The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Scope is far too wide and vague to be of any use. As the main article Caucasian race notes, "[the term] has been used to denote the general physical type of some or all of the indigenous human populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia." In addition to the obvious non-existent parent Category:Caucasian people, the meaning of "Caucasian" is region-based and the contents of the category seemed to be based on skin color and descent (generally from Europe), not cited information in the articles. — ξxplicit23:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Category:White rappers and other variants of the name have been deleted a number of times. I think we're better off sticking to nationality for these categories, and even nationality+descent ones are a bit of stretch, but they do exist as pointed out. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:36, 19 July 2010 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete or something. Right now this is underpopulated and being used for two things. Power station categories by country which duplicates information already included in the Category:Fossil fuel power stations tree, and a few categories about countries that are mixed bag. One being about the fuel sources, another about the power stations and the third about companies. So rather then trying to decide which belong here and which don't just delete this one and the rest of the tree should cover all of this material. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but why stop here? I think it's safe to guess who created this. (checks- yep.) This seems to be the roots for at least three different sorts of category hierarchies; I'm almost inclined to delete all member categories and their children and start over. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2010 (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.
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I think the 76.66 was thrown off by the inclusion of Okinawan Japanese in the category, but that article is about (more or less standard) Japanese as spoken in Okinawa, which is different from the Ryukyuan Okinawan language. Category:Languages of Japan is okay; almost every country in the world has a category called "Languages of Foo", which is generally understood to include both indigenous and widely spoken, well established immigrant languages, but excludes languages spoken by only a handful of immigrants. +Angr18:31, 19 July 2010 (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:Organizations formerly designated as terrorist
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.
And hence why it is POV. Just because the US and the racist Apartheid South African government regarded the ANC as terrorist, their views represent a WP:FRINGE view - the rest of the world did not. In fact, the US view was so warped, that Nelson Mandela was regarded until 2008 by the US to be a terrorist.[2][3]. We aren't here to promote fringe views, and this category is doing so, as it does not make it clear who thinks they are terrorist. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak15:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your remarks here would apply (or not) equally (if not more so) to the categories for groups designated by those governments. How it is "POV" to make note of the fact that these groups were subsequently removed from such lists escapes me. Cgingold (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Well, Prezbo beat me to the punch on this. It really makes no sense at all to single out this particular category while ignoring the entire category structure under Category:Organizations designated as terrorist. You might even say that this category is the only thing that provides a degree of "balance" to all of those other categories. Cgingold (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So your objection to this category is just that it doesn't make clear which government(s) have designated these organizations as terrorist? I can see that as a problem, but the category isn't big enough to split it up along those lines like the parent category is. If an organization was once designated as terrorist by some government (especially a superpower like the US), I don't think it's good for that fact to just disappear down the memory hole as far as categorization is concerned. It's actually pretty important for Wikipedia to record that organizations that were once officially labeled as terrorist don't always carry that status forever. Readers are capable of understanding that a government's designation of an organization as terrorist isn't necessarily accurate.Prezbo (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said. Just one cavil: I really can't see why the lack of specificity is a problem. Would it help in any way to add "by various governments" (or something to that effect)? Cgingold (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, this misconstrues our remarks. We both were struck by the fact that you singled out this one small category, seemingly oblivious to the larger category structure. You've now explained that you were in fact aware of those other categories, so I suppose it's something of a moot point. Cgingold (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for vagueness. "Formerly designated as terrorist" by whom? The definition says, "by a state or supranational union at one point". Any state? And what if it's removed from a list by one state but not by another? If not vague, it's just too broad. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more helpful if you would help formulate a solution, GO, because this info is every bit as valid and important as the original designations. Cgingold (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is one solution. I actually think that the categories for being designated a terrorist organization should all be deleted, and this material should be dealt with in articles. Since I believe that, I believe even moreso that a "formerly designated" category should also be deleted and dealt with in an article. This is my solution. Being against a category doesn't necessarily mean one is against the information as such being included in WP. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely I can. There is not a single reference in the article which indicates that the organisation was regarded as being terrorist in the first place, nor is there any reference which indicates that it is formerly regarded as terrorist. Hence, the category was removed. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak06:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for several reasons. Firstly, the 'designated as terrorist' bit is just crying out for a 'by whom?' - is being designated a terrorist organisation by a single state or organisation sufficient to be listed here? Secondly, the 'formerly' bit - we don't usually categorise people and groups by former classification, as it raises the questions 'when, and for how long?'. In this case, this category also implies that these organisations are no longer designated as terrorist, which may not be true in all cases. In general, while this would be a perfectly fine fact to note in an article (with references!), this is just a bad idea as a category. Robofish (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like the nub of the issue is beginning to crystallize around the question of "former" status, which is something that is almost always eschewed in Categories. Moreover, after looking at the half dozen articles that are/were in this category I discovered -- to my surprise -- that none of them were listed in the pertinent categories for "groups designated as terrorist by Xyz government". That being the case, I'm strongly inclined to insist that such categories should be added to all of these articles, especially in light of the general rule for the use of categories being that they aren't time-bound. If that is deemed unacceptable, then the whole category structure should be dismantled in favor of lists. Cgingold (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with your approach there. I favour deletion of these not because I don't think they could work, but because what I've seen in the past indicates to me that they are not working. Most of the categories that use "terrorism" and "terrorist" tend not to work very well, I guess for obvious reasons. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In relation to some of the comments above. The problem with this category isn't around the former part, but what several editors have indicated, it centres around the by whom part. Just because the US and South Africa regarded the ANC as terrorist, does this really warrant it belonging in any terrorism category, when the vast majority of the world regarded the ANC as liberationists or freedom fighters. Why no category for that, yet there is one that paints them as terrorist. The same could even be said for the PLO. Some countries in the world regarded the PLO as a terrorist organisation, but a large number of countries did not. Again, why no liberationist or freedom fighter categories for them as well? Just because the United States regards an organisation as terrorist, this does not warrant any organisation being placed in such a category - it's really nice that the US is a superpower and all that, but this isn't the USpedia or anything like that. And fixing the category by adding by governments to it isn't going to fix the problem either. Because then one would rightly be able to add Israel to it, seeing as several governments, rightly or wrongly, regard Israel as a terrorist state. Do we really need to open up such a pandora's box in this regard? --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak08:12, 19 July 2010 (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.
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:Left-Hand Path. The article title describes both "Paths," but AllyD correctly notes that the category contents contain only the Left side. Renaming for the hyphenation, which is not contested here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One. While the proposed rename would anchor to a main article, which is more useful than not, the name lacks clarity. Even with some prior reading in this territory, I genuinely didn't recognise what field this category occupied without reference to the article. So if a rename is to be done, should it include appendage of "... in Occultism", "... in Magic" or some such? AllyD (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two. The current Category:Left Hand Path is distinguishing one side of the dichotomy described in Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path, so does consolidation to one cross-dichotomy category not lose the very element that was sought to be distinguished? It is also noticeable that article acknowledges "no set accepted definition" and that these paths may be "theoretical constructs ... without definitive objectivity". So categorisation on these ground looks shaky altogether. AllyD (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2010 (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.
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 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:Images of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Seems that these are both power stations and incinerators. So, up merge to both and then drop any incinerators that are not power stations. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think doing that would lose some important parents on the articles. While correct, I don't see how putting incinerators and methane capture from landfills into the same category helps. This proposed rename would also allow inclusion of processes like sawdust to wood pellets for stoves. Maybe there are two issues here? One being the technologies and the other the application of said technology in different categories. Your suggestion sure raises a lot of questions! Vegaswikian (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we look at one entry here, Longannet power station which uses 4,500,000 tonnes of coal each year and only 65,000 tonnes of treated and dried sewage sludge. So with such a small portion of waste this would not even be considered for inclusion here. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2010 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I fail to see the need for this extra level of navigation. I don't believe that readers are served by splitting biofuels out by generation. If they need this level of detail, the article provides it. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems to me that a number of articles in the target could refer to second generation versions of such fuels, depending on the feedstock. So there'd be a lot of category clutter and confusion for readers if we maintained and fully populated the source category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2010 (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.
