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, added to WP:CFDWM for manual work. Kbdank71 14:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Nutritional skin diseases to Category:Nutrition-related skin conditions
Nominator's rationale:Rename. (see below) I started the WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the "Nutritional skin diseases" category should probably be renamed to "Nutrition-related skin conditions" as the conditions being included are not inherent diseases of the skin, but, rather, cutaneous manifestation of underlying nutritional deficiencies (see List_of_skin-related_conditions#Nutrition-related for a listing of all the conditions considered part of this category) kilbad (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I want to salute Kilbad for all the work he's putting into this area. However, I've just spent the last half-hour taking a close look at Category:Nutritional skin diseases and its parents, Category:Cutaneous conditions and Category:Malnutrition, and I reached the conclusion that this category is unwise and unnecessary. The great majority of its contents are articles (and redirects) about a wide array of nutritional deficiencies which happen to lead to a variety of skin conditions. The problem is that those nutritional deficiencies also cause a whole array of other problems. The skin conditions are just one of the many signs and symptoms associated with those deficiencies -- and only rarely is the skin condition the foremost issue that presents.
I do not think it is wise to start down the path of categorizing nutritional deficiencies on the basis of each of the signs and symptoms they're associated with. That fundamentally inverts the proper functioning of our categories. We have soundly rejected that approach when it comes to performer by performance categories, largely because of the level of category clutter it leads to. In this case, the specified deficiency is the performer and the sign or symptom is the performance.
Ah, almost forgot. It seems to me that what would make much better sense for this subject would be a list article (or a chart) of skin conditions and the nutritional deficiencies that cause them. I think that would actually be much more useful to readers. Cgingold (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After reading your response, Cgingold, I think you have made some points I had not considered before; and therefore would also support deletion at this time of Category:Nutritional skin diseases. However, I disagree that Category:Endocrine-related skin conditions should be removed as there are several actual skin conditions in that category. kilbad (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to learn that you found my explanation persuasive. It would be a good idea for you to use "strike-thru" on the word "Rename" in your nomination, and bolding around the words "support deletion" so that other readers (and the closing admin) are absolutely clear about your change of mind here. Cgingold (talk) 20:28, 22 February 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:Competitors at the FIS Junior Ski Jumping World Championships 2009
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 14:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Competitors at the FIS Junior Ski Jumping World Championships 2009 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Clear case of overcategorization. Junior championships are not that notable anyway. Punkmorten (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sportsperson by competition overcategorization. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:42, 26 February 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:Master Chu and the Drunkard Hu
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 14:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small eponymous category with no immediate prospects of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:List of Sustainable buildings by country
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:relisted on 26th. Kbdank71 14:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This case is a bit complicated. Do we want to categorize actual buildings and structures by whether they are considered sustainable?
If "no", then delete this category and its subcategories.
If "yes", then do we want to place articles about said buildings and structures into categories specifically for buildings and structures or more general categories about sustainable building in a country
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:Over 6'3" (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.
Nominator's rationale:Overcategorization – Arbitrary inclusion criterion. Height is not a suitable basis for categorization due to the fact that terms such as "tall" and "short" ultimately have no objective definition and any specific cutoff (such as 6'3") is bound to be arbitrary. –Black Falcon(Talk) 21:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a fine example of an arbitrary inclusion criterion. Occuli (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete truly arbitrary. Maralia (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only arbitrary, but not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 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:Scientists with Yorkshire connections
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Much too vague and inclusive; we already have Category:People from Yorkshire for people who were born or lived a long time in Yorkshire. –Black Falcon(Talk) 21:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I expect most people could claim a Yorkshire connection - I have an aunt who visited Filey in the 1950s, although admittedly it would be difficult to find a verifiable source for this. Occuli (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about eating Yorkshire pudding twice a week? Or would it have to be every day? Cgingold (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yorkshire connections (telephone connections, drug connections, maybe Scientist of Yorkshire descent?) nope. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WE might have had "scientists from Yorkshire", which would be a tighter category, but the category does not seem to be big enough to require disambiguation by occupation (except cricketers - which is no doubt for those playing for the county team, hence a special case).
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename to Category:Post-World War II synagogue architecture. There was no consensus to delete, but there is agreement that the current name is poor. As for "contemporary" vs "post WWII", the latter is very specific, there is no guessing what it means, whereas Contemporary is subjective. Kbdank71 14:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is essentially a category for synagogues designed after World War II by architects who meet Wikipedia's notability standards. As such, it is self-referential (one of the inclusion criteria for the category is based on Wikipedia's definition of "notability") and rather arbitrary. Also, the mere fact that the architect for a synagogue is notable does not make the synagogue itself "architecturally notable". All of the articles are already in one of the subcats of Category:Synagogues by country, so there is no need to upmerge. –Black Falcon(Talk) 20:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We probably have articles on synagogues that are housed in unremarkable buildings but that are nevertheless notable as religious organizations. But I agree that this category can only be arbitrary and POV. Postdlf (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Contemporary synagogue architecture or at least upmerge to Category:Synagogue architecture. We have several other sub-categories of that by style: Art deco, Romanesque revival etc. Why not contemporary? Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Category:Contemporary architecture, and is that really the defining style of the included synagogues, or does "contemporary" here just mean "recent"? Postdlf (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given by nominator. "Synagogue designed by a notable architect = architecturally notably synagogue" is a non-sequitur. "Contemporary" is arbitrarily set as meaning post-WWII. Personally, I wouldn't call something designed in 1946 as being particularly "contemporary" now that more than 60 years have passed, though I suppose that when synagogues are concerned, some might consider a 60-year-old one to be quite new. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The current name for this category is obviously untenable; the question is whether or not there's a valid category that just needs a better name and/or inclusion criteria. All of the other sub-cats of Category:Synagogue architecture are on the basis of particular architectural styles, which are loosely linked to different periods. While it's true that we avoid categories with purely arbitrary periods, I think perhaps in this case it might actually make sense to have a category for post-WWII synagogues, i.e. post-Holocaust synagogues, since that is such a stark dividing line in Jewish history. Perhaps [[:Category:]]. Cgingold (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be better than the present name, or deletion. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most Wikipedia articles about synagogues deal with historic buildings. Not unreasonable; Jews have been building synagogues for well over 2,000 years, so there are alot of old ones lying around. The oldest ones are categorized on Wikipedia by era in Category:Ancient synagogues although the ancient synagogues are a motley assortment of styles. Obvously, many synagogues with Wikipedia pages are notable for non-architectural reasons. Nevertheless, synagogues with interesting architectue are categorized as such in categories such as Category: Baroque synagogues. Postdlf is correct that manypost-war synagogues have Wikipedia pages because they are notable for non-architectural reasons, for example, Heichal ShlomoValley Beth Shalom770 Eastern ParkwayBelz Great Synagogue. The vast majority of post war synagogues are not archtiectually notable (true for the majority of churches as well.) I created the category to enable Wikipedia users interested in contemporary architecture to find examples of architecturally notable contemporary synagogues with.
Cgingold's point is well taken. WWII represents a break in synagogue architecture. Pre-war synagogues were built in historicist styles, whith some exceptions. Virtually no post war synagogues are built in any of the historicist styles. Interesting because Classical and even Gothic churches continued to be widely built whereas virtually all post-war synagogues were in contemporary styles. It seems useful to note that of these, a number were widely admired. Because a number of architecturally notable synagogues have been built in a range of contemporary styles - particularly in Germany, the U.S. and Israel - I continue to think that the category is useful. There are a large number of widely admires, recent synagogues that merit pages for virtuoso architecture, not, that is, because the congregation is notable, but because the building is.
Postdlf correctly points out that contemporary is not a style, it is a period. I am not sure what to do abotu this. It may be that as articles accumulate, there will be enough architecturally notable synagogues to merit a number of categories (as in the the historicist period there were significant numbers of neo-Gothic, Greek revival and neo-Romanesque synagogues.) I am not sure we have a large enough number of synagogues in any particular contemporary style. Yet I do think the category has utility.Historicist (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two different rename proposals have been put forward. Do you support either of them, or do you have another suggestion for renaming, since there's concensus that the current name is not suitable? Cgingold (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Johnbod's suggested Category:Contemporary synagogue architecture may be the best we can do. Problem is, there are not many synagogues in any one categorie such as Deconstructivist architecture or Postmodern architecture, and yet there are a number of notable contemporary synagogue buildings in a variety of contemporary styles.Historicist (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see below. Cgingold (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question is there a way to bring some editors who write on contemporary architecture into this discussion? I am more familiar with historical styles, and I think the discussion could use some expertise.Historicist (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and maybe simplify the name to category:contemporary synagogue architecture. It seems to me self-referential with the word "notable" in it, meaning it seems to be referring to Wikipedia:Notability. I get the feeling that categories for modern and contemporary synagogue architecture are going to be very helpful in organising Wikipedia a few years from now. When we have more articles and information, there is likely to be a need for category:mid-century modern synagogues or category:modern synagogue architecture for structures just before this category. de:Synagoge (Duisburg) would make a fine addition to this category when we have an article on it. DVD 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Duisburg: Not your grandfather's synagogueHistoricist (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I havn't seen Munich, although I have been in the new Dresden synagogue and its a wonderfully symbolic building, albeit unused and arguably unusable. (the active synagogue is in a residential neighborhood in renovated space within a fin de siecle apartment building. The new synagogues being built by Germans are certainly interesting. new synagogue at KarlsruheDVD is certainly correct that we will very likely someday have enough to collect by style, although this is rarely possible while an architectural movement is underway. part of the problem with this discussion is that there is NEVER a contemporary terminology in architecture that equates with the use of such terms and categories as Art Deco synagogues because such terms and categories of style are only agreed upon, and, usually, the terms are only coined, after an architectural movement ends.Historicist (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that "contemporary synagogue architecture" probably isn't well enough defined. That's why I suggested Category:Post-World War II synagogue architecture, which has the virtue of clarity and simplicity. And I just notice that Johnbod (who suggested the other option) also approves of it. Cgingold (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to have is a category in which to collect architecturally notable contemporary synagogues I will bow to the wisdom of those more familiar with wikipedia categories on the question of what to call it.Historicist (talk) 13:34, 24 February 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:Somalian footballers
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.
Merge per nom. TJRC (talk) 20:57, 20 February 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:Vigilante 8
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 14:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CLS. Everything is already in the navbox Template:Vigilante 8 series, and already crosslinked in the articles. There does not seem to be a current "need" for the category, and appears to be overcat, as the nom suggests. - jc37 06:29, 26 February 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:Fictional Afghans
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename to Category:Fictional Afghan people. There is no consensus on deletion; while more people wanted to keep based upon procedural grounds (which admittedly are weak reasons), Hiding put forth an amazingly strong argument to delete. On to the rename: As was discussed, Afghan is a dab, and can refer to any number of things (I found myself wondering about fictional blankets). And the keeps were keeping against deletion, not against renaming. Kbdank71 15:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was recently included in a group nomination at CFD 2009 February 14, which was closed with a "keep" outcome. After presenting a request to the closing admin, he agreed to allow the debate to be relisted due to a lack of substantial discussion in the original CFD. The full text of the request is here. Now, on to the deletion rationale:
The reasons to delete the categories are:
Nationality, even when it can be definitively established, is not necessarily defining for fictional characters. Although nationality can be defining for certain stock characters, for the majority of fictional characters, nationality is a trivial byproduct of setting. Characters of works of fiction set in Italy, Romania, and Sweden are likely to be Italian, Romanian, and Swedish by default.
The nationality of a character reflects a purely in-universe characteristic, whereas Wikipedia's focus is on out-of-universe factors. In the context of in-universe vs. out-of-universe, categorizing fictional characters by nationality is not significantly different from categorizing them by year of birth. In addition, the nationality of a character is a mutable characteristic that lies at its creator's whim and desire/ability for consistency.
Nationality is not necessarily comparable across fictional universes and forced comparisons (such as by categorization) may involve original research. Everything in a fictional universe is at the whim of its creator, up to and including laws of science and national labels. (The first law of thermodynamics doesn't fit into a particular plot line? Ignore it!) The nationality of a character exists solely within the context of the fictional universe in which that character appears; making unqualified comparisons across fictional universes treats the characteristic as being significantly more "real" than it actually is.
Precedent (CFD 2008 September 23). Precedent is not divine decree but it does matter at CFD; also see [1].
The arguments to keep the categories were:
Cleanup, not deletion: "only those entries that have sourced evidence in the articles should be included" – This was the most common argument, but also one that completely fails to address the main reasons for deletion. Sourcing issues are secondary to the problems identified above and, mostly, unrelated.
Establishing the nationality of a fictional character is not usually problematic – Past experience with these categories has shown that people often ascribe nationality to fictional characters based on location. If a character "lives" in Liverpool and most scenes with that character are set in Liverpool, then people automatically assume that the character is British. Though this may be an intuitive approach, it is effectively original research and there is really no way to guard against it.
Nationality is a defining characteristic for fictional characters – While this argument is directly related to the reasons for deletion, assertion != demonstration. No explanations or examples were given to support the assertion that nationality is defining for most fictional characters.
The deletion of Category:Fictional Americans was overturned – This is true but the deletion review (DRV 2008 October 24) was initiated specifically with a request to use the category as a parent category only and it was closed as such. The restoration of Category:Fictional Americans as a parent category (i.e. for organizational purposes only) has no real relevance to the retention or deletion of these categories.
The categories should not normally be applied to, for example, "British people in Britain described in a fictional work by a British author" – This is essentially an admission that nationality is not defining in those cases (i.e. most cases). In any case, categories are not suitable for this type of nuanced use for the simple reason that people generally do not adhere to unintuitive inclusion criteria.
Nationality of a fictional character can be very relevant as a group – This argument implies that we should use categories to suggest or reflect generalizations about steoretypes and stock characters. I fully support the idea that Wikipedia should have information about these topics, but categories are not suitable to this task. Categories are designed to group related articles for navigation; they are not a proper vehicle for capturing complex cultural and literary nuances.
These categories are useful as suggestive hints for research – Aside from the fact that this argument could be applied to any topic, such as categories for red haired kings, Wikipedia is not a suitable tool for suggestive research, much less suggestive research into something as complex as cultural stereotypes. If we want to help anyone with research, we should do it descriptively rather than suggestively; moreover, we should do so in articles or lists, where we can provide critical context and citations.
Ultimately, there is a general feeling that Wikipedia should contain information about the nationality of fictional characters. However, there is no clear rationale (yet) for using categories for this purpose instead of articles or lists. (Note, also, that only one sentence of all of the keep comments in the previous CFD addressed the idea of lists, and a request to clarify the meaning of that comment was not answered.) –Black Falcon(Talk) 20:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All per previous CFD. I really do not think it was appropriate to reopen this discussion so soon after the last CFD, which resoundingly supported retention of these categories. The request to reopen this discussion should have gone to DRV, like any other. Nothing wrong with revisiting the issue at a later date, but this is way too soon. The only thing I want to say beyond that is that we clearly have a fundamental philosphical difference over the issue of "in-universe" characteristics. I honestly don't know whether there is a way to bridge that and reach a new concensus in that regard. Perhaps in the future we will succeed, but for now I think this particular CFD should be closed out. Cgingold (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without discussion there can be no solid consensus. The last discussion saw a clear numerical majority in favor of retention, but it saw virtually no actual discussion of the reasons for deletion or the reasons for keeping. Aside from the brief thread between you and me, no other comment or point was actually discussed, no request for clarification was answered, and no questions were answered. As I wrote to the closer:
Consensus in deletion debates "is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy" (Deletion guidelines for administrators, Deletion policy). Although the CFD saw a numerical majority in favor of keeping the categories, it was characterized by a lack of actual discussion and a failure to counter the arguments for deletion. Only one response to a "keep" comment received a follow-up, a lengthy clarifying comment was not addressed at all (the only "keep" to follow it was a pure vote), and two requests to demonstrate how the arguments to keep apply to a specific example went unanswered.
It's one thing to just recognize that a difference exists, but it's something else entirely to identify and critically examine the factors that are responsible for this difference. As I wrote in my request to relist the discussion: I have no intention of pursuing this matter until a "delete" result is obtained; I just want there to be actual discussion of the reasons to delete and keep. –Black Falcon(Talk) 23:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the discussion fell short of what you were hoping for, BF, and I sympathize with your frustration. Trust me, I've been there. But I'd say the level of engagement in that CFD was par for the course, not notably different from what I've seen in hundreds of other CFDs which were not immediately relisted for another round of discussion. Cgingold (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, though most of the CFDs with >10 participants that I've seen have witnessed significantly more back-and-forth discussion. My goal in getting this debate relisted was just to have the issue discussed, and I really have no preference whether such a discussion takes place at CFD or on some talk page. I just picked CFD because I thought it would get more traffic than a talk page and I didn't want to take it to DRV because the focus there is entirely on procedure, whereas I'm hoping for a discussion about content. If you really feel strongly about it, I'm perfectly content to move the discussion to some talk page and let this debate proceed as a renaming nomination (see my reply to Occuli below). –Black Falcon(Talk) 06:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional Afghanistanis. While I feel this category should probably be kept rather than deleted, , Afghan is a dab page, and to many people will firstly mean the breed of hound, not the people. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's something I hadn't thought of! LOL - We've had multiple CFDs over "Afghan" vs. "Afghanistani" in category names, and the issue has been settled, in favor of "Afghan". But I suppose an exception might be called for in this case, since this particular category name is also seen outside the context of human geography. Cgingold (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that this has been brought up, perhaps we should entertain the idea of renaming to Category:Fictional Afghan people (for consistency with the parent category) if there is no consensus to delete. –Black Falcon(Talk) 06:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely support that. Cgingold (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All per previous very recent CFD ... I am not at all convinced by the 'delete' argument and believe it is sufficient to state this (and not give the detailed rejoinder that Black Falcon seeks). One can't 'win' a cfd by devoting many person-hours to it and discounting all those who lack the time and inclination to do likewise. (I do note that Otto says 'keep' and that Otto and Cgingold agree, a fearsome and compelling alliance. And I have never followed the 'in-universe' argument.) Occuli (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus in deletion debates is reached through discussion; merely expressing a difference of opinion without explaining it amounts to simple voting. If you are not convinced by the 'delete' argument, I've no intention of forcing my opinion on you (nor could I do so); however, you could at least explain why you are not convinced. After all, a meaningful discussion can't take place without an exchange of reasons. As for the list in my nomination, please note that I made no attempt to discount any editor but rather focused solely on the arguments presented. –Black Falcon(Talk) 06:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it is restricted to citizens of Afghanistan or renamed appropriately somehow for the dog. Fictional race/ethnicity categories are trivial and ultimately unverifiable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and all the rest. Afghanistan measn something like the home of the Afghans. Afghans is the correct noun for its citizens (and expatriates). On the general point, any natioanl category should only be applied if natioanlisty is notable. For Swedes (not Swedenians!) in a book set in Sweden, nationality was not be notable (being commonplace), but for a Greek in it, nationality might be. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close - While the nominator may feel distressed at the level of discussion and "back and forth" in the last CFD, that distress is not reason enough to start up another CFD immediately following the close of that one. Consensus was in favor of keeping the categories and there is no evidence that consensus has shifted so dramatically so quickly. This CFD borders on abuse of process and the admin who gave the go-ahead for it ought to step in here and rectify the error by shutting this CFD down. Otto4711 (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all both on procedural grounds and the merits of the case. I didn't comment last time, btw. While I recognise the difficulties, & categorizing in these categories should err on the side of caution, I'm not convinced by the deletion arguments. In particular, the idea that a character sufficiently notable to have an article might have an undisclosed secret nationality not mentioned in the fiction seems to rather miss the point of fiction. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete all. I actually think that categorising fictional things like this misses the point of fiction a hell of a lot more, and also misses the point of categories, too. Procedural grounds aside, and per policy procedural grounds should always be put aside, there isn't much meat to the argument to keep. I mean, to toss out a few thoughts, when you think about it, fictional Afghans aren't by definition Afghans. They aren't typically linked by all being depicted as being from Afghanistan. They don't typically advance any understanding of Afghanistan culture beyond what the work itself does, and they don't typically represent the same Afghanistan. The arguments for keep seem to be that because we can make a category like this, it means we are allowed to. And that's a flawed understanding of how categories work on Wikipedia. Let me put the argument for delete very clearly and very strongly. The utility for this category is supposedly that it allows people to navigate to similar articles quickly. This isn't the case, because the articles we are discussing here aren't actually similar enough to allow a category to relay that similarity in a nutshell, the way a category should. The category structure was requested to allow unequivocal classifications. If you had to explain the commonality of each entry, you were better off doing it in a list. And these entries are essentially better off listified, so that their commonality can be delineated within the grouping. A reader shouldn't be made to read every single article in the category to understand why every single article has been categorised in there, and that's the issue with these categories. Categorisations by fictive elements are not clear cut by their very definition, by their very fictive quality. They are all made up. And therefore, the way to group fictional elements which share commonalities, is in a list. So that each entry can be clarified within the list in a way it cannot in a category, so that all the information that pertains to the very grouping itself is presented to the reader in one place. That's the right way to do this. Lists allow the reason for the grouping to be explained, to ensure we aren't just doing this because we can and we aren't just sweeping OR under the carpet. Lists allow the entries to be recorded in a page's history, which a category cannot, meaning it is less likely a list's content can be altered and allowing the people creating this grouping better control over the grouping. Lists allow red links, and unlinked entries, lists allow a far greater potential to discuss these groupings in an encyclopedic way, the way a category cannot. Lists fulfill the remit of Wikipedia for this type of information in a way categories cannot. Lists allow us to explain distinctions in a way categories cannot. Lists can elucidate why and how a character depicts a nationality far better than a category can. Lists are more informative, more educational and more encyclopedic when it comes to fictional elements. The only disadvantage a list has is making sure all articles link to it. I'm almost positive a bot could surmount that minor detail. These categories should be deleted, because the material these categories present is not best suited for categorisation, because it is not always obvious why the article was put in the category, the category subject is not always prominently discussed in the article and the categories do not fit into the overall system. These groupings do not meet our guidance on what makes a good category. HidingT 12:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think i went for keep last time (with trimming to only sourced entries), but i am convinced by the arguement that assigning nationality to fictional characters is trivial, and usually a case of OR.YobMod 15:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the argument that determining a fictional character's nationality is usually original research. If an author gives a nationality for the character, then how is it OR to categorize? Otto4711 (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a big "if", and not always as clear-cut as you suggest. If a character is encountered in Afghanistan, should we presume that that character is therefore an Afghan? - jc37 06:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete - User:Hiding said it well enough. - jc37 06:27, 26 February 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:Project-specific Welcome templates
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 14:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that this is for templates specific to WikiProjects and not to Wikipedia's sister projects. –Black Falcon(Talk) 19:58, 20 February 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:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict
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. Kbdank71 15:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As creator, I have no strong feelings either way but can explain my rationale for the wording as was. We had (and continue to have) people argue that the "Troubles" is defined by specific dates, and thus someone jailed outside those specific dates should not be included. The conflict extended before and continued after these dates (albeit at a lower level). "Ulster" and "Irish" was left off so not to imply the nationality of the person. There are Republicans in that cat who are not Irish and loyalists who are not from Ulster. Rockpocket 02:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that explanation; it really helps to clarify why the categories were named as they were. With regard to the first change, I suppose that the question becomes whether we want to limit the category to the 1966/1969–1998 period. I think doing so may be a good idea since "the Northern Ireland conflict" technically could include the entire period from 1921 (perhaps earlier) to the present, depending on one's definition. With regard to the second and third changes, I don't think "Ulster" and "Irish" imply nationality in this case, but rather describe the ideology. After all, while both loyalism and republicanism are both (broad) ideologies, these categories are specifically for those who followed Ulster loyalism and Irish republicanism. –Black Falcon(Talk) 06:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that reasoning. I'm ambivalent, really, and have no objection to your suggestions. Rockpocket 08:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename A brief look at the contents of one category shows this proposed rename to be incorrect. Gerry Adams Sr. was not imprisoned during the Troubles, neither was Brendan Behan. The category contains people imprisoned before the Troubles, hence "Northern Ireland conflict" in this case is not a synonym for "the Troubles", but an all-encompassing term that applies to any imprisonment relating to the political situation in Northern Ireland. O Fenian (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland Troubles; Category:Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland Troubles; and Category:Loyalists imprisoned during the Northern Ireland Troubles. The words "Irish" and "Ulster" are redundant. This is thus a briefer form of the name. Neutral between "during" and "due to". I do not think that Charles Manson was either a Republican or a Loyalist in the Irish sense. Members of the US Republican party (or others) can be excluded by providing a short headnote making it clear that the category only relates to Irish Republicans. I do not recall that any of the IRA's American supporters om USA were imprisoned for their attempts to subvery the UK state, so that I do not think there is a complicationto be avoided. This reminds me of the discussion of conservatives a few weeks back. If there are people in the category who were not imprisoned, they should be purged from the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Manson would not be either a republican nor a loyalist, just at the top level imprisioned "during" The Troubles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What category do you propose putting Gerry Adams Sr., Brendan Behan and anyone else (I only checked up to B) who wasn't imprisoned during the Troubles, which does not have an agreed start or end date either? Shouldn't people who were imprisoned for the exact same reasons be categorised together? O Fenian (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot define the start of the troubles, perhaps the probelm disappears. In suggesting a purge, I was merely implying that any persons who did not belong in the category should not be in it. I think O Fenian is perhaps chosing too restrictive a definition of the Troubles. I am an Englishman and not an expert on northern Irish politics, and thus take no particular view as to the breadth of the category chonologically. The suggested target just seems unduly complicated. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There currently is no problem about who goes in the category and who does not. If you rename it, you need to remove a large number of people from it and, ideally, put them in similar, yet differently named, categories. Therefore it is prudent for anyone wishing to rename the existing category to be able to say what categories are going to be used and what they will be called, you would agree? The proposed rename is based on the assumption that "Northern Ireland conflict" in the name of the categories refers to "the Troubles" when it does not, but it does include "the Troubles". O Fenian (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Rename As O Fenian stated people should be categorised together the NI conflict doesn't refer to The Troubles but has a much broader scope. BigDuncTalk 13:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Rename The logical and reasonable observations of both O Fenian and BigDunc suggest some more though would need to go into into it. --Domer48'fenian' 17:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why don't we create a child category of the "Northern Ireland conflict category" called "Category:People imprisoned during The Troubles (Northern Ireland)", if it is really deemed necessary? O Fenian (talk) 14:29, 26 February 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:Off-grid renewable energy
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 14:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose to merge. This category is underpopulated containing only one article, and most likely there will be no other articles in this category. At the same time, it has only one parent directory, which is Category:Renewable energy. Beagel (talk) 18:42, 20 February 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:Renewable energy economics
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 14:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is very hard to draw the line between these categories. At this time Category:Renewable-energy economy is underpopulated. "Economy" seems more precise than "economics" Beagel (talk) 18:23, 20 February 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:Fashion muses
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 14:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC. Non-defining; inclusion is too subjective/arbitrary; term is also rather vague - the subject simply inspired a designer? Is that category material? Doesn't seem very encyclopedic (the term has no Wiki article) and such a claim borders on a POV assessment in the same sense as dubbing someone a "supermodel." Mbinebritalk ← 17:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-defining and purely subjective, as evidenced by the inclusion of Michelle Obama, who is a "fashion muse" only by leading hundreds of thousands of Americans to muse that her fashion sense is truly tragic. Otto4711 (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk, tsk... So cruel! I didn't realize that Mr. Blackwell had passed the baton before he passed on to that great fashion runway in the sky. Cgingold (talk) 02:20, 23 February 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:Wikipedia bots
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:support, will notify WP:BON. Kbdank71 14:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Reform Reform of this category is definitely required in my mind. So complete is the transformation, in fact, that it would be impractical to write out all the various changes by hand. I have, however, compiled a grand plan which should demonstrate all that needs doing. Underneath that is a community discussion about the proposed changes: all comments (as of 16:00 GMT, 2009-02-20) are positive. - Jarry1250(t, c) 16:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has just occurred to me that it might be best if the actual renaming (etc.) was handled by the community, though all the appropriate tags are in place anyway, so it shouldn't be too difficult. - Jarry1250(t, c) 19:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this well-thought out plan for standardization. –xeno (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well thought out, Jarry. Looks like an excellent and much-needed improvement. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better organization would certainly be helpful. Anomie⚔ 12:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with modifications. 1) I don't see much point for the whole Wikipedia bots by purpose. This is best served by a list such as Wikipedia:Bots/Status. Most functions are conducted only by a few bots. This seems like a prime example of Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth. 2) Perlwikipedia's latest release has resulted in it being renamed to MediaWiki::Bot. The category name should match. Also, this should probably be a subcategory of Wikipedia bots by framework which would also include subcategories for the other popular frameworks (AWB, pywikipediabot, others?). 3) Instead of subcategories to Wikipedia bots with source code published, it might be better to have that without subcategories and then have a category of Wikipedia bots by language with subcategories. I can think of rationale for both ways so that last one is not a strong recommendation. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I know where you're coming from for all your points. My own views would be: 1) Disagree. The problem is that they are currently underpopulated; the simplification may encourage adding bots to those categories. Further expansion his would be achieved through similar reforms of the templates available to bot owners. I believe the top five purpose categories would - once inactive bots are added in - have 40+ members each. Personally, I think Wikipedia:Bots/Status and predecessors are doomed to be forever out of date as they cannot be altered automatically from user pages, unlike categories (via templates). I think another reason for having categories over lists is that categories are much less vague. If I wanted a newsletter delivered, I would be able to quickly pick out bot owners who may be able to help from a category; a list may contain any number of synonyms. 2) Has it? News to me (I don't do perl). Yes, it should be renamed. Wikipedia bots by framework is also a very good idea, if it can be turned into reality. 3) I think it's best as-is: the original idea behind the category is to list available source codes; though cat scan and other toolserver tools mean I don't mind one way or t'other. - Jarry1250(t, c) 17:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) If you include inactive bots, then you defeat the purpose you describe. If you want a newsletter delivered, you are going to want to know the active bots and not wade through the inactive bots that are off no help. I'm not sure what you consider the top five purpose categories, but of the ones listed, there are no where near 40 bots (including inactives). There is only a handful of active ones in most of those. Transwiki bots (which isn't a listed subcategory) would be the only ones that get to that amount. I think the idea that people will be more likely to update categories on their bot's user page than to update a list is pure hope. However, you can always try it & see how it goes. It can always be updated later. It won't be any worse than the current categories.
3) However, if I want help by language, I'm just as likely to want to ask someone who hasn't published their source code. As I said, I can rationalize both ways.
I hate it when people out-logic me. Hmm... [pauses] Okay, I'm reconciled to the fact that they probably should go - especially with the prominence of WP:BOTREQ anyway. That does, of course, leave the question of what to do with the status page - though I'm sure that can be sorted out. We'll see what people have to see about deleting the purpose categories (ditto 3), but I now agree they should go. - Jarry1250(t, c) 18:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Category:Wikipedia bots with source code published, I'd be much more likely to try to find examples than to go around asking people, so I would find that category much more helpful than a category containing both open- and closed-source bots. If I were to ask people, I'd probably just ask generally on WP:BON or #wikipedia-BAG unless I had a prior history of discussion with someone in particular to ask. Of course, I'm more likely to be the answerer than the asker these days... Anomie⚔ 18:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - More logical organisation = good, and this system is certainly better than the one we have currently. Richard0612 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sounds like a great idea. A couple thoughts however... For one, I think that only active bots should be subcategorised by purpose or by information about the bots (most of the last section). So by default, you can just drop "by status", and "active". (We merely would need to make that very clear on the category pages.) It should be this way merely to save people time trying to figure out who is active or not in the subcats. "Inactive bots" should stay for reverse purposes. Rather than waste time trying to figure out if a bot is active or not, one could find out rather quickly by looking at that category. I think that this is probably a good exception to the typical rule of "categorise by what you are rather than what you are not". - jc37 06:49, 26 February 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:Trademark trolls
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:administrative close; category was speedily deleted per creator's request. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Hopelessly POV categeory. "Trademark troll" is a poorly defined term, verging on being a neologism. In a similar manner as with the term patent troll it is used generally to attack people. This category provides an easy and unecessary way for POV and attacks on people and organisations without reliable sourcing. GDallimore (Talk) 10:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's why it's defined as "Trademark trolls are notable entities who have verifiably attempted to use trademark(s) to seize a mark that was already in widespread use or who have applied for trademark(s) without establishing an intent to use and invest in them.", per the paper cited in the article. There's nothing POV about that - either they have, or they haven't. I do note however that there is no Category:Patent trolls and that it could well be abused so I'll leave it to the CfD experts to decide what to do. Thanks for the feedback. -- samjinout 15:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Any number of categories of this general sort -- ranging from Category:Pedophiles to Category:War criminals -- have been deleted because they raise serious POV and WP:BLP issues, and are susceptible to misuse. We have moved very much in the direction of replacing categories like that with categories for people who have been convicted of particular crimes, since that draws a bright line based on clear, objectively-defined, verifiable facts. If "Trademark trolls" are to be discussed, it should only be within the context of an article, along with attributed quotes and citations. Cgingold (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think it's a POV problem if properly limited. The problem is, Leo Stoller is really the only article that qualifies, outside of the Trademark troll article itself. Currently, the category also includes: Dell, but that inclusion is not supported by anything in the article (and I'm going to remove the category from Dell because of that); and Psion Teklogix, based on what reads to me to be a mixture of opinion and WP:OR. Stoller is the epitome of the trademark troll, but as far as I know, he's pretty much in a class by himself. Unless there are other "notable entities who have verifiably attempted to use trademark(s) to seize a mark that was already in widespread use or who have applied for trademark(s) without establishing an intent to use and invest in them," this is a pretty useless category. TJRC (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with your removal of the category from certain articles, although I was going to wait until the outcome of this discussion before doing so. I would say, however, that the other members of that category WERE mentioned in the troll article as being trolls, but I edited the article to remove them since only unreliable sources were being used. To me, that shows why it's a POV nightmare and I perhaps should have highlighted the edit history for the article. GDallimore (Talk) 23:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I note that there appears to be no Category:Patent trolls category, despite the fact that the term "troll" was used for Patent trolls long before it was extended to Trademark trolls; and the fact that there are a lot more patent trolls out there than the singular Mr. Stoller. TJRC (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CSD-A7 tag added to the article, per feedback received above. -- samjinout 22:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The An series of CSD criteria is limited to speedies of pages in the Article namespace. G1-G12 (General) and C1-C2 are applicable to pages in the Category namespace. TJRC (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, CSD-G7 it is then. -- samjinout 16:13, 21 February 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:Judea and Samaria
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Fist of all, Judea and Samaria are biblical names which are used to describe the northern and southern West Bank respectively. Judea and Samaria is not, contrary to what the article claims, a District of Israel (to quote the latter: "The Judea and Samaria Area, however, is not included, since Israel has not fully applied its jurisdiction there."). The use of these names is neither recognised nor common outside of Israel. Secondly, the terminology is used almost uniquely by settlers and annexationalists and is considered offensive to Palestinians (see Israeli settlement#Terminology and Talk:Samaria/Discussion of sources for sources). In a nutshell, it seems somewhat WP:POVish to use the occupier's names for regions which they are occupying, especially if these names are not widely known or used by the rest of the world. pedrito - talk - 20.02.2009 10:39 10:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this category. First, the category is not "Judea" , nor is it "Samaria", so it is irrelevant what those articles describe. Judea and Samaria is the official name of that district, which is administered by the Israeli government, even though it has not been annexed to Israel. The use of the name is quite common, and most certainly not limited to "settlers and annexationalists". Sceond, we commonly use whatever name the controlling power uses - see for example Category: Northern Cyprus, Category:Tibet Autonomous Region, Category:Western Sahara etc... Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. We commonly use the most common term used in English, which would surely prove to be "West Bank". This might be renamed something along the lines of Category:Israeli presence in the West Bank perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'd need a Category:Palestinian presence in the West Bank, Category:Jordanian presence in the West Bank and a few others of historical import. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the category in question doesn't contain anything that would fit in your new suggested categories Category:Palestinian presence in the West Bank and Category:Jordanian presence in the West Bank, I don't see the relevance of that objection. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per precedent; where de jure and de facto jurisdictions collide or overlap, we categorize both - e.g., Category:Nagorno-Karabakh, Category:Karafuto, and Category:Northern Cyprus, none of which is any defined territorial division of its de jure government (Azerbaijan, Russia, and Cyprus, respectively). I notice that what is categorized here seem to be only Israeli institutions, etc., located in the area and is not being used as a general geographic category along the lines of the first of two of the three examples in the main, and also other similar categories: Category:Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Category:Kurdistan, Category:Biafra, Category:Confederate States of America, Category:Tamil Eelam, and no doubt others. The article Tamil Eelam even says that the name is not universal and does convey a "side" in the conflict, but again, non-Tamil places are not in that category, either - perhaps the closest of all the analogies, but seems to be a valid cat like the one under discussion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CM and Carlos; this is not a POV fork of Category:West Bank. The category contains Israeli governmental entities, so it makes sense to use the Israeli government's names.-choster (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sound and persuasive analysis of Carlossuarez. (Ain't it great to agree on something!) Cgingold (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-defined area and a defining means of grouping articles. The issue of de jure recognition is not relevant. Alansohn (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If "Judea and Samaria" and "West Bank" are alternative names for the same entity, what exactly is the point of having two categories for the same thing? If everything in the J&S category is in the West Bank category, is there not redundancy? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ChrisO, Johnbod and Pedrito. Classic POV fork since it seems to contain only places and regional councils more properly described as being located in the West Bank. What the area is called in Israel is irrelevant to English Wikipedia (per WP:NCGN) — we don't have a separate category named "Germania" merely because Germany happens to be called that in Israel. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"more properly described"? Is there a place to go to determine what is "proper" or is that a bit of WP:OR? Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it makes sense to have two articles for the same area if they are essentially two different political entities. On a sidenote, the Germania comparison is so stupid people should vote the opposite of meteormaker simply out of spite.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The silliness of using a foreign nationality-specific name category in English-language Wikipedia was what I wanted to highlight, so at least half the point hit home. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Canadian Monkey and Carlos and Alansohn. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn and others. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would the proponents of this category also accept a Category:Zionist entity which would contain Palestinian villages (existent and destroyed) inside Israel? Just out of curiosity and reciprocity... pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 08:12
Keep - Judea and Samaria is the official name of a district of the state of Israel. It is used by the Israeli government and Jewish public at large. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though it should be noted that it is not in Israel proper. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:11, 25 February 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:Texas music
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename to Category:Texas country music for consistency other country music categories and other texas music categories. I'm unsure why Texas Country is capitalized the way it is. I checked the references for the article, and the only one that even mentions "Texas country" uses a lowercase "C". It's also an opinion piece, so we would probably have no problems renaming the article. Kbdank71 15:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Texas music to Category:Texas Country music
Rename (and move article) per Rklear. Cgingold (talk) 23:17, 21 February 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:WikiProject 24 pages
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 14:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject 24 articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction
Not neeeded and unused pages. BW21.--BlackWatch21 05:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from WP:UCFD. First category deleted per CSD G8 (category populated by a deleted template). –Black Falcon(Talk) 05:46, 20 February 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:People of mixed Latino/Hispanic-European Ethnicity
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.
Category:People of mixed Latino/Hispanic-European Ethnicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete many Latino/Hispanic people are already of European descent Mayumashu (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (1) poorly formulated; (2) overcategorization by mixed racial/ethnic/regional affiliation; (3) unclear inclusion criteria (see the number of definitions offered at Latino alone); (4) redundant to existing non-mixed categories. –Black Falcon(Talk) 05:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i concur with all rationale above by black falcon--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary race/ethnic category, whatever it means. And the whatever it means is endemic to all these ethnic/race categories: how Fooish must one be to get categorized here - and we've kept through no consensus the Category:English people of German descent, with some people pointing out that English people whose German descent dates from the German invasions of the 5th through 9th centuries are excluded and others not buying that, but many of the people so categorized in these categories are hundreds of years removed from their hyphenatedness or ancestry, but the race categorizers here like Johann Friedrich Blumenbach are more keen on keeping track of every little bloodline so that we mixeth not the races (as God hath forbade, according to some: see Loving v. Virginia). I shall continue to tilt at these windmills, as necessary until WP moves into a 21st century mindset on racialism. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have "booian people of fooian descent", almost always in that form. If a person is of mixed Spanish and Colombian descent, he/she should categorised as of Spanish descent AND Colombian descent. This is a vague category, which should always be replaced by a specific one; I think it would only in fact be used for some one who or whose ancestors migrated. It is far too vague to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 22 February 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:Widows
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.Erik9 (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: DeleteDelete, The category is described as follows: "Category for people famous for being widows, such as those of people who were assassinated or who died in war or on exploration expeditions." I'll assume that "famous" is a synonym for "notable", but alas notability is not inherited no one is "notable" for being the widow of a notable husband. Given that most married women are destined, statistically, to be widows there is no reason to suppose that most bios of married females at WP will eventually clog this cat. Not useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Clearly we don't want this category to be used for anybody who just happens to be a widow. At the same time, there truly are individuals who came to public attention and prominence as a direct result of their status as a widow-- for example, Corazon Aquino and Beverly Eckert. Perhaps the issue that should be addressed, then, is appropriate inclusion criteria that would restrict the category to such individuals. Cgingold (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or listify if anyone is willing to work on it (i.e. add context, sources, formatting). The category is not useful due to its excessively broad scope, which basically extends to all (married) women who outlive their husbands. Any attempt to introduce nuanced inclusion requirements will make the category unintuitive and, thereby, inferior to an equivalent list. (I don't think we can assume that people generally read category descriptions before adding articles to said categories, especially when the category title is as unambiguous (at least at first glance) as Category:Widows.) –Black Falcon(Talk) 05:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the women listed were notable for being wives before they were famous for being widows; how could we draw a hard disinction between fame from widowhood and fame from marriage? And even though fame from marriage alone can be fairly clearly established in some cases (think Larry Fortensky or Kevin Federline), no one's racing to create Category:Spouses either.-choster (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not a defining characteristic. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:54, 20 February 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.
