Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 25

< December 24 December 26 >

December 25

Category:Lord Lindley cases

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (add 90 seconds of admin time wasted) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lord Lindley cases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. I found this one in the orphanage and added it to Category:English case law, but I can find no other sub-categories of Category:English case law based on the people involved in them, and there is already a list at Nathaniel Lindley, Baron Lindley. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Case law lists by judge Wikidea 01:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the link, Wikidea. But since you are aware of Category:Case law lists by judge, why on earth did't you add it to this category when you created it? Sorry to be stroppy, but leaving a category uncategorised makes unnecessary work for others, and not even bothering to add the relevant parent category at this point is bizarre behavior. (I have now done it).
    Anyway, since there are similar categories, Nomination withdrawn, and another ten minutes of my time wasted. :( :( :( :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 26 December 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:List of Qin's Moon characters

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) 09:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:List of Qin's Moon characters to Category:Qin's Moon characters
Nominator's rationale: Rename because it's a category, not a list. Note that I found it in the orphanage, and I have not done well at finding parent categories for it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to more accurately describe its contents. Alansohn (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename How a category got a name like this is quite beyond me, though. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. But can someone tell me what's the difference? thanks, but I see no problem in renaming it. 492star (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, be quite happy to. Categories are not lists; so calling a category "List of..." anything is inappropriate. The one exception is a category designed to hold lists, then it would be named "Lists of...". Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - it's not a list. --BelovedFreak 12:54, 1 January 2010 (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:Local Governance in Kerala

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) 09:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Local Governance in Kerala to Category:Local government in Kerala
Nominator's rationale: Rename per convention of Category:Local government and Category:Local government in India. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per convention.Shyamsunder (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to more accurately describe contents and match parent. Alansohn (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete, see previous nomination. Debresser (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2010 (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:Local governance

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) 09:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Local governance to Category:Local government in India
Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate. Although the name of Category:Local governance does not include any geographical indication, everything in the category appears to relate to India. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Move all pages from Category:Local governance to Category:Local government in India and then delete Category:Local governance: Shyamsunder (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge to use standard naming convention (and capitalization). Alansohn (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomina-----------------------------7d937a39170870

Content-Disposition: form-data; name="wpAntispam"

  • Merge and delete, per nominator. Debresser (talk) 01:25, 29 December 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:NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal winners

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) 09:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation per WP:OC#Award_winners. There is already a list at NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal and it appears to be complete.
I found this category in the the orphanage, so if kept it needs parent categories, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it has now been parented. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily delete per frequently applied "listify awards" argument. Debresser (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debresser, we cannot speedy something because it matches a patten of things we always decide to delete. In order to speedy delete anything on Wikipedia, it has to fall under one of the criteria for speedy deletion, which this category does not. That said, yeah, this is a delete- the list works much better in this case, as so many of the recipients are red links. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2010 (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.

Colours

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: merging to "shades of ..." categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Blue, Category:Green, Category:Red, Category:Yellow

Do we really need these at all? To my mind, this is just begging for WP:OCAT-happy category bloat without much tangible benefit. Delete sez I, but if there's a compelling reason to keep I'm willing to withdraw. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Category:Shades_of_color makes these redundant. Wwmargera (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Red to Category:Shades of red, Category:Blue to Category:Shades of blue, etc. So far, the main purpose of these categories seems to be as rather useless single-category holders of sub-categories of Category:Shades of color, but there are also some other articles in these categories which should be moved across. This can be achieved by merger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BHG. I'm beginning to think she has the category tree memorised. Merge accomplishes getting rid of these categories, while transfering over any pages/sub-cats that ought to be in the other. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2010 (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:Former Members of Parliament of Sri Lanka

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Former Members of Parliament of Sri Lanka to Category:Members of Parliament of Sri Lanka
Nominator's rationale: We don't do "former" categories; once a member, always a member. Biruitorul Talk 20:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Whilst there is a general consensus against "former" categories, there is a long-standing and growing practice of categorising parliamentarians by the period in which they were Members of Parliament (see e.g. UK: Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament; Ireland: Category:Members of the 1st Dáil, Category:Members of the 2nd Dáil, etc; N. Ireland: subcats of Category:Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Category:Members of the Parliament of Northern Ireland; Scotland: sub-cats of Category:Members of the Scottish Parliament). This "Former Members" category is equivalent to a grouping of members of parliaments before the current one, and helps navigation by allowing readers to navigate between current Members of Parliament. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per BHG. Further devolving is the way to go, not merging. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The only reason the British and Irish categories exist is that nobody's actually tackled the job of killing them yet, not because there's any emerging consensus to move in that direction as a general rule. Bearcat (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. Bearcat, that's not the case. There have been several nominations for deletion of the UK categories over the last three years. Some of the early debates closed as no consensus, but the last ones were a clear keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge regardless of consensus for or against splitting of MP categories as suggested by BHG. There is a big difference between splitting MPs by specific periods of time corresponding with elections and splitting MPs between 'former' and 'current', and the latter is not a prerequisite to the former. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created the Former Members of Parliament of Sri Lanka category to avoid the Members of Parliament of Sri Lanka category from getting too large. All 225 members of the current parliament have Wikipedia articles, though most haven't been included in the category yet. In addition there are 100+ "former" MPs with articles, again most haven't been included in the category yet. The number of articles that could qualify to be included within Members of Parliament of Sri Lanka will only grow with time. Therefore shouldn't we have sub-categories to avoid it getting too large?--obi2canibetalk contr 21:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but it is better to divide by stable characteristics such as electoral district or time period rather than an unstable one such as 'former' versus 'current'. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Former" and "current" are not static. But it incorrect to call them "unstable" by any definition I know. We like categorising by a criterion that changes, such as "living people". "Current ___" is desirable. "Former" can be split into time periods if it is too large. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that we have a few categories, such as Category:Living people, that are defined by dynamic criteria, but it is incorrect to generalise acceptance of a handful of such categories to suggest that we "like" to categorise by dynamic criteria. One need only view the various discussions involving such categories (see User:Good Olfactory/CFD#Current and former) to see that they are almost always deleted or merged.
    Instead of splitting only "former" into time periods, why not simply split everything into time periods and bypass the "former"/"current" distinction altogether? –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 00:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, once everything is split into time periods, the former/current division will be redundant: the Category:Former Members of Parliament of Sri Lanka will simply be an un-needed container category. But we're not there yet, and you seem to be missing the point that the "current" category does not need to be split into time periods: it's already a category by time-period. Why demolish it rather than build on it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See my response below. Thanks, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Current X" isn't actually desirable as a category — though a list is often a good idea. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Obi2canibe, I'd like to suggest that you consider subcategorizing them by political party instead. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. If there is a possibility to create subcats along the lines suggested by BHG, that can be done after the merger. --Soman (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there is this possibility, but this intermediate merge makes it harder for the volunteer who is going to do the work. The "former" group needs subcategorising, not the current group, not at least in the same way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the case only if we split the "former" category into appropriate subcategories and retain Category:Members of Parliament of Sri Lanka for current members, which I'm fairly sure was not BHG's suggestion. If, instead, we simply do away with the current/former distinction and categorise MPs by their presence in individual parliaments, then this intermediate merge will not increase the workload for anyone since case-by-case evaluation will be required regardless of any merge. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 08:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Black falcon, that sounds like a best-being-the-enemy-of-the-good approach. There seems to be general (though not complete) agreement that sub-categorising by parliament is the way to go. The advantage of that approach is that it categorises parliamentarians alongside the political contemporaries with whom they debated. Separating out the former MPs leaves the parent category containing only the current MPs ... so pending a full recategorisation by Parliament, the status quo gives us a category of members of the current Parliament. That's the sub-division most likely to be sought by readers, so how do we help them by deleting it in the hope that at some stage in future another category will achieve much the same thing? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A person who currently is a Member of Parliament most likely also was a member of a previous parliament (while single-term politicians are not rare, they are also not the norm). Thus, unless there is an available list of parliamentarians for every Sri Lankan parliament, one must check every article in both the "current" and "former" category in order to properly form a by-parliament category tree for Sri Lanka. While leaving the "current" category intact would (temporarily) give our readers what is essentially a by-parliament subdivision for the current parliament, it also makes it more likely that someone will forget to add categories for any other parliaments in which current MPs were present.
    Would "merge (i.e. eliminate the current/former distinction), but list at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual" address your desire to preserve the subdivision for the current parliament until the more general category scheme can be created? –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That just begs for someone to run AWB to do the merger, which has the same effect as the bot doing it.
    And I'm sorry, but delete-in-order-to-encourage-re-creation seems like a masochistic logic (or sadistic, depending on who is doing the work). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BHG, Black Falcon and others. A merger would result in a loss of information currently available. The "former members" category is listed as a subcat of the "members" cat. It would be possible to reverse this ("current members" as a sub cat of "members") which would preserve the functionality for users who are, very sensibly, seeking current names only. Sussexonian (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed Presumably, the system right now would be used- the members of.. category could be renamed into "Members of the xth Sri Lanka Parliament" after being checked against a list, and the former category used as a pool to reorganize from, categories created against various lists, and then being deleted when the job was done. This merger will make the eventual standardization harder. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No reason to keep this half-way house. Nothing will be "lost" because all you have to do is refer to the articles in the category to find out what parliament they served in. Divide them by parliament or don't, but we don't categorize by generic "former members". Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking. So if a user wishes to identify current members, a very probable request, they must visit 500+ pages to discover whether each listed person is a member or a former member. And for other legislatures the number of ex members with articles may be far more. --Sussexonian (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, they need only visit one article — because if written properly, the article on the current legislature will either directly contain a list of all its current members, or will link to one. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I have been joking? (Oh, right, because it's me ...). Seriously though, categories are almost always "timeless"; we never categorize politicians by a general past of current status. There is a ton of precedent for this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Long established precedent for current and former MPs etc to be together. Current membership is best dealt with in a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2010 (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.

Novelists by fiction subject area

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/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose:
Nominator's rationale: The convention of Category writers is not to create intersections of Category:Writers by format and Category:Writers by fiction subject area, AFAICS so there are no other examples of Novelists by fiction subject area. If we started doing that, we could create hundreds of triple-intersection categories, which would hugely complicate the category tree.
I found both these categories in the orphanage, and added appropriate parent categories; if kept, they should both be removed from Category:Novelists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 25 December 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:Native American Music Award Winner

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. — ξxplicit 08:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Native American Music Award Winner to Category:Native American Music Award winners
Nominator's rationale: Rename to fix capitalisation and pluralise "winner". Preferably, delete per WP:OC#AWARDS, and the ling-standing consensus that list are more appopriate for all but a few exceptionally significant awards.
I found this category in the the orphanage, so if kept it needs parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not especially notable award, per convention, should be a list, not a category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Brad; guideline is to prefer lists in favor of categories for almost all awards. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2010 (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 Western Marble Arch Synagogue

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. — ξxplicit 08:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People associated with Western Marble Arch Synagogue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as too vague, and not necessarily defining. The first problem with categories-by-association such as this is their vagueness: just how closely does someone have to be associated with the synagogue to qualify for inclusion? Setting a threshold fails WP:OC#ARBITRARY, but omitting a definition fails WP:OCAT#SUBJECTIVE.
Definitional problems could in theory be avoided by renaming the category to Category:Members of the Western Marble Arch Synagogue, but that merely begs the second question of how defining much membership of a particular synagogue is a defining characteristic of the person concerned? We have Category:English Jews for use when Judaism is a defining characteristic of the person, but is it really a defining characteristic of Sir Stuart Samuel that he allegedly attended the Western Marble Arch Synagogue rather than another one in London? Or of Raoul Wallenberg that there is a memorial to him outside the synagogue? There is already a list of synagogue members at Western Marble Arch Synagogue#Notable_members, which quite sufficient. The list has the advantage that it can be referenced and can explain the precise relationship of the person to the synagogue.
Finally, I fear that keeping this category risks opening a horrible precedent for cluttering biographical articles with categories for ever place of religious worship they ever attended. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category is too vague. Someone could even be associated with the synagogue by visiting it or referring to it. Wwmargera (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as undefining. I would not use the "vagueness" argument, because we have numerous categories that include the word "associated" or "affiliated", and no clear definitions provided. Debresser (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, for all the good reasons given by the nominator. Can we create some sort of pink screen warning to appear as soon as someone on WP types in "Category:People associated with" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Good Olfactory (talk • contribs) 06:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea, tho it'd be even better if it caused a Blue Screen of Death. <evil grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oooh, evil! That's evidence against you being a bot, however ;) No bot would joke about crashing! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well-established convention of handling "People associated with..." categories. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2010 (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:Pancho Villa

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pancho Villa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT#EPONYMOUS, which recommends that categories named after people should be created only collections of subarticles (see Wikipedia:Summary style), or for collections of articles on a topic about the named person. Whilst Pancho Villa was clearly a highly notable man, I cannot find either sub-articles or articles on topics about him, so I see no useful navigational purpose in this category, which currently contains just the head article and one redirect.
If kept, this unparented category needs some parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 25 December 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:Chinese war crimes

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) 02:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chinese war crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The header text says "Events during which the People's Liberation Army arguably engaged in war crimes." This seems to be as problematic as the "Suppressed Chinese History" nominated by BrownHairedGirl- arguably, by whom? Anytime we throw around words like "war crimes" it either needs to be indisputable, or in a well sourced article/list; and this is neither. Note that the only article contained in this category nowhere uses the term "war crimes". Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the header should remove 'arguably' so that only indisputable war crimes are put in. Wwmargera (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're going to keep it, we need to find more than the single article to include. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The incident included is clear enough. Starving civilians is a war crime. I am not aware of any other war crimes committed by the PLA, and am not inclined to stretch to find one. I was surprised by this. But that is not a basis for suppressing it. Such a category is hard to define. For example, the Siege of Leningrad offers a similar fact pattern. Fred Talk 18:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Fred, if we keep your vague category definition of "events during which the People's Liberation Army arguably engaged in war crimes", then the category can be applied to any article where somebody alleges a war crime, and a significant proportion of military operations could be similarly labelled. OTOH, if we remove the word "arguably", then what exactly is the required threshold of evidence for inclusion? In the absence of a formal conviction by a court, how do we resolve the POV disputes which inevitably surrounds these issues? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I have removed from this category the only article, Siege of Changchun, because there is nothing in the article which references a claim that the actions of the PLA amounted to a war crime. The label of "war crimes" appears to be derived from an editor's interpretation of another characterisation of the events, which amounts to WP:OR or WP:SYN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept, it definitely needs renaming since the name "China" is not restricted to the People's Liberation Army, which hasn't existed as long as China has. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if contains even 1 article, as part of a category structure Category:War crimes by country. I agree that if kept, the world "arguably" should be removed from the category page. Debresser (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That can be done, but 1) It'll need to be renamed to something like War crimes in the People's Republic of China/Category:War Crimes in China... and find some articles for it. The current name would not fit under that tree. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:06, 29 December 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:PayPal Mafia

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:PayPal Mafia to Category:PayPal (or something else)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to a more neutral title and to widen the scope. Whilst there are references in the head article PayPal Mafia to show that this term has been used in the media, I am not sure whether has gained sufficiently widespread currency to meet WP:COMMONNAME. It also seems unnecessarily pejorative (since the category names appears in the category list of articles without qualification or nuance) for use on WP:BLP articles (though note that there is also a template {{PayPal Mafia}}.
Since there is no overall category for PayPal, the simplest solution seems to be to make this a general category for PayPal as a whole; if it is thought better to keep a narrow focus, how about a rename to the more neutral and less sensational Category:PayPal founders?
Either way, this unparented category needs some parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably review the subject in a little more depth. A place to start is the article, PayPal Mafia. It is a very different subject than PayPal. The latter is an online payment service now owned by eBay, that is eBay's preferred method of payment settlement. The former is an American Keiretsu that centers around a business community of approximately 50 of the company's first 200 20-something (now 30-something year old) employees: business owners, investors, and engineers who all left when the company was acquired by eBay. This is a subject of considerable mainstream coverage (e.g.[1][2]) by those who follow American business trends, as their family of companies has collectively generated tens of billions of dollars of wealth in several years through companies like Yelp, LinkedIn, Facebook, Friendster, YouTube, Digg, Slide, Tesla, etc., as well as several controlled and allied venture capital firms. It would neither be appropriate, nor would it illustrate the phenomenon for the interested reader, to place all of these companies under a PayPal category because they have nothing to do with PayPal other than having been started or funded by, or affiliated with, some of the PayPal's early former employees. The term is not derogatory - the group has adopted and promoted it themselves (you can see that from the article). More importantly, that is the term in widespread use, and there is no other thing to call it. "Paypal Founders" is clunky and not really accurate - it includes companies, funds, and services, most started by the group of fifty but others who are simply associates and business partners. There are some founders who have not moved on to become part of the family, and even a few people who were not among the founders who are part of the fold. As for a parent category, one could say something about Internet and e-Commerce (although a few of their ventures, like Tesla Motors, are not dot com related), or perhaps there is a category on American business families. It's not the dominant model for Ameican business, though. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Wikidemon, you clearly knew a lot about the subject, but it's a bit unhelpful to create a category without parents categories, because it becomes a sort of ghost category, cut off from others. I have indeed read and reviewed the article, and I don't see any assertion that these people call themselves "the PayPal Mafia", let alone any references to support that claim. In the absence of any such references, and since there don't seem to be appropriate categories to place this in, I think it would be best to delete it. The navigation template does the job just as well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a statement about self-reference, for what it's worth, and added a couple parent categories. I'm not terribly familiar with the relationship between categories and templates, when for navigational purposes a narrow subject area like this would have one, the other, or both. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OCAT. Membership in a strictly informal group whose only defining characteristic is that they were involved in a project several years ago, but don't even necessarily have any actual contact with each other now, isn't a terribly important or relevant basis for a category. Especially when that category's name has such a high probability of being misunderstood. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as per Bearcat. Note this category is populated by the 'PayPal Mafia' template which will also have to be changed/deleted itself and deleted from articles. Hmains (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, can you please review and understand the subject matter a little more thoroughly before you discard the assurance of an experienced content editor like me that there is some substance behind this? The defining feature of the group is that it is a close-knit business community with a tight sense of who is and is not a member, that self-promotes and perpetuates itself by hiring, funding, and partnering among themselves. They have a shared business culture existing apart from and to some extent predating its association with PayPal. There are a few outliers but for the most part there is no question of who is in and who is not. It's not for us to decide whether that is a meaningful nexus or not, it is up to the parties in question whether they want to form their own business community, and the sources to tell us that this is a notable thing. It's not a surprise that the sources do give it coverage. The business press is starstruck with young Internet entrepreneurs, and often swallows their self-promotion. This group is credited by some with inventing Web 2.0 and reversing the dot com bust (two things that are themselves as much hype as substance - they are hyped for the hype they created), and that started a succession of interrelated Internet companies that are worth tens of billions of dollars. The article is three weeks old and the notion of a "PayPal Mafia" (the common term for it, and there is no other term) is already sourced to Fortune, Businessweek, Wired, and New York times. If there's an area where it could be expanded, that's why we have a collaborative project. You want the article to note that the group refers to itself as the PayPal Mafia? Fine.[3] Categories for the category? Okay.[4] Is there a guideline that suggests how categories should be hierarchical? A template and associated category is a far better way of organizing things than for me to add a sentence and linkback to a dozen and a half articles that "X is associated with the PayPal mafia". I added the category to the template for convenience because the the list of articles for which the template is useful has so far been coextensive with the list of articles for which the category is helpful. It would be a lot more helpful to go over this in the context of a discussion than a timed process over the holidays facing drive-by attempts to delete content. Wikidemon (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidemon, you seem to think that the category is a tidy alternative to the articles containing a sentence along the lines of "X is associated with the PayPal mafia". I'm afraid that's wrong: if the articles do not specifically mention these people being part of a "PayPal Mafia", and provide references to support that point, then they should not be in the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was commenting on templates. Templates are a better way of organizing information than following link-backs. But as a matter of Wikipedia practice it is not wrong - categories are a navigational aid to readers, not an assertion of fact, and in many cases they do not match squarely against a cited content statement. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again, I'm afraid. See WP:BLPCAT: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text. Articles must state the facts that support each category tag, and these facts must be sourced." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting far afield here because, as I said, the thrust of my comment was about the template, not the category. Look, you're talking to an experienced editor here so proclaiming me "wrong" is just kind of silly. I can declare in response that you're "wrong" and we're not going to get anywhere. BLP is a complex policy that is completely absurd if you stretch the text of the policy to its extreme literal interpretation. BLP and V relate to what is sourceable, not what is footnoted. Editors cannot and should not remove things from BLP articles simply because they are not cited, they need to have some good faith underlying objection. BLP articles are full of categories that say "People from xxxx". It would be sheer pointiness to remove the category from an article on the basis that the article contains no cited assertion that its subject is a human being. Worse, it would be WP:POINT-y, because sourcing inadequacies are corrected, not used to disrupt content. But it would be silly to include a citation in each BLP that the subject is in fact human. Citations are for claims of fact that need to be supported. Further, categories do not always make claims of fact. Categories, and much more so templates, are navigational devices designed to give readers access to other articles of interest to the subject. One cannot cite the proposition that a subject is of interest within a broader topic area because it is a navigational aid, not a claim of fact. In most cases the "PayPal Mafia" category and template are only attached to articles that themselves contain a sourced statement that the person or organization is connected in one way or another (note - not necessarily a member) with that business community. In all cases it is sourceable. Whether or not to add a that statement to the article is a case by case decision that depends on the article in question and the editors there. It should be done if it improves the article, not as a mechanistic response to a rule. Templates themselves don't contain citations, but I believe that every article link included in the template is sourced in the main article - certainly they are all based on sources, and are easily sourceable. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidemon, WP:BLPCAT is quite clear on this, per the quote I gave above. If involvement in the "PayPal mafia" is not a sufficiently significant part of the person's biography to mention in the article, then the article should not be in the category. As to the merits of removing it from the article if unsourced, don't take my word on it: see Jimbo's unequivocal position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already addressed the question of weight. If it is not of due weight it should not be attached as a category to the article. Beyond that, if you are reading snippets of BLP to preclude the way articles are constructed here in real life, I would hazard a suggestion that you might best start by reconciling your conception of BLP with Wikipedia practice. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikdemon, there may well be more examples of the sort of bad practice which you advocate, but that's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. And it is utterly disingenuous to refer to "your conception of BLP" and accuse me of "reading snippets of BLP" as if I was taking them out of context, when WP:BLPCAT addresses the subject without any ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, it's simple, and I don't see why you're having such difficulty with this. Categories are navigational devices directing interested readers to other articles of interest. Sometimes (e.g. Category:Gay actors) they are factual assertions about the article subject, and they ought to have citations. Other times (e.g. Category:Sports law) they are judgments that the subject of the article is of relevance to the topic, and they do not need citations. That's something we can deal with at the time, and that does not need a prior edict about the contents of each article. If you are reading BLP to say that every factual statement about a living person needs a citation, you are misreading BLP. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidekon, I am having no difficulty with anything except your refusal to acknowledge that WP:BLPCAT is absolutely clear on this: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text. Articles must state the facts that support each category tag, and these facts must be sourced."
You even go so far as to acknowledge that some categories are "factual assertions about the article subject, and they ought to have citations" ... but in this case you make the assertion that these living people are part of (or associated with) a group with a name which can easily be read pejoratively, yet do not accept that in this instance the case for applying "category must be made clear by the article text". Why the inconsistency? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom and Bearcat. I find the BLP issue convincing and determinative, really. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Bearcat. BLP issues have to be handled with great discretion, and labeling a person as part of a "mafia" carries negative connotations, even in this day and age. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's moot now. I've removed the category from the template so that as soon as the buffers flush it should not for the moment appear in any article. I might recreate / reintroduce it later in a way that addresses any BLP concerns raised here. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Be careful. I don't want to prejudge the conclusions of the closing admin, but if this discussion is closed as "delete", then a re-creation of the category would be subject to speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 1 January 2010 (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:Pathologists Nobel laureates

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. — ξxplicit 08:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Pathologists Nobel laureates to Category:Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine
Nominator's rationale: Merge and Listify. I can find no other example of subdividing any of the five by-prize subcategories of Category:Nobel laureates, and I think that doing so will inevitably lead to both an unhelpful splitting of categories which are not big enough to need splitting, and to the creation of category clutter on the articles of recipients, because there are so many possible ways of subdividing each discipline that many laureates could reasonably be placed in more than one sub-disciplinary category. Note that in addition to a category for the particular prize awarded, each Nobel Prize-winner is also categorised by nationality. I can see that this would make an encyclopedic list, and I suggest that should be done.
If kept, this category should be renamed to Category:Pathologist Nobel laureates to correct the pluralisation.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nominator. No reason to subdivide these recipients by subspecialty. An OCAT headache waiting to happen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:16, 29 December 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:Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame

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) 09:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Superfluous category for a hall of fame, which currently contains only two items: the head article Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame, and Category:Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame templates. The template category is already categorised under Category:Sports awards templates, and should not be imcluded in a mainspace category, since templates are for editors not readers. That leaves this as a superfluous single-article category.
Note that the category currently has no parent categories, and if kept it will need to be parented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per brown-haired nominator. Debresser (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:56, 30 December 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:Skye Villages

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:Skye villages, without prejudice to a future discussion for renaming to another format. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Skye Villages to Category:Skye villages
Nominator's rationale: Per #2, capitalisation fix. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:36, 19 December 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:Feminists

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Feminists
Nominator's rationale: Delete per the general precedent of deprecating people-by-opinion categories. Similar to Liberals or Conservatives. Also, this category is inherently subjective. For instance, would Christina_Hoff_Sommers be considered feminist given her previous support for feminism and current opposition to (and by) them? Wwmargera (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notified WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force of this nomination, as it would involve a momentous change to feminism-oriented article categorisations. AllyD (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as disruptive WP:POINTy nomination by an editor who objected to the proposed deletion of his recently-created attack category Category:Misandrists (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 24#Category:Misandrists), and has now apparently decided to switch tack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no question of using this category as a way to prove the policy wrong when even categories like Conservative and Liberal have been deleted according to it. 'Misandrists' differs from this due to its possibility of being used as an attack category. Wwmargera (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't try to dismiss the problem as the "possibility of being used as an attack category". The reality is that it was used by you as an attack category, by adding it to a series of articles based on your own synthesis of quotes which did not use the word "misandrist".
        You are clearly on a mission in this respect, adding unsourced quotes to Marilyn French, an unsourced and weasel-worded allegation that Johanna Schopenhauer‎ caused her husband's alleged misogyny ... but I think the clearest proof of your agenda here is this edit summary for your edit to Men's movement‎: filling this article with stuff favoring feminism is like filling an article on jews with praise for nazis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reality is that most people I added to 'misandrists' had openly admitted their misandry, and at least one had openly praised misandry in general. So to call them something (misandrists) that they admire is hardly a personal attack. Also, in the discussion on removing the category on misandrists, I had shown willingness to rename it to 'open misandrists' from the very beginning. I apologize for not sourcing the quotes by Marilyn French, but they are easily verifiable and I will get around to adding them with sources eventually. Arthur Schopenhauer was the son, not the husband of Johanna Schopenhauer, but she is widely regarded as being responsible at least in part for his misogyny. Further, this allegation is most widely made not by misogynists, but by pro-women authors who want to discredit the observations of Schopenhauer on women. There is no doubt that filling the article on the men's movement with material favoring feminists is like filling an article on jews with praise for nazis, but I was open to making that edit again with an edit summary that did not antagonize anyone. In short, although as a human being I have my own point of view, I am not here to promote it by being disruptive or by not following guidelines. To close this because I have a point of view is like saying that any such discussion put up by someone in the Feminism Task Force should also be speedily closed because they too clearly have a point of view. Further, I don't think asking to delete this category violates any guidelines, certainly not WP:POINT as putting it up for deletion does not help me prove any point whatsoever, as described above. Wwmargera (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • FredWwmargera, you have produced no quotes from the people concerned describing themselves as misandrists: it is pure WP:SYN of you to label them that way on the basis of your interpretation of their words.
            As to the Nazi comparison, see Godwin's law.
            And finally, if anyone in the Feminism Task Force set out on the same sort pattern of tendentious editing as you have pursued, then I would have no hesitation in denouncing that too as WP:POINTy. But they have not done so, and raising the possibility is a merely a smear to divert attention away from the fact that your editing has been POV-driven effort to equate feminism with misandry and nazism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not Fred. Marilyn French's quote admitting misandry is: 'My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them.' From her book: the woman's room. Andrea Dworkin's quote is: "Q: People think you are very hostile to men. A: I am. Q: Doesn't that worry you? A: From what you said, it worries them.". This is from 'Letters From a War Zone'. Since just a single source classifies them as misandrists in both cases, this does not involve WP:SYN. Using the word 'nazi' may be undesirable, but that does not negate the fundamental differences between the men's movement and feminism. Since I had referred to people in the Feminism Task Force starting discussions here, not to any sort of editing pattern otherwise (especially my own which I regard as commendable), your allegation that I smeared them is baseless. Like I said above, the use of the particular word 'nazi' is unfortunate, but the extent of misandry among feminists including notable well-respected ones is something that Wikipedia does not duly represent. On the other hand, I have not tried to equate misandry with feminism simply by showing that there are ways in which femists and feminism has promoted misandry. Moreover, my editing has not been merely a way to show misandry in feminism - it is just one of the issues I have addressed. Specifically, deleting feminists as a category will do nothing to document misandry among feminists. Wwmargera (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry for addressing you wrongly, but your are still engaging in WP:SYN by applying your own personal judgement that particular comments amount to misandry. The point is not whether you are right or wrong, but that wikipedia editors are not reliable sources.
                The bottom line remains that having been challenged in yor efforts to add an attack category to notable feminists, you are now trying to delete a category relating to a topic to which you are ideologically opposed, and which you equated with nazism. That's classic WP:POINTiness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • From the link, WP:SYN seems to apply to combining material from different sources, and should not apply when the misandry is explicitly stated by just one source. Additionally, let me point out that there are also other sources to describe them as misandrists: Valerie Solanas: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-8929391.html http://www.adonismirror.com/10152006_leader_misandry_and_misanthropy.htm. Andrea Dworkin: Legalizing misandry: from public shame to systemic discrimination against men By Paul Nathanson, Katherine K. Young. Marilyn French: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/05/obituary-marilyn-french. From the link, WP:POINT seems to refer to cases where we want to prove a policy wrong or to legitimize removing something we dislike based on the removal of something we like. Here, the categories Misandry and Feminism are not comparable because of the additional issues with the category Misandry that I too have admitted. Thus, making anyone oppose the policy of deleting person-by-basis categories anyway does not help me. Further, given the prior deletion of Conservative and Liberal categories, I certainly do not think that there is anything silly about nominating to delete Feminists category. It is true that I dislike feminism: because of this I am anyway in favor of removing the category by any legitimate means. However, as described earlier, I don't think this is a disruptive way to do it. I put up feminism for deletion because I realized that categories Liberal and Conservative had been deleted per a policy that should probably also apply to Feminism. I would have done so anytime I had found that out regardless of when or where I found it out. Wwmargera (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Key comment. By wwmargera, above: "It is true that I dislike feminism: because of this I am anyway in favor of removing the category by any legitimate means". So, as I suspected, this is a nomination in pursuit of a particular POV as well as a WP:POINTy one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have described at length above, my proposal is informed by my POV, but does not seem to be violating WP:POINT. Also, the fact that my POV made me the one to notice that the category should be deleted does not negate the argument favoring the deletion as described in the nomination. Wwmargera (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A nomination trying to use the wikipedia's processes and conventions to further your POV by advancing other arguments which you believe acceptable is transparently a bad faith abuse of the process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The argument I am using is that according to wikipedia's processes and conventions my POV should be furthered, unless there are other conventions I am unaware of according to which they should not be. I have never hidden my POV, and by starting the discussion here I am open to hear the other side of the argument (i.e. if there are other reasons according to which it should not be deleted). I even took care to notify the category's page about this discussion. I did not just blank, vandalize or delete the category's page. To do all this in good faith and end up with personal attacks instead of reasons for keeping the category is disappointing. Wwmargera (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 'my POV should be furthered' sounds wrong. 'according to wikipedia's processes and conventions there is a bias against my pov' is more like it. It is not like I want to impose my POV in preference to NPOV Wwmargera (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That too does not really describe the situation. How about 'my POV and wikipedia's processes and conventions seem to agree in this case'. Anyway, looked quite harmless to me but I can see why this kind of thing can be a gray area. Wwmargera (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's keep our heads cool Wwmargera, BrownHairedGirl, This line of conversation isn't accomplishing anything. The matter open for debate is should the category 'Feminists" be deleted; based upon the precedents of deleting "Conservatives" and "Liberals". I notice from those debates, the point was made that those terms mean vastly different things depending on era and shades of grey. I further note we describe the Republican Party (United States) in that article as both American conservatism and classical liberalism, which brings out the problems with using those terms for categorization- differing definitions could legitimately put the same person in both categories. So, does precedent matter, or is that too much akin to wikilaywering, and even if it does matter, this discussion is on quite a different matter than the last two, and is worth having again. For an exercise; ignore the prior discussions. What is the policy-based rationale for deleting this category?vBradjamesbrown (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Bradjamesbrown. Given my POV that I openly admit, if you admins feel that it is safer not to proceed in this particular discussion, I am fine with it. However, I see no harm in giving this rationale for everyone's consideration:
People's changing relations with feminism mean that some people who were earlier considered feminists would not now be considered as such. So should their historical position mean that they are now regarded as feminists, or should the opinion of many people now mean that they are not put in this category? These would also include people who still consider themselves as feminists, but would not be regarded as such by most feminists. eg. Warren_Farrell, Christina_Hoff_Sommers
Even in other cases, there are often POV issues regarding whether the views of someone can be classified as feminist or not, eg. even Nietzsche has been classified as feminist by published sources like 'Feminist Interpretations of Friedrich Nietzsche (Re-Reading the Canon) (Paperback) ~ Kelly A. Oliver (Author, Editor), Marilyn Pearsall (Series Editor)'
People like Valerie Solanas get classified as feminists even though she never claimed to be working for gender equality or even for the welfare of women as a whole.
The mainstream of feminist thought has changed a lot over the years. To take an extreme example, suffragates would generally be considered feminist. However, Elizabeth Cady Stanton got negative reactions even from suffragists for holding that women should not be subservient to a man. Now, even someone who does not identify as feminist would rarely have a negative reaction to such a claim.
Regarding feminism as the belief that men and women should be equal (in some way or the other), it is an almost universal belief nowadays. Even among those who believe that men and women should not be equal, a lot would fall into the category who think that women are better than men. This too would identify them as radical feminists, and thus as feminists. Most living people on whom we have articles would probably self-identify as feminists. So the category is either superfluous (like a category of Women, or Men) or only looks at feminists who are notable in some sense. This sense is not specified.
So generally there are a lot of POV issues here, and it is hard to come up with a meaningful notion that does not include almost all people, not to mention problems with historical changes in attitudes and divided opinion over who is and isn't a feminist. Wwmargera (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. As above, I think that this debate should be speedy closed as a disruptive, pointy bad-faith abuse of process for the purpose of POV-pushing. However, if we do have a discussion, there's a very simple definition in the first sentence of the wikipedia article feminism: "a political, cultural or economic movement aimed at establishing equal rights and legal protection for women." That can easily and simply be adapted into a clear and simple definition which covers all the different eras of mentioned above: "people involved a political, cultural or economic movement aimed at establishing equal rights and legal protection for women". And leave Valerie Solanas out if it makes you feel better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as keep Let's nip this POINTy nonsense in the bud. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep an obvious and useful parent category for all its subcategories, which have not been nominated for deletion. And if they were, there is no valid reason for deleting them either as amply discussed above. Hmains (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hmains category feminism is an "obvious and useful parent category" it is also simply encyclopedic and this is an encyclopedia. Speedy close as obvious disruption to make a point--Cailil talk 20:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Keep as a useful parent category that tracks a strong defining characteristic OR Delete as an undefinable term that is used differently around the world and at differing points in history, a la Category:Conservatives and Category:Liberals. In classic CfD fashion, one either likes the category or one doesn't, without any apparent overriding application of principles to distinguish between the categories we keep and the ones we deleted. Alansohn (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I agree with the keep, I would like to restate my opinion that many other opinion based categories are also usefull. Like the famous and often deleted Category:Antisemites. I fail to see the distinction, why this one has to be kept, and the other one deleted ferviously. Debresser (talk) 01:13, 29 December 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:Croatian ministers of Hungary

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:Ministers of Croatian Affairs of Hungary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Croatian ministers of Hungary to Category:Ministers of Croatian Affairs of Hungary
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the name of the main article and official name of the ministry. Darwinek (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; simple case of category matching the article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It actually sounds more like this is a category for "Hungarian ministers of Croatian descent". Debresser (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be a category for people who held the office Minister of Croatian Affairs of Hungary. Whether it actually is or not, I haven't checked all the articles. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not. Actually many of these ministers were Croatians. But this category is for the portfolio not the nationality of people who held this position. - Darwinek (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2010 (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:Swing

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:Swing music. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Swing to Category:Swing music
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The category as currently (and vaguely) named does contain entries which would sit more uncomfortably with the proposed rename: Western swing a rather distinct music, but especially some dance-oriented sub-categories such as Category:West Coast Swing and Category:Swing dancing. AllyD (talk) 10:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename a swing is a playground object. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to more accurately describe contents and match parent. Alansohn (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator and Alansohn. Debresser (talk) 01:09, 29 December 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:St. Sebastian River, Florida

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) 09:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:St. Sebastian River, Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as small with no potential for growth. Eponymous category for a minor river; the head article St. Sebastian River, Florida gives no clue as to any other articles which could be included in the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A category for the Indian River Lagoon might be sustainable, but not one for this small part of it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:25, 25 December 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:Suppressed Chinese history

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. — ξxplicit 08:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Suppressed Chinese history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I can't find any other categories of "suppressed history", or anything similar, and I think it it would be very hard to come with any inclusion criteria which were neither arbitrary nor subjective. This is one of those topics that can be discussed successfully in may articles, with references to various nuanced perspectives on it, but a category offers an unreferenced binary choice between inclusion and exclusion, on a topic which consists overwhelmingly of shades of grey. I'm sure that most historians could fairly rapidly come up with a list of suppressed history on their beat, because every government and state that I can think of suppresses information to some degree. But how much suppression of history would be necessary for inclusion in a category such as this, and who decides on each case? I think this sort of category is unworkable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one. Suppressed by whom? I know the Siege of Changchun is openly talked about in the Republic of China (As I have been party to such a discussion in Taipei, even if not in the People's Republic of China. I suspose we could rename it to something like "Events suppressed by the People's Republic of China", but, that's going to be a fairly small category, but a list with citations and nuance would be so much more appropriate, so just get rid of it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or perhaps rename. The category is intended to include historical events which are either not acknowledged or distorted by actions of either supporters of Chinese nationalism or by the government of the People's Republic of China. There are a number of events which fall within this category. I would not wish them to fall into the Category:Historical events suppressed on Wikipedia. Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 is, of course, the archtypical example. Fred Talk 18:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Fred, that still doesn't answer the question of what degree of suppression is necessary for inclusion, and how this is assessed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that to keep this we should be more specific on who suppresses it and how. eg. 'Aspects of Chinese History suppressed by Chinese Communist Party On The Internet', although that name sounds too long to me Wwmargera (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorisation by arbitrary, subjective, or non-defining inclusion criteria. The key issue here is determining the degree of suppression that is necessary in order for an article to be placed in this category, so the criteria for inclusion will necessarily be either objective but arbitrary, non-arbitrary but subjective, or objective and non-arbitrary but non-defining.
    Let us consider the example of under-reporting of the death toll associated with an event. We could impose an objective threshold for inclusion (e.g., under-reporting of 10 deaths or more), but that would be quite arbitrary; we could forgo any clear-cut thresholds, but then categorisation of articles would be subjective; and finally, we could forgo quantitative thresholds in favour of a qualitative one (i.e., Was there under-reporting of deaths, regardless of degree or quantity?), but that could make the criterion fairly non-defining in cases many cases.
    Also, whereas the question of "Suppressed by whom?" can readily be answered, the question of "Suppressed according to whom?" is much more problematic to deal with via a category. Categories boldly ascribe characteristics to the topics of the articles which they contain, and they are ill-suited to dealing with 'gray areas' of any sort. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Smells of POV. Debresser (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Oh dear; POV, subjective, arbitrary... Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:17, 29 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_25&oldid=1141928354"