Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 28

< September 27	September 29 >

September 28[edit]

Category:John Brogden and sons[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:John Brogden and sons to Category:John Brogden and Sons

Nominator's rationale: Grammer. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar is an irrelevance here - WP:MOS and WP:Categorization of people are our real guides. The category relates to a 19th century engineering dynasty, their family business, and the railway projects they accomplished. Our existing article on the firm is at John Brogden and Sons, but the scope of the category could equally well be seen as either the family (surely lower case) or the firm (case according to our naming policy). Whilst we have already capitalised John Brogden and Sons, that's a WP:OSE and besides there's no strong policy visible on capitalisation of such names.

I've also raised this at WP:Naming conventions (companies) Andy Dingley (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- That is the correct capitalisation of the firm's name. The category is a small one, but just large neough to be worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 2 October 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:Sub Urbs in Bhopal City[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) 07:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Incorrect spelling, also a better category exists as Category:Neighbourhoods of Bhopal -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By some definitions, suburbs of a city lie outside its official boundary, while neighborhoods are part of the city proper. However this demarcation is often fuzzy in practice for Indian cities, and the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Were there any legitimate candidates for this category (with corresponding sources), before it was presumably emptied ? Currently I am leaning towards a weak delete, but want to make sure that we don't rush the decision. Will check back in a few days (please ping me if I don't). Abecedare (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only entry was Berasia (the article says it's a town near Bhopal, but a search shows that it's in Bhopal too!) and it's already part of the other cat. According to this map it is in Bhopal. Pincodes attest to that, it's located 20 miles from the city center. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 03:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the information. I found several sources that talk about suburbs of Bhopal generically, but none that actually defines or lists them. So, as it stands it is not possible to define the inclusion criterion for this category and it should be Deleted. Abecedare (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Shyamsunder (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as effective alternative that is spelled correctly and fits standards already exists. Alansohn (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If kept Rename to Category:Suburbs in Bhopal City. I have not investigated the merits. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:05, 2 October 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:Railway stations in Indore[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) 07:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is one railway station in Indore. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone finds other railway stations (with wikipedia articles) in Indore. :-) Abecedare (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Shyamsunder (talk) 09:22, 30 September 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.

Scots to Scottish people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Jafeluv (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is another in a series of similar proposals. Propose changing "Scots" to "Scottish people" in order to standardize them and conform them with other sister categories, the parent Category:Scottish people, and the parent Category:Scottish people by ethnic or national origin. Not all nationalities have an appropriate "noun-form" that can be used, so using "Scottish people" is able to bring cross-category and cross-nationality consistency in these categories. I realise "Scots" is shorter than "Scottish people", but in my opinion this benefit is outweighed by the greater benefit brought by inter-category constistencies. See previous similar discussions for more information and further discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category names should be consistent. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think "Scots" should be reserved for the indigenous people of Scotland. I was going to oppose this change until I saw the list of prposed changes. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So a person can't be a "Scot" unless they are born in Scotland? Holy National Front Disco. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - more clear to say Scottish people. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:44, 6 October 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:2007 City Elections in Alberta[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 empty category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is no longer being used. 117Avenue (talk) 21:39, 28 September 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:Biodiesel crops[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 Category:Biodiesel crops to Category:Biodiesel feedstock sources. --Xdamr^talk 20:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Biodiesel crops to Category:Biodiesel feedstock sources

Nominator's rationale: Rename. What exactly is a biodiesel crop? One grown using biodiesel? The proposed rename makes it clear that these are a feedstock source for producing the fuel. This also broadens the category to not limit it to crops since there are other feedstock sources. If this needs to be restricted to crops, then rename to Category:Biodiesel feedstock crops.Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 28 September 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:New Zealand albums by artist[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge Category:New Zealand albums by artist to Category:New Zealand albums. --Xdamr^talk 20:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:New Zealand albums by artist to Category:New Zealand albums

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I believe this is the only category done in this manner (ie. "Fooian albums by artist"). Typically, this is simply done by placing the artist's albums category under "Fooian albums", and further subcategorization is unnecessary. CFD precedent is found here. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because it hasn't been done before is no reason not to start - if it was, nothing would ever happen. I was basing the category on the zillions of other 'x by y' categories, which generally exist to stop the parent category from getting too cluttered. Since the category has a lot in it I think this rationale is still valid. So far I haven't actually seen any reason for getting rid of the category except 'it hasn't been done before', which, as I've said, isn't actually a reason. I'm open to argument here, but no one has provided one. --Helenalex (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the parent category (i.e. Category:New Zealand albums) is not too cluttered. There are typically the country by genre cats, followed by the individual artist cats. For the most part, there should not be any individual album articles under Category:New Zealand albums, so when there are, I can easily identify whether the artists' albums category has been created without navigating to an entirely different subcategory. For example, there is an category for Category:The Chills albums, but there isn't for Category:Annie Crummer albums. I can "unclutter" the New Zealand albums category by removing individual Chills albums from New Zealand albums and creating the category for Annie Crummer albums and putting that under the New Zealand albums cat. --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see Category:Albums by artist nationality. There is really is no need to sub-categorize further by artist, since that is already being down with Category:New Zealand albums. --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I agree with Wolfer68 in the discussion above. This is just an unneeded level of categorization. There is no need to subdivide at this point, and it is not done for other albums by nationality. Others are far more populated than this one, so I don't think this would even be an appropriate one to start with if this scheme were to be started. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:02, 6 October 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:The Cleveland Show[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. (Category:The Cleveland Show episodes: Season 1 also deleted as an empty category.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - a bit premature to have a category for a show that's only aired one episode. Otto4711 (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't so much have a problem with Category:The Cleveland Show yet, but I do with these two subcats:

N.b. These two are not nominated as of yet. Total articles: three. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This category is unnecessary. If individual episode articles are going to exist, they can be categorized appropriately under Category:The Cleveland Show episodes. The season 1 category should definitely be nominated for CFD. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it makes more sense to keep Category:The Cleveland Show and delete Category:The Cleveland Show episodes than vice-versa: if only one category is going to exist, then having it include the main article on the series seems more of an aid to navigation. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think at least one of the three categories mentioned should certainly exist once a few more episodes come out: we could delete it now and recreate it in a few weeks once there are 'enough' but it doesn't seem that important either way. Category:The Cleveland Show episodes: Season 1 seems unnecessary from comparison to various multi-series programmes (e.g. Category:The West Wing episodes, Category:The Wire episodes). My feeling is that both the others should exist to fit into Category:Television episodes by series, Category:Television series and the like, but perhaps a category (Category:The Cleveland Show) which contains just one sub-cat and one other article is excessive... Anyway, I suppose all that was a sort of keep for the main category. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:45, 30 September 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:Television by topic[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 Category:Television by topic to Category:Television programming by topic. --Xdamr^talk 20:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Television by topic to Category:Television programming by topic

Nominator's rationale: Rename per parent category Category:Television programming and to match such sister categories as Category:Television programming by country. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 28 September 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:Indian commercial capitals[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for similar reasons:

Nominator's rationale: Subjective categories, that have now been emptied after discussion at Wikiproject India -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The Census board of India defines a metropolitan city as one having a population of over a million [1], [2]. As of the 1991 census there were 23 such cities, and by the 2001 census the number increased to 35 (IIRC). However we already have a correctly named Category:Metropolitan_cities_in_India for this, and statewise categorization is not required, since those sub-categories will contain at best 1-3 pages each. And of course, Category:Indian commercial capitals is simply subjective, and invites POV OR. Abecedare (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator. Shyamsunder (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Salih (talk) 04:22, 3 October 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:Catholic Centre Party politicians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Catholic Centre Party politicians to Category:German Centre Party politicians

Nominator's rationale: They are duplicate categories so one of them has to go but 'Catholic Centre Party' is more of a colloquial term for a group officially called Deutsche Zentrumspartei so 'German Centre Party' seems more correct. Keresaspa (talk) 17:57, 28 September 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:World War II escort carriers of the United Kingdom[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: withdrawn to open broader discussion. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:World War II escort carriers of the United Kingdom to Category:World War II aircraft carriers of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Although severely underpopulated, I don't feel that the distinction between escort carriers and aircraft carriers is necessary in this context. There is no such distinction made within Category:World War II aircraft carriers of Japan and Category:World War II aircraft carriers of the United States, the only other nations to extensively use escort carriers in WWII. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World War II escort aircraft carriers of the United States is alive and well-populated, although not a child of Category:World War II aircraft carriers of the United States for some reason which escapes me. Although the Japanese category is not so divided, there are certainly enough subjects to populate this category eventually. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. So I see. I was looking for the construct similar to the one above, Category:World War II escort carriers of the United States. I think I'll withdraw this for the time being to open a broader discussion at WP:SHIPS and WP:MARITIME on escort carrier class article names and category names. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:09, 29 September 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:Redirects from alternative but more complete names[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 delete G8 (category populated by a retargeted template). Bencherlite ^Talk 10:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category was being used exclusively by the template {{R from name and country}}. A more appropriate category, Redirects from more specific geographic names, has been created in its place. Skittleys (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. Since this category is bound to the template, this should be uncontroversial. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 28 September 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:Hotel Barges[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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hotel Barges to Category:Hotel barges

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard capitalisation. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom (or rename to Category:Floating hotels which has more potential members: there only appear to be 2 hotel barges). Occuli (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I'm inclined to leave it there, although all 3 original articles reek of COI, and Scottish Highlander in particular would be very vulnerable at AFD. If renamed per Occuli, you surely need to add the hundreds of Category:Cruise ships, to no useful end. Since use for a couple of days shooting for a tv show, if that, seems to represent notability here, the potential numbers for the cat as it is are probably large enough. I've added Houseboat, which has good short information on similar arrangements all over the world, including Kettuvallam, also added. A more general name, like Category:Tourist houseboats, might be better. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Houseboats are not barges in any way. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually in the UK and Holland at least the great majority are converted barges. Neither term is highly specific as to design. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I confirm that in UK many houseboats are converted barges. Some are let out to tourists to cruise on riovers and canal and might be called "tourist barges". These need to be distinguished from cruise ships, also from vessels used for cruises on the Rhine, as they are (I assume) essentially static. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:02, 2 October 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:Vietnam War aircraft carriers of Australia[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. --Xdamr^talk 10:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category was created for the purpose of categorising the article HMAS Sydney (R17) as an aircraft carrier that operated as part of the Vietnam War. Although Sydney was constructed as an aircraft carrier, she was converted into a troopship before the conflict, and operated as such throughout the war, making this categorisation incorrect. The only other article that could possibly fit in this category is HMAS Melbourne (R21), as she was an active Australian aircraft carrier at the time, but was not involved in the Vietnam War in any way. -- saberwyn 07:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Australia did not operate any carriers within the Vietnam theatre of operations, thus this is a nul category and not required. As Saberwyn has stated, HMAS Sydney although a former carrier, was then a troopship and Melbourne, which was a carrier, did not participate in the Vietnam war at all. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's generally not thought good form to depopulate a category under discussion at CFD. But, that aside, I would like to point out that article HMAS Melbourne (R21), section "1964–1969" says:

Twice in 1965 and twice again in 1966, Melbourne escorted HMAS Sydney, which had been recommissioned as a fast troop transport, during parts of the latter's journey to and from South Vietnam.^[99]

I would not characterize a statement like that—apparently well sourced and presumably accurate, since it's from an FA—to reflect no involvement "in any way" or "at all". Typical usage of the "[Conflict] [ship types] of [country]" style of categories (like this category), categorize vessels of that type that participated in that specific conflict. The degree of Melbourne's participation in the Vietnam War is admittedly small, but, I think, relevant. It's not the same thing as classing, say, an American destroyer that served exclusively in the Mediterranean from 1950–52 as a "Korean War destroyer of the United States". — Bellhalla (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for removing the cat... I removed the category from Sydney as inapropriate, then thought afterwards "Hang on, that means the category is empty" and nominated it for deletion. Regarding Melbourne, although she escorted Sydney to and from Vietnam, the carrier remained in international waters during these escort runs while Sydney and an accompanying destroyer proceeded to Vung Tau, to specifically avoid the appearance of the carrier contributing to the war. -- saberwyn 00:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case with Melbourne, then perhaps the sentence should be clarified. One could still argue, however, that the carrier was used to support the Australian effort during the war, even though limited to an escort role. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will clarify the content in Melbourne as soon as possible, but it may take a few weeks: I have to go a little out of my way to track down the two books I need.

The period spent escorting Sydney was minimal (7 days, 4 days, 3 days, 4 days respectively) compared to the month-long round trip made by the transport, at the conclusion of which Melbourne proceeded on to her destination having remained clear of Vietnamese waters or the war's operational boundaries.

By the same argument, the entire RAN combat fleet participated in the conflict. However, most of the general sources I've seen (as opposed to class- or ship-specific histories) consider the RAN contribution to Vietnam as the four destroyers deployed on the gunline, the troopship, and two requesitioned merchant vessels, plus various non-ship units. In regards to the eleven ships that escorted Sydney during her voyages, they and their 'contribution' is either not mentioned at all or identified and detailed in full as "the / Sydney's / her escorts." -- saberwyn 06:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've removed Melbourne from the category, leaving it empty. As creator of the category, I have now have no objection to its deletion. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:48, 6 October 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:IT Cities of India[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) 07:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: An artificial category that doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nominator. A meaningless/useless category. Shyamsunder (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless category. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as catgory has no defined inclusion criterion. Abecedare (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as the category can become ambiguous. Salih (talk) 04:30, 3 October 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:German monarchists in the Gernam Resistance[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: speedily renamed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:German monarchists in the Gernam Resistance to Category:German monarchists in the German Resistance

Nominator's rationale: There is a spelling mistake in the category name so a move seems essential. Keresaspa (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename surely? Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 28 September 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:Eco-terrorism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Terrorism is a subjective term. "One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter". WP:Terrorist dances around the issue, stating that it should be carefully used, but cited to reputable sources. The problem with categories is that they are there or they aren't. There is no way to have a category with an asterisk to say "terrorist according to whoever", as you can in the body of an article. Categories are great for grouping things, but in this case, thr grouping is both subjective and hard to cite.

The additional problem is that eco-terrorist can mean many different things. It can mean people committing acts of terror to save the earth, people committing acts of terror against the earth, or whole governments.

I propose the deletion of this subjective category as well as its redirect at Category:Ecoterrorism.

Some very long discussions and examples of reasoning for this can be found at [3] Terrillja _talk 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before you begin to discuss the objectivity of the term Eco-terrorism I encourage you to read the page Eco-terrorism. According to that page and it's sources, it has a very clear and objective definition. Not at all subjective. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we can't call real terrorists (I will not give links...) by that name, because of misplaced sensitivities, then this is surely not desirable. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you can. Please see Category:Terrorism. It just has to be in line with Wiki Policy. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (continued modification and organization would help) or Delete and create list article I don't feel as strongly about this category as I do about the way it is used if it is kept. If it is kept, it is a valuable resource for correlating articles discussing the subject. If the sources use the term we are allowed to use it. The category has a giant disclaimer that articles such as Operation Backfire (FBI) are included since it is a navigational tool for people who don't read it as just a label. A step further would be to add subcategories instead of out right deletion. This would meet everyone's needs and preserve a resource for many readers.

Alternatively, a list article could be created. Per the WP:CATEGORY guideline "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles." which this category does. However, it goes on to say "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is likely to be more appropriate."

I also think it is bad form of the proposing editor to propose its deletion instead of seeking resolution on the article he is concerned with in the first place, not giving anyone a polite heads up, and not attempting to fix the category.Cptnono (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

follow up: I started drafting a list article but it comes across like a rap sheet isn't a very good navigational tool. Although I a am not trying to argue that other stuff exists, the precedent of other terrorism related categories and the contradictory nature of the guideline make me concerned about the "list article" idea and more onboard with adding subcategories to the existing category.Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think there is any question about whether or not tagging someone or an organization as terrorists, eco or otherwise is controversial. Perhaps a list would be in order, but as it stands now, I don't see it as appropriate to just slap this on organizations at will without explanation. In terms of your accusations of not "seeking resolution", the issue is with the category in general, it's much larger than a single article. As for "giving anyone a polite heads up", I informed the creator of the category (who is indef'd), I'm not going to canvass all of wikipedia to get an audience.--Terrillja _talk 17:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me this isn't just another thinly vieled attempt at protecting the image of a favored organization.. if an oranization blows other people' crap up or sinks other people's ships to make an ecological point, that makes them an eco-terrorist. Is that statement controversial? Let's call a duck a duck allready. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really clear to me why this is more problematic than any of the other sub-cats of Category:Terrorism by form, or Category:Terrorism itself. All the stuff about subjectivity surely applies equally well, and I don't see that the multiple definitions of the word eco-terrorist are a big enough problem to delete the whole category. Is there something I've missed? Olaf Davis (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the issues. The more problematic issue is that the term is subjective and generally controversial, which is why Category:Terrorists was deleted, as there was no way to explain why the category was added to an article.--Terrillja _talk 17:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it subjective? It has a very well understood, very clear definition.--68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrorism is a subjective term" Take it up at terrorism.
Keep Eco-terrorism is very specifically defined by the FBI and is understood by most major media sources as people who blow up stuff that isn't theres to make an ecological point. Google FBI eco-terrosim and sook at how major newssources and the FBI discuss it. It's pretty cut and dry. Do you blow up other people's crap to make a point about the environment? Guess what you're an eco-terrorist. Are there some jerks who throw terms around like popcorn? Yes. Is it a well defined and understood term in scholarship ^[1], popular major media ^[2] and government ^[3] ^[4] ? Yes, yes and yes. Note that laws have been passed that define eco-terrorism.KEEP--68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep same problem as with any controversial category. Inclusion of particular groups needs to be discussed and Dispute resolute pursued if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-defined parent article exists with same name, the category provides clear inclusion criteria and the term is widely used by reliable and verifiable sources to refere to such groups by their defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has enough been demonstrated to keep this category yet? --0nonanon0 (talk) 23:26, 5 October 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.

[1] ttp://web3.unt.edu/news/story.cfm?story=9542

[2] ttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343768,00.html

[3] ttp://www.vjel.org/news/NEWS100017.html

[4] ttp://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]