Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UtherSRG (talk | contribs) at 02:53, 8 November 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

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

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


How to use this page

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


Special notes

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

Old discussions from this page have been archived to:

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

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

November 8

Category:Engine

Rendundant & non-plural form of the Category:Enginescategory should be removed. I've migrated the few child articles to their proper parents.--Hooperbloob 02:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:U.S. Marine Corps

Redundant sub-category of Category:United States Marine Corps. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Virtual pet games

Redundant category with only one member. The more populated Category:Virtual pets should be used instead. Norman Rogers 01:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 7

Category:Bond

Category:Bond should be renamed to its plural form, Bonds--Hooperbloob 19:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:recursion theory

Category:recursion theory should be merged with Category:computability. I think both categories describe the same topic. According to my knowledge recursion theory is the old term used to describe computability and computable function due to historic reasons (computability defined as recursive functions). Computability is the current and more suggestive term.

I did not know of this page so I already depopulated the page and deleted the content. If the category is not deleted I will try to revert my changes.MathMartin 16:34, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Military equipment

I'm not sure whether these childless orphans should be deleted...these categories seem to be in a state of flux. -- Beland 09:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Childless orphans

November 6

Category:United States third political parties and Category:United States minor political parties

Strongly POV to separate these articles from the two "major" parties. Should be moved to Category:United States political parties. Sarge Baldy 15:11, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

second the notion, third is just wrong (as there are over a hundred of them in the US) and minor (implies these parties opinions are less valid than the big two). Alkivar 02:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not so much less valid as just less accepted. But because there are only two major parties I don't see any reason they can't all appear in the more generic "United States political parties". —Mike 10:19, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
I agree delete and move all to Category:United States political parties. History has shown that the "main" parties do change...Vote in Whigs 2008! Ht1848 00:39, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

November 5

Category:Gulf states

There is already a Category:Persian Gulf states, and the term Gulf states is ambiguous, as the corresponding article explains. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:34, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Chantal Kreviazuk albums

November 4

Category:Airports of Georgia, US State

superseded by Category:Airports of Georgia (U.S. state) Burgundavia 18:26, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Fantasy writers/to do

Created in a misguided attempt to make it easier to navigate from Category talk:Fantasy writers/to do to Category:Fantasy writers. Sole content was 

#REDIRECT Category:Fantasy writers

but the REDIRECT fails to operate. If the first colon is removed it appears as a sub-category. Sorry. --Phil | Talk 14:45, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Forgot to mention: very important not to delete the associated talk page. --Phil | Talk 14:51, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

November 3

Category:Ashlee Simpson albums

She has only one album, so this category is useless, and I refuse to allow the article Autobiography (album) to be so ridiculously categorized (as has been attempted before). Everyking 20:35, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 1

Category:State parks in the United States

A duplicate of Category:U.S. state parks, which is to be preferred for brevity and format (in parallel with its subcategories, e.g., Category:Idaho state parks, etc. -- Decumanus 17:51, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

Category:BBS software and Category:BBS

Unnecessary abbreviation, the proper categories are Category:Bulletin board system software and Category:Bulletin board systems. Rhobite 02:57, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

better known by the abbreviation BBS than "Bulletin Board System" (3 720 000 results) vs "BBS" (32 300 000 results) which is the case in some rare cases like "NASA" for example Alkivar 03:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also think BBS is more clear than Bulletin Board System for general consumption 132.205.45.148 15:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See RAM (20,300,000 on google) vs. Random Access Memory (400,000 on google) for precedent. Even though "RAM" is more widely used, the article here is Random access memory. This isn't a jargon file, we should not use initialisms. This especially applies to categories, which are self-descriptive. Rhobite 18:17, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)


Category:States of Brazil vs Category:Political divisions of Brazil

These categories are almost the same: the only political division which isn't a state is the Federal District. Both categories are populated. I'd be happy to merge the contents to one or the other if I could get some guidance here which way to go.-gadfium 00:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:World_War_II_stub

Has not expanded since its creation. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 05:40, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:World War II equipment stub

Same reason as Category:World_War_II_stub. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 05:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

October 31

Category:Gods and Category:Goddesses

These should be merged into Category:Deities (and then probably sub-categories by type, affiliation, or whatever, due to the sheer number of members) for the following reasons:

-- Beland 23:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Excellent reasons. Delete. VeryVerily 03:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm against gender-categories for real individuals, but in the case of deities I think it makes sense. Gender was such a defining characteristic of the characters and forces in mythology that it makes sense to classify them as such. Male and female were very different powers from one another. Postdlf 03:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Why not just have a third category for Godlings of indeterminate gender, intersexed, or alternate non-male, non-female gender 132.205.15.4 23:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Deleting these will just end up cluttering Deities. Alkivar 02:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into relevant subcategories and delete. I don't see how this would create clutter, rather than clearing it up. -Sean Curtin 04:18, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
perhaps because everyone wants to merge it into the parent group Deities of which Gods/Goddesses are sub-groups? Alkivar 03:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To be clear, these deities shouldn't be just dumped at the top level. That would certainly be cluttered. They should be re-sorted not by gender, but by type or mythology and whatnot, since there are other deities that are already sorted that way. -- Beland
Merge--Josiah 14:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Strongly-typed programming languages and Category:Weakly-typed programming languages

These two categories are fundamentally bad ideas for the reason that you could make an argument for almost any programming language that it is strongly-typed and that it is weakly-typed. See the strongly-typed programming language article for why this is so. These categories should not exist, and therefore should be deleted. (Judging from their comments on Category talk:Weakly-typed programming languages, users K.lee and Danakil agree with me on this.) —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 18:14, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Observer's 50 Funniest

Far too specific, a contest in one year run by one newspaper in one country. Replaced by article Observer's 50 funniest. Riddley 00:39, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 25-30

Category:Axiomatic set theory

This is a duplicate category. The category Set theory covers the same material (and there is no obvious way to tell if an article should be posted in one and not the other).

Category:Gold Mines

Miscapitalized, should be Category:Gold mines. -- Rick Block 19:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Movie Awards

Miscapitalized version of category:Movie awards. Currently a redirect, but category redirects don't really work. -- Rick Block 03:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Inventors of Hawaii

October 24

Category:Nigerian political parties

Category:Nigerese political parties

Category:US-Iraqi relations

rename Category:U.S.-Iraqi relations per MoS. --Jiang 02:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Defunct railroad companies of the United States

Found linked to RfD, should be here. Noel 00:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 23

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)


October 22

Category:Scottish towns

Should be merged into Category:Towns in Scotland; this one is redundant and second is properly named. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... this seems a revisit of the debate further down this list on "Japanese Towns" and "Towns in Japan". I agree with the comments there that some sort of general guidance on place categorisatin would be helpful (I looked but did not find...). Anyway I agree they should be combined, but also think that both the two current titles are presently sub-categorised differently and this also needs sorting. Also the category "Scottish Villages" should either be merged with the "Towns in Scotland" too, or renamed "Villages in Scotland" for consistency. Nashikawa 23:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge with Previously mentioned category.--Josiah 23:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:GNU images

The category name implies images from the GNU project but actually contained images licensed under GNU licences so I moved all the subcategories up to Category:Free images and flagged this for deletion. Gdr 13:02, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Category:Other conditions that may be a focus of clinical attention

Poor use of categories, vague and long name. Rename to "Miscellaneous disorders". -- +sj+ 12:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Rename I agree with Sj. This category name is too long. NeoJustin 22:40 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

October 21

Category:Swiss people by occupation

Redundant, use Category:Swiss people instead. -- User:Docu

Not at all redundant. By clearing the easy categories of "occupations" out of the way, we open up the capability of having the harder and equally useful Category:Swiss people by period, Category:Swiss people by canton, etc. The same goes for all the "people by occupation" categories, of course. Considering how far Wikipedia has come in so little time, this in turn by way of preparation for Categories like Category: 18th-century painters from Zug which will allow researchers to zero in on things much better. (No, I haven't been creating any of these latter double-tiered cats yet.) — Bill
It possible to create Category:Swiss people by canton there without needing to subcategorize everything else. There isn't much need to create categories by period as we can select biographies based on years of birth/death. -- User:Docu

Category:Slovakian people

Redundant with Category:Slovak people. -- Rick Block 02:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This has already been nominated. Delete Category:Slovak people and keep Category:Slovakian people, for my reason see further down the page.GordyB 20:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 19

Category:Towns in Hungary, Category:Hungarian towns

Obsolete, use Category:Cities in Hungary. Markussep 10:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does Hungary not distinguish between towns and cities? In many places, putting a community called a "town" into the cities category would be factually incorrect. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 14:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please explain the justification for making Hungarian towns the same as cities? --wayland 12:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) The distinction between towns and cities is an Anglo-Saxon thing. I doubt Hungarians make any such distinction.GordyB 23:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Minister presidents of Turkey

Empty orphan at this point. User:beland suggested on Category:Orphaned categories using Category:Turkish politicians instead, and all articles have apparently been moved. -- Rick Block 14:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 18

Category:Towns of England, Category:Towns of Yorkshire, Category:Towns of Wiltshire, Category:Towns of North Yorkshire

Should be Towns in, not of. Almost all these categories have only one occupant. Warofdreams 17:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Not surprising, people keep changing the county boundaries. If the regional assemblies bill gets through there will be no 'North Yorkshire' anyway.GordyB 11:08, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Why would that make people use of instead of in? Warofdreams 15:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Dunno that it applies to the Yorkshires, but what I found, by and large — there's always the exception — before I got started was "in" countries, "of" subnational entities. So I've been following that ever since: Category:Towns in Italy, Category:Towns of Umbria. If there's an automated way of transferring them all to one or the other, that would get my vote. (Similarly for American, United States, and U.S.; and X of Y vs.  "Y-ian X".) — Bill 22:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I meant it's not surprising the category is empty. English countie aren't like American states with fixed borders. They are prone to being carved up and renamed every few years. I didn't see much point arguing about North Yorkshire towns when the county might have disappeared (looks like this won't happen). 'In' is better than 'of' GordyB 23:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Replaced by Towns in North Yorkshire etc Jeff Knaggs 11:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Goddesses of hunting, Category:Celtic Goddesses, Category:Goddesses by type

Should be Category:Hunting goddesses, Category:Celtic goddesses, Category:Deities by association. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be Category:Goddesses of the hunt? Hunting goddesses a patron goddess of hunting need not actually hunt, while a hunting goddess, is a goddess that does hunting, and not necesarily the goddess of the hunt either. 132.205.15.4 17:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's more accurate. — Bill 10:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As a parallel to the other goddess categories (Category:Sky and weather goddesses, Category:Lunar goddesses, etc.), it's fairly clear that the intent is to imply goddesses associated with hunting. The adjectival forms work better for most of the other categories; can't there be goddesses who are associated with hunting but could not properly be called "goddess of the hunt"?. Although I didn't create any of these categories so I would not be heartbroken if the scheme were changed. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 03:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think Category:Goddesses by type should be kept to ease navigation. Take a look at Category:Goddesses—the subcategories of goddesses by culture are mixed in with the subcategories of goddesses by type. Why not separate these out? Postdlf 03:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Category:Olympic tennis players of India

This is a very narrow category. There's not much potential for growth. I proposing to delete this category. Alren 22:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 17

Category:Icelandic people by occupation

Redundant with Category:Icelandic people -- User:Docu

This is actually in keeping with other such categories (see Category:American people by professions—whether it is profession or occupation seems to be somewhat random), although I admit that in this case it's unnecessary. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 12:43, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the other category is of much use either, I think it's rather the ones remaining in Category:American_people that could use some grouping. -- User:Docu


Opose to delete both categories. How many Icelanders do you know? How many sagas? How many settlers? I am happy that I found this category. See Egill Skallagrímsson. Gangleri 19:30, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

It's less a question about potential than about not being able to find the articles in too many layers of subcategories. (BTW in the meantime Category:Icelandic people has 2nd direct subcategory). -- User:Docu

Category:Gay icons

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current totals D-11 K-8 L/d-7 (for those interested) 11:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The category is contentious and superfluous at best. There is no definitive way, in my opinion, to concretely qualify one as a "gay icon". As the category stands now, there are over 200 biographical articles placed under this category, nearly all of which have little-to-nothing to do with the gay community. This category should be deleted and the articles should not be moved into any of the parent categories if they are not there already. Hall Monitor 19:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous CFDs here (no consensus from 2004 August 12 listing, keep from 2004 October 17 listing). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I'm beginning to wonder if maybe it would be worthwhile to limit the number of times per four month period or per year or whatever a category or article can be nominated for deletion. It seems like every other week this category or some other LGBT-related category is nominated. (This isn't a criticism of your comments or nomination, Hall Monitor, just an observation and a little speculation.) -Seth Mahoney 19:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
You might want to drop by Wikipedia:Vfd renomination limits. -Splash 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC) fixed red link ∞Who?¿? 21:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There was a proposal along these lines with regard to the GNAA article being nominated for deletion 6 times, but I do not believe a consensus was ever achieved. Hall Monitor 21:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were several strong objections to any strict limit, because it would allow for gaming the system either way around. It is a rare case for an article to be re-nominated, and those that are tend to be well influenced by the previous case. Radiant_>|< 09:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I am inclined to agree that a portion of the articles may not belong, however, I do think that some of the biographies of those who support gay/lesbian rights should be kept in this cat, because they are noted for being "gay icons". Assuming that's what it means. ∞Who?¿? 21:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup I think there is a clear definition of what a gay icon is, and if the ones can be weeded out that are clearly not, it would be fine. Remember, mis-categorization is not a category problem. ∞Who?¿? 11:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is a way to define what qualifies one as a "gay icon". Hall Monitor 21:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First of all, the fact this category has appeared on Rowan Atkinson, Ashanti (singer) and many other non-gay icon-related articles prompted me to get involved in cleaning it up. You remove about 10, and another 20 get added. Some are backed up, but the category simply isn't needed. I think this should go. Cleaning it up has been tried by several people; We all failed. Hedley 21:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the category is somewhat subjective, there are some clear gay icons, people who owe the success or longevity of their careers in large part to gays and lesbians (and they will admit it - Cher, Madonna, etc.) Sure there are some names that don't belong, but those can be trimmed. I've trimmed some of them myself. To delete all this work while keeping so many other worthless categories seems strange to me. --JamesB3 23:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup The category isn't unnecessary, just overpopulated. Most of the articles in this category do not actually state anything about their being a gay icon, and, as a result, shouldn't be there. It should be a rule for this category: Do not include articles that contain nothing about their iconic status in this category. (I apologise for the overuse of 'category' here.) --JB Adder | Talk 23:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete overly arbitrary. A well annotated list would be far more useful. - SimonP 00:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Category is clearly a matter of opinion, not fact, so it breaches the neutrality rule. Osomec 02:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as arbitrary, possibly listify. Radiant_>|< 09:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Far more useful than yet another stupid, ugly unusable list. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (perhaps relistify) - Fails to satisfy (from Wikipedia:Categorization) If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possibly listify (a list can provide more context). Pavel Vozenilek 18:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category is too "fuzzy" and not based in fact. —RaD Man (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arbitrary. It's better to use a list where the place of each "gay icon" in the gay subculture can be motivated, exemplified and put in some kind of context. Uppland 19:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, arbitrary. - Aaron Hill 00:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Inherently POV and unverifiable. Giving it more time, just means ever more celebs will be added to it; and worse it sets a precident for every "Group X" to have "Category:Group X Icons". --rob 03:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup Lots of people have been labeled one, and that labeling is sure verifiable, too. -- AlexR 10:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the comments I've seen seem to justify the need for a category, that could not be served by having a list. To that end, I added all the names from this category to Gay icon and renamed the article List of gay icons. I did this because I think people put a fair amount of work into making the category, and I don't like deleting peoples' work if it has the potential to become something worthwhile. All the articles can be linked by mentioning that the person is a Gay icon. I think this article is similar to Films that have been considered the greatest ever. Lists and articles about POV classifications can be made into something legit. I'm skeptical that the same can be done with a category. Too much explanation is needed for it to be just a category tag. It is important to explain why and how someone is considered a gay icon and include a credible source. That can be done with a link within text. -- Samuel Wantman 11:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per my votes in the previous CFD's. BlankVerse ∅ 13:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to delete: it doesn't seem POV to me unless there is controversy over individual gay icon status, which can be easily resolved by removal. However, it's not hard to verify (check gay press) to determine what is and isn't considered a gay icon. Much nicer than a nasty old list. Leave the Gay icon page for discussion of the itneresting phenomena of gay icons. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per Samuel Wantman. Jonathunder 18:57, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are some pages that definitely belong in the category, so I don't see it as inherently POV. Individual article's categorization might be, but they should be explained in the articles like any other categorization. --Mairi 21:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And while we are at it, can we have a vote to delete the word listify? Or rather, in Wikipedia language, should we votify the issue by listifying opinions to enable use to decisionify the issue and communify the information those who implementify the decision? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be gay to be a gay icon. Many gay icons are straight (Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, etc.) --JamesB3 06:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep then. It is a useful listing to some degree, but extremely prone to NPOV disputes. CrazyC83 21:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


(For an archive of previous discussions, see: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Gay icons (2004))

Presidential redirects

The talk page discussions should be moved over, BTW, because they document the formation of the inclusion policy. -- Beland 03:45, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:United States Minor Outlying Islands

Should be merged with Category:Insular areas of the United States. -- Beland 01:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I sent an email to the OIA and they told me United States Minor Outlying Islands has legal basis. iHoshie 07:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I guess we should mention that fact in the appropriate article(s) if we don't already. -- Beland 01:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 16

Category:US_naval_ships

Seems to be redundant with Category:United_States_Navy_ships. -- Beland 22:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's also Category:U.S. Navy ships. I've been trying to figure this out (without much success) at Category talk:United States Navy ships. I think "United States Navy ships" is to be preferred. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Unresolved; see Category talk:United States Navy ships and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships. -- Beland 02:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Problematic childless orphans

Please help decide whether these childless orphans should be deleted; or kept, parented, and populated with articles. If you are voting to keep, please suggest a good parent category. -- Beland 22:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

People

Heavy Equipment

Misc from 24 Sep 2004

Misc from 2 Oct 2004

Category:Art

It boggles the mind that Category:Arts and Category:Art both exist, and that one is a subcategory of the other, but they both cover the territory of all art(s). Some people think of "visual art" when they say "art", so perhaps "arts" should be used to mean art-in-general, and "visual art" (not merely "art") to mean visual art. I therefore propose the following:

-- Beland 21:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also note reorganization discussion(s) on Category talk:Art which should be preserved if they have not been implemented. -- Beland 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep - I'm not surprised if you are confused, but it is probably best to leave alone. Category:Art is in practice Category:Visual art, but you don't want to call it that because some of what contemporary artists get up to isn't purely visual any more. Category:Arts is the umbrella which includes all the arts, including music and theatre. -- Solipsist 01:25, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Renaming Category:Arts to Category:The Arts sounds like a good idea to me. -- Solipsist 15:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - If it could be reduced to something too logical it would lose the quality which makes art valuable. --wayland 14:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep both. They make sense this way. Filiocht 14:39, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep both. A more descriptive name for Category:Arts, relative to Category:Art, would be nice. Walden 00:25, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
  • Keep both. --ssd 19:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Category:Genera

  • Is it really a good idea to list all genera, regardless of how closely related (or not) they are? - UtherSRG 20:23, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • 'Keep I think having a list of all the genera in one place organizes them better. NeoJustin 22:37 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • If it is kept, then they should atleast make sure it's subcategoried by phylum . (or kingdom or domain (ie. Virii, Archea, Mimivirii, Prokaryota, Eukaryota) )132.205.15.42 17:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comics people

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)


Category:Beach volleyball players

Category too specific with not enough articles, use Category: Volleyball players —Mike 18:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • But these are two different sports! Might as well merger Rugby union footballers with Rugby league players! jguk 20:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm sure some people would merge rugby with rugby with football as well. KEEP they are different sports, you can tell by the playing surface, and number of players on court 132.205.15.4 17:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Slovak vs. Slovakian

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)



October 13

Category:Pediatrics

Was created to be a redirect to Category:Paediatrics "to avoid confusion". But category redirects don't really work, and it's even more confusing as a redirecting sub-category. Needs to be deleted or else there needs to just be a message pointing to (but not redirecting to) the correct category. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note that articles "in" Category:Pediatrics don't currently show up under Category:Paediatrics. Rick Block 01:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to prevent insertions into Category:Pediatrics, because people are bound to try this (especially Americans?) JFW | T@lk 11:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd say put a note on Category:Pediatrics to see Category:Paediatrics, and if articles show up in the former category, move them to the latter. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 03:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suppose it is naïve to think that if you put Category:Pediatrics on Category:Paediatrics and vice versa it would work? - Nunh-huh 04:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't quite work that way. They would look like sub-categories of each other. I removed the CfD notice and added a note that specified that articles should not be placed in this category. How's that? [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Sega Megadrive games

Apparently attempting to be a redirect to Category:Sega Genesis games (Sega Megadrive being an earlier Japanese version of Sega Genesis), but category redirects don't really work. Rick Block 01:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 12

Category:Dead people

Is this a joke? Gamaliel 05:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. - Isn't it a common denominator of the two subcategories? Besides, the description reads: "Do not add articles directly to this category; instead, add them to the appropriate subcategory.". -- User:Docu
Name seems kinda trite, but with above listed qualifications, I see no reason to not keep it. --ssd 12:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - what next? Category: Alive people???? jguk 23:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep only if it is restricted to those subcategories. Delete on sight if it metastisizes beyond that. Postdlf 23:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - The two categories could easily be part of the parent category (People), and thus eliminating an uneeded level of catagorization. Hobie 02:54, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
Keep: useful parent for other categories and not intended to be used for categorization of individual articles. -Sean Curtin 03:37, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Should we also have a Category:People who have lived as a parent to Category:Births by year, and any hypothetical Category:People born by Caesarian section and Category:People born in strange places categories? This is not a vote.-gadfium 05:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Gary D 06:29, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It's against common sense. Etz Haim 20:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Category:Photojournalism

Use instead: Category:Photography -- Beland 06:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Photojournalism is a proper subtopic of photography and journalism(both of which it is...or was...a subcategory)—not all photographers are photojournalists. Postdlf 01:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Looking at the current category structure, Category:Visual journalism is what should go. Photography and graphic design are in no way subtopics of journalism. Photojournalism is the obvious overlap between photography and journalism, it is the subject of its own article, and there are many photographers and works of photography properly classified as photojournalists and photojournalism, in a manner separable from photography in general. Postdlf 01:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Category:Graphic Design fits nicely in Category:Visual journalism but not in Category:photojournalism, so I can't agree. --ssd 12:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • It doesn't fit in either, because not all graphic design is for a journalistic purpose. I wasn't suggesting that photojournalism replace the function that visual journalism serves now—Category:Visual journalism simply isn't a discrete category in the sense it is being used, and the topics within it now are hardly mere sub-subtopics of journalism. Postdlf 23:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


October 10

Category:Eccentrics

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)

Category:Towns in Japan

Duplicate of Category:Japanese towns. 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 — before I did anything — 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 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.) — 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 — suddenly making the top category navigable for visible categories like "Coastal towns", "Town planning", "Town governments", etc.? — Bill 21:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oct 3-8

Category:Island_arcs

Someone accidentally used Category:Archipelagos instead, but I like it a lot better. Or perhaps "Island chains" for the spelling-impaired. -- Beland 03:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with Category:Archipelagos? I have no idea what Island arcs are, and I imagine I'm not alone amongst non-Americans, so I agree that it should be changed. Island chain I can understand, but why not use the right word? jguk 20:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Another American, although who's lived much of his life overseas, who'd never heard "Island arc" before. Glad to notice Category:Archipelagos has already repopulated — Hey, I didn't do it :-) Bill 21:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I vote to move arcs to archipelagos! --ssd 12:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I asked a geologist. An Island arc is a specific type of Archipelago. See Island arc. The term is specific to geology, not to America. (I'm not sure where people got the impression it was.) Do we care to maintain the distinction or proceed with the move? -- Beland 02:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Still move to 'archipelagos'. Most people are unfamiliar with geological terms. And if island arcs are a particular type of archipelago, then there will be nothing wrong in putting island groups that are arcs directly under the archipelago designation. jguk 00:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Liberal parties

Same reason as for Leaders of Liberal parties that was concluded to be POV-centric. Note parties in Liberal International are listed on that page. 132.205.15.42 00:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. The same discussion is going on about the article Liberal parties. Most people at this moment voted in favour of keeping. The same should go for this category. This category is comparable with the other sub-categories in Category:Political parties by ideology (including Anarchist organizations, Christian Democratic parties, Communist parties, Conservative parties, Green political parties, Liberal parties, Libertarian parties, Nordic Agrarian parties, Right-wing populists, Social Democratic Parties and Socialist parties). If one doesn't agree with the categorization of one of these parties in this category, one should start a discussion page of that party or on the discussion page of that category. There was no category of Leaders of Liberal parties, but on Liberal leaders, which concentrated on the United States. It was POV in the US context. BTW, the list includes also many parties outside Liberal International. --Gangulf 20:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As Liberal parties was renamed to List of liberal parties, should not this category also be renamed then, to Category of liberal parties or Parties that are liberal, maybe Politically liberal parties? 132.205.15.42 00:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a easy name to handle. I made a remakr on the category page. --Gangulf 06:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Category:List of liberal parties would solve the problems. 132.205.45.110 15:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand the debate. It seems, to me, to be totally detached from my (European) reality. Keep. /Tuomas 10:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is dependant on the definition of liberal, liberalism, left wing, conservative, right wing, Liberal, and liberal. 132.205.45.110 15:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That is true, but we have an article on liberalism and an article with a List of liberal parties. At the main page of the category there is an explanation why parties are listed in this category. --Gangulf 18:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep category. Not inherently POV; the criteria for the list are explained. Cool Hand Luke 03:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep--Josiah 23:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Catagories for deletion/Galaxies by Constellation and subcategories The consensus appears to be that the "extrasolar system" categories should be deleted (only one keep vote and four deletes, although one was anonymous). Category:Compact stars received one clear delete vote and at least three clear keeps. Category:Neutron stars ended up with nothing but keep votes.

This page is now an archive. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Objects in the extrasolar system and subcategories

Category:Objects in the extrasolar system
Category:Compound objects in the extrasolar system
Category:Simple objects in the extrasolar system
Category:Compact stars
Category:Neutron stars

These categories are not used by anyone except User:Joseph Dwayne, and he cut off the categorizations of several things to put into his pet categories, making them lost from where they were. (Why would Category:Pulsars not be in Category:Stars? It appear in Category:Compact stars with no linkage to stars whatsoever (where it used to sit)). Compact stars is empty, so is Neutron stars. In any case they are in the wrong heirarchy of categories. Extrasolar system also has a different meaning... an extrasolar planetary system. 132.205.15.4 09:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why not simply recategorize Category:Compact stars under Category:Stars? I think it's not unreasonable to have a separate category for these kinds of objects, since they're rather different from the fusion-powered massive objects that are usually what people think of when they think "stars". The fact that they're currently empty doesn't mean they'll stay that way, I can think of several articles that could fall under them. The first three categories listed, on the other hand, are indeed poorly named and IMO probably worthy of deletion. Bryan 00:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I get your point. Compact stars and neutron stars could be recategorized under Category:Stars, though someone should populate them. 132.205.15.4 02:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that "Neutron stars" and "Pulsars" are reasonable categories, though it'll be interesting to decide which ones are notable enough to deserve articles. I'm not sure "Compact stars" is a meaningful and necessary category, though. -- Beland 05:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please also delete these childless orphans: Category:Extended_objects_in_the_extrasolar_system Category:Extrasolar_system -- Beland 05:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Woah dudes, chill out, following the convention used in the astronomical objects article. Why don't you help in filling them up instead of deleting them? *boggle* I remember cutting some cats by accident, but we can include both schemes, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical Objects, I asked there, got no answer so I started categorizing stuff since no one seems to help. But alas, I'm not an octopus and I don't have several hands to do this task alone. Some help would be nice you wacks. —Joseph | Talk 05:20, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the Astronomical objects article, I changed "Extrasolar system", which I find to be somewhat...improper...to "Extrasolar objects". I like the idea of aligning the category scheme with this table. I think that "Solar System" and all the top-level items in "Extrasolar objects" (Exoplanets, Stars by luminosity class, Compact stars, Galaxies, etc.) should also be an equivalent subcategory of Category:Celestial objects. So, keep Neutron stars and Compact stars, and delete the "extrasolar system" categories. -- Beland 05:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC).
I think that "Solar System" and all the top-level items in "Extrasolar objects" (Exoplanets, Stars by luminosity class, Compact stars, Galaxies, etc.) should also be an equivalent subcategory of Category:Celestial objects. So, keep Neutron stars and Compact stars, and delete the "extrasolar system" categories. -- (what Beland said) (extrasolar system is wacky, dude, does that mean everything not in this star system? I'm not sure, I don't get to the 'extrahouse location' much.)Seriously, though Joseph Dwayne, nice try, and we all DO appreciate the effort you are going to to try to develop a usable scheme for this... At least I do... also I think pretty much any pulsar is worthy of an article, if there's enough data. Black Holes too... but should we not call them collapsars, as it seems to me that the term Black Hole is sort of Anglocentric/America-centristic? or am I misled?Pedant 01:35, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Delete Category:Compact stars and put its subcategories into Category:Stars. Category:Neutron stars should be kept and populated. The extrasolar categories including the two listed by User:Beland should be deleted. We already have suitable subcategories under Category:Stars for most of these, and we also have Category:Extrasolar planets, Category:Galaxies etc.-gadfium 00:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sept 2004

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)

That seems a bit extreme. Most people would agree that Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner, but in his autobiography he describes how Amnesty International would not intervene on his behalf because he had engaged in armed insurrection against the state. --Saforrest 00:11, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
-> "...breeding ground for revert wars...": is that a "prophecy", or just a "self-fulfilling prophecy"?
-> "...objective...": please re-read NPOV guideline: "objecitvity" has no place on wikipedia, only a combination of POV's, which is defined as the NPOV.
-> "Amnesty International" is inherently POV (that's the reason why they exist in the first place!), so they have their place on Wikipedia, but not as the only reference for the political prisoner idea: I suggest to make the "AI" political prisoners category a subcategory of the existing "political prisoners" category.
-> For what follows I use some of the terminology of wikipedia:categorization of people, so I go from the supposition Neutrality at least read that article (note: if not agreeing to the content of that guideline, please feel invited to post your objections on its talk page):
  • I saw no attempt to start a discussion on Category talk:political prisoners, and even less an attempt to contact user:Lupin (who had started this category), or anybody who had assigned this category to a wikipedia article.
  • I saw no attempt to give a good category definition of that category, and I see no problem re. the political prisoners category that could not be solved by a good category definition.
  • In short: I saw no avoidance of dispute technique used by Neutrality, before jumping to the 3rd step of a dispute resolution procedure (a poll on CfD) - that's why I called this a "self-fulfilling prophecy" above.
--Francis Schonken 07:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note: de-problematised this category one step by applying "SCD" tool instead of "CfD" - further I move this discussion to the category's talk page: discussion to be continued there first, in the case there would still be problems regarding this category (and its present subcategory). --Francis Schonken 09:11, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete--Josiah 23:43, 28 Oct 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)

All of what? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 13:13, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

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)
"Universities and colleges" is appropriate Canadian terminology; however, would something like "Postsecondary education in Canada" or better "Canadian postsecondary institutions" be better?
Aranel, I think that including CEGEPs on Wikipedia as 'colleges' is borderline; one could argue they are effectively senior high schools. Are all colleges in Quebec really CEGEPs? --Saforrest 23:46, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
I should add to Aranel's comments that there is a pretty sharp distinction between colleges and universities in Ontario, at least, and probably in the rest of Canada too. The ambiguity in American usage does not exist here, so if there are colleges under Category:Canadian universities, they should not be there (or better yet, the category should be renamed to something inclusive). --Saforrest 23:52, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
CEGEPs are not senior high schools. It's the combination of a technical school, pre-university prep-school, community college and liberal arts college. They should not be place in any high school category, since registration and class performance are judged by university and not highschool standards (IOW, it's up to you to pass, they will fail you, if you can't get the class you need to graduate, tough luck, try another semester, inter-CEGEP registrations are permitted, just like inter-university ones). They are also not univesities though... In Quebec, official college type of school is a CEGEP, but any school can call itself a college. As such there are elementary schools with college in their names, as there are middle schools (junior high school), senior highs, technical schools, etc. There are ofcourse subdivisions of universities that are also called college, as there are everywhere. 132.205.15.4 05:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We also have now: Category:Universities_in_Ottawa (childless orphan) Category:Universities_and_Colleges_in_Ottawa Category:Universities_and_Colleges_in_Toronto (Populated, but wrong capitalization.) Category:Universities_in_Toronto (a childless orphan) -- Beland 07:04, 4 Oct 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)
  • Delete both. I don't think keeping these creates any consistency with the Confederate categories, because the U.S. clearly continued to exist during the Civil War, and the Confederacy was a government in opposition. That the U.S. had another nickname during this time does not justify a separate category for that nickname—it's merely going to be confusing to those not familiar with the topic, who are going to think that the U.S. and the Union were two separate things. But it is reasonable to try and subcategorize Category:American Civil War people, so the problem is more the name. We need something more along the lines of Category:U.S. military officers during the American Civil War. Cumbersome, but a more clear designation. Another thing to keep in mind is that we don't need categories for every relationship and every bit of information about a subject. But let's come up with a better solution than "Union" categories. Postdlf 23:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • How about making the Union Navy a subcategory of the US Navy? Or perhaps "Military officers during the American Civil War", with subcategories of "Confederate" and "Union"? Of course, that new category would be a subset of "American Civil War people" which would also contain politicians, activists, journalist, etc. Jinian 17:09, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reincarnated

Category:Olympic athletes

Noting that "athletes" means "track and field athletes" in British English, should we rename this Category:Olympians or Category:Olympic_sportspeople?

Subcategories would also need re-treatment. We currently have two styles: 

* Athletes at the 1900 Summer Olympics
* Olympians at the 2004 Summer Olympics

Could I interest you in one of these instead? 

* 2004 Summer Olympians
* Sportspeople at the 1900 Summer Olympics

These renames could be done by a bot. -- Beland 05:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sportspersons at the 1960 Winter Olympics seems like a nice pattern, or Sportspeople. Atheletes at the xxx Summer Olympics also needs to be changed to the Track and Field Atheletes at the ... 132.205.15.42 00:49, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In this context, in British English 'Olympic athletes' is synonymous with 'Olympians', so I don't see a need to change from 'Olympic athletes'. Using the word 'sportspeople' is distinctly American, and should therefore be avoided if at all possible in an International encyclopaedic. It can be avoided here, so it should be. jguk 20:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Possibly "Olympic competitors" as an alternative? MisfitToys 23:25, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
I like Category:Olympic competitors. Completely unambiguous. Also makes it clear that this category inclues all who compete the in the Olympics, whether or not they win anything. Could theoretically also contain teams. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 02:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Olympic athletes

Noting that "athletes" means "track and field athletes" in British English, should we rename this Category:Olympians or Category:Olympic_sportspeople?

Subcategories would also need re-treatment. We currently have two styles: 

* Athletes at the 1900 Summer Olympics
* Olympians at the 2004 Summer Olympics

Could I interest you in one of these instead? 

* 2004 Summer Olympians
* Sportspeople at the 1900 Summer Olympics

These renames could be done by a bot. -- Beland 05:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sportspersons at the 1960 Winter Olympics seems like a nice pattern, or Sportspeople. Atheletes at the xxx Summer Olympics also needs to be changed to the Track and Field Atheletes at the ... 132.205.15.42 00:49, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In this context, in British English 'Olympic athletes' is synonymous with 'Olympians', so I don't see a need to change from 'Olympic athletes'. Using the word 'sportspeople' is distinctly American, and should therefore be avoided if at all possible in an International encyclopaedic. It can be avoided here, so it should be. jguk 20:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Possibly "Olympic competitors" as an alternative? MisfitToys 23:25, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup overhead

Discussions moved off-page

Please see:

Empty me/Move me

The below meet the eligibility requirements for deletion at the top of this page. These categories need to be de-populated. Discussion on these items should still be listed above.

(User:Pearle will automate article reassignment if she is approved. -- Beland 05:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC))

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=7208771"