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, noting that some restructuring will be needed. – FayenaticLondon 08:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I'm not sure that we need two categories for pretty much the same purpose. The target proposal was determined by the existing names. The rename is for the one that does not seem to follow the plural rule. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. That seems very reasonable to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposed categoryname is a subcategory of the current category name. The proposed name contains all the pages needing categories, while the current category contents contains dated subcategories. Further there is also a more categories needed cleanup tag, for which another subcategory of the current category deals with Category:Articles needing additional categories. The proposed name would be wrong, as these pages already have atleast 1 category. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this issue before commenting in support. It seems reasonable to me that the dated subcategories, as well as the other subcategories, can all be logical subcategories of the proposed new category name. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better solution would be to (a) confirm whether Category:Articles needing additional categories is a reasonable category, and (b) if so propose a new name that incorporate that category too. Alternatively, we could just use Category:Wikipedia category cleanup as more of a home page for this clean up, instead of just being a boring container. SFB 14:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem with Category:Articles needing additional categories isn't generally that it's being added inappropriately to articles that already have enough categories — that does happen sometimes, but the larger problem in reality is that when the tag was first added the article did need additional categories (e.g. an article that's only in Category:Living people, and not in any geographic or occupational categories), which then got added but the person who added them didn't remove the maintenance tag in the process. (It's also, unfortunately, necessary as an occasional workaround on articles that actually belong in one of the "entirely uncategorized" categories instead, because the bots that go around removing {{uncat}} from articles that have categories on them don't actually have the ability to distinguish hidden maintenance categories from live content ones, so sometimes the {{morecat}} template is the only way you can actually prevent an article from repeatedly bouncing back onto the uncats list again.) And people don't pay nearly enough attention to that category's backlog, either — as you may have noticed, it's still jammed all the way back to January 2013, even though nothing else in the categorization tree is backed up any further than May of this year. It is a necessary category, it just needs more people to pay attention to it. Bearcat (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Rename per nom. Seem to be virtually identical. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Uncategorized pages. Categories are for pages, plural category names seem to be the more common practice, so let's lose the ambiguity. — MusikAnimaltalk 03:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd favour a significant reconsideration of how the categorization-project tree is fundamentally organized, but I don't think this is the right solution. As much as they seem to be the same thing, Category:Category needed is actually a parent for Category:Uncategorized pages, as well as some other siblings (Category:Uncategorized stubs and Category:Articles needing additional categories) that need to be kept near, but not directly in, Category:Uncategorized pages itself. A larger discussion about the project structure is certainly needed, but it should probably be discussed by the categorization project rather than CFD. Oppose; not on principle, but on this not really being the best venue for the discussion. Bearcat (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We do not need two categories with the same purpose.Reawaken (talk) 23:20, 13 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.
Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement[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 to Category:Tea Party movement activists, and purge. Only the renaming will be automated, so assistance with purging will be welcome. – FayenaticLondon 18:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The existing category name uses the wording "associated with", which is too nebulous to be useful per WP:COP and WP:BLP. Someone can be "associated with" a movement without really being a part of the movement. Consequently, living persons can be placed in the existing category who do not, entirely, agree with such a categorization. For an example of this problem, please see Talk:Donald Trump#"people associated with the Tea Party movement". I propose that we rename the category to be limited to persons who are, per reliable sourcing, either "advocates" or "activists" within the movement, rather than just being associated in some unspecified way. If this rename is agreed to, then some of the pages now in the category should be removed from it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree "Associated with" is a much vaguer concept than dealing with people who are actively involved in a group, and should be a well-defined category. I would suggest the description include politicians who are affiliated by self-identification with a Tea Party group or Tea Party caucus, and not include people who have merely been "endorsed" by such groups (in fact, many "endorsements" are bestowed on candidates without any action by the candidate). Collect (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and purge, as there are many people in this category who only have a weak association with the Tea Party, in some cases the body text of an article doesn't even mention Tea Party at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
REname and purge -- "Associated with" is too vague, leading to POV and even ATTACK categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rarely do we define people by one point-of-view. Since the Tea Party is not a political party in the US (as are the Democrats and Republicans), there are no "Tea Party members of XXX legislature" and the like. So, since it is little more than someone who espouses some (many?, all?) the Tea Party's positions (are they unified) it's a people by political viewpoint, which is normally not defining by WP's standards. As for activists, look at our definition of "activist" which includes people who just sit by to preserve the status quo, anyone is an activist at everything, so it's clearly not defining for anyone. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are people who self-identify in this way, and make it a defining characteristic of how they choose to present themselves. As I see it, it's just that Wikipedia should not impose the description on them if they have not adopted it themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but is anyone notable for self-identifying that way, or are they notable for other things? If self-identification was sufficient for notability, I'll ask my neighbors whether they want their bios on wikipedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to delete every category that categorizes persons by anything other than the primary thing for which they are notable, based upon your belief that there is a consensus that categories work this way, then you may want to think about Category:Births by year and its many subcategories. Do ask your neighbors when they were born. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There are politicians who, according to reliable sources, are very much associated (or affiliated) with the Tea Party movement inasmuch as they accept funding, speak at their rallies, promote their causes, sign their pledges, and silently accept being associated with the Tea Party. For example, Marco Rubio (see this discussion). He was clearly supported by the Tea Party, and he supports at least some of their ideology. We get into trouble when editors ignore what sources say, and try to apply original research to the problem. It's almost a reverse application of WP:SYNTH, where instead of following our sources, editors dissect them and use semantics to create new meanings that were never there, that happen to support the editor's predetermined conclusions. By narrowing this category to "activists" or "advocates", we make the categories more narrow, and less neutral. Essentially we would squeeze out the Tea Party supporters and Tea Party supported who artfully avoid acknowledging their association, even when confronted in televised interviews. I don't object to a better name, or more specificity if this category can be split, but not if it means orphaning articles that legitimately belong.- MrX 13:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Rubio also clearly opposes some positions ascribed to the TPm, and is opposed by some within the TPm, which means saying he is "associated" with something with which he has an overlap of views would also lead us to "associated with the ACLU" if we wish to be consistent. So I demur that Rubio should "legitimately" be closely linked to the TPm, and find the idea that on the order of half of all the articles originally linked to this category had zero sourcing for the claim to indicate that the category was mal-used. Collect (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support creation of "Tea Party movement activists", but MrX's comments above are clearly valid. On the otherhand, something like Category:Politicians supported by the Tea Party movement isn't great either – we get into tricky situations when we start a "Politicians supported by X" tree as this is in theory very large, considering the swathes of advocate groups that fund politicians, directly or indirectly. SFB 19:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, think that MrX has brought up a point that is well-worth thinking about. However, it seems to me that we have to start from a place where WP:BLP as well as the ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply. If someone publicly takes the position that they do not want to be perceived as associated with the TPm, and reliable sourcing indicates that this has consistently been their position, whether artful or not, I think we are on shaky ground if we put their BLP into a category that "associates" them with the TPm. But, in addition to this proposal, I think it would be OK to consider creating a separate category, carefully constructed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a subject that disavows a TPm association should not be categorized as having one, unless sources consistently state otherwise. Another pitfall is that some subjects have clear past associations with various political movements, but then later try to distance themselves from the movements as they fall out of favor in the public eye.- MrX 02:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment It is very broad as it stands now. It should be narrowed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, why have tea party activist category at all? Why isn't there a clean water activist category? Or activist for clubbing baby seals category? Or activist XYZ?
What makes an individual an activist, from someone who just has an opinion, or someone who advocates? What do we use to define it?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral about whether it's "activists" or "advocates", although the emerging consensus seems to me to prefer "activists", in which case, please see: Category:Activists by issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. How can a good article not have categories? That was what raised by sights on this normally empty category. I believe the proposed name catches the reason for being placed in this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "updated". In following this issue, I've made some changes already. (Mainly to get the topic naming as the focus, rather than category.) But I didn't want to change the introduction until this renaming is accomplished. (I've corrected my spelling above.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – by avoiding the unneeded indefinite article "a" it is even better. 16:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I support this proposal. My suggestion was based on the introduction for the category which appears to be incorrect. So do the alternative rename and fix the introduction. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added note – This category exists largely because of a disconnect in the Good Article instructions. To wit: at WP:Good article nominations/Instructions#Step 2: Nominating the article it says to put the nominated good article into an appropriate subtopic e.g., {{subst:GAN|subtopic=}}. BUT, when an article is approved, editors have been using the subtopic parameter in the {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}} template even though the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Step 4: Finishing the review says to use "topic" as a parameter. That is, they continue to use subtopic and the article gets placed into the misnamed Uncategorized good articles category we are discussing here. I've raised the issue on the GA talk page hoping that someone can fix the disconnect. If they could, so that either the topic parameter or the subtopic parameter works throughout the process, then this category would have much less traffic. We would see it used only when the topic or subtopic parameter is missing. – S. Rich (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction for the category has been changed with this edit. – S. Rich (talk) 01:41, 15 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.
Category:Uncategorized Articles in Andhra Pradesh[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. For the record, it is currently empty. – FayenaticLondon 15:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and replace with the standard {{Uncategorized}}. Of course we could find one category for each article and then delete this category as empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category is now empty. Three of the four entries already had categories, two actually had 8 categories! The remaining one was categorized into an appropriate area. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needless intersection of topic with clean up category. SFB 14:37, 10 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:listify and delete. – FayenaticLondon 15:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. What label an album was original released on might be defining, labels that reissued it on CD or otherwise is not a defining aspect of the albums. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Material may have many reissues - but each reissue is not notable, hence the category of such non-notable reissues is scarcely worth having. We would be more likely to find "Category:reissues of Mark Twain's books" being of interest, IMHO. Collect (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listify at Dusty Groove then delete. Re-issuing company is not defining. SFB 14:40, 10 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.
