Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 20 April 22 >

April 21[edit]

Category:Folk heroes[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: Speedily deleted as re-creation and as creation by sockpuppet of banned user. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Folk heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I believe this is a recreation of a previous category that was deleted as hopelessly POV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:SOS Band songs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:SOS Band songs to Category:The SOS Band songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main - speedy? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mesoamerican historians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mesoamerican historians to Category:Historians of Mesoamerica
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Currently everything in Category:Historians by nationality is of the style "FOO historians" or "FOOish historians" (Category:French historians, Category:New Zealand historians, etc.). Everything in Category:Historians by field of study is of the style "Historians of FOO" (Category:Historians of France, Category:Historians of Native Americans). Well, except this category. It's a "by field of study" category (plenty of the historians in the category are blatantly not descended from indigenous Mesoamericans), but it's named in the "Historians by nationality" form. Unless there's a good reason for this that I'm missing, it should probably conform to the usual standard. SnowFire (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename While I disagree with the unanimity of the prevalence of the naming convention (Category:Cold War historians is really about historians of the Cold War, not historians who lived during the Cold War), Mesoamerican historians could mean Historians who live (or lived) in Mesoamerica, while the proposed Category:Historians of Mesoamerica is far less ambiguous. Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: I agree about topics like Cold War / World War I / economic historians; there's no risk of confusion whether it's FOO historians or Historians of FOO there. The above only applies when FOO is a country / ethnicity / region, and of those, Mesoamerica is the only odd one out. SnowFire (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Victims of political repression[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: relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression.--Aervanath (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Victims of political repression (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category and its subcategories are too vague, too subjective. If the word 'victims' is given its widest meaning, then every single person who lived within the influence of a repressive political presence can be included. If the phrase 'political repression' is given its widest latitude, then laws judged as repressive can be included, making every citizen of that country a victim. This category and its subcategories appear to me to be magnets for POV-pushers, and potential dustbins for lazy editing. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider renaming to standarize. Those categories are badly needed, and yes, they may include a lot of people. So what? So do many other categories. Note that in many cases those categories have more refined subcategories. One thing that I think we may want to clarify and standarize is whther the word "political" should be included, or removed in the above categories. Is political repression the same as repression? As "Repression" is a disambig, and only "political repression" makes sense out of the available choices, I think that the answer is yes - so I'd suggest removing the word "political" from the above categories. Further, we need to standarize the grammar: we have "victims of [country-name] repression" and "victims of repression in [country-name]". Which is better? I think we prefer "in [country name]". Also, we need to stanndarize singular "repression" vs "repressions". I also suggest standarizing to singular per main article ("political repression"). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's rationale boils down to "We can't decide inclusion because the criteria are nuanced and context-rich!" That's exactly the thing: we don't have to. Instead of having to do WP:OR, we have sources. Historians have done a whole lot of research on all of these topics, and written about it. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 20:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would instead characterize my rationale as "We can't decide inclusion because the criteria are vague and open to to subjective interpretation." I'm not worried about the historians and cited sources, I'm worried about the potential for edit wars and the lazy slapping-on of a label where subtle nuance or polarized expert opinion doesn't support the hard label. What happens if one cited source says the person was a common criminal who violated a law of the land, and another says the person was a revolutionary who was martyred for a cause? What category is that? Let's move forward into categories that have more precision. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in life is subject to subjective interpretation, with the exception of pure mathematics. That doesn't mean it is unfit to be discussed in Wikipedia. The fundamental policies of WP:RS and WP:NPOV apply in these categories as everywhere.
In other words: the trick is to let the expert researchers do the dirty work; then Wikipedians won't have to decide who is or who isn't a victim -- they can refer to expert opinion. And scholarly consensus is what any self-respecting encyclopædia reports. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vague??? It is enough to look at Category:Victims_of_Soviet_repressions to see that it includes a hundred pages for people who were indeed victims of Soviet political repressions - per numerous sources (no modern scholarly source ever questioned them to be victims of repressions, like extrajudicial execution, etc.).Biophys (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So, is it impossible to replace the vague categories for ones that are more precise? I think it is possible. Here's an example: General Vladimir Viktorovich Sakharov could be placed into the notional category of Category:People shot by Bolsheviks, or something similar. Nobody could possibly argue that point because of its specificity. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely what we must avoid. "People shot by Bolsheviks" is a self-invented category. How about "People drawn by Bolsheviks" or "People shot by Cheka" (many Bolsheviks criticized Cheka for atrocities, so why should we blame them?). On the other hand, "Victims of political repressions" is a well established terminology.Biophys (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "self-invented category"? And why would any category be judged except on its own merits? Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is very simple. Terminology like "victims of political repressions" is widely used in literature, whereas "People shot by Bolsheviks" is an invention by a wikipedian (WP:OR).Biophys (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you limited the categories on WP to ones "used in literature", there would be a massive cutback of long-standing cats. I see no reason why a perfectly good category should be thrown out because it was invented by a wiki editor. If it makes sense, if it neatly classifies, it stands on its own. My throwaway example about Bolsheviks that you seem to be focusing on could, of course, be created as anything you like; perhaps you'd be happier with Category:Executions carried out by Bolsheviks, or Category:Bolshevik killings, or whatever. Binksternet (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we must stick as close as possible to categories that are widely "used in literature" to avoid WP:OR. Otherwise, people will indeed make something like Category:Bolshevik killings.Biophys (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's argumentation. An unnecessary, vague and POV-pushing template. Offliner (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to strike the above comment from record as vague genericism unapplicable to the discussion at hand. We're at CfD, not TfD. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear to me that Offliner was responding to this exact cfd, and typed 'template' by mistake. The opinion presented here is valid. Binksternet (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was just a simple typo. Sorry about that. Offliner (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let reliable published sources determine whether an individual should be included into the relevant category. Victims of Nazi repression, that is easy. Victims of British political repression, more difficult. But either way, each individual should be treated on a case by case basis on the relevant talk page. Don't see any evidence that this approach has caused endemic edit wars in the past. Martintg (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid categories. The individual article talk pages are the place to discuss what goes here. There are enough utterly unambiguous ones to justify the categories. DGG (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "victim" and "political repression" are terms routinely used by reliable sources. You do realise you're suggesting we delete Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps and Category:Great Purge victims, right? Nothing "vague" or "subjective" about those, is there? To be fair, we can set up more rigorous inclusion criteria, but deletion is hardly the answer. - Biruitorul Talk 00:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Those categories are not ones I propose deleting, though I recommend a renaming to make 'victims' be 'deaths' for the Great Purge cat. The low-ranking Soviet officers who suddenly had no role models and were pushed into higher-profile positions before their time... these people could be called victims, in a sense. The Nazi category is perfect as is, no need to delete it or adjust it. I don't understand why you would see the current cfd as touching it. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A person may be described by some biographers as a victim of political repression, and by others as a common criminal. As an encyclopedia, we need to categorize people by objective means. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You certainly can. By your rationale, we could go ahead and delete Category:Victims of Nazi German repressions. Because not everything is as extreme does not mean that it did not happen or should not be listed here. Every individual listed in these categories can have his or her history examined and srutinized, although – per nominator – POV-pushing is inevitable here. That's life, though, and the solution is not to just throw out the baby with the bath water. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You can't silence the victims. This is about political repression. It happened. We document it. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not trying to silence anybody. I'm trying to make clear a foggy issue. Very different motive than you impute. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was not mentioning you specifically – but for what it's worth, I'll note that categories such as, for example, Category:Victims of Soviet repressions have been around with us for years. Category:Victims of American political repression was recently created and expanded. You then suggested that we split the articles into subcategories since you were uncomfortable with the category, which I did. Now you're suddenly arguing for the deletion of the entire victims of repression category. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • A category being around for years is not a defense; it can be wrong for all those years, or events can supersede it, making it less apt than it was at its start. Yes, you have correctly summed up the history of my ambivalence about the category, which I first encountered at the American cat. Splitting it was under discussion, but once I began seeing the connections to other cats, it didn't seem to me to be the solution. I'm not in favor of deleting the very accurate subcategories, I'm in favor of deleting this unspecific umbrella category and its country cousins. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mailk. Many prisoners claim to be the victim of political repression; is Assata Shakur a victim of political repression or a cop killer? One can debate it, but sources differ and I'd rather not to have such subjective categories around which can violate WP:BLP.--TM 04:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what a prisoner claims about himself or herself is somewhat irrelevant, falling under WP:SELFPUB. What matters is what researchers say. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And researchers fundamentally disagree on a great number of people. Lumping them together in such a way is unhelpful and incredibly POV.--TM 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as failed nom. A whole bunch of different unrelated cats is dumped together for a summary delete? No way. If necessary, rename/amend/clarify one by one. NVO (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: They're obviously related very well – at least as far as all are categorized by nation as victims of political repression. They're members of the same supercategory. If you have issues pertinent to some of the categories but not others, you are free to discuss them here and vote on each individual subcategory here as well. It can be discussed here too. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless some objective criteria can be found for inclusion.   Will Beback  talk  20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all. These categories are not amenable to an objective definition, because one person's political repression is another person's example of the state taking proportionate measures to defend itself against people who want to disrupt society ... and the result is endless scope for edit-warring. It is much better to categorise by objective measures, such as "people imprisoned by", "people executed by" etc.
    One editor above mentioned Category:Victims of Nazi German repressions, apparently as a illustration of the folly of this nomination, but I think that category is an excellent illustration of the folly of this type of category. It has well-specified sub-categories (e.g. Category:People killed by the Third Reich) which do have objective tests for inclusion and should be kept, but this parent category is so vague that it could include every citizen of Germany in the 1930s. Similarly, Category:Victims of British political repression could reasonably include everyone in Ireland from 1169 to at least 1922, and I'm sure that there are plenty of reliable sources to back up such a claim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If "there are plenty of reliable sources to back up such a claim", then what's the problem? No one disputed victims of Soviet repressions to be such. There are other better categories? Please suggest them, let's discuss and rename. Simply deleting all these categories would make a significant damage.Biophys (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It woukd be quite easy to find reliable sources denying that Britain's benign rule in Ireland ever involved political repression, and which would justify us emptying the category. Similarly, there are reliable sources which describe hundreds of years of repression, and if we follow them , then we get a bot to add the category to everyone born in Ireland, which would be pretty useless. That's why these categories are useless: we can get reliable sources pointing to two polar opposite approaches, because the concept of "political repression" is a POV one. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you really seem to be saying is that these categories be renamed or split from "Victims of Xxxxx repressions" into "People imprisoned by" and "People executed by" categories. I have no objection to this, since for example, most people in Category:Victims of Soviet repressions have either been killed or imprisoned by the Soviet regime. Given the number of categories and volume of entries, deletion would not be an optimal solution when a rename would do. Martintg (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your suggested solution could work, especially for the categories that are vigorously populated. Splitting 'victims of ... repression' into people 'imprisoned by' and 'killed by' could obtain a greater degree of precision. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, however it is not 100% ideal either. Marrying a Jew in Nazi Germany was a criminal offense which could earn a person time in jail. Is that repression or upholding the rule of law? Should that person be in a category "People imprisoned by" along side some common criminal? Martintg (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This only shows why current categories must be kept. Many victims were imprisoned and killed. Some died from malnutrition in Gulag or during the Holodomor. They were "victims of repressions" by all counts - per sources. Were they killed? That is something arbitrary.Biophys (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So for consistency, do you support adding to Category:Victims of British political repression everyone who died in the Great Famine or emigrated in search of food? Most of the modern sources agree that the potato famine was so devastating largely because of political policies pursued by the British government. This important: unless we can be reasonably sure that these two famines will be treated consistently, then you are simply illustrating the inherently POV nature of these categories. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last year we deleted Category:Political prisoners because it had similar problems to these categories. Do we have sources for each of these articles that say, in fairly direct terms, that they were victims of political repression? Is there, in every case, a clear distinction between political repression and racial or relgious repression.   Will Beback  talk  04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mind removing word "political" and renaming all of them simply as "Victims of repression". As about sourcing, let's simply take a look at the first (in alphabet order) article in Category:Victims of Soviet repressions (note - there is no word "political" and rightly so): Memed Abashidze - he was officially a victim of Soviet repressions ("repressii" in Russian), and he was officially "Rehabilitated", which means: "the restoration of a person who was criminally prosecuted without due basis, to the state of acquittal or being "not guilty". Any concerns about the category? No one has an obligation to verify if all articles on the subject are properly sourced. We must only make sure that the category is reasonable. A disputed usage of a category in several articles does not mean the entire category should be deleted Biophys (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Emphatic Keep- an absolutely essential category, easily documentable, essentially neutral, even if some jackass would surely eventually apply it to say, David Duke.Galassi (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing administrator. Some creators of these categories were not notified about this deletion discussion.Biophys (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very emphatically keep. The argument of subjectivity in deciding what qualifies as repression is flawed. Political repression is an objective phenomemon, of which numerable treatises have been written. There are deifinitions by the UN, by renowned political scientists, etc. of course, I agree that we can (and must) discuss the criteria under which an action can be qualified as political repression. There are many amibuous border cases; but this does not mean that the whole concept is subjective. If an individual was legally persecuted due to his political/ideological convictions, that qualifies as political persecution. Otherwise, why would the constitutions of liberal demnocratic countries (and the UN charter of human rights) prohibit such persecution if it did not exist as a phenomenon? Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Of course political persecution exists as a phenomenon; the problem is that the application of that label is a highly POV subject. There are of course countless treatises on it, but not all of them agree, and some of those who maintain that there are "objective" criteria are less sure when those criteria are applied too close to home.
Consider a few examples, off the top of my head:
  1. the activists in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament whose phones were tapped by the British govt in the 1980s
  2. members of the American Communist Party, who were hounded for years by the FBI, well before HUAC got to work on them
  3. Irish Republicans interned by orders of Eamon de Valera during WWII
  4. Thousands of British trades unionists whose freedom of movement was blocked during the miner's strike, allegedly without legal authority
  5. Nick Griffin of the far-right British National Party, tried on charges of hates crimes, which he defines as political repression of his free speech.
  6. Thousands of Germans excluded from state employment under the Berufsverbot. Does the tag political repression apply only to the Nazi period, or to all those disqualified under the berufsverbot, including East Germans since reunification?
  7. Leonard Peltier, allegedly imprisoned on false charges laid for political reasons
  8. Millions of Native Americans, deprived of their land and much else for generations.
  9. Damian Green, the Conservative MP arrested for what he describes as simply doing his job as a politician.
  10. Walter Wolfgang, arrested under the Terrorism Act for speaking out of turn
  11. Those at the 2009 G-20 London summit protests, who were coralled in pens for several hours (a form of detention) because of their politics, and two at least people at that protested who were assaullted by police. Was that political repression, or do we only apply that tag to victims of Ferdinand Marcos's suppression of political activity?
I could produce countless more cases where the application of a "victims of political repression" tag would be highly controversial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of these actually in any of the categories under discussion? I think not. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to User:BrownHairedGirl. The difficulty in applying a label cannot be, in my opinion, the ultimate argument for dismissing it altogether. I would agree with you if the application of the label were entirely (or mostly) dependent on subjective criteria. But I don't think this is the case here. I can't answer you in the examples you quote, because I simply don't know about these subjects; but in cases when an individual or group was persecuted (imprisoned, discriminated, harrassed) on behalf of established authorities because of his/her convictions political/ideological convictions and/or for exercising rights guaranteed by internationally acknowledged human rights charters (of free speech, of conscience, of assembly, etc.), then he/she is victim of political repression. And I see no reason why not to categorize him/her as such. The adequacy of such categorization should be, in my view, discussed in individual cases. I can give you some examples of cases I've come across. I have only been working with the categories Category:Victims of political repression in Fascist Italy and Category:Victims of political repressions in Communist Yugoslavia. In the first case, I decided not to apply the first label to members of the Arditi del popolo who were trialed and convicted for violent acts; attempt assassination of a politician is not an activity protected by any charter of human rights, therefore individuals who were persecuted because of this cannot be labeled victims of political repression. In the second case, I decided not to aply the label to a Yugoslav military officer who was caught by the Yugoslav secret police when trying to escape to Bulgaria, then trialed & imprisoned for treason. In fact, this was an act considered as disertation (or treason, espionage, etc.) by valid international law, and such not protected by human righs charters. I agree: there are (and will be) much more ambiguous cases, but I think that in the spirit of Wikipedia, then will be solved on individual basis by open discussion. Viator slovenicus (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Certainly keep but rename for consistency as far as possible to Victims of (adjective) repression in Foo. This will not work well for the British category, which is a confection of 17th century dissidents, WWI and WWII pacifists, and Indian nationalists. These need splitting. The pacifists suffered imprisonment becasue they were suspected of supporting the enemy. The Indian natioanlist events of course took place in India, and so would not fot into Category:Victims of political repression in the United Kingdom. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete most - I think these categories are just inherently too vague and difficult to classify people into. While we do have an article on political repressions, one look at it demonstrates how vague and all-encompassing the term is; I don't deny there are such things as political repressions, but there's no obvious 'acid test' for whether a particular person was a victim of one or not. As it is, these categories are too easily manipulated for POV purposes; wherever possible, more precise categories should be used instead. Category:Victims of Soviet repressions might be an exception, as it is so notable it actually has its own article (Political repression in the Soviet Union), and I struggle to think of how better those people could be categorised; that one is probably worth keeping, but the rest I would delete. Robofish (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC) On second thoughts: Relist separately. As those just below point out, some of these are worth keeping; but I still don't think they all are. It would be better to list each category separately, and only keep those for which the subject is a notable subject of independent historical scholarship. Emphasis on historical - the categories for still-existing states are too open to POV abuse, and should probably be deleted. Robofish (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Could you please explain why do you think Category:Victims of Soviet repressions should be kept, while, for instance, the Category:Victims of political repressions in Communist Yugoslavia or Category:Victims of political repression in Fascist Italy should be deleted? I don't see any consistency in your argument. Viator slovenicus (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply (to Robofish): Are you suggesting, in this manner, that Category:Victims of Nazi German repressions be deleted simply because there is no article with an equivalent title? All of these categories have had books written about them. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Reply: The last suggestions of Robofish seem reasonable to me. I'm skeptical about some of these categories, too; but I don't want to see categories related to repressive regimes of the past (which are the only ones I actually use, and of which I know enough to apply them) deleated in a "package" because of the controversial application of similar categories to existing regimes. Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've seen some heated reversions in articles having to do with events that should be long put to bed, such as at War of the Pacific which should have ended in 1883, because editors who have strong feelings about the historic event are still arguing about how it is presented here. Me, I don't differentiate between categories about regressive regimes of the past and ones about current political entities. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see that Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev was listed in Category:Victims of Russian political repressions. He wasn't a victim of Russian political repression; he was a terrorist SOB who finally got his deserved comeuppance. Yet one of the editors in this discussion saw fit to reinclude that category; and of course (knowing this editor) he didn't include the Russian terrorist category. This is indicative of the POV problems with such categories, hence delete. --[[User:Russavia|Russavia]] <sup>[[User talk:Russavia|Dialogue]]</sup> (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I must reply as "this editor"). We have article Assassination of Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev. An acting president of unrecognized country, he was killed by several GRU officers, as was officially proven in a court. If someone believes that was not a repression of a political opponent (who was not involved in any military/terrorism actions at the time of killing), this only shows his bias.Biophys (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And anyone who believes that he was not a terrorist son-of-a-beeyotch who deserved to be blown up 100 times over and finally got his comeuppance, is showing their bias. That's called playing devil's advocate, nothing less nothing more, and shows how POV such categories can be, and in many instances are. --Russavia Dialogue 04:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • A victim of political repressions can easily be a terrorist. For example, Boris Savinkov. Or he can be a "revolutionary", a "freedom fighter" or whatever someone's POV wants him to be. From the Chechen position, the assassination of Yandarbiev was a terrorism act. And I tend to agree with them because the killed person was a civilian at the time of killing, and the murder served no useful purpose besides creating fear among the Chechens who left Russia. But regardless to that, he was a victim of political repressions.Biophys (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only as an empty cat for navigation purposes. Looking at Category:Victims of American political repression only because it is a largish cat that will grow because of english speaker knowledge and because it already has sub-cats. Within that cat you have 3 people I chose at random, Cheddi Jagan, Har Dayal, Lucy Parsons, and I can find nothing that ties them in together other than the category name. If they were put into sub-categories "repressed by legigislation XYZ" or "repressed by American foreign policy ABC" it would have some kind of logic. At the moment any woman who died before before universal suffrage could be included, ditto african-americans. Doing this helps to remove POV entries and makes the navigation workable. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have ample reliable and verifiable sources to document this strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply ... and in plenty of cases, we also have ample reliable and verifiable sources which dispute those conclusions. The flaw with these categories is simple: they do not record a fact, they make make a value judgement about the fact. In any case like this which involves a value judgement, two scholars in possession of the same facts can reach very different conclusions. In an article, the different value judgements can be discussed and compared, but the binary nature of a category doesn't permit such subtlety. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Activists from the San Francisco Bay Area[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. VegaDark (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Activists from the San Francisco Bay Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-notable intersection of location and occupation as well as vague location. TM 16:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just move up one category to California activists. If you want to sub-divide do it by county, as what constitutes the bay area is subjective. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Where to begin? For starters, please note that this is a sub-cat of Category:People from the San Francisco Bay Area -- itself a sub-cat of Category:San Francisco Bay Area -- with sibling sub-cats Category:San Francisco Bay Area artists and Category:San Francisco Bay Area musicians. So unless there are plans to dismantle the rest of this category structure I see no reason to single out this one for deletion. Furthermore, California is a very large and diverse state, both geographically and in terms of population, so we are well served by this set of categories. The San Francisco Bay Area is well known for its culture of activism and its sizeable community of activists. Lastly, I would not want to replace this with a series of small sub-cats for counties, as that would be a pointless impediment to navigation. Cgingold (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The intersection of these categories includes many activists who identify themselves, or are identified by outsiders, as being from the San Francisco Bay Area. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But note that Category:American activists is not otherwise subcatted at all by location (apart from the Virgin Islands). What is the objection to upmerging to Category:People from the San Francisco Bay Area + Category:California activists (which is itself surely not a standard name)? Occuli (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The San Francisco Bay Area is a rather legendary hotbed of activism, is it not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, so much so that the phrase "San Francisco liberal" has been used both in support and against candidates for political office. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Category has been helpful to me on several occasions Highground79 (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually, Category:American activists also includes subcats for Pennsylvania and Hawaii, too. Category:Activists from the San Francisco Bay Area seems like a useful regional subcat, and I would think a category for New York City activists will rear its head at some point, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete activists have little in common; animal rights, green, gray, pro-life, anti-Iraq War, gay rights, etc. activists have nothing in common but the word "activist" - generally speaking, except for some nobility who did little but live, die, and procreate, every bio is about somebody active in some field of endeavor. Einstein was a physics activist, Manet was a painting activist, etc.... meaninglessness based on the word "activist". Do we have categories for "inactivists" for Homer Simpson and other couch potatoes? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society Winners[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 (without prejudice to a future nomination for deletion in favour of a list). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society Winners to Category:Recipients of the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate category; the newer version has more articles, but the older category has the better name. Category creator has been alerted to the issue on his home wiki by User:DuncanHill. BencherliteTalk 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment category creator was carrying out a test run of a bot as requested, and has indicated he will move members of this category to the older category once testing complete. See User talk:תומר א. (his en:wiki talk page). DuncanHill (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Of course it should be merged. the only reason for creating Category:Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society Winners was to show a proof of concept to the bot approval group. since Category:Recipients of the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society did not include the main article i had no way knowing that it already exist. once the discussions with the bot approval group will be over my bot will make sure that all articles are included in Category:Recipients of the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. Tomer A. 16:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge The older name is clearly superior, and in light of the details from the category creator above. Alansohn (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Not a competition, so recipients is better. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete -- this is usally the best solution for awards categories. Cartainly we do not need more than one category. If kept, I would suggest merging both to Category:Royal Astonomical Society Gold Medal Winners. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish American members of the House of Representatives[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. While that is the consensus of the discussion, it may be worthwhile to have a follow on discussion concerning deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jewish American members of the House of Representatives to Category:Jewish American members of the United States House of Representatives

Nominator's rationale -- Rename per today's identical discussion regarding African American politicians. --Wassermann (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish American Senators[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. While that is the consensus of the discussion, it may be worthwhile to have a follow on discussion concerning deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jewish American Senators to Category:Jewish American United States Senators

Nominator's rationale -- Rename per today's identical discussion regarding African American politicians. --Wassermann (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Panzer commanders and aces[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: RenameCategory:Panzer commanders and aces to Category:Panzer commanders. While I can not prevent anyone from creating the subcategory Category:Panzer aces, I will encourage that this not be done. Based on the comments it appears that there may be some uncertainty about this being POV and OR as expressed in Ace Of Aces#Tanker Aces. I would recommend that given the concerns, the aces be listified rather then placed in a category, especially while this is being discussed in other places. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Panzer commanders and aces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Split into Category:Panzer commanders and Category:Panzer aces; this would necessitate a deletion/rename of the original category.
Discussion — see Category talk:Panzer commanders and aces#Split.
76.66.196.218 (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename this to Category:Panzer commanders and create a subcat Category:Panzer aces to hold the aces (of whom there are quite a few), adjusting the parent cats appropriately. Occuli (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Occuli, who said exactly what I was about to type. Alansohn (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see Talk:Ace Of Aces is Panzer Ace original research there is no source that the term was in common use apart from in the titles of books --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that's just plain wrong. IT's been used in books that do not have the phrase "Panzer Ace" as its title, and many other places. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've only ever seen it used in books dealing with German tankers in WW 2, probably because of the propaganda value of Wittman, et al. I don't think that I've ever seen tallies of kill claims by Americans or Brits. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Panzer" is the English term for German tanks (as opposed to the German term for "tank"), and the only major tank war that Germany has participated in is WWII... so "Panzer Ace" would necessarily be restricted to German tank aces of WWII (ie. Wittmann et al.) Germany was still disarmed at the next war with tank (Korea), and didn't send tank batallions to Vietnam, nor Gulf War I, nor Gulf War II, and you can't make easily make Panzer aces in Afghanistan since the Taliban didn't have many tanks. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've seen tallies for a few tankers from the Western allies, and for Soviet tankers in various books. Since most tankers of the Western allies didn't get to kill many tanks (consider the balance of forces on the western front, the number of Shermans outnumbering the Panzer forces, the vulnerability of Shermans, getting more than a couple kills would be difficult for a western allied tanker). 76.66.196.218 (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment If I am wrong I will admit it but can you provide a source for what is needed to become a Tank/Panzer Ace how many tanks destroyed etc. Is it the same for each army. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the CfD request as formulated only deals with German tank commanders. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Yestonians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. The better case was made by those advocating the deletion rather then renaming. From reading the articles for those who are included, the specific term is not used. There are references to the criteria that is being used for inclusion in the category. The fact that there is no main article for the term and the fact that being a Yestonian is not presented as being defining for the individuals supports deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to article Category:Yestonians to article Yestonians
Nominator's rationale: Unless it is decided we need such an article, I do not see any reason to have a category like that. I'd personally prefer to have such an article, but at the same time refrain from the category. A category like this is too arbitrary. Miacek (t) 10:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term "Yestonian" has a specific meaning which is defined in the template, and is used in that context in the published literature, so I don't think it is arbitrary at all. Martintg (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps delete. The article, judging by number of reference in English literature, is justified, this class of people definitely existed although very loosely defined. But labelling a person as such is not quite straightforward (what about mixed-marriage offspring? Finns or other Finnougric people? Estonian as a second language?) so, quite likely, current two category entries may reduce to nil. Look at Johannes Käbin's biography - he was raised in rural Estonia and left it when he was 18. He was not exactly Yestonian, based on language proficiency alone. NVO (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term has a narrow political definition according to the sources, i.e. Originally native Russian speaking people of ethnic Estonian background were imported by Moscow into leadership positions within Estonian SSR. It would be like an American born US citizen of ethnic Iraqi background imported and installed as an Iraqi Prime Minister by the US military, as a hypothetical example. Martintg (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The status of being a Yestonian is not inheritable in this way; it's more about politics than ethnicity. Indeed, the modern vulgar use of 'Yestonian' in Estonian internal usage tends to forego the ethnicity criterion altogether and instead focus on belief in Soviet glory as the defining characteristic. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "Yes-tonian" was also a reference to their compliance to the demands of the Soviet regime. Martintg (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we don't have an accompanying article, which is always a bad sign for a category. In this case, the subject seems to have POV and OR issues - I'm not convinced this is a notable term used in reliable sources, as opposed to a political neologism. Robofish (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Palindromic place names[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Palindromic place names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by name characteristic. Per WP:OCAT: "Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." This category groups articles purely by a characteristic of the place name. There is nothing otherwise that unites the articles categorized here. List of palindromic places exists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African American United States Senators[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 as is (no rename), nomination withdrawn and no comments in support. BencherliteTalk 19:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Propose renaming Category:African American United States Senators to Category:African American Senators

Nominator's rationale: There is no need to include "United States" in this category name because African Americans are not Senators of another country except the United States. Also, once this category is renamed it should be placed in to the parent category of Category:African Americans in the United States Congress (along with Category:African American members of the House of Representatives) which does include the name of the country. Also see the related discussion below. --Wassermann (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retract renaming proposal -- I now agree with you all that the name of this category should be kept as it is. I'll go ahead and remove the CfR template from the category. Apologies for this mix-up, it was my mistake -- I was apparently thinking more about the naming and nomination of the other African American politician category I also nominated today for CfR when I proposed this one. --Wassermann (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose name change. African Americans can also be state senators. 49 states have a state senate; the members of Nebraska's unicameral legislature are also commonly called "senators". Category names need to be unambiguous in a self-standing way; it shouldn't be necessary to refer to a parent category to figure out the exact meaning of a category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment - yes, but Wikipedia does not categorize state senators (local politicians) by ethnicity/religion/etc and is very unlikely to ever do so. Also, the U.S. Senator category is very unlikely to get confused with the category Category:State senators of the United States because those categories are clearly divided by state in the category name, i.e. Category:Tennessee State Senators, Category:North Dakota State Senators, etc. The proposed name here is entirely unambiguous, and the category description adds further information if someone is unclear. Additionally, it is a subcategory of Category:African Americans in the United States Congress, meaning the category shows up only under the national/federal American heading and thus there is no way to actually mistake or confuse it with state/local senators. I think you are making things more complicated than they need to be. --Wassermann (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per GOf. There is also the admittedly remote possibility of an African American's holding a Senate seat in another country. Otto4711 (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment - yes, an extremely remote possibility and certainly not one to worry about now. --Wassermann (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They wouldn't be in an "American politicians" category if they weren't specifically associated with American politics, though. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per GO'f, too. It's accurate now and the change just makes it less clear.—Markles 11:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per opposers and per the parent Category:United States Senators. Occuli (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to match parent category. While there are Senates in other countries, the far more relevant issue is that most of the upper houses of state legislatures in the United States are called senates, and all such state legislators could be accuratley considered African American Senators. The current name addresses that issue. Alansohn (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African American members of the United States Congress[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. If deletion per OCAT is desired, I recommend an umbrella nomination with the senate category. Kbdank71 13:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming - Category:African American members of the United States Congress to Category:African American members of the United States House of Representatives

:Nominator's rationale: This specifies the name of this erroneously named category to only include the House of Representatives instead of the overall U.S. Congress, which collectively includes members of the House of Representatives along with the Senate (for which there is already a separate category). Once this category is renamed, it should be (along with Category:African American United States Senators) placed in the parent Congress category which will include both the House and the Senate: Category:African Americans in the United States Congress. This way there will be no need to include "United States" in the category name because they will both be subcategories of Category:African Americans in the United States Congress. --Wassermann (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting original CfR -- I now agree with you all that this category should be renamed to Category:African American members of the United States House of Representatives. And this looks unanimous...any way to go ahead and speedy it? --Wassermann (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No speedy. It's here. Let's discuss then decide. —Markles 16:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* Comment - see my response in the other similar nomination, the same things apply here. But again, there is no way this would get confused with state/local houses or legislatures because we do not categorize ethnicity/religion/etc at that level. If they are at that level they would go in to the generic Category:African American politicians category. Otherwise it would be something like Category:African American State Senators of California or something very convoluted like that. --Wassermann (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* Comment - at least you acknowledge this one needs to be renamed, but there is no need for the "United States" in your proposed renaming because it is already a subcategory of Category:African Americans in the United States Congress; furthermore, the category description makes it clear that it refers to the U.S. national/federal House and not the various state houses or legislatures. --Wassermann (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Film awards for Best Documentary Film[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Film awards for Best Documentary Film to Category:Documentary film awards
Nominator's rationale: I believe there is unnecessary repetition and use of Title Case in the category as it now stands. In fact, I believe Category:Film awards by category is rife with subcategories that are using Title Case (i.e. Film awards for Best Actor) for no good reason. But I thought I'd start here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename The parent Category:Film awards by category largely uses the format "Film Awards for Foo". That this one happens to repeat a word is one we can live with. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But surely we could at least rename to Category:Film awards for Best Documentary? Why "live" with something that's so obviously redundant? As for the title case of the object in the category name: how did this become SOP? These aren't really proper names that require Capitalization according to our rules, are they? Films awards are often -- though not always -- title cased. But an encylopedia category name about such awards is a different thing than an actual award name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom or to something similar. Not all of the awards are awarded for "Best Documentary Film". Some are for best documentary "feature", some for best documentary "short subject", some are for best "long" documentary. The parent category should be generically named and not so specific. Certainly it should not be a proper noun. There are other generic parent categories for film awards that are not named generically. All should be changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and Good Ol’factory. Lugnuts (talk) 07:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I do see it's right there in the WP:NCCAT lead: "Standard article naming conventions also apply; in particular, do not capitalise regular nouns" (emphasis added). And as Good Ol’factory points out above, variations in the names of the awards rules out the use of Best Documentary Film as a proper noun.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above (it's a shorter and simpler name). And the above comment should be moved to the correct discussion, which I would do myself if I could find it... Robofish (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, found it - it relates to the 'Victims of political repressions' discussion above. Robofish (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21&oldid=1138391699"