Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 3 April 5 >

April 4[edit]

Category:The World's Most Dangerous Band members[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The World's Most Dangerous Band members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Over-categorisation WP:OC#SMALL; better served by a navigational template. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A regular subcategory of Category:Musicians by band. Why is this case different from all other subcats? If the issues are with Category:Musicians by band, why not hold a more general discussion? gidonb (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wow, I just created this this morning. Anyway, it's a well known band, it has members with articles, and so categorizing this way is just what we do with them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - indeed it is exactly per usual. Occuli (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:To do, by priority[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:To do, by priority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:To do, priority 1 (Top)
Category:To do, priority 2
Category:To do, priority 3
Category:To do, priority 4
Category:To do, priority 5
Category:To do, priority 6
Category:To do, priority 7
Category:To do, priority 8
Category:To do, priority 9
Category:To do, priority undefined
Nominator's rationale: This category and its daughter categories are unnecessary in my opinion. Organizing {{todo}} tags by priority is superfluous, laborious, and nobody wants to do it. It is basically a deserted and lost cause. The only useful one of the bunch is the top priority one. I wouldn't mind that one being renamed and kept, but like I said nobody would be willing to do the dirty work. Note: if these wind up deleted, someone with template experience needs to edit {{todo}} appropriately. ~EdGl 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: please see the discussion at Category talk:To do, by priority#Deletion?, which will give you further explanation of my reasonings and also a differing opinion. Also note that I have switched my opinion from delete or keep just top priority to just delete, per aforementioned discussion. ~EdGl 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC) edit: other user changed their mind and now agrees with me. 04:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I found that priority thing very strange when I first saw it in a todo box, and I think wikipedians should select articles according to their specialisation, not to the priority someone else has assigned to them. Jasy jatere (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Georgia (U.S. state) hurricanes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Georgia (U.S. state) hurricanes to Category:Georgia hurricanes
Nominator's rationale: No hurricanes have ever affected the country of Georgia. Additionally, it is flat out impossible. Hurricanes are only classified in the Atlantic Ocean and eastern Pacific Ocean. On the other hand, hurricanes regularly affect the US state of Georgia, so I don't think it'd be unreasonable to remove the (US state). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm far less concerned about the exact name of this category than I am about the category tree it's part of: Category:Hurricanes in the United States by state. At first blush it might seem perfectly sensible to sort them like that. But as soon as I started looking at articles my jaw dropped.

Hurricanes are large, and they move, usually crossing into multiple states. As a result, it's common for these articles to have upwards of 4 or 5 such categories -- plus a full complement of other hurricane/tropical storm categories. What a nightmare!

Here are some examples, from articles in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) hurricanes (which seems to be a fairly typical category):

  • Hurricane Agnes - 9 states +
  • Hurricane Donna - 7 states & New England +
  • Hurricane Eloise - 7 states +
  • Tropical Storm Keith (1988) - 4 states +
  • Hurricane Opal - 2 US states +5 Mexican states

This whole schema is rather like doing species by state -- which we don't, and for good reason. I really think it needs to be rethought and reconfigured, perhaps using larger geographic regions -- like, for example, New England (thankfully, we don't have cats for each of the individual NE states). Cgingold (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm bringing this to the project page. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the project members agreed to keep the start categories separate. With that issue aside, I still believe it would be appropriate to move this category. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this category is necessary, keep the name as is, for consistency. But should this category exist at all? 70.55.84.42 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is (if kept at all). It is desirable that all categories relating to the US State should have that suffix and those relating to the Country, the country suffix. "Georgia" is ambiguous and needs a disambiguation suffix in all cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think having just "Georgia" in this case is ambiguous. Hurricanes have never, and probably will never affect the country of Georgia. I don't think there is any ambiguity when saying "Georgia hurricane" that one would be thinking about the country, and not the state. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't rename per all the other categories. This whole tree is probably better handled by lists or tables, per Cgingold. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not rename Most of the US State of Georgia's categories are named with (U.S state) and, in my opinion, all should be so that there is no chance of confusion on the part of the reader. Do not assume all readers will begin their use of WP by having a common knowledge base. An encylopedia should help readers by providing all the facts, not hinder them by making unwarranted assumptions about what they "should" already know. Hmains (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Albums with Cover Version on[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Albums with Cover Version on to Category:Albums containing at least one cover version
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is in desperate need of renaming. I don't know if my suggestion is any better. Is this a worthwhile category to even have? Wolfer68 (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial and non-defining characteristic. Maybe a category for albums consisting nothing but cover songs, but not just the odd one or two. Lugnuts (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure trivia.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a defining characteristic. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or weak rename In the event that the category stays, it absolutely needs renaming, as the current version is far too awkward. But the suggested phrasing, while undoubtedly better, also underlines that it's too broad a category -- so many albums contain at least one cover version. So I'd vote to delete. I agree that a category for albums solely comprising covers might be useful (and more distinctive), but even that would need carefully defined criteria. Gusworld (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2008(UTC)
  • Delete trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. gidonb (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename as it not trivial as the other category is for album with nothing but cover people around the world like to find album with cover version on. so you need a category as would help a lot of people looking for covers.Nez202 (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the Category:Covers albums is Albums by bands featuring nothing but covers of other artists' songs so this category is a sub for all over cover albums which is needed.Nez202 (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Musical movements[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete as empty. Yah, I know, I participated in this discussion, but as noted, it wasn't being closed. If anyone has a problem with my closing of this, let me know and I'll open it back up for another admin to close. . Kbdank71 14:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Musical movements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is described as being for musical movements and styles in the history of music and yet the link for musical movement takes one to an article about a self-contained part of a musical composition or musical form. Category includes everything from genres (hip-hop, metal), location (Blue Ridge Music Center), subcultures (nazi punk, rocker) and some downright bizarre entries like concert t-shirt and the Hong Kong musical tongue twister. A lot of the articles in this category should probably be deleted too. There's no matching article for this category, no definition for what a musical movement is and hence, no purpose in having this category. There's already a separate category for music genre so there's no need to have this either. Bardin (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category is too vague and broad to be useful. Gusworld (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added -ok Delete now - see belowHold on, this category has been around since 2004, and is the only musical category in which things like Category:Second Viennese school and Category:Neoclassicism (music) are placed; neither of these are genres at all. Obviously the purported main article is wrong, and the name not ideal. I would suggest Rename to Category:Movements in classical music, and prune according - the List of musical movements is helpful here. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that "Musical movements" seems vague, but, though an improvement, "Movements in classical music" made me think of movements in the sense of symphony, concerto, sonata movements, etc. Perhaps this association might be avoided if a word such as "schools", "genres" or something like that were used beside (or instead of) "movements"? Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is also a problem with the current name. Genres is not right, schools only ok up to ?1800 perhaps. Styles or periods? Perhaps "European" should be added, and maybe "history". Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Music history, Category:Musical eras, Category:20th century classical music and Category:Musical modernism are all possible categories for the Second Viennese school and neoclassicism. Personally, I think the categories for classical music much like other categories on wikipedia are badly organised. I've been working mostly in the area of heavy metal music but I think I might get involved here. I would suggests perhaps an overarching category along the line of Category:Classical music periods and styles or something to that effect. You can then add everything from baroque to post-modernism without any concern as to whether something is really a movement or a school or whatever. Personally, I don't think the Second Viennese School was a movement but rather a school of thought. Doesn't really matter because there's no article here on wikipedia for musical movements in this sense of the term. That's why I believe this category should be deleted and we should avoid using that fairly subjective term with no matching article to explain what it is. We can always create a new category with a better name. Perhaps we should continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music or Category talk:Classical music? Incidentally, I note with great amusement that the three main composers known as the Second Viennese School are not actually in that category. I'll go fix that now. --Bardin (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to see how your nomination is an improvement. A merge of the content with Category:Musical eras (another bad name) might make sense, possibly as Category:Classical music periods and styles. The main article is presumably European classical music, but the subject deserves a sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should have I nominated the category for a merge when it currently contains all sorts of non-related articles from concert t-shirts to hip-hop? Do you really want to see the article for concert t-shirt in the category:musical eras? Come on, give me a break. This category is a complete shambles. There's no article for musical movements that correspond to the category and hence, no manner of restricting or qualifying what exactly should be in that category. How is my nomination not anything but an improvement? You're just focusing narrowly on a few classical music articles when the category I've nominated not only include those articles but many others, the majority of which have nothing to do with European classical music. Nobody's stopping you from placing those classical related articles in a different category. I've even made some suggestions as to where those articles could fit in. You can even create an entirely new category with a better title as has been suggested also by myself and others. I really do not think that this is the right place to discuss the problems with the categories pertaining to classical music. You can do that at length with myself and any others at the aforementioned talk page at wikiproject classical music or the category talk page for classical music. This is the place to discuss the merits of nominating for deletion a category that is not exclusive to classical music. Therein lies one of the problems with this category. --Bardin (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate what you like, but I'm not going to support this one as it is. You don't appear to have read what I do support above. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The content seems to be reasonably satsfactory. It covers all kinds of music (or at least western music). There may be a few items that do not belong, but the answer to that is to recategorise these. Punk was (or is) a movement, just as much as the Second Vienese School. Many categories have no main article; or perhpas the main article is "music". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with that. Category:Musical eras could be merged in by another nom. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At last count, only a minority of the articles listed in the category have anything to do with classical music periods, styles and movements. So I'm just wondering why the discussion of this category is being treated as if it's a category only for classical music? --Bardin (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I've realized I'd been looking at the wrong category when making my previous suggestion. If a division between "popular music" and "classical music" is acceptable and feasible, then maybe Classical music periods, styles and movements and Popular music styles and movements possible, otherwise I guess all could be kept together in [[:Category:|]] or something like that. Or perhaps not at all, as you [Bardin] originally suggested.
    I've also just come across List of musical movements, which, depending on the outcome here, seems to me to need an insertion of "classical" and maybe even "Western" somewhere, if not a rephrasing of "movements" as well. Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think musical movement is vague, subjective term and without an accompanying article to explain what it is, any category with that term is going to be prone to abuse with all sorts of questionable articles being included as this has been (concert t-shirt?). Someone above describes punk as a movement. Another person describes the New Viennese School as a movement. Personally, I think the former is more a genre and the latter is more a school of thought. A more appropriate example of a musical movement in my view would be the New Wave of British Heavy Metal that took place during the 1980s. It was not a separate (sub)genre to heavy metal in the way that punk was a separate (sub)genre to rock music nor is it a school of thought in the sense that the representatives were somehow connected to one another, as was the case with the NVS where Schoenberg was the teacher and everyone else the student or follower. Ironically though, the NWOBHM is not included in this musical movements category for some unknown reason. That said, I do not think this category is necessary as there's more appropriate terms and categories that can be used for any of these articles. The New Viennese School can be located under Musical Modernism or 20th century classical music, both of which can in turn be located under Musical eras, as an example. Of course, I would not be opposed to the creation of a new category with more appropriate terms and limits but I think all the above suggestions of renaming this category to something specific to classical music are missing the point that classical music articles are actually a minority in this category. Your suggestion of splitting it off into two separate subcategories for popular and classical is not a bad one but again, what's there to stop people from including all sorts of things like psychobilly, christian metal, taiwanese pop and rock n roll into popular music movements? It seems to me that it is just a matter of subjective perception as to whether something is a genre, a movement, a style, a school of thought, a period or a combination of any of these terms. --Bardin (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Music history. Musical movements isn't a great name for this catch-all category, and a better one has not been mentioned, IMO. If necessary to further categorize these articles, they can be split into better named categories as appropriate (just because they are all in this category doesn't mean they all have to stay in one). If no consensus to rename or upmerge, then delete. --Kbdank71 14:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) See below. --Kbdank71 12:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Music genres is where, rightly or wrongly, popular music movements, genres or whatever live, but classical music is one of the subcats there, so I don't see that these more restricted classical movements or whatever should be included there too. Category:Electronic music genres, Category:Music scenes, Category:Pop music genres, or their sub-cats, would also fit many of these. No simple solution, including deletion, will work for all of these articles - as pointed out way, way above, this is the only musical category some important articles or sub-cats are included in. Deletion will make orphans of these in their primary area. A merge to Category:Music history really doesn't help - many or most of these clearly don't belong there, although anything can in theory be called "music history" after a few weeks. As we clearly aren't going to agree on a rename, the classical ones should go to "musical eras" - on a quick look most of the popular ones seem adequately categorized already, but this needs to be checked. I've removed some of the sillier items, like the T-shirts. Reviewing the plethora of pop/rock/jazz genres/style/scene/categories compared with abscence of any classical equivalents makes it even clearer to me that the right thing to do is to disperse the pop/rock majority, and to concentrate the classical ones to the very badly named "musical eras". Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't have a problem if this got manually taken care of, and closed as such. Just recat everything to wherever makes the most sense, and then delete the empty cat at the end. That would take care of the orphaning concerns. Problem is, I don't have the knowledge to do it. Perhaps this should be relisted, and WPP:MUSIC be invited to add their opinions. --Kbdank71 20:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that over 48hrs or so, on the basis set out above, & anyone else who has strong views on whether eg Nazi punk is a genre, scene or just part of punk rock is more than welcome to get stuck in. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, everything left in is adequately categorized without this one, which can now be deleted. I used Category:20th century classical music a lot. Many of them were in visual art categories, but no other musical ones. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the work done by Johnbod, delete with thanks. --Kbdank71 12:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination hasn't been closed for some reason so I've removed the small amount of articles that was still left in the category by Johnbod and now the category is empty. I don't think there's going to be any further discussion on this so can an administrator close this discussion and delete the category per the near consensus arrived at this discussion? --Bardin (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Eco-terrorism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Eco-terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: It is a completely subjective term with now way to be NPOV. Murderbike (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think if the inclusion was limited to those eco-activists charged or convicted under specific terror legislation, or those incidents described by reliable sources as example of eco-terror, then we should be ok on POV. Rockpocket 23:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly rename to Category:Eco-sabotage - This is a hopelessly POV term that is entirely too controversial to be used as the name of a Category. The term has been used by US govt. authorities in a concerted effort to whip up hysteria by linking radical environmental saboteurs with the bogeyman of terrorism. Wikipedia should not be a party to that effort. If the category is kept it must have a neutral, objective name, such as I've suggested. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Another problem I see with this is that there are competing definitions of the term, the more mainstream one, and that of using it to describe those destroying the environment. Murderbike (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I forgot to mention that. Can you imagine the uproar if we started applying this category to Exxon, Occidental Oil, George Bush, Dick Cheney, the whaling industry, etc. etc.? LOL! Cgingold (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Cgingold: calling these actions "terrorism" may suit some political purposes, but it is exceptionally tendentious to use the same label as is applied to people who kill civilians. So far as I can see, all articles currently in Category:Eco-terrorism relate to the Earth Liberation Front, so it would be quite appropriate to have an ELF category which was not parented in the terrorism hierarchy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a generic category would be better, BHG, since there are other groups (eg. the Animal Liberation Front), as well as unaffiliated individuals, who have carried out acts of eco-sabotage. Cgingold (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Eco-sabotage" would be even harder to cite than the present one. Sticking to specifics (ELF, arson, foxhunting, etc.) seems the best way to go to me. Murderbike (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Murderbike (at least with Mb says, not with the gruesome username!) It's too simplistic to try to group together the very disparate range of activities that come under the banner of "direct action". Here in the UK, there have been well-attended trample-down-the-GM-crops exercises, and whether anyone approves of them, they are a different matter to the ALF's contamination of Mars Bars, which in turn is a different matter to the destruction of laboratories. These are very different forms of action, and the only thing that really groups them is that they are a very different set of responses to different issues all based on concern about the activists see as excessive use of human power. There's too much diversity here to make a useable catch-all category such as "eco-sabotage". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't see this as an issue, BHG. There are a great many disparate types of criminal acts, all of which come under the general heading of "crime", and all they have in common is that they cause an injury of some sort, be it physical, financial, or whatever. In this case, all of these acts have in common the fact that they are focused on and/or motivated by concerns over environmental issues. I think that is well-understood, and certainly neither secret nor obscure. Is there something I'm missing here? Cgingold (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is, I think, something that you are missing. You are right that these are crimes committed by environmental activists ... but the problem is that they are very different types of crime. A categ of "environmentalists convicted of crimes" risks lumping together someone arrested for nonviolently blocking a road with the extremists who engaged in major destruction of facilities, which would be a bit like lumping Rosa Parks in with the Black Panthers. The issue I see here is to how avoid creating a category which lumps together things which are only tenuously connected, and so far I don't see any definition of a category which doesn't conflate things in a POV way. Maybe some such definition could be found, but so far I don't see it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have inadvertently confused things slightly with my choice of the subject of "crimes" -- it was only intended as an analogy illustrating disparate things grouped under one heading. The real point is that these are acts of sabotage, all of which are focused on and/or motivated by concerns over environmental issues. That's not nearly as disparate as you're suggesting, BHG. It certainly wouldn't include being "arrested for nonviolently blocking a road", for example, or sitting in a tree. Those are both civil disobedience, quite distinct from sabotage. Cgingold (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS notwithstanding, how is this cat any more POV than Category: Islamic terrorism or indeed any within Category:Terrorism by genre or Category:Terrorism by country? Every incident described as terrorism by one source could be accused of described as a "concerted effort to whip up hysteria" by those sympathetic to the justification. The arguments described here are good justifications to get rid of all terrorism cats, but are rather shaky when applied piecemeal to exclude a category for one form of extra-judicial direct action. Incidentally, pretty much everything in this cat would also be in Category:Green anarchism, so perhaps that would be sufficient if eco-terrorism is deemed somehow more POV than any other type (which, of course, is a POV itself). Rockpocket 04:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the semantic contrivance "Eco-terrorism" is that it's a serious departure from the one element that is at the core of virtually all definitions of terrorism -- namely, the deliberate targetting of civilian non-combattants. Whatever else one might say about the sorts of acts that are now being labelled as "Eco-terrorism", they make a very real point of not targetting human beings. The targets are always physical objects, buildings, property, etc. -- in short, various forms of sabotage. There's even a word for it -- ecotage -- though it's not well known outside the movement(s). So, while I would agree that politicians and others love to throw around the word "terrorism" to inflame public opinion about all sorts of issues, that doesn't in itself negate the fact that there really are violent acts that are properly described as "terrorism". The term "Eco-terrorism", on the other hand, is a deliberate attempt to blur the very real distinction between "terrorism" and "sabotage", and I would hate to see Wikipedia buy into that. Cgingold (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Cgingold's succinct summary of the stretching of the definition of "terrorism" involved in this category. It seems to me that this is on of those cases which pop up from time to time a CFD, where a category is too crude to device to accommodate the variety of nuanced concepts involved. In cases like this, a list is much more appropriate because it can describe the reasons for inclusion, and the type of action involved, leaving it for the reader to reach their own conclusions on the degree of similarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can accept that, though it would argue that the basic definition is to "cause terror" among those targeted. However, give the distinction between this and other type of terrorism on the basis of violence against humans, surely we should rename to Category:Ecotage, rather than delete it? Rockpocket 17:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree with Cgingold reasoning why it shouldn't be called 'terrorism'. But Rockpocket's suggestion of 'ecotage' is (in my opinion at least) too obscure a term. I had never heard of it until now, anyway.  Channel ®    18:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as I said, "ecotage" is a fairly obscure term -- that's why I suggested "eco-sabotage", which is readily understood. I might add that the top-ranked hit on Google is for ECOTAGE Salon & Spa, a division of Federated Department Stores. Is nothing sacred anymore?! :) But seriously, since there appears to be sentiment for keeping the category, I think either Category:Eco-sabotage or perhaps Category:Environmental sabotage would do the job. Whatever we decide to use should have the word "sabotage" in it. Cgingold (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I didn't think this was controversial when I created it. It seems to be just like other categories that already exist, there is a Wikipedia page on Eco-terrorism that defines it, the newspapers use the term regularly, and even those accused of it use euphemisms like Ecotage, which amount to the same thing. It seems a useful way to group a bunch of otherwise uncollected articles, but hey, what do I know? -- Tom Ketchum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Ketchum (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But Tom, even that article gives more than one definition of the term. I haven't noticed you applying the category to corporations and CEOs. Have you just not gotten around to it, or is the Cat inherently POV? Murderbike (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Call it 'sabotage' or 'activism'. 'Terrorism' is POV and way too strong.  Channel ®    17:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're lined up to then delete Category:Islamic Terrorism and Category:Neo-fascist terrorism? Tom Ketchum (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a slight difference between, say, flying passenger planes into office blocks and spiking trees with nails to stop chainsaws. But that's just my opinion, of course.  Channel ®    17:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note - I've just posted new responses to two of the sub-discussions above, including another possible name. Cgingold (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not sufficiently universally defined to support a cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What part of this do you not understand?: Ecoterrorism: "The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature." -- James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI; , Feb. 12, 2002. Tom Ketchum (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Tom, plaese read what Carlos wrote: "this is not sufficiently universally defined" (emphasis added by me). Wikipedia is not the FBI, and the FBI's definition is hotly-contested. We should not be using partisan definitions as the basis of a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I keep getting asked for "reliable sources", so I have supplied them. Where is your "reliable source" that this is "hotly-contestated", except by partisans on Wikipedia and elsewhere? Newspapers across the country use the term without further reference. That a terse definition of it comes from the FBI doesn't mean it is not used in general speech and widely understood. Here[1] are 131 uses of it from a single newspaper. Here[2] are 33 references to it in the New York Times. What more do you need? Tom Ketchum (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even your preferred definition makes no distinction between people or property as targets, so the various incidences of vandalizing SUVs, burning down empty McMansions, letting lab rats loose, etc. are all "eco-terrorism" according to that FBI mouthpiece. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Israeli immigrants[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Israeli immigrants to Category:Immigrants to Israel
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a category for people who immigrated to Israel from elsewhere, and so it should be rephrased to match the other similar categories, e.g., Category:Immigrants to Norway. (See also the related nomination directly below.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename - I created this category three years ago, before there was one standard. I am all in favor having good standards and warmly support Good Olfactory's proposal. Thanks for your efforts, Good Ol! gidonb (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Immigrants by nationality[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Immigrants by nationality to Category:Immigrants by destination country
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Emigrants are easily classifiable by nationality, but not immigrants. By definition, an immigrant moving to a country is typically not the nationality of the destination country. The subcategories are phrased "Immigrants to Foo", where Foo = the destination country; it's not "Fooian immigrants", which is what the current name suggests. Category:Immigrants by country would be less redundant, but I think adding "destination" adds some clarity. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. gidonb (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I disagree with the nominator's rationale - emigrants and immigrants are equally easy/difficult to describe/classify by nationality, for the two terms refer to the same people performing the same action, acquiring (new) citizenship. 'Emigrants by nationality' list people by the nationality(ies) they have when acquiring a new one and 'immigrants by nationality', by the newly acquired one Mayumashu (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an oversimplification based on an erroneous assumption: It's just not the case that all immigrants become citizens of the country they've moved to. That's certainly not part of the definition of the term "immigrant". It only means that a person has left one country and resides in another. Whether they take on new citizenship is another matter entirely. Cgingold (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I recently came across this category, too, and put it on my to-do list for renaming. I think GO is on the right track, but I'm not quite sure about the proposed name. I mean, the word "immigrant" denotes that the person has already arrived in the "destination country", so it's slightly off. (An emigrant would have a "destination country", but once they've arrived they're an immigrant.) So I think we probably need a different word. Although I suppose it's possible that I'm being too picky about this. Cgingold (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm more than willing to accept another word if anyone can think of anything to use instead that is perhaps perceived as less ambiguous. However, I personally see no problem with using "destination" restrospectively; I think it can be used in a "before arrival" sense but also in a "post arrival" sense. Good Ol’factory (talk)
  • Rename per nom; solution seems ok to me. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Okay, I see. so, immigrants are those that move to a new country and acquire either citizenship or (a kind of) permanent residence status Mayumashu (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yes, those that do not are expatriates. Mind you, is the distinction between immigrants and expatriates somewhat POV, if they do not acquire citizenship? - Fayenatic (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Female pool players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on april 10. Kbdank71 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Female pool players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:CATGRS and WP:OVERCAT.
Outline summary rationale (skips maintainability and usability issues, and lots of industry background; added after some debate, due to misconceptions and missed points):
  • This fails WP:CATGRS as arbitrary, pointless gendering of categories: There is nothing rare or special about female players, and women's pool is not different in any notable, encyclopedic way from men's, nor discriminated against in modern times. It is not a male dominated sport, but simply one in which males predominate in numbers. Even the most difficult cue sports disciplines such as speed pool, trick shot competition, and three-cushion billiards have world-class female players who compete against men professionally and in notable amateur play. Women do not play the game in any known way, mentally or physically, differently than men.
  • It fails WP:OVERCAT as a trivial intersection: Women players are a normal, accepted part of the billiards world and on equal professional-opportunity footing; there is nothing notable or deeply related about "pool player" and "female" being juxtaposed).
  • The comparatively small number of articles on women players is simply an incidental effect of editor attention (the WP:CUE project, like most others, needs more female editors); in the actual pool world, women's pool is more media-successful, organized and stable than men's, and there are probably at least 200 current players notable enough for articles (plus many past players, including BCA Hall of Fame inductees); the implication that female players are rare and marginalized is false (also the case at the amateur level, where leagues encourage female players and mixed F/M teams).
  • There are more professional male pool players in the world (due to more young males taking up the game competitively at an earlier age, and the lingering macho perception of the game in the popular imagination), but that is irrelevant. There have been more Germanic heads of state in European history than Celtic ones, but any such category intersections would still be trivial, despite both ethnicity (like gender) and occupation arguably being defining characteristics when considered separately.
  • Pro competitions are either divided into M and F divisions, or open and ungendered; no major events bar either gender aside from the all-female WPBA and all-male counterpart USPPA (neither US-only) which are on good terms with each other and both BCA-sanctioned; this is simply the separate-divisions version of pro pool, a format common throughout the sports world. Pool is actually unusual in the number of events that are not gender-divided (due to the nature of the game).
  • A Category:Female ice hockey players would pass both guidelines on essentially opposite grounds: They are rare if they exist at all above the amateur level, the on average smaller frame and lower strength of females makes the sport challenging for them against huge male players (factors irrelevant in pool, a mental and motor-skills game), the sport resists their entry, and they would almost certainly face discrimination and barriers to advancement and professional success, making the intersection quite notable and a gendered category appropriate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Long rationale (with various additions and updates following): CATGRS: "Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered. ... Categories should not be gendered unless the gender has a specific relation to the topic". This is emphatically not the case here. Pool is not an especially female (or male) activity. Female pool players are quite common (including at the top professional level), so there is nothing special or notable about some players being women. At the previous CfD on this category (for renaming, where deletion was also raised), a rename proponent suggested that "women pool players hav[ing] separate and distinct competitions and leagues" is sufficient justification for this category, but this is not entirely true - women frequently compete with men, and some leagues have no women's divisions, while some even offer mixed-gender doubles/team competition and so on. The idea that women's pool and men's pool are separate is simply incorrect; there are some separate organizations and events, but this hardly trumps the CATGRS guideline. Also, the fact that we have a Category:Sportswomen by nationality and a Category:Sportswomen by sport in no way militates for the creation of "Women [x] players" subcategories for every known sport and game. The existence of those higher-up categories themselves would be very questionable, since there is nothing whatsoever notable about a woman being an athlete, except that they need to exist to contain subcats that DO make sense (Category:19th century female athletes, or a future Category:Female NFL players surely would survive CATGRS). It is a trivial intersection, in terms of OVERCAT ("Avoid intersections of two traits that are unrelated, even if some person can be found that has both traits"; being a skilled pool player and being a woman are unrelated traits). Finally, because of the large number of female pool pros, more and more bios of whom are being created here all the time, this category will inevitably bloat, requiring a profusion of (mostly underpopulated) by-nationality subcategories, and who is going to maintain that mess? WP:CUE is overworked as it is (and I also note that creation of this category was not discussed with the project, which would have been strongly against it) .— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This is actually worse than I thought, since it causes a confusing and non-intuitive, non-parallel category structure, e.g. Ewa Mataya Laurance being in Category:Swedish pool players and Category:Female pool players, both of them subcats of Category:Pool players. The average editor isn't going to figure this out. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On this last point: as I read the first sentence, I was anticipating something quite monstrous and unusual. Instead I found a perfectly ordinary group of categories that impose no particular burden on readers or editors. Frankly, I don't see any problem whatsoever in that regard. Quite to the contrary (see below). Cgingold (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I've explained the issue in more detail below; it's a matter of having to double-cat all of those articles and all future ones, and then eventually have to recat them all, and it would probably be mostly my labor because no one else does maint in that corner of catspace. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: What I meant in the original last point above about editor confusion is that the odds of any editor (especially a new one, and most new player bio stubs are created by noob editors who want to fix the fact that their favorite player doesn't have an article yet) correctly guessing these categories is very low. What will probably happen is they will guess "Pool players" and that'll be that and WP:CUE will have to fix it. If they know that we do national categorization they'll guess "Swedish pool players" and get that half right. Maybe once in a blue moon "Female pool players", but almost certainly not both. If they try "Female Swedish pool players" they'll get a redlink. What this editor will do is up in the wind. Just add the first of the two real cats. that they guess? Against all odds add both? Add the redlink on the assumption someone will create the category later? Actually go and create the category (and probably not categorize the cat. itself)? Add nothing? The probability of any editor other than WP:CUE members (and probably me, since I do this maintenance and the others mostly work on either articles exclusively or articles and infobox/nav templates) properly categorizing a new female player bio in both "Female pool players" and "[Nationality] pool players" is very close to zero, which means that a large proportion of incoming articles will remain miscategorized for a long time and we'll be presenting incomplete categories to users. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I read the Nominator's rationale, I was impressed by its length, and by the thoroughness and vehemence of the arguments. I was assuming that female players must be closing in on equal numbers with males. But contrary to the impression that was conveyed, female pool players comprise only about 10% of the total number of articles (12 out of 111). I had to go through every last one of the 25 sub-cats, many with just a single article, to determine those numbers.
I think it's very misleading to portray this sport as not being heavily male-dominated. This sort of gender imbalance is a factor that is widely understood to justify categories like this in a considerable number of other fields. Why should readers have to go through all of those sub-cats like I did, looking for those female players? Even if they did, given the diverse array of nationalities and unfamiliar names, there's no way the average reader could identify who's female without looking at each and every article. In short, this category serves a valuable navigational function that would be lost if it were deleted. Cgingold (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is misleading is simply the number of articles. The 10 or fewer active editors of pool bio articles over the last 2 years have focused almost exclusively on male pros. In the real world, female pros totally dominate the mass-media coverage and general fan popularity (with the exception of the sideline events like trick shot competitions and speed pool, but they are making inroads there as well, and the top pool commentator in North America is a woman). The end result is an industry balance in which there are certainly many more male pros, and there are more male-dominated (but few exclusively male) tournaments (almost none of them televised), meanwhile fewer of the top males are well-known than the top women, and command much less public respect. The women's main organization, the WPBA, is also far more organized and stable than the male counterparts, which have a tendency to collapse and/or splinter every few years. Your perception that there's a big gender imbalance in pro pool simply isn't true at all. This is not Jean Balukas's era (really good article, by the way; likely to be one of WP:CUE's first WP:FA's).
Anyway, I'm unlikely to argue much on this further after this post, which should contain every point I'll want to raise; I find it a bit frustrating to have to respond to XfD threads a dozen times. Aside from the fact that this category will personally cause me a lot of headaches, because from what I can tell not a single other person on all of WP bothers to do anything to keep the cue sports category hierarchy in any kind of order, and this will add a lot to my work load, I'm just registering another voice among many against creating pointless gender-based categories. By your "valuable navigation tool" rationale, EVERY human category should be gender-split because they all have to be waded through looking for women (to what end? why would someone be looking for random articles about women?) and many of those contain orders of magnitude more articles than any of the pool player categories, yet they aren't gender-divided; this idea has already been soundly rejected by the community. That's why we have WP:CATGRS, why it is designated a guideline, and why it is so negative about the idea of going there. Convenience for an unlikely browsing pattern isn't enough justification to keep this category in the face of established precedent about categories like this when they are not really, really necessary. A simple list article would serve the purpose you seem to have in mind. WP:CUE's WP:SNOOKER child project uses list articles of this sort very effectively in lieu of creating more and more categories that 50, 100, 200 articles have to be manually added to.
There are easily 200+ additional articles that would be in this female pool player category eventually, if we (reasonably) decide that the top 50-100 WPBA pros are notable, and at least that many international WPA pros are as well, plus maybe 25-50 of the world's top amateurs, probably 25 or more greats from long before women's pool was an organized affair, and a few dozen unusual ones, like the Korean massé shot champ from the 40s whose name escapes me for the moment, some notable road hustlers, etc. We're only scratching the surface with the current articles. If I recall correctly only two of the women in the BCA Hall of Fame have articles yet.
The only way I'm not going to be really unhappy about this category surviving is if the articles in it are broken out into nationality subcats now, so that I don't have to recategorize a big pile of articles down the road and be double-catting them (and it almost certainly would be me doing it). If this thing is kept, the subcatting needs to be done pre-emptively, so that the women players are moved out of the X pool player categories into female X pool player subcats, all of which are also subcats of female pool players - 1 pool player cat per article. I could live with that, and pretty much insist that the consensus be to not attack those subcats at CfD as underpopulated if the consensus is to keep this parent cat. But I still think it's wrongheaded to do any of this, per CATGRS and OVERCAT, as already elaborated. We collectively arrived at those guidelines for really good reasons.
PS: Frankly, I'd like to hear from some women editors on this. If I were female I'd be really insulted that women are being put into special "girlie" categories; it just reinforces the notion that there are "real" athletes and then there are those women "athletes". That's my grandfather's categorization scheme.
Not sure I can really say anything further that isn't already covered here and above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Contrast this with Category:Female serial killers. That's a gender-based category that makes sense, because the intersection is very notable - such women are statistically quite rare (rarer than the category indicates; I note that it includes a number of women convicted of accessory to murder; they didn't actually do the mortal deeds, but just helped men do it, and I think a few of them also need to be reclassified as mass murderers not serial murderers. There really aren't many Countess Bathorys and Eileen Wuornoses out there). There are hundreds and hundreds of arguably-notable female pool players (present and historical). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: An important clarification has been added with regard to a misconception that popped up, and "keep" !voters arguing diametrically opposite positions - can't have it both ways. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary sex category - do they play differently? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To judge from US Open Nine-ball Championship women compete against women and so gender is significant (as with most sports). I am with Cgingold in finding nothing to deplore in the present system of categorisation. Occuli (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Gender being "significant" in some way in some area of life is not grounds for forking out "Female X" categories, under WP:OVERCAT and WP:CATGRS. The things to deplore are redundant double categorization that will eventually have to be manually undone and which don't serve any actual purpose other than aiding people noodling around for random articles about women who do X, not a particularly encyclopedic duty, as well as the proliferation of useless gender-based categories, against two well-established guidelines. No point in it. I've already explained all this in [probably more] detail [than anyone really needs]. Note to closing admin: Simply repeating what the first keep !vote said in other words after that keep's points have been thoroughly addressed isn't a very strong !vote. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: I am getting the impression that some respondents here don't understand how women's professional pool actually works. The high points of the pro life of a top woman player's year might look something like: Compete in some casino's or cigarette company's or whatever's one-off tournament, no gender divisions. Go to a women-only WPBA event. Next play in an ungendered speed pool competition. Get paid to do trick shot demos for some big corporate meeting. Another WPBA event. Do a WPA qualifier in the women's division. Enter an ungendered trick shot competition. Play another WPBA event. Spend a month on the road hustling, taking men's and women's money alike. Enter an ungendered world one-pocket championship. Do a week of demo events for your billiards equipment manufacturer sponsors. Play another WPBA event. And so on. The male pro's life looks exactly like this, with the gender flipped, other than women pros (cf. Jean Balukas) have successfully demanded to play in men's divisions, and no male player I'm aware of has ever pulled off the opposite. As far as I know (and I subscribe to all three of the major North American pool monthlies, and read their online competitors too), aside from the male-only USPPA pro tour (the mirror image of the WPBA one, except without WPBA's fatcat sponsors and major TV coverage on ESPN), there are no major tournaments that do not have either men's and women's divisions, or no gender division at all. I.e., there are no "open" tournaments that bar women. I'm also unaware of any national or regionial am, pro-am or non-invitational pro league (in North America anyway) that does not permit and in fact encourage mixed-gender competition; this includes BCA, VNEA (and VNEA-Europe, -Australia, etc.), APA/ACA, ACSA, ACSL, ABL, APL, TAP, and others. This entire idea that there is this put-upon, second-rate, basement-relegated world of women's pool is far from the truth. In closing, the "keep"ers can't have it both ways. The first keep argument is "keep because men dominate pool, and there are so few women players and poor them their articles will be lost among the men's", and the second is "keep because women and men have separate big-deal divisions that compete side-by-side, so women's pool is significant enough to have a special category". Both of these ideas misunderstand how the pool world operates. Sorry to go on at length again; I thought I'd covered everything in the first try, but I wasn't expecting this particular misconception to come up, nor for !voters to say "keep" for two totally opposite keep rationales. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Whew. No insult intended, SM, but your verbosity has worn me out. So I will simply say that your comments about "girlie categories" and "poor them" were way off base. My only concern is that the women players not be lost in the male-dominated ocean of articles in this realm. If the women players really have parity with the men that becomes a lesser concern. I am completely unfamiliar with the world of professional cue sports, so I can only go by what I see in terms of articles, and what you've said in this discussion. So I will defer to the collective judgement of other, more knowledgeable editors. Cgingold (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Sorry to be verbose, but the topic is complex. The "girlie categories" thing is in reference to the pointless (as opposed to legitimate) gendered categories and how they can be perceived as reflecting a particular attitude, not your comments in particular; I wasn't implying anything about you, just this particular brand of overcat'ing. The "poor them" thing was me misunderstanding your argument; sorry, and I will strike and correct that. Understanding your argument better now, I don't want to be seen as just arguing with you for argument's sake; the following is simply to address the point since others are likely to raise it: It's unclear to me how F player articles would be "lost" among M ones, any more than F journalists will be "lost" among M ones. Looking at Category:American journalists, as a random choice likely to contain a lot of articles, it contains (not counting subcats) 2,714 articles as of this writing, and is not gender-divided. None of its subcats (nor any of their subsubcats) are gender-split either, not even Category:American magazine editors, Category:American newspaper editors or Category:American sportswriters, all probably male-dominated professions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of observations: There is, broadly speaking, a much greater degree of gender balance in American categories than there is among categories for most other parts of the world -- so it's not the best comparison. The other thing is that it can be very difficult to discern male vs. female names in mixed-gender categories when the language/culture is unfamiliar to the reader. I brought this up in another discussion a few months back, but it was too late in the CFD to factor into the decision. Cgingold (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasonable point (the second one). From a devil's advocacy position I'll even bolster it by giving a real-world example. Of these two Turkish billiards pros (who are a couple), who is the husband and who is the wife (without looking at the article and the should-be-article redlink): Aygen Berk Saygıner and Semih Saygıner? However, looking at Category:Journalists (to get rid of the "American" component - I hadn't considered your first point, it was just a random selection), the category is not in actual practice a gender-divided category. There is a Category:Female journalists but it contains, including its lone subcat, a grand total of only 26 entries (i.e. it is a prime candidate for CfD - it is a disused whim category that is broadly ignored because no one sees any use for it). To return to your second point, yes, it can be hard to discern, but this is true of probably over 1000 categories that are not gender-divided; why should pool playing be a special exception? While I agree with your point about the US being more gender-balanced on average than the rest of the world, I'm not sure it's pertinent here, since for pool the US is the "center of the universe", as it were. Many (especially, for no explicable reason, Filipinos, who for a while dominated the game on the male side) excel at pool but are not from the US, the money and the glory and the prestige events are in the US, with the sole exception that the WPA (i.e. international) Championships have recent-ish-ly tended to be hosted in the Philippines more than anywhere else (with the decline of the Filipino dominance in the last 2 years or so, expect that to change). Cf. Sang Lee (M), Thorsten Hohman (M) and Gerda Hofstatter (F), among many other WPA champs that became/have become [Lee is deceased, and was principally a carom billiards player anyway] permanent or semi-permanent US residents because the professional "action" is in the US. While I wasn't consciously thinking of the potentially valid "US bias" issue you raise when I picked the journo category, I don't think the issue is actually at play in this case. I'm not being jingoistic here; the US really does organizationally (not necessarily champ-origin-wise) dominate pool in the same way that the UK dominates snooker and Italy dominates five-pins and France dominates three-cusion billiards. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind the gender guidelines at WP:CATGRS, if I may — the core criterion that needs to be met is that a properly encyclopedic article could be written to explain why the grouping in question is a valid encyclopedic topic.
For instance, the women writers tree is valid not just because writers exist who are women, but because women's literature is generally recognized as a distinct domain within the study of literature. Doctoral theses have been written about what makes women's literature a distinct phenomenon from men's literature. Entire university programs are devoted specifically to the study of women writers. There's an entire body of critical analysis comparing and contrasting writing by women with writing by men. There's a whole raft of academic literature studying the role that writing by women has played in social movements. And on, and so forth. That's what "unless gender has a specific relation to the topic" means: women writers are recognized by external sources as a distinct topic of social and encyclopedic study in their own right.
Similarly, a "female heads of government" grouping is valid not just because heads of government have existed who were women, but because there's a whole body of literature out there examining the still relatively-new phenomenon of women leaders, and studying whether they rule in different ways, have different political and social priorities, achieve in different ways, etc., than men leaders. Again, they constitute a grouping that is recognized by external sources as a distinct topic of social and encyclopedic study in their own right.
So, by the same token, the issue here is not whether women exist who play pool. The issue is whether women who play pool do so in a unique or distinct context in which their gender actually plays a role. Are there books out there about the unique issues that women face in the professional pool world? Is there a body of academic literature out there about what makes being a woman pool player different from being a male pool player? Is there a separate "women's pool" game that is played under different rules than "men's pool" is? Those are the kinds of questions that would justify this grouping — categories should only be gendered in cases where a meaningful and encylopedic distinction exists along gender lines between women and men within the same grouping.
As far as I know the answer to all of those questions is "no", so I'm inclined to go with the delete on this one. Though I am willing to change my position to keep if somebody can show some evidence to the contrary. For what it's worth. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - neutral on the category itself, but a couple of observations. One, SMcCandlish's comments & complaints about doing an entire separate gendered structure are unavailing. It is perfectly fine to have one gendered parent category and not do the gendering through all the subcategories, and WP:CATGRS gives that situation as its example when talking about ghettoizing. Two, WP:CATGRS specifies that a head article could be written. This test would usually be met where gender plays a recognized role in competition or performance, or the history of a field was broadly gendered. --Lquilter (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Law enforcement agencies of New South Wales in Australia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: close, already moved. Kbdank71 13:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Law enforcement agencies of New South Wales in Australia to Category:Law enforcement agencies of New South Wales
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Adding "of Australia" is redundant since there is only one New South Wales. There was in the past a New South Wales, Canada, but it's a fairly obscure term and there are no categories that use NSW in the Canadian context. Nor do the subcategories of Category:New South Wales use "Australia" in their name. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not too fussed either way: BUT the reason for my creating it with that name was to have one universal standard for all new categories relating to law enforcement with a world view, and there will eventually be name overlaps in general. I am at the start of the long process of recategorising all(!) law enforcement agency articles (I must be mad . . . a life time's work . . . but . . . they are all over the place). If it is too much of naming convention evolution, I will change it today. I doubt that there will be any other comments at this time? Peet Ern (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree presumably New South Wales doesn't have law enforcement agencies abroad. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Carlossuarez46 and Good Olfactory. gidonb (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

If there are no objections in the next 12 hours I will move it. Peet Ern (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not mean to cause any problems. I had created the category only a couple of days before hand, it had not been used by any one else, the comments received were in agreement. It was not a contraversial area. It just seemed no issue to get on and do it. Noted for next time. Peet Ern (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Footballers who served in the British Army[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Footballers who served in the British Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Footballers who served in the RAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete both, possibly listify if desired. I understand the significance of Category:Wartime football (soccer) — because many footballers were serving in British wars, especially WWI and WWII, replacement players were brought in, etc. However, these particular categories seems to be trivial intersections, or if not trivial then at least something that should be the subject of an article or a list rather than a category. If we start to categorize footballers (or any other sportspeople or people in other occupations) by other occupations they have done at some point in their lives, we will end up with a whole lot of trivial intersection categories. This is not to claim that there couldn't be a valid category for members of British Army or RAF football teams, but that's not what these are exclusively. Many of them were footballers who just happened to be in the British Army or RAF. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per sound analysis of Good Olfactory. Cgingold (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nominator gives no logical reason why these categories should be deleted. These footballers were notable in two separate careers. I really doubt this will start a series of other categories. It is not as if there are many notable electricians, for example, who also played football. These categories cover an important era in football history and the amount of articles already in them justifies their existence. Djln--Djln (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I think it is also offensive to refer to groups of people who served in their country’s armed forces as a trivial intersection. I have also noticed that at least one other editor, Daemonic Kangaroo, has added articles to the British Army category which suggests to be me that it has support. Djln --Djln (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial intersection, and we don't have to mince words, no one is trivializing either of the characteristics - a pure straw man to get sympathy to keep - the intersection is trivial, otherwise for strawman's sake let's have Category:Blind amputees and Category:Diabetics with cancer, for to not have them would be in someone's view a trivialization of their maladies. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial intersection. An entirely logical argument from Good Ol’factory as the trivial intersection argument has been used many times in deletion debates. The possibility for other intersection cats are endless here. Kernel Saunters (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The service in the army of the country's footballers was a very important one. You only have to look at this source on the Jimmy Speirs article to see that. These categories are indicative of two important periods in footballing and wartime history. They are far from trivial. Peanut4 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Trivial intersection, IMO. I don't see why it is particularly relevant to group together footballers who served in the armed forces. Such players should have one set of categories for their time as footballers and one set for their time in the armed forces, but not one that links the two. – PeeJay 22:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another PS It mystifies me why some editors are so keen to delete categories for deletion sake. Is’nt Wikipedia about sharing knowledge, not censoring it. These are legitimate categories and I can see good reason to delete them. Not one editor in favour of deleting has put forward a sensible argument. Peejays comments just demonstrate that he has not read any of the articles concerned. Djln --Djln (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Listify to preserve information.gidonb (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Replace - delete category and replace with the more widely used Category:Royal Air Force airmen, Category:Royal Air Force officers and the Army equivalants . MilborneOne (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.P.S. Sorry, but can someone explain why it would be OK to listify these categories, but at same time say the categories should deleted. After all a category is just a list of articles. What is the difference. How is a list OK but a category not. This does not make sense Djln--Djln (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A category is a classification of articles, not just a list. Bearcat (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the kind of ridiculous hair spilting that ruins Wiki. As category is still a list. Djln--Djln (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not hair-splitting. Recognizing the vast difference between listing topics and classifying them is a pretty basic encyclopedia-building skill. If you don't understand the difference, consider that a category should not exist for any random intersection of two traits, but only where that intersection of two traits itself constitutes a notable trait. The question is not whether footballers exist who also served in the army; it's whether "footballer who served in the army" is, in and of itself, a notable characteristic that's fundamentally different from "lawyer who served in the army", "writer who served in the army" or "pop singer who served in the army". That's why it's different from a list — by creating a category, you're asserting that there's something uniquely encyclopedic about that particular intersection of traits. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference between lawyers, pop singers and actors who served in the army/RAF is the amount. There are 25 footballers who served in the army and 30 footballers who served in the RAF. There is probably even more that have not been added. I seriously doubt any of these other occupations would have as many entries. In addition the majority of these footballers represented the army/RAF at these sports. As far as I know they don't have a lawyers team, an army pop band, etc Djln --Djln (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Many, if not most, footballers have careers after their football careers. They enter all sorts of occupations and professions. If this category is kept as a precedent, we could then go on and create categories for every other occupational group for those individuals who at one point were footballers. I think that would be a bad idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The majority of these footballers served in and or represented the army/RAF at football during the peak of their career. They did not join the forces as a second career option ! In addition, the vast majority of second careers that footballers had before, during or after their football career are not as notable as serving in the armed forces. I really doubt this will start a chain of cross occupation categories. Djln--Djln (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Peanut4 above. Da-rb (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, trivial intersection. Otto4711 (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial intersection as mentioned by others in this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suicidal fictional characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete per WP:SNOW and consensus. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Suicidal fictional characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I've been thinking about the purpose this category uses for some time. Now, it contains characters who mention it in passing, those where the suicidal feelings play a large part in the character's role, characters where the situation's ambiguous, and some Machiavellian characters. For example, Jack Bauer falls into the third category. What makes him suicidal? The fact he works for CTU? Flying a plane with a nuke on it? Faking his death? Or standing on a cliff watching the waves go by. The person I was thinking for the fourth character is David Platt (Coronation Street) - I remember the storyline - he drove a car into a canal not to kill himself but to ruin his sister's wedding. Face it, the scope is too large and/or ambiguous. Sceptre (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ick. Category:Fictional characters who committed suicide, sure. Fictional characters who are thinking about suicide, not so much.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't care what anybody says: this category has to go! At least if a character actually commits suicide, we've got concrete facts to work with -- maybe even fictional police reports. But if they're only said to be thinking about it, we haven't got objectively verifiable facts -- all we have is the writer's word for it. Come on folks, these writers are novelists and tv scriptwriters -- they're making up stuff all the time. Not exactly a "reliable source"! And how are we supposed to know for sure that they're not holding back details that would throw a different light on things?? Cgingold (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all comments above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial overcategorization of fictional material (aka cruft), and original research/interpretation. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Human trafficking[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: nomination withdrawn and keep per consensus. -Semifreddo (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Human trafficking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category has two articles in it., Human trafficking in Chile and Trafficking in human beings Mattisse (Talk) 00:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because it is relatively empty now doesn't mean it has no potential for being populated. I just added three other articles that already existed. The US govt produces a public domain report on human rights for every country in the world that provides extensive information on human trafficking by country (that's where the Chile article came from), so all that is needed is someone to cut and paste more information to create an article for every country in the world. Mangostar (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it contains subcategories and more articles.--Lenticel (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The category now has a full complement of articles and sub-categories. I'm wondering if Mattisse might want to withdraw the nomination at this point? Cgingold (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There should be more articles. This is a major issue for nearly every law enforcement jurisdiction in the world, and it is getting worse, economic refugees, sexual servitude, slavery, etc., each of which could eventually be sub or related categories too. Peet Ern (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & rename Category:Trafficking in human beings to match the main article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Do not rename per {{slavery}}, the usage on the article's talk page and the hat note. The current main article needs to be renamed here to match the correctly named category. As far as I know human trafficking is the more common usage in law enforcement and a goggle search shows that it is also used 7 times as often. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn nomination - the category has been more than justified and is now well populated. Mattisse (Talk) 14:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Carlossuarez46. -Sean Curtin (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Computer game user templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Computer game user templates to Category:Video game user templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per parent categories. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_4&oldid=1140406153"