< April 29 May 1 >

April 30

Drug lords

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/rename/merge per nom. Kbdank71 13:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Drug lords (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Drug lords by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging Category:American drug lords to Category:American drug traffickers
Propose merging Category:Colombian drug lords to Category:Colombian drug traffickers
Propose merging Category:Dutch drug lords to Category:Dutch drug traffickers
Propose merging Category:Irish drug lords to Category:Irish drug traffickers
Propose merging Category:Mexican drug lords to Category:Mexican drug traffickers
Propose renaming Category:Peruvian drug lords to Category:Peruvian drug traffickers
Propose merging Category:Turkish drug lords to Category:Turkish drug traffickers
Nominator's rationale: Delete/Merge/Rename as needed. Although it has not closed yet, it seems apparent from the discussion so far that the New Zealand drug lords category is going to be merged to its corresponding traffickers category. The rest of "drug lord" category set should be dismantled for the same reasons, specifically as I said in the earlier CFD: there is no objective definition as to what distinguishes a drug "trafficker" from a drug "lord" (or a drug "kingpin" or a "major player in the drug trade" or any of the other words and phrases that are used in the popular press). "Drug lord" is overly sensationalistic. Otto4711 (talk) 23:47, 30 April 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:Deceased stand-up comedians

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. Kbdank71 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deceased stand-up comedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't categorize people by the intersection of occupation and dead or alive status. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only person Good Olfactory could have been having a personal attack at was himself, who nominated the category in the first place. He was, I take it, responding to my play on words. WP doesn't have to be without humor all the time, only in the relevant places. I'll put the "dead-pan comedians" joke back in the box, if you'll accept no personal attack was ever intended. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Unpunctual stand-up comedians surely? Occuli (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thanks folks! I'll be here for all eternity!" I guess we can just file this under "bad jokes that were poorly understood". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Dead people, as you can see just by looking at it, isn't directly applied to individual people, but is merely a parent for "year of death" and "manner of death" categories. We never have done, and shouldn't start doing now, "dead people within a particular occupation" categories — there's no need to "better organize" a combination of categories that doesn't actually exist at any level of organization in the first place. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 5 May 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:Archvillains

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. Kbdank71 13:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Archvillains to Category:Supervillains
Nominator's rationale: Merge. It is technically the same. Several characters listed as Archvillains are already listed as Supervillains. The Supervillains category is already divided into several sub-categories depending on the villain's type or genre. Lord Opeth (talk) 23:13, 30 April 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:Tiki Culture

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: "Speedy" rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tiki Culture to Category:Tiki culture
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Capitalization. Trivialist (talk) 23:11, 30 April 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:Dairy Farm

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. Kbdank71 13:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dairy Farm to Category:Dairy Farm International Holdings
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Dairy Farm International Holdings. The current name is a shortened version of the real name and is, of course, somewhat ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 30 April 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:Darwin

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. Kbdank71 13:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Darwin to Category:Darwin, Northern Territory
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article, Darwin, Northern Territory. Darwin alone is ambiguous. If we narrow our consideration to only placenames, the primary placename meaning of "Darwin" is probably the city in the Northern Territory. But, of course, categories are not limited to placenames, and "Darwin" is also a scientific unit, a spacecraft, an operating system, an asteroid, etc., (not to mention the name of a prominent family) so the ambiguity should be resolved. The same reasons are why the article uses the name it does. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 30 April 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:German-Israeli people

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. Kbdank71 13:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:German-Israeli people to Category:Israelis of German descent
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories. Nominated category is brand new; target category is older and conforms with the format of other subcategories of Category:Israeli people by ethnic or national origin. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remain: why is this nice category useless? --Cmaric (talk) 06:01, 1 May 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:Australian Infantry

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. Kbdank71 13:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Australian Infantry to Category:Infantry units and formations of Australia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming convention within WPMILHIST category structure. Buckshot06(prof) 21:32, 30 April 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:Songs written by John Lennon

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. Kbdank71 15:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Suggest merging Category:Songs written by John Lennon to Category:John Lennon songs

Nominator's rationale: Either merge, or transfer all songs written by John to the "written by..." category, so that only his covers remain in the "John Lennon songs" category? Of course, there are a few songs John wrote but didn't record, as well. Maybe that's the role for the "written by..." cat, with a clear definition to steer people in right direction. What do people think? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • To Carlossuarez46. How then is it decided which of the 3000+ XXX who recorded Yesterday (song) is granted an 'XXX songs' category? Do Chet Atkins and Joan Baez stand out as the obvious non-Liverpudlian contenders or is there something alphabetical developing? Or My Way (song) – this is put in Frank Sinatra songs, Elvis Presley songs, Paul Anka songs, Nina Hagen songs, Nina Simone songs and Shirley Bassey songs. Can I add Sid Vicious, who did it very much his way? (This category is an obvious magnet for overcategorisation and mega-clutter, unlike say eponymous singer categories.) Occuli (talk) 08:39, 1 May 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.

Victims of political repression

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus, even after the relisting. Kbdank71 14:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note After reading the above [below], it is clear that there is no consensus to delete these articles. However, there have been some suggestions regarding renaming, splitting or merging which could reach consensus, so I am relisting this discussion in order to encourage more discussion regarding those options.--Aervanath (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category and its subcategories are too vague, too subjective. If the word 'victims' is given its widest meaning, then every single person who lived within the influence of a repressive political presence can be included. If the phrase 'political repression' is given its widest latitude, then laws judged as repressive can be included, making every citizen of that country a victim. This category and its subcategories appear to me to be magnets for POV-pushers, and potential dustbins for lazy editing. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support working out consistent naming guidelines. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would instead characterize my rationale as "We can't decide inclusion because the criteria are vague and open to to subjective interpretation." I'm not worried about the historians and cited sources, I'm worried about the potential for edit wars and the lazy slapping-on of a label where subtle nuance or polarized expert opinion doesn't support the hard label. What happens if one cited source says the person was a common criminal who violated a law of the land, and another says the person was a revolutionary who was martyred for a cause? What category is that? Let's move forward into categories that have more precision. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in life is subject to subjective interpretation, with the exception of pure mathematics. That doesn't mean it is unfit to be discussed in Wikipedia. The fundamental policies of WP:RS and WP:NPOV apply in these categories as everywhere.
In other words: the trick is to let the expert researchers do the dirty work; then Wikipedians won't have to decide who is or who isn't a victim -- they can refer to expert opinion. And scholarly consensus is what any self-respecting encyclopædia reports. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So, is it impossible to replace the vague categories for ones that are more precise? I think it is possible. Here's an example: General Vladimir Viktorovich Sakharov could be placed into the notional category of Category:People shot by Bolsheviks, or something similar. Nobody could possibly argue that point because of its specificity. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely what we must avoid. "People shot by Bolsheviks" is a self-invented category. How about "People drawn by Bolsheviks" or "People shot by Cheka" (many Bolsheviks criticized Cheka for atrocities, so why should we blame them?). On the other hand, "Victims of political repressions" is a well established terminology.Biophys (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "self-invented category"? And why would any category be judged except on its own merits? Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is very simple. Terminology like "victims of political repressions" is widely used in literature, whereas "People shot by Bolsheviks" is an invention by a wikipedian (WP:OR).Biophys (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you limited the categories on WP to ones "used in literature", there would be a massive cutback of long-standing cats. I see no reason why a perfectly good category should be thrown out because it was invented by a wiki editor. If it makes sense, if it neatly classifies, it stands on its own. My throwaway example about Bolsheviks that you seem to be focusing on could, of course, be created as anything you like; perhaps you'd be happier with Category:Executions carried out by Bolsheviks, or Category:Bolshevik killings, or whatever. Binksternet (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we must stick as close as possible to categories that are widely "used in literature" to avoid WP:OR. Otherwise, people will indeed make something like Category:Bolshevik killings.Biophys (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to strike the above comment from record as vague genericism unapplicable to the discussion at hand. We're at CfD, not TfD. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear to me that Offliner was responding to this exact cfd, and typed 'template' by mistake. The opinion presented here is valid. Binksternet (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was just a simple typo. Sorry about that. Offliner (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what a prisoner claims about himself or herself is somewhat irrelevant, falling under WP:SELFPUB. What matters is what researchers say. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And researchers fundamentally disagree on a great number of people. Lumping them together in such a way is unhelpful and incredibly POV.--TM 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If "there are plenty of reliable sources to back up such a claim", then what's the problem? No one disputed victims of Soviet repressions to be such. There are other better categories? Please suggest them, let's discuss and rename. Simply deleting all these categories would make a significant damage.Biophys (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It woukd be quite easy to find reliable sources denying that Britain's benign rule in Ireland ever involved political repression, and which would justify us emptying the category. Similarly, there are reliable sources which describe hundreds of years of repression, and if we follow them , then we get a bot to add the category to everyone born in Ireland, which would be pretty useless. That's why these categories are useless: we can get reliable sources pointing to two polar opposite approaches, because the concept of "political repression" is a POV one. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you really seem to be saying is that these categories be renamed or split from "Victims of Xxxxx repressions" into "People imprisoned by" and "People executed by" categories. I have no objection to this, since for example, most people in Category:Victims of Soviet repressions have either been killed or imprisoned by the Soviet regime. Given the number of categories and volume of entries, deletion would not be an optimal solution when a rename would do. Martintg (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your suggested solution could work, especially for the categories that are vigorously populated. Splitting 'victims of ... repression' into people 'imprisoned by' and 'killed by' could obtain a greater degree of precision. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, however it is not 100% ideal either. Marrying a Jew in Nazi Germany was a criminal offense which could earn a person time in jail. Is that repression or upholding the rule of law? Should that person be in a category "People imprisoned by" along side some common criminal? Martintg (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This only shows why current categories must be kept. Many victims were imprisoned and killed. Some died from malnutrition in Gulag or during the Holodomor. They were "victims of repressions" by all counts - per sources. Were they killed? That is something arbitrary.Biophys (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So for consistency, do you support adding to Category:Victims of British political repression everyone who died in the Great Famine or emigrated in search of food? Most of the modern sources agree that the potato famine was so devastating largely because of political policies pursued by the British government. This important: unless we can be reasonably sure that these two famines will be treated consistently, then you are simply illustrating the inherently POV nature of these categories. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last year we deleted Category:Political prisoners because it had similar problems to these categories. Do we have sources for each of these articles that say, in fairly direct terms, that they were victims of political repression? Is there, in every case, a clear distinction between political repression and racial or relgious repression.   Will Beback  talk  04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mind removing word "political" and renaming all of them simply as "Victims of repression". As about sourcing, let's simply take a look at the first (in alphabet order) article in Category:Victims of Soviet repressions (note - there is no word "political" and rightly so): Memed Abashidze - he was officially a victim of Soviet repressions ("repressii" in Russian), and he was officially "Rehabilitated", which means: "the restoration of a person who was criminally prosecuted without due basis, to the state of acquittal or being "not guilty". Any concerns about the category? No one has an obligation to verify if all articles on the subject are properly sourced. We must only make sure that the category is reasonable. A disputed usage of a category in several articles does not mean the entire category should be deleted Biophys (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. All creators have been notified, or have already taken part in this discussion. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Of course political persecution exists as a phenomenon; the problem is that the application of that label is a highly POV subject. There are of course countless treatises on it, but not all of them agree, and some of those who maintain that there are "objective" criteria are less sure when those criteria are applied too close to home.
Consider a few examples, off the top of my head:
  1. the activists in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament whose phones were tapped by the British govt in the 1980s
  2. members of the American Communist Party, who were hounded for years by the FBI, well before HUAC got to work on them
  3. Irish Republicans interned by orders of Eamon de Valera during WWII
  4. Thousands of British trades unionists whose freedom of movement was blocked during the miner's strike, allegedly without legal authority
  5. Nick Griffin of the far-right British National Party, tried on charges of hates crimes, which he defines as political repression of his free speech.
  6. Thousands of Germans excluded from state employment under the Berufsverbot. Does the tag political repression apply only to the Nazi period, or to all those disqualified under the berufsverbot, including East Germans since reunification?
  7. Leonard Peltier, allegedly imprisoned on false charges laid for political reasons
  8. Millions of Native Americans, deprived of their land and much else for generations.
  9. Damian Green, the Conservative MP arrested for what he describes as simply doing his job as a politician.
  10. Walter Wolfgang, arrested under the Terrorism Act for speaking out of turn
  11. Those at the 2009 G-20 London summit protests, who were coralled in pens for several hours (a form of detention) because of their politics, and two at least people at that protested who were assaullted by police. Was that political repression, or do we only apply that tag to victims of Ferdinand Marcos's suppression of political activity?
I could produce countless more cases where the application of a "victims of political repression" tag would be highly controversial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of these actually in any of the categories under discussion? I think not. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to User:BrownHairedGirl. The difficulty in applying a label cannot be, in my opinion, the ultimate argument for dismissing it altogether. I would agree with you if the application of the label were entirely (or mostly) dependent on subjective criteria. But I don't think this is the case here. I can't answer you in the examples you quote, because I simply don't know about these subjects; but in cases when an individual or group was persecuted (imprisoned, discriminated, harrassed) on behalf of established authorities because of his/her convictions political/ideological convictions and/or for exercising rights guaranteed by internationally acknowledged human rights charters (of free speech, of conscience, of assembly, etc.), then he/she is victim of political repression. And I see no reason why not to categorize him/her as such. The adequacy of such categorization should be, in my view, discussed in individual cases. I can give you some examples of cases I've come across. I have only been working with the categories Category:Victims of political repression in Fascist Italy and Category:Victims of political repressions in Communist Yugoslavia. In the first case, I decided not to apply the first label to members of the Arditi del popolo who were trialed and convicted for violent acts; attempt assassination of a politician is not an activity protected by any charter of human rights, therefore individuals who were persecuted because of this cannot be labeled victims of political repression. In the second case, I decided not to aply the label to a Yugoslav military officer who was caught by the Yugoslav secret police when trying to escape to Bulgaria, then trialed & imprisoned for treason. In fact, this was an act considered as disertation (or treason, espionage, etc.) by valid international law, and such not protected by human righs charters. I agree: there are (and will be) much more ambiguous cases, but I think that in the spirit of Wikipedia, then will be solved on individual basis by open discussion. Viator slovenicus (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


*Delete most - I think these categories are just inherently too vague and difficult to classify people into. While we do have an article on political repressions, one look at it demonstrates how vague and all-encompassing the term is; I don't deny there are such things as political repressions, but there's no obvious 'acid test' for whether a particular person was a victim of one or not. As it is, these categories are too easily manipulated for POV purposes; wherever possible, more precise categories should be used instead. Category:Victims of Soviet repressions might be an exception, as it is so notable it actually has its own article (Political repression in the Soviet Union), and I struggle to think of how better those people could be categorised; that one is probably worth keeping, but the rest I would delete. Robofish (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC) On second thoughts: Relist separately. As those just below point out, some of these are worth keeping; but I still don't think they all are. It would be better to list each category separately, and only keep those for which the subject is a notable subject of independent historical scholarship. Emphasis on historical - the categories for still-existing states are too open to POV abuse, and should probably be deleted. Robofish (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Could you please explain why do you think Category:Victims of Soviet repressions should be kept, while, for instance, the Category:Victims of political repressions in Communist Yugoslavia or Category:Victims of political repression in Fascist Italy should be deleted? I don't see any consistency in your argument. Viator slovenicus (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply (to Robofish): Are you suggesting, in this manner, that Category:Victims of Nazi German repressions be deleted simply because there is no article with an equivalent title? All of these categories have had books written about them. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Reply: The last suggestions of Robofish seem reasonable to me. I'm skeptical about some of these categories, too; but I don't want to see categories related to repressive regimes of the past (which are the only ones I actually use, and of which I know enough to apply them) deleated in a "package" because of the controversial application of similar categories to existing regimes. Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've seen some heated reversions in articles having to do with events that should be long put to bed, such as at War of the Pacific which should have ended in 1883, because editors who have strong feelings about the historic event are still arguing about how it is presented here. Me, I don't differentiate between categories about regressive regimes of the past and ones about current political entities. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only as an empty cat for navigation purposes. Looking at Category:Victims of American political repression only because it is a largish cat that will grow because of english speaker knowledge and because it already has sub-cats. Within that cat you have 3 people I chose at random, Cheddi Jagan, Har Dayal, Lucy Parsons, and I can find nothing that ties them in together other than the category name. If they were put into sub-categories "repressed by legigislation XYZ" or "repressed by American foreign policy ABC" it would have some kind of logic. At the moment any woman who died before before universal suffrage could be included, ditto african-americans. Doing this helps to remove POV entries and makes the navigation workable. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted for further discussion
[edit]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we should have both. In other words, victims of repression in Soviet Russia should be a subcat of victioms of repression in Russia and the victims of repression in communist states. PS. But what to do with the Category:Victims of Communist repressions in Poland 1939-1989? Please note that there was no communist Poland until 1944/1945; the 1939-1944 period, or even more correctly, 1939-1941, concerns victims on the Polish territories annexed to Soviet Union - technically, part of Russia, but not recognized as such by Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Category:Victims of communism was finally renamed (thankfully) to Category:Victims of political repression in Communist states. Cgingold (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. Which only means that it has to be renamed again to Category:Victims of repression in Communist states. I guess somebody didn't bother to read my explanation at the very beginning of this discussion (look above...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First to other points, I would leave out "political". Second, to what's included, a number of countries have specific definitions regarding victims of repression under prior regimes. An inventory of those would likely provide a number of items which could be agreed upon and explicitly spelled out in the category. PetersV       TALK 21:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of 'Keep, but only as an empty cat for navigation purposes', suggested by Richhoncho, combined with Rename 'repressions' to 'repression' as suggested by Piotrus

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:Indochine songs

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 by nominator. I didn't realize there was already a policy requiring that songs be in categories like this, my bad. Sorry for the incovenience. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indochine songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I love Indochine just as much as the next guy (there's really nothing better to listen to when you're drunk and on a bike), but this category only has 1 article in it. In the future, once someone has written multiple articles on Indochine singles, the category can always be easily re-created (or a footer template can be made, with the same effect. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP policies. See :
* Category:Songs by artist : "Please note that all song articles should have subcategories here, regardless of how many songs the artist has recorded"
* WP:SONGS#Categories : "Song articles should be placed into two categories, a subcategory of Category:Songs by artist ("Category:<Artist name> songs") and a subcategory of Category:Songs by year (a subcategory of Category:Singles by year for singles)"
* WP:OC#SMALL : "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country."
Europe22 (talk) 09:44, 30 April 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.

USER CATEGORIES

Category:Wikipedians against sports franchising
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: speedily deleted by Athaenara after creator's consent. BencherliteTalk 23:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians against sports franchising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Support/oppose category, also a "not" category. Does not help to categorize things we don't like, per extensive precedent here. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. You may fire when ready. 000Cliftonian000 06:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged it for speedy deletion, since Cliftonian is the creator and only member of the category and has given permission for deletion. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 09:34, 30 April 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:Wikipedians who found MC10's secret page
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 (with creator's consent). BencherliteTalk 23:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who found MC10's secret page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Non-collaborative, individual user category. Identical category precedent to delete here. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 30 April 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:User mk/bg

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. Kbdank71 13:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User mk/bg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - innapropriate use of a babel category. Connected to a user box stating "This user considers Macedonian language as a dialect of Bulgarian language" - Babel categories signify levels in proficiency in a language, not whether a user considers something to be a dialect of a language or not. Additionally, it doesn't help to categorize users by this belief, so I would oppose any form of rename as well. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Nom that this category is inappropriate and unhelpful. A reminder, also, that the whole Macedonia subject is currently under ArbCom review. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:58, 30 April 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:Wikipedians by alma mater: Huntington Beach High School

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 per WP:SNOW, it's empty, and precedent. Anyone wishing to continue to bicker is directed to take it elsewhere. Kbdank71 15:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Huntington Beach High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - High school alma mater category, which have unanimous, extensive precedent to delete. See here. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In accepting the point of view expressed by others engaged in this discussion, I would argue that perhaps all categories of Wikipedians should therefore be deleted. In creating the category for HBHS, I simply followed what appears to be a common practice. The matter is for me not one that requires much debate, as the label created is easy enough to add the the user page. So, delete the category with my blessings but, not without deleting all categories related to Wikipedian educational history, not just those for High Schools, since not all Wikipedians have college educations, much less degrees. The avowed goal of Wikipedia is to be editable by any person, not just those with college educations, and limiting Wikipedians to distinction based upon college education is an elitist act. The only way to not disgrace yourselves with elitism is to be consistent across all demographics. You can't have it both ways, listing post-secondary institutions in categories and not listing secondary institutions, without engaging in elitism. The only non-elitist convention is to eliminate all such categories, or allow them to proliferate. William R. Buckley (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think these types of categories are not about elitism, but it could be useful for finding people of your own alma mater. This was what I had in mind when I voted, not elitism or anything of that matter. I don't think having a college education or even a high school education has anything to do with how people should view you as a Wikipedian. I know for me, I haven't even graduated high school (yet), but I don't think that affects my editing at all. Tavix |  Talk  23:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You perhaps want to remove the word *not* from the first sentence of your above comment; leaving this word suggests that your writing is sub-par, and combined with your admission of having not yet completed your high school education tends to argue against your point. An alternative deletion would be the word *don't*; use of double negatives constitutes an abuse of English. William R. Buckley (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly my point - it does not necessarily follow that higher education is requisite for quality editing. However, allowing categories for only college level Wikipedians (and thus not allowing categories for non-college educated editors) is elitist, plain and simple. William R. Buckley (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "alma mater" categories have nothing to do with elitism. Their existence is because such users are more likely to collaborate on topics relating to their college and/or university. For instance, there are tons of topics someone from OSU could collaborate on: See Category:Oregon State University. For high school categories, there is almost always only a single article that such users could collaborate on (if that), and even in the rare circumstances that a high school has multiple articles relating to it, it is generally going to still be too narrow of a subject for people in such a category to collaborate on. A better venue for these people to try to collaborate at is the high school's talk page. Additionally, as said above, high schools have a lot less people than colleges, so such categories are likely to only contain a small number of people, which also wouldn't be beneficial for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One could easily make the same argument that you give, in relation to high schools. Some secondary institutions boast large numbers of students per class year, and some colleges claim exceedingly small numbers of students per class year. HBHS, when I attended, had class sizes on the order of one thousand per year. This means that four thousand students (freshman, sophomores, juniors, and seniors) were on campus on any given day. The current enrollment at Pacific University (Forest Grove Oregon) is xxx, as reported by the administration of Pacific University; [this note awaits a response from Claire Delamarter, Associate Registrar]. I am sure many more small college examples can be found. Moreover, and quite frankly, it does not matter your intent; please recall that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Like it or not, the net effect of limiting categories of wikipedians to college association is an elitist act. Intellectual myopia seems to abound within Wikipedia. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitrary and capricious vote. I love elitists! They, and how they hide from their elitism. William R. Buckley (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been called worse by better. If you want to assume that my vote is based in elitism, you're certainly free to do so. Calling everyone who disagrees with you an "elitist" does bugger-all toward convincing anyone of anything, and repeating it endlessly is tiresome. Of course you have no idea where I went to college of indeed if I went to college, so deciding that I'm some elitist Joe College because I don't believe this category fulfills the stated purpose of user categories, which is "to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia", seems kind of foolish. So spare us this populist posing. Otto4711 (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I call them as I see them; if the shoe fits, then you should happily wear it. That others know not of your college education is by your choice, not theirs; I certainly do not hide my identity, unlike you. The argument given to support deletion of the category is based upon the assumption that no other Wikipedian will have come from the indicated school, and thus there is no need for collaboration. This argument is weak for a number of reasons. Consider, for instance, that such a category will be subscribed in multiple only if it is in place for sufficient time. Further, the likelihood of collaboration will increase with time, and the number of graduates, which is quite large for HBHS. After all, this school was founded in 1906. Also, you made the claim of being "some Joe College," not I. My claim is that elimination of any category on the basis of tenure multiplicity (or lack there of) is an act of elitism. Not all categories of elitists claim small numbers. For instance, the membership of citizenship of the United States of America is a form of elitism; i.e. Americans are better than anybody else, and in particular, say, Mexicans. Your inability to see such conflicts is a direct consequence of elitist views. NB: the word sequence "...went to college of indeed if I went..." demonstrates a lack of skill with the English language. So, if you did go to college, you learned nothing, and if you didn't go to college, then you quite convincingly demonstrate same. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deciding that someone is poorly educated on the basis of a single typographical error is the mark of a true snob (I call them as I see them). Otto4711 (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were trying to make a point about your quality as an editor. I pointed to your failure to proof your own post. William R. Buckley (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who writes 'American's' and 'Mexican's' is in no position to lecture other users about English errors, IMO. Robofish (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All people can improve. Further, I never said my English composition skill is perfect. My point concerned editing skill. William R. Buckley (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more point. I am no populist, as anyone who knows me in person will attest. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to knock off the populist posing. Otto4711 (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that I've written here is populist. Only a fool thinks otherwise. William R. Buckley (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, what you've written here is populist posing, which is what I said. Try to keep up. Otto4711 (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another great debate on the subject at hand. I'm just glad that I'm not the only one bearing the brunt of Otto's personal attacks. Alansohn (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are another individual who likes to hide his/her identity. William R. Buckley (talk) 10:12, 4 May 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:Wikipedians from Deep River, Ontario

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. Kbdank71 13:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians from Deep River, Ontario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by small location" category, which have precedent to delete as too narrow to support collaboration. City has a population of only 4216. See here and here for precedent. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While that is true, a surprisingly educated, creative, and productive, group of people have either been born or passed through this small northern town, going on to contribute to many different fields making remarkable improvements to society. This makes Deep River, ON an exceptional place.l santry (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you, L. Santry, are communicating with elitists. See my claims above. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely don't understand your comment "are communicating with elitists". I am merely stating that per capita there are more nuclear physicists, chemists, mathematicians, . . . . scientists than any other city, town, hamlet etc. It is due to Deep River being a one horse town. Most people work, or worked, for Atomic Energy of Canada at the Chalk River Laboratories or in some business that accommodates the plant or people that work there <shrug>.
The argument given you by VegaDark, that your town (Deep River Ontario) is unworthy of distinction vis-à-vis a Wikipedian category, is an elitist position. How is this notion difficult to follow? William R. Buckley (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing elitist about a standard policy against creating single-entry categories. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the end result that defines elitism, not the justification. William R. Buckley (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no, it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another anonymous editor! Well, Bearcat, how do you define elitism? William R. Buckley (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They start off with one user, and grow with time. William R. Buckley (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it can be created when there are enough users from Deep River to warrant it. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
again, not trying to be dense, but by using the elitist argument then Berkley or MIT would be too small to be considered important and also should be deleted (???!) They are small but no one would argue their important contributions to society.l santry (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC) p.s.<size doesn't matter>[reply]
It's not the size of the place that's the issue — it's the fact that there's only one page in the actual category. If there were 10 people in the category, it would be fine even if the place had a total population of 11. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well then, how about waiting a month to see if other people find the template, if by then if other people haven't found it and are linked to it, then consider deleting it??l santry (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point, though I would expect to have more lead time to finding additional personnel; say six months. It is ridiculous to expect that any category would find initial creation with, as suggested by Bearcat, ten like minded Wikipedians. William R. Buckley (talk) 16:03, 7 May 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.
More