Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 14 November 16 >

November 15[edit]

Swimmer categories including both demonym and stroke[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: upmerge all to "fooian swimmers". Kbdank71 14:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete I think we've seen an inflation of subcats to the nationality categories of swimmers, e.g. Category:American swimmers which includes Category:American butterfly swimmers, Category:American breaststroke swimmers, Category:American backstroke swimmers, Category:American freestyle swimmers and Category:American medley swimmers. I don't think we need to categorise the articles by preferred stroke and demonym, athletes and footballers aren't categorised by preferred event or position together with the demonym. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swimming#Subcats to nationality categories of swimmers. SMARTSKAFT | ¿ 22:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all to "Fooian swimmers" - agreed that this is overly specific categorization. Suggest upmerging rather than deleting to be sure that the articles are maintained in the nationality structure. Otto4711 (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all to "Fooian swimmers" - per nom + Otto (some of them need tagging). Occuli (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all to "Fooian swimmers" - per nom + Otto etc. It might be different if they all stuck to one stroke (or indeed one country). Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are five different strokes, which are all well-defined, including the award of different medals at the Olympics in each of these disciplines. While some swimmers cross a few strokes, most specialize in one or two. This is exactly what categorization is for. Throwing all swimmers into one big pool by nationality is a perfect example of undercategorization. Alansohn (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing all swimmers into one big pool Hehe. Lugnuts (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment one of the styles is wrong, since freestyle isn't a style, so you can't specialize in it, you could specialize in front crawl... 76.66.198.46 (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Event" would be a better word. Alansohn (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, but unless you are a front crawl specialist, you don't specialize in freestyle either, since your stroke would be one of the other ones (or a stroke so slow no one uses it). 76.66.201.13 (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all to Fooian swimmers. As per nom, if track and field athletes and baseball players aren't specialized enough to merit separate categorization, I fail to see how swimmers would be. -choster (talk) 03:54, 17 November 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:Canals opened in 1792[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: upmerge. Kbdank71 15:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Canals opened in 1792 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete A narrow and arbitrary category (two members, no other years have categories) and unlikely to grow. 132.244.246.25 (talk) 14:27, 17 November 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:Myst novels[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: upmerge. Kbdank71 14:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Myst novels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only one article in the category. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:35, 15 November 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:Fictional hybrids[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 specify this is for life forms and not cars. Kbdank71 14:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Fictional hybrids to Category:Fictional hybrid life forms

To match Category:Fictional life forms.

The introduction suggests that this should only be a category for characters, and not for species, but it's categorising both (and more).

The problem is that this is just grouping characters who happen to be "half-something". And it's more than just "half". There are characters in the half-elf subcat that are 1/8 or even 1/16 elf. I'm not sure that this is necessarily something we should be categorising. (I'm looking at Miscegenation, multiracial, Métis, Mulatto, Mestizo, and Quadroon, and thinking that no, probably not.)

And even if the more specific sub-cats are kept (like Half-elf), the general category should be depopulated, as being too broad. And a category being a rather poor way to do this, since each type of "hybrid" can't be explained in a "catch-all" category. A grouping of such characters should be a list, if anything. - jc37 20:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename and depopulate of characters - as nominator. - jc37 20:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category provides a rather clear definition that "This category is for fictional character who are a hybrid or a cross between two different species." As has become customary, the nomination ignores the definition and then goes on a rambling description of how there might be borderline case, such as the complete nonsense argument of being "1/8 or even 1/16 elf". It just goes even more beyond the pale with a discussion of racial mixing articles that have nothing to do with mixes of species. When a fictional character is created, the author endows the character with certain characteristics. Being a mis of two species (not races) is a uniquely defining characteristic. As in the example case of Spock, the fact that he is half human and half Vulcan is not just a throwaway. As this is a strong defining characteristic, and as the argument for deletion offers no policy argument, and consists entirely of rambling nonsense about race mixing and fractional hybridization, there is no argument for deletion to be addressed. Alansohn (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument might at least make "some" more sense if this category was specifically for "half-Vulcans". But it's not. It's for "half-somethings". Half-orcs, Half-Thanagarians, Half-Aliens, Half-donkeys, etc. All grouped together, not in individual subcats, but together in a single category. As a list, with clarification, explanations and sources, sure. But as a category, this is just a hodge-podge of "stuff". And attempting to split to subcats of a single individual each would simply be a bane to navigation.
    Also, good luck with your "what is human" vs. "what is an ethnicity" argument. Last I recall, Star Trek TNG actually made it clear that all (or at least most) of the humanoid races are related in common ancestry in that universe, just for one example. - jc37 08:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I have no quibble with the category's existence or its description, but I did assume at first it was for the Toyonda Pious.-choster (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - is this category supposed to be capturing individuals of mixed species or the general mixed species themselves? It is not at all clear from the category, its name, the suggested rename or the contents. Otto4711 (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the intro suggests that it should include characters (individuals), but, as I note in the nom, that's confusingly problematic. (And noting that the category currently includes a lot of other things. As you seem to have noted, in that you've recently removed several pages from the cat.)
    Anyway, that said, I can see a value of categorising articles about such life forms. (Rather than the individual character examples.) Hence my suggestion for a rename and depopulation of characters. - jc37 13:34, 20 November 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.


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: speedy delete Pegasus «C¦T» 22:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-semitic people[edit]

Category:Anti-semitic people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is a problematic category for a number of reasons. First, its application would in numerous cases be purely subjective, or in the instance of ancient figures simply anachronistic (e.g. Hadrian or Titus). Second, it has the potential to include thousands of individuals, whose addition would almost certainly spark protracted and ultimately sterile discussions -- none of which aids our goal of building an encyclopedia. I believe such a category is of limited utility and should be deleted. Aramgar (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator and I appear to be largely in agreement regarding the limited utility of this category. However, I believe that before putting the category up for deletion, the discussion already begun at Category_talk:Anti-semitic_people should be continued there. The ideal outcome in my opinion would be if the creator of the category joined us there and we could come to consensus. Only if no consensus can be reached there should the category be put up for deletion. At least that's my understanding of policy.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC) UPDATE I did not know about the cat being previously deleted. I would now like to change my recommendation to Delete.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt - re-creation of category deleted on multiple previous occasions and likely to be continually re-created. If not speedy deleted, delete as a WP:BLP nightmare amongst other problems. Otto4711 (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto4711. As I suspected, such a category has been deleted before. —Angr 21:30, 15 November 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.
  • Delete per Otto's concern about a WP:BLP nightmare. This category puts Wikipedia in the position of branding people as anti-Semites. Cbl62 (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books which are set within one day[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 15:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Books which are set within one day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Plot duration is a trivial defining characteristic of a book. How is a book with plot set in one day different from one with a plot set in, say, one week or one decade? Pegasus «C¦T» 15:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Novels that take place entirely within a 24-hour period are pretty rare (only 8 are listed here), and the resulting compression of plot development is a significant distinction, in my opinion. That being said, I'm somewhat inclined to think that this is a bit too narrow to serve as a category, and is probably better suited to be a List-article. However, I'd like to hear from the Category's creator (and any others who may support this category). If kept, rename to Category:Novels which are set within one day or Category:Novels which take place within one day (and possibly change "one day" to "24 hours"). Cgingold (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am the creator of this category. Books which are set within one day are quite different in literary terms from books which are set in one week, etc. The idea of writing a book entirely about such a short span of time is a twentieth century modernist concept. It is as important a modern literary idea as, say, stream of consciousness. Every article within this category mentions the fact that the book is set in 24 hours. Obviously there is consensus for all these articles that this is a notable feature. As for why this is a category and not a list, I don’t think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. In this case I felt that readers interested in the Ulysses article say, might find it useful to be able to find other book articles on Wikipedia which share this unusual feature. A category also avoids the problem of non-notable red links which frequently fill smaller list articles, and decrease their usefulness. If this category helps people with their research, which seems clear to me, then there is no reason to delete. --S.dedalus (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keep arguments/comments above, renaming per Cgingold. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Consider Rename ever heard of Ulysses or One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich? This is a strong defining characteristic that unites all of these books. I agree that a better title would benefit the category per 's suggestions. Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My impression is that this is considered a significant trait within the literature establishment. I have no objections to a rename though. __meco (talk) 10:01, 17 November 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:Red Army generals[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 create soviet and delete red army. If it's desired to move the articles here into a subcat and leave this as a supercat for air force and army generals, anyone can do that. Kbdank71 14:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Red Army generals to Category:Soviet generals
Nominator's rationale: Rename.

1. Rank of the general was introduced in the Red Army only in 1940. In 1946 Red Army was renamed into Soviet Army, so this category covers relatively brief period of time (1940-1946). Soviet generals will cover broader period (1940-1991).

2. Rename will align the category with Category:Soviet military personnel, Category:Soviet admirals, Category:Soviet Air Force generals, etc.DonaldDuck (talk) 11:22, 15 November 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:Nationalist 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 in this discussion. However there may be consensus for a rename from the discussion. Based on this, I will be nominating this for a rename as a result of this discussion. Relisting this as is will not help, at least in my opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nationalist terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of deleted content, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_19#Category:Nationalist_terrorism. Previous experience of the category was endemic pov issues, due to unclear deliniations. Category used as a way to circumvent consensus on using categories on designated terrorist organizations rather than vague categories based on random accusations. Soman (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after a lot of thought I think that you have hit the problem on the head, but with a twist. The key problem is "designated" by who? One can say that a particular reliable source is OK. One can also say that reliable sources one disagrees with are "random accusations." WP:TERRORIST says that use of the word "terrorist" must be attributed to a source. The problem with category names is that we really need attribution in the category name. As in Category:Ethnic terrorism according to some sources. At least by using "according to some sources" in the category name we remove the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" from the narrative voice of Wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias concerning sourcing. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification is sometimes provided in category introductions. See {{terrorist category definition}} and {{terrorism category definition}}. Category intro definitions were mentioned by the closing admin at the last attempt to delete all terrorism categories: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 25#Unqualified "Terrorism".
"...most of the criticism against these categories was based against the unspecific definitions of the categories, or the lack of reliable sourcing to support the categorization of various people. Looking at Category:Terrorists, there seems to be a rather definitive definition there, as well as a strong reminder to cite all inclusions. A tightening of these definitions, and some dedicated work into finding sources, can clean these categories up in comparatively little time. Looking at the number of people involved in this discussion, it seems there won't be any lack of people willing to do this. To sum up, a lack of neutrality is not, in itself, a reason to delete, it is a reason to improve the article/category."
The full closing statement is also helpful. The closing decision was to "keep all." --Timeshifter (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep I've looked at the previous cfd and noted that there were two keep votes, no delete and a load of comments. There are various excuses for terror and it will be useful to sub-categorise.We do have a category already for religious terrorism and if we're using that as a divide, we can have a similar one for Nationalist ones. This incarnation of the cat arose because of the discussion to point out that various groups categorised as religious were in fact motivated by naitonalism.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rename to Category:Ethnic nationalist terrorism or Category:Ethnic nationalist terrorism according to some sources or Category:Ethnic nationalist terrorism according to some historians (see my comment farther down). Discussion has evolved since the last category discussion. See Definitions of terrorism, Talk:Nationalist terrorism and {{Terrorism category definition}} (found at the top of many terrorism and terrorist categories). The last category discussion (July 19, 2008) for Category:Nationalist terrorism was before another related category discussion. See

There seems to be an evolving consensus to categorize by nationalist and territorial terrorism also, and not just by Category:Religious terrorism and its subcategories. Therefore, Zionist and Palestinian terrorism can be looked at by some people more as ethnically-based nationalist terrorism. It is difficult to decide how to categorize groups like the Taliban and the Zionist groups. Both have a large religious focus, but both are also ethnically based. See Who is a Jew? for example. There are many Jews who no longer practice the religion, but still consider themselves ethnically Jewish. I personally believe all these groups should be classified under both nationalist and religious terrorism categories. See Category:Religious terrorism and its subcategories. But several people are opposed to this and prefer that nationalist categories alone such as Category:Zionist terrorism should be used for Zionist groups that have committed terrorist acts. See:

Therefore, the categories were created for Zionist and Palestinian terrorism, and their parent category of Nationalist terrorism. There was also discussion at the above link concerning terrorism in Northern Ireland and how its labeling in the media has evolved over time: "The terrorism related to the Northern Irish troubles was at one point reported in Britain as Catholic or Protestant, but was actually between rival nationalisms and was eventually described as either Loyalist or Republican in the British media."

"Category:Territorial terrorism" might be another possibility for this category name. To see how these category names fit in go to Template:Terrorism, Category:Terrorism by genre, and its subcategories. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC), and last "Rename" edit --Timeshifter (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:OR terms like terrorist, nationalist can't be defined in WP:V and WP:NPOV way Gnevin (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply in the previous talk section. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Previous talk section" refers to this CFD discussion:
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 4#Category:Palestinian terrorism
My reply there lists these pages:
{{Terrorism category definition}}
Talk:Nationalist terrorism
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 25#Unqualified "Terrorism"
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Israeli terrorists and its talk subsections. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both terms used in the title are adequately defined, with "terrorism" the subject of a rather large box in the category providing a rather thorough definition. Alansohn (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and populate. The category reflects historical fact and many additional articles and categories can and should be added. Hmains (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gnevin ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I now think Category:Ethnic terrorism or Category:Sectarian terrorism may be better. Or one or the other may be needed in addition to Category:Nationalist terrorism. I just heard a long NPR show today on the history of Lebanon. It pointed out that the communal violence and terrorism during Lebanon's civil wars was not about converting people to another religion. See Lebanese Civil War#Sectarian violence and civilian massacres. It was about defending one's communally-based ethnic group, and getting a fair share of the country's resources, power, parliament seats, cabinet seats, etc.. Based on ethnicity that was based on religious and sectarian culture. See Ethnic nationalism, Ethnic group, Ethnic violence, Ethnic conflict, Ethnic cleansing, etc.. See Sectarianism and Sectarian violence. From Sectarian violence (emphasis added):

Nearly all the people living in Northern Ireland identified themselves as belonging to either the Protestant or the Catholic community. People of no religion and non-Christian faiths are still considered as belonging to one of the two "sects" along with churchgoers. In this context, "Protestants" means essentially descendants of immigrants from Scotland and England settled in Ulster during or soon after the 1690s; also known as "Loyalists" or "Unionist" because they generally support politically the status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom. "Catholics" means descendants of the pre-1690 indigenous Irish population; also known as "Nationalist" and "Republicans"; who generally politically favour a united Ireland.

I think the above excerpt provides a good example of the intersection of religion, genealogy, nationalism, territorialism, culture, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commentI think that there is a difference between the situations in Lebanon and that in the Northern Irish troubles. The latter was nationallist (in ther non-specialist sense) in that different parties advocated a 32 county Irish state, or the maintenance of Union with Britain with a fallback position of an independent 6 county statelet. I'm not aware of any of the warring parties in Lebannon wanting to change their own borders. I'd compare Sri Lanka with Ireland and Pakistan with Lebannon. The Irgun and the PLO again saw themselves as national liberation movements, whilst the Red Army Faction was aout challengingthe system of government.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about Category:Ethnic nationalist terrorism or Category:Ethnic nationalist terrorism according to some sources as a parent category for most of the groups you mentioned (with the exception of the Red Army Faction)? --Timeshifter (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The name works especially badly for Northern Ireland, where "Nationalist" is the usual terms for one of the sides. I'm not sure dissecting terrorist motives, other than in "single-issue" terrorist like eco-, animal rights, anti-abortion etc., is realistic or productive. Sri Lankan terrorism also combines politics, religion, race & nationalism/separatism. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is ethnic violence and terrorism. See Sri Lankan Civil War. From Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war (emphasis added):
Origins of the Sri lankan civil war is highlighted by the continuous political rancor between the majority Sinhalese and the minority Tamils. According Jonathan Spencer, a social anthropologist from the School of Social and Political Studies of the University of Edinburgh[1], the Sri Lankan Civil War is an outcome of how modern ethnic identities have been made and re-made since the colonial period, with the political struggle between minority Sri Lankan Tamils and the Sinhala-dominant government accompanied by rhetorical wars over archeological sites and place name etymologies, and the political use of the national past.[2][3]
From List of attacks attributed to the LTTE (emphasis added):
The following is a list of attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), commonly known as the Tamil Tigers.[4][5][6] The LTTE is a separatist militant group that has been fighting for a separate Tamil state in the north and east of Sri Lanka since 1976, and has carried out numerous attacks against civilian, military, political, and religious targets. It has been banned as a terrorist organization by over 32 countries, including the United States, Canada, India and the 27 member nations of the European Union. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Gnevin. This will only lead to endless edit wars over which pages will be tagged. Tiamuttalk 00:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What should be the parent categories of Category:Palestinian terrorism and Category:Zionist terrorism? Should they just be categorized directly under Category:Terrorism? There is Category:Religious terrorism, but that does not seem like an accurate parent category to many people. There have been many attempts over the years to delete all terrorism categories without success. Here are is a list of attempts through 2006 before the CFD name change: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Terrorists. So since they can't be eliminated, I have been trying to figure out how to more fairly and accurately name the various main categories listed under Category:Terrorism. I am leaning toward Category:Ethnic nationalist terrorism or Category:Ethnic nationalist terrorism according to some sources as another parent category. It fits with the naming pattern of Category:Ethnic cleansing. Please see also: Category:Terrorism by genre. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at least for the moment, for consistency with other existing cats, but I really think the proliferation of all these "terrorism" categories is potentially problematic and could do with a much broader discussion. BTW I think "Nationalist terrorism" is probably more descriptive than "ethnic terrorism". People don't generally bomb another ethnic group without an underlying nationalist motive of some kind. Gatoclass (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I was thinking myself that maybe Category:Ethnic nationalist terrorism might be a better name, but wasn't sure. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:56, 27 November 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:DRPA[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 14:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:DRPA to Category:Delaware River Port Authority
Nominator's rationale: The category should use the full name of the agency, instead of an abbreviation, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Eastlaw (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - collecting a hodge-podge of articles whose relation to the DRPA is in many cases not obvious and non-defining. The current commissioners can be listed in the DRPA article and the facilities are already there. Otto4711 (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and Delaware River Port Authority. Consider weeding/rearranging (cf Category:Port Authority of New York and New Jersey which has people subcats and looks non-hodge-podge at first sight ... its article is much better, admittedly). Occuli (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom; create people subcat per Occuli; review remaining article. The job of editors is to improve WP not jump to deleting categories that need a little help. The fact that a facility is DRPA owned is certainly as defining as can be. Hmains (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename per nom to correspond to the article title. The facilities under the jurisdiction of the Delaware River Port Authority and individuals associated with it are clearly defining and appropriate for categorization. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by nominator: I'm just jumping in to say that I agree with what Occuli, Hmains, and Alansohn have said. The category should be renamed, and then we can determine which subcategories should be added. It should not be deleted, as it is a defining characteristic of those pages within the category. --Eastlaw (talk) 05:50, 17 November 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:Allopathic medicine[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 14:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Allopathic medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category has only one article, with virtually no prospect for expansion. It was previously nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 17#Category:Allopathic medicine), but no consensus was achieved and the purpose of the category was not discussed. The main article of the category, Allopathic medicine, is an article mentioning that allopathic is a controversial term for traditional/conventional medicine. Having this category does not help with navigation. Since (some claim) the term is synonymous with medicine, this category can also be seen as redundant with Category:Medicine. Scott Alter 02:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Either there is currently only one article available for membership of this category, and none or very few to come, or allopathic is intended to categorise a large number of medicine articles and categories based on their not being related to homeopathy or osteopathy, fields in which we can reasonably expect to have a lesser number of pages. A similar example would be "Animals other than cats". Although we already have Category:Alternative medicine and Category:Alternative music — which I dislike for the same reason and more — I can imagine people wanting to navigate "off the beaten path", they are terms more commonly used than allopathic, and they are descriptions used by both critics and practitioners. The existence of an adjective, controversial or otherwise, is not sufficient reason to create a category. That allopathic is considered pejorative is a major concern. A phrase comes to mind from an "alternative" branch of navies: "there are only two types of ships, submarines and targets". --Zigger «º» 03:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First off, the category is a bit on the narrow side, with little room for expansion. No one describes themselves as an "allopathic physician" and the term exists to describe mainstream medicine from those in opposing camps. Alansohn (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have mixed feelings about this category; I would like to hear from its creator. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every Wikipedia page having the word "allopathic" in its title has been contentious. The word means very different things to various people. The exact intended meaning is therefore not at all clear without a lot of explanation, and even then there is a lot of needless conflict about the "correct" meaning:
    • medicine, but not homeopathy
    • medicine, but not osteopathy
    • medicine, but neither homeopathy nor osteopathy
    • alternative medicine in general
    • Hahnemann's original technical definition in a strict reading (healing by unrelated substances)
    • the other (incompatible) technical definition often found dictionaries; Hahnemann called that "antipathic" (healing by opposite substances)
    • an insult to all right-thinking mainstream doctors.

All of these definitions are correct, and none of them is accepted by a sufficiently large number of people or reliable sources to make it the principal one. There is not a single one among them that would justify a category. The original intended definition of this category (given who created it) is clearly that of "medicine, but not osteopathy". Since osteopathy is virtually unknown (certainly much less known than homeopathy, for example) in large parts of the world, and since even the meaning of the word "osteopathy" in the US is very different from its meaning elsewhere, that's not an acceptable definition for a word in a category title, i.e. a label that can only be applied without explanatory comment. Moreover, all definitions have in common that in some way they mean "not the mainstream". We don't have Category:Non-automobile vehicles, Category:Non-fictional vehicles, Category:Non-rail vehicles etc. although we do have Category:Automobiles, Category:Fictional vehicles, Category:Rail vehicles. Similarly, we should not have Category:Allopathic medicine, although we do have Category:Osteopathic medicine, Category:Homeopathy and Category:Alternative medicine. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:32, 18 November 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:Historical People from County Kilkenny[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, empty. Kbdank71 15:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Historical People from County Kilkenny to Category:People from County Kilkenny
Nominator's rationale: Merge,   Primarily because the word Historical is ambiguous (just old or also famous?) and vague (how famous? / how old?). Secondary reasons: this is the opposite approach from distinguishing "Category:Living people", and People shouldn't be capitalised in the middle of the title. (FWIW, only one article was seen in this category when nominated). Zigger «º» 02:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. In England, people are regularly categorised by their county, without regard to whether they are living or "historical". The same shoul apply in Ireland. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 16 November 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.
  1. ^ The University of Edinburgh. "Staff profile:Jonathan Spencer". Retrieved 2008-03-14.
  2. ^ Spencer, J, Sri Lankan history and roots of conflict, p. 23
  3. ^ "Sri Lanka Summary" (html). Jonathan Spencer. Retrieved 2008-05-08.
  4. ^ Gunaratna, Rohan (2001-11-03). "Intelligence failures exposed by Tamil Tiger airport attack". Jane's Information Group. Retrieved 2007-04-27.
  5. ^ "Consular Information Sheet - Sri Lanka". Bureau of Consular Affairs. U.S. Department of State. 2007-04-11. Retrieved 2007-04-27.
  6. ^ Audrey Kurth Cronin; Huda Aden; Adam Frost; Benjamin Jones (2004-02-06). "CRS Report for Congress, Foreign Terrorist Organizations" (PDF). Bureau of Consular Affairs. The Library of Congress. Retrieved 2007-04-27. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_15&oldid=1079648586"