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. – FayenaticLondon 18:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The only reason an endash is used here is because the "Anti-" applies to multiple words, not just the first one that follows the "anti-". They are anti "Iraq War", for instance, not anti-Iraq. The organizations are against child pornography, not anti-child. This issue is covered by WP:DASH, where it says that an endash should be used "Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix (but not a suffix) to a compound that includes a space". The examples given are "ex–prime minister Thatcher; pre–World War II aircraft". Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that is a weird interpretation, bordering double standards. Per MOS:HYPHEN, hyphen indicates a conjunction and in all these examples hyphen is used as a conjunction - if you remove "anti-", the meaning will become the opposite. Also, being a prefix, anti- itself doesn't exist as a separate word and as such is in a conjunction. Dash counter-intuitively severes it from the word it should be attached to. Brandmeistertalk 08:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what's in the MOS. Like hyphens, endashes do serve multiple purposes and aren't interpreted in the same way in all contexts. This use with prefixes to adjectival phrases does seem to be based on sources (my Chicago Manual of Style 15th ed. supports it). I could be open to having it changed in our MOS (I'm not a strong advocate of either approach), but until it does change, it should be applied as written. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the activists categories; no opinion on the others. Our article on activism makes it clear that basically everyone is an activist if they merely voice their opinions, whether for change or status quo. Minimal effort is required and most of the people categorized as "activists" are notable for something else. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just reserve it for those who are defined by such activism, as all categories are meant to do per the guidelines? For someone like Lijon Eknilang, for instance, campaigning against nuclear weapons is defining and is pretty much the reason she is notable. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These categories are mostly misapplied - Lists would be better, they could be sourced. Many people are "activists" at everything these days. Take a politician - every speech they give pro- or anti- something makes them an activist on that topic, of which there's no end. Moreover, we highly disfavor categories of by opinion, but "activists" is merely a by-opinion category in disguise, because merely speaking your mind makes you and "activist" and without speaking your mind, we have no reliable source you possess the opinion, hence their equivalence. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree they can be and are overused categories—I'm not questioning that—but your comment didn't really answer my question. Why don't we keep the categories and reserve it for those who are defined by such activism, since articles about such people do exist? In other words, set out a category definition, purge the articles that don't belong, and see where that leaves us. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support typical Wikipedia style does not widely use endashes when hyphenating multiple phrases (though some periodicals do follow that format). Fine in prose, but I would keep out of category structure for consistency. Disagree with the above interpretation of anyone who declares an opinion is an activist – that is a misuse. SFB 20:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you're suggesting that we apply the WP MOS to prose, but not to category names? Why the distinction? The MOS has always applied to article names, which is also non-prose. On virtually all other issues, the MOS does apply to category names. So if it's consistency you're after, you're headed in the wrong direction. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All These category structures should continue to exist using the appropriate hyphenation, which is what they have now per WP:MOS when used in this context. Alansohn (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support all The hyphen permits easy page searches by the simple typing of anti(hyphen)text and, quite frankly, after anti, the hyphen looks better - at least to my eyes. I think these issues are more important than WP:MOS which says: Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix (but not a suffix) to a compound that includes a space. ex–prime minister Thatcher; pre–World War II aircraft. The old debate on the use on hyphens ended with no consensus. There are no hard and fast rules. Gregkaye✍♪ 17:45, 19 September 2014 (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:split, unanimously supported. – FayenaticLondon 18:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Editor2020 01:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Support narrowing of Category:Folklore to principally oral traditions and creation of Category:Folk culture as the parent of the various folk traditions. Folk music and art, particularly, are not commonly referred to as "folklore". This split matches common usage. SFB 21:45, 19 August 2014 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Vague. Obviously any older game console not in the current generation or last gen will not be sold in most stores. With the larger category, obsolete technology, other technology is not so rigidly made into "generations", so it makes more sense. KonveyorBelt 19:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the point of the categories seems to be to place 1st–5th gen consoles into Category:Obsolete technologies. That category is very incomplete, so the question is whether it would be helpful to expand it with these and other contents. – FayenaticLondon 11:57, 5 September 2014 (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:Upmerge all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- the practice is to use the contemporary polity, but Do we not also need a "Sport in Dutch East Indies" parent? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but per Peterkingiron's analysis. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Sport articles have been the source of some of the worst categorization along these lines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2014 (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.
