Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 16 September 18 >

September 17[edit]

Category:Ambassadors to 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: speedy redirected. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ambassadors to Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Merge with Category:Ambassadors and High Commissioners to Canada. Or failing that, make it a sub-cat of the later. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there was an AFD discussion back in March which moved an earlier iteration of "Ambassadors to Canada" from that title to Category:Ambassadors and High Commissioners to Canada in the first place; the current version was then recreated in July by somebody who probably just wasn't familiar with the move. Probably doesn't need a new discussion. Consider it speedied. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 19 September 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:Design awards by continent[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 14:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Design awards by continent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete: This category has just one article and is not likely to grow IMHO. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Bdelisle (talk) 02:47, 22 September 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:Five Percenters[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 25th. Kbdank71 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Five Percenters to Category:The Nation of Gods and Earths adherents
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article. I'm not sure if Category:The Nation of Gods and Earths members would be a better choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 17 September 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:Words of Turkish 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: relisted on 25th. Kbdank71 14:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Words of Turkish origin to Category:Turkish loanwords
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename for conformity with Category:German loanwords, Category:Hungarian loanwords, etcetera. Stepheng3 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Female Club DJs[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, recreation permissible (with correct capitalization) if/when reliable sources are found to support the category. Kbdank71 14:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Female Club DJs to Category:Female club DJs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. De-capitalize Club to conform to WP:MOS guidelines for capitalization of page-names. Club in this context is neither derived from (nor part of) a proper noun. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the discussion from the (failed) speedy rename attempt:
  • Per WP:CATGRS we separate male and female when a substantive lead article could be written about the topic. It's possible that such an article could be written about this topic but I'd like to see reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lead article might be possible for this grouping, because women DJs are still rarer than men (and I can think of at least one in my home city who became famous precisely because the mere notion of a woman working as a club DJ was rare enough at the time that she initially attracted attention specifically for that combination of traits), but I don't know that it's considered a topic of independent interest. Otto's right that actual sources are a must. Rename per nom if sources are obtainable, but delete otherwise. And AFD can discuss any option when a category has been brought here, even if it's not the one the nominator proposed. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some Googling and found some reliable information online, but all in the context of particular DJs. I'm not convinced I could generalize this material to ALL female DJs without being guilty of original research. I found sources confirming that the industry is male-dominated, and one mention of there being a "glass ceiling." Still looking, but not too hopeful. Stepheng3 (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right about deletion being an option here at CfD. If you compare timestamps, you'll find that my comment about "relates to this proposal" was referring to the speedy rename proposal. Stepheng3 (talk) 21:58, 19 September 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:Tour de France Yellow Jersey wearing cyclists[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 14:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tour de France Yellow Jersey wearing cyclists to Category:Tour de France yellow jersey wearers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current capitalization is not in keeping with WP:MOS. In addition, cyclists is redundant because only cyclists can wear the yellow jersey in the Tour de France, so the category name can be shortened to the proposed form. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the prior discussion from the (failed) speedy rename attempt:
  • Delete - having the best time at the end of particular stage of a bike race, even an important race like the Tour de France, is not a defining characteristic. A complete list, along with a number of other statistical breakdowns, appears at Yellow jersey statistics. Otto4711 (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I gotta say, I really don't see why this category should exist. Unless somebody can make a persuasive case for keeping it, I have to agree with Otto that it should be deleted. Cgingold (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this is notable, it would be better as a nav template by stage for each year. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As nominator, I'd consent to an upmerge. However, I worry that deletion might lose some categorizations (the fact that these cyclists competed in the Tour de France). Stepheng3 (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and a yellow jersey for The Tour is a noted feather in the bio of a cyclist 70.51.8.158 (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it may be a nice feather, but that is not the same as defining. How many cyclists are know only because they won a stage? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed it's an important achievement but category serves no purpose if on the cyclist's entry it says the yellow jersey was won, and a detailed statistical list summarises them all anyway. Mcewan (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 22 September 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:Naval Guided Missile Launch System of 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: rename; there is agreement that both changes should be made. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Naval Guided Missile Launch System of the United States to Category:Naval guided missile launch systems of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Decapitalize Guided Missile Launch System because it's not a proper noun. Pluralize to conform to style guidelines for categories. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the discussion from the (failed) speedy rename attempt:
  • Question - why is this a "failed" speedy attempt? There were two comments, the original nomination and my supporting a rename to fix a problem you had overlooked. This is a successful speedy rename. Otto4711 (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer: According to the guidelines at WP:CFDS, speedy rename procedure should not be used when proposing that two or more changes should be made, each of which qualifies under the speedy criteria; capitalization and pluralization count as two changes. More generally, it appears that any request to modify the proposal will prevent the speedy rename from succeeding. Stepheng3 (talk) 23:03, 17 September 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:Wedding Locations in New York[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 14:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wedding Locations in New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category is not only incorrectly capitalized, it is also vaguely defined, since weddings can be performed almost anyplace in New York. Stepheng3 (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the discussion from the recent speedy rename attempt:
  • Delete - every place in New York is potentially a "wedding location" as, absent some bizarre zoning law and with the proper permits for public property, (mixed-sex) couples are free to marry anywhere in the state of New York. Otto4711 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In case it's not clear, I'm nominating this category for deletion. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments already given. And if my memory isn't playing tricks on me, I believe we deleted a very similar category (for wedding locations) some time last year. Cgingold (talk) 23:26, 17 September 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:Negro League baseball[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 14:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Negro League baseball to Category:Negro league baseball
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Several baseball leagues are collectively known as the Negro leagues. Where as Major League Baseball is a trademark and therefore should have every word capitalized, Negro league is not. This change will also bring the capitalization of the category name into alignment with that of its main article. Stepheng3 (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the prior discussion from the CFD-speedy attempt:
  • Bring to CFD - it is unclear which form is correct. I'm a bit uncomfortable with "Negro league" as a formulation because the casual reader might read "Negro" as modifying "league" rather than "Negro league" modifying "baseball". Negro Leagues baseball might work as well. Otto4711 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it as Negro League - For reason stated above. You wouldn't say "Major league". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The main article is at Negro league baseball which adds to the confusion. Does the category cover one league called the 'Negro League' or does it cover multiple leagues? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • [1] and has been at that spelling for over three years. --Kbdank71 19:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: No offense intended, but while "Negro league" might modify "baseball", "Negro" *does* also modify league in this case. It was a descriptive term, not an official one. Unlike Major League Baseball, there was never an entity called "Negro League" or "Negro Leagues". Just as the American League is a major league, the Negro American League was a Negro league. That's the logical path, anyway. -Dewelar (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and WP:MOSCAP. As Dewelar explains, the "Negro leagues" were several leagues that never had a formal consolidated organization, hence the term is a common noun. The analogy with "Major League Baseball" doesn't work—I believe that MLB took it as its official name about 20 years ago. If you look up old newspaper articles prior to the 1980s, they generally used lower case "major leagues" or "major league baseball," since the term wasn't yet a proper noun at that time. BRMo (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename There was no formal "Negro League"; there were 2 "Negro National Leagues", a "Negro American League" and an "American Negro League", but no "Negro League". Since the category is not referring to any official league name, it should be lowercase. However, if the category was "American Negro League baseball", then it should theoretically be capitalized. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See discussion at WP:Baseball before deciding. This is not just an MOS issue. There are various sources that spell it "Negro Leagues", including SABR. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rhetorical question Should Wikipedia violate its own style guidelines in order to conform to the style of other publications? Stepheng3 (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not wikipedia's place to tell the rest of the world how they should capitalize or not. We had a very lengthy debate over this about The CW which resulted in an obstinate user being banned. This one is not so clear-cut because both versions are frequently used. Please take this up on the WP:Baseball talk page, which is where this really belongs. For what it's worth, consensus is leaning toward lower case "l" due to the lack of public consistency between "L" and "l". The term is really misleading anyway, but they won't go for "Negro baseball", which is what it was really called in its day. "Negro L/league" is a later invention. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Manual of Style doesn't try to impose change the rest of the world, only to promote consistency within Wikipedia. Category discussions belong here, though input from Wikiproject participants is welcome. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just a category discussion, it's about the term itself, which is inconsistent not only in public usage, but within the article on the subject. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The category is not for Negroes who played "league baseball", it's for players who played in the "Negro Leagues" which, even if it was not an official title, is the collective name by which those leagues are commonly known. It's a proper noun even if the name is not formal, as in "Ma Bell". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This matches the main article and conforms to the WP:MOSCAP. Those opposed really need to justify why we should not follow our own policies for naming. As was pointed out above, this is our style guide and we should conform to it. Other publications can use a different style guideline and they do. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:26, 22 September 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:Fashion models by nationality[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 25th. Kbdank71 13:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Fashion models by nationality to Category:Models by nationality
also merge the approximately 60 sub-categories to the appropriate Fooian models parent
Nominator's rationale: Merge - there is functionally no difference between being a "fashion model" and a "model" for categorization purposes. Fashion modeling is a redirect to Fashion photography and Fashion model is a redirect to Model (person). Maintaining this duplicative structure splits some already small categories into even smaller subcategories, many with only a single entry. Otto4711 (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge there are other types of models, which might be categorized by country as well. 70.51.8.158 (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That there are other types of models is why a reverse merge is untenable. All fashion models are models but not all models are fashion models. A reverse merge might put non-fashion models into fashion model categories. Otto4711 (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request relist rather than no consensus close if possible. Otto4711 (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 24 September 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:The Netherlands–United Kingdom relations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:The Netherlands–United Kingdom relations to Category:Netherlands–United Kingdom relations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Definitive article not required, see Netherlands, Category:Netherlands. Tim! (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Afterall we don't use The United Kingdom in cats. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:46, 17 September 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:LGBT United States presidential candidates[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 (all articles are in parent category). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT United States presidential candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with, unless those stories about Abraham Lincoln and James Buchanan turn out to be true, little or no likelihood of expansion. The two articles are already in several politician and presidential candidate categories so no need to merge anywhere. Otto4711 (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The two articles are already in presidential candidate and LGBT categories so no need to merge anywhere. This does seem like a particularly trivial intersection ... Occuli (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, little likely hood of expansion....at least in the near future. CTJF83Talk 21:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a marginal potential for expansion in the long-term future, I suppose, but not anytime real soon. Oh, wait. Barbara Jordan gets it up to three! Seriously, though: right now it's not particularly needed. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if we threw in Jerry Brown along with Lincoln and Buchanan, I would still have a hard time supporting this category. It's not about size, it's about narrowness. We don't even have Category:African American presidential candidates. I totally support the categories for politicians, but I think specifying the office that a candidate is aiming for is probably taking things too far. Cgingold (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we do have that category — it's at Category:African American United States presidential candidates. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 19 September 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:Milliman employees[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) 22:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Milliman employees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Milliman is a large international, independent actuarial and consulting firm with 48 offices worldwide and 2,100 employees. Working there might be considered notable in a person's life, but I find it highly unlikely to be more than a trivial circumstance to link between people. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per my nom above. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It might be justified if there was a greater demand, but the current members are just the two founders and show no sign of increasing beyond this. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - people can and do work for a variety of employers over the course of a professional career. Employment is rarely if ever a defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but perhaps consider a new cat in Category:Founders by field for founders of businesses (which is surely defining for the 2 founders of Milliman). Occuli (talk) 16:06, 17 September 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.

Arrondissements of Paris[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 (with thanks to nominator for explaining the template issue beforehand). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming the following categories:
Nominator's rationale: Rename to English titles in line with the renaming of the top article per this discussion. Also, for the churches and the arrondissements, needs a locale, as both Marseille and Lyon have arrondissements and churches within them. Apologies for not listing all categories, but there are 60 in all... Bob (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed them all now. No change in the nomination though. --Bob (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing admin. When the bot goes through and changes the articles categorisations, it will need to go through the template section in the Mtero articles as {{Infobox Paris metro}} includes the parameter Municipality, for the locale. Instead of changing the category directly it will need to change that field. Cheers. --Bob (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and WP:USEENGLISH. --erachima talk 09:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mais oui. Rename all as proposed. Cgingold (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed per relevant MOSs Mcewan (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Yes, rename. Relevant and easier to access, currently it is difficult to get the link correct. Also, thanks for taking the time to compile the list and propose the renaming. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, d'accord. Occuli (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all English wiki = English categories CTJF83Talk 00:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Roman numerals are favoured by the Parisians. I've just had to create a bunch of content about "fall colors" rather than Autumn colour for trees photographed during Autumn in the UK because they're a US species and I'm following the relevant conventions of the content's locale not my personal preferences. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that the official language in Paris was English. This is the English wikipedia after all, so whatever they use in French is irrelevant. Besides, since when is Ier or IVe used in English? If you were really following the theory of the content's locale, then you would have used British English, not American, as the photos were taken in the UK. Either way, your argument is foundless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.123.126.8 (talk) 17:41, 22 September 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.

Shogakukan Award 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: delete, as list already exists. Kbdank71 13:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several categories currently in existence to classify winners of the different Shogakukan Manga Awards. However, they were created separately and with no clear system, which needs to be fixed. --erachima talk 04:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the following renamings:

  • I chose "jidō" for the sake of consistency, but see where you're coming from there. I would be opposed to switching the mangaka one, however. This is for the sake of accuracy as some of the individuals listed are not authors, only artists, and because the article is at mangaka. Also, while I'll agree avoiding jargon is generally a good idea, we already use the term mangaka prolifically in manga-related pages, so the term will at least be familiar to anyone who reads our pages on manga series.
    If the mangaka category name is to be changed, it should at least be changed to (cartoonist), and at that point the shonen and shojo categories should probably also be changed to boys' and girls' for the sake of consistency. --erachima talk 11:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WhatLinksHere shouldn't be trusted because half of these links are piped do to WP:USEENGLISH. (ie. [[mangaka|manga artist]]) --Farix (Talk) 11:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on my reading the two common usages are "Placeholder is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by mangaka Yamada Taro.", without the piping, or in the case of pages written by beginners, "Placeholder is a manga by Yamada Taro" with no wikilinks at all. More to the point, any page which used the mangaka category is going to be a page about a mangaka, and the context would therefore be made clear. --erachima talk 12:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the shounen and shoujo renaming, but share Farix's reservations for children's. Also, the first one is not used for the winning mangaka currently -- it's used for works and mangaka who won the general award, which used to be the seinen award, which used to be just the one award before they split shounen and shoujo categories off. It's a mixed bag, in other words. I do not, at the moment, have a suggested name for this sack. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, currently, the cateogory awards are being placed on both mangaka and work articles. Are you suggesting that the renamed mangaka category be used for all the people, and the genre ones for only the works? In other words, create a fifth category? —Quasirandom (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (sideways question: when we're done with this, will we also do the Kodansha Manga Award categories?) —Quasirandom (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was suggesting splitting them up: all the winning mangaka go in the category for mangaka, winning series go in categories by which award they received. And I'll be willing to nominate the Kodansha Award cats after this discussion finishes. --erachima talk 02:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone explain why the existing list in the main article is not sufficient? I'm leaning Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is necessary due to the large number of entries which do not (yet) have articles. No strong opinion on listification, though I prefer the category system and there are a number of "categorization by awards received" systems already in place. --erachima talk 02:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there are many that have been deleted for several reasons. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The names in parentheses are done to match current article names, except for general which as a award category doesn't have an article name. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Wasn't aware the shonen/shojo/etc. articles had been renamed when I started this nomination. --erachima talk 22:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The usual solution to awards categories is to listify and delete. We already have a list, so why not just delete? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify, noting that the list already exists. No convincing argument to support retention and no apparent opposition to listification as the better solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the creator of some of these categories, I've no opinion one way or another about listifying -- I'm not familiar with the criteria for when to list and when to categorize. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:59, 23 September 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.

Political prisoners[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete per POV and OR concerns, same as last CFD. No problems with recategorization if a NPOV title can be agreed upon that isn't OR.. Kbdank71 13:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Political prisoners and victims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Political prisoners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Armenian political prisoners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Belarusian political prisoners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Czech political prisoners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Italian political prisoners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Syrian political prisoners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Vietnamese political prisoners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. This is a follow-up nomination to a recent nomination which resulted in the deletion of Category:Russian political prisoners due to POV and OR concerns. The same considerations apply for all of these categories. Note that Category:Political prisoners was also deleted in a 2006 NOV 22 CfD, but then it was re-created and redirected to Category:Political prisoners and victims, which serves as the meta-category now. The articles may be upmerged to the appropriate subcategory of Category:Prisoners and detainees by nationality and/or Category:Prisoners and detainees by country as needed. Lists might be the way to go. (I'm sure there will be some who want to "refight the civil war" over this issue again here, and that's fine. I'm just not sure if there's anything to be considered that hasn't already been addressed in the previous 2 CfDs.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for all of the same POV and OR concerns noted in the previous discussions. At the very least, if retained any that include "and victims" should be renamed as there is no objective definition of "political victim." Otto4711 (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and Otto, whose point about "political victim" is surely irrefutable. Almost any politician is a victim of something at some point, eg smears, innuendo, libel, fashion, defeat. Occuli (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All, Remove "and victims" Identification and categorization as a political prisoner is a strong defining characteristic for the individuals so designated. As with many categories, inclusion criteria need to be more specifically defined, and a requirement that the individuals article include a reliable source documenting the individual's identification as a political prisoner in at least one reliable source ought to be a minimum and will address WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns. I agree that the "Political prisoners and victims" is overbroad and the inclusion of "victims" is problematic to define. As is customary here, the rational that this might be better served as a list is presented a false alternative in contravention of WP:CLN, whcih states that categories and lists are not an either/or alternative, and "should not [emphasis in original] be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others". An upmerge to Category:Prisoners and detainees by nationality ignores the critical difference between common criminals and those individuals who have been imprisoned for their beliefs. Alansohn (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggesting that one of the three grouping formats is better than another is not presenting a false dichotomy. WP:CLN does read as you say, but it also goes on to explain when one approach may be better than another. CLN does not require that articles be grouped in more than one method. The reason why a list is probably the better choice is because, as CLN notes, "There is no provision for referencing, to verify a topic meets a category's criteria of inclusion" and "Categories give no context for any specific entry, nor any elaboration; only the name of the article is given. That is, listings cannot be annotated (with descriptions nor comments), nor referenced." Since, as the article Political prisoner (which offers four different definitions for "political prisoner") notes that "whether an individual is regarded as a political prisoner may depend upon subjective political perspective or interpretation of the evidence", a list, which per CLN "can be embellished with annotations", "can be referenced to justify the inclusion of listed articles" and "may include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may yet be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list", would allow for NPOV and would allow for inclusion of those who are per reliable sources deemed political prisoners but ho are not notable enough for an individual article. Otto4711 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The arguments you present for deletion of this category -- "There is no provision for referencing, to verify a topic meets a category's criteria of inclusion" and "Categories give no context for any specific entry, nor any elaboration; only the name of the article is given. That is, listings cannot be annotated (with descriptions nor comments), nor referenced." -- apply to every single category on Wikipedia and do not have any unique relevance here. No category can provide reference, which need to be in the source article for every category in existence; by this argument, every category should be deleted. There is no denying that identification as a "political prisoner", despite it's inherent subjectivity, is a defining characteristic for those so identified. No valid policy reason has been offered that would require deletion of this particular grouping of categories. The chronic insistence that lists are inherently superior to categories, in direct contradiction of WP:CLN is inherently false, if not disruptive. Alansohn (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a "chronic insistence" that lists are inherently superior to categories, I haven't seen it. I have seen many instances in which it was asserted that for the specific instance under discussion a list article was better suited to the purpose. I have argued on both sides of that position, so I hope your accusation of disruption was not aimed at me (and whether it is or not it is rather uncivil of you). The point still stands that the article itself states that designating someone a political prisoner may be dependent on subjectivity. When subjectivity is part of the equation in determining when something should be included in a grouping of articles, then yes, in that instance, a list which can be sourced and annotated and, perhaps as importantly, watchlisted for changes is the better choice for grouping "political prisoner" articles than a bare category. Otto4711 (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The suggestion that there is a "chronic insistence" that lists are inherently superior to categories comes from perusing the comments of the participants at this days CfDs and those of the several previous days. Far too many editors present this false pretense as an excuse for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. Well, I suppose a sample restricted to a handful of days rather than a general review/understanding of CFD discussions is valid. Or not. Otto4711 (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol; anyone who is at all familiar with my general approach to categories would not accused me of having a "chronic insistence" that lists are better than categories, either. So if not directed at the nominator and not directed at Otto, who was involved in the discussion, I'm not exactly sure who this was directed towards. Sounds like overblown rhetoric to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- In principle, I would like to think that we could keep these categories (but without "victims", which is too vague. My problem is that classification is subjective. Some are detained without trial. Others are convicted of an ostensibly non-political offence, but the offence arises out of an issue of conscience. The problem ultimately is that a country usually regards its political prisoners merely as common criminals. Possibly, recognition by Amnesty International (for pure political cases) and appropriate Christian pressure groups (for those imprisoned for Christian faith) [etc] would provide an objective means of categorisation, but I suppose this would give rise to a claim that Muslim bomb plotters were political prisoners (which I would oppose). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but upmerge and combine. Bdelisle (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and improve. Countries hold political prisoners and no amount of pretense by WP editors is going to change that fact. Shall the prisoner go unnamed? They exist, but WP won't tell you who they are? No names, no prisoners, such magic! You want lists? Create the lists BEFORE you nominate the categories for deletion. Otherwise, we just waste time while information content is lost. How does that improve WP? Hmains (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As nominator, I did not say I wanted a list; I merely mentioned that it may be the way to go (if, e.g., editors are insistent on having this information gathered on WP). Indeed, a list titled with the name "political prisoners" could result in the same type of POV problems as having a category by that name. Also, the prisoners don't "disappear"; as I mentioned, they can easily be upmerged into the appropriate "by nationality" and "by country of detention" categories, where they can sit with all the other prisoners of their nationality or holding place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:05, 22 September 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:Gay sportspeople[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. I'm wondering if I should let the Australian Wikipedian's noticeboard know about this, and reopen it if they want to comment. I haven't looked through the category, but I can't imagine Australia doesn't have any gay sportspeople. I certainly don't want to stifle robust discussion. Kbdank71 13:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gay sportspeople to Category:Gay athletes
Nominator's rationale: I think this is an uncontroversial renaming, but I'll make it official...athlete sounds better than sportspeople...pretty simple reason! Can commenters please use "support" or "oppose" for my rename suggestion? "Keep" doesn't really work well in a renaming, as this is not for deletion. Thank you, CTJF83Talk 01:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If I were searching for this category, the proposed new name is the name I would search for it under. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for good or ill, "athletes" on Wikipedia means track and field athletes and all other sportspeople are categorized as "sportspeople". Otto4711 (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Oppose rename. There is a category called Category:Athletes which makes it apparent that "athletes," at least in the UK and US, generally means "track and field athletes." —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 02:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry. I !voted and had my mind set on AfD terms, not CfD terms. Thanks to Ctjf83 for pointing it out. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 03:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly disagree Otto4711 and Goodtimber. Athlete means any person that plays sports, including baseball, basketball, football, etc, not just track and field. CTJF83Talk 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Otto and Goodtimber are correct—WP categories fairly consistently use "athletes" to mean "athletics (i.e., track and field) sportspeople" and "sportspeople" to mean people who participate in sports, regardless of which sport. American usage may diverge from this, but even Category:American athletes redirects to Category:American track and field athletes, with that being a subcategory of Category:American sportspeople. Renaming could result in this category being mis-subcategorised in Category:Athletes, which is explicitly defined as being limited to track and field athletes. We don't need to introduce any more confusion into this area than already exists. It's also a subcategory of Category:LGBT sportspeople. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keepers & convention. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the rename, keep as is per Otto and Goodtimber. Hiding T 09:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ie keep the present name, per the entire category structure. Occuli (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming - There's really nothing more to add beyond what's already been pointed out. This particular train left the station a long time ago. Cgingold (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Otto is correct to point out that athlete means different things; in the UK athlete is reserved for track and field only. DionysosProteus (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether the second word is "athletes" or "sportspeople", the lack of a definition of who is included in this criteria is problematic, and either word has problems. Does the individual need to have been known as gay while participating in their sport? Does one need to be a professional athlete to be included? Developing clear inclusion criteria and placing them in the text of the category will help address the issue. Alansohn (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Seeing as GO has commented here, I'll more than likely be the one to close this. When it comes to "keep" vs "oppose", feel free to use whatever makes you happy. I understand that "keep" means "keep as is", aka "oppose", aka "don't rename". --Kbdank71 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See also Category:LGBT sportspeople Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 25 September 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_September_17&oldid=1074801450"