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.
Nominator's rationale: The team was the Dodgers from 1930-1943 with the final name being the Tigers for only the 1944 season. Suggest renaming to follow both the convention of Brooklyn Dodgers (NFL) and Category:Brooklyn Dodgers (NFL), which is Dodgers (NFL), not Tigers. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename It would appear that the merge target is the appropriate catchall category for all of the franchise's season articles, and would match the parent category. Alansohn (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I meant all the season articles. The current title only follows the last season, not the majority of them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Found this as an underpopulated category. When I started to populate it, I wondered if this name was really ambiguous, I think it is. So, I'm bringing it here for discussion. Category:Medical waste was another possibility, but that really should be a subcategory here if needed since it is more specific. Category:Biodegradable waste management exists for the bio mass handling. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment medical waste doesn't belong in this category, not all medical waste is biological. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator as correct English. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2009 (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:Parents of people with Down syndrome[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. --Xdamrtalk 08:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete as overcategorization. Personal categories should at least apply only to the person himself. Gilliam (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We categorize articles by characteristics of the topic themselves, not by characteristics of the topic's relatives. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a matter of creating new categories but whether to keep an existing category. The condition severely affects the chidhood of those with the condition and thus directly affects the lives of their parents. Look at the coverage of Sarah Palin and Arthur Miller, for instance, over their Down syndrome children, It is odd to talk of overcategorisation as this is one of only 2 subcategories for Category:Down syndrome. It provides a useful extension to Category:People with Down syndrome, which otherwise consists of Anne de Gaulle and actors with Down syndrome. The category illustrates the extent of people affected by Down syndrome and provides an historical perspective. Cjc13 (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, I would argue that the coverage of Palin and her child(ren) is as much a product of her drama-queen efforts to exploit her family for political effect, rather than anything inherent in simply having a child with Downs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2009 (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:Rename per nom. --Xdamrtalk 09:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Follow the standard form of companies based in. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Always in favor of uniformity. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2009 (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:Keep. --Xdamrtalk 22:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is hopelessly glitchy. Adding this category to an AFD discussion causes the whole day's log and the deletion sorting pages to show up in the category, and there doesn't seem to be a way to fix this. What a mess. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have fixed the adding to the day's category. However since the template is subsisted, that does not deal with the problem of those articles that are already tagged. Also, once these are closed, the template apparently remains, making the entries permanent members of the category. That would seem to eliminate any benefit to this as a maintenance category. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, it's even more glitched than I initially thought. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As soon as all of the existing relisted AfD debates use this category, my bot will be relying on it to update Wikipedia:Coordination. The issue of the category being in too many places can be resolved with noinclude tags, and I can use AutoWikiBrowser to patch up the ones that don't already use noinclude. Also, my bot will be removing the category from the closed AfDs. —harej (talk) (cool!) 17:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is not supposed to be a human-usable category (though that would be nice) so much as it is supposed to be to help the bot not have to load 600 pages every 30 minutes. Yes, my bot can distinct between actual AfDs and non-AfDs (like logs). Just plain "noinclude" tags don't work, since they prevent the category from showing up on the AfD (I have tested). I am sure there is a way around this. —harej (talk) (cool!) 17:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done all the template hacking and I will now retroactively apply it to the other relisted AfDs which have this category. —harej (talk) (cool!) 17:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, another bot category. I believe that we have discussed these in the past and consensus was that bots should not use categories to control their operation. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest, then? I cannot use transclusions because the template is substituted, and the current system is ridiculously resource-taxing and can be made more efficient. This category system is supposed to make them more efficient, and since I fixed the template, it's usable by humans as well. —harej (talk) (cool!) 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do a search for the words "from Template:Relist" against Category:AfD debates? Wouldn't that give you only listings that are active? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already do something like that. It requires me to load several hundred pages. Takes a look at Wikipedia:Coordination/afdrelists — do you see several hundred entries there? Almost all the pages that get loaded are not needed, so I would rather simplify the process. The way it works now, it takes a whopping three minutes from start to finish. —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then, why substitute the template anyway? Why not have it keep that way and a bot just subst the templates when they are closed? Or, I hate to suggest it, add it to the closing nominator's duties? Besides, is it really that important to know which AFD have been relisted? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the template is substituted; I did not make it that way. The robut will gladly substitute them once it detected a closed AfD. But can we convince people to change? Furthermore, the point of being able to generate a list of relisted AfDs is so people will be able to find out which ones need the most attention. —harej (talk) (cool!) 15:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as usefull maintenance category. Debresser (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps transclude {{relist}} and have the bot substitute it; in any case, this category makes it easier for people to see which AfD's need more discussion. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 16:58, 17 July 2009 (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:Rename to Category:Plant roots. Clear consensus for a name change - suggest that interested editors give consideration to renaming Root for consistency. --Xdamrtalk 09:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This one is kind of a close call, and I'm sure someone will make a comment that includes the word "ridiculous" or a close synonym. The main article for this part of a plant is at the (undisambiguated) Root. However, once we pluralize things to Roots, we find ourselves at a DAB page and "Roots" can mean a wide variety of things with more than one Root not necessarily being the obvious meaning—I happened to think of the famous TV miniseries. I'm open to other disambiguations other than "(plants)". Good Ol’factory(talk) 12:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the general need for disambiguation. Will agree with any appropriate term, including the nominators "plant". Consider "botany" as perhaps even better. Debresser (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree; I think this is a clear primary use. If disambiguation does go ahead, please let it be Category:Plant roots. Hesperian 00:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because no-one has gotten around to it? I think it should. Hesperian 00:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turning that on its head, why isn't this Category:Root (currently a ?malformed redirect)? That sees off all the alternative meanings except the square roots etc. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad idea, though it would violate the practice of pluralizing these types of categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be consistent with that - this category is for general articles, with specific root vegetables already in a sub-cat. Compare Category:Bamboo and Category:Bamboos (species), Category:Wood etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WTF?! Why do we have Category:Bamboo and Category:Bamboos? That is ridiculous (or a close synonym)! But this is not a discussion about that; with respect to this discussion, I can only point out that (a) both Bamboo and wood are mass nouns, thereas root is not; and (b) Category:Bamboo was created (by you) only 5 days before this discussion started, so it certainly cannot be taken as a precedent for anything, nor as evidence of normal practice. Hesperian 00:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename Keep the existing title to match the standard pluralization of the undisambiguated parent article. That the plural Roots is a disambiguation page is little relevant. Any of the articles listed under Roots would have a category title, should it exist, that would be disambiguated in the same way as its parent article, such as for Roots (TV miniseries), which has the corresponding Category:Roots (TV miniseries). No one navigating through the category system types category titles; They click from one category to another. There will be no confusion when someone reading an article about Mycorrhiza sees the Category:Roots and can't figure out why the miniseries based on the Alex Haley book is included there. Having the conflict between the parent article and the category only creates confusion for the folks who will be adding the category to articles. Alansohn (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I type category names when navigating through the system. Especially when my mouse is puckeru'd. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that's the exception, not the rule. How would you guess when looking for the taproot and other similar articles to search using Category:Roots (plants) and not Category:Roots? How does this become more intuitive by varying from the article title? Alansohn (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just didn't want to become part of the "nobody". As far as "intuitiveness" goes, since Roots does not redirect to Root, it's also non-intuitive that an article and category of the exact same name would be about different things. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not intuitive either way (though I disagree), why not stick with the simple standard of matching the title of the parent article? Alansohn (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, mainly b/c I think there are other factors to consider in addition to intuitiveness. Because category space doesn't work quite the same as article space yet w.r.t. redirects, etc., I believe category names need to be unambiguous. Matching to an article name has its merits, but in a case like this where the pluralized version of the article name doesn't redirect to the article name, I believe an exception is warranted. Category:Plant roots is probably a bit more elegant than my suggestion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:26, 10 July 2009 (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:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 08:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Definition: "People known to have eaten dogs." Not defining, trivial detail of a person's life that would encompass most people in large swaths of the world. (Possible that name also has a slight tinge of bias, perhaps implying that eating dogs is a bad thing. I have to go marinate my Rin Tin Tin nuggets now.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 12:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there is only 1 article, in which eating dogs is not mentioned. Occuli (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. Perhaps meant as an insult-category? Debresser (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether it be a joke category or derogatory one, it's completely unacceptable. Perhaps this is speedy worthy? — Σxplicit 04:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but... Does not appear defining, though the nominator's same argument would apply to Category:Vegetarians, which would appear to be an equally trivial aspect of the lives of people around the world with a tinge of bias that makes eating vegetables sound like a bad thing. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno; maybe if "dog eaters" ate nothing but dog. I don't think there's a 1:1 parallel here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we're on the subject of Category:Vegetarians, why do we have the subcat Category:Indian vegetarians for a place where vegetarianism is widespread, a la the recent discussion at Category:Atheist politicians. P.S., Based on the menu described in your nomination, please remind me not to accept any dinner invitations at the Olfactory residence. Alansohn (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting question—I think it came up once before. I'm ambivalent about the entire Category:Vegetarians scheme, but would lean towards "keep" if it came up. As long as the "scheme" exists, I suppose there's an argument for keeping one for Indians too. We haven't tended to single nationalities out for deletion when part of a scheme just b/c the attribute is very common among the particular nationality. I remember someone once nominated Category:Irish Roman Catholics for the same reason, but the consensus seems to be we keep these types of categories, which I suppose is only fair if the scheme is to exist. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Vegetarians' is one of the rare cases where one can employ the phrase 'keep per Otto'. I'm not sure whether we have yet had the choice in a cfd between 'keep per otto' and 'delete per Alansohn'. Occuli (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were getting close to that ever-receding horizon on an LGBT category awhile ago—but no. The converse was only being argued for rhetorical/comparative purposes. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's only one article in the category, and it contains no mention of eating dog meat. The category is poorly named anyway. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial, and categorizing by specific foods or animals one consumes is overcategorization. Most people eat a wide variety of foods so categorizing by them would result in huge numbers of useless categories. Otto4711 (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people by diet is a bad idea; people by one item of their diet (perhaps once) is even worse. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like an attack category to me. Even if it wasn't, what's next? Category:Fish eaters? Jafeluv (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2009 (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.
This was proposed first at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, by User:John Carter. Here's the original rationale: "I don't particularly care which of the two categories gets merged into the other, but I defintely think having the two separate categories co-exist, with both apparently dealing with the same country, does no particular good, and Support a merger." (diff) Jafeluv (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Macedonia naming dispute is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. I think the names of these categories should conform to whatever name is decided on there. The results will be posted before 19 July have already been posted here. Jafeluv (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. "If a sub-article of the type 'X of the Republic of Macedonia' conflicts with an existing article 'X of Greek/ancient Macedonia', a regular disambiguation page pattern according to WP:DAB with no "primary topic" will be used (i.e. 'X of Macedonia' will be a disambiguation page), or 'X of Macedonia' will be used for a common roof article covering all senses. In all other cases, the country-related article can be at 'X of Macedonia'." There's no category for Christianity in any other Macedonia, so this one should be called Category:Christianity in Macedonia. Jafeluv (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2009 (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.
In the absence of a conviction for being a Neo-Nazi or Anarchist, these categories amount to an intersection of political belief and imprisonment with no defining bearing on the subject.
Nominator's rationale:DeleteUpmerge - categorizes the intersection of being imprisoned with affiliation with a particular philosophy or political opinion which may or may not have anything to do with the reason the person is imprisoned, thus creating a potentially misleading categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upon review of some of the articles, they aren't in the parents, so upmerge to Category:Prisoners and detainees and the neo-Nazis and anarchists categories. Otto4711 (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but make it clear on the category pages that these categories are meant only for neo-Nazis/anarchists that are imprisoned for being neo-Nazis/anarchists. Although that was probably intended to be obvious, we now see from this nomination that it needs to be spelled out. Debresser (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you offer some examples of people who are currently imprisoned because they believe in the tenets of neo-Naziism? None of the current entries qualify, meaning that if they were removed the category would be empty and subject to automatic deletion. I haven't reviewed all of the anarchists articles but I suspect that there are few if any people imprisoned just because they believe in anarchism. Otto4711 (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can not. But that doesn't matter, because if what you say is true, then do precisely that: remove all articles and then speedy it. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was imprisoned because he forged a metric buttload of traveler's checks. What indicates that these are not current categories? I see nothing at either category that indicates it is anything other than the same sort of current category as other deleted incarcerated categories were. Otto4711 (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He forged the cheques to fund his anarchist habit. What is there about Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom to suggest that these are not all currently struggling for elbow room in 10 Downing Street? 'Past and present' is generally assumed for categories. Occuli (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was he imprisoned on the basis of being convicted of a charge of anarchism? No. What you're suggesting here is that we should categorize people who have been imprisoned for a crime supposedly related by a political philosophy, not by the crime, but by the philosophy. That is incredibly convoluted and appears to be without any precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Repopulate The nominator has decided that the only possible interpretation of this category is people who are anarchists who are currently imprisoned for some crime, which may have nothing to do with their beliefs. The clear intent of the category is to include individuals who were placed in prison because of their anarchism. Depopulating the category, as in this edit for Mark Barnsley, one of several articles disruptively updated to remove the category in advance of a conclusion to this dicussion, where the connection between anarchism and prison is discussed. As part of a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia, we might have discussed the content of the category and reviewed ways to address possible issues, such as via renaming the category. Instead, the approach appears to be "shoot the horse", before we even have a diagnosis. As it is, the imprisonment of these anarchists for their beliefs was a major defining characteristic of these individuals, and grouping them together in a single category fr navigation purposes is entirely appropriate. Dumping all of these individuals Category:Prisoners and detainees is purely disruptive to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your bad-faith accusation of "disruption". I removed those articles which were for people who are no longer incarcerated, which to any reasonable person is a reasonable interpretation of the category. Rather than accept that this is a reasonable interpretation of the category, you accuse me of disruption. It's pathetic and contrary to the demand of civility you make of everyone else.
Mike Barnsley's article in no way supports the notion that he was imprisoned because of his political beliefs, anarchist or otherwise. He was imprisoned because he got into a bar fight. All of the removed articles indicate that the subject was imprisoned after being convicted of criminal activity. The only article that comes close to supporting the notion that the subject was imprisoned for his beliefs is Ivan Aguéli, which states that he was detained for four months "for association with French anarchists such as Maximilien Luce and Félix Fénéon". Otto4711 (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not reasonable to assume 'current' is implied. A dead person would be in hardly any categories under this rationale. Eg is Einstein currently a vegetarian? Occuli (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent CFD on a related category was predicated on the notion of incarceration being temporary. The only other such "imprisoned" category, Category:People imprisoned on charges of terrorism includes in its criteria detainees who have not yet been convicted, a "current" category. Category:Incarcerated spies consists, with one exception, of living people currently incarcerated. A random sampling of 25% of the articles in Category:Incarcerated mobsters are all for living people currently incarcerated and it subcat Category:Mobsters serving life sentences is by its use of the word "serving" a "current" category. Given that all existing similar categories are being used as "current" categories, given the deletion of the most recent such considered category and given that other similar categories have been deleted in the past in part because of concerns over the maintenance required because of currency issues, a reasonable person may certainly conclude that the categories under discussion are "current" categories. An editor assuming good faith would accept another editor's explanation rather than uncivilly brandishing an accusation of "disruptive" editing. Otto4711 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Alansohn observes, if Category:Imprisoned anarchists is thought to imply 'currently' then a rename is the answer, not depopulation. Or a simple sentence could be added at the top of the catogory explaining the inclusion criteria, as has been done in the much more convoluted Category:LGBT-related television episodes. Occuli (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the categories are limited to those imprisoned for being either neo-Nazis or anarchists, then they are small categories with little or no likelihood of expansion. None of those in the neo-Nazi category were imprisoned for being neo-Nazis and so do not belong in such a category, and only one person currently or formerly in the anarchists category might have been imprisoned for being an anarchist and even that person is questionable as his article states he was detained (without being convicted) for associating with anarchists, not because of his own anarchism. Regardless of whether the categories are broadened from their "current" scope to encompass any neo-Nazi or anarchist who has ever been imprisoned, the point still stands that this is an intersection of jail time and a political belief that may have nothing to do with the jail time. Otto4711 (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that imprisoned means ever imprisoned not a current cat. I think that being imprisoned is probably a notable thing in a biography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that being imprisoned should not be categorized, which is why I'm suggesting merging the categories to the prisoners and detainees category. On the basis of sampling that category and its subcategories, it appears that other than two categories for people who died in custody, that the entire prisoners and detainees subcategory is being treated as a "current" category. Can you explain how categorizing people by the intersection of political beliefs and imprisonment, when that imprisonment in all cases but maybe one was not for holding those political beliefs, is defining or even significant? Should we have categories for imprisoned Republican bank robbers? Incarcerated socialist embezzlers? Imprisoned libertarian arsonists? Ridiculous. Otto4711 (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2009 (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:No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 09:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename - to match the apparent lead article Violence against LGBT people and because we tend to view "homophobia" as NPOV in category names (having previously deleted categories for homophobic people and homophobic political parties, among others). Otto4711 (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. To match parent article and to avoid WP:NPOV issues. — Σxplicit 06:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as is. The article is about Violence against LGBT people. The category is about homophobia. Homophobic violence and Violence against LGBT people are not synonymous. Homophobia is not an issue in terms of NPOV, labeling individuals may be. It is a term which is legally defined and incorporated in legislation in some countries. Homophobic violence is a legally recognised phenomenon, and features in maintsream national newspapers. The article includes violence against LGBT people as well as people not LGBT (but assumed to be LGBT) which is motivated by homophobia as well as having other motivations (e.g. transphobia). Mish (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as is, per Mish. A person can be beaten to death because of homophobia, but not be LGBT, this category should cover such instances. Also homophobic bullying in schools has almost nothing to do with actual sexual orientation of the victim. If an article does not have a source for homophobia being a motive, remove it from the category - violence against LGBT people can be a separate overlapping category. Domestic violence within gay couples is another topic that would fit into once category but not the other - the terms are simply not synonymous.YobMod 10:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I also would like to see the word "homophobia" removed, I find the argument of YobMod very strong, and even see some merit in Mish' argument as well. Debresser (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jumping up a level to Category:Hate crimes there are sister categories like "Antisemitic attacks and incidents" and "Racially motivated violence in the United States", which in turn have subcats like "Attacks on synagogues and Jewish communal organizations" and "Racially motivated violence against African Americans". Going by that (which seems like good organization to me) "Homophobic violence" should not be renamed, but rather "Violence against LGBT people" should be a subcat. Siawase (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The proposed title only confuses the issue. We appear to be trying to capture violent acts against individuals that were based on homophobia. The proposed title would eliminate incidents where the perpetrators misidentified the subject as LGBT and attacked them despite the mistake. It would also include any form of violence committed against an LGBT individual, regardless of motive. An incident in which one LGBT person attacked another LGBT person would be included here, as well. While less than perfect, the current title most accurately reflects the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2009 (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:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 08:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Extensive, unanimous precedent to delete 0-level categories as not helping the encyclopedia. See here. VegaDark (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a very helpful category in any sense. Jafeluv (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per rationale as well as precedent. Anyway this category is empty, so may be speedied soon. Debresser (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2009 (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:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 08:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - We already have Category:Irish Wikipedians and Category:Catholic Wikipedians. This is simply a trivial intersection that does not foster any more or different collaboration than the single categories by themselves. And, since the purpose of user categories is to support encyclopedic collaboration, the only reason to keep this category would be if it can somehow offer a better way to collaborate in a particular area than the current categories do. While there is an article on Irish Catholic, this is a single article and collaboration would be best served on the talk page, a category grouping such users would be far too narrow for a category and isn't necessary, else we want to see a user category to article ratio of 1:1 (we don't, as past consensus has determined user categories should be reasonably linked to at least 4-5 potential pages to collaborate on to justify its existence). Keeping this could also set precedent for any other nationality/religion combo categories which already by themselves have a dubious argument for fostering collaboration, a combination category would be even less useful. I would additionally cite some past discussions that I believe use similar rationales for deleting the category in question, see here. VegaDark (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see the benefit of this category as opposed to having one category for being Irish and another for being Catholic. Jafeluv (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree in this specific case, without any implications for future similar nominations. This is the only nationality-religion intersection in Category:Catholic Wikipedians. Debresser (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- xy intersection categories not needed when both x and y exist. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trivial??!?!? The role that Irish Catholics have played in US politics is rather distinct (I hear the Kennedy family may have a connection somewhere in their background), and the article emphasizes the role worldwide. The category was created a day ago, and a little marketing will help category growth Category:Irish Catholics. As we have both Category:African Wikipedians and Category:American Wikipedians, I assume that Category:African American Wikipedians will also be on the way out, per "xy intersection categories not needed when both x and y exist" and the paraphrased "I don't see the benefit of this category as opposed to having one category for being African and another for being American"? Alansohn (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you mean Irish-American not Irish Catholic in your example. The category under discussion relates to Irishmen/women of Catholic faith. As below this would mean the necessity for (at least) Irish Protestant wikipedians (poss. Irish Presbyterian, Anglican etc etc). As for African-American; this is not an xy intersection as African Americans are Americans of African descent; not people who are simultaneously African and American in nationality. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some differences between your example and the one at hand. First of all, I didn't argue that all combination categories should be deleted, only combination categories that are unlikely to foster any more collaboration that the original categories by themselves. I think this one would fit that, while "African American" has many more pages/topics relating to them and has a better case for keeping. Additionally, African-American is an ethnicity/nationality combination category, different from the religion/nationality comination category at hand. That being said, I wouldn't be particularly opposed to deleting the African-American category either, as I don't think the fact someone is African-American will necessarily make them any more likely or able to collaborate on topics relating to African-Americanism. VegaDark (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given above. ~Asarlaí 07:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given above.--Domer48'fenian' 12:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given above. Only fosters greater division, not cooperation, in my opinion. Would beg for the creation of "Irish Protestant" or "Scots/Scotch-Irish" equivalent, when in reality all are just a sub-set of "Irish Wikipedians." Accentuate the commonalities, not the differences, here. Shoreranger (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, Ireland needs fewer dividing lines; lets not try to create more here. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given above. feydey (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; one presumes that these Irish Catholics are Roman Catholics unless something is amiss here... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Neither category is likely to have many members (maybe adding 1 a generation or so). Suggest upmerging to the newly created category. –xenotalk 00:58, 9 July 2009 (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.
