Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 8 November 10 >

November 9[edit]

Category:Russian dissidents[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Russian dissidents to Category:Russian political activists
Nominator's rationale: This is a highly contentious category, which lumps together people who basically hate Putin and/or Russia, and/or are pro-West or puppets of the west. This is not akin to Category:Soviet dissidents, as that is an understandable category. Russia is not the Soviet Union -- people have access to internet, telephones, news (Russian and international), they have voted in a few democratic elections, etc, etc. We don't seem to have categories for Category:American dissidents, even though as per dissidents, Noam Chomsky is a prolific American dissident. By renaming to Category:Russian political activists, all groups which are involved in political activism in Russia can be included, such as Nashi, for example. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 23:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be better to move the people from this category to Category:Russian politicians and delete it.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename Per nom unless there is a local Russian term in use to collectively describe thee people. Certainly they are not all politicians just because they hold a political view. Hmains (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. As the nominator put it, Russia is not the Soviet Union - the existence of this category suggests otherwise. 'Political activists' is a much more neutral term. Terraxos (talk) 23:18, 14 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:Proposed sites for the United Nations Headquarters[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Proposed sites for the United Nations Headquarters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with presumably little or no growth potential. Not defining of the sites so categorized and categorizing articles on the basis of things that didn't happen there seems like a bad idea in general. All the proposed sites are now listed at History of the United Nations. Otto4711 (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-defining, insubstantial and unclear criteria. Anyone can "propose" something, and having done so doesn't leave any lasting or concrete effect unless the proposal is accepted and acted upon. I'm sure many locations have been proposed for many different uses over their history. Note though that categories collecting articles that are actually about proposals would be something quite different than this one. Postdlf (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two of the articles that were included did not mention anything about being a proposed site so they should not have been included in this category at all. Of the other two, one is not a proposed site but rather was the site of the United Nations Headquarters, albeit on a temporary basis. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; too small and too vaguely defined (even if it's uncontroversial that both of these places were proposed sites for the UN headquarters, this is a bad idea for a category). Terraxos (talk) 23:17, 14 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.

Categories:Northern Irish association football clubs and venues[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 all. There's no "consensus" here, but as far as I can tell nominator is correct about the usage of the term in other articles and categories. If the change results in protests, a re-nomination is permitted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per convention for association football in Nothern Ireland, to differentiate clearly from gaelic football, traditionally the main code on/in Ireland Mayumashu (talk) 14:52, 9 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:Footballers who have played in Fooia[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming

(that s the complete list, as short as it is)

Nominator's rationale: listed are not just footballers who play in these places now, but who have ever played (t)here Mayumashu (talk) 13:02, 9 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.

Categories:various Halls of Fame[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: lists of inductees Mayumashu (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the way the rename should have been handled in the first place, by taking into consideration how corresponding categories are named. The addition of "inductees" makes it clearer that these categories are primarily about people, not buildings. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 9 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:U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame Inductees[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame Inductees to Category:United States Astronaut Hall of Fame inductees
Nominator's rationale: Rename - both to expand the abbreviation and to correct the capitalization. Both are speediable but categories with multiple speedy issues are not eligible for speedy. Otto4711 (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, of course Mayumashu (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but only because the related article's first line is "United States..." In literature, the term "U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame" is used more, so a category-redirect should be left behind if possible. Either form would work, but it should be consistent with the main article. Ironicly, the main article is currently named "Astronaut Hall of Fame." When another country opens its own Astronaut Hall of Fame the article will probably be renamed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:35, 9 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:Number-one singles in Bulgaria[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Number-one singles in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Main article was deleted by discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology in an AfD; category should be deleted as well.
Also nominating
Category:Number-one singles in Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (AfD)
Category:Number-one singles in Lithuania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (AfD)
Category:Number-one singles in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (AfD)
Category:Number-one singles in Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (no AfD, but no article on it either) DiverseMentality 09:03, 9 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:Old Bolsheviks[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 (a rough definition has already been added by a user, which could be further refined). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Old Bolsheviks to Category:Bolsheviks
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is category for old bolsheviks, but there is no category for bolsheviks. "Old" is quite subjective and arbitrary inclusion criterion.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Given that the term "Old Bolsheviks" refers to people who were members of the Bolshevik party before the Russian Revolution, I guess the question is: Were there people who joined the party after the Revolution who would properly be referred to as "Bolsheviks"? (as distinct from "Old Bolsheviks") Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also notified two relevant WikiProjects. Cgingold (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People, who joined the party after the revolution are usually referred to as "communists".DonaldDuck (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator doesn't seem to have read the main article. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The main article says that "old bolshevik" is unofficial designation, so there is no proper inclusion criteria.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is the historically correct term for these people as the article shows. Hmains (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I Cgingold is correct, it should certainly be kept, but the category should be provided with a headnote explaining its significance. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Old" is not subjective; "Old Bolshevik" is an accepted technical term in Russian history. It has a precise meaning: people who were members of the Bolshevik Party at the time of the Russian Revolution. It is important because Stalin removed all Old Bolsheviks but Molotov and himself from positions of power. And yes, lots of people joined the party after the revolution and are thus not "Old" Bolsheviks. There should be a "Bolsheviks" category apart from "Old Bolsheviks", btw. Kwertii (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bolshevik itself is not clear-cut term. Dividing RSDLP into just 2 groups - bolsheviks and mensheviks is gross oversimplification. There were much more groups within the party - Mezhraiontsy, Otzovists, mensheviks-internationalists, etc. And there were no formal registration of membership in particular faction of RSDLP. And "old bolsheviks" is even more vague term, because there are no "new bolsheviks"DonaldDuck (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The associated article provides a rather clear definition for what is included here. Alansohn (talk) 22:33, 9 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:Burial places for Prime Ministers of Canada[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: listify. (Tagged for listification; may be speedily deleted when completed.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Burial places for Prime Ministers of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I believe this is WP:OCAT; I can't find any other example of a category being used to group cemeteries by the historical role of one single individual who happens to be buried in them. A list would certainly be a valid way to present this information, but not a category. Listify and delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per nom. Seems akin to the U.S. presidential birthplace categories we've deleted a couple times. Postdlf (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per nom; in most cases, this would not be a distinguishing feature of the place in question. Terraxos (talk) 23:08, 14 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:English expatriates in the United States[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. the wub "?!" 21:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:English expatriates in the United States to Category:British expatriates in the United States
Nominator's rationale: No such nationality as "English", per lex soli, and this whole "X expatriates in Y" thing is a nest of vipers, largely open to WP:OR and if taken to its logical conclusion would create far too many sparely-populated categories. Triple intersections have extremely limited encyclopedic value, IMO. Rodhullandemu 01:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Comment (keeping my options open) - As far as I'm aware there's no such thing as an English passport. Cgingold (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless the whole of Category:English expatriates, Category:Northern Irish expatriates, Category:Scottish expatriates, and Category:Welsh expatriates are dealt with too. And even then, for me, the naming is shorthand for 'British expatriates in the United States who are English' so I m quite in favour of keeping it as a subset of 'Brit. expats in the U.S.' Mayumashu (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mayumashu. "English" is very well established in nationality/ by country cats, & it is pointless to remove one brick from the edifice as this nom tries to do. Merging "English" would necessarily involve also merging Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish cats too. Why would this be a triple intersection? Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mayumashu. England is a distinct area of the United Kingdom. Some people will identify themselves specifically as English; others as Welsh; etc; others again will have a mixed British ethnicity, and identify themselves only as British. Inevitably, there will be cases where the categorisation involves issues of POV, but that cannot be helped. Note that British categories are frequently split into its four countries, so that there is plently of precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per precedent that Category:British expatriates in the United States is already subdivided into corresponding subcategories. Alansohn (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "English expatriates" and its subcategories should really only apply to those people from England who were expatriates prior to 1707. After that date they were British citizens. And since the United States didn't exist until 1776, there is no overlap between the dates, so the category is fully subsumed within Category:British expatriates in the United States. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • General comment; that we have it wrong now does not prevent us from getting it right. We are talking about "nationality", a legal concept, regardless of how citizens describe themselves; they may be optimistic, jingoistic, perhaps, but we are an encyclopedia. Until the Parliament of the United Kingdom or some other body, recognises valid sub-nationalities, we should not split based either on historical, perceived, or preferred designations. We have enough problems with ethnic designations here and, as a matter of law, this is currently beyond argument as to the meaning of "British Citizen". --Rodhullandemu 00:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It is a useful subdivision. Technically the nomination is correct, people are not English/Scottish/Welsh nationals. I would suggest that the subcategories under Category:British expatriates in the United States be renamed to Category:British expatriates from England in the United States etc. (I'm open to offers on the exact wording). --JD554 (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ether merge per nom or rename per JD554 (leaning toward the merge). Category:British expatriates from England in the United States is a good answer to the "England isn't a nation" argument, although that opens it up to many more small subcats, hence the lean toward merge ("American expats from New Jersey in Zimbabwe"? "Russian expats from Moscow in London"?) --Kbdank71 17:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • General comment: I'd suggest you read up on Wales, Scotland and Ireland before making stupid comments; they are all countries and part of the United Kingdom. New Jersey is a state of the US and Moscow is a city, which makes it not nearly the same thing. Gourra (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. I don't believe it was a stupid comment as the discussion is about nationality not countries. While someone from England can be called English, their nationality is still British. In much the same was as a person from Moscow can be called is a Musovite, but is still a Russian national. --JD554 (talk) 12:58, 21 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:Bohemian F.C. international footballers[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 at 2008 NOV 18. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_18#Category:Bohemian_F.C._international_footballers[reply]
Category:Bohemian F.C. international footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Merge with Category:Bohemian F.C. players. no precedent for this, categorising by club for having played for a national team Mayumashu (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And restore the Rovers one as well. Very useful information and frequently requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.140.206 (talk) 17:14, 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:Black British expatriates in the United States[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 to Category:British people of Black African descent and Category:British expatriates in the United States -- ☑ SamuelWantman 12:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Black British expatriates in the United States to Category:British expatriates in the United States
Nominator's rationale: A triple intersection of very limited usefulness, and Black British is a debatable classification in itself. Rodhullandemu 01:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mayumashu (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I'm inclined to think that this is carrying things a bit too far. Cgingold (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deletion rationale is factually wrong as the article on Black British clearly shows. 'Triple intersection' is meaningless and is usually used as a code phrase for "I don't like it". If this category did not exist, these people would have to be directly placed in their parent categories, including Category:African Americans which already suffers from lack of sub-categorization by country of origin. Hmains (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The scope of Black British does raise difficulties, but it would usually refer to people who (or whose parents, etc) emigrated to the UK from Africa or the West Indies. These people are not usually referred to as English, Welsh, Scottish, etc., so that this is a legitimate subcategory of British expatriates ... Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep primarily per Hmains, who adequately points out that this category provides a meaningful subcategorization that would be completely lost if the merge went ahead as proposed. Alansohn (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment having this page however sets a precedent for having expats by ethnicity - in my view this is overcategorisation Mayumashu (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have expended a lot of energy defending a wide variety of ethnic categories, but I share Mayumashu's concern about expanding the expat category structure on the basis of ethnicity. Can we give some thought to which other ethnicities would warrant similar categories? Afrikaaners? Flemish? Dalit? Mexican American? Assyrian? Where would we draw the line? I think we should think this over carefully before we go down this road. Cgingold (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Mayumashu (talk) 20:37, 10 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:Hockey Hall of Fame[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hockey Hall of Fame to Category:Hockey Hall of Fame inductees
Nominator's rationale: list of inductees Mayumashu (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no longer piecemeal - put this bunch up in a group nomination up this page Mayumashu (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before proposing a rename, there needs to be a minimal amount of research done to see how other, similar categories are being handles. Changing the name of one category in a large structure while ignoring those that are in direct conflict with the proposed title is counterproductive. The group nomination is the way to have handled this, and I have changed my vote accordingly. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and previous consensus on related categories for other inductee categories. If there are more to be renamed, then nominate them. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, Vegas and multiple precedents including those found in Category:Halls of fame inductees. I agree that all inductee/member categories should be renamed to include "members" or "inductees" or whatever the common parlance is for the particular HoF and indeed had been planning on tackling that at some point myself. Otto4711 (talk) 11:08, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_9&oldid=1138391392"