Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/resolved: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Aranel (talk | contribs)
16,753 edits
m →‎Problematic categorization of people: summarizing and archiving
Aranel (talk | contribs)
16,753 edits
Line 153: Line 153:


==Geographical==
==Geographical==
*[[:Category:Japanese towns]] was moved to [[:Category:Towns in Japan]]. "Towns in X" is the preferred format for towns (assuming that a distinction between towns and cities, etc., exists).
=== [[:Category:Towns in Japan]] ===
*Kept. Moved in contents of [[:Category:Japanese towns]]. -[[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("<font color="#ba0000"><u>Sarah</u></font>")]] 18:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Duplicate of [[:Category:Japanese towns]]. [[User:Rick Block|Rick Block]] 17:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

: Oops (although not maybe completely oops): I created this one, on the model of other cats in other countries. The category in many other countries is "Towns in X"; others (most?) have "Cities in X" (but villages of 200 people are hardly cities); some few had both &#8212; before I&nbsp;did anything &#8212; and I took a useful cue from [[:Category:Coastal cities]] where a city is reasonably defined as >100,000); France has "[[:Category:Cities, towns and villages of France]]; and the provinces of Canada and some few others have "Communities in X" ... A&nbsp;uniform scheme would be good, grandfathering maybe some few categories with very large populations. Inconsistent nomenclature is going to have to be dealt with at some point, probably via robot. ("U.S." vs. "American", etc.) &#8212; [[User:Bill Thayer|Bill]] 21:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:: On looking a bit closer at [[:Category:Japanese towns]]: most of the subcategories are of the form Towns of X, and as the number of town articles increases, they could usefully be moved into cats for each prefecture, and the prefectures into (Towns in Japan/Japanese towns) by prefecture &#8212; suddenly making the top category navigable for visible categories like "Coastal towns", "Town planning", "Town governments", etc.? &#8212; [[User:Bill Thayer|Bill]] 21:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'''Merge and move'''[[:Category:Japanese towns]] to [[:Category:Towns in Japan]] Note though, that the number of people does not define the difference between a town and a city[[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 01:44, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
*Whether the town/city distinction is useful in all cases or not, we need to officially decide to keep either "Japanese towns" or "Towns in Japan" (as a formatting pattern). "Towns in X" seems to be the format preferred by the largest number of [[:Category:Towns by country|related categories]]. -[[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 20:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Currently executing:
MOVE_CONTENTS_INCL_CATS [[:Category:Japanese_towns]] -> [[:Category:Towns_in_Japan]]

I posted the idea of auto-sorting by prefecture to [[Wikipedia:Auto-categorization]]. The capitalization of "Prefecture" is the subject of another nomination. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 08:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


=== [[:Category:Ohio county namesakes]] ===
=== [[:Category:Ohio county namesakes]] ===

Revision as of 14:26, 23 December 2004

These are resolved (but interesting) issues from Categories for Deletion.

This page needs to be organized by topic, to make things easier to find.

Notes

See also Category:ToL Cleanup and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities for delete/keep guidelines on these topics.

Misc

Category:Megatokyo

  • Just for the record, there seem not to be any webcomics with their own categories at the moment. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 20:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Webcomic related category. However, the webcomic in question is no where big enough to justify its own category. :: DarkLordSeth 23:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, and merge and redirect the two short articles on the comic's characters. -Sean Curtin 00:08, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 00:39, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: too small. RJFJR 02:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Megatokyo has been running for years; there are over fifty major and minor characters in the Megatokyo plotline, as well as numberous fictitous items and places. Almafeta 03:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's notable (for a webcomic), but we're not talking about the webcomic, we're talking about the category for articles relating to Megatokyo. Currently there are four such articles, two of which are nigh-impenetrable and assume that the reader already knows who these fictional characters are. -Sean Curtin 23:27, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Mute recording artist

  • There seems to be consensus to delete this category. The related categories were not listed for deletion, so this doesn't cover them. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Currently tagged with {{movecat|catname=Mute Records recording artists}}, but I think more appropriately simply delete since:

  1. Lots of artists record for lots of labels
  2. I think most people aren't aware of (nor particularly care) for which record label an artist records

Seems like a fine topic for a list article. Same argument applies to other artist by label categories under category:Record labels, which currently includes category:Kill Rock Stars, category:ZTT Records artist. -- Rick Block 15:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - This is a confusing category label. Even though I am familiar with Mute Records, I first thought this was about recording artists who are mute. Clubmarx 18:20, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto Clubmarx. Delete. If appropiate, relace with Category:Mute Records or similar. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 20:59, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the suggestion is to delete the category (and, by extension, the other artist by label categories) NOT to rename this category. I don't think there's any question that if kept the category should be renamed. How about using Delete or Rename rather than the usual Delete/Keep? -- Rick Block 00:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Category:Pages containing IPA

Basically this category is a list of unrelated articles that have characters on the page that are using the International Phonetic Alphabet(IPA).. -- Sortior 00:05, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

The articles are related by the fact that they contain IPA in Unicode.Nohat 07:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
keep, listing this is purely idiotic. Alkivar 23:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What's next, Category:Pages containing Greek letters? Why not? And why is accidental relationship uninteresting? Nohat 20:13, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the goal was to categorize the topic of the article, not the technical components of the article. Wouldn't a more useful way of finding articles with IPA be to look at what links to the IPA article? There is nothing intrinsically IPA-related about many of these articles. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Categories are used for many purposes. There are lots of articles that link to the IPA article but don't include any IPA. This category contains only those pages that actually have IPA characters. Nohat 01:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
KEEP. There are also categories for stubs, and also a category for disambiguation pages. Two unrelated disambig pages (and similarly, stubs) falling in the same category would also be a similar case. -- Paddu
It's considered good (by some) to have e.g.:
  • a list of articles that are stubs, so that e.g.
    • someone willing to do research on the web/in a library/wherever & add content to stubs can easily find them.
    • someone forking/mirroring Wikipedia can remove these easily if he/she so decides.
    • etc.
  • a list of articles that are disambigs, so that e.g.
  • a list of articles that use special characters, so that e.g.
    • someone forking/mirroring Wikipedia can remove these characters if he/she wants to better support systems that can't render these.
    • someone who has just upgraded their browser/installed some fonts so as to be able to read more pages in Wikipedia can get a few test pages to see if the upgrade/install was successful in making more pages readable
    • etc. (I don't have enough time for an exhaustive list)
There might be better reasons to have these categories, of course.
In all such cases "Special:Whatlinkshere" of a template can be used, but that limits the no. of links displayed, and also, doesn't show dependencies across templates (e.g. subcategories) -- Paddu 13:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references#In the Template and Category Namespaces for more such examples. IMHO either all such categories and templates must be allowed, or all of them disallowed. DISCLAIMER: I've just been editing that page; the version before my edits is here -- Paddu 14:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Category:Bible stories

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Bible stories. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Advocacy

  • Three keep, eight delete. Category deleted. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Advocacy is a duplicate category already covered by Category:Activism. Also, please note that the author who created this category, fabricated a definition for advocacy that does not exist in any dictionary. --Viriditas 09:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • KEEP. (Viriditas desperately needs a link to a dictionary, but I've already wasted too much time on this lame joke.) HistoryBuffEr 10:37, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
From the Oxford English Dictionary: Advocacy - The function of an advocate; the work of advocating; pleading for or supporting. I think it's clear that you fabricated a definition for advocacy and duplicated the category for Activism so that you could remove pages you disagree with from that category and place them in a category where you associate them with propaganda. You've already done this with two articles, Hasbara and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and as usual, you did it without any discussion. You're not only pushing your POV again, but you are ignoring categories already setup to handle these pages, as well as inventing definitions out of thin air to support your weak argument for a new category that already duplicates an existing category (Activism) that contains advocacy groups. --Viriditas 11:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all three categories (Propaganda, activism and advocacy) and replace with a united list. These POV fights are the silliest around. Gady 14:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why do you want to delete the Activism category? In any case, advocacy groups are contained by the Activist cat. What cat would you replace them with? Even a list should be categorized. Can you explain? --Viriditas 19:33, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete--Josiah 02:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant and misleading. -Sean Curtin 02:39, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - make it a subcategory of C:Activism. It is distinct enough. Perhaps a new definition is in order. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Del - what's next, Category:Support? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, as this is just another one of HistoryBUffer's time-wasting ploys and it is not concerned with the welfare of honest scholarship on Wikipedia or elsewhere. How sad that we have to waste precious time on such drivel. IZAK 12:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another time-wasting POV fork. Jayjg 03:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 23:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • KeepCheeseDreams 01:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Category:Occupation of Palestine

  • I count 10 delete votes (including nominator and one anonymous IP) and three keeps. Consensus to delete. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV duplicate of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Author moved one page into this category. The page in question just survived VfD and is currently being merged (by consensus) to a page already contained by Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Note, same author as Category:Advocacy --Viriditas 21:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • KEEP. The term "occupation" is widely accepted as fact. There is NO consenus to merge the article; Viriditas apparently thinks that agreement by one side (ie. her band of Palestine deniers) is consensus (!?). Using a euphemism (in this case: "conflict") is egregiously POV (see Jimbo Wales) because it places the occupier and the occupied on equal footing and denigrates the rights and suffering of victims. HistoryBuffEr 22:47, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Usual attempt to create a POV fork. Jayjg 23:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious POV aside, what would go into one category that wouldn't go into the other? -Sean Curtin
  • delete - redundant and POV. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. As a matter of fact, conflict is as neutral as can be, while occupation is POV. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Mrfixter 11:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete--Josiah 22:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Truthaboutchabad 21:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as we already have the full range of articles in Category:Palestine and Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict already lists articles from all sides of the dispute. This is just another example of User:HistoryBuffer wasting everyone'e precious time with obfuscatory diversions. IZAK 03:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • KeepCheeseDreams 19:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • 'Delete The term "conflict" is much more widely accepted terminology, and semantically, it includes crucial chapters of the relations between the parties prior to June 4th, 1967. The term "Occupation of Palestine" is vehemently POV and, I think it's fair to presume, would probably concern exclusively Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, ignoring Egypt's and Jordan's respective 19-year-long occupation and ultimately representing an anti-Israeli POV perspective of history. 217.132.221.56 17:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I realize that I'll never understand how English words get perceived as "POV" or contaminated by a pro-or-contra position. /Tuomas 22:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Category:Nigerian political parties

Category:Nigerese political parties

Objects in the extrasolar system and subcategories

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Objects in the extrasolar system and subcategories.

Category:Seven Sisters schools

Changes made per discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Women's colleges categories and list (no objections there after 2 weeks):

Sub-category was unhelpful and is no longer needed. Seven Sisters (colleges) and Template:Seven Sisters (used on all member pages) also provide ample coverage of this topic. —Bsktcase 21:54, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Parental discretion advised

  • Didn't we just go over this elsewhere? There's too much room for POV issues and argument here - I won't rehash the arguments too much, you've heard them before... Dysprosia 09:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What arguments? Where... please give a link....
For example, see the failed proposal Wikipedia:Rating system. Other systems have been disucssed on the Village Pump at times, however, I don't think it'd be that necessary to trawl through the archives in this instance. Dysprosia 09:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Let's just add [[Category:Parental discretion advised]] to the standard Wikipedia page template and be done with it? Tverbeek 20:51, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Just delete it. We provide information. It's up to parents to try and restrict their children from reading it. We have no obligation to help, and no way to do so effectively because of the wide variety of moral judgments on this matter. Postdlf 23:31, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The only purpose it could serve would to be to direct interested to the juicy content. /Tuomas 10:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Here is the crux of the issue: as a parent, I would let my children read Britannica unsupervised, but not Wikipedia in its current state. Why? Because I don't want them reading articles on porn stars including their complete filmography, or detailed descriptions of perverse sexual acts. This attitude, while maybe not universal, is very common among parents in our society. I know there are no such things to be found in Britannica; I know for a fact that such articles exist in Wikipedia. Now, if the community would just decide to mark the Wikipedia articles which Britannica would not include as being un-family-friendly (and that is one reason why Britannica has made the commercial decision not to include articles on those topics), I could set up my web filter to block these articles, and this major disadvantage of Wikipedia v.s. Britannica would disappear; while those who insist on keeping their porn star articles can get their way too. --137.111.13.34 14:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • We could filter out all the evolution articles for your fundamentalist mindset, if you were so inclined... We could filter out all the weapons articles too... Afterall, some people consider violence worse than sex. We could filter out articles on magic, LotR, Harry Potter, hell, general fiction, for those inclined to think it corrupts minds. (Remember all those so-called "good Christians" heeing and hawing over Harry Potter promotion of witchcraft and satanism?). If there's an age filter setting, then it should be General, 6+ and 13+ (13 the traditional age of majority, also when people generally run at puberty, when historically, people started to go to war, when girls start being able to carry babies to full term, etc) 132.205.15.42 06:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We do need some facility to allow filtered viewing (at the least, removing some pages from appearing in "random page" results) but using a category is a crude mechanism, which is unlikely to help. Categories are for categorising content, not flagging it. zoney ♣ talk 14:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. This is a real issue, but not the solution. I'm also a parent and am very reluctant to let my kids near Wikipedia. Filiocht 14:36, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
As a parent, you should watch over their shoulders like a hawk whenever they get close to the internet, or what they watch on TV... 132.205.15.42 06:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, if this is not the solution, what is? Do nothing and pretend there is no problem, while children's minds are poisoned by filth, as usual, I suppose. --137.111.13.34 00:18, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Are they really being poisoned, or rather, are they experiencing what they should actually have experienced, had we still been living as hunter-gatherers? (I've sometimes wondered how peverted our minds are, by the artifices of civilization; afterall, adolescence as a state separate from young adult and as a category of childhood, is a fictional creation of the Victorians) 132.205.15.42 06:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Way too POV. I vote for filth. Gamaliel 00:43, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE, POV, and I'd rather not have some mullah decide that everything is to be banned. 132.205.15.42 06:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Geographical

Category:Ohio county namesakes

I think this is setting a bad precedent. If all the similar entities were to have such categories, then articles such as Andrew Jackson, John Adams, George Washington, etc., will quickly become overwhelmed with categorizations that do little to enhance that article. This purpose is better served by a list article than a category. older≠wiser 18:59, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • DELETE with extreme, extreme, extreme prejudice. I agree entirely. Especially since I'm sure most states are likely to have a Washington County, an Adams County... Do we really want articles cluttered with 30 or so [[:Category [state] county namesakes]]? Postdlf 03:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Aside from the Presidents, few of these are well known, e.g. Andrew Holmes, William Crawford (soldier), or the captors of Andre (David Williams (soldier), Isaac Van Wart, and John Paulding. The category shows connections between people that would not be obvious and I think it fascinating how things are connected. One could make the same argument as Bkonrad in re the births/deaths categories User:D6 has been adding. They don't really contribute anything to the article, but it is interesting nonetheless to see who else is in that category. Does it contribute anything to know that Lincoln and Darwin or John Major and one of the Monty Python blokes (Eric Idle, I think) were born on the same day? Not really, but it's neat to know all the same. PedanticallySpeaking 14:57, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • While I agree that the birth/death categories are largely tangential in the information provided about the subject, they have the saving virtue of being self-limiting. A person is born and dies only once. However, there are dozens, possibly hundreds, of sets of places that could claim Washington or Adams or Jefferson as a namesake. How many states have a county named for them? And then what is to stop someone from making a similar category for cities and townships and high schools. Where does it stop? older≠wiser 15:19, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete before a large number of famous person articles get drowned in categories. Rmhermen 22:57, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; this would be better served by a list or (better still) a series of lists. -Sean Curtin 01:00, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should be list. -- Decumanus 06:49, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
  • A PROPOSAL: How about for the much-honored people such as George Washington, the category tag go on one of the associated pages, e.g. List of places named for George Washington, instead of the underlying article, so "famous person articles (are) drowned in categories"? Again, I would point out there are only a handful of people who would have many namesake counties and that most of the people, e.g. Samuel Finley Vinton, are pretty obscure. PedanticallySpeaking 15:37, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Delete Category:Ohio county namesakes, create single article Ohio counties/names; second PS's proposal. Each state would have its own article, members of say, Category:U.S. toponymy, in turn members of Category:Toponymy. The actual subject is of interest, of course. — Bill 09:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Denver_metropolitan_area

I restored this after it was improperly deleted—comments above make it two votes to keep vs. the one deletion nomination. It makes absolutely no sense to make the metro area a subtopic of the Denver city category—that reverses the actual relationship. Including the other cities within the metro area within the Denver city category also wrongfully implies that they are not independent municipalities. Please take a look at the category's current contents. I haven't finished filling it yet (I am currently running on a ten-year old backup computer thanks to my lousy laptop burning out again), but you can see how it is supposed to work. Postdlf 02:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Political

Problematic categorization of people

The policies at Wikipedia:Categorization of people may post-date some of these decisions.

Category:Palestinian children killed by Israelis

21 votes; 17 delete, 4 keep. Category deleted. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) Inherently POV; created to extend the Israel-Arab conflict into Wikipedia. Jayjg 00:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Extend into"? Too late; already here. --Gary D 10:21, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
How is this not NPOV? Maybe not a good choice for a category - I agree that "Killed in Intifadah II" would be a more inclusive category - covering both Israelis and Palestinians - but I don't see how this is inherently not NPOV. Guettarda 19:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Alberuni, your arguments against Jayjg here don't hold water IMHO, by being significantly out of context. The reason is that his user page lists, for example, the "Partial list..." and the "Terrorism against..." categories as "Articles created solely for the purpose of promoting a political POV". BACbKA 07:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possibly merge into another, broader category, as suggested above. -Sean Curtin 05:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Forget that this names Palestinians or Israelis and focus on the underlying concept. What nation or nationality someone has been killed by is simply not an appropriate basis for a category. Postdlf 06:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have no objection to an article (or even a category) about Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians, but this is a category of tiny articles that are bound to remain tiny, as the vast majority of eight-year-olds have done nothing worthy of having their own encyclopedia article. I'm not going to go call for deletion of the articles, but given the length of the two I looked at in detail, they might do better all lumped into one article... Mpolo 07:46, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Same reasons as Mpolo. BACbKA 23:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inaccurate category name. --Viriditas | Talk 08:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • delete, I'm inclined to think we should keep this, we might just as easily have a list of American children killed by the British in Colonial America, because the (assumed) 'fact' that "the British government didn't 'have a policy of killing American children' " wouldn't be a good reason to exclude a list of such. The creation of this category might be appropriate for wikiprojetct:Lists of all children of nation ''x'' by persons of nationality ''y'' and I wouldn't oppose it as part of a larger effort. However, the problem with this category is that omitting its sister categories would be a POV issue and on that basis, I'm weighing in against it. Pedant 10:46, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
  • delete categorize as 'Killed in the Second Intifadah'. gidonb 11:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename 'Killed in the second Intifadah' (see my comment above). Guettarda 19:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Xed 20:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. →Raul654 21:48, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Duh. Tendentious category name. Vast majority killed unintentionally during military operations. Could just as easily have category named "Algerian children killed by Frenchmen" (in Algerian War of Independence) or "Chechen children killed by Russians". Both would be created to prove a point, not to help users of Wikipedia find and classify information, which is what categories are for. A2Kafir 23:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with MPerel. -gadfium (talk) 23:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 00:44, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, it fails to mention that the children's blood was used to make matzos and doesn't include William of Norwich. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Dryazan 23:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Assuming the lists are correct, why not have this information in the wikipedia? The fact people will argue over it is not a reason to not include it. No-one has suggested another name for this category. What is wrong with "Algerian children killed by the French", "Chechen children killed by Russians", "Israeli children killed by Palesinians", etc? War is horrible. It has a devastating effect on children, and the families of children who are killed. Wikipedia should not cower from those facts. Should we remove "Victims of 9/11"? After all, that could be argued to have been "created to extend the Neo-conservative/Al Quaeda conflict into Wikipedia", no?
    • OTOH, I take User:Mpolo's point, but for comparison, do we have 9/11 victim articles? What about deaths in the Iraq war?
    • User:pedant: That's a weak argument. We wouldn't have an encyclopedia at all if it were followed to its logical conclusion. Mr. Jones 21:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same reasons as Mpolo. One article should be sufficient for a list. -Willmcw 08:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Christians

  • Note: I still like Category:Christians better, but I don't particularly mind the other and since I am the only one who objects, then let's go for it. This should be a precedent for sibling categories. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To be renamed to Category:Christian people. Current one-word name is ambiguous, and too close to—therefore confusing with—a number of its sibling and child categories that use the singular form of its current name, "Christian", such as child category Category:Christian leaders. Puts this category into parallel phrasing with those categories, and also more in line with its parent category, Category:People by religion. --Gary D 03:02, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Note that if this is done, it will be necessary to rename all of the siblings in Category:People by religion. I'm not convinced that this is necessary, though. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 03:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think such a renaming would be a good idea. Single word categories split between singular and plural have generally turned out to be less than optimal, because they are unclear and ambiguous. (Note that the parent category here was not called "Religionists".) --Gary D 04:08, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
But there is no Category:Christian. Or, for that matter, Category:Jew, Category:Muslim, etc. These are generally adjectives used as nouns—it's not the same as relgion and religions. Christian people is redundant. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Indeed there is no category titled "Christian," and for that I am grateful. I agree the confusion with "religion" and "religions" may be worse, but I hope "not as bad confusion" does not justify inaction. It's not clear to me that "Christian people" is redundant, since there are non-Christian people, and "Christian people" is useful in distinguishing from "Christian denominations" and "Christian texts", to give examples of two of its sibling categories that have the parallel form, "Christian [plural noun]". Certainly "Christian people" could be called redundant to "Christians" in the sense that they mean the same thing; my goal here is simply quick and clear reader visual understanding upon browsing the subcategory list, and I intend no change in category scope. I recognize that the single-word plural noun system has something of a foothold here, but I consider that insufficient to justify the system's retention when it is less than optimally clear to the reader, and may fail to announce its differences from its siblings and parent categories. If this is a better way, the sooner we move over to it, the better. --Gary D 19:32, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
In that case, perhaps it would be wise to nominate the sibling categories in order to give folks who may be following them a chance to weigh in? (What do you intend to do with "Zen masters"?) -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I posted notices in the sibling categories (except "Zen masters"), inviting people to come over and weigh in on this issue. I intend to do nothing with "Zen masters" (except maybe move it under a "Buddhist people" category) since it's a two-word phrase unambiguous in its context. I would feel differently if its parent category were "Zen mastery", for which I would then want the child categories to be "Zen master people", "Zen master doctrines", "Zen master organizations", Zen master history", etc. --Gary D 02:01, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


Slovak vs. Slovakian

  • One vote for Slovakian, three for Slovak. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Convert Slovakian to Slovak in the titles of the following categories:

See Slovakia and Category:Slovakia regarding usage. -- Beland 18:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Surely Slovak=ethnicity Slovakian=nationality. Many Slovakians are ethnic Hungarians or ethnic Gypsies and not therefore Slovaks, an ethnic Slovak might live outside Slovakia and therefore not be a Slovakian. In the light of this I think 'Slovakian' is correct.GordyB 22:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is an analogy from some places further south. But nearer to home, Czech means both nationality and ethnicity. You wouldn't use *Czechian. --Henrygb 19:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Slovakian is a real word, Czechian is not.GordyB 20:38, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • According to Slovak language, "The correct American English adjective for the language, people, and culture of Slovakia is Slovak". But British English uses Slovakian where American English would use Slovak, so it begins to look like another one of those issues. We just need to pick one standard to use. I'm going to try to figure out which set of categories was created first. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Hey, that was easy! The three Slovakian categories were created on October 12, 2004. Category:Slovak people was created on June 18. Shall we declare that the official scheme of choice? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Eccentrics

  • After some confusion (the request to merge and delete was removed from the Categories for deletion page before it had been completed), the merge has been done and the category has been deleted. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Round one: October 10, 2004

  • I count four delete votes (including those from the category's talk page), one keep, and one "at least change the name". -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed cfd notice from category and this discussion to category talk:eccentrics.

Reason: No form of discussion had taken place on that discussion page, prior to CfD listing. The category definition seem pretty much OK and workable (referring to definition on List of notable eccentrics). All the rest to be done before re-listing here is described in wikipedia:categorization of people.

--Francis Schonken 10:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) Definition cited above:

"Eccentricity is necessarily a relative definition. An eccentric is someone whose behaviour, beliefs and/or hobbies deviates in significant way from the accepted norms that the rest of the society that defines that person recognizes as proper or as traditional. He or she may be regarded as strange, odd or at least unconventional, irregular and erratic. Other people usually regard the eccentric with apprehension but also with considerable amusement."

Although I am an eccentric, (by this definition most wikipedians are -- who does this kind of thing for free but an eccentric?) I might be offended to find that an article about me was listed at the bottom as being part of Category:Eccentrics, but it might not bother me to see Category:Notable eccentrics, and any article on any eccentric in wikipedia is likely to be a notable eccentric. Maybe we could change the category name?Pedant 01:52, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Splitting this discussion onto two pages makes this confusing. There is no rule that states that there must first be discussion on the talk page for an article or category listed for deletion. But at Category talk:Eccentrics, there are currently three delete votes. There is one keep here, and one request to at least change the name. Anyone else? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 20:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. And stop removing listings from CfD. Postdlf 23:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From Category talk:Eccentrics

Moved here from CfD:

This is POV. If person A is eccentric to person B, then person B is eccentric to person A. Zh 04:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, this one is also redundant because there already is a list of notable eccentrics. Sietse 08:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, because this is ridiculously POV and a waste of time. Revolver 20:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've restored the listing on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, which is where such proposals should be discussed. I copied the votes and comments above to CfD. Further votes and comments should be placed on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Eccentrics. JamesMLane 04:09, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Round two: December 13, 2004

Apparently this category was listed on CfD in October. Thereafter the CfD discussion was moved to Category talk:Eccentrics, but the CfD notice stayed on the article (although now directing people to a nonexistent entry on this page). Copied below is what's on the category talk page, including the original CfD listing by Zh; I've added my vote after that. JamesMLane 04:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is POV. If person A is eccentric to person B, then person B is eccentric to person A. Zh 04:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, this one is also redundant because there already is a list of notable eccentrics. Sietse 08:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, because this is ridiculously POV and a waste of time. Revolver 20:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV. JamesMLane 04:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If some people are widely considered to be cranks/kooks/eccentrics, how is that POV? jni 09:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think list of notable eccentrics covers it. we only need people who are notable for being eccentric, not everyone notable who is regarded as something of an eccentric. For example, I think a large portion of famous artists would qualify as eccentrics, but they should still be listed as painters, actors or musicians.--MaxMad 12:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: The list is sufficient. DCEdwards1966 00:42, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Absolutely keep. Dbiv 21:46, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/resolved#Category:Eccentrics. The consensus was to delete the category. It just wasn't deleted. (Which may have been my fault.) I don't believe it's necessary to go through this again. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it was listed for a merge to List of notable eccentrics. See [1]. It was apparently removed (perhaps accidentally) before that merge had taken place. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Just as long as the category gets deleted. Postdlf 04:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comics people

  • Consensus appears to be: 1-The current categories are confusing and should be changed. 2-It is useful to distinguish between people who work on comic strips, people who work on comic books,and cartoonists. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do these need to be merged? -- Beland 19:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about this: 

Comics
  Comics people
     Comic book artists/writers
     Comic strip artists/writers

[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:53, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

I've depopulated Category:Comics_book_artists and Category:Comics_book_writers so they can be summarily deleted. For what it's worth, I vote for Category:Comic_book_artists over Category:Comics_artists and I think artists and writers should have different categories, even if there is some overlap. Also, using a term like artist/writer in a category may cause confusion as people who do both tasks are usually called writer/artists, so putting non-drawing writers or non-writing artists in that cat might make people think they do both tasks. Gamaliel 20:03, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And I would also dispose of the "Comics people" category since there should not be very many subcategories and there shouldn't be any articles within that category. —Mike 20:41, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
And please note that there is also Category:Cartoonists to consider, a heavily populated category. It could easily take the place of the "Comic strip artists/writers" subcategory suggested above. MisfitToys 18:58, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
Do you need separate comic book, comic strip, graphic novel artists (and also writers) categories? Why not one each for penciller/artist, inker/colorist, scenarioist/editor, and dialogist/writer? 132.205.15.4 17:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete Category:Comics artists and Category:Comics writers and instead use Category:Comic book artists and Category:Comic book writers, respectively, adding crossreferences to Category:Cartoonists to both for the cases of notable writer-artists. -Sean Curtin 01:32, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Works for me -- the hierararchy Neutrality suggested, delete the 2 depopulated/defunct categories, Keep: ; Category:Comics; Category:Comic book artists; Category:Comic book writers; Category:Cartoonists. I'm neutral on Category:Comics people, if someone feels it's needed, it won't bother me, but doesn't seem too useful to me, if it was just me I'd delete that one.Pedant 05:30, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
Is the idea that all comic strip writers and artists should go under Category:Cartoonists? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If people want to suggest these categories for deletion, they should put the appropriate template messages on the categories. I only just now realized that these categories were up for deletion. Now, my take on this: comic book writers/artists are not the same people who work on comic strips or cartoons, hence there should be separate categories. I strongly feel that merging people who work only on comic strips or cartoons into comic book categories is a bad idea, as is the reverse (merging people who work only in comic books into a category about cartoons or comic books). Out of the categories, these should be deleted:
The rest, given here, should be kept:
—Lowellian (talk)[[]] 15:57, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Let me put it this way, people like Mort Walker, Bill Watterson, and Scott Adams are clearly comic strip writers and artists. They are clearly also not comic book writers and artists. People like Todd McFarlane and Frank Miller are clearly comic book writers and artists, and clearly not comic strip writers and artists. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 16:02, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
How would you feel about moving from Category:Comics artists to Category:Comic strip artists for clarity? Category:Comics artists is somewhat ambiguous. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 16:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
One thing no-one has mentioned in all the above is that cartoonist and comic strip artist are not interchangeable terms. Technically, a cartoon has a single frame, a comic strip does not. Gary Larson is a cartoonist, for instance, whereas Bill Watterson is a comic strip artist. I think the distinction is worth hanging on to. Grutness 11:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I did mention it. That's why I advocated keeping the categories apart, including comic strip creators and cartoonists. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 15:33, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, how about we use these four categories:
These four categories make all the necessary distinctions (comic strip creators tend to be both writers and artists). —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 15:33, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
What's more, Cb writers and Cb artists are natural subcategories of Cb creators.Grutness 00:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Science and technology

Programming languages

Sports

2 Oct 2004

16 Sep 2004

Category:Residents of Birmingham, England

I think this should be deleted for three reasons:

  1. It makes no indication of what the person's relationship is to the city, whether they were born there, or lived there for two weeks etc.
  2. If we are going to have this, then surely we should have one for every city, and what happens if a person lived in a number of cities.
  3. There is already a list of people from Birmingham at the main Birmingham article, so this isn't needed. G-Man 19:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. Delete – Quadell (talk) (quiz)[[]] 20:06, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm wary of any categorization of people below the country level, because people move around too much these days and are not often going to be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry just because of what they've done in a particular city. A category such as Category:People of Birmingham, England could be viable only for people whose notability is inherently tied to that location, but not otherwise, and mere residency is far too ephemeral to provide a sensible basis for classification. Postdlf 00:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --Conti|✉ 22:06, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Half of them are dead, so they are hardly residents! Who is going to keep track of this on a day-by-day basis? [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 13:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. 1) so? 2) if we decide to have one for every city, which doesn't have to happen as a result of keepinig this, then people would be categorized under multiple cities. Again, so? 3) Categories are not lists. anthony (see warning) 13:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 12

  • Category:Colour was deleted as redundant with Category:Color. Both spellings are equally acceptable in articles, but for categories, it is necessary to make a choice. In this case, Category:Color was in existence first and has precedence.

Sept 11

Sept 7

Sept 6

Sept 3

August 28

August 21

August 19

  • Airforce categories (for individual nations) - the consensus was to delete categories containing only one article. The discussion is archived at Category talk:Air forces.
  • Category:Hamlets in New York was kept. Consensus not entirely clear, but it is a common (and potentially useful), if not entirely official, designation.

August 14

August 12

August 2

August 1

  • County categories containing only the article on the county - the general consensus was to keep the categories (since they should grow), but to avoid creating them en masse before they are needed. A summary of how this works:
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. Postdlf 05:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


June 27

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/resolved&oldid=8743615"