Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 23

< February 22	February 24 >

February 23[edit]

Category:Korean culture of Japanese origin[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 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: :This category was created by the abusive sockmaster Azukimonaka (talk · contribs)(KoreanShoriSenyou (talk · contribs)). He has been vandalising Korean related articles with this category. It doesn't belong to any existing category too. If someone thinks that existence of this category is valid, so many adapted items from Korea or outside of Japan should be in the same vein such as Ramen, Kanji, Karate, (Chinese origin), Yakiniku, Hagi ware, Satsuma ware(Korean origin), Tempura(Portugues origin) , Anime, MOS Burger (American origin), Appletrees (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't want to start this soert of category anyway. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 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.

Energy[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 march 3. Kbdank71 14:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Catch-all for loosely related categories involving different types of energy. At best, it should only contain subcategories. I think they should just be deleted, but I'd accept an argument for including Category Electrical Energy xxx, Category Kinetic Energy xxx, etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That was an argument for subcategories, not a suggestion that it be done without a plausible argument. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related subcategories:

I'm only nominating for deletion those categories in the list which were recently created, which is all except Category:Heat control. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new category replacing one of the old categories. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely you should be suggesting a merge of some sort? Are all of these articles adequately categorised otherwise? It seems most unlikely. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're all newly created categories, so, although a merge may be appropriate, it shouldn't really be necessary, and there's a reasonable debate about where to merge. My detailed proposal would be to revert all edits by the category creator on those articles.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
I have added descriptions to the categories in question. I do not deny that some of the categories could have a better name phrase, but I will try convey my thoughts of the categories.
- The categories that ends with "gearing" encompasses articles about changing the impedance, phase or frequency. E.g. the electric: voltage to electric current ratio or the mechanical gear ratio. It might be the word "gearing" should be substituted for "converter" - or maybe "energy form converter"? - see Voltage converter and Torque converter
- The categories that ends with "transfer" encompasses articles about transmission of energy - be it mechanical, electric or electromagnetic (e.g. radiation, waves in generel). Some of these categories might have changed "transfer" to "transmission".
  - category:Power transmission should be merged into category:Energy transfer.
- The categories that ends with "control" encompasses articles about active management or control of energy, either politically or direct energy control.
There is also some discussion here: User_talk:Glenn#Category:Energy_control.
--Glenn (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "gearing" introduced here is confusing and can not exist without a proper explanation (the present ones are even too summary, imho). User:Glenn seems to acknowledge that: he shows he needs to add a descriptive introduction to these categories. He calls them: "descriptions to the categories". For example the introductory explanation in the:
Category:Energy gearing: The category energy gearing contains article about converting energy from one impedance, phase or frequency to another. But the energy form remain in the same domain and the focus is on energy conversion - not signal conversion or signal measurement (like Current-to-voltage converter or Voltage-to-current converter).
Also in Category:Electrical energy gearing, and in Category:Mechanical energy gearing.
It seems to me that the purpose of a category, collecting items of similar "value", is done away with. With an introductory explantion necessary these categories are now article lists with items that fit the title.
If the need is felt to create another category one might use other terms common in physics (e.g. "energy conversion", energy transmission", "energy transfer"?).
And make the present collection in the "...gearing" categories a list with a much better introduction/description. Remove these categories, please, even if such a list is not wanted or made.
--VanBurenen (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some group of these categories should be retained, but renamed. Although the term “power” is often used where “energy” is the appropriate term, I believe the opposite is the case in this instance. When energy is converted from one form to another, transmitted from one place to another, or “used” to do work or provide heat and light, the rate of energy conversion, the power, is often the central issue in controlling the process and selecting the equipment involved. The nominal size of generators, motors, engines, etc. is often stated in horsepower or watts. For that reason, the equipment is widely classified as electrical power generation equipment, electrical power transmission equipment, mechanical power transmission equipment, electrical power distribution equipment, power conversion equipment, electrical power control equipment, etc. Such equipment is not used to convert or transmit a specified amount of energy but to provide a continuous conversion or transmission at an appropriate rate.

Rename: Category:Energy gearing to Category: Power conversion

Merge: Category:Energy transfer to Category: Power transmission

Rename: Category:Energy control to Category: Power control

Delete: Category:Energy insulators

Related subcategories:

Rename: Category:Heat control to Category: Temperature control

Rename Category:Electrical energy control to Category: Electrical power control

Delete: Category:Mechanical energy control

Retain: Category:Heat transfer

Rename: Category:Mechanical energy transfer to Category: Mechanical Power transmission

Rename: Category:Electrical energy gearing to Category: Electrical power conversion

Merge: Category:Mechanical energy gearing to Category:Gears

C J Cowie (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all. Categories should not need great explanation to be useful. The term "electrical energy gearing" is particularly alien; I don't think I've seen that phrase outside Wikipedia."Heat control" and "energy transfer" are impossibly general and would include everything remotely related - too broad a catch-all is no help. ( Put the whole encyclopedia under Category:Stuff ?) --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!
I have tried to find better words for the simple notions of energy/power:

transfer ("handing over the energy")
"generic gearing"; mechanical gearing, pneumatic gearing and electrical conversion
control, control system - in the sense used in: Control theory: "...Consider an automobile's cruise control, which is a device designed to maintain a constant vehicle speed; the desired or reference speed, provided by the driver. The system in this case is the vehicle. The system output is the vehicle speed, and the control variable is the engine's throttle position which influences engine torque output...Although control systems of various types date back to antiquity, a more formal analysis of the field began with a dynamics analysis of the centrifugal governor, conducted by the physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1868 entitled On Governors...".

Source: http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict

WordNet (r) 2.0 :
  conversion
       n 1: an event that results in a transformation [syn: transition,
             changeover]
...
       9: the act of changing from one use or function or purpose to
          another

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :
  Converter \Con*vert"er\, n.
     1. One who converts; one who makes converts.
        [1913 Webster]

WordNet (r) 2.0 :
  convert
...
       v 1: change the nature, purpose, or function of something;
            "convert lead into gold"; "convert hotels into jails";
            "convert slaves to laborers"
       2: change from one system to another or to a new plan or
          policy; "We converted from 220 to 110 Volt" [syn: change
          over]
...
       11: change in nature, purpose, or function; especially undergo a
           chemical change; "The substance converts to an acid"

From WordNet (r) 2.0 :
  transfer
       n 1: the act of transporting something from one location to
            another [syn: transportation, transferral, conveyance]
...
       3: move from one place to another; "transfer the data";
          "transmit the news"; "transfer the patient to another
          hospital"
...
       7: send from one person or place to another; "transmit a
          message" [syn: transmit, transport, channel, channelize,
           channelise]
...
       9: transfer from one place or period to another; "The ancient
          Greek story was transplanted into Modern America" [syn: transpose,
           transplant]


From WordNet (r) 2.0 :  gearing
       n : wheelwork consisting of a connected set of rotating gears by
           which force is transmitted or motion or torque is
           changed; "the fool got his tie caught in the geartrain"
           [syn: gears, geartrain, power train, train]

From WordNet (r) 2.0 :

  transmission
       n 1: the act of sending a message; causing a message to be
            transmitted [syn: transmittal, transmitting]
       2: communication by means of transmitted signals
...
       5: the gears that transmit power from an automobile engine via
          the driveshaft to the live axle [syn: transmission system]

As can be read - transmission seem to encompass transferring and/or gearing?
--Glenn (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow CJ Cowie's various suggestions above not my usual territory, but eg articles in Category:Heat control are clearly NOT adequately categorized elsewhere. The creator is not good at choosing names, but seems to have done some useful collecting and grouping of articles, which should not be lost. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Category:Heat control is not one of his. I agree it should be renamed Category:Temperature control, although I did not nominate it for deletion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's less than crystal clear. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 26 February 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:Kosovo independence supporters[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: moved to WP:UCFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article Category:Kosovo independence supporters to article Wikipedians who support Kosovo's independence

Nominator's rationale: Category meant for userboxes improperly named. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WP:UCFD Otto4711 (talk) 22:01, 23 February 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:Entertainment companies of USSR[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. — CharlotteWebb 17:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Entertainment companies of USSR to Category:Entertainment companies of the Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: Naming conventions. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's so according conventions, I have nohing against. The sense remains the same anyway, so it's ok to me. It's just interesting, what does the rationale exactly say and how is it applied to countries like USA, do you put America instead?--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(the) United States. — CharlotteWebb 17:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:19, 25 February 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.

People by city in Indonesia categories[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. — CharlotteWebb 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Bandung, West Java

Category:People from Blitar, East Java

Category:People from Bogor, West Java

Category:People from Denpasar

Category:People from Jakarta

Category:People from Madiun, East Java

Category:People from Makassar, South Sulawesi

Category:People from Medan, North Sumatra

Category:People from Padang, West Sumatra

Category:People from Palembang, South Sumatra

Category:People from Pekalongan, Central Java

Category:People from Semarang, Central Java

Category:People from Surabaya, East Java

Category:People from Surakarta, Central Java

Category:People from Yogyakarta

Nominator's rationale: Massive over-categorization - there are 91 cities and 349 regencies in Indonesia. Leads to unverifiable labeling of where someone is "from". Does it mean they were born there; lived there; worked there; visited there? Caniago (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - agree that this is significant over-categorisation that will open up all sorts of problems for little gain. However, "People from Indonesia" is arguably too broad - how would you feel about categorisation by the 33 provinces? A superior middle ground position? --Merbabu (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion- I would suggest either province or even island as a narrower categorisation - the city based categorization is too problematic for the potential number Satu Suro 07:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and not only because I was just going to populate the Jakarta category;-) "People by city in" categories exist for "all" (okay, 107) countries. The reason for this probably is a universal interest to know which notable people were born and/or raised in their hometown. Is that different in Indonesia? Generally, the meaning is "born and/or raised in such and so", though sometimes extended to include people immediately associated with one particular town. I agree there is a chance for over-categorization when small towns are being included. For the Netherlands, I've only made categories when 15 or more people with wiki entries came from that town. Before that number is reached a section on "natives" can be added to the town's entry. The "people from city" categories are subcategories of "people from province", where all the people from smaller towns go. Similar structures are in place for most European countries. For the UK and US, things seem to have gotten a bit out of hand though (with 1034 cities, towns, villages, and hamlets for England alone, while I've noticed for the US the occasional inclusion of people that basically just stayed the night in a town). Apparently, that hasn't bothered anyone too much, but it may be prevented by setting a minimum size limit to the subcategories in "Category:People by city in Indonesia" and writing the purpose (e.g. born and raised) with each subcategory. Afasmit (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the fact that you aware of the issue in other countries - it seems odd that you argue for keep here - category maintenance people actually have larger thresholds when they look at this issue - and I would have thought 20-30 was a minimum population for such categories - my opinion is that any with less than 20 to 25 are not justifiable categories to keep open, unless there is a condition stipulated within the Indonesia Project (where this discussion should actually have been announced as well) - as there are large numbers of stubs that are worth defending that have minimal information at ptreent Satu Suro 11:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or upmerge people by city, county, etc. are established category types. There is thus no reason why we should not have something of this kind. The question is whether there are enough articles to make a worthwhile category. The usual solution is to have a country category. This would have 33 provincial subcategories. If there are a large enough number of entries for a particular province, these could be subcategorised by city. To qualify for inclusion a person should have a real and lasting connection, probably usually by residence there, but without ruling out birthplace or childhood home, particularly if that is significant in theri biography. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep all. No reason to single out Indonesian city people categories for deletion. They are perfectly legitimate categories for the the US; they are just as legitimate for Indonesia. Hmains (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable way to break up Indonesian people - huge country with potential for many notable biographies needing to split up geographically like US, UK and other large countries. This isn't Category:People from San Marino by city.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recategorise simply - as one of the few here who are actually involved in the Indonesia project and will actually be stuck with any keep result, this is a really onerous task. Simply because it has been done for other countries, is a poor justification for here - each on their own merits please. Yes it is true that the population of Indonesia is comparable to the USA, but the number of editors, the standard of referencing and verification is no where near the "opulence" of the US coverage in wikipedia. We must keep it simple - we don't have the 100s (1000s?) of USA editors to maintain the complexity of a city by city categorisation - we have a out 4 regular editors working on Indonesian articles. It's a lot simpler for all these people to vote simply say "keep" when they don't have to deal with the poor results. --Merbabu (talk) 11:11, 27 February 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:New Zealand-centric[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. There are only 9 articles that use the template Template:Globalizecountry and you don't need a category to find them, especially if it's just a cleanup category. Kbdank71 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Useless category. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are generic-sounding names like 'dairy' or 'School Certificate' that has NZ-specific meanings, and meanings for countries beyond NZ. To discount this possibility exists is to engage in double standards. --JNZ (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, ill defined and a bad precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The items JNZ mentions are far better handled in other ways (such as Category:New Zealand culture). Grutness...wha? 01:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a cleanup category, marked by Template:Globalizecountry. It isn't widely used but may be a good way to split up the limited geographical scope section. Other articles use the template with other countries, such as Category:Japan-centric, which hasn't been created but has a member. Suggest that if there is a delete consensus here, it be supplemented by consensus at TFD for the template. I would instead recommend subcategorizing some of the limited geographic scope articles. Rigadoun (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The category is confusing and reminds of a certain connotation like Eurocentric.--Appletrees (talk) 23:05, 26 February 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:Alberta Alliance MLAs[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. Leaving abbreviation for now, as there are many other categories that contain "MLAs". Please consider an umbrella nomination to expand them all. Kbdank71 14:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alberta Alliance MLAs to Category:Alberta / Wildrose Alliance MLAs

Nominator's rationale: The party changed its name after a merger in March, only two people ever became Alberta Alliance MLAs. It is kinda useless to have to categories to reflect elected members from this party. --Cloveious (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into category for the merged party. The category page should be provided with a headnote to the effect that it includes predecessors. However "MLA" is not an abbreviation whose expansion is obvious (Member of Legislative Assembly?) please expand. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is correct, the tree has evolved from Category:Members of Canadian provincial legislatures and is then broken down by province and then Party. When i proposed the rename I was thinking something along the lines of this cat Category:Progressive/United Farmer MPs. This contains Canadian Members of Parliament for a few different banners. --Cloveious (talk) 02:03, 25 February 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:Weapon designers[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 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Weapon designers to Category:Weapons scientists and engineers

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Redundancy. Zargulon (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge? The proposed target for the merge does not exist. What's the redundancy you're talking about? Pichpich (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it exists now. The redundancy is that the designers were all scientists or engineers whereas not all the scientists and engineers were designers.. I thought it would be better to go for the more inclusive cat. Zargulon (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still not convinced. Can you give me an example of a "weapons scientist" that couldn't reasonably be labelled a "weapon designer" or a "weapon engineer"? Pichpich (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not asking the right question.. you should be asking "can you give me an example of a "weapons scientist" or a "weapons engineer" that couldn't be labelled a "weapon designer". Answer, yes: examples are all the minor scientists who worked on specific parts of the atom bomb e.g. the core, the fuse etc. without contributing to its overall design. The principle is that a designer needs to be involved with the whole entity (here, weapon) at some level, whereas an engineer or a scientist may only be interested in some component or set thereof. Zargulon (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... ok. I'm not sure that this subtle distinction is really worth the awkwardness of the title, which makes it an unnatural subcategory of its parents. Why not just create a category people who worked on the bomb and put that as a subcategory of weapon designers? In any case, if their involvement in weapons design was tangential, why would we need to attach them to this category? Just throwing ideas out there, I don't really have a strong opinion on the whole thing. Pichpich (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't feel it's that awkward but I respect your feelings. The main reason I introduced it was because I wanted to make it a subcat of scientists and of engineers, and I thought it sounded better if it actually had "scientists" and "engineers" in the title. Zargulon (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I'm just hoping for a third opinion. There's a Category:Nuclear weapons in which one might reasonably create Category:Nuclear weapons developers. Then keep Category:Weapon designers and throw the nuclear developers in there. I just thought that "weapons scientist" was an awkward term (but apparently, Google doesn't think so!). Pichpich (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"nuclear weapons scientist and engineers" could reasonably be a subcat of "weapons scientists and engineers", or indeed of "scientists" and "engineers", but "nuclear weapons developers" could hardly be a subcat of "developers"..along with "software developers"? "photograph developers"? "late developers"? But even if "nuclear weapons developers" sounded ok, nuclear weapons are hardly the only example. Any complex armament involves weapons scientists and engineers who are not designers, and those people probably work on a variety of weapons. Zargulon (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm still thinking this through, so I won't make a recommendation right now. But I do want to mention that we already have Category:Manhattan Project people, which should fit in here somewhere. Cgingold (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless, but let's not get sidetracked on atomic weapons specifically. Zargulon (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging - After looking at a sampling of the articles in Category:Weapon designers I've concluded that it would not make good sense to merge as proposed, because many of these individuals are/were not, in fact, either scientists or engineers. Having said that, I'm afraid that still leaves unresolved the larger question of how best to name the category(ies) for these people. I'm not sure it really makes sense to call all of them "Weapon designers". And I don't know if there should be two separate but closely related categories. I suppose that will require further discussion outside the scope of this CFD (perhaps through WikiProject Military history). Cgingold (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentCgingold, thanks for participating. Just out of interest could you give your best example of someone who is currently classified as a weapons designer who wasn't a scientist or an engineer? Zargulon (talk) 18:06, 28 February 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:Christian LGBT people[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 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Christian LGBT people to Category:LGBT people involved in the Christian Church

Nominator's rationale: Ok, I'll admit my proposed renaming is awful but hopefully someone can suggest a better name. Here's the problem: in this debate it was agreed that such categories should stay and I have no quarrel with that. The problem is that this category should be intended to group people whose identity as a Christian and as a homosexual has been defining. Of course, it makes a lot of sense to have a category for Paul Barnes (pastor), Anita C. Hill, Chris Glaser, Justin W. Lee, Daniel A. Helminiak and so on. All these people have been, for various reasons, involved in defining or influencing the difficult relationship between the LGBT community and the Christian community. But unless the category's name makes this more explicit, it will continue to hold biographies of people who have not been remotely involved in these debates. People like Samantha Fox, Oscar Wilde, Sam Champion, John Bodkin Adams, May Swenson. Yes, the latter are Christians, yes they are LGBT people. But the intersection of these two characteristics is meaningless in most cases. Pichpich (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am Lquilter, and I approve this attempt at clarifying the intended scope of the category. A proposed rename would make the connection to WP:CATGRS very clear. (And I took the liberty of fixing a typo in the proposed name, Pichpich.) I'm open to other names too. Perhaps Category:LGBT people in Christian occupations? That sounds almost a little too specific but when I look at the various examples of people we would want to include or exclude, it works. A somewhat lengthier version that is perhaps more grammatically correct would be Category:LGBT people in Christian Church-related occupations. --Lquilter (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the typo. By the way, before anybody starts suspecting that I have something against the LGBT people categories, please rest assured: what I really have a problem with is the absurd subcategories of Category:Christian people. The same sort of cleanup should be done for categories like Category:Christian writers, Category:Fictional Catholics (how ridiculous is it to throw Robert Chase, Diane Murray, Rey Curtis and Crazy Jane in that category? It also has subcategories like Category:The Sopranos characters which is not only ridiculous but incorrect to boot.) As for the best name for the category, I think it would have to be something that allows the inclusion of militants for the recognition of gay rights by the Christian Church, whether or not these militants hold any religious office. Pichpich (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the suggested rename is awkward. There is no monolithic "Christian Church" that people are involved in. It is also subjective. What constitutes being "involved" with the church? Being part of the clergy? Weekly attendance at service? Going every Christmas and Easter? Being baptized? Otto4711 (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you get my point. Sure, the renaming is not ideal which is why I'm asking for suggestions. Did you check out the examples above? As it is, the category is not serving its intended purpose. If the category is to mean LGBT people who happen to be Christians then it is as useful as a category of Christian aviators or a category of LGBT bodyguards. But the intersection is meaningful in cases where LGBT Christians have either fought for acceptance by the church or were ostracized by their church because of their sexual orientation. Unless the name of the category reflects this, we'll be stuck with a category that perpetually needs to be cleaned up to reflect its intended use. By the way, Otto, you ask: "What constitutes being "involved" with the church? Being part of the clergy? Weekly attendance at service? Going every Christmas and Easter? Being baptized?" I hope you realize that one can ask the much simpler question: "What constitutes being a Christian?". Ironically enough many Christian traditionalists would argue that any homosexual is not a Christian unless he's devoted to fighting his sexual orientation. If anything, this stresses the need for a category name that avoids the judgement call "person X is a Christian" and returns it to its true intention "people involved in the relations between the LGBT community and Christian communities". I think we can all agree that this is what the category should be. Pichpich (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this is a judgment call. If there are reliable sources in which the person identifies as LGBT and in which s/he identifies as Christian, then they're an LGBT Christian and they can go in the category. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that this category is supposed to include only those LGBT Christians who have fought for inclusion or been ostracized by their churches, because that idea is not supported in the head note for the category or on its talk page. Otto4711 (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this category was nominated for deletion about a year ago and the result (obviously) was keep. Otto4711 (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be so condescending Otto. If you had paid attention you'd have noticed that I referred to this CfD in my initial nomination. But why bother reading when you've made up your mind, right? This is a recurrent problem with categories that are a defining characteristic for some and a trivial characteristic for others. That's how we end up with friggin' John Travolta in Category:American aviators next to Chuck Yeager. For categories to be semantically sound and to avoid category clutter, it's important to have precisely formulated inclusion criteria. This is particularly important when categories are intersections of unrelated characteristics. Don't you find it odd that the category ends up saying: theologian Daniel A. Helminiak who has argued in favour of an opening of the Christian Church to the LGBT community is, just like serial killer John Bodkin Adams, your run of the mill Christian LGBT person? Does it not matter that the category includes Samantha Fox, Toshi Reagon and Jerry Smith (football player) who, as far as we know, have never said squat about the connection between these two aspects of their lives? Categories are supposed to carry information, not trivia. Categories are supposed to be used to categorize people through their defining characteristics. All these people are already included in categories Category:LGBT people by nationality and Category:Christians by nationality because we don't want to isolate them in these intersection categories. So I'm proposing we use this category to say something more meaningful than person X is both Christian and gay. Pichpich (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm trying to be condescending there won't be any confusion about it. I didn't notice that you'd linked the CFD in your nomination. Your assumptions about what membership in this category says, other than the person in it is an LGBT Christian, don't persuade me. Otto4711 (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) See Wikipedia:Categorization of people and particularly the advice: limit the number of categories, which says: "For example, a film actor that holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right." Using the category as it is being used currently is just creating clutter. If that'll make you happy, keep the category under this name and write clearly in the introduction that this is not what CatScan would end up by computing the intersection of LGBT people and Christian people. Pichpich (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are personal characteristics - everybody has a religious and sexual orientation, both of which are legitimate categories in and of themselves. Not everybody has a law degree. I guess I'm confused, is it the wording or the intersection that is up for debate? You suggest a merge but seem to argue against the intersection. --Phyesalis (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both are legitimate categories. Absolutely. What I'm suggesting is refocusing the category so that it's not the intersection of these two legitimate categories but something slightly more restrictive so that it only includes people for which this intersection is meaningful in their public life. Pichpich (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Neither Samantha Fox nor Oscar Wilde work/ed for a Christian church - it isn't their professional involvement in organized religion but rather their personal commitment to JC. In response to Pichpich, I don't see why this category needs to be qualified with an explicit reference in which the subject links their religious and sexual orientations. Do LGBT by nationality subjects have to link their orientation to their nationality? However, one option is suggest that categorizations are based on notable characteristics - the fact that John Travolta apparently flies plans could not be used to categorize him as an aviator because he isn't known for flying planes. Or maybe you could just parse out what "aviator" means for WP category purposes (that of professional/exploratory aviation) over at the category's talk page. And maybe this is inconsistent, but since the phrase "Christian" is overwhelmingly understood as one who has a personal (rather than personal and professional) relationship with Christ, it would be weird to suddenly redefine the spirit of the Christian LGBT category as those who are professionally engaged with Christ. How much more meaningful does the category need to be? It covers spiritual and sexual orientation - there's a lot of info coded in those two positions. --Phyesalis (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(See also the edit conflict reply to Otto above.) I know I'll sound like a broken record but it's all about making a smart use of a category which is currently filled with many biographies which have nothing to do with the relation of LGBT and Christian communities. Sure, we can leave it like that. We're just wasting an opportunity to create a category which would actually be interesting to browse. If someone were to look for meaningful examples of LGBT Christians, they'd sure be disappointed to read about Samantha Fox. By the way, don't be fooled by my crummy proposal for a new category name: I do not mean to restrict it to people holding religious offices, I just want to find a way to reduce the category to its essence by removing individuals whose simultaneous faith and sexual orientation is not a significant part of their public life. I'm sure that it is a big deal in their private life, but this moves us away from an encyclopaedic use of the category system and closer to a tabloid. Pichpich (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How arrogant of you to assume that just because you're disappointed that Samantha Fox is in this category that other readers will be too. And how presumptuous of you to decide that her faith and her sexuality are not simultaneously important in her life, especially when there's a quote right in her article in which she discusses how her faith and her sexuality (in the context of her erotic modeling) intersect! Did you even read her article before deciding she was unworthy to be in this category? I found her article quite interesting and it's likely I would never have read it at all had she not been in the LGBT Christians category. Otto4711 (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not contesting that it's a big deal for Samantha Fox (and I said precisely that about 1 line above your comment). I'm not disappointed to find Samantha Fox is there because I find her insignificant (though actually, I do, but that's beyond my point). I just think everyone can agree that this intersection is not a meaningful part of her public life. For the record, I did read her article and the interview you refer to mentions how she reconciles her erotic modelling and her faith, not her homosexuality (or bisexuality) and her faith. You will also find the following interesting quote from her: "People keep trying to say I'm a lesbian. I don't know what I am." What I don't get Otto is how you can argue on one hand that it's meaningless to have a category for 19th century women writers because it's not a meaningful intersection and then argue here that one shouldn't attempt to instill a more meaningful slant to this category. Pichpich (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX is a pretty poor argument. Those categories are triple intersections of sex, occupation and timeframe and in general triple intersections are IMHO overcategorization. And yes, the quote is about her erotic modeling, and I said precisely that about 2 lines above your comment. Otto4711 (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you also opposed intersections of women and occupation. Is consistence really so much to ask for? And come on, show a little good faith: I say "simultaneous faith and sexual orientation is not a significant part of her public life", you say "not so, she discusses her faith and sexuality simultaneously", I reply "but she does not discuss her sexual orientation and faith simultaneously" to which you reply "of course, I never said that". Re-read the exchange to grasp its full absurdity. Pichpich (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look. You are completely and utterly wrong-headed in your intention here and you're not going to change my mind regardless of what you do or what you say or what previous opinions of mine that you dredge up. The last I heard "Christian" isn't an job and "LGBT" isn't a sex so my opinion on the women by occupation category is more than a little bit less than relevant. Otto4711 (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This argument isn't productive, the strength of Otto's points have nothing to do with his previous votes. If Otto was the subject of the discussion, sure, but the category is the focus here. --Phyesalis (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As proposed, this is taking away valid people's (whether they are ministers or rock stars shouldn't matter) spirituality and relegating them to employees of the church. I know a janitor at a local church and he's agnostic. Should he be in the newly named cat? I think not. Leave it as is unless we can come up with something a little less demeaning to LGBT Christians. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demeaning to Christians? No no no, I think you don't understand what Lquilter and I are trying to do. I don't mind rockstars in the category: if they've made both their Christian faith and their sexual orientation simultaneously part of their public life, great, let's have them in the category. Obviously, if you're an openly gay priest, minister, bishop etc, you de facto make the reconciliation of your faith and sexual orientation an integral part of your public life. We're not demeaning Christians or, for that matter, LGBT people. We're trying to get the category centered on people whose Christian faith has significantly and publicly interacted with their sexual orientation. In short, we're trying to get closer to the spirit of Wikipedia:Categorization of people, that is ensure that the number of categories [is limited] to what is most essential about this person and conversely ensure that the category is a more meaningful subcategory of Category:LGBT issues and religion, a meaningful subcategory of Category:Homosexuality and Christianity. Ok, my suggested new name sucks, I get that but please overlook this for a moment and ask yourself whether the suggested goal is worthwhile even if the proposed means through renaming is off the mark. Pichpich (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In having a look at this, I noticed that Oscar Wilde is already included in Category:LGBT people from Ireland and two converts to Catholicism categories - so I can see the point that the LGBT Christians category is redundant. Having said that, the proposed replacement seems to me to be a category that would make redundant category:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith, which seems to me to be a natural category under category:LGBT people by occupation. Yet, you could have an ordained LGBT person who makes a choice to avoid involving themselves in the interaction between the church and the LGBT community, who would not be included in the new category being described. I am unconvinced that this situation would be an improvement. Further, considering that both category:LGBT Jews and category:LGBT Muslims have both been recenetly kept, maybe a better approach would be to rename to category:LGBT Christians for consistency, and then keep. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(side note) I wasn't aware that indeed, these categories had survived CfD in this recent debate. In all fairness, most of the debate revolved around the ill-advised nomination of Category:LGBT people and important subcats like Category:Bisexual people. A few people who opposed the deletion of these specifically noted that they could do without the religion subcategories. Pichpich (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting take. To further clarify, I'm thinking of a category that would include category:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith. (well I suppose, we would need to create category:LGBT ordained or vowed Christians but you get the idea) The category would also include people who have been active participants in the oftentimes difficult relationship between Christian communities and the LGBT community, but it would leave out people who a) are homosexual, b) are Christians but c) have not in any way, shape or form made that duality a significant part of their public life. Pichpich (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, correct that I meant only the Christian members of category:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith. I understand the suggestion that you are making, but surely it would then need to be applied to the Jewish and Muslim LGBT categories, and extended to other faiths as well? Perhaps a better approach would be to make the suggestion for them collectively? I also wonder about someone ordained or vowed who is also gay and chooses to stay as far away from the interactions between the communities. I know a closeted man with formal roles for the Catholic church, and who would never voluntary get anywhere near these inter-community interactions for fear of being outed accidentally (or even maliciously). If he were wiki-notable and there were reliable sources for him being closeted, would he go into your category? Just a couple of thoughts for you to chew on. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I forgot to mention: Oscar Wilde is an interesting case. His sexual orientation is well documented and in fact his refusal to hide it carefully got him to jail. From what I know (and that seems more or less confirmed by the article) though Wilde was raised in the protestant faith, that had little or no bearing on his life. It's not even too clear whether he was a practising Christian. On his deathbed, he suddenly decides to convert to Roman Catholicism. Can't we agree that it's a big stretch him to categorize him as an LGBT Christian? Pichpich (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wilde was a fan of Pascal? In any case, if we can reliably demonstrate a death-bed conversion, then I have no particular problem with him being in the category (as it is presently constituted - the one you propose would be a different story). I would have much more problem if the article described him as Christian - or Catholic - without noting the ambiguities that you note. Jay*Jay (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nom. Support Jay*Jay's rename to category:LGBT Christians. If there are problems over definition they can be dealt with by providing a headnote on the category page, defining who should appear and who should not. The question of who is a Christian is always a diffcult one, but I would suggest that the category should not be used for nominal Christians, only for those for whom their faith is a significant issue in their biography. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment - Weirdly, nobody has addressed the CATGRS issue yet. WP:CATGRS spells out clearly what's required for an intersection category. The criteria specify that a head article has to be able to be written on the topic of the intersection itself. Because the current category is vague, it encompasses several possible such topics that could support the criteria. These are: (1) Anybody who is both a Christian and an LGBT person. This is the type of intersection category that is often considered ovecategorization and is not permitted by the criteria set forth in WP:CATGRS. This is how the category is used now, because it is titled so vaguely. The proposed switcheroo to "LGBT Christians" wouldn't change the vagueness or the use one whit. Unfortunately, this is overcategorization. There is nothing in particular gained here that wouldn't be gained by use of the intersection tool, and we have been told many, many times, that our most cherished intersections are irrelevant unless they are supported by WP:CATGRS. (2) people practicing a specifically LGBT-oriented version of christianity. This is Carlossuarez46's favorite take on intersections (the famous "there is no Asian American science" argument), and here, "LGBT-flavored Christianity" might well support an article, and therefore a category for practitioners of LGBT-flavored Christianity. But I don't know that article, I haven't seen the scholarship to support it, and I don't think that most people in the current category practice anything that might be reasonably called "LGBT-brand Christianity". (3) LGBT people who are notably involved with Christianity, as opposed to personally (and non-notably) people of faith. This is what I believe that Pichpich is trying to get at, and I think it could easily be supported by a head article -- maybe already is. Christianity need not be considered simply a "job" like a cleric or a janitor. Anyone who is notably Christian would qualify. For instance, Francis Collins is by profession a scientist; however, it would certainly be reasonable to call him a Christian in this category (if he were LGBT) because he notably professes and talks about Christianity, and how it is reconciled with his occupation.

Let me put it another way. We can and should have a category that focuses on LGBT people who are notably involved with Christianity: The founder of the MCC, Gene Robinson, and many others. An article needs to be written, if it hasn't already, on this topic, and relevant people should be so categorized. What is the relationship that people see between this needed (and currently non-existent) category, and the current existing category that is merely an intersection between any and all LGBT people who have ever at one point in their life professed Christianity? The current category includes, apparently, anybody who has ever professed Christianity in a verifiable way such that it can be mentioned in their Wikipedia article; this includes those whose whose Christianity is notable and public (Gene Robinson) as well as those whose Christianity is private and last-minute (Oscar Wilde) and those whose Christianity is titular, nominal, and on-the-record (many, many people). I'll assume arguendo that all of them can be described in their articles as "Christian" and placed in "Christian" categories. How do people think that the intersection of this type of Christianity and LGBT-ness should be related to the other intersection that Pichpich proposes and that supports an article per WP:CATGRS? --Lquilter (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a simpler proposal would be to avoid the renaming issue altogether and simply rephrase the introductory line of the category along these lines. Pichpich (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary religion category. This is one area where WP:CATGRS breaks down: the intersection between Christianity and homosexuality is notable, those who happen to belong to both don't however form a notable cohesive group - say, like drivers by age and sex and marital status (and we know that men, the young, very old, and single pay for more insurance so there must be some correlation in the eye of some capitalistic market), people with cancer by race/ethnicity (governments like to report on that) - so while these intersections like gay Christians have lots written about them and are notable, the individuals are not notable for the intersections unless you want Category:Teen drivers, Category:African Americans with cancer, Category:Fooians in poverty, etc..... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree in part, I think deletion is a bit extreme. There is clearly an important subset of LGBT Christians who have had significant impact in the attitude of the Church towards the LGBT community. So refocusing the scope of the category would, I think, be more valuable than outright deletion. Pichpich (talk) 03:35, 25 February 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:Far-left politics[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 14:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: 'Far-left' is by far to dubious to be basis of categorization. 'Far-left' carries (except in France) a clear negative pov tinge. Left/right scales are highly contextual. Soman (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subcats, also proposed for deletion:

- Category:Far left political parties
- Category:Banned far left parties
- Category:Far-left politics in France
- Category:Far-left politics in Germany
- Category:Far left politicians in Germany
- Category:Far-left politics in Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soman (talk • contribs) 13:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, meaningless term in political science. Lumps together ex-Communists, the Red Army Faction, anarchists and others in an indiscriminate way. Existing categories serve the purposes of navigation more efficiently and accurately. Relata refero (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that all the articles in the categories above are already in suitable other categories? This seems unlikely, and the nomination should be to upmerge. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I consider this a frivolous nomination. The term far left is established in political science and used by several government agencies (as Germany is concerned, see http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/de/arbeitsfelder/ and Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung) and we already have the category Category:Far-right politics with several sub categories with identical structures. These categories — left and right — of course must be treated equally, in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV. We cannot delete the categories on far-left and keep the categories on far-right. Several other Wikipedia editions have similar categories for far-right and far-left - for instance nl:Categorie:Links-radicalisme and fr:Catégorie:Extrême gauche. It is meaningless to lump politicians who advocate a totalitarian society together with the democratic Social Democratic Party of Germany. Harry Barrow (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The terms 'far-left' and 'far-right' are not exactly analogous. The term 'far-left' is far more difficult to delimitate. That said, I don't think the 'far-right' category is entirely unproblematic, and more so its subcat Category:Far right political parties (in which pov inclusion problem is endemic). The fact that German state intelligence has a rather notorius behaviour of labelling organisations, parties and movements as 'extremists' should not set precedent at wikipedia, likewise as the labelling of organisations as 'terrorists' by various states is not used for labelling at wiki categories (instead we have the Category:Organizations designated as terrorist). The categorization on non-English wikis is an issue in those wiki communities, not enwiki. --Soman (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any difference between Red Army Faction or Red Brigades terrorism or leftist advocacy of totalitarian societies, and right-wing terrorism or advocacy of totalitarian societies. I suggest you instead propose all categories with the "far" label for deletion. It is impossible to delete only the left-wing categories and keep the right-wing ones. Harry Barrow (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment, WP:OTHERCRAP. Moreover, if your criteria for inclusion is "advocacy of totalitarian societies", then the category is definately has a pov problem. Also, I think this issues in similar to the discussion on listing of parties at the main article, Talk:Far_left#Listing_of_parties_.28again.29. Left/right distinctions are highly contextual. What is far left in one country might be moderate right-wing in another. Thus labels such as socialist, communist, etc., are more useful for categorizations. --Soman (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We are absolutely not going to ignore Wikipedia:NPOV. It constitutes a gross violation of the NPOV policy to treat left and right differently, so it's only possible to discuss the problem of having such categories at all. This category has no more a POV problem than any other category with the label "far". I am willing to discuss whether we should use the far-right and far-left labels, but I'm not willing to discuss whether we should use only one of the two identical and opposite labels. Harry Barrow (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment, 'far-left' and 'far-right' are not identical concepts. 'Far-right' is a term fairly less ambigous, it refers to a fairly well-identified political tendency in Europe, its less ambigious due to the wish by the mainstream rightwing to distinguish themselves from fascism after WWII. Whilst it is less POV to refer to to say that Rifondazione Comunista is 'communist' rather than 'far-left', 'far-right' is in some ways less problematic to call Lega Nord 'far-right' instead of 'fascist'. --Soman (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly, but maybe rename. The Radical Left is how many like to be called I think. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a reason? Relata refero (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "far left" is POV, which I don't accept, then "radical left" is not. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "far left" is a common term in political science: 10500 hits in google scholar [1], 987 hits in google books [2]. Martintg (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, no-one is arguing that 'far left' is not a commonly used term. There is an article called far left, and there's no argument over deleting that one. The question is if their can be any npov inclusion criteria for such a category. I'd say no. --Soman (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, as long as we have category:Far-right politics, I disagree that the opposite category is any less neutral. I think it is useful to have a top level category for politics and organisations like the Red Brigades, Red Army Faction and parties on the far-left. Such organisations clearly distinguish themselves from what is only considered "left-wing". Harry Barrow (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? Militant leftists such as you name are different from radical pacifist anarchists are different from refounded neo-Stalinists. Neither they themselves nor political scientists would group them together. Why do we? Relata refero (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not think there is a problem of definition. They may differ from each other fundamentally, but that does not prevent others identifiying them all as far left. Indeed, one of the issues as to the far left in Britain is that there is a multiplicity of small groups which disagree with each other. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - 'others identifying them all as far left', so the criteria for delimitation should be 'others identifying them'? --Soman (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, as per the small groups which disagree with each other, this doesn't hold as an inclusion criteria. Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is far larger than all British left factions together, and arguably more radical than most of them. The problem is that left/right distinctions are contextual, and do not fit well for international comparisons. --Soman (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are 10500 hits in google scholar and 987 hits in google books in relation to the "far left", then inclusion of a particular group ought to be on the basis of what the published sources say, so I don't see any issue with the inclusion criteria. Martintg (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there was a discussion on this at the article far left, regarding listing of parties as 'far left'. Quite obvious is that different writers employ extremly different criteria, there is no uniform definition of the term. It is far to subjective to function as a category. --Soman (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Has Category:Far left political parties been de-populated -- or was it never populated in the first place? I set out on a walking tour of these categories and found that category empty except for the sub-cat for banned parties. It's always easier to make judgements about these things when we can see how the categories we're discussing are being used. Cgingold (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a number of parties which may be included, but further work on the fairly new far-left categories obviously is on hold during this discussion. Harry Barrow (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all -- valid categories as long as they are used properly. --Wassermann (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it would be highly beneficial if any of those editors that have left 'keep' votes here, could present a reasonable proposal for a definition to be used for the category. --Soman (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any group designated as "far left" in a peer-reviewed article in a scholarly journal. Martintg (talk) 09:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to make some comments. Firstly, I think to divide Left politics to Far left and Left-wing politics IMO is over-categorisation. Secondly, far-left is completely dubious. Very few parties characterise themselves as "far left". Morever, not all communists parties are "radical" if you believe that "far left" means "radical left". (See the wring, by my opinion, subcategorision of Category:Communist parties in Germany in Category:Far-left politics in Germany). Thirdly, I noticed that someone place Anarchism in France in Category:Far-left politics in France !!! Anarchists don't characterise themselves as "left" or "right" and I think none believes that anarchism is part of "left politics". Maybe some ideological currents mix ideas from anarchism and communism but certainly Anarchism itself is not part of "left politics". -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What you say is also true for right-wing parties. There certainly are no right-wing parties which describe themselves as far-/extremist. But, our goal is not to be the website of the parties in question, but to describe them in a neutral manner. The opinion of political scientists/research institutions, other encyclopedias, the media, government agencies etc. needs to be taken into account when we decide whether a party belongs in the category far-right or far-left. If there is no need to distinguish between left and far-left, there is no need to distinguish between, say a conservative party and a neonazi party, in your opinion? Harry Barrow (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you want to open a cfd for the far-right parties category, thats fine with me. However, this cfd is on the far-left categories. The comparison you make is however a bit faulty, the historical and ideological relationship between communists and social democrats is not analogous to fascism and conservatism. As per criteria of inclusion, taking into account 'opinion of political scientists/research institutions, other encyclopedias, the media, government agencies etc.' is not a workable definition. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and these categories have be useful for international comparison. A political scientist might dub 'party X' as far left when discussing the political system in a specific country (in the sense that the party occupies the leftmost position in that national context), but in an international context 'party X' might be seen as fairly moderate or even non-left. Left/right distinctions are highly dubious to clearly define , and as per categorization of political parties then more clearly identified ideologies (Category:communist parties, Category:Socialist parties, etc.) are much more useful. --Soman (talk) 06:54, 28 February 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:Dennis Potter works[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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dennis Potter works to Category:Works by Dennis Potter

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Naming convention of Category:Works by author. Tim! (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 25 February 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:IrDA[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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IrDA to Category:Infrared Data Association

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym to match main article. Or Delete since the category is not likely to be expanded. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as current, encyclopaedic. Relata refero (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is your opposition to a rename? Are you thinking that there is something that will be deleted? There is no proposal here to delete anything. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Relata, I'm not sure you've read the nomination. There's no quarrel about the cat's existence so I'm not sure what "encyclopaedic" has to do with anything. Pichpich (talk) 16:33, 23 February 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:RFID[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 to Category:Radio-frequency identification. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:RFID to Category:Radio-frequency identification

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Radio-frequency identification (RFID). The main article' title is in fact Radio-frequency identification. Pichpich (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the nomination to match the main article. Why exactly are you saying that the category needs disambiguation? That is what the {RFID} part of you proposed name is. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:06, 26 February 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:CDMA[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 14:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CDMA to Category:Code division multiple access

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as current, recognisable. Relata refero (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And how is that a reason to not follow previous consensus on this type of rename? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the telecomunications industry is replete in acronyms, and "CDMA" is more commonly used rather than the expanded form. Martintg (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But that does not explain why we should not follow consensus and the guidelines to have the article and category use the same name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match the main article: Code division multiple access. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:46, 2 March 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:Aviation accidents and incidents on volcanoes[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 15:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not notable; link to volcanoes is very tentative in some cases; list is short and will not expand; numerous aircraft-related lists already covering causes. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the three incidents in the category, only the British Airways Flight 9 crash is actually related to volcanic activity. The other two crashed against a mountain which just happened to be a volcano. Pichpich (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable intersection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:29, 25 February 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:HSDPA[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 to match article and guidelines about expanding abbreviations. Kbdank71 14:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:HSDPA to Category:High-Speed Downlink Packet Access

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the telecomunications industry is replete in acronyms, and "HSDPA" is more commonly used rather than the expanded form. Martintg (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But that does not explain why we should not follow consensus and the guidelines to have the article and category use the same name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 26 February 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:HSPA[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 to match article and guidelines about expanding abbreviations. Kbdank71 14:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:HSPA to Category:High-Speed Packet Access

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the telecomunications industry is replete in acronyms, and "HSPA" is more commonly used rather than the expanded form. Martintg (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But that does not explain why we should not follow consensus and the guidelines to have the article and category use the same name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 26 February 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:Wireless broadband[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 14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Single entry group. No need to up merge since the article has the needed categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary. Relata refero (talk) 13:51, 23 February 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:Sludge metal groups[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: merge. Kbdank71 15:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge/Rename - Category:Sludge metal groups should have been Category:Sludge metal musical groups and should be merged and renamed. It is also the proper naming for categories at naming conventions of categories. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Lugnuts (talk) 10:27, 23 February 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.