identification or non-identification) is sufficiently NPOV in my view.

As for glomming together gay, lesbian, and bisexual, well...they are very closely related topics, and most people interested in looking at a list of one are also interested in looking at a list of the others, possibly in a unified fashion. I think the primary consideration here is ease of use. I think that's a good enough justification for any small amount of offense which might be generated by making an association which most pro-GLB groups make all the time.

But that is not the issue under consideration here; we can talk about the existing lists under Category:LGBT somewhere else.

So for now I'll just vote to delete and merge into annotated list(s).

• Delete. --Gary D 23:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Jeez, that was a lot to read through. I'm with Hyacinth and Seth Mahoney on this one. Lists are gradually being converted to categories; not least because they're more useful. I'm very much in favor of keeping it. Oh, and what Guanaco said… ;o) Keep — OwenBlacker 23:47, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. I find it to be a very pertinent category. Mike H 19:38, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:04, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vote summary

Delete (11): Postdlf, UtherSRG, Erolos, Aris Katsaris, Gtrmp(Sean Curtin), Vfp15(Vincent), Solipsist, Sj, Beland, Gary D, Neutrality

Keep (9): Guanaco, Hyacinth, VV, Seth Mahoney, Owen Blacker, Mike H, Bearcat, Bodnotbod (no comment), Francis Schonken 09:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) (will write comment later, if needed after reading all the stuff)

August 12

Category:Towns in Florida

Replaced with Category:Cities in Florida, to match the naming style of the other states' categories. Tregoweth 00:52, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Why would you categorize communities as cities that weren't in fact cities? "City" isn't a generic term for a community, but refers to a particular kind of incorporated municipality. If you look at the other state categories, they are divided by what kind of municipality they are—cities are classified as cities, villages as villages, etc. The only issue with "town" is whether it refers to an unincorporated census-designated place or an actual legally organized "town". But until those articles are actually researched further beyond the bot-derived content to determine what they actually are, they certainly shouldn't all be lumped together as cities. Postdlf 03:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  OK, I removed all the articles from the category that weren't actually cities. I did not yet recategorize them under "Towns", however; those articles are currently just grouped by county. What needs to be done is to research what those communities in fact are—does Florida have a "town" municipal form of government, or are those all just unincorporated CDPs? One option is to categorize them as towns until they can each be individually researched, because that is what the articles currently say they are. But they shouldn't just all be lumped into a cities category without regard to whether they are in fact such a thing. Postdlf 04:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  I withdraw my request. I've de-orphaned Category:Towns in Florida, for the eventual sorting out of cities, towns, and communities in Florida. [[9]] lists how each community is organized. Since I know the area, I reorganized Hillsborough County's three cities, zero towns, and many communities into appropriate subcats, and modified each article (mostly changing "town" to "community"), and will probably do the same for other counties that I'm familiar with. Though with the above list from Florida's State Department, anyone with the patience and a faster connection than I have can make the changes. Tregoweth 18:07, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Category:African Americans

This is to delete the category tags of all articles about individuals from this category, not the category as such, which I think we need to do something else with. There are articles and subcategories that are appropriately placed under this: these include List of African Americans, List of African-American-related topics, African Americans in the United States Congress, Category:Historically black universities and colleges in the U.S., and Category:African American culture. The reasons why individuals should not be categorized as African Americans, however, have been discussed elsewhere and I will now summarize:

• It is offensive to classify people by sexual orientation, race, or religion, and POV to think that people should or can be classified in such a way. People are not reduceable to their race, and the very lack of a Category:Caucasian Americans means that Category:African Americans is inherently POV in their construction. It is made with the implication that they are different from the norm or the default, which is the (white) state of not needing a classification. All others are instead classified based on how they differ from that norm. This should stop.
• Inclusion in this categories is largely a matter of self-identification—what of multiracial people? Or worse, old racist cultural constructs—"if you have one drop of black blood in you, you're black." Race is an actual concept, but not an objective group in terms of membership.
• Lists are less problematic than categories. Lists (or text in articles) can explain the rationale for inclusion (i.e., self-identification), while categories are unannotated. Furthermore, they don't function to brand the subject like a category does. Categories classify.

Once again, this nomination for deletion is only for the inclusion of articles on individuals under this category, that serve to classify individuals by race. Postdlf 22:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

• Keep. Formerly Delete. Hyacinth 23:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality 00:09, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It is not offensive to classify people by attributes, it is in fact what we do here. The text of the category can explain any surrounding issues; yes, these are fuzzy sets, as are Category:Musicians (who qualifies?), etc., which we can live with. There is no need for Caucasian-American category just as we wouldn't need a list of right-handed Americans, but could have one of left-handers; it's simple numbers, not POV. We had this discussion re the (deleted) "list of white people", if you can find it. VV 00:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as per Postdlf. In addition, rename it (perhaps to Category:African American topics) so as to discourage users from categorizing people. - UtherSRG 12:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Identity. Hyacinth 15:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to reconcile this comment (which I assume was to my vote) and your vote. The item in the style guide that pops out in regards to this is "African-Americans" bad, "people of African heritage" good. You are saying we should keep this category (although its name breaks style), and you are poking me for renaming it and giving it a more focussed purpose (and still breaking style to the same degree). And yet, there's a list of lists above, some of whose members break style. - UtherSRG 16:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: fuzzy sets can be contextualized by lists but not by categories. -Sean Curtin 06:52, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. These categories seem to be made by narrow-minded straight white men. The logic of them is lost to me.-Erolos 23:51, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. As per UtherSRG. Noisy 11:43, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• keep. 桜花 23:17, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and merge into annotated lists. Important information, but fuzzy, controversial, and possibly offensive. Better represented as a list, not as a category. -- Beland 03:25, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. In a nicer world this category might have little relevence, but as there is much history and culture involved with making this categorization, it has uses as an encyclopedic topic. -- Infrogmation 02:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Gay icons

Stereotyping is not encyclopedic. - UtherSRG 21:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a good illustration of why categories need to be managed according to strict criteria. First, the name is confusing, because while the content is supposed cultural icons of gay people, it could easily be read instead as "icons that are gay." Second, the status of being a gay icon is not something that can really be verified (however little argument the inclusion of Judy Garland and Madonna would get). Third, being a gay icon is not necessarily anything inherent about the subjects of these articles—it is about how others have possibly perceived them rather than something integral to the subjects themselves. There is valid information on this subject, but it should be included in an article's text as "Some consider _____ a "gay icon", because..." This is an inappropriate use of the unannotated classifications that are categories. Postdlf 21:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, for all of Postdlf's reasons. --Gary D 22:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Ditto. - UtherSRG 22:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I was going to oppose, as I think it's quite an important aspect of "gay culture" who we idolise and who we don't, but the arguments above are relatively persuasive, so I can be convinced… — OwenBlacker 11:30, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok. Here's more. *grins* Not all gay people idolize "gay icons". Not all gay people are in "gay culture". Not all people in the gay community (where gay culture is more relevant vice outside of the community) subscribe to all aspects of gay culture, including idolizing "gay icons". The category is inherently POV - it doesn't give recognition to these facts, which aids in stereotyping all gay people as idolizing these people. It would be more apprpriate to make note of each person's impact on gay culture in the individual articles. Some are seen more as icons for their political work, some for being associated with Judy Garland, etc. - UtherSRG 11:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I can see your point completely (pticly as a non-scene, alternative culture kinda guy), but just because I myself don't idolise Judy Garland doesn't mean she's not a gay idol. There's shitloads of gay culture to which I don't subscribe (the hellhole that is G-A-Y being but one part of it), but that doesn't mean that that culture doesn't not exist. Just because some readers don't understand the nature of subcultures and stereotypes doesn't mean articles and categories can't be accurate and NPOV. I'm still minded to vote keep, I think. — OwenBlacker 23:52, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Convert. It's useful to have in one place a list of all things which some people consider to be gay icons. But given the controversial nature of the issue, perhaps a unifying article would be better than a category structure. -- Beland 02:53, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Convert/merge into a list and delete. -Sean Curtin 06:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Gay icon article accomplishes what this Cat wants to do. Davodd 21:05, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

August 2

South Africans

There are two categories for South Africans: Category:Notable South Africans and Category:South African people. They should be merged into one. --Auximines 08:29, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Frankly, I see no problem with having two different categories. South African people takes a more layered approach and has different sub-categories. I do not find this very useful for my purposes - ascertaining which articles there are to be written about notable South Africans. It may also be that a person (Dawie de Villiers for example) is listed under one category (sports people, for example), which a person looking for his contributions in another category (his political career, for example), might not necessarily look at/search for.

Notable South Africans is more of a "telephone book" approach, where everybody is just listed in alphabetical format. It was actually created by me as a way of automating the "article" List of South Africans which was not very well maintained, and it was onerous to add all the articles "by hand". If you delete this category, you should delete that article as well - it contains the same "duplication".

Also, I would like to point out that the South African people category was/is singularly badly maintained. The majority of people on the Notable South Africans list wasn't even on the South African people list.

So, I find that there is enough space to justify keeping both categories, for now anyway. I hope that if the majority vote is for delete, that one of those voting to delete it will take it upon her/himself to enter all the "missing" South Africans that is on the Notable South Africans list into the South African people list. I certainly will not do it and, judging by the sad state that the South African people list was in, nobody else will either. (As a matter of fact, the South African people list was so "low profile" that I only encountered it towards the end of my search for South Africans to add - it even had "Bushmen" as an entry!)

So, I vote keep (unsurprisingly :-) ).

Wikigreetings, Elf-friend 18:22, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Merge. There are different implications for maintaining a list and maintaining a category that would often merit a list where no category is justified. --Gary D 20:15, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Merge (into Category:South African people). I agree with User:Gary. Usually a "People" category is exactly the same as the "Notable" category that User Elf-friend is introducing, and I have yet to see the usage of the word "Notable" in any Wiki category so far, so let's keep things consistent and reduce redundant categories. IZAK 23:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Merge. The primary use of a category should be to give a quick bit of information and a link to ther articles in the same tight category. The next major use of categories, via the sub-category structure is to be able to programmatically create the full list of all the articles underneath a given category. Having a separte 'full list' category is not needed. - UtherSRG 23:57, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Merge. Hyacinth 23:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Gay people

From Wikipedia talk:Categorization: Am I the only one who finds Category:Gay people odd, and slightly 'point finger'-ish. We have a List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people, which is fair enough as a clearly explained article about those who identify themselves as homosexual, and are famous. The (very incomplete) 'Gay people' category strikes me as mildly offensive. Afterall, think of the upset Category:Black people, Category:Posh people, or Category:Fat people, categories would have. -Erolos 22:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As recommended, I propose it for deletion. -Erolos 14:02, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I agree—delete. But we actually do have the equivalent of Category:Black people, by the categorizations under Category:African Americans and Category:Asian Americans. I think both should go too, though maybe just drop the "s" off the end of each to discuss topics relevant to either (such as the NAACP, Chinatowns, etc.). It is offensive to classify people by sexual orientation, race, or religion, and POV to think that people should or can be classified in such a way. Inclusion in those categories is largely a matter of self-identification—what of multiracial people? It's a different matter to classify someone as a Jewish Orthodox scholar or Christian Evangelical leader, or Gay rights activist, because that is what they have done, as opposed to pushing them into a box of what or who they supposedly are. The same goes for classifying people by nationality—this should be done only to associate people with the countries in which they have been notable or done notable things (a question of simply where they are or where they have done stuff), but not to just tack on their birth country or ethnicity. Postdlf 15:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This is the first one to come up of the categories with controversial connotations and fuzzy boundaries. May its death be a harbinger of trimming to come. And if Postdlf cares to formalize his/her mentioned category deletion/modification proposals, I will vote in favor of them as well. --Gary D 20:15, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• One further thought, I think the very lack of a Category:Straight people or a Category:Caucasian Americans means that categories such as Category:Gay people and Category:African Americans are inherently POV in their construction, because they are made with the implication that they are different from the norm or the default, which is the white n' straight state of not needing a classification. All others are instead classified based on how they differ from that norm. We need to stop this now. Postdlf 16:49, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a very good point. I agree that all ethnicity, rather than nationality, and sexuality categories are POV and should be deleted. -Erolos 17:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: I share Postdlf's opinion. --positron 12:50, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

• Neutral. Merge into the aforementioned list if possible. -Sean Curtin 20:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I think that lists are definitely less problematic. As noted above, they can explain the rationale for inclusion (i.e., self-identification), while categories are unannotated. Furthermore, they don't function to brand the subject like a category does. Categories classify. We shouldn't be classifying people by their sexuality (or race), however proper it may be to list who has self-identified themselves a certain way. Postdlf 20:07, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! --Gary D 20:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay... so I'm getting general consensus that the list suffices and the Category should be deleted. But I don't know how to delete an article/category - I assumed that was someone else's job... help! -Erolos 12:26, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only way to do it is to remove the category tag from every article. An admin needs to delete the category itself, but that won't remove any of the links to it. Postdlf 21:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I just noticed this category when it was added to the article on Michel Foucault, the philosopher. It's a bit irritating to say the least (to have him categorized in that manner, not his gayness.) -- Simonides 04:06, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Hyacinth 23:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've started ensuring that the list is updated and move folks off the category. - UtherSRG 21:29, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The category is now blank and ready for deletion. Postdlf 22:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Identity. Hyacinth 15:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 1

County categories containing only the article on the county

I can see the value of having a category for every county, however, these categories were created before any articles existed other than the article on the county. The article is already categorized in the "counties in..." category; do we also need a category for the county even if there are no other articles of interest? It seems a bit premature to me, and will lead readers on an unnecessary extended link path. I propose removing the category link from each county article unless the category is filled out (or there is overwhelming objection) by August 6. --ssd 17:24, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This list includes only categories with ALL of the following criteria:

1. no description
2. exactly one article with the same name
3. single article is already in the appropriate counties article for the state
4. name 'county' in the name

Barber County, Kansas, Allen County, Kansas, Anderson County, Kansas, Atchison County, Kansas, Barton County, Kansas, Bourbon County, Kansas, Brown County, Kansas, Butler County, Kansas, Chase County, Kansas, Chautauqua County, Kansas, Cherokee County, Kansas, Cheyenne County, Kansas, Clark County, Kansas, Clay County, Kansas, Cloud County, Kansas, Coffey County, Kansas, Comanche County, Kansas, Cowley County, Kansas, Crawford County, Kansas, Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, Payette County, Idaho,

But these will eventually all be filled in with the articles on the communities in each. I don't see any sense in deleting categories that will clearly be populated eventually. Why didn't you start categorizing the cities and towns in these counties so that they wouldn't just contain one article, rather than taking the time to delete what we will eventually just have to recreate anyway? Postdlf 04:44, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I guess I'm annoyed that those categories exist in an orphaned state. I'd like to either delete them or create them, but I suppose I could just leave them in limbo, unconnected until they are filled. I'm not going to fill them, because I'm not a geographer. I'll leave it up to the right experts for that while I do things I do better. --ssd 04:59, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the red links above tells me those were already deleted, but limbo is the better solution because you know those are going to be populated eventually. The articles exist, it's simply a matter of someone doing it, and it's easier if the category structure already exists to fill in.

Here's the simple rule: communities get cross-categorized by the type of municipality they are (i.e., Category:Cities in Ohio, Category:Villages in Ohio) and the county they are in. I've seen at least one instance of further subdivision of Cities in _____ County, but I think this is unnecessary, it hinders the purpose of grouping all cities in a state together and all places in a county together, it and simply won't work in rural counties that may only have a handful of communities.

The one complication is unincorporated communities that function as CDPs, many of which are still listed as "towns" due to bot-derived information, even though this has no political reality. When I populated Category:Franklin County, Ohio, I researched all the communities that I was unfamiliar with to see what they really were (and I even found a city mislabelled as a village). The ones that were unincorporated CDPs, I only categorized under the county, though I'm thinking about starting Category:Unincorporated communities in Ohio to group these all together too. Unincorporated neighborhoods, on the other hand, are grouped by the city they are part of, such as Category:Washington, DC neighborhoods. Postdlf 05:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like good material...above comments should probably go on one of the Wikipedia:geography pages somewhere. --ssd 12:10, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Noticing these are mostly Kansas counties, I will confess that I am the "guilty" party. After considering where to focus my energies with Wikipedia editing I decided to stick with what I know best: my home state of Kansas. I will be periodically fleshing out the county pages in much greater detail (see Doniphan County, Kansas for an idea of what I mean). As I categorized these I felt it was a good idea to do all appropriate categories at the same time. I did not actually create any of the categories in question because it was not needed until the cities (and other items) were also categorized. But considering how long it will take me to finish the 105 different counties in Kansas, don't expect all the cities to be properly categorized any time soon. Although if ssd has a map handy and would like to chip in on the city categorization effort, I would greatly welcome the help! Mike 03:19, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comments and your efforts. I have no problem with letting the categories sit as is, uncreated but with the one article, as long as there is a chance they will be filled in in the near future. I would majorly oppose actually creating these (and more to the point, linking them into the state's county list) until there is more than just the one article in it (which is already linked into the state's county list). Since I bothered to collect this list, I think I will move it to each state's category page, to list categories needing work. --ssd 11:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Theosophists and Category:Theosophist organizations

I think we may have gone a little too far into subcategorization with these. Category:Theosophists has 4 articles and Category:Theosophist organizations has 4 articles. The parent Category:Theosophy has 3 articles. This topic area is unlikely to grow substantially. I propose we delete these subcategories and merge their articles into Category:Theosophy, giving it 11 articles. --Gary D 22:38, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Satanist subcategories

Similar over-subcategorization as with Theosophy above:

• Category:Satanist gods: 3 articles
• Category:Satanist organizations: 3 articles
• Category:Satanist texts: 1 article
• Category:Satanists: 1 article

Merging these articles with the 5 articles in Category:Satanism will give it 13 articles total. (Ooh! Spooky number!) --Gary D 22:55, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, and a note

First of all, thanks to UtherSRG for doing the depopulation and deletion on the categories in the above two sections. At the same time, if anyone has a problem with these consolidations and deletions, I don't want it to seem like I tried to sneak anything through too quickly. I'm certainly willing to engage in discussion on these, and will support undeletion if the consensus goes against me. --Gary D 02:49, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As long as we don't make a general habit out of doing this. I agree that the Satanist categories were unlikely to grow, but normally, specific categories are better because they more precisely classify articles. It is easier to structure information overall with specific categories, because all you have to do is categorize a category to show a relationship, rather than retagging every article. The complete opposite way to do it is to, say, classify a single article with Category: People, Category:Politics, and Category:United States, rather than Category:U.S. politicians, which through various strata would be grouped with all of the following (and even that is a broad category that is properly subdivided). I think as a rule we should aim for the more specific category (which also makes them easier to navigate, when all the articles are of the same kind within, such as all about people, or all about places), though I agree that there are cases where it just isn't worth it, and I don't necessarily disagree that this was the case with the Satanist categories. Postdlf 04:42, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In another discussion, it was suggested that near-empty categories be left for a fixed time period (a month?) before being merged & deleted. This should give time for potential growth while not allowing overspecified stuff to hang around. And if the parent category does get too big, it can always be resplit later. Is this something worth formalizing? --ssd 05:02, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be a case by case decision rather than a uniform rule. It's all a question of whether or not it will be populated—are there more notable subjects that fit under that classification but simply haven't been written yet? An under populated category may serve the same function as lists of red links in articles, by inspiring people to complete the series or grouping of content. And I think it's a no-brainer if the articles actually exist but simply haven't been tagged yet—those categories should definitely be kept. If there are definitely going to be more articles to come, there shouldn't be a time limit. Postdlf 05:40, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, would kind of like a loose but time-based guideline. It may help clean up after episodes of intially overzealous overcategorization. I tend to go for categories that are sufficiently populated and diverse to give the reader a good overview of a topic at a glance rather than requiring the reader to drill up and down to see everything. --Gary D 07:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree there should be no firm rule, and that everything should be decided on a case by case basis. However, there are a large number of single article categories. How many of those might actually grow and how many are overzealous categorization I couldn't say. I propose bringing up such topics here (slowly as we are doing already), and if nobody steps up to defend and/or expand a category, it gets merged after some decent time period. A month I think is quite generous; a new template like template:Cfm might help. Again, it can always be re-split later when the material shows up. If you're worried about structure getting lost, put the structure on the talk page or even in the category main page for later use. Does this sound like a workable compromise? --ssd 12:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think something like that would work. --Gary D 17:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Religious organizations

If the Theosophy and Satanism deletions above are effected, Category:Religious organizations will be empty. It follows the wrong taxonomy for religion and so is too scattershot to be of use, since the major dividing lines of religion are denominational, not functional. --Gary D 22:55, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not a problem... The organizations can be put in Satanism/Theosophy, and Religious organizations. - UtherSRG 00:57, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Besides... i just added a few more to religious organizations. - UtherSRG 01:15, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, one of the reasons I proposed deleting it was that it did not appear as though a significant number of people were using it. If people do want to populate and use it, though, I certainly have no opposition to the category. --Gary D 02:40, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

July 31

Category:United States Presidential Candidates

Ok, this is a complicated listing—first, it should be Category:United States presidential candidates instead, so the articles should be retagged and the original category deleted.

I started Category:U.S. presidential candidates, but I refrained from moving all of the articles over there until we decided exactly who gets to be included. Postdlf 18:26, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But I also wanted to have a nonbinding discussion here over whether this should be kept at all, without yet outright proposing that it get deleted (and why not here, since no one seems to do anything with category talk pages). I honestly don't know yet if I support it, I think it would be interesting to have it, but I don't know if it can be reasonably limited. What would qualify someone to be in it? Actual party nomination? Lasting through at least one primary? Just announcing a candidacy for President, no matter how quickly they dropped out? And do we list only the failed candidates in here? Obviously, all the candidates would include the ones actually elected, but it would look really stupid for an article to be tagged with Category:Presidents of the U.S. and Category:United States presidential candidates, and possibly even kind of confusing. However, that could be solved just by crosslinking Category:Presidents of the U.S. under the candidates category though, because I don't believe there has ever been a President who didn't run at some time (even if their stint in office wasn't the result of being elected, as with Ford).

If we can come up with a sensible way to handle it, then I'd support it. Right now it's looking pretty damn troublesome though. Postdlf 05:28, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If we do keep such a category, I think it should be higly limited. Certainly those who make it to election day would be in. I'm not sure how many others should. All those who made it to (in modern times) televised/radio broadcast debates? - UtherSRG 07:05, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Then there's the problem of excluding every modern third party candidate except for Ross Perot. Of course, if we don't limit minor candidates, then we're just including every yahoo in the country who ever managed to finegle their way onto a ballot (which isn't as hard as you'd think) no matter how insignificant, and we run into the problem of having to decide how many states in which they'd have to be on the ballot to be included—one? a majority? just enough to cover the requisite electoral votes necessary to win? all 50 states? Blah. More trouble. Who would've thought that "presidential candidates" would be a hard classification to narrow down? Unless we can figure out some objective standard, a presidential candidate may be just about anyone who says they are. It may be damn difficult to be elected in this country, but it's too damn easy to run.  ; ) Postdlf 07:20, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should only include candidates that actually ran (and lost) against the President in the November elections. Obviously, inclusion of the president category would by implication include those that won. Perhaps the category should be Category:United States presidential candidates that lost in November. (Naah, too long.) Of course, the next question, should this include candidates that lost once and won in a later year? --ssd 13:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest simply grouping Category:Presidents of the U.S. under the candidate category, but unfortunately I just read that four presidents that succeeded to the office due to death never actually ran for president, before or after. I am really opposed to retagging president articles with a "presidential candidate" category (which would just look stupid), so I think we should limit the category to candidates who never achieved the office. Postdlf 17:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Another viewpoint here -- If they have an article in Wikipedia already, perhaps that alone is a good enough criteria to add them to the category no matter how minor they might be. However, there's no need to generate stub articles or make lists of candidates that may or may not have even made it to the primary. --ssd 13:35, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds fairly sensible. Postdlf 17:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think a fair definition is any person who was on the ballot or registered as a write-in candidate for any US Presidential election in any state. anthony (see warning) 15:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are you really a candidate for president if you're not even on the ballot in enough states to actually win the election? I don't like the idea of including write-ins. Postdlf 17:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, technically you don't even have to be on the ballot in any state to win the election, do you? After all, the electors' votes are the ones that matter. Looking at the dictionary.com definition, a candidate is "a person who seeks or is nominated for an office, prize, or honor." It seems that anyone registering as a write-in is seeking the office, and anyone on the ballot is essentially nominated. We should probably add anyone on the ballot or registering as a write-in for a primary too. anthony (see warning) 17:58, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Once again, we're looking for limiting factors to actually make inclusion in this category meaningful. Postdlf 18:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since no write-in candidate has ever won the presidential seat (that I know of), I think it is silly to include them at all. On the other hand, Ross Perot did make it on the November ballot, so he'd definately be included, and not as a special case. --ssd 21:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see how the definition I have given is not meaningful. If someone famous enough to have an entry in Wikipedia has gone to the trouble of registering as a write-in candidate for election, this is something that should be listed here. If you want a subcategory for those who were on the ballot, fine. Alternatively I guess we could have a subcategory for those who weren't on the ballot. But in those very rare cases of people who weren't on the ballot, yet still registered as a write-in, and have an entry in Wikipedia, I don't see the harm of including them somewhere in this category (see Dick Gregory). The number of people who have registered as a write-in for President is certainly very small. anthony (see warning) 15:09, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

BTW, Category:United States presidents needs to be deleted—blank and redundant with the fully populated Category:Presidents of the U.S.. Postdlf 18:28, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Have we come to any conclusion as to what to do with this category? - UtherSRG 16:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

June 27

Category:Left-Hand_Path/Category:Right-Hand_Path

(Don't know if it's the right place) Category:Left-Hand_Path and Category:Right-Hand_Path both seems useless to me. If they are to be kept, articles like Paganism should be only in Left-hand_path and not in Religions (the mother) but I'm not convinced that this would help visitors to find they way. I have a very bad connection (in China) and I'm not sure I can delete all this without asking, so I write my concerns here. gbog 04:59, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)

• I don't like the idea of dividing up religions in this way—it seems rather subjective, and I have serious doubts as to how legitimate these concepts are for purposes of academic classification. Perhaps I read the articles wrong, but it seems as if there would be some degree of moral opprobrium attached to being associated with the left-hand path. I would delete both categories. --Postdlf 17:11 27 June 2004 (UTC)

• In favor of deletion - making this our way to classify religions makes the distinction seem more important and generally accepted than it actually is. - Andre Engels 10:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I would be in favor of merging the examples cited into the discussion in Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path if they aren't there already, and then deleting these categories. Few religions are monolithic in practice, and there would probably be debate between adherents and outsiders and even among the adherents to any one religions about how to clasify a given tradition. Most, if not all religions should probably be listed in both categories to retain NPOV, and this makes the distinction useless.-- Beland 04:15, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Merge Sam [Spade] 00:46, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete the categories. The content can be merged with the appropriate article(s). older≠wiser 12:12, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. -Sean Curtin 06:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and disregard the fallacious categories of "right hand path-left hand path" completely. It's a Pseudoscience at best. IZAK 10:12, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Vague and POV categories. Delete. —Ashley Y 08:12, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)
• Delete. This distinction not used by most religions. -- Infrogmation 02:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)