< October 19 October 21 >

October 20

Category:Climate change skeptics

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep but fix. As closer I will only remove the template etc, and leave it to others to remedy the problems. – Fayenatic London 12:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The cat claims List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming as main and base of the definition, using however the interesting notion of Several of these individuals are included in List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. The definition and use of the category is insofar neither applicable, nor comprehensive nor along basic WP policy rules. WP:COP, WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:BLPCAT are not being followed. The underlying article does exclude a large part of the people in the category (especially non-climate-scientists and politicians) and contradicts Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Consider_making_a_list by the use of the category itself. WP:Coatrack applies. Btw, it may not be deemed a WP:Navigational list, as it is not a mainspace feature. Serten (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of this category[edit]

Serten, NewsAndEventsGuy: I have been looking at all Wikipedia articles of the notable people currently in this category, and am one-third complete (more to come). Immediately below are those currently in this category whose public skepticism on the mainstream assessment of climate change appears to have been sufficiently noted in reliable secondary sources, sorted by their profession:

Claude Allègre (geochemist and politician), Timothy Ball (professor of geography), Robert Balling (professor of geography), Sallie Baliunas (astrophysicist), Robert M. Carter, (geologist and palaeontologist), John Christy (atmospheric scientist), Petr Chylek (atmospheric scientist and researcher), Chris de Freitas (professor of climatology), David Douglass (professor of physics), Don Easterbrook (professor of geology), Ivar Giaever (physicist and Nobel Prize winner), Fritz Vahrenholt (chemist and politician)

Joe Bastardi (meteorologist), David Bellamy (botanist), Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (professor of geography)

Michele Bachmann (U.S. House of Representatives), Maxime Bernier (Canadian Minister of State), Marsha Blackburn (U.S. House of Representatives), Paul Broun (U.S. House of Representatives), Douglas Carswell (U.K. Member of Parliament), Nigel Farage (U.K. party leader)

Joseph Bast (think tank founder), Glenn Beck (commentator), Christopher Booker (journalist and news magazine founder), John Coleman (weathercaster and Weather Channel founder), Piers Corbyn (weathercaster and WeatherAction founder), Ann Coulter (commentator [note: secondary sources on her skepticism of climate change exist and need to be added to her article]), James Delingpole (journalist), Myron Ebell (think tank director), David Evans (mathematician, engineer, think tank member), Ray Evans (think tank founder)

Immediately below are those currently in this category who do not have reliable secondary sources noting their skepticism:

I believe the following is starting to emerge: (1) Consensus is favoring opposition to this proposed category deletion. (2) The notable people in this category have reliable, secondary sources stating their climate change skepticism, even if not all are scientists appearing in the above list article. (3) If any are found to not have these reliable sources, they should be removed from the category. (4) The above list article may have been somehow linked to this category at one point, but today that article is increasingly irrelevant to the contents of this category. (5) If reliable sources for inclusion are being followed, there is no issue with WP:COP, WP:LISTPEOPLE or WP:BLPCAT.

Note: Recently, Category:Climate change denial was merged into Category:Climate change skepticism, which was a fine idea. Category:Climate change skepticism does not contain any people. This category under discussion, Category:Climate change skeptics, contains only people and is a subcategory of Category:Climate change skepticism, which is good structure.

Thoughts: (1) Perhaps the scientists in this category not appearing in the above list article should be added to that article. (2) Perhaps this category should become three categories: Category:Climate change skeptics (scientists), Category:Climate change skeptics (politicians), Category:Climate change skeptics (other public figures), each a subcategory of Category:Climate change skepticism. Please provide your thoughts below. Prhartcom (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're not thinking about it enough, and you're not actually looking at the articles of those who are currently in this category. Are articles written according to our opinion? No, and neither is categorization. Do we avoid writing articles because they could be written as attack pages? No, we revert those attempts. Of course the only people currently are, and will be, in this category are people who are on record according to reliable sources as someone who is a climate change skeptic. Of course if anyone ever tries to use this category as an attack their edit will be reverted. Don't prevent something very useful because something theoretically could happen. Prhartcom (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Towns in Brazil

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 (category was empty upon close, but it seems there is agreement that this should not exist). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Brazil has no such official subdivision. Each Brazilian state (estado) is divided in municipalities (municípios), and each municipality may have zones (zonas), sub-prefectures (subprefeituras), districts (distitos) and neighborhoods (bairros). We simply have no towns here and after I performed some fixes and proposed some deletions, I realized this category will remain unpopulated forever since we already have Category:Municipalities of Brazil and Category:Populated places in Brazil.
By the way, I never understood the difference between the two cats above. I'd be glad if anyone could clarify why we categorize Brazilian municipalities with "Populated places in STATE" instead of "Municipalities of STATE", since the official Brazilian definition of a city/town/village is "municipality"). I know there has been a discussion in 2010, but, for example, Category:Municipalities in New York is a sub-cat of Category:Populated places in New York, why can't it be the same for Brazilian municipalities? We currently have one category called Category:Municipalities in Minas Gerais (with no similar cats for the other states), is it a valid category? Victão Lopes Fala! 19:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. City sound quite "generic" to me, but it'll work. And yes, I did nominate the contents (as I mentioned in my rationale), but there were more articles and sub-categories, I just re-categorized them. The three remaining pages refer to two locations whose actual existence I question and one place that seems to be actually a private farm (subject to our GNG, therefore), not a geographical location. Victão Lopes Fala! 00:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deaths by military

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:People killed by armed forces. For the record, the contents at the time of closure are Category:People killed by Nazi Germany, Category:People killed by the Taliban and Category:People killed by the Turkish Armed Forces. – Fayenatic London 12:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Deaths by military to Category:People killed by military forces
Nominator's rationale: More grammatical title and better fit to the subcategories. Possible alternative: "People killed by a military force". DexDor (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Such a rename/rescope should also apply to the subcategories so that should be a separate discussion. DexDor 06:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Making the less flawed name consistent is still progress so I support this nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we have the subcats (e.g. for IDF) then we should keep this category. If for no other reason than it makes it easier to target the subcats for CFD. See related discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_21#Category:People_killed_by_the_United_States_Armed_Forces. DexDor (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I grant that that's a plausible reason to stay execution, but it's just a stay. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created the parent cat and other subcats in fairness to Category:People killed by the Israel Defense Forces, which for some reason that I can't imagine was nice and full even though the IDF since its creation has killed far less, even in proportion to its size, than dozens of other militarys in the same time span. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IDF category seems POV to me and it likely suffers the same problems highlighted above and probably should be deleted, you can nominate it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Small Wikipedia template categories

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: AFAIK there's no rule saying that a template category containing only a small (how small?) number of templates is a problem that needs to be fixed. Per the exception in WP:SMALLCAT most of these categories are fine. DexDor (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Template talk:Template category#Remove auto-categorization for my rationale for creating this category. Your thoughts there about the purpose and usefulness of Category:Wikipedia template categories would be appreciated. Should that cat be deleted as well? Wbm1058 (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Royalties

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. – Fayenatic London 21:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category created by a new single purpose editor promoting their royalty investment company. The only content is the investment company. Editor seems to have a misunderstanding of the purpose of categories. I can't envisage much scope for additional content. Sionk (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Computer-animated sequel films

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 and upmerge contents to Category:Computer-animated films and Category:Sequel films. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems like a questionable sub-category to me; does it matter that the films are sequels in this context? DonIago (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Athletics (track and field) national champions

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Firstly, "National" should come first, like Category:National association football champions. Secondly, none of the athletics parents include "track and field". – Fayenatic London 12:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fellows of Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

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. – Fayenatic London 21:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Grammar and consistency with other subcats of Category:Fellows of learned societies. Lagrange613 00:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be making the assumption that (a characteristic) being WP:NON-DEFINING and being relevant to WP:ACADEMIC are mutually exclusive. I suggest you read the paragraph of NONDEF beginning "Often, users can become confused...". DexDor (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but judging from your continued argument here you appear to have overlooked my description of why it's defining, which has nothing to do with Wikipedia procedure. It's because when academics write one-paragraph bios about each other (or as I said above when they do the same thing in spoken rather than written language) they usually include this specific piece of information. A few random examples: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. As for your not-so-veiled accusation that Tryptofish is confused: please be WP:CIVIL, —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not very important to me, but I just figured I'd look back. I guess the main thing that confuses me is why some editors think that keeping categories as tidy as possible is more important than an understanding of the actual content of pages. (I suspect NONDEF is only edited by editors who only care about categories and not about articles. We have all those categories about the years when people were born, and they've never struck me as particularly defining of a life's accomplishments, so the whole issue strikes me as rather silly.) Anyway, for editors who actually pay attention to the subject area, being a Fellow of this Society is a more important defining characteristic than having been born in a particular year, and, in fact, is a reasonably important characteristic. It strikes me as something that would be mentioned often in secondary sources about persons, and as something that could reasonably be put in the lead section (even if it hasn't been yet on the pages DexDor looked at), so it actually seems to satisfy the definitions of "defining" given at the linked page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Interracial romance films

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; there's also consensus to prune the contents of the category to those for which the interracial nature of the romance is significant. The pruning won't be carried out as part of this close, but any user can work on it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It makes sense to have this category for films like West Side Story and Pocahontas, but the current title is a little too broad including films like Rugrats and Napoleon Dynamite, which do have interracial romances in them, but the fact that they're interracial is never even mentioned. JDDJS (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More