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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:EGRS, this is a classic case of the last-rung-on-the-ladder classification, which would tend to "ghettoize" these authors since there are no other diffusion options from Category:American science fiction writers. Thus per policy, this cat should not have been created, and should be merged up to the parents. Also, it's a triple intersection, which we normally avoid WP:OC#NARROWObi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No, ghettoization would not be a problem were these writers properly categorized. They should be categorized still within Category:African-American writers and Category:Science fiction writers. Whether Category:African-American science fiction writers is also an appropriate category depends on whether the concept exists. Speaking as someone involved in SF fandom, I can attest that it is very much an active identity that writers have; as a literature there are distinct themes; there is scholarship dedicated to "African-American science fiction"; there are anthologies of African American science fiction; and so forth. I do have concerns with the category, but it's more from the "science fiction" side of things. The "science fiction" division is never really accurate or defining, because it's often used as a sort of synonym for "speculative fiction", which is in a stricter taxonomic sense a broader term. So I don't yet have a firm opinion about what to do with this category. --Lquilter (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm just going by the guidance, which is pretty clear: "Also in regards to the "ghettoization" issue, an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory."
Also, if kept, I don't know why you would put them in also Category:African-American writers - there's no reason I can see for that, and no policy to do so either - as you move up the tree, if you retain the same ethnic identifier, you don't need to diffuse up (that's a rule I'm starting to understand). But in general, this confusion around "bubble up rules" is exactly what I've been talking about elsewhere...
re: science fiction vs speculative fiction, that's a broader issue, we would need to rename lots of cats.
Finally, while I certainly accept this may be an area of scholarship, in the same way there is scholarship for gay latino men's writing, but we will not create such a cat. What do we do when guidance says don't create, but there are books written about the subject? I think the answer is, don't create - as there are many more books than we have categories. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge the guidelines say we should not create such categories where they are functionally the bottom rung, which to me means that if the only sub-cats are by ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality they should go. When the only sub-cats of a category are by one of those criteria, we should upmerge. If people really think the intersection is of sufficently important nature that it should be studied, they could always create List of African-American science fiction writers, however this category clearly violates the bottom rung rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom; another attempt at ghettoization here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2013 (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 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:merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recent creation, a subset of humorists - not sure I really see the value of this particular thematic slice of novelists, most of the contents would be fine under Category:American novelistsObi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, I just don't think we need to divide those who are known for writing humorous things from those known for writing humorous novels - many people would have done both anyway, I'm not convinced it's a subset worth keeping. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Milowent. Humor is not even listed in the genres of Novel and seems to be a frequent genre-crossing characteristic of fiction. It's dubious whether American novelists can be sorted into people who use humor in their works or not. And just because a form exists doesn't mean that people who create the form are a notable sit (i.e, there's no Category:Fugue composers. Even if the goal of reducing the size of a large category is accepted, the subcategories should be easily identifiable and relatively non-overlapping. This one is neither. (We may be stuck with this large category, as the organization of American bookstores, usually one big fiction section with most of the books, suggests.)--Carwil (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suppose we could call Mark Twain an American humor novelist but in fact his humorous pieces are essays, not novels, which makes him an American novelist. These creations of categories to diffuse and disaggregate the American novels category, when elsewhere substantive discussions are taking place and real solutions are being considered, is unwarranted and hasty. My position, and frankly my plea, for many days has been: please wait, please stop making new categories, please stop populating new categories and depopulating existing categories. The last comment I made in regards to one of these categories was labeled a mere assertion and hence worthless, but saying this anyway because it needs to be said. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can see a case for distinguishing fiction humorists from other humorists. Surely Thorne Smith's & P.J. Wodehouse's fiction can usefully be distinguished as "humorous" in a way that is different from, say, Dave Barry. But "humor novelists" is probably overly specific.
A lot of controversies and/or controversial splits seem to be coming from the idea that a category is "too big". I'm not sure I agree with that principle. A category that by definition is large -- like Category:Living people or Category:American novelists -- may just need to be large. Some categories demand subcategorization and diffusion -- for instance, taxonomies of living creatures. Others do not benefit from that approach. For instance if we sub-divide American novelists into a variety of types of novels, or perhaps American novelists by state, then we are going to be applying many, many different relevant categories on each article. --Lquilter (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but people do not use living people for navigation, it is largely a maintenance category for alerting to potential BLP issues. The novelists category is used for navigation, and there is no easy way to get to the end. A much better way to group everyone together is List of American novelists, which includes Ms. Filipacchi and has for a while, despite all her raising of storms on this issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American novelists is already partially divided by genre with about 3000 novelists only in the subcategories and not in the main categories. The question before this discussion is whether we continue with this particular subcategory or not, not whether we dump everything up and have a 6,500 member category before we remember that novelists are fiction writers who are writers who are people and keep moving upwards. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to point out that at one point our article on Amanda Filipacchi opened by saying that she "is an American writer best known for her humorous, inventive, and controversial novels." That line is what gave me the idea for this category. My search for "Humor novel" quickly produced more works whose authors I put here. The fact that Filipacchi has said that the three men were "meant to make it look ok" reveals her view that any sub-cats of Category:American novelists are some how "discriminatory". I think this is a total misunderstanding of categories. It is Filipacchi who views Category:American novelists as somehow more distinguished than Category:American humor novelists or Category:American historical novelists. She holds the view that the novelists is "real novelists" and that "historical novelists" are outcasts who are not "real" novelists. This has never been the view held on wikipedia, but I fear her snobbishness will disrupt our being able to adequately categorize people. I hate calling her out for snobbishness, but the more she writes on it, the more I get the feeling she feels that being in Category:American novelists is some special distinction, and being in Category:American historical novelists or Category:American romance novelists is something to look down upon. In a real way she is still projecting male-centric views of literature, especially since Category:American romantic fiction writers is so heavily female in content. If she looks on these people as less than full novelists, it is her who is projecting an anti-women view, not the makes of wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is true, I can see your point - but I'd just suggest backing down now - this one is probably a snow delete, it was perhaps a cat created in haste, which is never a good idea in this environment. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you might be right it will get deleted, but it is clear that "humor novel" is an actually used phrase.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ill-advised creation of poorly delineated subcategory. Per nominator and Truthkeeper. AndreasJN466 10:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The term "comic novelists" does have a clearly-defined meaning and is used to describe numerous novelists. Do you think a rename to that would be better? I have found twelve other Americans who were not in this category that have been described several times as comic novelists in reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 23:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that cat is talking about graphic novels, while the "comic" in "comic novelists" refers to comedy. One would probably want to make the distinction clear on the cat page, but I think typically people who author graphic novels are referred to as "graphic novelists" or "comic book writers" so there should not be much confusion.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 04:32, 5 May 2013 (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:Executed victims of Red Terror in Soviet Russia[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.
Nominator's rationale: POV content fork: conflates two entirely separate points of view: one that executed criminals are "victims" and the other that victims of terrorism are "executed". DrKiernan (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article histories, they were all previously in that category, until they were moved into this one yesterday. DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2013 (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 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. BrownHairedGirl is right about the lack of clarity, but there's no consensus here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been a post-1707 English Parliament, but the nuances of the history are not widely understood, and have frequently been misrepresented in reliable sources. For example, for over 100 years the key reference book on election results in the period after 1707 was The Parliaments of England. Fine book, but woefully misnamed, because it includes results from Scotland and Wales after the Act of Union 1707 which abolished the Parliament of England.
Three different Parliaments have met at the same site in the Palace of Westminster, with a continuity of process and tradition through several major changes of geographical scope and two creations of new states. The dominant narrative of historical continuity has led to such terminological inaccuracies as The Parliaments of England.
The inclusion of the date period provides a clear warning to editors who are unaware of the complexities of Westminster parliamentary history, and helps to avoid miscategorisations which are hard to track down. Please remember that categories will frequently be added by editors who have little or no knowledge of the subject area, and who are helpfully trying in good faith to organise inadequately-categorised articles. This change will make their job easier, and reduce the need for other editors to monitor the categories for miscategorisations. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the parent article is at Parliament of England, and there has not been a parliament of England since 1707. Tons of categories suffer from thicko editors making a mess of things. There is zero evidence that this topic is any more likely to suffer from ill-informed numpties than any other category tree. Wikipedia must raise its game, not play down to the lowest common denominator. If, and when, a new English parliament meets (devolved or independent) then, of course, this topic must be revisited as the term would then be ambiguous. Note: if BHG wants to Move the parent article then please go that (well defined) route. Starting the discussion here at CFD was an error of judgement. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I have just amended the headnote on the category, which makes it clear that it relates to the pre-1707 Parliament. I resent the implication of the previous headnote that the English Parliemant became defunct in 1707. In practice what happened was it continued much as before, but admitting Scottish members. It is unnecessary to allude to Wales, as that had been functionally part of England (though with a few special arrnagements since its Act of Union in 1536. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. A reasonable rename for the category tree, to prevent people from mistaking the category for England with that for Britain, since the average person seems to treat England and Britain as synonyms. As prepares for if devolution ever happens. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia does not "prepare" for uncertain possible future events in our cat trees. Gwent might one day come back under English administration, England might get a parliament again, Scotland might become an independent state again, and the European Union might become a sovereign state one day. If, and when, any of these things happen, rest assured that Wikipedia will respond as appropriate. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing my subsidiary point about the advantage of the name, not the primary point on why it should be renamed. It's not the thing I'm using to support my opinion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:Mais oui!. I support WP category names putting on their big-boy pants; we can easily just follow the article names in deciding how to name stuff. Category:United Kingdom (and any other category that contains that phrase) is also ambiguous for the unlearned (or perhaps moreso for the over-learned), but we don't bother with disambiguating it any further. I supported removing the "pre-1707" bit in the subcategory as well. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The disambiguation may technically be unnecessary (currently), but it does little harm and avoids a trap for editors (e.g. those working on Category:Uncategorized pages) who are unfamiliar with the peculiarities of Britain. Experience suggests that editors don't always read the category text if they don't realise there's ambiguity. DexDor (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Only anoraks (or wiki editors) would get the distinction with the current UK parliament. Really, the eponymous article ought to be re-named also. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since there is currently no Parliament of England and the main article dealing with the pre-1707 parliament is at Parliament of England. There's no need to move it, though we can always revisit this if the situation changes. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Laurel Lodged. Category names often need to be clearer than that of the equivalent main article, & this is a good example showing why. Many UK editors will recognize that there is some politico-nationalist mischief-making in some comments above. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Pre-1707" is useless when there is no "post-1707" equivalent. Dimadick (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The current name is ambiguous based on how people actually speak of such things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2013 (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. Wizardman 14:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category clutter, not defining, better suited as a list. Neutralitytalk 07:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. There is a good case to be made that hosting the main summer and winter olympics is such a huge affair that we are justified in retaining Category:Host cities of the Olympic Games as an exceptional case. However, the Youth Olympic Games have so far been a much smaller and less high-profile affair, and hosting them is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a city. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Deleting this category is illogical. There is a category for Olympic host cities. Based upon this fact it is illogical to delete this category. The Youth Olympic Games are part of the Olympic movement and it is not insignificant. Deleting this category would imply that the Youth Olympic games are insignificant. The youth Olympic games are significant, even though it is new. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting this category would not imply that the Youth Olympic games are insignificant, but that having hosted the games is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a city. It doesn't make sense to place a city under Category:Sports. We don't have categories for things like "cities with an underground/metro system" or "cities that have been beseiged" as these are not defining characteristics, although the long-term effect on the city is likely to be greater than having hosted a sporting event. These arguments could also be applied to the main "Olympic Games cities" categories, but WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. DexDor (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hosting Youth Olympic games is not a defining quality of cities. I've never heard of the Youth Olympic games, and I've heard of a lot of cities. Anyway, FWIW, I'd delete "Olympic host cities" as a category too. But this one is even less "defining" than "Olympic host cities. --Lquilter (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we categorized cities by everything of this notability they had hosted, we would have way, way too many categories on some city articles. This is especially true because unlike people cities have no age limits, and can continue accruing such distinctions indefinately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2013 (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. Wizardman 14:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not defining. The list on the award page is the appropriate way to go. --Lquilter (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not meet the very high requirements to have an award recipients category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2013 (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. Wizardman 14:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:OC#AWARD (having won an award like this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic). Cat contains only one article. There is (currently) no article about the award. DexDor (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not defining. Creating an entry for the award, and listing award-winners, would be the appropriate solution, if there were more information on the award. --Lquilter (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2013 (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. Wizardman 14:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, and repopulate. When a category is brought to CFD after being depopulated, editors have no opportunity to see what was in the category. So a request to delete the category at this stage is like being asked to rubber-stamp an unknown fait accompli. Please self-revert those edits, rather than leaving someone else to do it. There is no need to do this. The nominator believes that this category was a duplicate, and the solution for a duplicate is to merge. If there is a consensus to merge, than a bot will do the work, saving the nominator from doing it manually. Substantively, it seems to me that "towns and villages" is a different set to "cities and towns". Some countries such as Ireland make no formal distinction between towns and villages, but other jusrisdictions (e.g. Northern Ireland) do distinguish. Whatever the case in India, Huon's actions will leave us with no category for villages in India, which is silly. I suspect that the best solution is to categorise cities separately in a Category:Cities in India, and to put the rest in either:
However, we can't see what we're dealing with until the depopulation is reverted. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only article I removed was Sandhole from Category:Towns and villages in India, which should not have been in that category anyway because it was already categorized in the more specific Category:Cities and towns in Mandi district (not a subcategory, though if we were to keep the category it should have been), and the category I noted above, which should probably be deleted as well because while I cannot tell what exactly Kamsar is, all its contents are contained in Category:Cities and towns in Ghazipur district anyway (so there's nothing to merge). These categories and the articles therein (excepting the outlier Sandhole) are all part of a beautiful WP:Walled garden created by Zamania123 largely without any sources which I've begun to clean up; if that's preferred I won't bother with removing nonsensical and obviously redundant categories from the articles I clean up but tag them for deletion and/or merger first. Should I really re-add Sandhole to a category to which it clearly does not belong just to revert the "depopulation"?
Thanks for that helpful clarification. I have struck my oppose, and I think that the best solution for now is to delete. Longer term, the combination of cities and towns looks like bad idea, because if India does have a clear system of city status, the cities should be separated out from the towns. But that's outside the scope of this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nominator, without prejudice to a further re-organisation of these categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. In other parts of the world we have had an issue of the scope of city/town/village. These were amalgamated into settlements, which was then changed to "populated places", the present solution. Unless there is a robust national definition of the boundaries between these, the best solution seems to be to rename all of these to the populated places format. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a point of clarification is needed; I am not aware that "town" status has any legal meaning in India, unlike "city" status. Thus, towns are just populous or urbanized villages. So lumping them together with cities is subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2013 (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 These are the same category. I created the new category because I did not realize we already had a category covering this topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2013 (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.
