Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 11 September 13 >

September 12[edit]

Category:Mind sports[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:Games of mental skill. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a problematic category. If "mind sports" is used in the very general sense, it has impossibly vague admission criteria and just plain isn't very notable as a way to categorize activities. If "mind sports" really means "Games played at specific event" - e.g. the Mind Sports Olympiad or the World Mind Sports Games - then the criteria is now strict, but then this category is grossly overpopulated and should probably be renamed to "World Mind Sports Games" or the like, and it's better to delete anyway since this kind of distinction is only worth it for capital N notability events whose inclusion at is super-notable, which is pretty much only the normal Olympics.

To go into a bit more detail, starting with this category as generic "mind sports." "Mind sports" is a term already on the edge of notability. If you look at the Mind Sports Olympiad article, the vast majority of the references are "cute human interest story of the week," it's barely covered at all outside of England, and there are a decent number of dead links. That event is known more for cute silly stuff like underwater chess then the games actually in the category, and some that are there are there mostly as side events - e.g. poker. But lots of conventions / events / competitions / etc. have poker on the side, so categorizing poker in all of these categories would be silly. Neither I nor Google seems to have associated Magic: The Gathering or Gin Rummy particularly advertising themselves as "mind sports" (okay there's one off-handed reference to MTG & mind sports in a single column written in 2000). The most notable reference I can find to mind sports outside of a convention / competition billing itself for "mind sports" is this article on potentially legalizing poker in New Hampshire, which is nice, but not really enough. Because the term can be slapped onto anything by anyone, if we tried to use the "someone called it a mind sport somewhere" criteria, we would have to categorize texting as a mind sport because a cell phone company held a competition for fastest texter and then called it a mind sport. No.

If the category is seen as "games officially endorsed by a specific event," then the plain fact is that the mind sport competitions are way too minor to care. We don't have a "Games played at GenCon" category and GenCon's 41,000 attendance dwarfs the tiny Mind Sports events despite not handing out faux gold medals by country. If we used the World Mind Sports Games - the more "serious" mind sports competition - they only sanction 5 games anyway, not much of a category. SnowFire (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2012 (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:Films directed by Lee Frost[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Lee Frost does not have an article and the category creator has no intention of creating one for this person, based on this discussion we had: User talk:Simon Peter Hughes#Your creation of Category:Films directed by Lee Frost. Why have a "Films directed by" category for this person, if this person does not have an article on Wikipedia as of now. QuasyBoy (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having an article is not required, but the lack of intention to create an article by the category creator suggests this director is not notable so there is no notable connection within his works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an established category tree. Lack of a main article is no reason to delete the category provided that (a) he had indeed directed these films and (b) it's part of a well-established tree (both of which are satisfied). - The Bushranger One ping only 13:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's notable, ergo he should have a main article. WP:Fixit is the appropriate response here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then someone create an article for him then. Why have a category for films that this person directed, if the person himself does not have an article on this site. QuasyBoy (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having an article is not required; also, there is no deadline for its creation. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:51, 19 September 2012 (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:Films set in prison[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: Close - no rationale given (NAC). Lugnuts (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems pretty redundant to Prison films to me.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Ixonia, Wisconsin[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. There is no prejudice against re-creating these categories if more notable people from these places are found and have articles written about them. – Fayenatic London 20:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. All categories have 3 or less entries...William 14:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't believe these categories fall under WP:SMALLCAT, as there is certainly potential for an increase in their memberships. Is there some guideline to the "People from (city, state)" category structure that comes into play here? -Dewelar (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – I think it's more that Category:People from Jefferson County, Wisconsin is not so vast that it should be split up into all possible subcats. Oculi (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess my question is whether there's a policy-based or precedent-based reason for doing this, because as it stands I see a policy that doesn't apply to this case, and what appears on the surface to be an WP:ILIKEIT vote. -Dewelar (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a general presumption against creating small categories unless the category is capturing a defining characteristic. I doubt whether anyone would say (outside Wisconsin or even Ixonia) 'I am from Ixonia'. There quite a few recent precedents, eg small places in Florida, Dakota, Alabama, more Alabama, Delaware, Maine and others before that. It is true that it is the same 3 or 4 editors who are opining but equally true that no-one has been opposing. Oculi (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't put a whole lot of stock in a precedent that doesn't rely on any policy -- not even a project-based one. Every single one of those used WP:SMALLCAT as a reason, but I still haven't seen a valid reason why it applies. Official vote below, I guess. -Dewelar (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT. As of 2010, the population of Jefferson County, Wisconsin was only 83,686, so that category is in no danger of becoming overpopulated. The nominated categories contain only 3 articles between them, and are both so small (2010 populations of about 3,000 each) that they are unlikely to grow significantly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to this type of category, unless the place in question has been unincorporated or absorbed by another place. -Dewelar (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The status of the place is irrelevant here.
    Per WP:CAT#Overview, "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential - defining - characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." If a category is broken up into a lot of tiny categories, it is much less useful for navigation
    What matters is solely whether there are enough articles for these categories to be useful for navigation. If the categories-by-counties were equally underpopulated, I would support upmerging them too ... and if we only had 50 biographical articles for the whole of the USA, I would oppose spreading them across 50 by-state categories.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was intending to oppose based on the criteria for deletion presented by the nominator only, which was until your response the only argument presented for deletion. As for your argument, I do not know enough about Ixonia or Jefferson County to be able to argue whether or not being from either one could be a defining characteristic. If pressed, then I'd venture that, given the statements in this discussion so far, that if the one isn't, then the other also isn't, and the whole should just be upmerged to Category:People from Wisconsin (or deleted altogether, but that's not yet under discussion). -Dewelar (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ihe idea that coming from one part of a US state rather than another part is not a defining characteristic seems odd to me. Is there really no distinction between someone from East Texas and West Taxas?
    If you think that really is the case, then I suggest that you open a group nomination to propose upmerging all the ppl-by-county categories across the USA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you've misunderstood my point, so I will clarify. I do not believe that coming from a particular county is any more defining than coming from a particular town. I would go so far as to say that, as a general rule, it is less defining. However, I've pretty much accepted that this fact is subordinate to clarity of navigation in this instance. I have no problem with keeping the county categories as container categories for the same purpose, so proposing their deletion would be counterproductive. No matter the outcome of this proposal, I believe it's high time that guidelines for the creation of "People from (town, state)" categories were created. I presumed they existed, and that someone could cite them in this discussion, but obviously I was wrong. OK, then. -Dewelar (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. Sounds like we mostly agree after all. :)
    I think I'd be wary of a specific guideline, for fear of WP:CREEP. It seems to me that WP:SMALLCAT handles most situations quite well, and that a bit of discussion resolves the others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that we mostly agree :) . My opposition here was, honestly, a bit pointy, because the reasons being given were vague and not really policy-based, even if (as Bushranger noted) they're based in common sense. I still believe that WP:SMALLCAT, as written, does not apply to these categories, for the reasons I stated, but also accept that it is open to interpretation. Perhaps it's SMALLCAT itself that needs tweaking? -Dewelar (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    SMALLCAT is fine as it is, unless editors start from the presumption that a category can should be created if it refers to an entity with a particular legal status, which is what you have argued. I don't see any basis in policy or guidelines for that view, so I don't see any need to amend SMALLCAT. If guidelines try to address every misunderstanding, they become bloated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right that there's no policy or guidelines for that view. There is also no policy or guidelines against that view, because -- and I can't stress this enough -- SMALLCAT does not apply as written. Other than that, pretty much everything in this entire discussion is personal interpretation. -Dewelar (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bolding your comment doesn't alter the fact that the only reason you have given for saying SMALLCAT doesn't apply is that you have decided that legal status trumps it. And no guideline supports that view, so SMALLCAT applies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting from SMALLCAT: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members." Note the word "never" in there, because it prevents the guideline from applying to ANY place which, at some point in the future, might have more than a few members. It is conceivable that Ixonia might someday generate some number of notable people, therefore SMALLCAT as currently worded does not apply, Q.E.D. Changing "will never have" to "is unlikely to ever have" would likely satisfy the issue, presuming consensus allows the change, but until such a change is made, the applicability of SMALLCAT is not an arguable point. -Dewelar (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As a further point of clarification, I used the legal status of a place for the purpose of presenting an instance in which SMALLCAT as worded might apply to a category of this nature (i.e., people from a place that no longer exists). Taking it out of context and attempting to use it as a bludgeon is not going to help matters. -Dewelar (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying that. I still think you are paying too much attention to legal status, because when a town is unincorporated it is not automatically bulldozed. The buildings are still there, and changes to how it is administered don't mean that the population is evicted. In England, Egremont Urban District Council was abolished in 1974, and the town of Egremont, Cumbria is now part of the Borough of Copeland. But the town still exists, and we have Category:People from Egremont, Cumbria.
    On a strict reading of SMALLCAT, I think you are right to point to the word "never", but it is an overly-literal reading. Read like that, SMALLCAT is inapplicable even in the precedents it cites. For example, Beatles wives could expand significantly if McCartney and Starr live for another 20 years and engage on a series of rapid quickie divorces and remarriages in Nevada ... but that that's highly unlikely. The principle is clear, and Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not intended to sustain the sort of tight textual analysis which statute laws are subjected to in a court. The policy WP:NOTBURO says "do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies".
    A tweak in the wording might help to avoid any further misunderstandings, so I will propose it now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewording proposal made at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#A_tweak_to_SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Overall, my problem with this issue is that everyone seemed to have accepted that this is a settled issue, when nobody can point to a policy or guideline that says we should be deleting this kind of category. Instead, they rely upon interpretations which, while perhaps longstanding and in wide use, may or may not be supported by consensus, and can certainly be interpreted differently by reasonable editors. Examples to which I have been referred showed one person nominating a category, followed by at most 2-3 people voting to merge based on a (to me erroneous) reading of SMALLCAT. That leads me to think that very few editors watch these categories, so very few editors are aware of how these categories are handled. Had I not been the creator the Ixonia category, I still would not be aware. I think some kind of broader discussion of this category tree is in order.
    As for my example, again, it was just an example, although perhaps a poor one. I am not, nor was I ever, "relying on it" for anything other than my own recognition that there may be possible exceptions to my strict-ish reading of SMALLCAT. I am honestly confused as to why you and others have decided to focus on it as you have. -Dewelar (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment coming from a specific county is often very defining, such as Macomb County, Michigan and Oakland County, Michigan being very different places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many of the communities in Wisconsin are small. Using the People from _____ County, Wisconsin category would be better except if it a bigger community like Madison, Milwaukee, etc. Therefore, I agree with with the nominator and BrownHairGirl-merging these categories is a good idea-thank you-RFD (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - One- or two-person from-foo categories for populated places that are below a certain population size can be reasonably assumed to have little reasonable chance for expansion. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC
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:Medalists at the IAAF World Championships in Athletics[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. This proposal has the unintended side-effect of changing the scope of the category.
In any case, the nomination was procedurally invalid, because the category had not been tagged to notify other editors of the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
  1. Conciseness – IAAF World Championships in Athletics is redundant; the IAAF is the International Association of the Athletics Federations. The IAAF only sponsors championships in athletics (a.k.a. track and field), and no other sport. Including "in Athletics" makes the category title unnecessarily long.
  2. Consistency - To maintain consistency with Category:Olympic medalists and other international championship categories, the first word of the category should sort on the event or sponsoring organization

Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2012 (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.

Categories:Women by occupation[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; congratulations to all participants for keeping calm through this interesting discussion, which did change some minds; by the end there were 12 opposers and only 5 still in favour. The "new vote" at the end for reverse renaming of other categories would not have complete consensus either, as some editors support a case-by-case approach to reflect variations in usage. – Fayenatic London 20:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Common English usage, roughly 1/2 of the Category:Women by occupation already use female and all occupations listed within Category:Men by occupation use the adjectival male with the sole exception of Category:Sportsmen. Ncboy2010 (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
  • Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.)
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistent titling, below.)

  1. Recognizability – Both Female foo and Women foo are recognizable
  2. Naturalness Female foo is the more natural of the two.
  3. Precision – Both are equally but not overly precise in defining the scope.
  4. Conciseness – Both are equally concise
  5. Consistency - To maintain consistency (with Category:Men by occupation) we should stick with female foo.
Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Naturalness: "Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English." For a fair number of these categories, the actual more common name in English is "women X", not "female X", e.g. for painters, composers, artists, ... It isn't correct to claim that "female foo is the more natural of the two". Fram (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. They are now about 50/50, so it is not as if the "women" cats are the exception. I created Category:Women painters because, per WP:COMMONNAME, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use "women painters" instead of "female painters", e.g. in Google Books I get a respectable 4,150 results for "female painters"[2], but a massive 59,700, or over 10 times as many, for "women painters"[3]. I get 129 books with "women painters" or a close variation in the title[4]; I only get two books with "female painters" in the title[5]. At least for this category, we should stay at "women painters". I have no opinion on the others individually, but I oppose to move them solely for reasons of consistency, since so many cats use the "women" format. Fram (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well in that case women painters should probably remain as women painters but I still feel the majority of them should be female foo. Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But are all those hits for "women" reliable sources, or are they simply Ghits? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I included the links to my queries, and that's why I used the example search on book titles. While not all books are reliable sources of course, the number of reliable sources among them is much higher than among regular Google hits. If you have a better metric, or can indicate that the majority of these hits are not reliable sources, then we can look further, but for now I'm pretty confident that yes, they are for the most part reliable sources. Fram (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Female" includes children while "women" does not. Women are adults. Women have occupations, not females. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the boy Mozart didn't have an occupation? I don't see how age figures in this; do we really have separate "boy" and "girl" child actor categories? Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As obnoxious as I find it ("woman" is a noun, gosh darnit!) the standard construction is "Women foo". Danger! High voltage! 15:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Many children have had jobs and even occupations. Wikipedia covers the world and its history, not only current developed-world official conditions or only conditions we approve of. The definition of "adult" also varies over time, place and context, and the ambiguity over someone's adulthood can be meaningful -- might not be wise to force the "adult" concept on everyone who has an occupation. Example persons with significant young roles: Andrew Carnegie and Joan of Arc. Many child singers and farm workers are also examples. (I recognize the proposal's been withdrawn but shoot I still want to support it.) For reflection: would we agree that hundreds of millions of girls have had jobs? -- Econterms (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all. The "children" argument notwithstanding, it seems strange to have categories that say male and then have the counterpart categories be women. Who says male and women? It's male and female that go hand-in-hand. Are there Category:Men painters, Category:Men academics, etc? (BTW, what do y'all mean by "foo"?) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Foo bar are just place-holder words to stand in for whatever. Also, because some people stated they agree with the renaming, I'm rescinding my withdrawal and letting consensus go where-ever it may. Ncboy2010 (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blanket renaming of all of these categories. Any renaming should be done only on a case-by-case basis. Cgingold (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per User:Danger, "woman foo" is standard. SnowFire (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Standard according to whom? If you look at the examples given in the nomination, you'll notice that quite a bit of the "female" ones aren't redlinks. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And you'll note that all the "women" ones are bluelinks (obviously!). Anyway, standard in reliable (i.e. non-Wikipedia, non-editor's opinions) sources. We shouldn't be using what we consider to be better English, we should use what is in common use in reliable sources, what is the standard name in reliable sources. Personal preferences shouldn't be taken into consideration. Fram (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not all the "women" foo categories are bluelinks, only the ones that were nominated here. See:
Category:Women bullfighters->Category:Female bullfighters
Category:Women cinematographers->Category:Female cinematographers
Category:Women diplomats->Category:Female diplomats
... along with many others. For An Angel (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I prefer "Female (X)" because of its natural parallel to "Male (X)," whereas the natural parallel to "Women (X)" is "Men (X)." I don't think "Men musicians," for example, would look right.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's silly and makes no sense. So is half of the English language. The question is whether Wikipedia should amend that. Current policy says we take English as it comes, stupid usage and all. Danger! High voltage! 13:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Preferred by whom? Tvoz/talk 19:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. A lady musician is here on this wikipedia because they are an exceptional musician. We don't have a lady/gentleman divided orchestra, so why are they divided here? It is appropriate where the notability guidelines intervene (ie, sports), but other than that, I don't see the point. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The guideline at WP:Cat gender provides a number of long-standing criteria for assessing whether an intersection category should be created between a particular ender and a particular occupation. If editors have concerns about any particular category, the discussion should include an examination of how those criteria apply to the occupation in question. In order to allow proper consideration of the issues, that specific discussion should take place separately from this wider discussion on how to name the gendered categories which do exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In common language women is more commonly used.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of common usage[edit]

I have checked these common usage of each of these terms on Google News and Google Books, and tabulated them all in a subpage, which is transcluded in the collapsed section below.

The table shows clearly that "women fooers" is more commonly used in nearly all cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common usage data for women by occupation

This is a comparison of the usage of "women fooers" and "female fooers" on Google News and Google Books.

For each occupational terms ("fooers"), a search was done on Google News for both "women fooers" and "female fooers". The higher number is highlighted in green. The search was then repeated on Google Books. See notes below for more details.

Fooers Gnews:
Women fooers		 Gnews:
Female fooers		 Gbooks:
Women fooers		 Gbooks:
Female fooers
academics 719 681 19,000 8,030
activists 9,120 1,780 117,000 17,900
anthropologists 82 49 10,500 2,430
architects 1,100 405 14,200 2,540
artists 25,200 13,600 434,000 57,700
bankers 1,170 231 2,910 546
chefs 1,970 1,230 3,440 1,080
comedians 405 1,360 1,720 1,360
composers 3,640 1,010 71,700 3,810
dentists 1,050 272 14,800 3,260
ethnologists 5 0 291 85
inventors 925 218 8,380 680
judges 5,760 3,000 46,800 10,200
painters 4,760 411 59,800 3,800
philosophers 116 45 27,800 2,830
photographers 1,880 722 36,900 2,120
physicians 6,440 3,970 139,000 45,800
scientists 5,650 2,310 110,000 14,900
sheriffs 134 157 281 386
social scientists 31 18 21,500 1,360
sociologists 109 0 4,660 1,570
sports announcers 14 22 2 8
writers 19,500 4,120 2,380,000 118,000

Notes on these searches
  1. All searches conducted by BrownHairedGirl 13 September 2012
  2. The searches follow the guidance at WP:COMMONNAME, which recommends:
    • excluding the word "Wikipedia"
    • a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources
    • exclude works from "Books, LLC" when searching Google Books
  3. The numbers are all clickable links, so that the searches can be replicated. Note that the Google database is constantly changing, so figures will change.
  4. Google searches are subject to some biases. See Wikipedia:Search engine test
  • Oppose: In light of the above evidence, it appears that most (if not all) categories should remain Women fooers. Although it is still my personal opinion that Women fooers almost always sounds wrong, WP:ILIKEIT states this is not a reason to oppose or vote for something so I've decided to vote against my own proposal. Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose women is the prefered way to describe human females.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC) already !voted above[reply]

    • That really depends on the context. I'm pretty neutral now, but whatever we decide, all the categories should say either women or female, not some of each. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is more natural to use male/female as the adjective. It also has the advantages of not assuming multiplicity (woman/women), or humanity (female plugs, female Klingons). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But all such categories already assume multiplicity, no matter the use of "women" or "female": the category would not be "female artist", but "female artistS" anyway. Fram (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about God? Isn't she female? And there's only one woman God. Oh, all right, forget multiplicity. There are still no women Klingons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, there are FEMALE Klingons. Tvoz/talk 19:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – we have this discussion every year or so and reach the same lack of consensus. Mike Selinker consistently argues for 'female' and I consistently argue that in the UK at least 'women' is used as an adjective in this context (and thanks to BHG for a statistical survey reaching the same conclusion and not just in the UK). Oculi (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do apologize for re-starting this discussion; I had no idea. Perhaps there should be a short summary or note in each category explaining that consensus is to use women, see these discussions or something along those lines. Ncboy2010 (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support! Of course! "Women painters" are people who paint women (presumably as the subject of their paintings, but even if it involves the laying of paint on female skin). "Female painters" are painters who are female. "Female" is an adjective, "women" is a noun. We never, ever would say "I went to a convention of men architects." Why would be say that for women? It not only sounds wrong, it is grammatically wrong. Change them all to female and their counterparts to "male" and stop this nonsense. Tvoz/talk 19:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's right, checking dictionaries and etymologies, female is squarely an adjective, and woman is squarely a noun. Why several people assert that it is more natural to qualify an occupation with a noun than with an adjective is beyond me. And I consider myself familiar with US, Australian and English english. Is the tendancy to create compound nouns a German thing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the origins of this usage, the evidence above shows that it is the common usage. Why are some editors seeking to apply their own views of grammar, rather than following naming policy? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we talking individual views on grammar, or verifiable external reliable sources on English grammar. Policy is what we do, not why we do it. Policy here, should be informed by grammar, should it not? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right - this is not my "view" of grammar - it's straight-up grammar. "Women" is a noun. "Female" is an adjective. Tvoz/talk 08:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
English language grammar is not some set of neat universal rules. It evolves all the time, and is littered with exceptions.
Compound nouns, are one sort of exception to the rule that some editors above seem to think is universal, and "woman fooer" is one form of compound noun. Other examples of noun+noun compounds include grapefruit juice, movie star, address book, fish knife, bus stop, book club, or milk chocolate.
The evidence of common usage in reliable sources shows that these compound nouns are amongst those exceptions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, "milk chocolate". But do you think that "women painters" has evolved into a compound noun like "milk chocolate"? I don't think this is all that important in the context of Wikipedia categories, as opposed to real life, but are you seriously suggesting that the language is evolving toward "women" being an adjective but "men" remaining a noun? And while we're at it, I wonder why we don't have parallel categories for male foos - apparently here on the overwhelmingly male Wikipedia the norm is "painters" vs "women painters". So much for equality. Just sayin'. (And yes, I am one of them woman editors.) Tvoz/talk 16:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not as widely used as "milk chocolate". There are a whole lot more chocolate bars than painters. :)
It does seem to be the case that language is evolving as you suggest, with "woman/women" becoming an adjective in some cases.
I haven't done any checks on what's happening with men/male, but that's not what we are discussing here.
You are right that the split "painters" vs "women painters" is asymmetric. That's because WP:CAT gender only allows gendered categories in certain circumstances, and the rationale doesn't often seem apply to men. Whether that's a good or bad thing is not really relevant to this discussion on the names of the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But since the reason for using "common usage" wording in our naming policies is so that readers find what they're looking for, seems to me when two words are clearly interchangeable as far as meaning goes (female and women) there would be zero lack of clarity in using the one that is grammatically correct and we ought to strive for that. Of course the grammatically incorrect name could be set up as a redirect for poor souls who don't know what "female" means, but I don't think this is an area where we need to slavishly follow Google results that may well be skewed by changes over time in sensibility about how words should be used. (I'm thinking "black" vs "African American", for example.) One other thing: you raised WP:CAT gender above, and I'd point out that the text there uses "female" and uses [[Category:Female golfers]] and [[Category: Female heads of government]] as its examples. So if "female" is correct there, whyever would it not be correct here? Consistency? Tvoz/talk 20:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those two categories are cited as examples of categories whose existence conforms with the principles set out in the guideline. However, the guidelines offers no guidance on whether or not that form of naming should be followed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blanket rename. While it is nice to have consistency, alas, in this world of English speakers, we are not always consistent. It is the case that "women foo" is a very common construction, and it is also the case that "female foo" is a common construction. If the speakers of our language have elected to not be consistent across all fields, but instead to use one term in some fields and another term in other fields, well, then, we just have to go with Emerson's dictum: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...". Just like with the national variants, English is inconsistent in its use of gender. ... AND, I note that topics like "women in engineering" are not just "female engineers" -- it's also a topic heading for other articles. --Lquilter (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely said, Lquilter. As I said above, handle on a case-by-case basis. Cgingold (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW - No problem for me at all with the construction "Women in foo" - that's using the noun properly. And I have no problem either with case-by-case, but I'd like to see it as a case-by-case choice between using the noun, 'Women in engineering" or the adjective "Female engineers". Because to my copyediting ears, "women" is just not an adjective. (Maybe my ears aren't evolving as fast as others' are?) Tvoz/talk 19:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. "Women foo" is horrible looking grammarwise. "Women in foo" might work, but "Female foo" is the droidsgrammar we are looking for. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, grammar rule makers dislike the construction, but that does not change the fact that women foo is the preferred construction in much academic, professional, and popular discourse. Common usage is the preferred terminology in reference works, over grammarian-approved constructions. Maybe we can discuss elsewhere why or why not grammarians uber alles. --Lquilter (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hey, this proposal has gone on forever already. Just move the stuff. Please don't forget: Category:Ancient Greek women philosophers‎ -- Category:Female Ancient Greek philosophers. Greg Bard (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason there are no "men" categories is that these categories were renamed (without notification). See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Male_nurses&action=history Ottawahitech (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Male Nurses is not a precedent because it was largely decided by an appeal to actual usage. The actual usage in cases like "woman justices" and such, is for women not female.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Vote: Rename all to women I think this would most clearly reflect actual usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    YES - Rename all to women. The usage of the term "female" when applied to women categories is viewed by many as derogatory and something that drives many women contributors away.Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Kearney, Missouri[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. The Bushranger One ping only 21:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. All categories have 3 or less entries...William 14:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all – these are small places. Oculi (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT. The towns are all small, so their categories offer little prospect of significant expansion, and the counties are small enough that their categories will not become overpopulated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 13 September 2012 (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:Political prisoners and detainees[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: upmerge all to appropriate "Prisoners and detainees" categories, and delete main category. This one's going to be controversial, I expect. We have a split vote here, but significant NPOV concerns on the part of the delete voters. Previous (albeit quite old) discussions have resulted in clear delete majorities on this subject. Very little has changed since then, as evidenced by the Pussy Riot discussion below. Because editors can't agree on those band members' binary classification ("Are they/are they not political prisoners?") despite them being in the news, it looks like the number of times we'll agree on classification will be less than the times we can. So I'm striking the categories again, but I will say that an approach where we don't have to agree--say, where an organization like Amnesty International does the classification for us--might meet with a warmer embrace. (Also, Category:Political prisoners and detainees of China has been nominated for upmerging as well.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political prisoners and detainees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Political prisoners and detainees of Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Political prisoners and detainees of Romania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Political prisoners and detainees of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - These are clear variants of Category:Political prisoners and its sub-cats, which have been deleted twice previously pursuant to strong concensus at CFD. (Basically, we all know there are/have been political prisoners in many countries, but there is simply no way to agree on who should be so designated.) Cgingold (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Cgingold, for the definitional reasons agreed at CfD 2008 September 17 and CfD 2008 September 11. Some of the problems are also set out at Political prisoner#Various_definitions, tho that article is not of high quality.
    Since similar categories were previously deleted after a deletion discussion, this qualifies under WP:CSD#G4. However, the deletion discussions were 4 years ago, so it is probably appropriate to have a full discussion again to see if consensus has changed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - I created the first two of these, while working on Pussy Riot. I adopted the naming convention I found already existing for the categories for Romania and Hungary, for the sake of consistency, and because the names seemed fine. Regarding the issue of whom should be so designated, it would seem that the obvious approach is the encyclopedic one. If a person has been designated a political prisoner by a notable international organization, such as Amnesty International or an organ of the United Nations, then the article should so state. If not, then there should not be a category entry for that person. In other words, we do not decide who is or is not a political prisoner. We only note that people have been so designated. M Carling 12:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    Reply. Amnesty International acknowledges that it uses the term "political prisoner" very broadly. Its work focuses on the related but distinct concept of "prisoner of conscience", which excludes e.g. Nelson Mandela or Constance Markiewicz. Amnesty's broad definition would include large numbers of people in all countries, which would be endlessly controversial if any attempt was made to apply it through the category system. Their definition fits so many people that there is no way Amnesty could be sole arbiter of its use, even if we thought it appropriate to accept only one organisation's assessments.
    I was not aware that the UN had adopted a formal definition of a political prisoner, or that it made any systematic effort to identify them. Can you point me to anything which might help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - For example, the UN Security Council asked Professor Carl Aage Norgaard, then President of the European Commission of Human Rights, to identify political prisoners in Namibia in 1989/90. M Carling 15:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a reference for that?
    A one-off request may not have involved a formal, standardised definition. Nor is it evidence of a systematic effort to identify who met that definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Ignoring political prisoners and detainees by Wikipedia is totally unacceptable. They existed and exist. The category does not make any assumptions on what political views the detainee had, simply that he or she was detained for political reasons. When we ignore this category and we group them in the larger category of detainees, you put criminals, murderers, thiefs in the same group with political prisoners which is totally unacceptable. Whatever the political views the political detainee is not a criminal. In many cases, for instance in communist countries, political prisoners were considered a category distinct from criminals. Wikipedia includes a category of Prisoners and detainees of British India. Maybe with the exceptions of B. Dutt, who did place a bomb and by today's standards could be considered a terorist (though not when he was sentenced), all the others were politicians and detained for political reasons, such as the Quit India movement. I am sorry, Cgingold, but even if a great majority agreed that Mahatma Ghandhi should be put into the same category as any common criminal for instance Willem Holleeder who was a criminal and an extorsionist such an analogy is incorrect. The difference between the two types of detention should be reflected by wikipedia. The result is that some political detainees are not even listed as detainees at all. Take Anna Timiriova, who was imprisoned several times because she had been the mistress of admiral Kolchak, obviously for political reasons. The categories are meant to help people who consult wikipedia to find the articles pertinent to their interest. There are undoubtly people who are interested in political prisoner and not common law prisoners. Ignoring the category is definitely denigratory for the people who suffered for their views and not for having commited crimes. Ignoring the category of political prisoners alltogether is totally contrary to a neutral view which wikipedia claims to follow (which I agree that it not always does) - it implying siding with the opressors, whoever they are. And that is not acceptable in any way. Wikipedia should not take sides.
At present Wikipedia differentiates between the categories of detainess. For instance, in Russia, there is a separate category Gulag detainees (which includes political detainees during the Soviet Union), while other criminals are included in other categories, for instance People convicted for murder in the Soviet Union (such as Toomas Leius, a tennisplayer who murdered his wife). Why is this differentiation acceptable for the Soviet Union and not for other countries. For Germany there is a category which includes prisoners of Nazi concentration camps which includes only 3 political prisoners (were there really no more who deserved being mentioned in Wikipedia, or have they not been included because the authors did not want to. There is a category for prisoners in East Germany which includes only Max Poepel (who was detained by the Soviet authorities albeit in East Germany) - was the East German regime and the Stasi really so nice as to not detain anybody worth mentioning in Wikipedia. Do all these not indicate a bias in Wikipedia?
The conclusion is not only to retain the category of political detainees, but to create a working group who should look at the entire structure of detainees in general and political detainees in particular and to develop a structure which could be applied to all countries in the same way. Afil (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to assure both of the category creators that I feel no less strongly about political prisoners than either of you. Nevertheless, the strength of our feelings on any issue cannot determine whether a given Wikipedia category should exist. Trust me, this frustrates me to no end. However, the fact remains that these particular categories are inherently problematic. The statement "simply that he or she was detained for political reasons" pinpoints the problem: the fact is, it is NOT necessarily a "simple" determination. Some countries have made it fairly easy for us by prosecuting people for explicitly political "crimes", and/or by detaining such individuals in separate facilities that are designated as such. But those are the exceptions.
To illustrate the problem, let's consider the issue with respect to two very different countries. Like User:Mcarling, I myself regard the Pussy Riot women as political prisoners; however, there is vociferous disagreement on that point by their detractors (not all of whom are Russian). I'm afraid the issue is far too contentious to allow for such categorization. Meanwhile, here in the United States, things are handled differently, right? Surely there are no political prisoners here?? I'm certain most of my fellow citizens would be shocked to learn that there are, since the mainstream media here won't go near the issue. But I would contend that there are more than a few political prisoners here, including Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and the Cuban Five, just to name some of the most prominent cases. While not prosecuted for explicitly political "crimes", I would argue that their prosecutions and imprisonment were politically motivated, thus making them "political prisoners". Nonetheless, regardless of my personal views, it would NOT be appropriate for them to be categorized in Category:Political prisoners of the United States. Can you imagine the uproar if that particular category was created? I hope these examples help to illuminate the inherently problematic nature of these categories. Cgingold (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I have not indicated my personal views regarding Pussy Riot, nor do I plan to do so. They are not relevant here. I have merely noted that the three Pussy Riot detainees are considered political prisoners. I do not see retention of these categories as a moral imperative; I see retention as an encyclopedic imperative -- no matter how problematic it may be. Saying that something is difficult is fine. Saying that we shouldn't do it because it's difficult is not. As for the minor side point about political prisoners in the US, whether encyclopedia work results in uproar somewhere is not high on my list of concerns. I expect there are easily documentable NGOs in Israel that consider Jonathan Pollard a political prisoner, having received a life sentence for passing information to Israel that earlier and later US administrations routinely passed to Israel through official channels. I expect there are examples of US detainees considered political prisoners by the EU. M Carling 01:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only have time for a relatively brief comment for now. First, when I said these categories were "problematic" it was an understatement -- I probably should have said "impossibly problematic". And when I referred to the "uproar" that would result, the point was that it would be impossible to achieve any sort of agreement on the valid use of such categories. Beyond that, it's clear from your remarks that you simply have a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes for an acceptable, appropriate and workable Wikipedia Category. You seem to be suggesting that any individual who has been described as a "political prisoner" by literally any third party would be properly categorized as such here on Wikipedia. In all sincerity, I am pretty sure that the vast majority of editors would regard such a standard as laughable and absurd. Sorry, that's all I have time for now; I suspect BrownHairedGirl will have more to say. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - You have again misstated my position. I never wrote or implied "any third party". For example, I'm a third party. I already pointed out that my opinion about who is or is not a political prisoner is not relevant.
I acknowledge that a universally accepted definition of political prisoner has not yet developed in international law, though there is significant movement in that direction. For example, the Council of Europe is in the process of adopting a definition that will be binding international law among the CoE member states. M Carling 05:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misstated your position?? I honestly don't think so... When you say, "Pussy Riot detainees are considered political prisoners", OR "there are easily documentable NGOs in Israel that consider Jonathan Pollard a political prisoner", OR "US detainees considered political prisoners by the EU", you're clearly invoking third parties, of one kind or another, who consider various individuals to be "political prisoners".
I think your concluding remark really gets to the heart of the problem: There is no agreed upon universal standard for the designation of political prisoners. Absent such a standard, Categories like these simply do not meet the basic criteria for Wikipedia Categories. There's really not much more to say about it. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for that acknowledgment, which goes to the core of the problem.
You are wrong to say that this is a matter of not doing something because it is difficult. The reason for not doing it is that is nobody has identified a way of overcoming the difficulties without breaching Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability and neutrality.
In the absence of a stable, consistent definition, there is no NPOV way of determining how to populate categories such as this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there were a clear, unambiguous, universally accepted definition of political prisoner codified in the UN Charter, it would be irrelevant to this discussion because it is not the job of wikipedians to judge the facts of a case against the law. Rather, the job of the wikipedians is to rely on reliable, verifiable sources, generally secondary sources. So, if the ABC organization publishes on their own website that Santa Claus is a political prisoner, that doesn't warrant an article. On the other hand, if the New York Times, Le Monde, and Al Jazeera all report that ABC organization says that Santa Claus is a political prisoner, then that meets the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guidelines. Wikipedia already has guidelines to deal with all of the issues that may arise on this issue. Of course, NPOV requires also presenting the argument why Santa Claus is not a political prisoner -- if there are reliable secondary sources reporting on those counter-arguments. M Carling 16:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
M Carling, you are quite right that NPOV requires us to present both sides of the argument. The policy says: "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
In prose text, we can handle that easily, by stating those opinions and weighing them. But categories do not allow us to present both sides. They are a binary switch, with no in-between position, and no nuances: either topic is included in the category, or it isn't. The page appears in the category listing without explanation or qualification, and the category list at the bottom of a page is equally binary. That's why categories are unsuitable for issues such as this, where the assessment depends on the application of POV to subjective criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, you seem to be suggesting that the potential problems are not with the categories per se but with the articles which might be included within them. I agree with that. The articles need to conform to wikipedia guidelines, but that's true whether the categories exist or not. If the articles are problematic, then the solution is to fix the articles, not to eliminate the categories. If the articles are ok, then there is no reason to eliminate the categories. If the articles are not ok, eliminating the categories will not fix the articles. M Carling 20:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not at all what I am suggesting. Please re-read what I wrote, in which I made a very clear distinction between the articles and categories.
Even with perfect articles, categories are unworkable for WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE terminology and radically divergent points of view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If an article about a detainee mentions -- in complete conformance with all wikipedia policies -- that the detainee is considered a political prisoner, then the category applies. In other words, inclusion in the category is not a determination of whether the detainee is or is not a political prisoner (so it is not subjective). Inclusion in the category merely indicates that the article about the detainee discusses political prisoner status. Any subjective considerations have to be dealt with in the article, not in categorization. M Carling 11:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below, the category title does not reflect the fact that you intend it to be used without prejudice as to whether the label is widely accepted. We are not talking here Category:Prisoners and detainees who somebody has labeled as political, regardless of whether others disagree, nor are we talking about Category:Prisoners and detainees about whom there have even discussions on whether they should be seen as political prisoners; we talking about Category:Prisoners and detainees. That presents itself as a statement of fact rather than of POV opinion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the fact that two of these categories were created to cover people arrested for disturbing a place of worship, which is clearly not a case of being politcal prisoners, clearly shows the fact that these terms are commonly misapplied to cover those who people agree with no matter whether they have in fact committed crimes that are clearly not "political". The claim that someone is a "political prisoner" is generally contested by the people who have arrested them often for very clear and real crimes that are universally seen as such. Invading the private property of a religious group and disrupting its sacred space is generally not seen as a political crime, but as a real act of tresspass.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And purge Pussy riot for the exact reasons listed by John Pack Lambert. Are there political prisoners? Yes. Wikipedia should have a category for folks like Alexander Solzhenitsyn. A good compromise would be that no living person be included in the category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly do you propose to define the inclusion criteria in an objective and NPOV manner, whilst avoiding WP:OR? And on what policy grounds do you propose excluding living people? I don't see any WP:BLP problem.
    In the discussion above, I see nobody disputing the fact there is such a thing as a political prisoner. However, the problem starts with defining what justifies the label, leading to constant dispute over who is a political prisoner. It's very easy to find extreme cases such as Aung San Suu Kyi or Alexander Solzhenitsyn where there is overwhelmimg agreement, but for every one of those high-profile hardcore examples there are hundreds of others where use of the term causes a huge POV dispute. For example, take any one of Bradley Manning, Leonard Peltier, Bobby Sands, Nicky Kelly, Mordechai Vanunu, Jonathan Pollard, Archbishop Makarios, and you will find that there is a consistent and reasoned set principles labeling their imprisonment as political ... and similarly consistent and reasoned set principles for denying them that label.
    The category system, with its unqualified binary choice between inclusion or exclusion, cannot present these different views in accordance with the core policy WP:NPOV, which explicitly requires us to present opposing views in a balanced way.
    Editors who want to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this topic should start by expanding and improving the head article political prisoner, which is currently in an abysmal state. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "How exactly do you propose to define the inclusion criteria in an objective and NPOV manner, whilst avoiding WP:OR?" Simple. If the article about the person notes that they are considered a political prisoner (obviously not by everyone), then they belong to the category. If the article about the person does not state that they are considered a political prisoner, then the category does not apply.
    "the problem starts with defining what justifies the label, leading to constant dispute over who is a political prisoner." That is a problem for the articles to deal with. It is not a problem for the categories.
    "The category system, with its unqualified binary choice between inclusion or exclusion, cannot present these different views in accordance with the core policy WP:NPOV, which explicitly requires us to present opposing views in a balanced way." That balanced presentation belongs in the articles and is not relevant to the categories. M Carling 08:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mcarling, I'm going to try one more reply to you, in the increasingly forlorn hope that you might engage with the problem that this is a highly POV topic. Articles are required per WP:NPOV to reflect all the various views, and to attribute assertions. Your assertion that categories are somehow exempt from the core policy of WP:NPOV is explicitly contradicted at WP:WEIGHT.
    The notion that "the article states" is rarely as straightforward as you like to think. In most cases, an article's statement will be qualified or attributed, as in the case at Leonard Peltier#Post-trial_debate which says "Peltier is considered by the AIM to be a political prisoner".
    How exactly do you propose to handle that type of situation? Or that of the participants in the 1981 Irish hunger strike, which was about whether or not the prisoners were political prisoners.
    In the case of Peltier, do you intend to choose the POV of the AIM, and categorise him as political prisoner? Do do you choose the POV of the AIM, or that of the FBI which described Peltier as an "unrepentant murderer" and accused him of "political gamesmanship", and again referred to his "callous criminal acts".
    In the article, these views can be attributed and balanced. But the category only allows a choice between 2 stark options:
    1. Include him, which is POV position supporting the AIM
    2. Exclude him, which is POV position supporting the FBI
    Remember that once the category exists, you have to choose one of those POVs: 100% yes or 100% no. The category allows you no ifs, no buts, and no in-betweens. Which ya gonna chose? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explicitly answered that, but I assume you are repeating the question in good faith. If the article covers both sides in compliance with NPOV and all other wikipedia policies, then the category applies. That is NOT an indication the detainee is (or was) a political prisoner. It is merely an indicator that the article presents the fact that the detainee has been considered a political prisoner by a notable body, and that it was notable enough to be covered by a (generally secondary) source.
The text at WP:WEIGHT to which you refer discusses categories only in the context of "tiny minorit[ies]". It then goes on to say that views attributable only to tiny minorities should not be in the article space. So, my test complies perfectly with WP:WEIGHT. If views on whether or not a detainee is a political prisoner belong in the article, then the article fits to the category. If the views are held by only a tiny minority such that the category should not apply, then representation of those views does not belong in the article either and so the category would not apply by the criteria I outlined.
If your argument were valid, then we couldn't have categories at all about anything which could possibly be controversial, which is everything. M Carling 15:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right on one point: we don't have categories on a lot of things, for precisely the reasons of subjectivity which I set out. One excellent parallel is Category:Terrorists, deleted at CfD in 2007.
But your approach to populating the category is illogical. If we were talking about Category:Prisoners and detainees who somebody has labeled as political, regardless of whether others disagree, then your approach to populating it would make sense. But we are not; we are talking about Category:Political prisoners and detainees: an unqualified assertion, which you want to apply even if the label is disputed by as many as those who support it. That is a flagrant breach of NPOV.
You might as well say that since George W. Bush and Tony Blair have been widely described as "war criminals", they should be added to Category:War criminals even tho plenty of sources strongly disagree. Can you see why that approach would lead to many articles being populated with lots of POV categorisations from both sides? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like your analogy, but your example is ill-chosen. In virtually every legal system of the world, one cannot be said to be a criminal unless one has been convicted of a crime. To the best of my knowledge, George Bush and Tony Blair have not been convicted of war crimes.
It seems to me that it should be obvious that the status of every political prisoner is disputed by someone (though that was not always the case before the mid-20th century) but if you think it's not obvious, then perhaps the category would be better named Category: Alleged political prisoners. Likewise for Category: Alleged terrorists.
I still disagree with your assertion that categorization is an assertion but, if the suggested category names just above are acceptable, then the point becomes moot. M Carling 18:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you are starting to see the distinction here. I can agree that it probably is the case that the status of most political prisoners is disputed by someone. That's why it makes a bad category: it's a subjective judgement, which means that it is a POV label.
Your alternative of a category of allegations doesn;t work either, because that leaves it wide open to any source making an allegation. For a (looong) list of some previous "alleged/suspected/rumoured/purported X" categories deleted at CFD, see User:Good Olfactory/CFD#Alleged. Please do take some time to read those discussions (and also some of those at User:Good Olfactory/CFD#Subjective, and see why that sort of category is repeatedly rejected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the reading that BrownHairedGirl ask me to read. I didn't find any enlightening new arguments that hadn't already been put forth here. The key flaw in the argument that categories should be deleted if inclusion (or exclusion) of a category could be controversial is that every category meets that test and would therefore have to be deleted. There is no objective test for determining a relative degree of potential controversy. Just to take one example, about 90% of the work in theoretical physics is currently in String theory which is included in the categories Category:Concepts in physics, Category:Particle physics, and Category:Theoretical physics (among others) but this is certainly controversial. Numerous prominent physicists argue that String theory is not even physics because it's not science; that's it's pure math, not even applied math. So, if the categories for political prisoners should be deleted, then the categories for physics need to be deleted too because there is controversy over which articles should be included. Then all the categories must deleted. M Carling 14:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just made Category:Communist rehabilitations (~200 pages) a subcat of this category. Those are essentially people who were officially recognized by their Communist or successor governments as unjustly imprisoned by the State for political reasons. And even Stalinist government officially considered them imprisoned for political crimes. A quick check of people included in the following categories: Category:Soviet dissidents, Category:Gulag detainees and Category:Sharashka inmates shows that almost all of them were described in RS as "political prisoners". Whether or not they were unjustly persecuted is not a matter of a controversy or historical debate, but mainstream view per multiple RS and usually officially admitted by their governments (e.g. in documents given to their relatives during Rehabilitation (Soviet)). Hence the statement by the nominator that "we all know .. there is simply no way to agree" is baseless. If there are any concerns about any particular person, this should be discussed at article talk pages, and in the examples above the assignment would not be even a matter of serious debate. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition you forget about Category:Political prisoners and detainees of China, and every person there is indeed a political prisoner per multiple sources. I notified creator about this discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for a few reasons. 1) The application of the term 'political prisoner' may be subjective, but it is nonetheless a valid concept that is defined in a roughly consistent manner by multiple sources. The same could be said of any number of categories of persons; terming someone an "artist," for instance, may be subjective, but that's not grounds to delete all related categories. 2) If the concern with these categories is that we don't know who should be included within them, I think that's a separate discussion. If someone feels that a person does not belong in the category, that can be handled on a case-by-case basis. It may also be helpful if we set forth some kind of criteria for inclusion in the category (eg. they have been name as political prisoners or prisoners of conscience by a reliable source, for instance). 3) Most importantly, the categories are useful. I created one recently because I had a desire to find all articles on Chinese political prisoners, and had no means of doing so. The closest category was prisoners in China, which is not the same thing. The overriding consideration here, in my view, is whether these categories serve our readers, and I think they do. With all that said, I would also be open to renaming to something less ambiguous (eg. prisoner of conscience?)Homunculus (duihua) 21:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Homunculus, there are lots of very useful valid concepts in the world. Some of them are widely used to label people as infidels, heretics, war heroes, rock stars, divas, etc. But their lack of an NPOV objective definition makes them very hard to apply consistently, which is why we have no Category:Infidels, Category:Heretics, Category:War heroes, Category:Rock stars, or Category:Divas. That's because the case-by-case disputes don't just apply to edge cases, as they do on the margins between art and craft; in these cases the problems apply to all except a very few hardcore cases.
    In the case of your Chinese example, there is a simple solution: create a list of alleged political prisoners. In a list you can attribute and reference all claims, and accommodate multiple viewpoints as required by WP:NPOV. A category doesn't allow any of that, and NPOV is a core policy.
    BTW, you say "the categories are useful". See WP:ITSUSEFUL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL reads "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument." ;)
I don't think the examples of non-viable categories you provide above really applicable here. The examples you list clearly violate WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE (and, in some instances, WP:LABEL). I would contend that 'political prisoner' is not of the same nature. But I suppose that's the crux of the issue here, isn't it? You do think it violates that policy. Am I reading you right? Homunculus (duihua) 01:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You read me right. The unqualified application of the label violates the core policy of WP:NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm glad that's clear. As I mentioned on your talk page, while I can appreciate the validity of this concern, I think your objections are largely theoretical; in most instances, I don't think the label would really be very contentious. Pussy riot, which has been used several times here as an example of a controversial political prisoner classification, is atypical. You suggested that we need represent the views of the states sentencing or detaining these individuals in order to preserve neutrality. In the category Political prisoners and detainees of China, about half of the people listed were charged for a purely political crime (article 105, 'subversion of state power'). In these cases, the state's position is compatible with the political prisoner classification adopted by independent, reliable sources. Most of the others were imprisoned under what is functionally a similar charge of 'undermining public order' (not through riots or insurrection, but through advocating transparency or enforcement of the rule of law, etc). In all these cases, I have not seen any reliable source contending that these people are anything other than prisoners of conscience. I imagine that most of the now-rehabilitated Soviet political prisoners are similarly unambiguous cases. Homunculus (duihua) 13:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The categories are useful because they help to navigate through articles on similar subjects. This is the only purpose of categories, not to promote any kind of POV. These people share an important, defining similarity, no matter if they lived in Russia or China. To be a political prisoner, that is what determined similar fate of these people. As I noted above, there is nothing "alleged" in political prisoners from these countries. My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, categories should not be used to promote any kind of POV. However, that's exactly what these categories do, by adding an unqualified and unattributed POV label to the bottom of articles.
    Your comment about there being "nothing alleged" in the claimed political status of Russian prisoners does not fit the case of Pussy Riot, for whom I think the Russia categ was created. The Russian state strongly disputes the claim that they are political prisoners. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said "nothing alleged" about cases that do not cause any controversy, and there are many of them, which alone justifies the existence of the category (my comment above). Speaking about cases like Pussy Riot, this is not anything special. Whether or not a particular cat should be usad for particular article should be decided by consensus. Deleting categories that occasionally case disputes is like deleting articles on important but controversial subjects. Nothing prohibits us from using such categories, just as from creating articles on occasionally controversial subjects. People can be defined as "political prisoners" by all sources (in non-controversial cases) or by majority of sources (in more controversial cases). My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are not articles; they are a navigational device rather than content, and their deletion removes no content.
It's great in theory to talk of disputes being decided by consensus, but WP:NPOV does not permit us to resolve POV issues by a binary choice between one extreme or the other. That means that means that any of these categories will raise disputes over a number of articles, and that many of those disputes cannotbe resolved in accordance with our core policies.
Your suggested solution of using a "majority of sources" in controversial cases would be a flagrant breach of NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am putting myself in the shoes of an occasional wikipedia user who is simply looking for information. As an occasional user, I usually do not care much about the cats on the bottom of page. I can decide for myself (after reading the article) if someone was or was not a political prisoner. If I believe that someone was not a political prisoner, just looking at the POV category on the very bottom will not affect my view on the subject. Not a chance. However, let's consider what happens if I want to do some research. Let's look at page Osama bin Laden, just to clarify the idea. Good page, but I would like to find some pages about other famous terrorists all around the world. I do not care if they are celebrities like Carlos the Jackal, self-admitted terrorists, like Category:Narodnaya Volya, or whatever. And as a outside user, I could not even care less if some of them were not terrorists at all. I can decide this myself. But I must be able to find information I need. Can I? No. I can go to Category:Terrorism by country, but it is missing the critical component: people who committed all this. There are cats about the events, but there are no cats about people responsible for these events. Surprisingly, we have Category:Terrorists, but look what is there... What a shame. Everything else was deleted. Same is here. The deletion of Category:Victims of political repression made it very difficult to navigate, research and edit these pages, and this is far more important than having disputable cats about some people. My very best wishes (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that you would prefer inaccurate or POV information to no information. However, core policies dictate the opposite. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a matter of something that I would prefer. I almost stopped editing in this area, and deletion of cats was one (although a relatively minor) factor. This is something that users of wikipedia need. My very best wishes (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was informal response. Now, let me give you formal response. According to WP:NPOV, "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.". Yes, the categories follow binary logic, simply by their nature, but this does not invalidate anything. Yes, the categories must be chosen "to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." It means that if more than 50% RS claim someone to be a "political prisoner", the page should be classified as such. This is per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try a bit of simple maths. Adding articles to the category when 55% RS claim someone to be a "political prisoner" gives zero representation to the 45% view. That is a flagrant breach of WP:NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is exactly per policy. It tells: "to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." The proportional representation for objects of type "yes" or "no" means less or more than 50%. There is nothing wrong here. This is used in science, for example in psychological tests where person is forced to answer strictly "yes" or "no" to questions. My very best wishes (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but if you think that excluding the minority view is a proportionate representation of a politically controversial topic, then further discussion is pointless. If you disagree, then go to WT:NPOV and propose a change to incorporate your principle. I look fwd to hearing how you get on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two points. (a) There is no minority view with regard to many people in this category; their assignment is noncontroversial (see above and below), but you suggest to remove them all; (b) consider biological taxonomy as an example of classification/categorization. Many classification units are debated or even disputed by some minority. But without using the currently accepted imperfect classification, it would be very difficult, if not impossible to work in this area of science. Same is here. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this is still very much a theoretical discussion. In the overwhelming majority of cases (particularly in authoritarian states), the classifications of political prisoners is generally not going to be so divided or contentious. Above, someone referred to Aung San Suu Kyi and Szolzsenyicin as 'extreme' cases. But they are not extreme. They are just very well known. Take the example of Nobel Prize winner Liu Xiaobo. He was sentenced to a decade in prison for subversion, and there is no prominent POV (not even the state's) that would hold he is anything but a political prisoner. He is not an aberration; there are tens of thousands of other Chinese prisoners who were sentenced under the same or similar laws for the non-violent expression of their beliefs or ideas—something that is supposed to be protected under that country's constitution. More still have been imprisoned without charge for their peacefully held ideas (eg. for being 'reactionaries' or 'rightists,' among other things). Taking this out of the domain of theoretical abstractions, whose POV would say these people are not political prisoners? Homunculus (duihua) 20:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese govt would object for starters, and have already branded him as a "criminal".
Maybe you reckon that you can apply NPOV by excluding that POV ... which would be an odd approach (neutral between the POVs we don't exclude). If so, consider where that leaves Bradley Manning, Bobby Sands, Eamon de Valera, Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Charles Stuart Parnell etc. Take the detaining govt's POV out of the equation, ignore their branding of these ppl as "criminal", and abracadabra ... we have an uncontested label.
This desire to ignore POVs which you dislike seems to be deep-rooted, so I'll not argue with you any more. I'll leave it to the closing admin to see whether they buy the novel versions of NPOV which some editors have championed in this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not excluding a POV. The Chinese government would not object to the classification of these individuals as political prisoners. They sentence people to prison on political charges. Being a criminal and a political prisoner are not necessarily mutually exclusive in a state that criminalizes certain political positions (eg. being a 'counterrevolutionary' or advocating for a multiparty system). The POV of the state is that these people committed political crimes, and thus are political prisoners. I have no comment on Leonard Peltier and Bradley Manning et al. My comments here mainly pertain to the category Political prisoners and detainees of China (though the same arguments would probably hold in a number of other authoritarian systems). Homunculus (duihua) 23:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, this argument also applies to people sent to Gulag on official political charges, like "spies, terrorists, saboteurs", and it does not matter if these charges were real or bogus for this category. If even Stalin would agree with such classification (and of course all modern day historians agree), why wikipedia should consider this controversial? My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2012 (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:1957 NCAA University Division football standings templates[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. The nomination was based on a misunderstanding of the category's purpose. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency's sake with other existing categories. Psharpless (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It doesn't categorize pages about standings, it categorizes templates. I think the current name is accurate. Not sure how/why the latter convention became standard, but I'd support their change to this convention. VegaDark (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2012 (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:Navajo Nation stubs[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, but rename stub to {{Navajo-stub}}.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Tightly defined stub category, with few available articles. Delete as undersized. Keep template, but upmerge. Dawynn (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2012 (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/2012_September_12&oldid=1074810000"