Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cmapm (talk | contribs) at 17:06, 17 January 2005 (→January 17). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

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

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

How to use this page

  1. Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or being created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies there, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas. (See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
  3. Please read the new policy at Wikipedia:Categorization of people if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
  4. Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
  5. Add the name of the new category and {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
    Alternately, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
  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.

January 17

Category:Soviet Union physicists

Due to the same reason as for Category:Soviet Union scientists, I have moved all items from the category Category:Soviet Union physicists to Category:Soviet physicists. And Category:Soviet Union physicists should be deleted. Cmapm 17:06, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Soviet Union scientists

Here Category talk:Soviet Union mathematicians agreed, that it should better be not "Soviet Union smth" , but "Soviet smth" or "Smth of Soviet Union". So, I have moved all items from the category above to Category:Soviet scientists. And Category:Soviet Union scientists should be deleted. Cmapm 15:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:German education

I created this category a few days ago, but now moved the items over to Category:Education in Germany, which I believe is more in line with the conventions. / Tupsharru 12:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Social justice

(copied from Category_talk:Social justice, where it got no reply)

"This category includes disparate topics which pertain in one way or another to matters of the human condition by creating a social structure which is more democratic, just, and considerate of individuals from all social stations."

How is this anything other than an extremely POV criterion for a category? Moreover, I'm not even sure it's possible to develop an NPOV one -- most everyone involved in politics believes they're working for social justice in one way or another. It's like having a category for "Beauty" and adding it to various artistic works judged to beautiful. RadicalSubversiv E 11:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Australian fish

Category:Australian freshwater fish

(Nominating these separately from old discussion. -- Beland 06:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC))

I don't see a problem with Category:Australian freshwater fish but I feel Category:Freshwater fish of Australia would be more in line with what I understand of naming conventions. Also prefer Category:Freshwater fish of North America to Category:Freshwater fish of the United States and Category:Freshwater fish of Canada. Pedant 23:51, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
I agree with Pedant as to naming conventions. Using XXXX fish is going to lead to Category:Indian fish, Category:German fish, etc. RedWolf 19:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Category:London River Crossings

There's a strong convention of "Bridges in Foo" for categories. Something needs to be done about Category:London River Crossings; Category:Bridges_in_London also exists. There are a small number of non-bridges in the former, though, including tunnels and a ferry. In contrast, the Holland Tunnel is under Category:Transportation in New York City and Category:Tunnels and Template:NYC Hudson River crossings. I propose putting bridges only in Category:Bridges_in_London, deleting Category:London River Crossings and putting the rest of its contents in Category:Transport_in_London. If kept, it needs to be renamed Category:London river crossings or more preferably, Category:River crossings in London. (This is a re-nomination since the first one was confused and didn't resolve.) -- Beland 06:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Lancaster_County_covered_bridges

Following the general "Bridges in Foo" convention, I think this should be re-named something more like Category:Covered bridges in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. -- Beland 06:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rivers of the world

Previous consensus on "LandformFeatureName of CountryName" faltered on rivers, because continents and countries were treated differently. I'd like to fix this once and for all by establishing "Rivers of Foo" as the convention for all continents, countries, provinces, etc. A list of the state of affairs as of 7 Jan 2005 follows. -- Beland 06:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Why are you listing existing Rivers of Foo that conform to the suggested convention? I would prefer to keep the Foo rivers convention for political subdivisions (e.g. provinces, states) of countries because (1) it grammatically sounds better when referring to them in sentences without having to use piped links all the time; (2) helps set off political subdivisions from the countries (3) I just think it's just less cluttered. RedWolf 06:26, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

    • The Parent Category should instead be changed to Category:Olympians of the U.S.A, the current replacement now places undue emphasis on the controversial nature of what American is taken to mean by people not in the USA. It's discussed in other US/USA/American related category names here several times. 132.205.45.110 14:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • The undue emphasis on the controversy comes from non-native speakers of English and a few academic or amateur-politics sympathizers with them. Whatever may be true in Latin American languages and dialects, in English,
        • "USA" or "US" is a state & a government,
        • "America" is the territory of the USA,
        • "American" is the adjective and noun for people whose permanent home is in America,
        • and anyone who says "America" when they mean "the Americas" is either ignorant of English usage, or more interested in being aggressive than in being understood.
      The Olympians are not chosen or paid by the government, so in this case the controversy is whether to use English to accurately identify the Cat, or to misuse English to forward the PoV that every aspect of America or Americans that might be considered positive is an intolerable affront to Latin Americans. --Jerzy(t) 05:29, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
    • Actually it should be Category:Olympic athletes of the U.S., in keeping with sibling categories. (Unless Olympic competitors is chosen instead...) At any rate, we should wait for a decision regarding the whole set of siblings. (See #Olympic_athletes_of_X.) It looks like we're doing "of country" all around.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Your argument as stated makes sense only on the assumption that having this Cat match the rest of 1 list is more important than having it match all the articles it appears in, and all its sub-categories. I disagree, and expect, at least, wider evidence about the impact that accepting your position would have.--Jerzy(t) 05:29, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)


Given the discussion below (tentatively) approving Category:Olympic competitors from the United States, and given the by_country initiative, I would propose the following resolution (updated Mon Jan 17 05:30:20 UTC 2005):

I'm resetting the clock on this nomination to allow people time to object or support. -- Beland 05:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. I created many of the 'of the U.S.A.' categories to reduce typing, and I'm more or less indifferent whether it is U.S.A. or United States. —Mike 07:26, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Adjective usage and abreviations are less than optimal. Tuomas 07:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Using "... of the United States" is unneeded typing. Even if the adjective forms aren't going to be used, "... of the USA" would be better. Maurreen 16:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support, noting that if we do this with the United States categories, we ought to do it with the others as well. Treating the United States differently because of a political concerns doesn't sit well with me. (I don't see any problem with typing an additional ten characters. "United States" is now much more commonly used than "USA".) -Aranel ("Sarah") 16:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Free trade

This category should be disbanded and its articles distributed among Category:International trade and Category:Trade blocs. Otherwise, there's too much overlap and not enough clarity in navigation. -- Beland 04:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Command and Control aircraft

Should be Category:Command and control aircraft. Also subcategories: Category:British Command and Control aircraft, Category:Command and Control aircraft 1970-1979, Category:Command and Control aircraft 1980-1989, Category:Command and Control aircraft 2000-2009, and Category:British Command and Control aircraft 2000-2009. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:21, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Electronic Warfare aircraft

Should be Category:Electronic warfare aircraft. Also subcategories: Category:Brazilian Electronic Warfare aircraft, Category:Brazilian Electronic Warfare aircraft 1990-1999, Category:Electronic Warfare aircraft 1960-1969, and Category:Electronic Warfare aircraft. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 16

Category:PBS network affiliates

Should be Category:PBS member stations. As pointed out by an anon on Category talk:PBS network affiliates, the PBS network does not have "affiliates", unlike other television networks. older≠wiser 22:40, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Minneapolis, MN

In keeping with other existing categories that involve cities such as Category:Birmingham, Alabama and Category:Birmingham, England, Category:Edmonton, Alberta, this category should be renamed to Category:Minneapolis, Minnesota. This was also suggested on the discussion for Category:Birmingham. RedWolf 19:28, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Baha'i

The category was misspelled, Bahá'í has accents in it. I've moved all the subcategories and pages that pointed to the Baha'i category to the new one. So there is no need of for the old one any longer. -- NavidAzizi 18:11, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Category:US customary units

I'm posting an entry here for this category - since the requester has not done so. This category is claimed to have been moved to Category:Customary units in the United States - this is not the case. Only two of the dozen or so articles in the former category have been moved across to the new category, while the old category has been comprehensively emptied. While I have no problem with the new name for this category, why hasn't the new category been fully populated before requesting deletion of the old category? Ian Cairns 15:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Kzzl pages

A fairly obviously useless category which only includes a single user subpage. --Lexor|Talk 10:04, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Users typically don't get to have their own categories, I think. --ssd 17:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why was this category deleted before the minimum 2 day policy for speedy deletion? RedWolf 19:48, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
The policies at Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Categories for deletions policies do not exactly agree. The former specifies 24 hours. That's probably the source of the confusion. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:20, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Copyright Expired Encyclopedias

No need for a category, and it's bad grammar anyway. Neutralitytalk 07:11, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • I think there's enough entries in this category to justify its existance. I agree with you on teh grammar, though. --ssd 18:02, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename. I would agree with ssd that this category should be kept as others might find it useful for locating content (although usually dated). However, if not deleted, it should be renamed. Some possibilities might be Category:Copyright free encyclopedias or Encyclopedias out of copyright . RedWolf 01:23, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Universities and colleges by nationality

I'm moving all the "universities and colleges" articles and categories to the more standard "colleges and universities" form (see [1]). "Nationality" is also bad grammar when referring to institutions. I think we should move it to Category:Colleges and universities by country. --Neutralitytalk 06:47, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with the change of "by nationality" to "in country". However, the change from "universities and colleges" to "colleges and universities" is not at all appropriate. Most other countries don't have "colleges" in the U.S. sense (or in any sense). Google is in this case likely to reflect American usage; any combination of these words in either order is likely to do that, as non-Americans would not mention "college" in the same breath as "university" in any case. Using "college" at all in the name of the category is U.S.-centric (or at the very least anglocentric), but I can accept that as long as "universities" stand first. It can then be understood as universities and other, variously named institutions of higher learning (whether they are called Fachhochschule, academy or something else). In any case, the change to "in country" is probably uncontroversial, but these changes should be discussed separately. / Tupsharru 07:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • OK with changing "by nationality" to "by country", but "Universities and colleges" is much better than "Colleges and universities", IMO. older≠wiser 16:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Tupsharru. At least for the Netherlands, college should preferrably not be used, as it is confusing: a college is a "high school", while an equivalent of American colleges could be named a 'hogeschool (literally "high school"). Looking at the article college, the situation in Belgium, France, and Germany is almost the same. So if you move Category:Dutch universities, call it Category:Universities in the Netherlands; don't mention high schools. Category:Universities and colleges by country is OK; "Colleges and universities" is worse. -- Eugene van der Pijll 17:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • What about using something like Category:Universities and institutions of higher learning? Then one can include French Grandes écoles, German Fachhochschulen, and whatever else there may be that doesn't really fit in under the term "university". The U.S. categories can still use the word "college". / Tupsharru 19:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Villages in Iwafune district

I'm categorizing all Japanese villages/towns articles by prefecture (not district). One village was in this category (which I've recategorized, so the category is now empty). -- Rick Block 01:28, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Gunma District, Category:Towns in Aida District, Okayama, Category:Towns in Haibara District, Shizuoka - ditto -- Rick Block 01:35, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Israel geography

To be consistent with other category names, this category should be renamed to Category:Geography of Israel. A vfd notice was placed on the category page instead of a cfd notice when the Landforms category tidy-up was listed on December 5, 2004. The talk page describes why it was deleted and rational opposing the change. I have updated the talk page stating that I will re-list it separately from the original broad Landforms category cleanup on December 5, 2004 due to the incorrect tag being placed on the page. RedWolf 01:55, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Swedish forests

No cfd/cfr notice was placed on this category in the Landforms tidy-up. I just found this one tonight and added it to Category:Forests. Rename to Category:Forests of Sweden. RedWolf 03:21, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Ontario cities

Rename to Category:Cities in Ontario to be consistent with all the other subcategories of Category:Cities in Canada. RedWolf 04:12, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

January 15

Category:Painters_by_country

Delete; use Category:Painters_by_nationality instead. -- Beland 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What's with Pearle nominating soft redirect pages for deletion? Do we want to keep those or delete 'em? --ssd 18:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by "soft redirect"? Subcategories of Category:Wikipedia category redirects? Sortior asked if I could check these for articles that need to be moved to the destination of the redirects, but I'm happy to let the "category redirects" continue to exist. I will not be able to implement automated scanning this weekend, though. -- Beland 03:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Standardize usage for U.S. Virgin Islands

Given that Category:Virgin_Islands redirects to Category:U.S._Virgin_Islands, and that's prevailing usage for article names, I propose:

"By country" categories

We have a lot of "Something_by_country" categories and a lot of inconsistency in naming. Sometimes, we see e.g. "French places", other times, e.g. "Places in France". In the cases nominated below, I propose that we standardize on the "Foo in/of/from CountryName" style. (There are other cases with the same problem, but which are more complicated or controversial.)

  • The adjective form is often akward, sometimes prompting people to inconsistently use the noun form as an adjective. Consider:
Category:Trinidad_and_Tobago_sportspeople
Category:Saint_Kitts_and_Nevis_sportspeople
Category:UAE_sport
Category:Quebec_politics
Category:New_Zealand_politics
Category:Congo_DR_sport
  • People often use improper or controversial adjective forms. It's Pakistani but Afghan, not Afghani. Argentine, not Argentinean. Some people consider "Northern Irish" to be just plain wrong. And we've had no end of argument between "American foo", "U.S. foo", "United States foo", etc.
  • Some people argue that the noun form is also clearer. "Irish foo" might, if misread, be interpreted as "Irish language foo" or "Ethnically Irish foo" as opposed to "Foo of France". Category:Indian_weapons - American Indian or subcontinental? I'm still confused about ethnicity vs. nationality in Slovak vs. Slovakian, and who really knows why the adjective form for The Netherlands is "Dutch"?

-- Beland 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The adjective form is more natural and it's easier to type.
Also, I acknowledge that I don't usually follow this page, but I think other places would be more appropriate for this topic (such as naming conventions, more general category pages, wikiproject for countries). I think interested people might not see it here. Maybe it would be good to at least mention it at the Village Pump. Maurreen 08:51, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The adjectival form is more confusing, and open to all of the problems that beland mentions above. Consider "Foo of Niger" and "Foo of Nigeria", for instance. I'm also getting fed up with ficxing the non-existent term "New Zealandian" which some Wikipedian seems to have invented. Grutness|hello? 10:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • We spend a lot of time fighting over which adjective form to use, particular in cases such as Niger/Nigeria where the adjective in English is not clear. Avoiding the adjective is also an effective way to avoid having well-intentioned people attempt to invent a way around using American. I very much support this proposed standard. (Note: We're not generally talking about a massive change of all existing categories in each group. Quite often there are sister categories using both systems.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The adjective is more common, and may feel more natural, but the nouns don't have the disadvantages of the adjectives. Nouns would solve plenty of controversies, avoid a couple of misunderstandings, and hardly introduce any problems. In many instances it solves sensitive issues connected to minority ethnicities. Wikipedia ought to express preferance for nouns without expecting uncontroversial adjectivical forms to be (rapidly) converted. /Tuomas 08:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Standard form for country names

When the pattern is "Foo of CountryName", I propose that the country name should be the same as it appears in the title of the article about that country, with an optional lowercase "the" if needed for grammatical purposes.

Entites on both the List of sovereign states and List_of_dependent_territories are currently included in "by country" categories. The European Union is also listed because it sometimes has its own category (for example, for EU elections). Those articles, and many titles, links, and references may need to be updated. Whatever standard forms we decide upon should also be submitted to Wikipedia:Manual of Style and documented there and/or on /resolved.

We also need to know what the convention will be so we can fix various By_country categories.

The following are the standard forms I think are appropriate, for the cases where there may be some ambiguity. -- Beland 02:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree I heartily endorse the category scheme for countries as Beland has laid out. I find the adjective form for the categories to be very problematic. I think the Whatever of Foo to be much better. Sortior 04:27, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree as well. Ye gods what have I started... Way to go, Beland! Grutness|hello? 11:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree /Tuomas 08:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Note: Links to articles are shown only for reference; links obviously cannot appear in the actual title of a category.)

Congo-Brazzaville:

Congo-Kinshasa (formerly Zaire):

China:

Taiwan:

OK, I myself am having second thoughts. Maybe "China" and "Taiwan" would be clearer. Or at the very least, "Republic of China (Taiwan)"? This would break the convention of sticking with what the articles are named, though. Unless, uh, the articles are renamed. -- Beland 11:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Ireland, when separated:

Ireland, when combined:

Greek and Turkish Cyprus usually have combined categories:

West Bank and Gaza Strip:

I strongly disagree here. "Palestine" is a historic geographical term, and is not interchangeable with "West Bank and Gaza Strip". I suggest using "of the West Bank and Gaza Strip" for geographical issues, and "of the Palestinian National Authority" for political issues (such as "political parties"). -- uriber 12:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Uriber, you are not making sense here. I do not follow what you are trying to do here. There were and are various contexts for the use of Palestine and they may all be correct. You cannot "standardize" various periods of history.IZAK 11:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In short, what I'm trying to do is to keep the concepts of Palestine, Palestinian, and Palestinian national Authority apart, as they are three distinct concepts, which are often confused. Palestine is a historic region, the Palestinians are (arguably) a people (which appeared only many centuries after "Palestine" was a well-known term), and the Palestinian national Authority is an autonimous state-like political entity governing parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (which, in turn, happen to be parts of Palestine, and the home of some of the Palestinians). This is complicated, but not without precedent: cf.: Jews/Judea/Land of Israel/Israel, United States/American. -- uriber 13:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's make this more concrete...

Huh? How is the following making anything" more "concrete"? IZAK 11:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I included the list here so that instead of arguing abstractly about classes like "geographical" and "political", we could just deal with the actual categories we have to rename.
Excellent idea -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Should be Category:Airports_of_the_West_Bank_and_the_Gaza_Strip (unsigned comment)
This category contains the following disclaimer:

Note: Palestine is not a country. These airports are located in the contested Gaza Strip and West Bank. Airports of Israel can be found under Category:Airports of Israel

Is this appropriate? Should Category:Airports of Israel also contain a cross-reference? I guess if the name is changed, the disclaimer is no longer necessary. -- Beland 03:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No problem here (except for the category itself being dubious - but that's another issue). "Palestine" was a concrete political entity in 1948. -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Should be Category:Elections_in_the_Palestinian_Authority (or Category:Elections_in_the_Palestinian_National_Authority). -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Depends on what's in it. I would keep this category for the historical stuff, but also create Category:Palestinian_National_Authority -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Should be Category:Cities_of_the_West_Bank_and_the_Gaza_Strip
Once again, depends on what's in it. If it's stuff about the history of the Palestinians, the current name is fine. But there should probably also be Category:History_of_Palestine for articles about the history of the region. -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This should remain as it is, since it's about Palestinian people, not about Palestine. -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Should be Category:Political_parties_of_the_Palestinian_Authority. -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The official article's title is Palestinian National Authority. -- Beland 03:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Should be Category:Sport_in_the_Palestinian_Authority. -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The official article's title is Palestinian National Authority. Is this category about government employees who play sports? -- Beland 03:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This one and the three below it should remain as they are, for the same reason given in Category:Palestinian_people. -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I realize this seems complicated and non-consistent, but you have to remember that unlike other cases discussed here, there is no independent state called "Palestine", so it's natural that "Palestine" does not fit into a template designed for independent states. -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Given the overloading of the term "Palestine", I can definitely see your point. I'm going to remain neutral here, but I would like to request some clarification...for each of the above categories, what would be the preferred new name? -- Beland 20:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good qquestion, I agreee, what the heck is goin on here??? IZAK 11:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


The above is correct for the episodes of World War I IZAK 11:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The above is the name of the main article in Wikipedia on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. IZAK 11:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What would you call the areas of Ottoman aand British Palestine, if not "Palestine"? IZAK 11:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, so I take it these 3 can remain the same. Do the others need to change, to e.g. "Category:People of the West Bank and Gaza Strip"? -- Beland 11:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Independent country:

U.S. territory:

USSR when it existed and Russia today:

USSR when it existed and the same geographic region today:

When considered separately:

Others:

-- Beland 02:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    • Agree, but note some inconsistencies are possible with the leading definite article. You've caught "The Gambia" well, but as I found out recently, talking of something being "in the Ukraine", whice seems correct in English, is actually disliked by Ukrainians. I note, BTW, that many Korean categories are combined for the whole peninsula - when not, the seem to use "North Korea" and "South Korea", IIRC. Grutness|hello? 10:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I certainly hear journalists say things like "people in Ukraine", and I accept either "the Ukraine" or "Ukraine" to be correct. None of the existing article and category titles use "the", so I'm adding a note above to keep it that way. -- Beland 11:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some more conventions...

As needed:

(Serbia and Montenegro are in a loose union; according to the article, Kosovo's status as a province of Serbia is disputed and it is currently under UN administration.)

At the (necessary) risk of opening a further can of worms, what convention ill be used for (FYRO) Macedonia? Grutness|hello? 11:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Transportation_by_country

Subcategories are all "Transportation in Foo" except we have:

"Transport" is the term actually used in Ireland.

This is a precedent-setting decision. Should we have a universal form for this type of category, or should we vary the form to allow a more local flavor? Consistency might make navigation easier, but for article text, there is a precedent to use local terminology if applicable. I suspect that "Transport" is also used the UK and some other Commonwealth countries. If we decide to allow variation in this type of case, should we actively investigate usage in the countries for which categories exist, or allow passive changes over time? What should we do about non-English-speaking countries? -- Beland 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See also the next entry...

  • I would vote for Transport of Ireland, for the English forms, I think it is best to try to keep the international flavour of Wikipedia, we can easily add a category redirect for Transportation and Transport if there is confusion. But users in Ireland, England would look for transport and not transportation. Sortior 04:32, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't bother me to mix them up a bit if there are folks who seriously object to using Transportation as the standard, although it does tend to cause confusion in assigning categories. (It would always be necessary to check before assigning a transportation category.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps an energetic youngster or bot can be convinced to create the alternative redirects for all transport/transportation categories. —Michael Z. 05:08, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

Category:National_parks_by_country

(Mostly "National parks of Foo".)

This is a lot like the "transport" vs. "transportation" case, but in this case the vocabulary variation seems to have an even stronger justification. -- Beland 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Should we agree on a generic term, like protected areas or designated areas, for cases where a country has national parks, national wildlife refuges, national historic sites, national marine protected areas, etc, which will all be in one category? —Michael Z. 05:10, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

Category:Lakes_by_country

  • Fooish lakes -> Lakes of Foo
    • (Currently mixed usage.)

-- Beland 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    • While I agree at the country level of using Lakes of Foo, I'd prefer using Fooish lakes at the subdivision level (e.g. provinces/territories, states). RedWolf 17:14, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
That does seem to be common practice (which I personally happen to follow) but, for argument's sake, what justifies the inconsistency? -- Beland
Category:Lakes of the United States and Category:Lakes of Australia use "Lakes of X" for subcategories. Category:Lakes of Canada has Category:Ontario lakes (the only province subcategory) and Category:Lakes of the United Kingdom has Category:English lakes (the only subcategory). "Lakes of X" seems to be the standard for subdivisions. It certainly makes sense for U.S. states (where the adjective is often unclear or obscure). -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So will it be Manitoba lakes or Manitoban lakes? I think Lakes of [insert province] is better for the same reasons as Lakes of [insert country]. —Michael Z. 05:14, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

FTR, these are not in Category:Lakes by country but represent countries or supranational areas, and don't fit the existing pattern. -- Beland 02:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

May I ask: Why not Category:Lakes in Foo? /Tuomas 08:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In general, man-made places (such as cities and towns) tend to use "in" and landforms (mountains, bays, etc.) tend to use "of". I'm not entirely sure why this is the case; the standard is of necessity somewhat arbitrary. (It's often not important which standard we use, as long as we have a standard.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 16:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Category:African lakes and Category:Asian_lakes

Would it be worthwhile to delete Category:African lakes and Category:Asian_lakes and put the country subcategories in Category:Lakes by country? Articles about lakes that cross international boundaries could be added to multiple countries there, too. -- Beland 02:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Lists of lakes

Would it be worthwhile to merge Category:Lists of lakes into Category:Lakes by country, since they effectively serve the same purpose? -- Beland 02:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Libraries_by_country

-- Beland 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree strongly with Tupsharru. In theory, both Foo-language libraries and Libraries in Foo (country) may become relevant, but it's important to make the distinction. Adjective would rather be connected to language and/or ethnicity. Nouns are less ambiguously indicating states, lands, countries, territories and whatever. /Tuomas 08:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Shooters_by_country

I'm not sure "shooters" is the best word, either. -- Beland 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • er... trappist, pistoleer, target shooter, marksman? 132.205.15.43 02:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • not "Trappist" - unless you want to confuse shooters and monks! I think it also depends what you want - people who compete at sporting events like the Olympics as shooters (in which case you can't use "Pistoleer" - since they use shotguns IIRC), or people who have used guns in military/paramilitary situations (in which case they're probably covered in other categories anyway). I think that if you're talking sport "Shooters" is correct, though. Grutness|hello?
    • Out of context, the phrase "German shooters" makes me think, "Murderers who shot their victims and who are from Germany". Perhaps "sport shooters" is closer to what is intended.

Category:Weapons_by_country

  • Change all subcategories from "Fooian weapons" to "Weapons of Foo".

-- Beland 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Machine_guns_by_country

-- Beland 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Snooker_players_by_country

Change all "Fooian snooker players" to "Snooker players of Foo", and especially Category:Indian_Snooker_players -> Category:Snooker players of India. -- Beland 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Sportspeople_by_country

Change all "Fooian sportspeople" to "Sportspeople of Foo", especially Category:Northern_Irish_sportspeople -> Category:Sportspeople_of_Northern_Ireland.

Category:Cinema_by_country

Change all "Fooian cinema" to "Cinema of Foo". -- Beland 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Category:Films_by_country

Change all "Fooian films" to "Films from CountryName". -- Beland 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Disagree! Films are culture, hence rather related to ethnicity and language than to states. I don't care in what country a Finnish film is made, as long as it is in Finnish and reflects Finnish culture.
:-) /Tuomas 08:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree! I don't quite share Thomas's argument, as I think that the -ian adjective does mean the same as "from foo" (and it is customary to list the country of origin, or financing, of films); so I don't see any point in making the titles longer and more complicated. (Especially in our case; it's not so long ago I finally could move "Literature of the Czech republic" to "Czech literature"... --Malyctenar 12:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Standard preposition for island countries

In "by country" categories, the preposition should be the same for all countries. For example, most countries have a "Category:Transportation in CountryName". Island nations should not have a "Category:Transportation on IslandName", even if there is only one island in the country. Instead, they should have the uniform, "Category:Transportation in CountryName".

Articles to rename:

to Communications_in_the_U.S._Virgin_Islands
to Transportation_in_the_U.S._Virgin_Islands

Categories to rename:

    • I tend to agree here, although I feel the people of the Isle of Wight would be surprised to see the island suddenly upgraded to country status! Grutness|hello? 10:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I am not certain this is a useful move. There is a case to argue that these categories have all been named thus by their creators because this is the correct way to refer to that class of article. I'm not at all sure what difference there is in use of 'in' and 'on' when referring to a nation or not. There are also various Islands (such as the Channel Islands) which are arguably nations - or not. If you are going to make this change you should change all categories, or indeed all titles and text, referring to Islands to 'in'. This would be wrong. I'm from the Isle of Wight, not a nation or likely to ever be one. On the Isle of Wight (see what I did there?) the term used is invariably 'on'. I write using this term and I believe it to be correct, and indeed I would go so far as to say that to use 'in' is not just a less-favoured alternative, but wrong. I couldn't say what other English-speaking islands use, but for at least one Island it would be erroneous to make the change. Naturenet 23:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • ah. perhaps personal bias was coming out for me (I live in the South Island of New Zealand!) Grutness|hello?
  • Oh, whoops. The Isle of Wight is not in the List of dependent territories; I think I must have confused it with the Isle of Man, (which is) while grepping on the word "Isle". Isle of Wight categories should not be changed, since it's an island which you are on, not a country or quasi-country you are in. -- Beland 02:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, after that prompt response, no objection. But I do wonder whether any of those other Island nations have the same convention as we do on the Isle of Wight. Otherwise why would they have created those categories as they are? But that's speculation, and if other islanders want to object, that's for them to do. Naturenet 08:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Roman_Catholic_Churches

Rename to Category:Roman_Catholic_churches. -- Beland 02:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Sesame Street characters, Muppet

This category name implies a heirarchy, I think this category should be moved to Category:Sesame Street muppet characters instead. Bryan 04:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 14

Category:NET programming languages

For some reason this category was created using "NET" instead of ".NET" (dot NET) as the qualifying part of the name. I simply tried creating a category of the proper name, and since I succeeded doing this (at least, so far so good) I found no reason to use an improper name for the category. --Wernher 20:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Diarists by nationality

(also Category:British diarists, Category:English diarists, Category:Welsh diarists)

This entire scheme is quite underpopulated, and the List of diarists page doesn't offer much hope of even Category:Diarists growing too large. The diarist connection is a very loose one – even moreso, a grouping of them by nationality. I don't see the point in sending a reader to a subcategory two levels below Category:Diarists when that sub-category contains only 3-4 articles. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

  • Retain I have had a long debate with this user, who is relentlessly determined to sabotage my work on the overall British Writers category. I have been supported by two other users on my user page and he has been supported by no-one.
    As Netoholic knows, these categories are part of my effort to create an overall category for Literature of the United Kingdom, which has involved me making a number of edits which must now be a long way in four figures. No one else has objected to any aspect of this project, which I believe to be of great value. The reason for having detailed subcategories is that I wish to ensure that all British writer articles can be accessed through the global writer categories, the "Literature of the United Kingdom" menu, and the main categories for each of the nations of the UK (England, Soctland, Wales and Northern Ireland). It is distressing that just one aspect of this project is being subjected to a sustained attack, as without the diarist categories, the whole project can never be fully completed. If Netoholic cannot see any merit in the category system (he has told me that I should be using lists and only lists), he should not try to inflict this limitation on the rest of us.
    There are "by nationality" categories for around a dozen types of writer already, so the debate on whether such categories are appropriate should be considered closed. As the number of articles increases more subcategories are required (especially as the subcategory menus do not work properly where there are more than 200 articles in a category). Furthermore it is desirable to create categories which clearly have a future as soon as possible, so avoiding the need for the categorisation of the relevant articles to be done in two stages.
    There are now 16 articles in these categories. There will be more in the future. There are hundreds if not thousands of prominent writers and other public figures who have published diaries. If Netoholic thinks the list of diarists is too short, perhaps he would like to expand it. It would certainly be a more useful contribution to Wikipedia than his current obsession with destroying my categoriesPhilip 23:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    I think you may be prescribing too much, basing it on a false understanding. We've agreed that we should be "frugal" when assigning categories in a "vertical dimension". This is because categories aren't primarily meant to exist as a top-down scheme for filing. Our readers come to the Category space to find articles of similar interest. In Samuel Pepys, for example, I would say that using Category:English writers and Category:Diarists are just about as detailed as you need to be. Both would be useful for readers, in different contexts. By using Category:English diarists, you bury it in a thinly-connected scheme below where it would be helpful. If the answer to the question "Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?" is "No", then we shouldn't use it. I doubt very much that England has a connected historical tradition of keeping diaries to where you could make a convincing link among these authors. -- Netoholic @ 00:28, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
Of course it is possible to write a few paragraphs about the tradition of keeping diaries in Britain. I would be rather surprised if no academic has written a whole book on the subject. Why don't you do something more useful instead of keeping up this insulting and distressing barrage? Philip 00:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The idea that one category is sufficient for all English writers is ridiculous. There were already many categories for different types of English writer before I discovered Wikipedia, so it is utterly pointless to reopen the issue now. There were also several categories for British writers, and the two systems were operating in parallel, meaning that they were both incomplete and liable to mislead readers about the amount of material avaialable in Wikipedia. I am trying to reconcile the two systems. I wouldn't mind only having categories for British writers, but aware that this would offend the sensibilities of the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, I have taken on the extra burden of devising a system which embraces both approaches. It is very upsetting that the feedback I get is an attack on one small corner of this project, repeated over and over and over again, and not accompanied by the slightest recognition of the overall effort I am making.
You have misunderstood the point about "frugality" which is a request not to put articles into both head categories and their subcategories, rather than a comment of any kind on category creation. Furthermore, you are once again invoking a gently worded suggestion as a firm rule which you imply I am obliged to follow.Philip 00:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Retain. I can't see a problem with these categories, and we have someone who cares passionately about them.-gadfium 01:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with Netoholic that this sort of overcategorisation is not good. Diarists is a narrow enough category, without breaking it down by nationality as well. I also think that Pcpcpc should try not to see Netoholic's vote for deletion as some kind of personal attack. Remember to assume good faith - enhancing the usability of Wikipedia is our common interest. Well done for your efforts, Philip, but remember this is a community effort and all contributions are likely to be edited mercilessly.
  • Retain. I don't see this as over-categorisation - they fit in with the guidelines, are very similar to many other uncontroversial categories, are being actively developed, and have great potential. Why delete? Jihg 22:00, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

January 13

Category:Disorders usually first present before adulthood

Unwieldly category name. Needs recategorizing. Any suggestions for a new category name? Alex.tan 02:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Childhood disorders. Vacuum c 19:50, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree with Vacuum, that was my first thought as well, although the "usually" might be a stumbling block. RedWolf 22:31, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)


Category:Fictional celts

How many articles about fictional hand weapons do we have? Now, I might support Category:Fictional Celts. RickK 00:59, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Replaced with Category:Fictional Celts. -Sean Curtin 06:22, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Pregnant women

Res ipsa loquitor. Postdlf 00:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • English please. Nevertheless, this category would be a maintenance headache. Delete RedWolf 22:31, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • "This one speaks for itself". Maintenance headache and definition headache. Women who have been pregnant (that's what? 40-50% of them?). Women famous while pregnant? Women currently pregnant? Articles relating to pregnancy? And does the category name indicate a distinction bbetween these articles and ones about pregnant men? This is in the running for most delete-worthy category of the month. Grutness|hello? 22:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Links to this category would be too temporary without any real social impact.Lokifer 22:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Disorder

We've caught all the sub-categories, but shouldn't the parent also be Category:Disorders? -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, rename. RedWolf 22:31, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

January 12

Category:Rhyme lists

The articles that were in this category were listed on VfD and deleted, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of -uck words and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of -ack words. -- Eugene van der Pijll 17:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Adjustment disorder

A while back, this category was nominated for renaming to Category:Adjustment disorders with no opposition. As there is only one article (with the same name), should we just delete it outright? Also, the original article is a stub. --ssd 07:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Locomotives by Builder

Incorrect capitalisation, new correctly capitalised version has been created and populated instead. —Morven 19:58, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Locomotives by Railway

Same as above. —Morven 19:58, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Defunct Sports Teams

Incorrect capitalization; correctly capitalized version has been created. —tregoweth 02:58, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

January 11

Category:Crime

I vote it to be merged into Category:Crimes, which grew large (hence sounds more natural) and overlaps "crime", bot in terms of content and "chapter". Mikkalai 02:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Crime should talk about crime, where Crimes should list types of crimes and such. These seem different to me. ---ssd 07:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I was thinking that Category:Crime should be the category for articles defining crime or talking about it in the abstract, and Category:Crimes the category for specific acts of crime. Thus Murder and Arson and such would go in Category:Crime; an article about the murder of Kitty Genovese would go in Category:Crimes. Thoughts? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • In this case I suggest the category name should be category:Acts of crime (subcategory of "cat:Crime") or similar, to avoid confusion (which is the case right now) with very similar names. In any case, the two are for significant cleanup. Also, clear charters must be written for these categories. Mikkalai 20:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wushu

This category was meant for articles relating to contemporary wushu, which can also be referred to as just wushu (these articles will likely be seperated in the near future). The category was changed into Category:Contemporary wushu to make it more clear, as wushu by itself also has other meanings. We use Category:Chinese martial arts as the main category for Chinese martial arts. --Wintran 09:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Outlaw Star

Its articles, except Outlaw Star are currently being nominated for VFD. Basically, the entire category and its articles should be merged into Outlaw Star. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Looking at the Outlaw Star articles, it seems that there's an article that should be in the category that's missing from it, Angel Links. That would make it a two article category... which is a bit small. I agree with DELETE (though Angel Links should in no way be merged) 132.205.15.43 02:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete RedWolf 06:38, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Steam locomotives

This category has been rendered redundant by the introduction of the Category: Locomotives by Whyte classification, which includes all steam locomotives. Musicandcomedy 13:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    • I agree there are many ways of dividing steam locomtives, but if we have all steam locomotives in a category organised by Whyte notation and then again in a category organised by owning railway company, why would we need another category with all steam locomotives in without any arrangement? Musicandcomedy 16:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • As a container for the other steam locomotive categories. It's also the case that someone encountering an unclassified article and not familiar with the classification schemes will want to put the article into a more general category (steam locomotives is a good example, other umbrella categories include, in biology, insects and arachnids) Then the article will be visible to people who find themselves maintaining those categories in detail, and they can pick up the task of refining the classification.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I take your point, but I would have thought that the overarching category Locomotives should be sufficent for the needs of non-specialists. My concern about putting the Whyte Notation category in the steam locomotives section is that diesel shunting locomotives are also described by the Whyte Notation (in the UK at any rate). If we are to have subdivisions by Whyte in both a steam and non-steam category, things could get complicated. Why not leave division by Whyte as a sub-category of Locomotives and ignore the extra layer of steam or non-steam? I still can't see what it's adding. Musicandcomedy 16:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 10

Category:Computer and video game franchises

I think Category:Computer and video game franchises and Category:Computer and video games by company need to be merged. --ssd 07:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • These are not the same things. Several game franchises are spread ACROSS several companies. Civilization, MechWarrior, etc. 132.205.94.5 21:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep for the reasons stated above. --LostLeviathan 04:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the two are not the same thing. However, there are franchises in the second, and games in the first. I think they both need to be kept, but sorted out first. --ssd 04:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete: There doesn't seem to be any particular criteria for inclusion other than "it's got one or more sequels", and most games that are notable enough for WP articles have had sequels or remakes. -Sean Curtin 21:08, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Television stations in Albany / Schenectady & Category:Category:Television stations in Albany / Schenectady / Troy

Moved to Category:Television stations in Albany / Schenectady / Troy and one was a typo, thanks. --Boothy443 06:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I think there's still a problem with the name—while the stations' broadcasts may reach all three cities, the stations themselves are obviously not in all three cities. The name is also rather cumbersome/awkward. Why not "Television stations in Albany metropolitan area" or something similar? Or keep the stations categorized at the state level, and just directly include the station articles in the general local categories. Postdlf 00:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 9

Category:Austrian caricaturist

If this category needs to exist at all, it should be Category:Austrian caricaturists. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is this someone who draws caricatures of Austrians or an Austrian who draws caricatures of someone? I think if it's the latter, it should be Category:Caricaturists of Austria to be more in line with the category naming convention as I understand it. Ideleting this category though, as it doesn't seem particularly useful. Pedant 23:56, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Category:Child sex offenders

This category has the same function as Category:Pedophiles. One of them should be merged into the other. jguk 12:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think it serves the same functin. A child sex offender would be one who violates the laws of the locality in which they comitted sexual acts against a locality dependent definition of a child in a locality dependent definition of age of legality for sexual activity, wheras a paedophile would be a person with sexual interest and attraction in pre-pubescent children. Note "pre-pubescent" and the lack of any connotation of legality. 132.205.94.5 21:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 8

Category:Gay or lesbian politicians

I question the value of this category. I wonder, what is the intention? To me, it seems similar as creating categories that single out Jewish politicians in Christian countries. It gives me the impression that Wikipedia here serves to boost prejudices and reinforce negative perceptions by means that are not related to the policies and ideologies these politicians represent. /Tuomas 06:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't see the problem really. We have Category:Gay writers and a few others I've noted.--ZayZayEM 14:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or refocus to Category: Gay activists. Gay writers can at least be assumed to cover Gay themes with a certain degree of self-acquired experience, but people listed as (or factually being) gay politicians do not have to make much use of their sexual orientation in their role as politicians. Beside Tuomas' argument, I think it makes Wikipedia too much of a gossip source. Sexual orientation of politicians, of professionals, of athlets, of militaries are of limited relevance.Roy Cohn is probably an example of how this category is used for the purpose of defamation. --Ruhrjung 16:13, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Presumably you don't live in one of the many countries where such issues as gay marriage are being debated at government level. In circumstances such as these, gay politicians do make use of their sexual orientation in their role as politicians. Gay politicians and gay activists are overlapping categories, but nowhere near identical. Keep. Grutness|hello? 07:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "Gay activists" is far too broad. If the current category invites speculation about closeted politicians, then change it to Category:Openly gay or lesbian politicians. BTW I don't get the Roy Cohn example; how is it defamatory, unless what's written in the article is untrue? Rd232 17:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe my grip of English is insufficient with regard to the meaning of defamation. I mean: How should his (closetted) sexual orientation be relevant? How should a summary of people with a certain stigma in a certain profession be relevant to anything? To me it has the taste Guilt by association, and of producing lists of Muslim shopkeepers, where patriots aren't supposed to do one's purchases, or of Jewish corporations whose products are to be shunned by Christians. Beware! --Ruhrjung 20:36, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, sexual orientation isnt relevant for categorization RustyCale 20:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. They are Gays who are politicians, there are Gay activists, and there are [locality] politicians, but I don't think there are "Gay politicians" per se. We wouldn't have a "left-handed politicians " category, though we might have separate categories for politicians and for lefties. -Willmcw 21:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep An imperfect analogy would be the 50's when magazines for African-Americans would report every appearance of a Black on television because there were so few of them. A gay politician, especially one who is fully open about their sexual orientation, is still fairly rare in the 21st century. I might have heard about many of those politicians in Southern California that are gay, but it is rare that I will know about a gay politician outside of California (for example Pim Fortuyn), and that is why the Category should be kept. On the other hand, this category should be used only for those politicians that are fully out, and shouldn't be used for speculation or "outing" anyone (such as the conservative S. Calif. Representative who may, or may not be, gay). Dead people, however, who might not have been out, but where the evidence is pretty convincing (e.g. Roy Cohn) should still be in this category. gK ¿? 02:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If it's to stay it should at least have some of the more notable gay politicians such as Peter Mandelson, Peter Tatchell, Ron Davies or Nick Brown. And Jeremy Thorpe, maybe, too. I was interested to see Daniel O'Donnell there - but then I saw that it wasn't the famous one that's being referred to:) jguk 12:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems that every time somebody creates a category even remotely connected to LGBT anything, somebody else tries to have it deleted. In fact, I seem to recall that when Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people came up here, somebody proposed breaking it down into smaller categories such as "Gay writers", "Gay politicians", "Gay activists", etc., and now that that's been done, somebody wants to delete those, too. Gay politician qua gay politician is still a notable thing in and of itself, precisely because there are still relatively few who are open about it, and it is a categorization of specific interest to many people. After all, people regularly maintain entire websites devoted just to listing famous LGBT people. Bottom line: there is no valid reason for deleting this category that doesn't ultimately boil down to flat-out homophobia. (And as for Roy Cohn, it's a recorded fact that he regularly had sex with men, and it's a recorded fact that he died of AIDS. I just don't see how it's defamation to call him what he quite obviously was.) Bearcat 23:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"as for Roy Cohn, it's a recorded fact that he regularly had sex with men, and it's a recorded fact that he died of AIDS" I'm pretty sure that dying of AIDS is irrelevant to being gay. I'm not quite sure that only gay people have sex with people of their own gender either. I'm not against keeping this category, but I think it should only include people who have stated themselves that they are gay. I also prefer Homosexual to Gay as being more clinical and precise in meaning, more suitable for an encyclopedia. Gay is a little ambiguous. (Is it queer for someone to be a gay heterosexual?) Also prefer the term heterosexual to the term straight. Just a comment. Pedant 00:55, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
    • Seems to me that it's a valid sub-category of Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people, although it should be changed to include bisexuals and transfolk. Iotha 23:24, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, so he may have been bisexual. Sue me. But he regularly had sex with other men, so he definitely wasn't straight. (Straight people might experiment once or twice, I'll grant, but if it's a regular ongoing feature of their sex lives, straight they ain't.) And as for dying of AIDS, well, no, it's not diagnostic of being gay, but it does have some bearing on the fact that he was having sex with men. Bearcat 01:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I'm also sick of the argument that we shouldn't have gay categories if we don't have left-handed categories; the two are in no way comparable in their relevance to understanding a person's historical or cultural context. Bearcat 01:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (and not much reason not to, and some reason to, move to a bi- and trans-inclusive title). Samaritan 06:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if sexual orientation were a valid wikipedia classification (which I don't think it is), this is over-categorization. What's next, Category:Adopted handicapped African-American gay or lesbian politicians from Arizona? If you want this particular cross-section of information on wikipedia, then make a list article. Postdlf 01:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete Make it a list and not a category.Lokifer 22:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep or devolve to list - This is critical information for both pro-gay (to identify positive role models and allies) and anti-gay (to identify negative role models and enemies) advocates, and for the average citizen. An annotated list may be less likely to offend because it can say exactly why someone is included on the list. However, we do have Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people. After debating on Wikipedia:Categorization of people, we decided to put little disclaimers at the top of some categories, including that one, and deal with ambiguity in terminology by stating clear inclusion criteria. This category could/should have both of those, since the main one does. I think I've voted previously to convert these categories to lists, where it would be much easier to distinguish gay from bi from maybe-gay from not-gay-wink-wink, for anyone who cares. Though the lists we have, last time I checked, aren't particularly meticulous. But we should either do that for all the BLTG etc. categories, or none. -- Beland 11:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment Some people are uncomfortable putting LBGT people in the spotlight, because it sounds to them like discrimination to point out people's differences. Other people are uncomfortable leaving people in the dark about the sexual orientation of notable individuals because it makes them, as well as any discrimination they might experience, invisible. It sounds like there are well-meaning, pro-LBGT people in both the "no darkness" and "no spotlight" camps who suspect everyone in the other camp of being anti-LBGT. It would be funny if it weren't sad and a little alarming. (Not that there aren't anti-LBGT folks around, though they are probably also split between the spotlight and darkness camps, wanting either to expose behavior they see as immoral to public shame, or to "protect the children" from what they see as negative role models, and so on.) I hope that keeping that in mind will help make such debates more civil and more productive. -- Beland 11:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)



January 7

Category:Airports of the Republic of China

Rename to Category:Airports of Taiwan - let's use non-political and common terms for non-political subjects--Jiang 00:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. Current name endorses cross-Taiwan strait territorial claims. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, use official name. Neutralitytalk 03:29, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
If we use the official name, then do we use official borders too? If this is kept, should I list every airport in mainland China and Mongolia in this category too? --Jiang 09:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Wikipedia policy is to use common names, even when the official one isn't as much a hot potato as this one. Rd232 17:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Use a name everyone understands. The term ROC isn't used this side of the pond and I imagine most people here don't know what it means, jguk 12:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Halibutt 05:53, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Reason? --Jiang 09:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Extension notice The category was not tagged with a cfd/cfr notice when it was listed which is not in keeping with proper procedure. Thus, I ask that this request remain on CFD for an additional 7 days, that being until January 22. RedWolf 05:12, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Airports of the People's Republic of China

Rename to Category:Airports of mainland China as the category does not include airports in Hong Kong and Macau. Another solution is to create Category:Airports of mainland China and make it, and Category:Airports of Hong Kong and Category:Airports of Macau, subcategories of Category:Airports of the People's Republic of China--Jiang 00:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is clear enough as it is. Not to mention that parts of Macau and Hong Kong are attached to the Chinese mainland. We'd presumably need a separate "Airports on Hainan Island" category too... jguk 12:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Please read the article on mainland China. Hong Kong and Macau may be geographically attached to the mainland of Asia and are part of China, they are not considered part of "mainland China," in the way the term is widely used. Hainan island is part of mainland China under the common definition. The current title is not clear because it implies that Hong Kong and Macau are included when they are not. --Jiang 09:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Keep the category, make the Hong Kong and Macau categories subcategories of it. Grutness|hello? 04:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Put Airports of Hong Kong into this category and you've solved the problem. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Extension notice The category was not tagged with a cfd/cfr notice when it was listed which is not in keeping with proper procedure. Thus, I ask that this request remain on CFD for an additional 7 days, that being until January 22. RedWolf 05:12, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)


January 2

Category:2000s albums

Empty category; inconsistent with all other Category:Albums by year subcategories. Elf | Talk 18:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Personally, I think the 'album by year' categories should be parent categorized by decade as films (and other, less modern media) are. If the vote is to delete this, then Category:1990s albums should be deleted as well. -Sean Curtin 05:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. I am reminded of Robert Christgau's books of record reviews which he comes out with once a decade... It may just be a question of setting up decade categories for the existing by-year categories. I vote NO deletion. Alfvaen 03:30, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Extension Notice I ask that the normal 7 day voting period (which has expired) be extended for an additional 7 days from this point to allow members of WikiProject Albums to cast their votes as many members of this group would be affected by this change and were likely unaware of this category being listed on CFD. I have posted a notice on the project's talk page. RedWolf 04:48, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Here is my vote. I believe that it was removed twice due to edit conflicts. Tim Ivorson 10:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. I agree with the above reasons. Did the proposer think that it meant 2000's albums or albums of 2000-3000, rather than albums of 2000-2010? Either would be understandable, but I don't understand why albums should not be categorised by decade. Tim Ivorson 12:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 1

Category:Interstate highways in Alabama (and the other 49 states)

Should be Interstate Highways in Foo. I know this isn't normal capitalization, but an interstate highway is a highway that crosses state lines. An Interstate Highway is a highway in the Interstate Highway System, which these are. --SPUI 00:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree There is a subtle difference, but yes I think you are correct and it should be Interstate Highways in Foo. Note that Puerto Rico has them too...so it is not just the other 49 states, though a quick perusal shows that some states are Interstate Highways in Foo along with a number of the article titles. Sortior 00:29, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Since {{cfr}} or {{cfd}} notices were NOT placed on the category pages, should this set of categories be re-listed as it strictly did not follow the procedure? RedWolf 01:30, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it bothers me little, but the rationale behind using caps makes sense, akin to internet vs. the Internet. And similarly, the larger part of common usage does not necessarily conform to this standard, but that does not mean that one should ignore the correct method. zoney ♣ talk 10:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pearle is currently tagging these. I would leave a few days for further comments. -- Beland 07:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't feel strongly either way, but lean slightly towards leaving highway uncapitalized as I do not think the phrase "Interstate highway" is a proper name. "Interstate" yes, but adding the word "highway" is merely a somewhate redundant indication of the type of highway. That is, all Interstates are highways, but not all highways are Interstates. older≠wiser 13:44, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

December 31

Category:Towns in India

Should be merged with Category:Cities and towns in India. -- MIT Trekkie 23:53, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) Actually, both of these should be deleted and merged with Category:Cities in India. -- MIT Trekkie 02:39, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Cities and towns are different things. It should really be the other way round, considering many of the sub-categories in Category:Cities in India. -- Necrothesp 16:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it would be better to merge both Cities and Towns into Category:Cities and towns in India until someone starts the very large project of sorting them out by some clear criterion (this might be a good task for a bot). Otherwise, some categories will be invisible and/or confusing to readers. The province-level categories do not distinguish, and neither does Cities, I assume. Beland 07:06, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Bad jokes and other undeleted nonsense

Okay before everyone gets mad...I just think we need to move this page to Category:Wikipedia bad jokes and other undeleted nonsense. This category is really wikipedian humor and shouldn't be part of the main name space of the encyclopedia. All the linked articles are in the wikipedia name space. Then we can parent it to Category:Wikipedia humor which is linked to Category:Humor but makes a cleared distinction about what is really in the encyclopedia. — Sortior 07:18, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

This was not tagged. Please allow a further 7 days for objections. -- Beland 07:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

December 28

Category:Paediatrics

Main article is at pediatrics. There's currently a soft-redirect from Category:Pediatrics. A spelling convention should be chosen. As writing the article was likely a bigger task than creating the category, I vote that we conform to the article naming, and move Paediatrics to Pediatrics, leaving a soft-redirect in place, as it is now, but on the opposite article. — grendel|khan 03:10, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

  • Keep, Wikipedia accepts both International and American spelling. - SimonP 20:04, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Rename to align with article name. --ssd 15:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename article. The two should have the same name, but redirects work far better on articles than on categories. Grutness|hello? 13:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    I agree in that I think the article name and the category name should be aligned. However, I' m not as certain which way it should go, and on reflection, the soft redirect needs to be kept and/or recreated either way. --ssd 05:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • We could just rename everything pædiatrics. (note: æ is actually English, if disused) 132.205.15.43 02:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Not so much disused as rare (sadly - words like amœba and encyclopædia just look wrong without the ligature!). But I think that'd just add a further complication. Grutness|hello? 13:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Proprietary games

Far, far too broad to be useful. -Sean Curtin 03:05, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete see also the discussion page of the Category itself. Horst_F_JENS 20:42, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
  • Delete Rjo 22:52, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete See Category_talk:Proprietary_games for more justifications. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:15, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete I created the category, but the response has been overwhelmingly negative and the justifications respectable. --Ellmist 06:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As already indicated by Ellmist, and the discussion on his talk page. BFunk 12:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let me go against the consensus on this one....I vote we keep this category, but remove all entries that already are in a category for a software company. IF and only if the category is then empty, delete it. Since the consensus is to delete anyway, I'll check the first few now, perhaps all of A or something. --ssd 06:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • This category makes no sense. Delete. Andre (talk) 07:21, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think the category should simply be emptied at this point without attempting to put them into other categories. Computer and video games are already categorized six ways to Sunday without adding even more (pointless IMHO) categories. RedWolf 06:32, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

December 25

Dukes and Kings of Bohemia

Category:Dukes of Bohemia and Category:Kings of Bohemia should be merged into Category:Bohemian monarchs. These two categories are redundant and violate common standard of Category:Monarchs. Qertis 14:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Um...who wrote this? Grutness|hello?
Ducal titels have generally so little in common, that even Category:Dukes may be seen as redundant. This is certainly no argument against single and transparent category populated by all Bohemian monarchs ruling in a direct succession for over 1000 years. Splitting this line into two is absolutely useless. BTW what about Category:Kings? It's empty. And Maria Theresa of Austria? She was qeen, not king. And what about Category:Polish monarchs? It should be than also depopulated and subcategorized into Category:Dukes of Poland and Category:Kings of Poland. Be consistent! -- Qertis 10:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the whole Category:Heads of state subcategories are a bit of a mess. However, whether a subcategorization of rulers of the country makes sense depends on the particular historical situation; there's certainly no one-size-fits-all solution. If subcategories add information, I think it is beneficial. I am still contemplating how to best subcategorize Category:Rulers of Austria (dynasties? proclaimed or officially recognized titles?). With respect to Maria Theresa, you are right, this was my mistake when I created the kings category. Maybe Category:Kings and Queens of Bohemia would be better. Martg76 16:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep per Martg76 comments. Sortior 05:00, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. In the case of Bohemia, such a distinction is rather artificial, as there wasn't really a difference, other than prestige, between the title of Duke and King of Bohemia. -- Naive cynic 12:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


December 22

Category:London Districts

Badly capitalised categories. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose - these were amongst the first-created categories and (personally - ymmv) and just as there is the 'London Borough of xxx' I feel that this word order better reflects usage and meaning. --Vamp:Willow 23:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • While we do tend to prefer the older category if they are both equally good, this is clearly not the case here (unless "District" is somehow a proper noun, but in the category description it is not). If not part of a proper name, words in a category or article title are not capitalized. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree; a capital D does not fit Wikipedia's downcase style. "Borough of Foo" is a proper noun, and thus must be capitalized. In this case, "districts" is not part of a proper noun. -- Beland 05:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:London districts; Category:London Rivers is miscapitalized and should be renamed to either Category:Rivers in London or Category:London rivers is ok, but it would be best to try to match prevalent convention. --ssd 16:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree: Rename to Districts of London - the word London is not an adjective. Saga City 09:19, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree, but London is an objective because it is frequently used as one, even if some people think it is an incorrect usage.
  • I am now inclined to prefer Category:Districts in London to match the Japanese district categories. See for example Category:Districts in Aichi Prefecture. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:21, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:London Government

Badly capitalised categories. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose - these were amongst the first-created categories and (personally - ymmv) and just as there is the 'London Borough of xxx' I feel that this word order better reflects usage and meaning. --Vamp:Willow 23:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The current standard for government categories is "Category:Government of X". See, for instance, Category:Government of Israel, Category:Government of the UK, and Category:State governments of the United State. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Government of X. -- Beland 23:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Government of X. — Sortior 19:01, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Rename as 'Government of London'. Dbiv 02:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think "Local government in London" would be preferable:most of the organisations listed in the article are not concerned with the government "of" London, but only of a part of it. To me a phrase like "Government of London", while appropriate for a sovereign state, or a city or province with a high level of federal or devolved powers, misrepresents the situation in London, and therefore also misdescribes the contents of the category.Philip 11:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If recent category clean-ups suggested below are anything to go by, there is a gradually approaching consensus of "Natural features of X", "Artificial features in X". Thus "River crossings in London", "Rivers of London" ("Rivers in..." is not the standard! See Landforms tidy-up below!). Government is a little different, not being a geographic term. Personally I'd favour Government of London, but ymmv. As far as Districts is concerned, "Districts in London" makes sense, but there are several other "X districts"-type categories, so just dropping it to a minuscule would be okay by me. Grutness hello? 01:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Sorry about that. Thanks for that catch. It's one of the two, anyway. -Aranel ("Sarah") 13:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
IMO "Government of London" would be seriously inappropriate and misleading because most of the bodies in that category do not govern London at all, but either only administer some services in a small part of it, or are specialised agencies, or have even less "governing" power than that. "Administrative bodies in London" would be more better.Philip 10:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 5

Category:Unfair games

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

  • Keep - unfair games are mentioned in game theory as a game where a given player has an advantage. According to this definition, the game does not have to be un-winable. A google search for "game theory"+"unfair game" turns up 608 hits. Among these hits is this one claiming Dreidel is an unfair game: http://mathforum.org/library/resource_types/games/?keyid=11792260&start_at=51&num_to_see=50 This is a well known game so perhaps it will be added to this category with others.
  • Comment. Why isn't Tic-Tac-Toe in there? More seriously, I'm concerned that one of the two articles, Last stone game, includes two other uncreated categories, Category:Number games and Category:Tricks. This topic of game categories needs review by someone who is familiar with it. -Willmcw 11:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well, now it has two entries but unfair games doesn't even have an article. RedWolf 06:35, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

December 4

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

December 3

Category:International trade

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

Currently, the two categories have way too much overlap. The problem is that international trade is a subset of international economics. Therefore, if we only retained the category international trade, we would be unable to properly categorize some articles pertaining to international economics. And the term "international economics"　is often used. A Google search for "international economics" turns up 1,500,000 hits—not as many as "international trade"'s 8,660,000, but still far from insignificant. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:55, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - The subject of international economics as taught in economics schools and the subject of international trade as taught in business schools are quite different. There is however an overlap (as there is between any subjects). This is complicated by the fact that some economists use the term international trade to describe a subcategory of international economics. Mydogategodshat
  • I do not find any articles in Category:International economics that do not related to "international trade". Since "international trade" seems to be the more common term, I would support delete Category:International economics, but the two most certainly need to be merged, no matter what the name. They are currently subcategories of each other, which is non-sensical, and there is too much overlap to make navigational sense. -- Beland 03:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This request for deletion is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Inconsistent criteria

December 1

Olympic athletes of X

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I prefer the "competitors for" over "of" Sortior 04:46, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
I prefer Olympic competitors for Puerto Rico, Olympians has a subtext of being winners rather than competitors, "for" is less ambiguous... I think we should use "Olympic competitors for CountryName" Pedant 23:27, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

OK, changing to "competitors for". -- Beland 08:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to throw a spanner in the works, may I suggest "Olympic competitors from X" or "Olympic sportspeople of X"? Grutness|hello? 09:40, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like "Olympic competitors from X". I'll give another day for objections, but this has been here for a month and a half now, so it's time to get moving... -- Beland 01:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup overhead

Discussions moved off-page

Please see:

To be emptied or moved

The following categories meet the requirements for deletion but are not empty. All discussion was left intact above, so you can review it, and after deletion, delete it. This section is meant to be a summary with no discussion. Discussion should go in the previous section.

(Note: If there was no opposition to deletion or especially if there was no discussion at all, then the entry above can be removed for categories listed here.)

Scan start: Jan 2

Category delete keep other rename to / why
Category:Proprietary games 6 0 - broad/redundant

The following had no opposition to the suggested move: (cleaned out)


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.

OK, these are all done except for things that require admin powers. -- Beland 10:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=9435708"