Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dysprosia (talk | contribs) at 13:58, 30 September 2004 (rm done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates
  1. Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or being created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies there, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas.
  3. Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
  4. Add the name of the new category and {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
  5. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day.
  6. 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).
  7. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.

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

Old discussions from this page have been archived to:

There is currently a debate on Wikipedia:Categorisation of people which you may want to look at if you are thinking about nominating a people-related category for deletion. Many such disputes are ending up in /unresolved.


Current (tentative) cleanup practices:

  • Categories nominated immediately after creation by their creator, or due to misspelling may be deleted and de-listed after 2 days if there are no objections. Presumably these discussions are not interesting, and so do not need to be saved on /resolved.
  • People-related discussions that do not have a clear consensus for deletion after 5 days are moved to /unresolved (interim measure until the current mega-controversy is resolved).
  • If there is a clear consensus for deletion after 7 days, then de-populate the category and move it to the "Delete me" section (unless it is a "red link", in which case, it is already deleted). Save interesting conversations in /resolved; discard uninteresting conversations.
  • If there is a clear consensus to keep after 7 days: 1.) Copy the discussion to the category's talk page. 2.) Remove the {{cfd}} tag from the category page. 3.) If the discussion is precedent-setting, put a note in /resolved with a link to the category's talk page.
  • There is currently a poll on Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion about what to do if there is no clear consensus.

Likely nominees

Your help is needed sorting through a list of /likely candidates for deletion.

Sept 29

Category:Political prisoners

Inherent POV, breeding ground for revert wars. Have moved content to the objective (if unwieldy) [[:Category:People considered political prisoners by Amnesty International]. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:28, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Weather forecasters

Contents moved to pre-existing (and partially filled) Category:Meteorologists, which seems to be the more technical term. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:20, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • The people in the Weather forecasters category were all present weather on television and/or radio, whereas those who were in Meteorologists were mainly scientists who developed meteorology. There should be a subcatagory of Meteorologists to deal with those who also present weather reports. I'm not sure what to call it. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 07:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Women of Pakistan

We already have Category:Pakistani people. It seems unnecessary to categorize by gender. I know there's a major debate going on about categorization of people, but does anyone think it's necessary to have people of all countries categorized by gender? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 16:15, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Having read Wikipedia:Categorization of people, I am a bit less sure of this, but practically speaking, the category is useful. — iFaqeer | Talk to me! 19:35, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Would you consider Category:Men of Great Britain to be useful? Should Charles Dickens be categorized as a British man, in addition to being categorized as a British writer? If you wouldn't recommend adding a gender category for every biographical article on Wikipedia, then why only do so for Pakistani women? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:47, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
I am not saying I would. I see the point about gender categories in general only increasing volume of data without adding much value. Just that I have found this one useful. — iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:01, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Rover automobiles

Incorrect term - replaced with Category:Rover vehicles. --SFoskett 16:12, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Acura Vehicles

Incorrect capitalization - replaced with Category:Acura vehicles. --SFoskett 14:39, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Possibly unnecessary categories

These seemed to have more potential for disagreement. They were all childless orphans when I found them. -- Beland 06:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Delete all of them. Maurreen 05:12, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seemingly unnecessary aircraft categories

These were all childless orphans when I found them. After a while, I got tired of sorting through the various alternatives. You should probably just check out Category:Aircraft in general if you aren't familiar with it. -- Beland 06:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All "aerobatics aircraft" and "racing aircraft" categories have been condensed to the "sports planes" category.
All "business jet" categories have been expanded into "business aircraft" categories --Rlandmann 10:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Neighborhoods_of_world_cities

Should not exist if "Category:World cities" does not, which we already decided it shouldn't.

Colleges and universites in Canada

Is "universities and colleges" appropriate Canadian terminology? It is pretty standard for Wikipedia; see Category:Universities_and_colleges.

In Quebec, a "college" is sort of in-between "high school" and "university" (which are each a year shorter to leave room for two years of college) . "Universities in Quebec" is correct. Even schools that are called "colleges" in, say, the U.S., are referred to as "universities" in Quebec. See CEGEP, which is a Quebec phenomenon not shared by the rest of Canada, so it wouldn't affect the Alberta category. Category:Canadian universities does seem to include colleges. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:05, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cricketers by skill and country

Use it or lose it. If these childless orphans don't belong under Category:Cricketers, then they don't belong anywhere. -- Beland 06:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head to think of why these categories are needed. Perhaps the author meant to list opening batsmen, middle order batsmen, wicket keepers, slip fielders, pace bowlers and spin bowlers etc together. Surely a list would be a better idea? In any case if nobody is prepared to do the (huge) amount of work required IMO delete them.GordyB 15:26, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think Category:Cricketers by skill should be enough. At least for now.-- — iFaqeer | Talk to me! 18:34, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Maurreen 05:19, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Even if you only have Category:Cricketers by skill, you are going to have to specify what subdivisions are required and the categories are going to have to be broad. I suggest Spin Bowler, Seam Bowler, Batsmen, Wicketkeeper, All-rounder, Captain. Otherwise you are going to have arguments about exactly what kind of spin bowler x bowls, batsmen may start their career as an opening bat but may later bat down the order so should they belong to Opening Batsmen or Middle-order Batsmen? Is a number 3 a separate category or part of Opening Batsmen etc. GordyB 12:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:French film

I've created Category:French cinema to fit the present naming style; also, is easily confusable with Category:French films. Tregoweth 00:55, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Sept 28

Category:Citroën Vehicles

Incorrect capitalization - replaced with Category:Citroën vehicles. --SFoskett 02:06, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Category:2004 timelines

Redundant with Category:2004. Davodd 01:10, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • I see "Timelines" as a subcategory of the other. Maurreen 05:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Japanese castles

Has been replaced by Category:Castles in Japan to match the other sub-categories under Category:Castles. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Union Navy officers

Category:Union Navy admirals

Recommend keeping these to be consistent with Confederate Navy categories. While technically part of the United States Navy, this was a unique time in the Navy's history. Breaking them out helps clarify where people fought. The alternative is dumping everyone into "American Civil War people" which is less helpful. Jinian 17:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Works for me. Maurreen 05:28, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 27

Category:Video games

Redundant with Category:Computer and video games. It might be used as a category for arcade cabinet games, or tabletop arcade video games, as the descriptive information suggests, but the name is wrong. 132.205.15.42 03:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - Agreed. Cat is empty and there are other catagories both more specific and general. Hobie 03:49, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

Category:Movies

Duplicates Category:Films, to which it currently redirects. This is fine, except it adds it as a sub-category to the Films category, which is not really the way it should be. Currently contains no articles, although I suspect people add articles to it mistakenly from time to time. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Atlanta, Georgia

Has been replaced by Category:Atlanta. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:13 colonies

Depopulated by User:Lowellian and content moved to Category:Thirteen Colonies. There was an attempt to turn it into a redirect, which while it did work, also added the redirect as a subcategory, which did not seem to be appropriate. [[User:Bkonrad|User:Bkonrad/sig2]] 18:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I like "13" better. Maurreen 05:33, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Spin doctors

POV. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:51, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • "Publicists" works. Or "Spin, propaganda and disinformation." Maurreen 05:37, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Physical groups

Category replicates Category:Galaxy clusters. As galaxy groups are just small galaxy clusters, see Galaxy groups and clusters, this category is redundant. 132.205.15.42 17:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Sept 26

Category:Right-wing populists

Inherently POV. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:39, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Er, how? Are any of the entries reasonably disputable? (They may not like them, but that's a different matter.) Keep - David Gerard 12:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Liberal leaders and all subcategories

There was recently a consensus to delete Category:Liberal leaders in the United States, which is archived at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/resolved#Category:Liberal leaders in the United States. Based on that consensus, I started deleting the similar categories (Category:Liberal leaders in Albania, Category:Liberal leaders in Sweden, etc.), but I think I was too hasty. So for the record, should Category:Liberal leaders exist? Should any of its subcategories exist? (Please see the archived discussion of Liberal leaders in the United States for cogent arguments for and against.)

  • Delete all for reasons given above – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 22:26, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Although don't delete Category:Leaders of the British Liberal Party, which is different). john k 00:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:40, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete some, keep some. Please note that unlike the United States of America, some countries in the world, Liberal is not synonymous with liberal. Particularly, in countries of the British Commonwealth, there are politcal parties following the form of Britain of the last century, where there were a Liberal Party and a Conservative Party, neither of which are definitively liberal or conservative. The category Liberal leaders should not be deleted but a clarifying note should be added that this category is only for leaders of Liberal Parties. And the only subcategories should be of party leaders of actual Liberal parties, and not non-NPOV opinons of what the political views of political leaders are. For instance, Category:Liberal leaders in Canada is a category for leaders of the Liberal Party in Canada Liberal Party of Canada. See liberal party for more info. I don't recall the US ever having a Liberal Party... however the British Liberals are often called the whigs and there was an American political party by that name. Big-L and small-l liberal are two different sets and in some countries may even be disjoint. In New Zeleand, at one point the Liberal Party was more conservative than the conservative party (the National Party). 132.205.15.42 17:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You make some good points, but please sign in for your vote to be counted. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 16:05, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all those listed and where appropriate, move contents to category with better names. There should only be categories for leaders of actual parties. There should not be a general category of Category:Liberal leaders as there is generally no connection between the Liberal parties that exist in various countries and no reason they should be grouped together into a category. The party should be clearly identified in the category name. Thus Category:Leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada is better than Category:Liberal leaders in Canada. [[User:Bkonrad|User:Bkonrad/sig2]] 18:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Postdlf 21:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Persia

Replaced by Category:Persia and Category:Persian history. ✏ Sverdrup 10:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Prokaryotes

Mostly or entirely redundant with Category:Bacteria. Also, Category:Deinococcus-Thermus, since there are only two listed species so it is not really necessary at the moment. Josh 20:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Playstation

In the process of creating Category:PlayStation i screwed up and made an extra category with a lowercase s. That is incorrect. I created by mistake, please delete the lowercase s one. There are no articles in it. Hobie 03:59, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

Category:Right-wing populists

Inherently POV. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:39, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Er, how? Are any of the entries reasonably disputable? (They may not like them, but that's a different matter.) Keep - David Gerard 12:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Liberal leaders and all subcategories

There was recently a consensus to delete Category:Liberal leaders in the United States, which is archived at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/resolved#Category:Liberal leaders in the United States. Based on that consensus, I started deleting the similar categories (Category:Liberal leaders in Albania, Category:Liberal leaders in Sweden, etc.), but I think I was too hasty. So for the record, should Category:Liberal leaders exist? Should any of its subcategories exist? (Please see the archived discussion of Liberal leaders in the United States for cogent arguments for and against.)

  • Delete all for reasons given above – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 22:26, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Although don't delete Category:Leaders of the British Liberal Party, which is different). john k 00:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:40, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete some, keep some. Please note that unlike the United States of America, some countries in the world, Liberal is not synonymous with liberal. Particularly, in countries of the British Commonwealth, there are politcal parties following the form of Britain of the last century, where there were a Liberal Party and a Conservative Party, neither of which are definitively liberal or conservative. The category Liberal leaders should not be deleted but a clarifying note should be added that this category is only for leaders of Liberal Parties. And the only subcategories should be of party leaders of actual Liberal parties, and not non-NPOV opinons of what the political views of political leaders are. For instance, Category:Liberal leaders of Canada is a category for leaders of the Liberal Party in Canada Liberal Party of Canada. See liberal party for more info. I don't recall the US ever having a Liberal Party... however the British Liberals are often called the whigs and there was an American political party by that name. Big-L and small-l liberal are two different sets and in some countries may even be disjoint. In New Zeleand, at one point the Liberal Party was more conservative than the conservative party (the National Party). 132.205.15.42 17:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all those listed and where appropriate, move contents to category with better names. There should only be categories for leaders of actual parties. There should not be a general category of Category:Liberal leaders as there is generally no connection between the Liberal parties that exist in various countries and no reason they should be grouped together into a category. The party should be clearly identified in the category name. Thus Category:Leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada is better than Category:Liberal leaders of Canada. [[User:Bkonrad|User:Bkonrad/sig2]] 18:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Postdlf 21:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Persia

Replaced by Category:Persia and Category:Persian history. ✏ Sverdrup 10:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Prokaryotes

Mostly or entirely redundant with Category:Bacteria. Also, Category:Deinococcus-Thermus, since there are only two listed species so it is not really necessary at the moment. Josh 20:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 25

Category:Articles with doubtful notability

Was used by the 'notable' template, which has apparently been deleted. Wolfman 00:50, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Afghan people

This category was already nearly empty when I found it; everything was over at Category:Afghani people instead. The only thing here was Category:Afghan emirs, which I've moved over to sit with the rest of the stuff in the other category. I think that's the correct term, so I'm nominating that this one be deleted. Bryan 22:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This was already discussed and "Afghan" is the proper term. Items are supposed to be moved from the "Afghani" categories to the corresponding "Afghan" categories. —Mike 16:35, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Check it out now. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 22:38, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Afghani" is the currency; "Afghan" is the adjective. Maurreen 06:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Junk foods

This is a POV category with no way to properly define what is actually junk food. The article junk food begins with "Junk food is a derogatory term, used for any food that is perceived to be unhealthy and has low or poor nutritional value." I don't believe that this is a proper way to categorize articles. —Mike 19:12, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Northern Ireland footballers --> Category:Northern Irish footballers. --Lancevortex 09:49, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Film writers

Orphaned dupe of Category:Screenwriters. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:51, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Railway stations

Empty already mergerd into Category:Train stations MeltBanana 21:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Novel

Ignored don't empty rule (sorry) and moved the two into the much fuller Category:Novels MeltBanana 21:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 23

Category:Northern Ireland football managers

Should be replaced with Category:Northern Irish football managers, to be consistent with the other Category:Football managers subcategories. I'm afraid that I failed to read Directive 3 on this page before redirecting links, but the point still stands. --Lancevortex 19:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Bio Industry

Stange name, only member is Animal welfare. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 17:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Computer Graphics

Some articles were here, have been merged in to Category:Computer graphics (lower case). Now category is empty and redundant. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 14:41, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Misc. redundancies/typos

-- Beland 09:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Georgia disambiguations

-- Beland 09:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there are any "Interstate highways" in the country of Georgia, so unless we're looking for a strict conformity in the naming of Georgia-related categories, it shouldn't be necessary to disambiguate Category:Interstate_highways_in_Georgia. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 11:29, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Georgian_architecture

Currently a childless orphan; I'm not sure what it's for. -- Beland 09:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 22

Category:Playstation 2 games

PlayStation has a capital S. Moved edited all pages to go to the new Category:PlayStation 2 games. Hobie 19:59, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

Category:Playstation games

PlayStation has a capital S. Moved edited all pages to go to the new Category:PlayStation games. Hobie 19:59, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

Category:19th century people

Overcategorization. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:39, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Marxist theorists

this category has one article listed and overlaps in spirit with Category:Marxist philosophers which has many more articles listed. --Martin Wisse 18:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

'Marxist theorists' is broader and would be a better home for many Marxist thinkers e.g. Poulantzas, Miliband, Gramsci, Luxembourg, Connolly - some of those listed in Category:Marxist philosophers are really political and/or economic theorists and would be better off in the broader category - I would tentatively suggest moving the contents of the 'philosophers' category to the 'theorists' one if you feel a rationalisation is necessary.Palmiro 02:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, theory is broader, and can (and hopefully will) include political, economic, and literary theorists who derive their work from Marxism or some variant. If anything, I would say we should make Category:Marxist philosophers a subcategory of Category:Marxist theorists and move a few people from philosophers to theorists. BTW, I moved Category:Marxist theorists from Category:Marxism to Category:Marxist theory. -Seth Mahoney 17:23, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Japanese swordsman

This was a typo. Contents moved to Category:Japanese swordsmen. jni 13:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Ouachita County, Arkansas

Overcategorization. Contents moved to Category:Towns in Arkansas and Category:Ouachita County, Arkansas.

  • Delete—one of a slew of these that were already taken care of—this one was merely overlooked. Postdlf 20:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Miscarriages of justice

Not NPOV. -- Beland 04:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed—delete. A NPOV substitute that may collect together some of the content that the author of this category had intended may be Category:Overturned criminal convictions. Otherwise, we're totally in subjective judgmentville. Postdlf 20:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Greensburg, PA

Category:Greensburg, Pennsylvania just contains Category:Bands in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, which is empty. Delete both? -- Beland 02:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 21

SOC Occupation categories

Category:Life, physical, and social science occupations

Has been divided in more sensible Category:Science occupations and Category:Social science occupations. - SimonP 03:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations

As there is no reason to cram four different things into one non-intutive category it has been replaced with Category:Sports occupations. Category:Entertainment occupations. Category:Media occupations, and Category:Arts occupations. - SimonP 03:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - This was already discussed here on CFD (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/unresolved#Category:Occupations and all its subcategories) and the majority at the time prefer a "pre-packaged" system of top-level Occupation categories. The "new ones" Simon created can be housed with no conflict under that system, using only slightly different names. More discussion is being held at Category talk:Occupations. -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
    • Comment, I am combining these related items. I'd also like to point out that User:SimonP has gone ahead and jumbled the entire Category:Occupations tree - before allowing sufficient consensus to be reached. Only two people disagreed with the SOC system (now at Category:SOC occupations, thanks to Simon). I feel the formal SOC system, with its built-in occupation->category look-up, is a far better candidate to occupy the root "Occupations" category - and it's an excellent fit for WP. -- Netoholic @ 22:25, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say that Category:Occupations is "jumbled"—there are only 36 subcategories of it, and it's much easier to find everything by not having arbitrary conglomerate subcategories. BTW, consensus on this page means that a category is deleted or not deleted—if it is not deleted, that doesn't mean that its contents are forever locked in. SimonP was bold and fixed the system. Kudos. Postdlf 20:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an arbitrary grouping of categories, whether or not it's an arbitrary grouping that the U.S. government happens to use. It's much more helpful to see the variety of subcategories all at once under Category:Occupations than it is to submerge and obscure them under these undigested lumps. Postdlf 06:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't see the harm. Keep. anthony (see warning) 13:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I do see the harm, delete. Arbitrary groupings serve no real purpose. Gentgeen 04:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Arbitrary grouping. Andris 07:26, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Comments
There are 23 categories defined as part of the SOC groupings (Category:SOC occupations). To arbitrarily pick two to delete makes the whole categorization scheme break. The SOC categories (all 23) were already posted on CFD and survived. -- Netoholic @ 19:17, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
And now someone has wisely bypassed them with better categories—surviving CFD in no way prevents that. Postdlf 22:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:U.S. television presenters

"Television presenters" is more of a British phrase; Category:American television personalities seems a better name. Tregoweth 01:29, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Both are horribly imprecise—most of the current entries (such as Jay Leno or Arsenio Hall would be better classified as "television talk show hosts". Maybe "television personalities" can become a parent for several subcategories? Postdlf 06:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Music producers

Duplicates Category:Record producers. Tregoweth 02:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Would record producers include all music producers? I'm not just talking about CDs (which are records), but what about producers of mp3s or producers of concerts? anthony (see warning) 13:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 20

Category:Laws

As every article on a particular law is going to be categorized by nation and/or law area, which both go under Category:Law, this can serve no purpose. Postdlf 15:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)



Sept 17

Category:...And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Dead albums

Delete because this category looks like it's trying to abuse the sorting (starting with ..., which is first) has little articles, incredibly esoteric, and has close to zero room for growth -- KneeLess 23:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep: notable group, and the name is properly spelled with the ellipsis. -Sean Curtin 00:18, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 13:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Beland 02:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 16

Childless orphans B-G

Note to the compiler of the below list: Please link the target category too! --ssd 12:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Obvious":

"Non-obvious":

Keep—intended as a parent for not only Category:Washington public education, but also Category:Universities and colleges in Washington. Allows these to be grouped together under the state category, as well as in Category:United States education by state. This format can apply to all state categories. Postdlf 00:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

Category:Cat breeds and Category:Cat types

I think there's overlap here, and that these two categories should be merged. --Rossumcapek 18:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep both. There is a big difference between a "breed" and a "type". Breeds are recognized by cat clubs (or working on being recognized) and types are general categorizations by color, coat type, etc. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 20:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Leave as is. What Lachatdelarue said. Just look at what's there--types are not breeds. For a similar model, see Category:Dog breeds and Category:Dog types. Elf | Talk 21:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do not delete. – Quadell (talk) (quiz)[[]] 01:08, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
Keep both. Even if there is occasional overlap (there is with dogs, not sure whether there is with cats) a type and a breed are still different things and merging would be confusing the subject. -- sannse (talk) 10:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep both. As the others have said, there is a distinction. Some examples to illustrate: Shorthaired cat=type. Domestic shorthair=type. British Shorthair/American Shorthair=breeds. Feral cat=distinct type, not a breed, contains shorthairs and longhairs. Calimanco cat=a coat colour which is also a type because of sex linkage. Calimanco cats may be found in longhairs, shorthairs, purebreds, mongrels and ferals. Quill 22:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Good points all around. Thanks, yall. --Rossumcapek 02:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)



Sept 15

Category:Summer sports

  • Category:Summer sports - this term varies too much from country to country. Firstly, you can't really categorise field hockey as a "summer sport" The only sport listed so far is Field hockey; in Australia (one of the sport's major powers) the main club season is in winter, and this appears to be the case (to pick the first northern hemisphere country I could google quickly) in Wales. I don't think that India and Pakistan *have* seasons accurately described as "summer" and "winter". If you're going to categorise "winter sports" as "sports requiring frozen water to play", and "summer sports" as everything else, the title "summer sports" becomes a) misleading, and b) almost useless as a category (unlike the "winter sports" category which is useful under such a definition). By such a categorization, Australian Rules football would be a summer sport; no Australian would look for a sport played almost exclusively in winter (except in the Northern Territory and preseason warmup matches) listed as a "summer sport"! In the end, I can only conclude that this category is just too problematic, whatever criteria is chosen for it. --Robert Merkel 04:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unpopulated orphans

Keep They overlap but neither is contained in the other: not all MUDs are games; some are chatrooms with scenery; and DU MOO (a "MUD/Object oriented") is primarily an distance-learning site, with software objects serving as carefully thot-thru real-time presentation and discussion aids, used, e.g., in teaching MOO programming and conducting seminars for professionals (primarily in educational fields). --Jerzy(t) 08:31, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

Non-obvious misc. unpopulated orphans

  • Category:Open_source_software -> Category:Free software
    • I think this is potentially confusing for the nontechnical user who would put freeware in the "free software" category even if what is intended is the technical meaning of "open source" software.--Samuel J. Howard 17:57, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Category:Communications_law -> Category:Telecommunications_law
    • These oberlap, but are not identical. Communications law includes e.g. libel, slander, defamtion, sedition (defunct), copyright, etc., while telecommunications does not. Some telecommunications law perhaps is not even communications law as "communications law" is usually understood, perhaps, wire-fraud or other things.--Samuel J. Howard 17:57, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Programming languages

These were apparently unnecessary for Category:Programming languages.

These are redundant with Categorical_list_of_programming_languages.

-- Beland 05:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep latter 2; there are several subcategories in Pr Langs that match those in the article; seems likely that someone simply hasn't gotten through assigning all the categories to all the languages yet. Elf | Talk 15:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep latter 2, because of what Elf said. Compiled and Interpreted are very different and warrent their own category. However the first two are a bit silly. -- KneeLess 23:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete all. This was discussed here: User talk:Danakil#Category:Compiled_programming_languages. Interpreted/compiled categorization is meaningless since almost all languages can be either interpreted or compiled. In other words the environment in which the programs are run is separate from the actual language specification. --ZeroOne 18:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I believe that languages are categorized by their primary use, either interpreted or compiled. C++ is an example of a language that is mostly compiled, but has an interpreter or two. Perl can be compiled, but almost all the time it's interpreted. And your claim, almost all can be interpreted or compiled, I think needs some substanitation added to it. Name, let's say...5 languages (that aren't C++ or perl, because I already said them) that can be both compiled and interpreted. I'd say C doesn't count because of the relation to C++, either. -- KneeLess 22:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well... PHP[1], Python[2], Java[3], Brainfuck[4] and the Basic family. --ZeroOne 19:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. All languages can be interepreted or compiled. This is like having categories Curtains that can be died blue and Curtains that can be died red. --ssd 12:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
WHY, were the latter two deleted? We had not reached consensus at all! -- KneeLess 00:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I deleted 'em 'cause they were empty. And meaningless. All programming languages could go in either category. I've written lengthy articles elsewhere if you want it explained in detail. Give me 10 languages that can only be compiled or only interpreted, and I'll change my mind. More likely, I'll just show you how to interpret or compile the other. --ssd 04:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do scripting languages count? -- KneeLess 22:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Poles

Lightly populated, but redundant with Category:Polish people. -- Beland 05:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:United_States_Congressmen

Gender bias. Should move back to Category:United_States_members_of_Congress or equivalent. -- Beland 05:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Delete. -Seth Mahoney 07:59, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Del, but replace with Category:U.S. House members, avoiding the confusing standard usage whereby "members_of_Congress" and "Congressmen" don't include senators, even tho they are members of a house of Congress (as discussed under previous or second previous day). --Jerzy(t) 08:40, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
  • Delete – Quadell (talk) (quiz)[[]] 20:06, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Please take a look at what the contents of the category are—it's clearly including both House and Senate members, and more than just those specific categories. Come up with a better name if you can think of one, but keep otherwise, because something has to group the contents together. Postdlf 00:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Congressmen is no more gender biased than congress critters or Category:Actors. --ssd 12:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. We shouldn't have Category:Actors either. anthony (see warning) 13:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Watch where you are leaping. There is no Category:Actresses because it was merged into Category:Actors. --ssd 04:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with what? Postdlf 14:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Train stations and Category:Railway stations

These should be merged. Lacrimosus 07:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree; keep Railway stations (since enclosing category for Train St. is Category:Rail transport & also Rail/railway seems to be more commonly used in titles than Train.) Elf | Talk 21:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agree – Quadell (talk) (quiz)[[]] 20:07, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Popular_programming_languages

What is "popular"? This is so wide open to interpretation that it invites edit wars. Programmers are very partial to their favorite languages--I should know... I am one. :) -- Stevietheman 15:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. The "Major programming languages" section in the Programming language article already provides a list *and* a better definition ("used by at least several thousand programmers worldwide"--although I don't know how one proves that-- compared to "currently in use by large numbers of programmers"). If it had to exist for some reason, "Major programming languages" would be a better category--oh, wait, there *is* Category:Major programming languages, also with a better definition. (Also a recovering programmer if that makes a difference.) Elf | Talk 21:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It is not NPOV. --ZeroOne 10:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete – Quadell (talk) (quiz)[[]] 20:07, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
This doesn't include my favorites (postscript, assembly language), so Delete, but first make sure everything there is in another programming language category. --ssd 15:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Since when is BASIC popular? Delete. -- KneeLess 22:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Popular? Open to interpretation and opinion.

Sept 14

Cities and towns (talk only)

I created Category:Cities and towns in Botswana and Category:Cities and towns in Lebanon since I didn't think there was a need for separate categories for Cities, Towns, Villages etc for these countries. I have no objection to these categories being moved to just Cities in X, but shall I take as our standard for countries other than the US, that "Cities" covers any size of urban centre?-gadfium 21:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nice to hear from this original creator, since I had recently got a slight feeling I could have made a mistake renaming it. Clearly, different creators had different understandings of the meaning of city (as explained in the introduction of this precise article city of the Wikipedia). See my ramble about "cities" and "towns" on the talk categorization page ; I perceived your original intent only while writing these reflexions. Thanks for your understanding ! --French Tourist 22:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Record companies

Duplicates Category:Record labels. (And whoever is using redirects on category pages: Stop it!) Tregoweth 01:29, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • As I understand it, there is a difference between a company and a label. Why shoudln't cateogrization reflect this difference?--Samuel J. Howard 01:44, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sept 13

Detroit

Irish reorganization

I'd like to ask that all of the following category names be disambiguated to include one of the following words: "Republic" "Northern" "island" "language" "ethnicity".

There are also currently 3 subcategories and 18 articles in Category:Ireland, which need to be moved to a less ambiguous place, as per the category's header.

(Also, something should be done with the childless orphans, Category:Transport_in_Ireland and Category:People_from_Northern_Ireland. -- Beland 05:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC))

(Oh, and Category:Sport_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland. -- Beland 05:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC))

In the course of reorganization...

Top-level island-wide subjects (for example, Category:Irish_mythology) should be cross-referenced from the top-level of the Republic and the North. And so on for second-level subjects, etc., as needed.

Some subjects are clearly separable; I'm not sure whether they should be cross-referenced from Category:Island of Ireland. For example, right now, we have Category:Towns_of_Ireland, which contains only Category:Towns_in_Northern_Ireland and Category:Towns_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland. Clearly, Category:Towns_of_Ireland should be deleted, but should the two subcategories then be included directly in Category:Island of Ireland?

Some categories are mixed. For example, in sports, some teams represent the island (like the Irish rugby union), and others represent one part or the other. Should there be a combined sports category, listing both Republic and Northern articles and subcategories?

The top-level structure looks like this as of 8 Sep: 

Category:Northern_Ireland
  Category:Airports_of_Northern_Ireland
  Category:Counties_in_Northern_Ireland
  Category:History_of_Northern_Ireland
  Category:Northern_Ireland_people
  Category:Northern_Ireland_political_parties
  Category:Towns_in_Northern_Ireland
Category:Ireland
  Category:Companies_of_Ireland
  Category:Elections_in_Ireland
  Category:Irish_cuisine
Category:Republic_of_Ireland
  Category:Counties_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland
  Category:History_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland
  Category:Irish_Defence_Forces
  Category:Military_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland
  Category:Politics_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland
  Category:Towns_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
Category:Island_of_Ireland
  Category:Counties_of_Ireland
  Category:History_of_Ireland
  Category:Irish_culture
  Category:Irish_institutions
  Category:Irish_mythology
  Category:Irish_people
  Category:Irish_political_parties
  Category:Limerick_topics
  Category:Northern_Ireland
  Category:Provinces_of_Ireland
  Category:Religion_in_Ireland
  Category:Republic_of_Ireland
  Category:Sport_in_Ireland
  Category:Sport_in_Northern_Ireland
  Category:Towns_of_Ireland
  Category:Transportation_in_Ireland
  Category:Ulster

The only extant replacement for the childless orphan Category:Northern_Irish_culture would be Category:Irish_culture. I'm not sure whether or not it should be deleted. -- Beland 05:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is a reasonable case for merging Sport_in_Ireland and Sport_in_Northern_Ireland as most sports I can think of i.e. Hurling, Gaelic football, rugby etc are all-Ireland and would need to be put into both categories. The main sport that isn't all-Ireland is soccer which could easily be solved by subcategories Republic_of_Ireland_soccer and Northern_Ireland_soccer.GordyB 20:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, I disagree quite strongly.
I don't see why all the categories need to be disambiguated. Certainly categories like Category:History of Ireland 1801-1922 shouldn't be altered — the articles are about the history of the whole island, before there was the division between the six counties in the North and the 26 in the Republic. I think the current situation where everything is in a category with a somewhat awkward name is definitely suboptimal. Why can we not have a category of Ireland, with subcategories of Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland; many of the articles in the category tree are about the whole island, and can go in subcats of Ireland and those which are only about one of the two nations on the island can go into the appropriate subcat. Most English speakers around the world couldn't give a fig for the awkward lexical gymnastics we go through so as not to offend small minorities of the people who care about the specifics.
Effectively, I'm suggesting that the hierarchy above (in preformatted text) be left as-is, but with Category:Island of Ireland deleted and its contents moved to Category:Ireland. I don't think Category:Ireland is ambiguous, if it then contains subcats of Category:Northern Ireland and Category:Republic of Ireland. — OwenBlacker 15:21, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
I completely agree. A precedent may be found at Category:Korea. -Sean Curtin 00:09, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Sounds like good plan in the spiriti of cats. --Jerzy(t) 03:31, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

I'm not really offended by use of the short phrase "Ireland" to denote the whole of the island, but when I started to browse the category scheme, I was pretty confused about which subcategories and articles applied to which entities.

I started to notice there was a problem when it became clear that at least one person assumed "Sport in Ireland" means "Sport in the Republic of Ireland". Then I noticed the fact that "Republic of Ireland" seems to be poorly populated compared to "Ireland", and I began to suspect that this was a general phenomenon.

I'll agree that Category:History of Ireland 1801-1922 is a good candidate for being an exception, even though most Americans, at least, won't know that this was a period of Irish unification unless they visit the category and read the header.

The main benefit of including the word "island" in all general-Ireland categories is that it will become immediately obvious when people classify articles in the wrong place because they didn't bother to see if the category existed or was the right one. With the "island" proposal, these would quickly show up in Category:Orphaned categories from an automated scan. --Beland 05:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just add a preamble to each category stating that it is an all-Ireland category or one for purely R of I or NI articles. I created a British Sport category for articles that could not be put in English sport, Scottish sport etc. and added the preamble with links to the other categories.GordyB 16:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the cases of Category:Constitution_of_Ireland and Category:Presidents_of_Ireland using the word "republic" would not be correct in renaming of these. The Constitution of Ireland and President of Ireland legally exist irrespctive of ideas of assigning Republic/Northern Ireland identifiers to disambig. Djegan 22:03, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I strongly oppose deleting or renaming 'Irish' categories.
Does anyone seriously think that a category such as Category:Religion_in_Ireland isn't useful or historically valid?
Categories relating to Irish culture, geography etc should certainly not be reorganised as NI/RoI categories. Island_of_Ireland suggests a geographical bent to related categories which would clearly be inappropriate. The very existence of RoI categories should be enough to make it obvious what the 'Irish' categories refer to. If there is a problem here, perhaps it's insufficient use of RoI categories in the circumstances where that is appropriate.
In my view, only matters which relate primarily to NI or RoI since 1921 should be divided exclusively into NI and RoI categories. For example, most of the history of any given Irish town relates to the period before partition.
Another example: Irish writers since 1921 may usefully be categorised as RoI or Northern Ireland writers but they're very clearly part of a literary culture which predates partition and their categorisation as 'Irish writers' is quite arguably more important.Palmiro 15:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely with Palmiro. For instance, the 'Irish poets' cat lists poets from all over the island of Ireland writing in English, Irish, or (not infrequently) both. They're Irish poets. If you studed Irish poetry at university, you might encounter any or all of them. Please leave these things as they are unless there is some mutually exclusive element. But be wary of apparent exclusivities. You could not write the history of one of the entities from, say, 1922 until today without heavy inclusion of the other! Filiocht 08:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with partitioning the Irish categories into Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland, except where appropriate. It is much better for any non-political topics to be ambiguously "Irish". This avoids politicisation. For a start, concerning famous people who have to be put into categories, for some people it is entirely inappropriate to force them into some kind of "Republican"/"Northerner" categorisation. Ireland is also a much shorter and easier term to apply. It's also correct whether RoI or NI is the place of origin. zoney ♣ talk 12:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, it seems people have rather complex opinions on this topic. Let me ask some more specific questions so we can try to come to some agreement.... -- Beland 06:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Strongly separated categories

1.) Which things should be split up into Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland, with no overlap?

My best guesses based on the discussion so far and current practice:

  • Airports
  • Counties
  • Cities
  • Towns
  • Militaries

Is anything missing from this list? Anything that's here that shouldn't be? What about politicians, political parties, elections, companies, airlines, banks, education systems, etc.? Things that are totally or partly mixed we can deal with in a subsequent discussion - to start with, I'm just asking which things are completely separate? -- Beland 06:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • There are not so many airports (certainly in NI), it makes sense to keep them together, without unnecessary subdivision.
  • There are not so many cities, it makes sense to keep them in cities in Ireland.
  • For the towns, any subdivision is good, and as such, having RoI/NI split is good, although we could/should go further and have Category:Towns in Limerick, Category:Towns in Armagh, Category:Towns in Westmeath, i.e. split by county. This would make correlating the lists of towns for the County pages (see County Cork) much easier. This method of division makes it more geographical and less political.
  • Counties should not be split. There's 32 traditional counties, of the whole island. Northern Ireland has its own "administrative" county/borough divisions, there's pages for these, e.g. Down (district) and they should be in a NI category. Similarly if we ever have pages for the RoI county-level authorities (there's not 26, there's more, because Tipperary is split in 2, and Dublin into 4, with city councils in Limk, Cork, etc.) they go into an RoI category. (We do have North Tipperary and South Tipperary, causing problems as they don't belong with the traditional counties, and duplicate the main county info. So I think rebranding to reflect the local authorities and having a category for those is in order. In summary I propose:
  • Military organisation articles should be divided, though paramilitaries should perhaps not be.
  • Essentially, the other items you suggested, the best solution is to handle them as they arise. If it ends up not well organised, bring it up on talk pages and ask for reorganisation. It's not necessarily possible to discern in advance (in some cases before the articles are there) what categories will be needed. We will pay attention to categories on the Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board though, and consider it as something to have an eye kept on, and something to try to keep organised. zoney ♣ talk 10:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree completely. Filiocht 10:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I also agree with Zoney's suggestions. Political institutions etc in general should probably also be separate, insofar as there are relevant categories (local authorities, political parties, politicians). The small number of all-Ireland parties can happily sit in the Category:Irish_political_parties and perhaps the Republic-only parties should be cleared out of it (PDs and Clann na Poblachta are currently in there - did the Clann ever organise in the North?)
For paramilitaries it's a bit more complicated as the loyalist ones have only been organised in the North (with the exception of the Ulster Volunteers in the remaining three Ulster counties pre-1921) While we're on the topic, perhaps it would be an idea to rename Category:Terrorist_organizations_in_Northern_Ireland as Category:Paramilitary_organizations_in_Northern_Ireland? Given that this is the word most commonly used in Ireland for these organisations and given all the POV-type problems with the term terrorist this might be appropriate. The main problem is that there is a broader Category:Terrorist_organizations which the current one fits into more handily.Palmiro 19:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

2.) How should completely separate items be handled?

  • A. Include "Foo of Northern Ireland" and "Foo of the Republic of Ireland" each in their own country and the meta-category ("Ireland" or "Island of Ireland" or whatever we decide to call it.)
  • B. Include a "see also Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland" in the meta-category.
  • C. Include a "Foo of Northern Ireland" and "Foo of the Republic of Ireland" in a meta sub-category, "Foo in Ireland" or "Foo on the Island of Ireland" or whatever we decide to call it.

I recommend A, and I dislike C. Please feel free to make additional suggestions. -- Beland

Redundant Irish sportspeople

-- Beland 03:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No as to the third pair:
Category:Northern_Ireland_footballers
should be a sub-category of
Category:Northern_Irish_football
and (by some collection of intemediate categories) also a descendant of
Category:People
But Category:Northern_Irish_football
cannot be a descendant of
Category:People
since some of its descendants will be team histories, tournament articles, articles on rules and strategy, etc., rather than exclusively bio articles.
--Jerzy(t) 05:25, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

I'd rather have Irish sport and Northern Irish sport than Sport in Ireland and Sport in Northern Ireland. At least they start with the name of the country, at the moment in the list of sport by countries every other countries' sport section is English sport, Scottish sport etc. to find the Irish entries you need to look under 'S'GordyB 22:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


U.S. vs. American

--Beland 04:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, re US: move both
Category:United_States_sportspeople
and
Category:Sportspeople of the United States
to
Category:American sportspeople
since "U.S." is not appropriate to activities that are almost entirely independent of the U.S. government (decentralized phenomena of American society). The only contexts where it's proper to say either "U.S. athletes" or "U.S. sportspeople" is where there is a formal national team, e.g. in the Olympics.
--Jerzy(t) 05:42, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
I have never heard anyone make such a distinction before. I think it has more to do with whether the phrase works better with a noun or an adjective. Like "American invasion" or "Rivers of the United States" vs. "U.S. invasion" and "Rivers of America". There are 103 "sportspeople" categories, and the only other one that has "Sportpeople of Foo" is Category:Sportspeople_of_the_Dominican_Republic, so I agree that "American sportspeople" is best. Hopefully non-U.S. North, South, and Central Americans are not offended. -- Beland 05:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
BTW, we currently have 250 U.S. categories, from Category:Art_galleries_and_museums_in_the_U.S. to

Category:Women's_universities_and_colleges_in_the_U.S., 208 United States categories, from Category:1950s_TV_shows_in_the_United_States to Category:Zoos_in_the_United_States, and 131 or so American categories, from Category:1951_American_League_All-Stars to Category:World_War_II_American_vehicles. -- Beland 05:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Redundant election results - unpopulated orphans

-- Beland 01:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  1. "Senator" is a common noun unless used as a title before someone's name, so "U.S. senator..."
  2. "Senators elections" can, i guess, mean "Elections of senators", but the American English very seldom uses a plural attributive noun: American two-man submarine, as opposed to (unless i am mistaken) British two-men submarine. Perhaps in part because of that distinction, "Senators elections" rings like a misspelling of "Senators' elections".
  3. But in any case, the American phrase would be "senatorial elections" or "Senate elections".
Bottom line, i suggest "U.S. Senate election results by state"
--Jerzy(t) 06:44, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

Category:Election results in the United States

This is lightly populated, but seems entirely redundant with Category:Elections in the United States. -- Beland 01:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:U.S. Congressmen election results by state

There are only two possible children, for the House of Representatives and the Senate. These should be listed in the parent directly. -- Beland 01:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, no: "Congressman" is used almost exclusively as a title, and only for members of the (national) House of Representatives! Otherwise, the arguments i made re Senate apply here as well, except that there's not a good counterpart to "senatorial". Hence i recommend "U.S. House elections", in which i use uppercase H because these are elections for the U.S. House [of Representatives]). --Jerzy(t) 08:08, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
No, this is a parent category for both House and Senate elections. Postdlf 14:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Sept 12

Ships by use

What's the difference? Are both currently listed in Category:Ships_by_type? -- Beland 04:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Colour/Color

Colour isn't a misspelling it's UK English. As I understand it US and UK English are both considered equally valid by Wikipedia and so unless there is already a category called 'color' it should be kept.GordyB 21:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And there is already a Category:Color. —Mike 00:11, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
In which case which category was created first or has more entries? One of them has to go but which one?GordyB 10:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article is at color not colour, so I think it's preferable if the category is at Category:color.
Maybe we should leave Category:Colour or at least its talk page and note there that Category:Color should be used (or the other way round). -- User:Docu
It does look like Category:Color came first. We don't have Category:Theater in addition to Category:Theatre. I like the idea of leaving the category in existence with an explanatory note, though. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:09, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 11

Category:Mysterious people

Hopelessly vague and subjective. Lunchboxhero 23:02, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • It's POV. Who's to say what makes a person "mysterious?" What criteria were used? Most importantly, why is this distinction considered significant to begin with? Delete. --Ardonik.talk() 23:10, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • It may be POV, but it's a nice collection of interesting people, ranging from clearly very mysterious to somewhat mysterious. I vote Keep'. --ssd 04:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Highly inappropriate as a classification. Postdlf 17:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Propose to approach this in a more wikipedia:categorization of people way. E.g.:
    • Give user:ssd (who created the category), and others, the opportunity to insert a workable definition of what mysterious people should be in this category;
      • I didn't create it. I just looked at it and thought at least three of them were certainly very mysterious,and possibly only notable because of their mysteriousness. Some others probably don't belong there. --ssd 05:03, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Consider whether some kind of merging with List of borderline fictional characters (that contains several definitions of why people can be mysterious/partly fictional) would be useful. (--Francis Schonken 14:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC):)
      I don't think the mysterious people I saw were even slightly fictional. Not sure how that fits a merge. --ssd 05:03, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Please sign *after* your posts, Francis, not before them. And the reason we add the cfd notice, is exactly in order to give people the opportunity to give a reasoning for the category and why they feel the name is appropriate. This process currently taking place is the "opportunity" given. Aris Katsaris 14:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) (I posted a reply to this comment on user talk:Aris Katsaris --Francis Schonken 19:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC))
  • Delete. --Gary D 19:18, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't see any harm in keeping it. It's light hearted and interesting. -- KneeLess 22:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, the name is vague to the point of being inane. -Sean Curtin 00:58, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Definite Keep. This is an interesting little clearing house for all sorts of anomalous individuals. Sjc 04:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is too vague at the moment, but I think that can be mostly cleared up by adding appropriate guidance to the category page. I would suggest this:
This category is for people about whom there is, or was for a long period, an unusual lack of knowledge as to their identity or immediate origins. It should not include people who simply have few facts known about their lives, as, for instance, because they are reclusive.
By these criteria, Pynchon and Salinger should be removed from the category. R. S. Shaw

Category:GFDL images

These are being squirted all over image pages, wasting people time (and database content) .. but are completely meaningless (GDFL explicitly only applies to text). Or, if they are supposed to apply to the text of the image pages, they are redundant. mfc

  • Good gravy, this is one of the largest categories on the Wikipedia (I figure only Category:Stub has more articles under its wing.) I'm pretty sure you're completely and utterly wrong about the applicability of the GFDL to images, but I'll withhold my vote until someone more nuanced in these matters than I can provide a comment. Abstaining from the "strong keep" side of the fence. --Ardonik.talk()
    • Changing my vote from abstain to keep, as I should have done to begin with. --Ardonik.talk() 05:27, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly harmless and automatically added by {{GFDL}}. The GFDL can and does apply to images. Guanaco 20:33, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Is this category in danger of hitting the 15k limit? --ssd 04:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- KneeLess 03:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 10

Category:Priests

As a supposed child of Category:Roman Catholic Church this was very badly named as the word "priests" is too generic and can refer to other religions as well. I moved its contents to Category:Roman Catholic priests which can now take its place. Aris Katsaris 02:56, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

-> My vote: make it parent category;
-> Started treating this in a non-problematic way, according to present wikipedia:categorization of people.
  • Very well, that's a keep now. I've added eastern orthodox priests to the mix, creating another subcateg in it. Aris Katsaris 21:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Anderson; Category:Bauer; Category:Cole; Category:Collins; Category:Fischer; Category:Farmer; Category:Schmitt

Sorry, but these all seem completely stupid. The guy seems to want to make a different category for each single surname in the English language that there ever existed, or atleast ones that he can find more than two people sharing the name!! This is as much a definition of categorization scheme gone wild as one can hope to find. Please delete. Aris Katsaris 22:11, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC).

  • Delete all. Postdlf 22:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow this is an ambitious project! I wouldn't imagine it will end up being so useful, though. Delete. -Seth Mahoney 22:41, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tempted to vote "keep", but for the headache of linking and listing similar-sounding and otherwies linked names. -Sean Curtin 01:47, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quadell (talk) 04:44, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia is not a geneology or surname list; I'm surprised that the creator of these articles was User:Jerzy (one of the admins!) This stuff makes better sense in the Wiktionary, where the etymology and origin of specific names can be discussed. I don't envision people trying to find out who the world's most notable Smiths were by typing "Smith" in the search box.
    Delete. --Ardonik.talk() 00:26, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • (I am the guy adding the stupid cats.) It has been stated, i think repeatedly, that lists are suitable for things like countries, or states/provinces of countries, that have a definite number, whereas cats are suitable instead for things that expand freely; arguments against that should be directed to that policy, not to instances of compliance with it.
    • The scenario of seeing the famous Smiths together is not absurd, just backwards: you don't add them one at a time in order to see them together; you see them together to find the one you want. I was doing something finicky at List of people by name: Bra#Brady a night or two ago, and just by looking without any conscious thought, noticed that Jim Brady wasn't there. While looking more focusedly at the other four Bradys there, it occurred to me neither was his wife the activist, nor Diamond Jim. (A text search didn't turn up Monica Brady (because she's Sarah!), but i didn't waste time text-searching "Brady": this is a wiki, so i followed Jim to the gun-control lobby and found her proper name there. Diamond Jim is a well-targetted text search. Jim/James has an article, and the other two are red links.) My point is that looking at lists quickly does things for the brain that text searching can't. So don't think Museum of the Bradys, think disambiguation. If you look on a dab page for Monica Brady, you find Sarah Brady right quick. To the extent this is about pages to look at, those pages are dabs: what's Hegel's first name? Or Dalton's? (No matter which Dalton you have in mind.)
    • These cats are all responses to corresponding articles (often explicit dab pages but i think sometimes also doing etymology/origin stuff) that others have linked to, from pages in the List of people by name tree. I find these editors generally object to incorporating the list portion of, e.g. Anderson, into List of people by name: And#People named Anderson, with that link taking over the corresponding position in Anderson, and the additions and corrections to Andersons being made in that one place instead of having two lists that need to be either harmonized with each change or (more likely) cross-checked by every reader of them. My outlook is that therefore
      • A standardized link format is desirable. (And the recent spurt in my creation of children of Category:People by surname is the result of another editor's automated LoPbN traverser choking on the free-form versions of such links within LoPbN: when i came to a link in the exception list from the traverser, i standardized the link within LoPbN into a format linking to both the article and a newly created cat.)
      • A category is easier to update than a list:
        • Cat: Look at the bottom of the rendered page to see if it's included, and edit the same page to add the cat tag, just above the language links, if it isn't.
        • LoPbN list: Link to this pages "What links here" page, sequentially search the unalphabetized list there; if you don't find "List of people" there, link to List of people by name, hit End, within-page-click the first letter of the surname, then within-page-click that list's longest leading substring of the surname, which links you to the page where the surname belongs; find a longer leading substring in the ToC of that page and within-page-click on it, sequentially search for the adjacent names it belongs between (but of course it may be already there if you searched the "What links here" page poorly, or if it has the full 500 page-names listed), remember the two; back up and click the "[edit]" link for the section, find the two names again (being careful, because they're in the confusing piped-markup format now), and do your edit.
So it's the better way of raising the likelihood that a bio article gets linked into a single means (not 10,000 unlinked dab pages) of gathering all the bio articles.
    • IMO, you should vote "del" on this if you have a better way of facilitating the ultimate recognition of bio articles. But IMO it will be three to twelve months before we really have much idea of how to make the cat system work long term, and for now, you and i just have theories about it. (Not to mention that the software support for cats is not done. I assume that one upcoming feature is the ability to list not just the children of a cat, but other descendents as well, say three generations, or all of them. And that that is impossible until the system can hunt down cycles, e.g. the 3 cats including "category:computer terminology" that last week worked together to accomplish the trick of each being its own great-grandparent. Probably someone else found it by hand, as i did, but fixed it.
    • If, on the other hand, all you're sure about is that it's conceptually ugly, you should vote "keep" for now, and see what it accomplishes, and how ugly it looks when the cat software is complete. It can still be deleted later on, when its work is done, or when there is evidence that it's simply categories gone wild.
    • My maximum vision for it is influenced by the likelihood that Category:People will have the largest set of descendants that have as much structural similarity as they will. At present, the best guess is that LoPbN has about 25,000 names. IMO more than half of them are live links, and IMO there are another 10,000 to 100,000 bio articles that are not linked by LoPbN. (We know there are 385,000 articles -- tho i don't know whether that counts redirects.) That's significant enough a part of WP that i'd like to think that once we have advanced category support:
      • Tagging an article Jones or maybe even Surname:Jones will have the same effect as Category:Jones (if the cat already exists) or that plus editing Category:Jones and tagging it Category:People by surname (if it doesn't).
      • Having such a tag will
        • guarantee the system will add a (hand-editable) corresponding link to a dab named Jones if such a link doesn't already exist, and
        • suppress the display of "Jones" and display a single-character-sized stick-figure icon in the "Categories" box,
        • incidentally, also do things like suppressing rendering of redundant categories that lack some kind of override qualifier field.
      • Now that i've seen the technique of adding to categories (or their talk pages?) red links for non-existant articles that belong in the cat, i'm getting ready to admit that the end of the manual LoPbN is foreseeable, with various kinds of sublists of the grand list of existing bios' respective people automatically compiled, and even better places to list needed bios (and perhaps generate "shadow stubs", with just name and dates that are visible only when an editor tries to create a new page with the same name)).
      • That turns LoPbN into scaffolding for getting its current contents into the Cat system in an orderly and hopefully automated way. It may still be important to keep it usable in the interim (and make it moreso), by editors who are intimidtated by categories, and perhaps even maintain it through a few cycles of automatic replacement by an autmatically generated similar list.
    • Coming back to the current moment, the surname cats i created all have two or three people in them, but are straightforwardly expandable, in some cases to dozens, just by doing the clerical work of going to the appropriate LoPbN page and following each one's respective link to edit the tag into its corresponding article. Even if manual creation of Surname tags fails to catch on beyond my standardizing links that anyone adds in LoPbN to a surname-dab page, i think the logical extension of it is for bots and/or the future cat system to ensure every article linked from LoPbN or another List of People has at least one "real" cat tab, or a surname-based tag if there are more than 2 (or 20, or however many) sharing the surname, or a "Category:Rare surname" tag for the rest. With a stick-figure icon (maybe at the top rather than the bottom of the page) for those and any other descendants of Category:People, tagging by hand the residue of icon-less bios may become doable -- especially when pages in the town/city/county/state/country hierarchy are tagged with, say, a street-grid icon. And a "Random uncategorized page" link could focus that work further.
    • I'm not very committed to the surname tags, and i'm more interested in this as an object lesson on the Category:People problem. But i do think the opposition to these cats is shortsighted and premature, and i hope they are kept.
--Jerzy(t) 13:55, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
Could you synopsize your argument to three paragraphs or less? And please don't use so many bullets in discussions, because bullets are normally used here to indicate a new post, not subpoints of the same post. It makes it extremely confusing to know when each post ends and the other begins. Thank you. Aris Katsaris 01:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(--Francis Schonken 14:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC):)

  • Added this as a topic to wikipedia:categorization of people (first and, thus far only, example of "problematic" "BC style").
  • My first thought: this is rather a "non-wikipedia classification" topic, but then I thought: hey, wait, all classification at wikipedia is in alphabetical order, so are all surnames. When people are in categories they should be there with a category tag that looks like "category:Topic|Surname, First Names" - then you get the names alphabetically by surname. Don't know whether there is a general problem of not correctly applying the "category" tag?
  • Seems to me a lot of work with only a marginal "bonus" effect to other, already existing systems for grouping people with the same surname at wikipedia.
  • Personally, I'd see disambiguation pages as the best place to do this kind of grouping of surnames. Note that some time ago I put quite some work in finding all Eponym, all First name and all Surname uses of Orlando included in wikipedia, and made nice separate lists about these on the Orlando disambiguation page. Well, someone removed these lists from the Orlando disambig page. Still think what I wanted to do there, more effective than doing this with categorization. Disambiguation pages have both the advantage of being expandable, when new articles are added to wikipedia that need disambiguation in this sense, and the advantage of attempting completeness in a list-like manner. See Singer (linking to Singer (disambiguation)) for an example of how this is starting to work out right. In short, I propose to mention disambiguation pages as a specific listing technique on Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes.
  • However, I have no opinion on whether the "people by surname" category, and its "surname" subcategories, should be kept or not ("people by eponym" subcategory should be kept by all means in my opinion, but could, as far as I'm concerned, be a direct subcategory of "people" category).

Category:United States sport

Redundant as Category:American sports already exists and has more entries. GordyB 10:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. -Seth Mahoney 22:43, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quadell (talk) 04:44, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant category. Note that Category:American ice hockey, Category:Sports leagues of the United States, and Category:United States soccer will need to be recategorized before the deletion. --Ardonik.talk() 00:26, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. United States is the correct designator, American is not. Pethan 09:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. America is a continent. Category:American Sports should be redistributed, along with the fact that it is only one of five in the 79 in Category:Sports by country that uses 'sports' rather than 'sport' (and one of the others – Category:Swedish sports – has a parallel Category:Swedish sport). [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 11:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't care which one goes as long as one goes, if United States sport is more politically correct than American sport then so be it.GordyB 20:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • "American" is the proper adjective to describe someone from the United States, however, and to a lesser degree "U.S." "United States" just isn't used as an adjective. Postdlf 02:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree United States sport is slightly ungrammatical, US sport would be an improvement. I'm going to put one of these categories in the delete me list tomorrow so if anyone else has an opinion please vote because it's one vote for American and one vote for United States and otherwise I'll have to flip a coin..GordyB 16 Sept
  • Keep American sports; remove United States sport. I don't know about the rest of the world, but Americans use American as an adjective in this kind of situation, and use the plural sports.

Sept 9

Category:Ontologically uncertain

This category defines its purpose as, "there is some uncertainty of the existance of the things in this catagory. It may sound odd to have a catagory with members that may or may not exist, but the various beliefs regarding their existance is the cause of many great cultural events." Category is inherently POV, and includes such miscellaneous items as God, Aryan race, and unicorns. Smerdis of Tlön 13:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I kind of like the idea behind this category: all things about whose existence we are uncertain, though I think the title could use some tweaking. I don't think it represents a problematic POV to say, for example, that we are, as a species, not certain that God or races in general (not just the Aryan) exist. The topic is heavily debated. Unicorns, I think, we are agreed don't exist. But yeah! I kinda jive with the category its self. Maybe it just needs some cleanup. -Seth Mahoney 22:48, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Highly POV. The idea can be preserved by making sure that all of the contents are in some way subcategorized under categories that make their status as beliefs apparent (Category:Belief, Category:Theories, etc). -Sean Curtin 01:53, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • As everything ultimately comes down to a belief, theory, or assumption, not so good an idea. Postdlf 06:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I was going to make the obvious argument that there is a difference between my believing, say, in you and my believing in, say, God, when I realized the category should be deleted for an entirely different reason. God should be its only member, or at least is the only member I can think of off the top of my head. Then I realized that other things can be put there, if we're talking strictly philosophy, like numbers, ideas, thoughts, and so on. Now I'm going back to keep, but maybe with a different title and as a subcategory of Ontology. Also, remove the mythical beasts. I still don't think their ontological status is uncertain. -Seth Mahoney 07:03, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
        • Hi, I've never used this part of Wikipedia before, as I am rather new. I actually created the catagory after discussion with some people on http://www.belief.net (a website where people from a few dozen different religions come together to talk). I was asking them about faries, elves, and the like and the forum posters thought the article was insulting because it assumed that these things didn't exist. All the people in that particular forum do believe (at least some of) the creatures exist. So I attempted to make it more NPOV by putting it in a catagory that says some people believe in this, some people down't. I understand how people can dispute teh existance of anything, but I thought to catagory was useful to show that a significant number of people believe that a thing exists while another significant amount don't believe it does. Sorry if my use of catagorization wasn't apropo. I lean toward keep, but I understand the reasons for wanting to delete. I also don't believe those reasons are good enough. You say that there are too many things that COULD be entered. Lets look at other things in Wikipedia for example. Blue for example. There are an infinite number of colours that could be considered a type of blue. Blue is a part of a spectrum that stops at the equally arbitrary colours green and violet. But the article is useful because it gives a basic concept. Another arbitrary concept is Determinism because it is no more externally verifiable than free will. Yet it is still useful to discuss both because there is human discussion (significant) about both. Similarly there is significant discussion about whether certain things are or are not. It is useful to group the things because a person searching for a way to attempt to prove the existance of (or disprove the existance of) one thing can reference another thing that has been similarly debated. They also gain the advantage of seeing the other sides' rebuttles. I suppose that if you are going to take it down, so be it. But I think it has as much (could have as much) significance as many many other articles and catagories. Dustin Asby 10:34, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: could one of you who think this category is POV explain why? It doesn't seem POV at all to me to say "the existence of this thing is contested". -Seth Mahoney 07:04, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Contested by whom? After all, if we really want to remain NPOV we'd have to include Holocaust in this category - the vocal minority of Holocaust deniers probably outnumbers the people who believe in unicorns. And there are still Flat Earthers and non-heliocentrists out there, so all articles relating to space travel and the circumnavigation of the globe should be given this tag. -Sean Curtin 23:23, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • Gotcha. Yeah, I can see where you see the POViness now. It seems to me, though, that there is a difference between saying, as Postdlf does below, that this category will have to contain anything anyone ever doubted and things which are actually contested, that is, things over which there is honest-to-goodness debate on. Unfortunately, I think the dividing line would end up being arbitrary, so I change my vote to delete. -Seth Mahoney 22:25, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. There is no way to make this a meaningful classification, no way to remove POV problems. Do we really want to categorize subjects based on whether some people, somewhere, at some time, had doubted their existence? Postdlf 17:37, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I doubt this category will every grow to be large, but strange as it seems, looking at the items within it, this weirdo catch-all bucket is actually pretty well suited to them, and substantially more useful for holding them than other categories. --Gary D 06:10, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • In a philosophical sense, isn't everything ontologically uncertain? Delete, one person's uncertainty is another person's offense at even noting it (i.e. Holocaust, as mentioned, or even Gulf War Syndrome, or ADD, or whatever), no need to add to that by creating a catch-all category. Anyway, in terms of categories, how is it helpful to have God and Unicorns in the same category unless you are trying to be controversial/pick an argument? It's a bad idea, it will not help anybody find anything ("Hmm, where can I find a list of things which may not exist?" is not, I think, something that comes up very often), and it's name is a tad pretentious at that (again, if we're going to start talking about ontology and Being, we're going to have to include a whole lot of things in this category!). Delete!-Fastfission 02:51, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • That's insulting. How is it pretentious? I couldn't think of a better (and shorter) way to say the same thing. Dustin Asby 10:34, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • How on earth is this a useful category? Delete - David Gerard 15:38, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 7

Category:Vivisection

This category represents a POV expansion of the concept of vivisection as discussed in the vivisection article to include all animal experimentation and cast it in a POV light. An appropriate category would be Category:Animal Experimentation or some such. While arguably, there could be a category about only vivisection strictly construed, only 1 current resident would qualify (there are only 4 as it is) and it would be difficult to verify many residents, and would require constant POV creep policing which we have experienced re: vivisection. Delete.--Samuel J. Howard 21:46, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)


Sept 6

Category:Football venues

Contains one article, might be better within the other categories' Category:Football (soccer) by country -gadfium 04:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you proposing "Football (soccer) venues in the United States"? If so, "Football (soccer) venues" should probably unify them, but this category would still need to be deleted. -- Beland 04:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article it contains is not a soccer venue, it's a football/baseball stadium (or, was, it has since been demolished). Don't delete it. anthony (see warning) 02:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ah, then this should probably be deleted and reincarnated as "Category:Football (American) venues". (Hmm, Category:Stadiums needs subcategorization.) -- Beland

Empty me

The below meet the eligibility requirements for deletion at the top of this page. These categories need to be de-populated.

  • All the subcategories of Category:Athletes need to be moved to Category:Track and field athletes and sub-sub-categories to "Country X track and field athletes" instead of "Country X athletes". Summary of discussion: British English for "track and field athlete" is "athlete", and the American English meaning of "athlete" is "sportsperson". "Sportsperson" is not standard American English, but it is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

Delete me

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=6252610"