Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:34, 2 December 2004 editIZAK (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers86,943 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 12:41, 2 December 2004 edit undoSimonides (talk | contribs)2,975 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 215: Line 215:
:A typical factually-incapacitated, rambling, nonsensical reply from a well-known Misplaced Pages POV pusher. Firstly, no one is "deleting" Jews - the Jewish origins of famous people are mentioned in their biographical sections, but unless there is some direct relevance to the person's achievements/ career/ personality, or unless the person him/herself wished for it, there is no need to emphasize their Jewishness with a redundant category; and this has nothing to do with people who "dislike" Jews, because the same principle applies equally well to other such categories, like the one above, "Muslims", where exactly the same objection has been made. More importantly, it is gross and factually unsupportable POV to state that all people with some Jewish ancestry or Jewish beliefs "are ALL of an established religion (]), people or nation, culture AND non-exclusive ethnicity" - such a broad generalisation is self-evidently rubbish; and finally, I have already linked the page which states the violated guidelines, and if you bother to read it, it is possible you will find the guidelines, but in case even that proves too difficult, here are more straightforward links at the same page (you have to click on them to read their contents): ] , ], ] . -- ] 11:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) :A typical factually-incapacitated, rambling, nonsensical reply from a well-known Misplaced Pages POV pusher. Firstly, no one is "deleting" Jews - the Jewish origins of famous people are mentioned in their biographical sections, but unless there is some direct relevance to the person's achievements/ career/ personality, or unless the person him/herself wished for it, there is no need to emphasize their Jewishness with a redundant category; and this has nothing to do with people who "dislike" Jews, because the same principle applies equally well to other such categories, like the one above, "Muslims", where exactly the same objection has been made. More importantly, it is gross and factually unsupportable POV to state that all people with some Jewish ancestry or Jewish beliefs "are ALL of an established religion (]), people or nation, culture AND non-exclusive ethnicity" - such a broad generalisation is self-evidently rubbish; and finally, I have already linked the page which states the violated guidelines, and if you bother to read it, it is possible you will find the guidelines, but in case even that proves too difficult, here are more straightforward links at the same page (you have to click on them to read their contents): ] , ], ] . -- ] 11:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Simonides I have NEVER encountered you or "crossed swords" with you on Misplaced Pages. I looked at all the links, and I don't see any violations at all! (Calling people "Jewish" is not insulting like calling them "Prostitutes" as one link syas. And connecting people with their ETHNIC origins, especially in RUSSIA is done sionce they have hundreds of nationalities including a province that was set aside for Jews once.) You are only using those points to push YOUR own POV and make it sound like opposing it makes ''me'' into a "POV pusher" which I resent! So do me the courtesy of NOT insulting me or my intelligence! You cannot squeeze religions and ethnicities onto "business cards", but you can classify and categorize the OBVIOUS facts, and the Jewish origins and connections of many people can be done according to either ethnic or ]'s standards. I know it's a contentious issue, but it cannot be avoided as everyone has an objection to all types of Jewish "categories" secular or religious. Have you seen ] and ] and ] with all the types of people on them? Do you plan to get rid of all that too? What nonsense and denial of history that would be. Many Misplaced Pages Users/editors think it's all very viable, and now, late in the day, you come along with "objections" that have already been re-hashed a hundred times in the talk pages of the ] article. Go read it (and ALL its Talk pages) please, won't you. ] 12:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::Simonides I have NEVER encountered you or "crossed swords" with you on Misplaced Pages. I looked at all the links, and I don't see any violations at all! (Calling people "Jewish" is not insulting like calling them "Prostitutes" as one link syas. And connecting people with their ETHNIC origins, especially in RUSSIA is done sionce they have hundreds of nationalities including a province that was set aside for Jews once.) You are only using those points to push YOUR own POV and make it sound like opposing it makes ''me'' into a "POV pusher" which I resent! So do me the courtesy of NOT insulting me or my intelligence! You cannot squeeze religions and ethnicities onto "business cards", but you can classify and categorize the OBVIOUS facts, and the Jewish origins and connections of many people can be done according to either ethnic or ]'s standards. I know it's a contentious issue, but it cannot be avoided as everyone has an objection to all types of Jewish "categories" secular or religious. Have you seen ] and ] and ] with all the types of people on them? Do you plan to get rid of all that too? What nonsense and denial of history that would be. Many Misplaced Pages Users/editors think it's all very viable, and now, late in the day, you come along with "objections" that have already been re-hashed a hundred times in the talk pages of the ] article. Go read it (and ALL its Talk pages) please, won't you. ] 12:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:If you don't see any violations you might be 1) batty 2) not literate enough 3) simply very slow to understand things. As for POV, you state yourself that such categorisations can be made according to "ethnic or Judaism's standards", and refer further to an anti-Semitic decision by Russians to keep Jews in the same area, thus proving my point that your category is inherently POV; this is different from merely making a general list. No more information is needed. -- ] 12:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


===Olympic athletes of X=== ===Olympic athletes of X===

Revision as of 12:41, 2 December 2004

Shortcut
  • ]

See Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, and how to do cleanup.

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates


How to use this page

  1. Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or being created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Misplaced Pages:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies there, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas.
  3. Please read the new policy at Misplaced Pages:Categorization of people if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
  4. Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
  5. Add the name of the new category and {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
  6. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
  7. Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like ]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
  8. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
  9. Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

Old discussions from this page have been archived to:

In light of various new policies, some /unresolved disputes will be re-listed here in the near future.

See also meta-discussion going on at Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for deletion phrases regarding the content of the {{cfd}} template, and about advisory/non-advisory phrases to be used on this "Categories for deletion" page.

December 1

Category:Jewish Russian people

  • Delete. This is one of those stupid categories that tries to group together people on the most vacuous of grounds and, apart from being grossly POV, appears to violate the general guidelines regarding categorisation of people. Most famous people listed here had few or tenuous, if any, connections to Judaism - cf. Leon Trotsky, for ex., the well-known communist and, obviously, atheist. There is no substantial or direct evidence that the majority of those listed here considered themselves essentially Jewish, or contributed in some significant way to Jewish culture. The abitrary grouping of people solely on the basis of their perceived ethnicity is offensive, if not racist. -- Simonides 10:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: How can you have Category:Jewish history in any place without mentioning the Category:Jews (Jewish people) who were part of it??? (How about Category:Jewish Americans (which I did not create, is that too "racist" as well???) The category is NOT about "Judaism" as such, how could it be? It's about people associated in one form or another with the Jewish people. I created this category because many people had simply placed the people into Category:Jews (which is being voted on below for renaming to Category:Jews) which was very broad, and another way of categorizing was to place them into Category:Jewish Russian and Soviet history BUT they are people who make and fit into this history. Since there were so many names in the Category:Jewish Russian and Soviet history section and to make things SPECIFIC, the Category:Jewish Russian people was created. Why is that racist? The ARTICLES themsleves mention that these people are Jewish, is that "racist" too? You are NOT making any sense. If an article can mention the Jewish ORIGIN, parentage or practice of an individual (or their family ancestors) in history so can the category! It is NOTHING to be ashamed of if it is done in a respectful and proper context! Thank you. IZAK 11:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It makes perfect sense to anyone who thinks about it. Firstly you should click on the link I provided above and see what is written about non-"Business card" designations - this is obviously a sensitive topic and a list is preferable to a category; secondly, stating that someone has Jewish origins, or held Jewish beliefs at some time, is not at all the same thing as lumping a large group of people together on that basis - but that is what anti-Semites like to think; thirdly, just because a Jewish history is made up of Jewish people doesn't mean that every single person with Jewish associations needs to be mentioned, or that practically anyone can be chosen to represent that history on the basis of some vague/ arbitrary associations. In Isaac Babel's case it makes sense to speak of a "Jewish writer"; in Osip Mandelstam's case his Jewishness is a matter of trivia - knowing what to include and when makes for too contentious a category, which is also on the stated guidelines against having a category. -- Simonides 12:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Here's a simple question for you: Why then is it acceptable for almost each article on the 30+ people in this category to mention their Jewish ancestry/parentage/family/names, and is that "racist" too ??? IZAK 12:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I've already answered your question above. Can you read? And please format your replies properly so I don't have to. -- Simonides 12:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Silverchair, etc.

Category:Silverchair, Category:Silverchair_albums, and Category:Silverchair members are all empty. One not-very-influential band with four albums doesn't need so many categories, or any at all. -℘yrop (talk) 23:56, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Disregarding the influence and popularity of Silverchair - Pyrop obviously isn't Australian and isn't fully aware of the situation - I originally created these categories way back when the category feature was first introduced, to demonstrate its capabilities. Eg
And so on. But people didn't understand it, so they just created Category:Silverchair and put them all into that (I think.. I lost track, when I realised that it would take too much of my time to correct other peoples changes) -- Chuq 01:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Correcting other people's changes is one of the specialties of CfD!
The albums categories are pretty well established—there have been a couple of recent cases of album categories for artists who only ever released one album, and they have passed. The current standard is not to categorize albums-by-artist categories based on the genre of the band; although I can see why that might be useful, it would need to be a widespread change. It would probably be wise to bring this up with the folks at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums if you are interested in pursuing it.
At the moment there aren't a whole lot of bands that have their own categories, but I think there's enough of a precedent that you can get away with it. I'm not sure if there is a standard. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Music would be a good place to start.
In general, members categories seem to be few and far between. For example, Category:The Beatles members is the only band-specific sub-category of Category:British musicians. How many articles would these categories be likely to contain? -] 03:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:North Carolina places

Unnecessary blending/redundancy of Category:North Carolina landmarks, Category:North Carolina geography and Category:North Carolina municipalities. "Places" is a term beyond vagueness, and the other subcategories are quite proper to have in the root level of Category:North Carolina—there is no need to jumble them together in a manner that is furthermore inconsistent with the structure of all other state categories and does not fit into the parent structure for states and their subcategories within Category:United States. Postdlf 22:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I dunno. With the proliferation of categories for unincorporated communities, census-designated places, cities, towns/townships, and villages (and in NC military bases), I've thought about doing something similar to organize all these populated places. I agree that "places" is a vague name, but some sort of holding category for all of these other related categories might be useful. So, for now I support this specific deletion, but I think I'd like to see essentially the same category with a more meaningful name--maybe "Populated places in xxxx"? older≠wiser 23:21, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
"Communities in xxxx"? -] 01:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, "Communities in xxxx" would be nice except that many of the census-designated places are not exactly communities in any traditional sense of the term--many are just arbitrary areas defined for statistical purposes. older≠wiser 01:56, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
If it has no legal designation and is not recognized locally as a community, why should there be a separate article? It seems rather silly to me. But putting the towns, cities, and villages in separate categories also seems a bit overdone for my taste. —Mike 07:31, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Honduras political parties

Category:Honduran political parties is in keeping with the other children of both Category:Political parties by nationality and Category:Honduras. -] 20:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:terrorism

Bizarre list of articles which are entirely from the point of view of the US. - Xed 17:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I propose fixing the list rather than killing the category. --Gary D 23:03, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Category:IGN

It's a category for a single website. Almost all of the articles in it were stubs, so I merged everything into the IGN article, and turned them into redirects (except for IGN Vestibule, which is protected). - Lifefeed 15:13, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Cities and towns of countries and states

(A message has been posted on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cities.)

As of the 15 Nov 2004 database dump, There are 22 Cities_of_X categories, and 134 Cities_in_X categories. I propose changing all the "of" to "in". To implement this, I would run:

With special consideration for special characters:

We also have the following:

I would propose the following substitutions:

For the "Towns and citis of" categories, I propose "Cities and towns in" as a replacement phrase. -- Beland 09:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Add to that 181 Towns_in vs 43 Towns_of_, so add to the above:

With special characters:

The results of this decision should be posted on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cities. -- Beland 09:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Wiccans

Rename to Category:Wiccan people, to parallel our decision on moving "Christians" to "Christian people". - Beland 08:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I started this change, and I support following through with it. --Gary D 23:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Muslims

Rename to Category:Muslim people, to parallel our decision on moving "Christians" to "Christian people". - Beland 08:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I started this change, and I support following through with it. --Gary D 23:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. It is not easy to determine how "Muslim" the majority of famous Muslim people were, any attempts to do so here will be inevitably POV, and it is both arbitrary and racist to group together people merely on the basis of their perceived beliefs. Also, importantly, such a category violates the general guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Categorization of people. -- Simonides 10:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Jews

Rename to Category:Jewish people, to parallel our decision on moving "Christians" to "Christian people". This category also needs a clear charter, since people may be Jewish by religion, by ethnicity, by matriarchal decent, by culture, etc. (See Jew.) I assume this category mixes the various classes without distinction. -- Beland 08:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep (or rename to "Jewish people"): Hi Beland, I don't know if you have looked at all the TALK pages of the article on Jew so I don't know what you mean by "charter"? The category is all inclusive as you suppose. Category:Jewish people sounds OK. IZAK 11:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I would guess that what is meant is that the category description should explicitly state this, if this is to be the guiding principle. -] 20:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Aranel, it is a complex subject that is discussed within the Jew article where the various points of view are discussed. Have you read it yet? IZAK 09:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I started this change, and I support following through with it. --Gary D 23:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

"Jews" or "Jewish people" what's the difference in any case, since a Jew is usually a member of the "Jewish people", which is NOT the case in Islam or Christianity. IZAK 09:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not easy to determine the "Jewishness" of the majority of famous Jewish people, any attempts to do so here will be inevitably POV, and it is both arbitrary and racist to group together people merely on the basis of their perceived ethnicity. Also, importantly, such a category violates the general guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Categorization of people. -- Simonides 10:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Simonides: Firstly, this is NOT just about "perceived ethnicity" as the Jews are ALL of an established religion (Judaism), people or nation, culture AND non-exclusive ethnicity. Secondly, can you explain EXACTLY which "guidelines" are being "violated" as you just leave it up in the air and expect people to swallow your non-reasoning by a mere "reference" (and please explain how you would reconcile what you claim with having the Category:Christian people which IS accepted by Misplaced Pages???) Thirdly, the "Jewishness" of many people is known and accepted, so what is wrong with that? Fourthly, in the article on Jew ALL the various ways of defining Jews and Jewish people are stated, to include religious, ethnic, and cultural definitions with long-standing historical roots and references. Finally, is this just another way of "doing away" with Jews on Misplaced Pages (how convenient for those who don't like them, isn't it?) And please remember this is a vote to rename Category:Jews to Category:Jewish people which is a reasonable thing, and it is NOT an attempt to "delete" Jews from Misplaced Pages permanently.Thank you. IZAK 11:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A typical factually-incapacitated, rambling, nonsensical reply from a well-known Misplaced Pages POV pusher. Firstly, no one is "deleting" Jews - the Jewish origins of famous people are mentioned in their biographical sections, but unless there is some direct relevance to the person's achievements/ career/ personality, or unless the person him/herself wished for it, there is no need to emphasize their Jewishness with a redundant category; and this has nothing to do with people who "dislike" Jews, because the same principle applies equally well to other such categories, like the one above, "Muslims", where exactly the same objection has been made. More importantly, it is gross and factually unsupportable POV to state that all people with some Jewish ancestry or Jewish beliefs "are ALL of an established religion (Judaism), people or nation, culture AND non-exclusive ethnicity" - such a broad generalisation is self-evidently rubbish; and finally, I have already linked the page which states the violated guidelines, and if you bother to read it, it is possible you will find the guidelines, but in case even that proves too difficult, here are more straightforward links at the same page (you have to click on them to read their contents): 1 , 2, 3 . -- Simonides 11:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Simonides I have NEVER encountered you or "crossed swords" with you on Misplaced Pages. I looked at all the links, and I don't see any violations at all! (Calling people "Jewish" is not insulting like calling them "Prostitutes" as one link syas. And connecting people with their ETHNIC origins, especially in RUSSIA is done sionce they have hundreds of nationalities including a province that was set aside for Jews once.) You are only using those points to push YOUR own POV and make it sound like opposing it makes me into a "POV pusher" which I resent! So do me the courtesy of NOT insulting me or my intelligence! You cannot squeeze religions and ethnicities onto "business cards", but you can classify and categorize the OBVIOUS facts, and the Jewish origins and connections of many people can be done according to either ethnic or Judaism's standards. I know it's a contentious issue, but it cannot be avoided as everyone has an objection to all types of Jewish "categories" secular or religious. Have you seen Jew#Famous Jews and List of Jews and Category:Lists of Jews with all the types of people on them? Do you plan to get rid of all that too? What nonsense and denial of history that would be. Many Misplaced Pages Users/editors think it's all very viable, and now, late in the day, you come along with "objections" that have already been re-hashed a hundred times in the talk pages of the Jew article. Go read it (and ALL its Talk pages) please, won't you. IZAK 12:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you don't see any violations you might be 1) batty 2) not literate enough 3) simply very slow to understand things. As for POV, you state yourself that such categorisations can be made according to "ethnic or Judaism's standards", and refer further to an anti-Semitic decision by Russians to keep Jews in the same area, thus proving my point that your category is inherently POV; this is different from merely making a general list. No more information is needed. -- Simonides 12:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Olympic athletes of X

We have a mixed convention in Category:Olympic competitors by country:

We previously deleted the category "Olympic athletes" in favor of "Olympic competitors" because "athletes" means all competitors in US English, but means "track and field athletes" in UK English. I propose renaming all the "Olympic athletes of X" categories to "X Olympians". "Olympic competitors of X" sounds like it should be an athletics enemies list of country X, instead of a manifest of its representatives. -- Beland 08:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Note: Not all of the categories nominated have had the {{cfd}} tag added to them. We often omit this step for mass renamings, but that's probably poor form. I have added the capability for Pearle to add this tag en masse automatically. Unfortunately, I won't be able to do this until Friday, since I am away from my main computer until then. -- Beland 08:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Also note the following, some of which are on /unresolved:

-- Beland 10:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Olympic website uses "athletes" and their commission is named the "Athlete's Commission". You can't get any more official than that. Also it was mentioned at one time by someone (I realize that's pretty vague) in a previous discussion that "Olympic athlete" in Britain refers to the people who compete at the Olympics and not just the track and field competitors. Also I prefer the "-- of country" form rather than the "countrian --" form because categorization is less ambiguous. Take Nate Ackerman as an example; he was born in the U.S. and might have dual citizenship since he competed for Great Britain (I don't know if the rules require citizenship to compete for a country's team). I don't know if calling him a British athlete would be correct, but saying he was an Olympic athlete of Great Britain is most certainly correct. —Mike 08:11, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

National economies

We currently (15 Nov) have inconsistent usage for categories for national economies:

I propose "Economy of X" as the standard. There are some awkward and sometimes controversial situations in English when using the adjective form, so maybe best to avoid those altogether. I'd be happy with the alternative, as long as there's some consistency. -- Beland 05:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(See note on CFD tags in section above on Olypmic athletes. -- Beland 08:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Irish categories of inconsistency

I've begun to take a more detailed look at the Irish categories, so more to come here later and on Category talk:Ireland. These are the easy ones. -- Beland 05:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You need to have Category:Sportspeople from Northern Ireland and Category:People from Northern Ireland. "Northern Irish" is a modern "fudge", not accepted by many people in the region. Ultimately, people from the area are likely to call themselves Irish, British, both or simply say they are "from Northern Ireland". It's a sticky issue - certainly the crude use of "Northern Irish" is to be avoided. zoney ♣ talk 10:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If we need to declare that there is simply no acceptible adjective form to refer to the people of Northern Ireland, that's OK with me. There are other countries where is form is akward, like Trinidad and Tobago, or controversial, as in the United States. Rather than decide this haphazardly, we should try to come up with uniform guidelines. In general, the noun forms are clearer but longer. We can: 1.) Be consistent, and always use the adjective forms, and accept some akwardness; 2.) Be consistent and always use the longer noun forms; or 3.) Adopt a mixed usage, preferring short adjective phrases when they flow cleanly, but using noun forms in akward cases. One benefit of consistency is slightly easier navigation - you can just change the appropriate word and go to a different country, as opposed to having to guess the correct wording or click your way there through category links. But most people just click around, I'm sure. Consistent naming would also cut down on the number of broken links that editors make when they guess the wrong form (or assume a convention is universal when it's really not) and don't check their work. (At least, for those editors who notice conventions and attempt to follow them.) -- Beland 02:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Transport" should be used rather than "transportation". Transportation is the usual US term, while "Transport" is the term used in its place in Britain/Ireland. Hence we in Ireland have a "Department of Transport", "Minister for Transport". Please do not force inconsistent English on a non-US topic. zoney ♣ talk 10:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not trying to force usage on anyone; that's why we have a discussion instead of just implementing these things by fiat. But once again, there are several different places where this issue comes up, and it'd be nice to come up with a general solution. If you take a look at Category:Transportation by country, you will see that all the "countries" there, including "Ireland" have a "Transportation in X" article and a "Transportation in X" category. Again, this makes it easy to know what the article or category you are looking for (or are linking to) would be called. But as you rightly point out, this may not follow local usage. We have 87 or so X_by_country categories so far. I assume we should pretty much pick either 1.) Be consistent and use the same term for the same thing everywhere, or 2.) Follow local usage; and do either 1 or 2 for all ~87 topics. Personally, I vote for consistency. Misplaced Pages's audience is worldwide, and so is the category system. Americans will be reading all about Ireland, just as much, if not moreso, than about their own country, and vice versa. I don't care whether we use a US term, a UK term, or vary depending on the topic. Following local usage would be my second choice because it seems a bit untidy. It makes a little more sense for articles, where you actually have to use these vocabulary terms in proper nouns and whatnot, and the locals will probably dominate the editing, anyway. I think of the category system more like your library catalog, which references all history books under "History" and not half under "History" and half under "Things that happened in the past". But I'm sure there are good arguments for doing the opposite...discuss, discuss... -- Beland 02:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Districts of Warsaw

Made obsolete by the Category:Boroughs of Warsaw. Both had the same set of links, but the latter had more pages linking to, so I corrected the rest. ]]] 01:26, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Category:U.S. campaign managers

Contains many people who aren't, strictly speaking, campaign managers (e.g. Karen Hughes). I'd like to depopulate and rename to "U.S. campaign professionals". OK? ] 03:49, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, campaign manager is the term used for these people, even if some of them have never been head of a presidential election campaign. - SimonP 05:50, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, that's not true, especially since many of these figures worked on the same campaign. For example, in the Bush campaign, Karl Rove was not and has never been the campaign manager; that role was filled by Ken Mehlman. Media accounts referred to Rove as chief strategist--I can't think of any major publications that referred to him as campaign manager. The same argument is true for many of the figures in this category. The term "campaign manager" means a very specific individual in the campaign hierarchy. ] 05:57, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • Every campaign has a person known as the campaign manager, but the profession of a number of the top members of a presidential campaign is campaign manager. It would be incorrect to call Karl Rove Bush's campaign manager, but his profession is campaign management. - SimonP 00:45, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
        • I've not heard it used that way myself. Sorry to bug you, but a few citations? ] 00:53, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
        • This is kind of odd if it is the case. Citations would be good, because then it could be worked into campaign manager, and if there are no citations, it will surely come up again. -] 01:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

November 30

Category:Political extremists

Inherently POV. JamesMLane 20:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • No kidding. Delete. ] 21:12, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No way that can be made NPOV. —Tkinias 08:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

November 29

Category:Vaudeville performer

Should be in the plural as Category:Vaudeville performers -- Decumanus

Category:Christian evangelicalism

An awkward phrase, it gets only 810 Google hits. It should be replaced with the much more widely used Category:Evangelical Christianity -- Decumanus 06:15, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

"You say, to-MAY-to, and I say, to-MAH-to..." I'm not sure the Google test is the appropriate one for deciding which way to phrase an admittedly encyclopedic concept. The current phrasing is parallel to the great bulk of categories and articles in this area, which are almost all "Christian ," instead of " Christianity." There are actually a few category topics in this area where the latter phrasing might be better, such as "Charismatic Christianity" as opposed to "Christian Charismaticism(?)," but overall, consistency is probably the strongest virtue. (And "Christian art" stands little chance of making it over to "Artistic Christianity," LOL—oh, I just kill me!) On balance, I would say the current system reads better, especially when all these categories and articles appear together on the Category:Christianity page. So, Keep. --Gary D 06:29, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I think the analogy with "Christian art" is entirely a false one. "Artistic Christianity" is not a movement of Christianity, whereas "Evangelical Christianity" is. I see nothing wrong with invoking Google test is appropriate here. After all, everything in Misplaced Pages should be encyclopedic. I see the virtue in parallelism, and if people want to keep it that way, that's fine, but I think parallelism should not be at the expense of the using more widely used version. -- Decumanus 19:27, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

The word, surely, is Evangelism. So why is the category not Category: Christian evangelism? A phrase, by the way, which gets close to 20,000 Google hits. ] 06:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It turns out there is a distinction; evangelism is the activity, while evangelicalism is more of a movement. My recommendation: read all about it in Misplaced Pages! ;-) --Gary D 08:22, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Christian evangelism is absolutely not what is meant. But evangelicalism is a somewhat peculiar word. Evangelism is an activity; Evangelical Christianity is a movement (or whatever); evangelicalism is just plain difficult to type. The Pentecostal category needs emergency first aid, but please, please, for the sake of all the typos we would have to correct, let's not have Christian Charismaticism and Pentecostalism. It's possible to carry our interest in consistency so far that we forget that this system is being used by real people. -] 22:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree the category is misnamed, but not in the way described in this discussion. It should simply be Category:Evangelicalism. The root word 'evangel' is defined as 'the Christian gospel'. The word 'evangelicalism' means 'evangelical beliefs or doctrines' (or adherence to a church or party professing such) where the word 'evangelical' means 'of, pertaining to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel'. Saying "Christian evangelicalism" is like saying "spicy spice", "star Sun" or "erasing eraser". —Mike 07:30, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mike, it should just be Category:Evangelicalism. Kevin Rector 20:27, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Electricity Distribution

Capitalisation. I've moved all content to Category:Electricity distribution. -- JTN 14:56, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

Deleting it. JOHN COLLISON 21:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Main page

We do not need a category containing categories linked to from the main page through the category browse bar. Brianjd 12:08, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

category:Physical fitness

Empty. I think it's redundant with Category:Exercise. GeorgeStepanek 06:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Christian Eschatology

Miscapitalized; should be Category:Christian eschatology --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure should, but I've been way too lazy to tackle it. I've got others in this area, too, if you're feeling ambitious. --Gary D 05:03, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Fictional trains

Redundant category. Should be merged with Category:Fictional locomotives. Norman Rogers 00:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The articles in Category:Fictional trains are trains, not locomotives, and vice-versa. I'm not voting yet, but I don't think this is a simple "redundant". -- Rick Block 04:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Few things *&^%$ me off more than people who can't tell the difference between trains and locomotives. ] 12:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep Trains include but are not the same as locomotives, I would make fictional locomotives a subcategory of fictional trains (which will make it easier for the people who *&^%$ off Grutness to find them :) Sortior 15:34, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Keep and explain the difference between a train and what pulls a train on the respective category pages.
  • If this is to be kept, the difference needs to be explained on the category pages, and someone who knows the difference (Grutness?) should monitor the categories. Whether it is correct or not, the two words are often used interchangeably by laypersons, so you can safely guess that there will be mis-categorization. Also, these both should fit into the Category:Fictional scheme somewhere. -] 18:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:C header files

Empty duplicate of Category:C headers. jni 10:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:POSIX C standard

Delete because there is no IEEE standard for C programming language. POSIX is an operating system standard. jni 10:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Pages on votes for extreme deletion

More deletion process mockery by Radman1. See Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Votes for extreme deletion. jni 11:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sigh. -Sean Curtin 00:05, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE, this would probably confuse users not familiar with extreme deletion wars on VfD. 132.205.15.43 03:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 28

Category:Politicians of Serbia

Replace with Category:Serbian politicians. ] 18:31, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • Sounds good. Brianjd 08:40, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

Category:Weapons by name

"By name" categories are inherently redundant, since categories already sort their member articles alphabetically. In the near future Misplaced Pages will have the ability to aggregate all members of subcategories in a listing, so just putting articles into various subcategories of Category:Weapons should be sufficient. Bryan 07:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Years in the future

This category is really stupid. It would still be stupid even if we had a corresponding Category:Years in the past, but we don't. Brianjd 06:23, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

  • Actually I sort of like it. VeryVerily 06:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • We only need Category:Years in the future to select the "years in the past". Obviously if we delete/redirect all articles in the category, we could delete it. -- User:Docu
  • Extremely opposed to deletion. anthony 警告 00:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Years in the future is and can be interesting for things that are scheduled to happen. For Example, I know that there are already articles on the 2006, 2008, and 2012 US Elections as the Senated Seats are already known. In Space Exploration there could be links as to when exploration vehicles are due to arrive at certain locations which could then be cross references to other scheduled events. While I don't think we need to go more than 10-20 years out, much of what is scheduled to happen in the future is and can be written about now, and then categorized for that year. Sortior 21:45, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • COMMENT wasn't the whole point of this category to avoid stuff like 2058 and 3019 ? 132.205.15.43 03:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Quite simply because with years in the past there are enough articles that they are filed away neatly by century. With years in the future there may be only 30-50 or so articles for years spread out over the next 30-50 centuries. Far simpler to have one "carry-all" category than loads of categories each with one article. ] 07:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • The majority of those articles will probably correspond to years in this century or the next couple of centuries. The other articles (the ones that don't exist yet) can probably be merged with each other. I can't see why there would be a categorization problem (remember we have other categories like Category:Years. Brianjd 07:19, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
  • Keep - we may not know what's going to happen in the future (for the most part anyway), but it can be quite fascinating reading about events which are predicted to occur, even if we are not around when they happen! --Andrew 00:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Concur with Andrew. jni 06:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:23rd century etc

Delete Category:23rd century, Category:24th century, Category:25th century, Category:26th century, Category:27th century: premature. -- User:Docu

  • Agreed, and it's not like there's anything in these categories anyways... -Sean Curtin 01:52, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Agreed! Brianjd 08:36, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
  • I would delete these categories and keep the "Years in the Future" category discussed above. --Andrew 00:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No need to delete useful placeholders. jni 06:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • By that logic, we should just run a bot to create more "useful" placeholders so that we end up with things like Category:3000000th century. Brianjd 08:26, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Category:Murdered

Empty group, was part of a vanity constellation. No chance for future use because of bad naming. No redeeming content. --fvw* 01:34, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is already a Category:Murder victims anyway.Rje 07:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No point in keeping this category, especially if another category exists which already fulfils any purpose this category could potentially have. --Andrew 00:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

November 26

Category:Structures

Empty group at the moment, creator probably wasn't aware of the Category:Buildings and structures--Hooperbloob 06:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Kind a vague category name. Can't see any use for this. jni 07:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Lobbying groups

Empty orphaned group. No forseeable use. — Sortior 02:42, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Category:British misuse of drugs act

Empty orphans from category:orphaned categories

Rick Block 02:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd agree with all these but have to ask whether "Italian Heads of Government" would theoretically include both the Prime Ministers and the Presidents of Italy...?] 12:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:ESPN SportsCenter anchors

Empty orphan category. No useful purpose, already is a sportcaster category.— Sortior 23:17, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Dallas

Empty orphan category. Redundant with Category:Dallas, Texas — Sortior 23:16, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Country Parks and Special Areas of Hong Kong

Empty orphan category. No useful purpose. — Sortior 23:07, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Colours

Empty orphan category. No useful purpose. — Sortior 22:58, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Cold War bombers

redundant with Category:Cold War bomber aircraft. Empty orphan category. — Sortior 22:57, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Category:U.S._Libertarian_Party_presidential_nominees/to_do

A "to do" list that's been done. -- Rick Block 22:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete Sortior 23:01, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Argentine agricultural aircraft 1970-1979

Empty orphan category. Way too specific to ever have more than a member or two. —Sortior 22:51, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Archaic firearms

Empty orphan category. — Sortior 22:49, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Rock Authors

Looks like someone started to write an article as a category by accident. Capitalization is all wrong, content should be moved to an article. — Sortior 22:47, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Zurich Premiership

Apparently abandoned in favor of Category:Zurich Premiership teams. -- Rick Block 22:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:David Lynch actors

Another empty stray that was wearing a VfD tag. Niteowlneils 18:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:TV shows

Redundant category because of pre-existing category Category:Television series. See Misplaced Pages:Cleanup.

Category:Forbes World's Richest People

Contents will change over time. Effectively duplicates list of billionaires (but without the net worth information or the ability to include people without articles). -- Rick Block 17:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete But, if we keep this, it should be renamed category:billionaires and the intro text revised to something like "people believed to have had at any time in their lives a net worth of $1B or more". -- Rick Block 17:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Note: I originally nominated this category for deletion. -- Rick Block 05:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly defined criteria - they are either on the list or not - and other categories will change over time as well. Gamaliel 17:14, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Clearly defined, but ephemeral (the Forbes list will change from year to year). -- Rick Block 05:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 18:00, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
  • Keep. - Jerryseinfeld 18:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Forbes list is undoubtably trademarked as well and shouldn't be in the category title. Sortior 19:24, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • What does the trademark have to do with whether or not we should delete a category? Gamaliel 19:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:High Schools in Singapore

  • since WikiPedia tries to keep the number of highschools down, this category encourages creation of articles that will inevitably show up on VfD. 132.205.45.110 15:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with such a category. JYolkowski 02:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • VfD always has deletions on highschools, which by default are not notable. I fail to see how there could be sufficient numbers of highschools in Singapore that could be notable for this category to be useful. Further, someone might make a highschool hierarchy of categories from its inspiration. 132.205.45.148 17:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Back_to_the_Future_Cast

non encyclopedic fancruft - Drstuey 09:37, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with your conclusion (that this category should be deleted) but disagree with your reasoning. This would be perfectly acceptable information to include as a list in Back to the Future, but it's not a useful way to categorize the articles for these actors. This is the sort of information that is appropriate for a list, not a category. (And anyway, it's misscapitalized.) -] 17:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I Agree. Delete. --Conti|✉ 17:24, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 11:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Schedule I, Category:Schedule II, Category:Schedule III, Category:Schedule IV, Category:Schedule V, Category:Schedule VI

NOTE: these appear under unresolved at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/unresolved#Aug_21 These 6 schedule categories duplicated the categories found at Category:U.S. controlled substances law, those being: Category:Schedule I controlled substances,Category:Schedule II controlled substances,Category:Schedule III controlled substances,Category:Schedule IV controlled substances,Category:Schedule V controlled substances,Category:Schedule VI controlled substances; I think the current ones Schedule ? controlled substances should stay and the old ones in unresolved can now be deleted. 132.205.15.43 05:47, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete — OwenBlacker 21:21, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Category:TV shows whose name starts with W

This sort of category is specifically discouraged in the instructions for using categories. --Arteitle 13:05, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Similarly, delete Category:TV shows whose name starts with V and all the others started by 70.21.28.181 (viz A, B, M). — OwenBlacker 21:34, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: use the sorting offered by the category feature instead. -- User:Docu
  • Delete all. Postdlf 11:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Plastic arts

  • Delete I think this should be removed since dance is not part of the plastic arts. Note that this actually has nothing to do with the material of plastic. Here is the definition according to http://www.artlex.com/ plastic art and plastic arts - First of all, such uses of "plastic" very rarely refer to art made with petroleum byproducts, but instead to the original meaning of "plasticity or plastic quality" -- sculptural, modeled, or malleable. The singular form, "plastic art" generally refers to three-dimensional art, such as sculpture, as distinguished from drawing and painting; also, two-dimensional art which strives for an illusion of depth. The plural form, "plastic arts" generally refers to one or more of the visual arts, which include sculpture, architecture, painting, drawing, and the graphic arts; as distinguished from music, poetry, literature, dance, and theater. The terms "plastic art" and "plastic arts" are used much more by British than by American writers. ArtLex suspects these terms so often confuse readers that it recommends the use of alternatives. Among those, consider visual culture, as well as the older terms art, the arts, artifact, beaux-arts, fine art, applied arts, commercial art, and graphic arts.
  • Zero pages link to Category:Plastic arts
  • There has been very little activity in this category, and Plastic arts is a stub which can just move to Category:Arts. Nothing else has to be moved. Clubmarx 02:00, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

November 25

Category:Shaun Rawcliffe

Pertains to a single person of questionable notability. Very likely vanity. At best, a misplaced article (the category page contains a description of the person). --MarkSweep 16:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete this immediately. If it was an article, it would be speedy deleted.-gadfium 21:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Concur. I don't know policies on speedy-deleting categories, but if it can be done, it should. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:20, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Nonsense slang

Contains only subpages of one user, seems to have no other purpose. --Conti|✉ 14:41, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

===Category:North Korean universities=== I created it with this name, then I noticed there's a convention to call things "Category: Universities and colleges in North Korea" Kappa 06:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

===Category:Nomads=== Orphan category with no articles. --Sortior 05:06, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

perhaps they moved :)

Category:January 8 births, Category:February 4 deaths

Each day's article (e.g. January 8) includes a list. Do we also want categories for these? -- Rick Block 04:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, it should be posssible to get the information from the year category and the date in the article of that year. -- User:Docu
  • Ick. Delete all. Birth and death years are quite sufficient. Postdlf 11:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Groupe des six

Just another stray I'm moving from VfD. Niteowlneils 01:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Mines

I found this category while looking for somewhere to put a diamond mine. It had one entry which I've moved to Category:Gold mines. From the history and discussion page it appears to have been created as a subcategory of Category:Weapons but that parent was removed earlier.-gadfium 00:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Corwood Industries albums

Found this with a VfD tag, but no voting page. No strong opinion on cat--just moving nom to the proper location. Niteowlneils 00:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Pages containing IPA

Basically this category is a list of unrelated articles that have characters on the page that are using the International Phonetic Alphabet(IPA).. -- Sortior 00:05, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

The articles are related by the fact that they contain IPA in Unicode.Nohat 07:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
keep, listing this is purely idiotic. Alkivar 23:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What's next, Category:Pages containing Greek letters? Why not? And why is accidental relationship uninteresting? Nohat 20:13, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the goal was to categorize the topic of the article, not the technical components of the article. Wouldn't a more useful way of finding articles with IPA be to look at what links to the IPA article? There is nothing intrinsically IPA-related about many of these articles. -] 22:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Categories are used for many purposes. There are lots of articles that link to the IPA article but don't include any IPA. This category contains only those pages that actually have IPA characters. Nohat 01:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
KEEP. There are also categories for stubs, and also a category for disambiguation pages. Two unrelated disambig pages (and similarly, stubs) falling in the same category would also be a similar case. -- Paddu
It's considered good (by some) to have e.g.:
  • a list of articles that are stubs, so that e.g.
    • someone willing to do research on the web/in a library/wherever & add content to stubs can easily find them.
    • someone forking/mirroring Misplaced Pages can remove these easily if he/she so decides.
    • etc.
  • a list of articles that are disambigs, so that e.g.
  • a list of articles that use special characters, so that e.g.
    • someone forking/mirroring Misplaced Pages can remove these characters if he/she wants to better support systems that can't render these.
    • someone who has just upgraded their browser/installed some fonts so as to be able to read more pages in Misplaced Pages can get a few test pages to see if the upgrade/install was successful in making more pages readable
    • etc. (I don't have enough time for an exhaustive list)
There might be better reasons to have these categories, of course.
In all such cases "Special:Whatlinkshere" of a template can be used, but that limits the no. of links displayed, and also, doesn't show dependencies across templates (e.g. subcategories) -- Paddu 13:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also see Misplaced Pages:Avoid self-references#In the Template and Category Namespaces for more such examples. IMHO either all such categories and templates must be allowed, or all of them disallowed. DISCLAIMER: I've just been editing that page; the version before my edits is here -- Paddu 14:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 24

Category:People associated with Columbia University

There is nothing wrong with list of Columbia University people, but this category is very much a terrible idea. It will grow to be huge, and clutter up the category bar on everyone it affects. This category would set an unfortunate precedent for categories, because it can be extended to every other school. List articles are okay because they don't disrupt other articles, but categories like this are not because they will touch upon and affect so many biographies. And if you want to see what a monster this kind of category could become, just take a look at list of Harvard University people (which is, I think, currently the longest such list) and think about how bad it would be after being turned into a category. Just think about what will happen once every university gets a category like this: every biography article for someone who's been through college and grad school will probably have multiple such university categories. —Lowellian (talk)] 22:42, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

¬My suggestion: Lets make a project to fix these lists, I am sorry I made the category, and I agree, delete the Stanford and Columbia people categories and fix these lists:

¬College pages get clogged with the allumni lists, but the allumni lists are disorganized hulks. Misplaced Pages really needs bulk cleanup on this. Anyone agree? --] 16:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) ps: Anyone have any experience making a project like this, I am not a newbie, but I would like guidance from a Learned Elder

I would vote to delete Category:Stanford_University_people and Category:People associated with Columbia University, but keep Category:Lists_of_people_by_university_affiliation (which I created, but more on that below). I completely agree with Lowellian that using categories for people associated with universities is problematic. A lot of people would fit into three or four categories, and with guest professorships and suchlike, it would be easy to reach anything up to a dozen university categories or more.
I created the Category:Lists_of_people_by_university_affiliation, as there were several of these lists which had been separated from their respective university pages, and which should also be categorized somewhere in a hierarchy under the Category:Lists_of_people. But it was meant as a category of lists, not as a category of (categories of) people.
The alumni lists take far too much space on many university pages (look at Yale, for instance). They ought to be moved to pages of their own, except perhaps for small or young schools with only a few names. I have been working on the Uppsala University article, among other things adding names to the people list, but in the end (realizing there were still hundreds of names which could conceivably be added), I decided it was better to erase the whole list and just write a few narrative paragraphs mentioning a few key figures, then reposting the whole list as a separate page (I thought that a better solution than not mentioning anybody and just referring to the list, as the Harvard page does). I am at a loss, however, at how to organize the list (which I haven't posted yet). The Harvard list with its table looks the best, but I am not sure I like the alphabetic organization. It would be nice with a common standard for how to organize these lists, if one could be agreed upon. Perhaps a common naming standard, as well?
The best place to continue the discussion is perhaps Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Universities. What about removing ourselves there for further discussion? / Tupsharru 19:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Write on my talk page when the posts go up on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Universities.--] 00:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Category:Lists of people by university affiliation should be kept. I just think that Category:People associated with Columbia University or other such categories associated with individual schools should be deleted. —Lowellian (talk)] 21:33, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

That is the point I wished to make, thank you. --] 00:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Discussion as WikiProject is a good idea, but only when the fundamental, and much more general issue is clear: It was argued that

There is nothing wrong with list of Columbia University people, but is very much a terrible idea.

and

...delete Category:Stanford_University_people and Category:People associated with Columbia University, but keep Category:Lists_of_people_by_university_affiliation.

These stand on its head exactly what i thought was uncontested (even tho i've not tried to keep thoroughly up to date with discussion of the theory of our Cats). Namely that

In fact, there are all sorts of arguments being made here as if the current capabilities of the Cat system were laws of the universe. Yes, there are categories with names too long to display on a line together with other Cats. But in a future WikiMedia release, they can be displayed as a couple of words followed by ellipsis, with the full title (or the full titles of all the article's Cat tags that share those two words) being displayed when the user "hovers" the mouse over them. Yes, there are articles with too many Cat tags for users to find at a glance the one that they're interested in. But they can be prioritized, with the lesser ones represented by an asterisk and linked to in a section on the same page, or on a special page associated with the Cat-tagged page. None of the arguments made abpve are cogent in terms of the concept of Cats, but only in terms of the clunky, nearly useless current implementation of that concept. Trying to make decisions based on the current limitations is the best way to ensure that we never see what Cats can do if enough effort is put into tagging, and that the project gets eventually loses steam and gets abandoned.

Also, the point was made that that not all universities are alike in their needs in this regard, without drawing the proper conclusion that not all deserve the same solution. There is no problem with including Carleton College's luminaries (Veblen, Laird, Wellstone, and a handful more) in a section of the article, so that Category:Carleton College people is obviated; maybe there should be a note associated with Category:People_by_university_affiliation listing the higher-ed institutions whose articles serve the same purpose. But for the examples listed, a Cat is called for.
--Jerzy(t) 02:25, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

Weak keep. anthony 警告 00:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Pupis constellation

Misspelled, everything relevant is already in Category:Puppis constellation. JYolkowski 22:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Japanese name

empty, duplicates Category:Japanese names ] 18:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Medieval scholars by nationality, Category:Italian medieval scholars

Existing subcategories under category:medieval literature include category:medieval historians and category:medieval philosophers, not subcategorized by nationality. Perhaps we should also have a category:medieval scholars (which I think would include philosophers and historians), but by nationality does not seem useful. -- Rick Block 18:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:2005 deaths

It's only 2004, and we don't know who will die in 2005. How is this category useful?? 66.245.70.89 17:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Just leave it alone, another 40 days or so and we will just need to create it again... :) --Sortior 22:32, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with the fact that in about 35 days we would have to make it again. CMC 23:18, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • No doubt the category will be useful relatively soon. However, I might point out that someone has already added articles to this category, (Berkeley Software Distribution, for example), and while this is mildly amusing, it could attract more nonsense. Jonathunder 20:00, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
  • Wasnt' this already listed here? Empty: Re-Delete. -- User:Docu
  • Keep Remove it? when we know it will be needed soon? to quote Kenneth Williams' last words: what's the bloody point? jguk 00:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm with Kenneth Williams. :o) — OwenBlacker 21:24, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
I hope not: he wrote that just before he committed suicide. jguk 21:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Italian Freemasons

A people category created for Licio Gelli with little potential for growth. There's a list, List of famous Freemasons (which, oddly, does not include Licio Gelli). Licio Gelli is apparently a notorius figure in Italy due to his association with Propaganda Due, a secret (but discovered) Italian Freemasonic organization. Other than category:Italian people it's not clear to what categories Licio Gelli should belong. -- Rick Block 17:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Spoons

Definitely fits "small without potential for growth". It also seems pointless ("generally bad ideas"). We already have a category of food preparation utensils -- Nick2588 06:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:People known by one name

Not business card, repeats similarly named article (List of people known by one name), and judging by Talk:List of people known by one name essentially subjective. -- Rick Block 05:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note: if the category is deleted the text in List of people known by one name suggesting articles added to the list be added to the category should also be deleted. -- Rick Block 15:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with Rick -- Sortior 22:30, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete millions of people in the world have less than 2 or more than 3 names, this category seems to make it seem as if having one name is unusual, it's insulting to put people like and in the same category with hacks like and Pedant 18:42, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
  • Do not delete, there is no way that "millions" of well-known people are known only by one name — there aren't even that many celebrities, living or dead. Also, calling someone a hack, or treating them differently in an encyclopedia because of this personal opinion, is completely POV and therefore not at all apropos in Misplaced Pages.   –radiojon 19:42, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

Category:Italy stubs

Merged into Category:Italy-related stubs (using Template:Italy-stub rather than Template:Italy-related). The redundant template should be deleted at the same time (see WP:TFD). -- Rick Block 02:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:4 Non Blondes albums

According to allmusic.com, 4 Non Blondes only had one album. Gamaliel 03:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - per recent discussion of category:Ashlee Simpson albums, categories containing items have plural names to accommodate 1 or more, i.e. the category name could be read as album(s). Even with one album, the category is useful to allow traversal from category:albums by artist. -- Rick Block 04:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Let me clarify. I take no issue with the name of the category or naming conventions. I listed it here because they have only one album and broke up years ago and, unlike Ashlee Simpson, will never have a second album. A category which will only ever have one item is a pointless category. Gamaliel 08:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep What Rick said. Do we really have to vote on this every time? DCEdwards1966 07:06, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment' Haven't been around this page much, to know all the previous discussions, but thought I'd mention that people who create categories like this are just following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums#Categories, "Each album page is then placed into two categories, "Category:<Artist name> albums" and "Category:<year> albums"..." It should be discussed with the folks there if there's a problem. ]
  • Delete. anthony 警告 00:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:U.K. intelligence agencies

This has had a {{cfd}} tag on it since October 30, 2004, but User:Icairns didn't list it here, twould seem. We already had a Category:UK intelligence agencies before this category was created. And we don't put periods in abbreviations in British English much these days (the MOS acknowledges this). — OwenBlacker 04:23, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

November 23

Category:Newspapers in Washington

Revised entries to Category:Newspapers of Washington state for clarity. MisfitToys 23:24, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't see how this is necessary for clarity—if it's meant to disambig it from Washington the city, the lack of "..., DC" does that. Postdlf 11:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I did some poking around. All of the other categories for Washington state simply have "Washington". I don't see that disambiguation is necessary. -] 20:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

November 21

Category:National liberation movements

New category with a decidedly Leftist and extremist POV, and many are definite Terrorist groups that are already listed in Category:Terrorism and Category:Terrorist organizations. IZAK 02:53, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete IZAK 22:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanse and keep, many of the movements were indeed not aimed at liberation of any nation and that needs to be corrected. The rest, however, is fine. ]]] 22:46, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. ] 22:55, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 00:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. It was inevitable that someone would put up a category like this as a response to the POV Category:terrorist organizations. I would vote without hesitation for its deletion except that that would amount to a double standard. Both categories should be merged into one with a neutral title. Iota 01:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How would you "merge" two absolute opposites? Would one class the Nazi Party as "liberators" (as they were for many Germans) or as criminals guilty of genocide? This is very dangerous. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Evolver of Borg 12:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP National Liberation movements and terrorist organizations are distinct groups, although overlap occurs. They are also distinct from National Revolutionary Movements, with some overlap.
    • Al-Qaeda - terrorist organization
    • PLO - National Liberation organization, and sometimes terrorist
    • Parti Quebecois - National Liberation organization
    • ETA - terrorist and national liberation
    • The Contras - National Revolutionary movement and terrorist
    • Ang Sang Suu Kyi's group - National Revolutionary movement

You did not sign your comments with the tildes ~~~~ so your comments are anonymous and your "vote" cannot be counted. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep and clean up. Previous poster and Iota have good point; while there is overlap, they're not the same thing as terrorist groups, and a list of terrorist groups is very POV. --Tkinias 04:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and help me to clean up. I'm the one who created the category. Yes there is overlap, and i might have added some groups/parties to the list that don't belong there, but there are many groups that are neither "Left Wing POV" nor "Terrorist". As an example Free Tibet movement wouldn't fit into those two categories. And even if there is overlap it exists in many other categories... it is a necessaty that must happen.

You have not signed your name with the four ~~~~ so there is no way to know who you are or acknowledge what you have to say. (Are you "voting" twice - i.e. one "vote" above also- ?)IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How can opposites be merged, reflecting reality and make everyone happy all at the same time? IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    • Terrorist organization is definitely more POV than this category, and they are *not* the same things. 132.205.45.148 16:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you please log in with a User name so that your comments can be acknowledged. Thank you. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Del - will be always a source of controversy. I am yet to see a group that admits that they are plain garden-variety terrorists. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Is the Dalai Lama a terrorist then?
    • A national liberation movement is not synonomous with armed conflict. Choosing to restrict it to such a definition is definitely POV on your part. 132.205.45.148 16:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please let us know who is making these comments with a proper User name. Thank you. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete fails to match the definition Wars of national liberation were those conflicts fought by indigenous military groups against an imperial power in an attempt to remove that power's influence. as stated in Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages being self-contradictory is not desirable. Contains patent nonsense such as Symbionese Liberation Army. Parti Quebecois? The rest of Canada is an imperial power occupying Quebec? Lance6Wins 14:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • That's what the Quebec politicians say. Also, you pulled up wars and military. Haven't you ever noticed that some countries become independant without war? A national liberation movement is not synonomous with armed conflict. Choosing to restrict it to such a definition is definitely POV on your part. 132.205.45.148 16:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, there is no User name here to acknowledge. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • COMMENT To everyone who thinks that all national liberationists are terrorists, tell me this, is everyone in Taiwan who belong to political parties espousing separation a terrorist? By your definition they are. And so is the Dalai Lama 132.205.45.148 16:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who is this "person" who insists on leaving anonymous messages and expects to be taken seriously? Get a User name won't you. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    • Misplaced Pages:Deletion_guidelines_for_administratorsFor example, administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith Any anon can vote. If administrators choose to ignore anon votes, they should atleast think about it, because Administrators necessarily must use their best judgement, attempting to be as impartial as is possible otherwise they are not being impartial. 132.205.94.52 01:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To the above user, it is impossible to take seriously someone who does not have a user name, please get one so that your comments can be acknowledged. Thanks. IZAK 09:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

People do acknowledge my comments. If I make a sensible suggestion, usually the registered users pick up on it. OFcourse there are some people with elitist tendencies who choose to ignore all anons, whatever they say. But that violates the best judgement and impartial principles in the guidelines. Is wikipedia supposed to be a clique of wikipedioholics or something open for anyone to contribute to? It does go to the heart of what the wikipedia project is about, and openness. It's not like there's a whole mob of vandalizing anons rampaging across the deletion administrative pages either. Que sera sera, whatever will be will be. 132.205.15.43 05:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, now that CfD is a large page, shouldn't it switch over to the subpaging format that VfD uses?
  • Keep, mostly agreed with Halibutt. —No-One Jones  17:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a formal term. It doesn't matter what this movement actually do. Mikkalai 18:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hopelessly POV by definition (as is Category:Terrorist organizations) and likely to give cause for endless arguments. Elf-friend 19:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • KeepAndyL 22:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Thinking about this more, the category name is not NPOV. NPOV would be Category:National independence movements, which would easily include both groups like the Tamil Tigers or ETA which use violence and those like the Parti Quebequois which largely don't. We could also create a group Category:Revolutionary movements, which would include groups -- whether they engaged in terrorism or not -- intending to overthrow a government (Contras, Bolsheviks), rather than gain independence for what they perceive as a submerged nation. --Tkinias 03:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • ^^^ What He Said, I like the cut of your jib sir, we agree. Alkivar 05:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • *blush* —Tkinias 08:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete -- I agree with Tkinias too. ] 19:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Hesitant delete. This sort of categorisation is too facile for an extremely complex and involved topic. Looking at the category, there's a lot of stuff that I'd barely consider qualified (NPOV issues aside), like the SLA, the OAS, and the White Rose. To pare it down properly means defining what a National Liberation movement is–and getting a decent consensus on that definition. Mackensen (talk) 05:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Why not replace this and Category:Terrorist organizations with the two I proposed plus a more-NPOV Category:Groups employing terror (this is less of an essentialization of the group as terrorist but acknowledges the group's use of terror attacks). Thus we categorize by goals and by tactics, but do not make POV judgements. On your examples:
      • SLA: not an independence movement, but a revolutionary movement which employed terror
      • OAS: quite the opposite of an independence movement, it was a right-wing armed group which employed terror to oppose independence
      • White Rose: revolutionary movement, not seeking independence
      • Al-Qa'ida (not on your list, but relevant): revolutionary movement, not seeking independence (seeking to merge several secular states into one theocratic state), employs terror
      • PLO (on the other hand): national independence movement, employed terror —Tkinias 08:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai is correct to point out that it is a formal term, but as Mackensen is pointing out above, this sort of categorization will likely generate too much confusion-- note the NPOV disputes above-- for it to be a workable one on Wiki. 172 08:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep The category makes a useful and important distinction. Unfortunately the category also is in need of some cleanup because there is currently stuff that doesn't belong, and articles that it doesn't have that should be there. I am wondering if part of the problem with this category for some people might be the wording. Would it be better to describe these groups as Independence Movements or Secession Movements (although those descriptions do not fit well for groups that cross national boundaries, such as the Kurds)? ] 10:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a useful category that brings together a specific type of related articles. Just because some (or even many) of them can also be put in another category (i.e. terrorists) does not make it irrelevant. As with the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion, this seems to be an attempt to get rid of controversy by trying to ignore it. Get involved in the cleanup and discussion, don't delete it. That said, I agree with Tkinias and gK above that it could be renamed in a more NPOV way. mennonot 10:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Liberation" is highly charged POV. Even if renamed to something else (like Category:National independence movements), the category's contents will still probably show quite a bit of POV. -Sean Curtin 01:01, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Conditional vote: Keep, but only if renamed to "National independence movements" or some such. I agree that "liberation" is too charged a term. I wouldn't consider Jefferson Davis to have been leading a national liberation movement, but some people would. By contrast, we could neutrally apply a definition like "an organization seeking the establishment of an independent state in an area controlled by or part of another polity". I really don't understand why so many people talk about terrorism in this context. As has been pointed out, there are independence movements that use terrorism, those that don't, terrorists who aren't independence movements, and those who are. JamesMLane 07:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. Will forever cause POV arguments. —Lowellian (talk)] 22:48, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

By my count, there are enough delete votes to justify the deletion of this category. (14 delete; 7 keep, including one anonymous voter; three merge-or-rename. Note that "rename" requires deletion of this category since there is no category move option.) However, there are enough keep votes and enough people who seem to support a name change that I don't want to just delete this one out of hand.

I propose the following compromise:

  1. We create a Category:National independence movements, which seems to be supported by several folks as less POV.
  2. We examine the articles in Category:National liberation movements and move them to the new category if the expressed goal is some form of independent status.
  3. We then delete Category:National liberation movements.

Any objections? We can always list the newly-created category for deletion to see if it stands on its own merits. -] 18:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 14

Capitalization of "prefecture"

Shouldn't "prefecture" should be capitalized when part of a proper noun? We have inconsistent usage. -- Beland 05:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I note that Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) says "Capitalize suffixes in place names. For example, Tochigi Prefecture". Gdr 16:34, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

I thought (after someone corrected me) that it should be capitalized, but see Talk:Prefectures of Japan. It seems that prefecture can be used generically, as state or county or town, but if you are referring to a specific one (i.e. it's part of a proper name), it may be appropriate to capitalize. Most of the articles for individual prefectures seem to have been moved to capitalized version of the names, with little or no attempt to arrange for the text in the article to agree. See for example Gunma Prefecture. -] 19:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)



November 10

Kazakhstan

Category:Kazakhstani people duplicates Category:Kazakh people and Category:Kakazh people by occupation duplicates Category:Kazakh people by occupation. Susvolans 11:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Category:Kakazh people by occupation that looks like a typo 132.205.45.148 16:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Kazakh refers to an ethnic group, or its language, whereas Kazakhstani refers to an element of the country of Kazakhstan... So these would be different, no? 132.205.45.148 16:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I did some poking around, and you seem to be right. Perhaps we need to delete Category:Kazakhstani people, etc., since they seem to be in use as "People from Kazakhstan"? -] 00:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)



Cleanup overhead

Discussions moved off-page

Please see:

Categories to be emptied or moved

Manual empty/move requested

Automated moves

Malfunction

MOVE_CONTENTS Category:Cleanup Category:Wikipedia_cleanup

  • The template that all or most of these articles are using has been fixed. Waiting for the system to update to check for stragglers. -- Beland 04:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Something seems to have gone wrong; Category:Cleanup lists some articles which on the article page indicate that they are actually *not* in that category. I'm not sure exactly what's going on. -- Beland 02:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Olympics notes

Another note: Is it necessary to post such detailed logs here? -] 18:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, I just wanted folks to see what I did, since different subcategories got different treatment. Since no one has made any complaints, I've deleted the spew (and yeah, it does bulk up the page). -- Beland 02:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Delete me

The below meet the eligibility requirements for deletion at the top of this page. These categories have been de-populated, and any documentation of this decision taken care of. Admins may delete these categories at will. If there is a particular category which is replacing the deleted category (if redundant, misspelled, etc.) as noted below, that should be mentioned in the deletion log entry.

The category to be deleted is listed first, followed by the proper category that renders it obsolete.


Whoa! I guess I wasn't paying attention but could someone please explain what the new system is supposed to be for comics writer/artist article categorization? The MOVE_ commands above appear to indicate that "artists" are being moved to the "writers" category, which makes no sense to me. And I don't see any explanation or discussion on the talk pages of any of those categories. ←Hob 00:07, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistyped...both Category:Comics artists and Category:Comics writers have been moved to Category:Comic strip creators. The first two are ready for deletion now. -- Beland 04:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Categories: