Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 12 May 14 >

May 13[edit]

Category:People with spasmodic dysphonia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People with spasmodic dysphonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete not a sufficiently debilitating disease to be called out as defining in WP; little different than thousands of other diseases/conditions/surgeries that we can categorize; many of which were deleted a while ago. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete - three of the four people in the category are members of professions in which use of the voice is crucial (two radio hosts and one musician). While overall I tend to agree that medical conditions are in most cases non-defining, that these people entered into careers despite this particular disease nears the threshold for me. Perhaps Category:Vocal performers with spasmodic dysphonia might be appropriate, but I'm not going to lose a minute of sleep if the category is deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, at least two of those seem to have developed the disease long after they took up their careers. There's a short list of people in the spasmodic dysphonia article too, and most of them seem to have got it later on. If it's relevant then it's relevant because it made people give up their singing. I'm not convinced that's a particularly strong reason to group them together in a category, though. Flowerparty☀ 12:09, 14 May 2008 (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:Clubs and societies in Canada[edit]

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. Doczilla STOMP! 08:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Clubs and societies in Canada to Category:Organizations based in Canada
Nominator's rationale: Redundant with Category:Organizations based in Canada and only content is subcat Category:Yacht clubs in Canada DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate. The fact that it contains only one article is no impediment to keeping it, because it is part of a series of similar categories: see Category:Clubs and societies by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the functional difference, in Wikipedia terms, between an "organization" and a "club" or "society"? It seems like the scheme is based on semantics based on whatever name the organization happened to select, which implicates Wikipedia:OCAT#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names. If the 4-H Club (which by the way is not currently categorized in a "clubs and societies" category) was instead called the "4-H Organization," would that indicate some fundamental change in the 4-H entity itself? No. Otto4711 (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I, too, have difficulty seeing a difference between an organisation and a club but perhaps this just needs a re-organisation. I now notice that Category:Clubs and societies is a subcat of Category:Organizations by type so perhaps we can simply put Clubs and societies in Canada as a subcat of Organizations based in Canada? I'm not sure. Some more input on what a "club or society" is would be helpful. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Basically, a club or society is a type of non-commercial organisation which has members. There are many other types of orgamistions: govt bodies, local councils, companies, NGOs, partnerships, think thanks etc, and this one amongst the mix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there a reason to try and combine clubs and societies? Seems to be a POV grouping when you look at orginizations. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is a clear definition, then I would be okay with it being a subcat of Orgs based in Canada. Non-commercial, non-governmental, yet also non-NGO; I presume it's not charities but could be service clubs; also including clubs for a common interest (racing, collecting, online-encyclopedia writing). DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a part of the Category:Organizations tree which needs a good overhaul. At this point I wonder why we really need Category:Clubs and societies? Why is Category:Gangs considered as a member of Category:Clubs and societies and not directly a part of Category:Organizations? Since we upmerged Category:Associations I wonder if Category:Clubs and societies should also be upmerged to Category:Organizations. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, but only temporarily — although I would certainly favour a review of all the national subcategories of Category:Clubs and societies by country as to whether this tree is really necessary at all, I can't and won't favour singling out the Canadian one as uniquely unnecessary compared to the other 11. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Clubs and societies in Canada to Category:Organizations based in Canada. I know that Bearcat has opposed this unless all of the similar ones are done, but I consider this a trial survey, If this one is approved, then all of the remaining ones need to be CfDed to complete the process. This would serve as the precedent. Category:Organizations does not need to be a target for a dual upmerge since it is the parent of the by country cats. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now for consistency with other countries. I may support a wider initiative for reorganization. gidonb (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2008 (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:Liberals[edit]

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, though keeping this as a high-level category seems like a good compromise. Flowerparty☀ 15:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Liberals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete a meaningless category, as it is entirely self-declared without any grounding in action, belief, or understanding. It is also US-centric, as many countries have "Liberal" parties to which "I am a liberal" has different meanings, such as would be "I am a D/democrat" in the US - if you aren't a D/democrat in the US does that mean you dislike democracy and are a communist or fascist? Not really; you may be a Green or a Republican. Moreover, these self-announcement categories are a bad idea. Should we have Category:Drunks for anyone who has said "I'm/I was drunk.", Category:Dumb people for anyone owning up to one's own stupidity, and Category:Ignoramuses for anyone claiming to be ignorant of something that the rest of us can plainly see.... This adds nothing to the encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I recognise the problem. Liberalism is a major political philosophy, although the term is used in rather deviant ways in Australia and the US, and perhaps elsewhere. In Europe, where most of those covered by the category come from, it is a fairly coherent term. Most of the Americans in the main category should perhaps be removed, or gathered into an American sub-cat, to allow for the particular American use of the term. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - whether one is a liberal (as opposed to a member of a political party that includes the word "liberal" in its name, such people should not be included here anyway) is quite a subjective matter. There is no objective benchmark as to what constitutes being "liberal." This is compounded by the problem that, in the US at least, there are different strains of liberalism. One may be a fiscal liberal but a social conservative, for example. This is far too nebulous a concept in terms of today's political realities to serve as an encyclopedic category. Otto4711 (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Otto 4711; in ordinary political usage, the term has far too wide a range of meanings to make any sort of coherent package, and the usage of the term has changed significantly over. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Liberalism is, as Johnbod wrote above, a major political philosophy, and those that belong to it are therefore notably categorised. The idea that, because it is subjective, it can't be categorised is absurd. After all, if it is verified by reliable sources, it is the subjective opinion of experts. Bastin 14:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Per WP:CAT: Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions. It is for all practical purposes impossible, at least in American politics, to neutrally categorize someone as a liberal on the basis of "the subjective opinion of experts," which is itself dangerous ground to tread in any aspect of Wikipedia. Categories should be based on objective criteria, not subjective opinion. Who constitutes an "expert" whose opinion on the liberalism of another person should be considered a suitable reliable source for inclusion in the category? How do we neutrally determine that any person is such an "expert"? Name any person you'd like as an expert and I guarantee you there will be editors lined up against you disputing that person's expertise. The word has been an attack word in American politics for the last two decades, since the first President Bush made it a dirty word in his election campaign against Michael Dukakis. It's political poison, can never in the foreseeable future be made neutral and is unsuitable for categorization purposes. Otto4711 (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and check carefully. If it means self-declared Liberals in a modern US political context, it should say so and have an appropriate title. the present group is meaningless because of the multiple possible definitions. The subcategory, 'Classical liberals', on the other hand, is one that is defining and does make sense. DGG (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 'liberal' is a well established international term for followers of liberalism. The fact that U.S. politics have a difference parlance (illustrating that the U.S. political landscape is a bit of an oddity internationally) and that the term have different usages colloquially doesn't change that. --Soman (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Can you give us a concise and verifiable definition of "followers of liberalism" which is neither arbitrary nor POV and would allow objective assessment of who is to be included? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what parties in the United States would you consider "liberal"? The Democrats? Plenty of conservative Democrats. The Republicans? Because there are still a few liberal Republicans floating around. And again, what about people who hold views on social issues like abortion or gay rights that are supposedly "liberal" but on fiscal matters are "conservative"? What about Harry Reid , who is frequently tagged as a "liberal" but is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-death penalty, etc.? Perhaps instead of tearing hair over trying to decide who's liberal and by what standard, how about just categorizing people by party affiliation and leaving it at that? Otto4711 (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what constitutes a liberal party? Tony Abbott, Douglas Darby, Alex Hawke, John Howard, Bunmei Ibuki, Toshihiro Nikai, José Rizo Castellón, and Vladimir Zhirinovsky were all in parties with the word "liberal" in them. The article on Liberalism itself states it "refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal" then lists various factions and interpretations.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For contemporary parties, I think membership or some sort of association with the Liberal International or structures like ELDR could function as a criteria. --Soman (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category itself should be kept, but with the following changes: create a separate Category:American liberals and diffuse into it any USian in the parent category who is actually politically active in some capacity — people who are being so categorized solely on the basis of one or two statements of opinion on a political debate, but aren't actively involved in politics in some way, should simply be removed. The problem here isn't the category itself; it's that because of the term's unique and non-standard use in American public discourse, its valid encyclopedic purpose is being distorted by the inclusion of American entertainers directly in the parent category instead of a US-specific subcat. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you can successfully defend Category:American liberals from deletion again as it was deleted not too long ago with the same foggy reasoning put forth by deletionists here. Hmains (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreating deleted categories in defiance of consensus. Tsk tsk. Otto4711 (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should only be recreated if there's a consensus to do so. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2008 (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:Anti-submarine missiles of Australia[edit]

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. Doczilla STOMP! 08:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anti-submarine missiles of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Completing incomplete nomination by anonymous editor. I note that this editor has made a number of questionable edits to the category page:

Nominator's rationale: "The category previously had only entry the Ikara Missile which could go in the general category "Anti-Submarine Rockets and Missiles" and avoid adding a layer that is unnecessary. This way, access to info on the Ikara is simpler and it makes the category unneeded." I have no opinion on the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - if kept, we might want to rename to Category:Australian anti-submarine rockets and missiles to match the parent Category:Anti-submarine rockets and missiles. Otto4711 (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's comments: I apologize for the blanking of the page, I am new to this and thought it would erase the category. I have nothing spiteful about the category, but I just don't see the need for it. The Ikara is the one and only Austrailian anti-submarine missile. It seems redundant to create a whole category for one entry, especially when it obfuscates the Ikara from people looking at the general category. If you read the article Anti-submarine missile it's described as Anglo-Austrailian anyways, not just Austrailian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.6.84.66 (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2008 (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.

Renames of categories for National Parks, Protected Areas, related categories world-wide[edit]

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 - no change. There's too much opposition to this excessively complicated and confusing nomination. Doczilla STOMP! 20:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to remove use of artificial term "National park", renaming categories from "National parks of COUNTRY" to "National Parks of COUNTRY" to describe National Parks designated by any nation. For National Parks in any subarea of the nation, use "in" the subarea rather than "of" the subarea, because they are not designated by the subarea.

Propose to use "in" consistently rather than "of" for Protected areas, which are designated by an international organization and not by any nation.

Propose also similar cleanups as listed.

In many cases eliminates inconsistency within a country. For example, rename of Category:Protected areas of Kazakhstan to Category:Protected areas in Kazakhstan is then consistent with pre-existing List of protected areas in Kazakhstan.

This proposal is an intended-to-be-comprehensive extension of another current proposal that was focused on United States categories, under discussion at: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 9#Categories: Protected areas, National Forests, National Monuments, bird sanctuaries, wildlife sanctuaries of/in the United States. The closing date for that other proposal may be extended to close simultaneously with this related proposal.

Notice of this proposal in process was provided to Talk of WP:PAREAS and to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas of India#Categories For Discussion: change from Protected areas "of" India to Protected areas "in" India. doncram (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please change from / to:


Note there are many subcategories within Australia

*Category:Wetlands of Australia to Category:Wetlands in Australia



*Category:National parks of Azerbaijan to Category:National Parks of Azerbaijan


*Category:National parks of Belize to Category:National Parks of Belize


*Category:National parks of Canada to Category:National Parks of Canada





*Category:National parks of Colombia to Category:National Parks of Colombia



































Note the U.S. is treated in separate, parallel proposal


That's all! Hopefully that is a complete, comprehensive proposal. :)

p.s. It's taking a long time to edit in notice to every category. Have gotten through Chad so far. Is there any semi-automated tool which could put the rest of the notices in? doncram (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice has been given in all the other categories affected. doncram (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. Having looked at the Australian case in detail, I can confirm that it is usual practice both in the wider community and amongst government agencies to refer to these as "national parks" not "National Parks"; here are some illustrative links for Queensland,[1], South Australia,[2] and Tasmania.[3] National parks in Australia are managed within the framework of the National Reserve System, and even the NRS refers to them as "national parks".[4] I had a look at the enabling legislation for New South Wales, and it also uses "national parks".[5] Having established beyond all doubt that this proposal would be wrong for the Australian case, I can only assume that this proposal has not be properly researched/thought through, and it is probably wrong in a great many other cases. We most certainly should not be imposing a false consistency here. Hesperian 00:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually i am glad to see your comments, thank you. I may be a little out of my depth in terms of Australian and other usage of the term "national park". If "national park" is a valid noun when not a proper noun, then perhaps that one aspect of the proposal should be changed.
Note, however, the wikipedia article National park has no sources whatsoever. I am not familiar with use of the term national park and perceived it to be a wikipedia-coined term. I don't want to impose "false consistency"; I am more concerned about the introduction of a false term "national park" (if it is false) by wikipedians, in addition to the coined term "protected area" which has given me pause. Upon review over some months participation in Talk at WP:PAREAS, i am accepting the usefulness of "protected area", with tie to the IUCN definitions for it, but I note many many casual and erroneous misapplications of the term to U.S. sites that are nowhere close to meeting IUCN definition and which are not listed in the World Database of Protected Areas. I was perceiving that terminology for national parks was similarly loosely applied. It may be that sorting out any change from "National parks" to "National Parks" in category names should wait for some development of the National parks article.
You comment only on the National park vs. National Park question, however. What is your specific view on "of" vs. "in" distinction, for protected areas and for national parks. It seems obvious to me that National Parks or national parks are artificial creations, man-made, designated on a specific date by a national government. Thus it seems a matter of grammar that the National Parks are "of" a given national government, and that National Parks that happen to be in a state or other subarea are "in" the subarea. Protected areas are not formal designations of any government, I believe (unless by some newer translation from another language); they are, however, designations of the IUCN and its associated WPDA. So protected areas in any country are "in" not "of" the country, in my view. doncram (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My specific view on "of" vs. "in" is this: I couldn't give a fuck which two-letter preposition we use... and nor should you. Hesperian 05:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where i am entering into this, by the way, is coming from editing mostly on U.S. National Historic Landmarks and other government-designated items. A big category rename a while back was to correct categories from "National Historic Landmarks of Alabama" to "National Historic Landmarks in Alabama" and the like, for U.S. states. The NHLs are very clearly designations of the U.S. national government. I see National Parks also as artificial designations; there's the necessary distinction between the Grand Canyon and the Grand Canyon National Park which has a specific acreage and designation date and covers some but not all of the natural area. doncram (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all - the details of the change listed above make some problems very clear - the intention seems to be to keep National paerks at "of", understandably, but to make them part of a larger "in" designation. Further, marine parks and reserves are not "in" countries, they lie off their coasts, and as such should not be named as "in". The general rule of thumb in any case is that man-made things are "in", natural features are "of". Though these areas are human-designated, they aree specifically areas set aside in as close as possible to a natural state, and as such should keep within the "natural feature" designation of "of". Grutness...wha? 01:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My intent is to use "of" for National Forests, National Parks, other designations that are only "of" the national government. Or i would allow State Forests of Alabama if there were proper noun State Forests designated by that U.S. state. Otherwise, all of these designated areas are "in" subareas of the nation. For marine parks and bird sanctuaries, which do not have Nation in their name and which may be designated by states or even private foundations or non-profits, I would prefer to use "Bird sanctuaries in" a given area to allow for inclusion of the non-national ones in the area.
About marine parks and reserves, do you have any example of a marine park that is not indisputably within a nation's borders (which, obviously, extend out to sea). I don't know of any disputed border where a marine park is claimed by more than one country, so I believe it is clear what is meant when saying marine parks in a given country. doncram (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Hesperian for the Australian categories, national parks should be at in state ie National parks in Western Australia rather than of state, where as IMHO marine parks should at Australian marine parks rather than an of or in format. Reluctant to give an opinion on the other countries as I havent yet looked at the which they name them and how it translates to english. I think maybe this should be a country by country process rather then grouping 200 odd countries into one format. Gnangarra 03:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your comment and willingness to go with a varied analysis. Note, however, that currently Category:National parks of Western Australia contains 56 proper noun National Parks, and one list explicitly named National Parks of Western Australia not National parks of Western Australia. It seems to me that National Parks is a better descriptor for the category in Western Australia in particular.
Not sure how to do a country-by-country analysis though. I had made a proposal to deal with one country (the U.S.) which was objected to because it was not comprehensive, world-wide. Your browsing in more of the country-categories could be helpful. Thanks. doncram (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response I dont see any reason to propose wholesale changes just because your suggestion for US categories was questioned in relation to other country formats. I dont think I'll do much browsing of other country formats, as I dont see any reason to make such changes especially when the format as demostrated with the diffs supplied by Hesperian show that the naming is consistant with the way in which they are named. Gnangarra 05:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
National parks in Western Australia are managed by the Department of Environment and Conservation. Their website refers to "national parks", not "National Parks".[6] I have moved the article you mentioned above to the correctly cased title. Hesperian 05:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all - as per opposers comment above - I am sure there are country specific issues - but I do not see why they should end up being resolved at a global level - I would suggest a country by country consideration - and specifically approach each country Wiki project over the issue - it is not to be taken lightly SatuSuro 07:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see no objection to changing "of" to "in". However, "National Park" has a specific (and not necessarily identical) meaning in each country. "Protected Area" is a term with no precise meaning in Britain. We also have "Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty", "Conservation Areas" (for preservation of the built environment), "Sites of Special Scientific Interest", "Local Nature Reserves", etc. All these mifght go into a category of categories for "Protected Areas in United Kingdom". This is not an area, where there can be a worldwide "one size fits all" solution. The solution for each country will be different. There would need to be a national super-category, covering all kinds of protection, perhaps "Protected areas in Foo" and a global "Protected areas by country". Though I have said "Protected areas", I am open to persuasion that a different term should be used. If there is a problem over the capitalisation of the West Austrialian category, that issue needs to be dealt with as a separate issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the protected areas categories are used exactly as you suggest. "Protected areas of the United Kingdom" is proposed to be revised to "Protected areas in the United Kingdom" in the proposal. doncram (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • REVISION of proposal Based on the above comments, it seems to me that the proposal to rename from "Protected areas of ___" to "Protected areas in ___" is acceptable to most. This is the core part of the proposal for me, that I hope you will accept, so I am striking out the other parts of the proposal. I apologize that I was unaware of informal use of "national parks" as a term; i thought that the extension to cover that and some other types of protected areas was sensible clean-up to do and did not anticipate problems with that. About "protected areas", the use of "in" term is appropriate because "protected areas" are doubly artificial: protected areas are parks and other areas designated by government acts on specific dates and having specific boundaries, often not the same as the boundaries of a natural area, and the term is an artificial term not in wide use. It seems to have been coined by the IUCN and adopted by WikiProject Protected Areas as a useful grouping to include the National Parks, national parks, National Forests, national forests, etc that are designated by national and local governments. No government designates Protected Areas (unless, by translation, a non-English-language country's designations are correctly translated this way, which would be creating a new usage, but for which lowercase "protected areas" would still be acceptable). The change from "of" to "in" is important to clarify the artificial nature of protected areas. The change would support my and others' efforts to reactivate WikiProject Protected Areas to update and expand coverage of protected areas world-wide. Thanks. doncram (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
followup It's in the nation, perhaps depending upon your point of view of what the nation is. Or it is far away, and should not be included in either "Protected areas of Australia" or "Protected areas in Australia". Perhaps there also should be "Protected areas in the Commonwealth of Australia", which would include "Protected areas in Australia" as well as this island. And this island can/should be included in a different category, "Protected areas in the South Pacific" which could be created outside of this CFD and is a worthwhile category. Anyhow, the island can be categorized in the "in" framework; I would leave it to WikiProject Protected areas to do that categorizing. doncram (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
followup Norfolk Island is "in" Australia, in terms of category names for man-made things. Specifically, Norfolk Island is in Category:Prison museums in Australia, because prison museums are artificial, while it is in Category:Islands of Australia because islands are natural. Protected areas are artificial, doubly so, so it is more appropriate to live with a couple slightly awkward instances, such as for this island, just as we accept it being in Prison museums in Australia, for the advantage of having the category better describe all the other instances. Norfolk Island Airport is in Category:Airports in the Northern Territory and hence also in Airports in Australia. There are numerous islands and lighthouses such as Palfrey Island (Queensland), 270 miles off the mainland, that are included in Category:Lighthouses in Australia. These and other examples are consistent with my reading of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). doncram (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose common action: I think every country/region is going to have its own way of referring to its protected areas. While this is certainly a worthwhile proposal, I think each category should individually decide what to do - for instance, I think Category:National parks of India sounds better than "... in India" would. On the other hand, I'm sure many other categories would take this opportunity to reconsider their name. Just my two cents. Gaurav (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment National parks are designated by the nation, so "of" does sound better. The proposal never was going to change National parks "of India" to National parks "in India". The revised proposal in fact makes no changes for any National parks categories. The proposal is about "protected areas" which is an artificial term, for artificial specified areas created by government designations. Per naming conventions for categories, this proposal should be accepted. doncram (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, this discussion has gotten too messy. I don't think the closing admin is going to find consensus for anything here. And you're not getting new contributors to the discussion because it has gotten too hard to figure out just what is being proposed, and what arguments relate to it. If you want to proceed with a proposal to standardise the protected areas categories on "of", then you would be best off letting this discussion die, or withdrawing it yourself, then creating a new proposal. Hesperian 02:03, 19 May 2008 (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 child molestation victims[edit]

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. It's 5-to-4 to delete, but CfD is not a vote. Delete based on strength of arguments. Deletion arguments are more clearly based on policy and precedent. Doczilla STOMP! 20:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional child molestation victims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - similar to the deleted Fictional rape victims category. Not a defining characteristic of the characters. Every detail of a fictional character's backstory or plotline is not categorizable. If the logical parent Fictional rape victims was deleted then this cat for a sub-set of fictional rape victims should also be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I quite agree. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My comments on the problems of this entry were posted long ago on its Talk page. SocJan (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A role is by fictional characters more important than by real people. Of course, much like as into whatevery category, only such articles appertain here, in which case is this characteristic essential, no any marginal detail. --ŠJů (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are no libel implications for a fictional character. Accordingly, this is a genuine literary category (however unpleasant). I do not quite see why the "Fictional Rape" category should have been removed. It appears that the probelem there was that people raped in soap operas did not suffer the trauma of it realistically. That in fact merely indicates poor (or perhaps popular) dramatic writing. Perhaps there should be a deletion review for fictional rape, where there was in fact little consensus. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category of such is a good way of grouping a fictional presentation of social issue that would be a synth if presented within the context an article or list. Gnangarra 02:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Real child molestation victims suffer; fictional ones often use the issue as no more than a social commentary or plot device without affecting character development, etc. An example is Mike Logan (Law & Order) where only when investigating the murder of a priest accused of child molestation (no doubt "ripped from the headlines" as the ads for the show used to say) does it come to be revealed that he, too, was molested by a priest. Of course, we didn't know that before, it wasn't mentioned later, it was a plot device to show you could be manly and admit that you were victimized when you were young. Hardly defining for the "character". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • this is about fictional characters, the need is to establish what is criteria for inclusion. Gnangarra 04:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very important category to use as this trauma shapes the personality of certain characters. Ominae (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorising fictional characters based on perceived similarities in plot seems like a bad idea to me. The fact that a rape might be important in a particular story is irrelevant. A defining characteristic has to be defining across the board. We wouldn't create a category:fictional characters that visit fancy-dress shops, even though this is a hugely important part of the plot in the Mr Benn stories. Articles will be placed in this category whether the rape is crucial to the plot or not. More importantly, the category doesn't allow for references or explanatory notes alongside the entries, and this is a category that really needs them. Should Catwoman really be in here? I can't tell. And even if it should the article doesn't seem to suggest that this is an important part of the character's history. This is the kind of topic that would be much better dealt with in an article (although child molestation in fiction would seem a fairly facetious title, if slightly less so than the category). So unless someone has some better inclusion criteria: delete. Flowerparty☀ 02:49, 21 May 2008 (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 children[edit]

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. Flowerparty☀ 16:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons the Fictional little girls category was deleted. None-needed age category with potential POV problems. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt - this has been created and deleted multiple times and is clearly going to continue to be recreated unless salted. I have placed both a CFD tag and a speedy tag on the category (it was not tagged). Otto4711 (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & prevent re-creation per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was asked to reconsider my opinion in light of the further discussion below and my opinion on the child actors category. I still have some disquiet about the potential lack of objectivity of "child", which presumably matches child, and discusses pre-pubescence, yet Harry Potter and some other articles categorized here seem well into puberty. But there is, I still think, here, a problem with this category that is not present in child actors category and insurmountable. Once a child actor, always one even when you are old. Here, many fictional characters are viewed through an entire lifetime in a single television hour or a single book - child to old age. Are they a fictional child? well before the first commercial interruption (or in chapter 1), perhaps... Similarly, grown up characters are often potrayed in flash back scenes in their childhood, does that make them a fictional child? Take Indiana Jones. A fictional child? The Narnia visitors (mostly categorized in this category) spend much of their time as adults in the stories. So there is a substantial reflection of POV here that cannot be tolerated. We must objectively be able to tell what's in a category and what's out. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what I thought at first. However, the articles can be categorised both in children and by adult occupation (etc). Whether their role as a child is sufficient to be so categorised can be discussed in each article's talk page. In the case of Indy, I would be inclined to exclude the character from fictional child film characters (the circus train prologue was a minor part of that film, and other flashbacks are less significant still), but include in fictional child television characters because of the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Child characters are at least so specifically and significant as characteristics by occupation, role, situation, nature etc. I don't surmise what a strange phobia leads some users to deleting even this category. No other category by age is so specifically – this isn't only one of many possible age categories. To be a child – this is concurrently role, occupation and nature sui generis, especially in case of fictional characters. What kind of POV problems bears even this category compared to whatever of all others? --ŠJů (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Who does this category apply to? Fictional characters who were only ever depicted as children, or fictional characters who were shown as children during present-day story segments but who were later depicted as becoming adults? What about characters whose childhoods were prominently depicted via flashbacks? Characters in long-form serial media like soap operas present a complication to the category: at some point, they grow up. Does the category retroactive get removed from the character's entry? After all, the category did apply to the character at one point in time. Every fictional character was at some point a child (except for robots and other exceptions, but even some of those could be considered children, either physically or mentally). And just what constitutes as "child" - prepubescent, preteen, a legal minor? The category is far too broad to be useful or verifiable. -Sean Curtin (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Also delete Category:Child actors and all its subcategories for the same POV reasons. For An Angel (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for same reasons as Category:Fictional little girls. See the debate linked here. As Sean Curtin says, a key problem is that most fictional children grow up, and although some clearly achieved notability as children, many others were notable for their whole life story. In the debate linked above, this Category:Fictional children was also discussed, and it was not possible to define its boundaries. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is NOT equivalent to Category:Fictional little girls. The problem there is the adjective "little", which is so fuzzy that it makes the category unusable. Children, on the other hand, is widely understood to refer to people who are under 18 years of age, as is stated on the cat page for real children. I will add it to this page as well. Cgingold (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't have time for a fully-developed comment right now, but I want to go on record in support of this category. In the previous CFD it was deleted as part of a group nomination, but it was the only one that had support, and should have been kept "no concensus". I really don't think most people have a serious problem in grasping the distinction between child and adult characters, and I don't see it causing serious problems in actual usage, contrary to what has been suggested. I've just finished adding a dozen very obvious characters, along with two additional sub-categories, and I really don't see how anyone could take issue with the fact that these are, indeed, fictional children. Cgingold (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: it is common ground that some characters are notable as children, and would belong in this category. The difficulty is in defining the limits of the category. As I argued in the "fictional little girls" CFD cited above, what about others who are memorable both as children and as adults, in varying proportion, e.g. Anne Shirley, Jane Eyre and Meggie Cleary? I'd be inclined to say that Anne Shirley and Jane Eyre became notable as children, whereas Meggie Cleary is notable mainly for her adult life. But this is a POV, and editors might be forever adding and removing this category on such articles. - Fayenatic (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, and the same is true for child actors. Some only acted as children, some acted as children and adults but were more notable as children, and others acted as both children and adults but were more notable as adults. For An Angel (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but you both are arguing from the fallacious premise that people/characters can only be placed in one category. If that were the case, what ever would we do with politicians who are elected to different offices in succession? Thankfully, we are free to make use of any and all categories that are required. In short, this is a non-issue. Cgingold (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm certainly not arguing that. I'm just arguing that the boundary is POV. Harry Potter was notable as a fictional child and clearly belongs in this category. Others are POV. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to understand where you see a problem here. What does it mean to say "the boundary is POV"? Cgingold (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean that although some articles definitely do or don't belong in the category, there are many where it is a matter of opinion. As a result, application at the edges of the category would breach Wikipedia's core policy about neutral point of view. I've seen ample precedent for categories being deleted for that reason alone. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your reply. I think, though, that you're misconstruing the application of NPOV as it relates to categories. It's not at all unusual for there to be occasional disagreements quibbles among editors as to the placing of particular articles in categories. Such quibbles can be argued out on an article's talk page. As a matter of fact, allow me to quote what another editor said on this very point, in a recent CFD for Category:Fictional characters with mental illness: "People can decide on talk pages whether or not a character should be categorised as such." You might be interested to know that the person who wrote that was none other than Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the same editor who started this very CFD. Perhaps he would like to withdraw the nomination?? Cgingold (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thought: these concerns are vastly more important when a category raises WP:BLP issues. That is a crucial distinction. In the context of categories for fictional characters they are trivial, because there is no conceivable harm. Cgingold (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The opposing arguments are unutterably ridiculous and contrived. Fictional children exist in specific works of fiction -- they don't "go on to become adults", because they don't actually exist. (This bears emphasis: you can't really assert that "most fictional children grow up" without straying perilously close to outright silliness.) Even if their creator re-introduces them at another age in some subsequent work, that hardly problematizes their significance as children in earlier works. And leaving aside the question of whether fictional characters can be assumed to age, the arguments in favor of deletion betray a perplexing inability to grasp even basic concepts of taxonomy: similar logic could be used to support the deletion of any category whose subjects could reasonably be included in another category. Since that describes practically all of them, will we eventually be obliged to winnow our taxonomy down to a single, irreducable category: "Stuff"? --Uhlume (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What about children who appear in a long running TV series? Take The Brady Bunch for example. All 6 kids were children when the show began but towards the end of the series, especially if you take into account the various spinoffs, they had all "aged" into adults. Bobby, who was the youngest son and about 8 years old when the show began, dropped out of graduate school to become a racecar driver in A Very Brady Christmas. For An Angel (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mere fact that a character eventually becomes an adult in no way negates the clear fact that they were known to viewers (or readers) as fictional children. That fact remains, regardless of their newly acquired status. Cgingold (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've posted notice of this and the preceding CFD at the WikiProjects for Literature and Children's Lit, so this discussion should not be closed prematurely. Cgingold (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fayenatic, I'm curious as to why you are adding to this category if you think it should be deleted? For An Angel (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just trying things out, esp. with sub-cats that would belong within it if it's kept. I'm always open to persuasion. I've been arguing to delete because I thought that if the boundary of a category is inherently a matter of opinion, then that was grounds for deletion. I don't strongly object to the category. However, if it was fully populated it would have a vast number of articles, and therefore would not be useful for navigation. I was wondering whether to raise the prospect of Category:Fictional boys and Category:Fictional girls, but the same problem would apply. Perhaps it should be restricted to sub-categories and stock characters, like category:Fictional females, which works fine. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One very obvious and useful approach would be to create sub-cats by genre or medium (literature, television, film, comics, etc.) Cgingold (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent idea. Switching to Keep and restrict to sub-categories only. Add Category:Fictional children by medium and sub-cats of Category:Fictional characters by medium. (I won't do it yet as it still depends on the outcome of this CFD). - Fayenatic (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see any reason for deleting this - it is a useful way of organizing characters, and I do not understand the claim that it could lead to "POV issues". A child is a child. I also agree that creating sub cats for other media makes sense. Tvoz/talk 21:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to keep We can still hold off on splitting up the category into subcategories until after it's been populated. It would be easier that way to figure out how to split it up once we see what's there. We can split it up by medium, or by gender, or some other way we haven't thought of yet (year introduced?), or some combination of multiple ways. For An Angel (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restrict to sub-categories only. per Cgingold, Fayenatic and others. Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the inclusion criteria is now much more clearly written which reduces the potential POV problems. Thanks, Cgingold. For An Angel (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're quite welcome. And thank you, for proving to have an open mind! Cgingold (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2008 (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:Government of India Ministries and Departments[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Government of India Ministries and Departments to Category:Government ministries of India
Nominator's rationale: Naming conventions. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2008 (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.

French by ethnicity or national origin[edit]

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 all. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: for clarity of meaning, as per recent discussion at WP:Cats for discusion. Mayumashu (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all these completely unnecessary race/ethnicity categories. American descent? Someone's smoking something. If the whole of America gets lumped together to by identifiably a "descent" from which French people can derive, let's get rid of all the divisive Fooian-American categories that make French people of American descent a joke. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there is a distinctiveness to American society, an American culture, and (thereby, by definition) an American ethnicity. Mayumashu (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then please nominate deletion of all the Fooian-American categories that disregard that "distinctiveness" you mention. I'll be the #1 support to delete them. If there is something different about Fooian-Americans, is that lost by the time they get to France and then they just turn into plain old American or were they no different before getting to France perhaps? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does acknowledging one's ancestry (necessarily) "disregard the distinctiveness" of one's membership to one's national culture? To see it as doing so is a matter of personal perspective, which is not our business here (as contributors to wikip). Stating ancestry/national origin is simply that, it's not to suggest that, say, one is a lesser citizen of France because her/his grandmother was from Cameroon. Mayumashu (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Total straw man. These are not nationality categories: Sicily isn't a country, but we have Sicilian-French ditto Catalonia. And if we are limiting it to countries as you argue, what value is the descent after a generation or two, and are we free to prune Polish-French who were never descended from a Polish emigrant to France rather than an emigrant from Russian Poland or some German or Austrian or Swedish occupied Poland? And is someone who is descended from Polish immigrants to the US who then move to France also get placed in the Polish category? If not, why not? If so, why? These are purely useless categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is superfluous and often absurd. For starters, a "fooian-something" category includes both people of a certain descent and people who were citizens of another country (for example, not all "Bulgarian Americans" are ethnic Bulgarians). Not to mention that, for example, nobody has "Cypriot" or "Ivorian" descent - since neither of these cases implies ethnicity (which "descent" does). If anything, the existing categories for "of something descent" should be deleted and merged - they were always in the minority, and editors have traditionally been able to understand and work with the more prevalent system. Dahn (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it's ethnic or national descent; perhaps the wording should read 'origin' and not 'descent', but this is a heck of a lot clearer than the hypenating, especially for non-Americans Mayumashu (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, and create Fooian people of French descent as necessary. (I'm greatly surprised to hear that no-one is of Ivorian descent.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as nom. The present form is ambiguous. An A-B person can mean a national of A of B descent or national of B of A descent. We keep having discussions like this. Can some one not get them all sorted out together? I mean all origins and all nationalities. Nevetheless a person should only be so-categorised if their ehtnic origin is a notable characteristic of that person. This would probably exclude those with one foreign grandparent. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. The current wording is indeed ambiguous. Mrbluesky (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. Much clearer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "descent" is too ambiguous and over-inclusive. If you go back far enough in a family tree you'll realize that you descend from pretty much eveything. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, but these cats should only include people of fairly recent descent in any case. Your argument covers the hyphenated terms equally. Who determines who is a Bulgarian-French person, for instance? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Descent, as the term is used, means all the way back. Agreed that the hyphenated terms aren't perfect either, but I hope it will be limited to people who have lived of hold citizenship in either country. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • All the way back, we're all African-fooians. Very useful... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it doesn't. I don't describe myself as an English person of Roman, Norman, Norse and Anglo-Saxon descent. Its common implication is a much more recent descent. And as for hyphenated terms, have African-Americans or Irish-Americans all lived in Africa or Ireland? I don't think so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You might not, but "descent", as it is used, does mean that. In regard to the hyphenated terms - African-American doesn't refer to the nationality, but the race. And in regard to Irish American, I sincerely hope that not every McWhatever is categorized as an Irish American. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I sincerely hope not too, as many of them are likely to be of Scottish descent! But John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan certainly are, to name but two, and neither of them had much connection with Ireland other than their name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these categories encourage original research, Gnangarra 01:37, 19 May 2008 (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:Railway stations on Spikkestadlinjen[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Railway stations on Spikkestadlinjen to Category:Railway stations on Spikkestadbanen
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Jernbaneverket has renamed the railway line from Spikkestadlinjen to Spikkestadbanen Arsenikk (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2008 (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:Liechtensteinian princesses[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Liechtensteinian princesses to Category:Liechtenstein princesses
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I don't think "Liechtensteinian" is really a word. All other categories that need a Liechtenstein adjective just use "Liechtenstein". I think the demonym is "Liechtensteiner", but that can only properly be used as a noun, like "New Zealander". Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2008 (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:Argentine emigrants to Brazil[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Argentine emigrants to Brazil to Category:Argentine immigrants to Brazil
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match all other subcategories of Category:Emigrants by nationality and Category:Immigrants by destination country. All use "Fooian immigrants to XXX". None use this phrasing. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2008 (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:Parent categories[edit]

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. Flowerparty☀ 17:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parent categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Seems like a random collection of categories. The only stated criteria for inclusion is to use the template {{Parent category}}. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be deleted or merged as considered below since the the title is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless for navigation. Virtually any category is potentially a "parent" category. Otto4711 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks to me as if the category is added by the template, so editing the template would remove it (unless editors have also been thinking - aha, a parent, must tag this). The template says it is a 'tracking category' - see Category:Tracking categories which may (or may not) shed light. It is tempting to add the template to Category:Parent categories. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a maintenance category used to identify those categories that need occasional work keeping them clean. There is a separate category for those that need frequent work to keep them clean. Parent categories are categories that should contain few, if any articles. Articles need to be moved to the appropriate subcategory. The category is helpful for identifying categories that have been labeled as parent categories making it easier to maintain them as such. Dbiel (Talk) 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose to talk pages if there is a maintenance purpose to this, off to the talk pages as per precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I think being on the category page is better for these since it lets everyone know that they should be using sub categories. One hopes that the majority of editors actually look at the category they are adding an article to. So they will see the notice. Putting it on the talk page means we are placing the entire workload of cleanup on a small group of editors. Better to spread out this defusion work. The editors creating the articles are a better judge of which subcategories the article fits into. While some may consider this a maintenance tag it is more of a editor warning tag. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are many categories that want no articles placed there, only diffused to the subcats, does categorizing them as one of those such on the face vs. the talk really advance the ball? I don't think so, even with the hidden category feature, it's still clutter that is viewed by editors if not by purely readers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful maintence category, though it probably should be a hidden category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree - category has been changed to hidden. The related category was already hidden. Dbiel (Talk) 01:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But how does that address the fact that this name is ambiguous and all inclusive? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There is nothing ambiguous about this; read the text at the top of the category that has Parent category and it is certainly not 'all inclusive' Only a small subset of categories qualify: those that should have subcats a category-defining article or two. Hmains (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guideline is that categroy names not be ambiguous. I think your statement supports the position that it is ambiguous since you need to look someplace to find out how the name is being used. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Update Added maintenance category tag to the category Dbiel (Talk) 03:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Not all categories need to be useful for navigation; the project system of categories is mainly for maintenance purposes. This category, in specific, is rather easily manageable, considering that categorisation is automatic. The specific name of the category is not visible in articles categorised as "Parent categories"—the category is hidden and the associated message box does not include the name. The only way to see that name is to edit a category or to see the category under discussion itself. In lack of a better term, we have to compromise with a name which has more than one uses, but this does not necessarily make it problematic. Waltham, The Duke of 15:28, 23 May 2008 (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:Bad images[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bad images to Category:Restricted images
Nominator's rationale: Non-neutral name. They're not "bad", just restricted in use, primarily as an anti-vandalism measure. Father Goose (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator's reasoning. They aren't "bad"; that seems to imply that they shouldn't be used at all. SouperAwesome (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Bad isn't very descriptive, rename to clarify. Mastrchf (t/c) 21:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename although I'm not sold on "restricted" in that their use is not restricted in any documented or obvious way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The restriction is detailed at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list.--Father Goose (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sold. Thanks; never had to try to use such a pic. Usually not required for the articles I edit. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corollary issue: Template:Badimage and MediaWiki:Bad image list should be renamed for the same reasons. Renaming the MediaWiki variable will probably require a minor software update, but the template and category can be renamed independently.--Father Goose (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2008 (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:Defunct AFL teams[edit]

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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Defunct AFL teams to Category:Defunct Arena Football League teams
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Ambiguous abbreviation. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2008 (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:Angry Black Man[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete as vandalism -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Angry Black Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Apparent joke or attack. At first, I thought the category was for some TV show I hadn't heard of before. But Saab Lofton is the only article included; he is a man, he is black, and he is probably often angry about certain issues, but for obvious reasons the category is not appropriate. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2008 (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:Swiss-Americans[edit]

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 to Category:Americans of Swiss descent. Clearly this seems to be the option with the most support and probably consensus. While this raises some concerns as pointed out by the discussion, I don't believe that it is sufficient to prevent a consensus move. I was going to nominate Category:Swiss Americans, to also be merged. But since that category is simply empty I'll change the cat redirect there. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Swiss-Americans to Category:Swiss Americans
Nominator's rationale: Merge - obvious duplicate. Otto4711 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nom for obvious reasons Hmains (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge see below. the hyphen seems more standard among equivalent categories, rightly I think. Why are we not throwing Category:Americans of Swiss descent into the mix? Merge all 3, I say. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both with Category:Americans of Swiss descent. The definitions really split the hairs and are non-intuitive. If you are at least 50% Swiss, you get to go in "Swiss Americans". Less than 50%, in "Americans of Swiss descent". That's fairly arbitrary and there's not much use to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with merging both. I'm rather flummoxed by the parallel Foo-Booians and Foos of Booian descent structures but they're both pretty massive so I didn't feel up to trying to address the entire thing, just this little chunk of it. Otto4711 (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both with Category:Americans of Swiss descent. per Good Ol'factory. For one, to avoid hyphen discussion which cannot be resolved. I started up these pages and set the arbitrary 50% as a compromise with those who want to have use the term Fooian(-)Americans, as that terminology is prevalent in the States (and Canada too to a point), but this local terminology becomes very misleading (from the actually ancestrial make-up) when applied to calling someone who a quarter or less of ancestry Fooian, Fooian-Booian (where Booian is the nationality), - to do so takes "hyphenating" to a ridiculous extreme. As a result, I started up the Booians of Fooian descent cat pages but left, as mentioned as a compromise, the hyphenating ones for 50% or more of an ancestry (100% for the Canadian pages). The result though is unnecessary complexity and arbitrariness to cater to terminology that is quite local in scope. Until we have a wikipedia divided by country that allows for different, preferred regional terminology with naming, we should strive for universal naming that is clear, and Fooian of Booian descent is the best choice for ethnicity/national origin cat pages, I d say Mayumashu (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both with Category:Americans of Swiss descent, per above. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Swiss descent combined with American is not an appropriate category - are Swiss a homogenous bunch of people that they stand out like sore thumbs here? Does it matter if the people in question have been in the US for numerous generations, whether they were French-Swiss, German-Swiss, Romansh-Swiss, or Italian-Swiss, crossed with Catholic-Swiss, Calivist-Swiss, Lutheran-Swiss, Jewish-Swiss, or Muslim-Swiss? If Swiss are a carve-upable place, as the US seems to be, how can we homogenize them here? These ethnic categories are just plain useless - but again I'll be in the dissent, so be it, eventually you'll come to your senses. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to further explain my Merge statement above. American categories of this kind are named in the style of 'fooian Americans' for good reason. This is how ethnic immigrants to the US are referred to throughout all of American society and 'everyone' knows what it means. 'No one' in the US uses the term 'Americans of foo descent' and there is no valid reason for its use in WP. Probably the only exceptions to my 'everyone' and 'no one' generalizations are among WP editors, who really ought to familiarize themselves with the US if they are work on US content. Hmains (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP is a worldwide project, and all content should reflect this. Many of these categories, including some American ones, have confused people enough to put Xs of Y descent in the same category as Ys of X descent. It may be the case that it is hard for an American to imagine that "Swiss-American" might mean a Swiss person of American descent, but that does not seem to be the case globally. Having said that, I don't favour changing the really common Foo-American category names en masse in the way the European ones are being changed. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP being a world-wide project is not relevant here. What is relevant is that Category:Americans of Swiss descent is completely a WP neologism that is not used by or of the people involved. 'I am a Swiss American' or He/She/They are Swiss Americans' are what is used throughout the US. Read the books, newspapers, magazines, TV, listen to people talk. And no, WP cannot have some part of the US ethnic population named as 'of descent' and the others not: who is the arbitrator of that arbitrary classification scheme? Hmains (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Americans of Swiss descent' is a descriptive phrase, not a neologism. Many categories are named in this manner. No-one talks about 'people from Liverpool' or 'alumni of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge' (Liverpudlians, Caians, resp) but we use descriptive phrases instead, for clarity. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:Americans of Swiss descent. per Good Ol'factory. The present category could be Americans in Switzland or Swiss in US. Further subdivision by language or religion can be done by subcategory if desired. However, people should only be included if their descent is a notable characteristic for that person. See comment on French categories above. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both, but not with Category:Americans of Swiss descent. The latter cat should be deleted. It is overly vague and undefining. It can include someone whose great-great-grandmother was half-Swiss, and his/her relation to Switzerland means nothing. Moreover, there are plenty of people that can safely say that they are of atleast a dozen "descents". These "descent" can really get out of hand and they don't really define the person, therefore they should be deleted. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge -- merge Category:Swiss Americans to Category:Swiss-Americans since the latter is years old and the non-hyphenated version was recently created by those who were apparently unaware that the category has, in fact, existed for years. Do not merge with Category:Americans of Swiss descent since these "Americans of Fooian descent" are too new/untested, were rashly created, and are only for those of PARTIAL descent. --Wassermann (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category is "untested"? Do we require them to be able to run 100 metres carring an oxygen tank and an adult man on their back in less than 30 seconds before we can trust them? Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, untested -- there is no need to be facetious. All of these "Americans of Fooian descent" categories were created only in the last few months by people who were/aren't very familiar with the ethnic or nationality categories here on the English Wikipedia. In contrast, Category:Swiss-Americans is years old and very established, and there is no dispute about its content. I'll go ahead and fix this issue real quick, actually. --Wassermann (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "tested" category is defined as requiring at least 50% "Swiss"ness. That seems quite arbitrary and an obvious magnet for disputes. I'm disputing now that it's a reasonable definition, so the contents of the category can't really be said to be free of disputes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Americans of Swiss descent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- everyone who has voted to merge one of both of these categories in to Category:Americans of Swiss descent should take a look at Category:American people by ethnic or national origin (which is the container category for all of these American ethno-national categories). If you are going to change one of these to "Americans of Fooian descent," you should start changing them all. However, it is clear that "Category:Fooian(-)Americans" is the preferred categorical structure since it has existed for years with no problems whatsoever until all of these rather bogus "Americans of Fooian descent" categories were created only a few months back. --Wassermann (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to speak for everyone, but maybe we just think it sounds better, or is clearer, or is less ambiguous, or all of these at once. Things can and do change here on WP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I favour keeping the really well known ones like African, Irish, Italian-Americans, and maybe a few others that are so well known (globally) as to be unambiguous, and changing all the others, like Category:Equatoguinean-Americans. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the use of this "at least 50 %" rule is quite arbitrary. On the other hand: Why should we categorize people as "Fooian Booians" when they, for example, have a Fooian great-great-grandparent or something similar? I think there should be some guideline as to how "Fooian" you have to be. Maybe we should delete those "Fooians of (partial) Booian descent" categories and clearly define who should be categorized in the different subcategories of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. I think there has to be a guideline. It makes a difference if you have a Swiss parent or a distant Swiss ancestor who immigrated 200 years ago. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_13&oldid=1138391036"