Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 31 February 2 >

February 1[edit]

Category:Post-Soviet Russia[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. Kbdank71 17:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Post-Soviet Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete I have no idea what this category is supposed to contain, rather than to try and link Russia to being the Soviet Union. "Post-Soviet Russia" is an entity which is called the "Russian Federation". Post-Soviet Russia get's around 150,000 hits on google, whereas "Russian Federation" gets around 70 million. The selective addition of articles into this category is obviously done on a highly POV nature. We don't have categories for Post-Soviet Estonia or Post-Soviet Ukraine, etc, we simply have categories for "Estonia" and "Ukraine". There is no reason this should be any different. Russavia Dialogue 23:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The Russian Federation is, by its own request and choice, the successor state to the whole of the former Soviet Union. Therefore this category is particularly and uniquely relevant to Russia--and needs to be expanded with pointers to the appropriate set of articles. Per Russavia's Googling contention:
  • Russia, specifically: 295,000,000
  • Russian Federation, specifically: 61,400,000
  • Post-Soviet Russia, specifically: 324,000
  • Specific terms Post-Soviet and Russia both appearing: 582,000
  • Bolshevik Russia, specifically: 49,000
  • Bolshevist Russia, specifically: 16,200
and let's look at one of the preeminent scholarly journal sites, Jstor.org, specific phrase or terms:
  • Russian Federation: 312
  • Post-Soviet Russia: 96
  • Terms Post-Soviet and Russia both appearing: 3,590
  • Bolshevik Russia: 53
  • Bolshevist Russia: 18
So, the concept of "Post-Soviet Russia" is, per Google, more significant in non-directed searches than the term for Russia prior to becoming the Soviet Union (and as it signed as a party to treaties), and more significant with regard to scholarly articles in Jstor.org (96 versus 53 + 18 = 71). The term, concept, and subject are more than significant enough to merit a category. It is actually Russavia's contention which is the POV position here, that is, that today's Russia has nothing to do with the USSR and that the category exists only to flog (what "highly POV nature" intends in Russavia's description) the Russian Federation. I'm sorry to see it more sparsely populated than it should be, since there are even books dedicated to art in post-Soviet Russia. I will certainly endeavor to improve the usefulness of this category in the future. PetersV       TALK 00:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. With reference to Biophys' below, while "Soviet Russia" and "Bolshevist/ik Russia" are used interchangeably, "Bolshevist" distinguishes pre-Soviet Union Russia from Russia as part of the Soviet Union. PetersV       TALK 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics and comment

As Biophys has just shown himself, up until 1917 it was known as the Russian Empire. "Soviet Russia" was known as the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. But after 1991, it is most widely known as the Russian Federation by a long stretch on all search results which aren't limited to a single scholar storage source. The "Russian Federation" does not refer to Rus', Grand Duchy of Moscow, Russian Empire, Soviet Union or even Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, but to the Russian Federation and the Russian Federation only. There may have been a time in a brief period between 1991 and "pick an arbitrary date in January 1992" that Post-Soviet Russia was more common but Russian Federation is of course the most common. The category either needs to be deleted or renamed to Category:Russian Federation with very clear reasons what articles would even belongs in such a category, when they could not be categorised in Russia, which other google searches would clearly demonstrate, when Russia is mentioned they are at least 2/3 of the time referring to the "Russian Federation". Russavia Dialogue 02:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too believe that Category:Russian Federation is usable, but in what form? This is something that is going to require discussion as to what to include within that categorisation structure. It has to be something more than Chechen wars and Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation and Political repression in Russia obviously. Does this mean that Category:Russia is split up? Or redirected to the RF category? Thoughts? Russavia Dialogue 03:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And we can discuss this Biophys. As you mentioned above, you created this category to distinguish the RSFSR and the Russian Empire from contemporary Russia. But contemporary Russia is not known as "Post-Soviet Russia", it's known as the Russian Federation. I'll post a message on the WP:RUSSIA talk page, as this may involve categorisation of subjects within the general scope of the project. --Russavia Dialogue 17:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would be renaming to something completely different than the intent and scope of the current category title. Scholarship on "Post-Soviet Russia" largely deals with facets of Russia relating to its role as successor state and how that is manifested in politics, policy, etc. The category "Russian Federation" can conceivably include sewer works in Minsk. All objections here appear intent on divorcing the Russian Federation from the USSR. That is not possible, Russia is its successor state. PetersV       TALK 20:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Politics of Russia then is what you are talking about? Or do you mean that the category is, to paraphrase and interpret your words, a POV category in which other categories and articles are placed by some editors in order to portray a particular POV on that subject? That POV linking Russia with the Soviet Union? Then why not have a category for Category:Pre-Soviet Russia which is of course Category:Russian Empire (etc), because after all, it is true is it not? The Russian Empire is Pre-Soviet Russia. Take off advocacy hats for this, and see that it is an unworkable category with this name, particularly as there is no scope for inclusion into the category. Take History of Post-Soviet Russia which was moved to History of the Russian Federation, but of course reverted back, and it was only included in the Post-Soviet category (I added the History of Russia category), but the article itself states that it is about the "Russian Federation". NPOV please people. --Russavia Dialogue 21:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Studying facets of Russia relating to its role as a successor state is a valid topic, yes. However, so are the topics of post-Yeltsin Russia, post-Fidel Cuba, and of the United States after 9/11. Should we have categories for all those things as well? Our categorization system was not established to hair split every topic into overlapping and duplicate subcategories, it was established to help readers find articles. Category:Post-Soviet Russia currently contains some cats and articles placed there for the only reason of the topics being covered happening after the dissolution of the USSR. Law enforcement in Russia? 2008 amendments to the Constitution? Terrorism in Russia? Honestly, how exactly do these things relate to Russia's role as a successor state? The only reason they've been placed there is because Cat:Russian Federation is currently a soft redirect. My suggestion would fix this unnecessary hair-splitting. If categorization of studies of Russia's role as a successor state is the only thing that bothers you, then you should be supporting renaming Cat:Post-Soviet Russia to Category:Studies of post-Soviet Russia and making that category a subcat of Cat:Russian Federation. That would at least keep things neat and organized, unlike the current mess.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:30, February 2, 2009 (UTC)
Doh. They are the same. (Igny (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Whilst the RSFSR may have been known as the "Russian Federation", it is on a limited basis. this is news results which use the term pre-1991 - 8,390. Post-1991 there are 797,000 and the vast majority would refer to what is most commonly known today as Russia. As overwhelming usage refers to today's Russia, a note on the category directing users looking for RSFSR would be suffice in my humble opinion. --Russavia Dialogue 21:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Russavia is right here. During the Soviet era, it was uncommon to refer to RSFSR as "Russian federation". In formal contexts, the full name would be used or acronymised, and in more informal contexts where abbreviation was appropriate, "Russia" (Россия) was by far the most common rendition. "Russian Federation", in this context, is a half-abbreviation -- not something to be used often or routinely. Such half-abbreviations would almost always be used if, for some reason, a particular emphasis to some nuances of the concept were necessary. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are actually two not so little problems. As Biophys correctly pointed out, both contemporary Russia and the RSFSR can be referred to as "Russian Federation". Another thing is that contemporary Russia can be referred to as either "Russia" or "Russian Federation" (as per the Constitution of Russia). For these reasons, I have withdrawn my vote above. After giving the situation some more thought, I would propose to rename this cat Category:Studies of post-Soviet Russia (as per PetersV's comments) and then clean it up, removing anything that does not belong (i.e., anything that is unrelated to Russia's role as the successor of the Soviet Union). That will leave only a handful of articles, sure, but at least the category will remain focused instead of overlapping and duplicating a good chunk of what's already in Category:Russia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:02, February 3, 2009 (UTC)
I'd support renaming to Category:Studies of post-Soviet Russia, so long as it has a defined structure and process for inclusion of articles and categories into the category - for example, I would reject outright the inclusion of articles and categories based upon desire to portray Russia as a state with nostalgia for the USSR, or for comparison to the USSR. As I mentioned to yourself on my talk page, Russia is considered the successor of the Soviet Union on the international stage; for example, it took over the USSR's seat on the UNSC, it took over all external Soviet debt (basically leaving all 14 other countries debt free at independence), and took over all Soviet assets outside of the ex-USSR. However, other Soviet republics also consider themselves to be successors to the Soviet Union. Take for example, Ukraine, which if you look at the PD-Ukraine tags on Commons, it states that Ukraine is a successor of the USSR, and regards all pre-1954 Soviet works as being in PD, regardless of where in USSR those works were taken, and whether they may be regarded as copyrighted in Russia (which is now 1941) and overseas. Apart from the "Books" category (which itself needs to be looked at), what else would be included here? As KNewman states below just when does Russia stop being Post-Soviet Russia? Arrggghhhhhhhhhh --Russavia Dialogue 21:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Post-soviet" is an adjective, not a period declaration here. New meaning, it's not just Russia as it exists today. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I don't follow your argument. The term "Post-Soviet Russia" refers to Russia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991 onward), right? 1991 onward is also the period in which the modern Russian Federation exists, right? So, what is the difference between the modern Russian Federation and, as you put it, "Russia as it exists today"? Could you, please, elaborate? It would also be helpful to have examples of articles that would belong in Category:Russian Federation but not in Category:Post-Soviet Russia (or perhaps vice versa). Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:04, February 2, 2009 (UTC)
  • Wrong. "Post-Soviet Russia" does not refer to Russia in the time period that began when USSR was dissolved. That's why we have the article Russian Federation. "Post-Soviet Russia" refers to the social, economic, and political processes that are causally traceable to Soviet Russia, and especially the events surrounding the end of the Soviet Union. Some of events that fall into this category took place even before the USSR was formally dissolved; for example, the hyperinflation that was harbinger of the end of Soviet rule would certainly be fundamentally related to development of post-Soviet Russia. As the transition has almost ended, I'd say very few of 20th century events should be considered in this category, although the economic policy's direction towards revival of Stalin's "greatness" might still be relevant.
As a rule of thumb, most of the transformative events that happened in the last few years of Gorbachev's reign, and during Yeltsin's watch, would probably be here. Where the rule of thumb does not work, obviously, finer criteria are necessary. But that's why Wikipedia pays the top dollars to its researchers: so they can use good judgment, and figure out where the historians draw the lines. If it was Google, they'd have a machine do the summarising job, and the machine would do a rough job at best. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 20:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the explanation. However, it only strengthened my belief that the category should be renamed (see my changed vote from earlier today). We can't expect our average readers to assume that "Cat:Post-Soviet Russia" would be the place for articles covering "the social, economic, and political processes that are causally traceable to Soviet Russia, and especially the events surrounding the end of the Soviet Union". C'mon, this is obvious how? If you had to explain this to me in this much detail (and I like to think that I am not a completely illiterate idiot, perhaps wrongly), how would it be obvious to a drive-by reader? The term "Post-Soviet Russia" associates first and foremost with the modern Russian Federation, which is exactly why the contents of the category in its present form contain so much duplication with Cat:Russia. Let's keep the cat, but change its name to something more sensible.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:12, February 3, 2009 (UTC)
  • You know, I only used long and complicated polysyllabic words because I expected you to be literate. If I had not made that assumption, I would have dumbed the definition down to something like "it is about those sides of Russia that are distinctly about the end of the Soviet era". The meaning is roughly the same, although not as nuanced.
The concept, by the way, is intuitively understood by all scholars I've been discussing it with, and applies to other countries with post-Soviet aspects in their history, too. For example, this paper titled "Post-Soviet Health Care: Russia, Poland, and Kazakhstan" is clearly (it says so in the abstract!) about the healthcare reforms and developments relating to the end of Soviet power in Russia, Poland and Kazakhstan, not about the whole time period from 1991 onwards. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the concept is intuitively understood by the scholars is not a good argument in this particular discussion, however. I would be the first one to line up defending Wikipedia from being dumbed down, and the necessary level of details should be maintained in the actual articles. When it comes to naming the categories, however, the naming scheme should be as intuitive as possible to as many people as possible. The category structure is intended first and foremost as a navigational aide, not as a thing in itself, which is why its title should not be something that can be interpreted with this level of ambiguity.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:17, February 4, 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. When will your Post-Soviet Russia stop being post-Soviet? Will it be when the last Russian citizen born in 1991 dies in like 2060? KNewman (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want a serious answer to that question, it would depend on when how soon the next regime seizes power. Then again, "2060" might be your way of saying "I hope I'm dead by then too" . — CharlotteWebb 12:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Delete. Agree with all sane editors. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not withstanding the current nostalgia for the Soviet Union and how many seem to identify with the achievements of that former regime, a quick scan of these books shows that "post-Soviet Russia" seems to describe a transitional period between 1991 to 2000. Martintg (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as Ezhiki suggested. Seems like the most reasonable thing to do. (Igny (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment - The current name is unacceptably ambiguous, as has already been well explained. So if this category is kept, renaming is mandatory. Cgingold (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, how is it unacceptably ambiguous and where was this explained? I see where somebody pointed out that the RSFSR ("Soviet Russia") was also called "Russian Federation" plus one could always argue that unqualified use of the word "Russia" evokes a specific geographical area yes but not any particular time period, and perhaps also ought to be a disambiguation page. Please explain what argument you are referring to. — CharlotteWebb 12:43, 7 February 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:Songs by Jerry Leiber[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: Heck with it. Boldly merged the categories since no one else wants to help, and only "keep" vote doesn't have a valid rationale attached. Categoires have to match the parent, and in this case, the parent is Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller. I think naming conventions override here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Songs by Jerry Leiber and Category:Songs by Mike Stoller to Category:Songs written by Jerry Leiber and Mark Stoller
Nominator's rationale: Suggesting merging this into a new category, Category:Songs written by Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller, as all of their compositions seem to be together (Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller). At the least, change "Songs by" to "Songs written by" Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - a useful list of this songwriter's work.Esasus (talk) 15:31, 7 February 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:Dog 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dog songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Not a defining criterion. There are a zillion of these in country music alone, just ask James "Dog on a Toolbox" Bonamy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivia and OC by superficial similarity. These appear to be mostly (all?) songs using "dog" as a slang term or metaphor for something else, they are not actually songs about dogs (not to say that would necessarily save this category). A comparison with the other entries in Category:Songs by theme clearly shows this does not belong. Postdlf (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am sorry. I started this category a long time ago when I was a novice Wikipedia user and didn't know any better. There was also a similar "Cat songs" category which got deleted, and I was assuming someone was going to delete this "Dog songs" eventually too, so I forgot about it. Anyway, I agree it is very trivial and not encyclopedic. Let's delete. Moisejp (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but rename to Category:Dog (band) songs Category:Songs about dogs if kept. — CharlotteWebb 12:14, 7 February 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:Nevisian musicians[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. Kbdank71 16:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Nevisian musicians to Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis musicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Of the two articles in this category, one is about a musician from Nevis and the other is about a musician from Saint Kitts, so this category is not being used solely to categorize musicians from the island of Nevis. I suggest converting it to a standard nationality category and using the standard naming format per Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 1 February 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:Free software[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 current name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Free software to Category:Freely licensed software
Nominator's rationale: "Free" is ambiguous.

The articles under Category:Free software is free in the sense that they are licensed under a free license. This is much broader than free in the sense that one does not have to pay for the software. In comparison Category:Free are for "all manner of things available at no cost (that are usually or often charged for)".

There are several categories that have this problem, but I want to gauge community feeling before nominating in excess of 150 categories. Taemyr (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. The main article for this category is Free Software—not Freely licensed software. Free Software is an established term with a well-defined meaning while Freely licensed software is, as far as I can tell, not a widely used term at all compared to other alternative terms for free software.
    As for the distinction between software available free of charge, the category description currently lays out the criteria for Free Software (at least inclusion in the category) pretty succinctly, and it also has a "see also" link to Category:Freeware. If further clarity is needed, then we should improve the category description but not rename it. --Hamitr (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category description page is not visible on the article that it categorizes. I do not feel that the term "Free Software" is well established outside the free software communities. See eg. [1]. I would not have a problem with Category:FLOSS or similar, my problem is the ambiguity of "Free". Taemyr (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, there is an article that doesn't adequately explain or link to Free Software? I'm not sure why the category should be renamed because an article in the category is ambiguous. I also fail to see how floss is any better established than free software outside of the free software community. This topic has also been discussed previously at Category_talk:Free_software. --Hamitr (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"So, there is an article that doesn't adequately explain or link to Free Software?" Probably. But there shouldn't be so thats not really relevant. The issue remains that the casual reader can assume that Free Software means software available free of charge. Ie. shareware. (You are being grossly optimistic if you assume software that is marketed as free is freeware).
The category should be renamed because the article title is ambigous, not because an article in the category is ambiguous.
FLOSS is different from floss. Considering that it is used by the EC, it is somewhat established. But the important thing is that it's unambiguous.
The discussion at Category_talk:Free_software seems to focus on whether or not we should divide the category according to whether the license is free software or open source. I agree with the sentiment that such a split is not useful. Taemyr (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the casual reader might assume that Free Software means software available free of charge, we do our best to provide links to articles such as Free Software, freeware, shareware, Open Source Software, and Alternative terms for free software in the hopes that they will learn the difference. This is the whole idea of an encyclopedia—to present information from which others can learn. I am fully aware of the differences between these terms, and I don't understand your comment, "You are being grossly optimistic if you assume software that is marketed as free is freeware."
If you haven't yet, I would encourage you to read through the above mentioned articles in order to better understand that Free Software is a term with a well-defined meaning. Consider also free market, free trade, free will, free energy, etc. These terms have significantly different meaning than the combination of their component word definitions. --Hamitr (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that a reader assuming that "Free Software" means free of charge is not wrong. That jargon exists with a different meaning does not alter this. In the same sense that a reader assuming that "work" means the "Effort expended on a particular task." is not wrong. Despite the fact that it has a well established meaning of force times distance.
I agree that the encyclopedia is a place to teach people. I do not think the category space is the bast place to do so.
About being optimistic, software marketed as being free is very often in a try before you buy sort of scheme.
Free market,Free trade and Free will have been around for centuries. In 2050 it might very well be that "Free software" is not ambiguous.
Also, in The first two cases there is little risk of confusion since gratis market or gratis trade makes very little sense. I suppose one could interpret Free will to gratis will, essentially meaning something like freedom from responsibility. But the term is older than English so it is too entrenched.
Free energy is a dab. Within physics this is a piece of jargon meaning essentially available energy. Outside of physics I doubt anyone could be confused about the statement; "The oil companies are suppressing free energy". Or "Some hailed nuclear power as a free energy source".Taemyr (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not all free software is licensed. Software whose source code is in the public domain is free software but has no licence. "Free" is ambiguous in theory, but looking at Wikipedia, the usage is pretty consistent. --Gronky (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some software under Open Source license is not Free Software, at least according to our article. Also, I would be prepared to argue that the license for public domain works are the relevant laws. In that it is these laws that grant the permission for use of the work.
I suggested Category:FLOSS in response to Hamitr's concern that Category:Freely licensed software can be seen as just as ambiguous as Category:Free software. This should also take care of your concern. Taemyr (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have categories for free software because the free software license is a defining feature of several works. For example OpenOffice.org Calc was created to be a open source alternative to OpenOffice.org Calc. Because being an open source spreadsheet is a defining feature of OpenOffice.org Calc categorizing it as such is appropriate according to WP:Categories. According to discussion at Category:Free software we do not split between free software and open source, because the two concepts are very similar, and the dividing line can be controversial.
My question to you is, if we categorize according into FLOSS is "Free software" the appropriate name of the category? Taemyr (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Free Software is a commonly used term and one people would intuitively in search here. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 23:47, 4 February 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:Open source video games[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. There are questions on what "free" means or should mean. Kbdank71 16:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Open source video games to Category:Free video games
Nominator's rationale: Redundant, definition of "free" in category space should always be for FOSS, with any other freely distributed but non-free games defined as "freeware". ViperSnake151 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merging the two categories. Disagree that free should be FOSS. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_1#Category:Free_software. Taemyr (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, an "open source video game" is defined as a game with free source code and non-free (but usually redistributable) data. A "free game" is defined as a game with free code and free data. Do you mean the "open source video games" to be moved to Category:Freeware games? --AVRS (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a confusing Category:Commercial video games with freely available source code and a poorly-named Category:Pirated video games. --AVRS (talk) 11:29, 2 February 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:Articles needing additional references from sept 5[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: Speedied as test. Attempted article in Categoryspace. Grutness...wha? 22:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles needing additional references from sept 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The name of this category is misleading. It appears to be an autobiography. Stepheng3 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 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:Gargoyles[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gargoyles to Category:Gargoyles (TV series)
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, and to avoid any possible ambiguity. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. To match parent article. DiverseMentality 00:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support that name is currently most likely thought to be filled with sculptures not a cartoon. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I am amazed and astonished that this category was given such a misleading name. Cgingold (talk) 20:59, 4 February 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:Free, open source role-playing video games[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 merge targets were never stated explicitly, but I'm assuming they should be Category:Free video games and Category:Open source video games. Whether Category:Open source video games survives as an independent category depends on the CfD above, which was not yet closed at the time of this closure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Free, open source role-playing video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overly narrow, was empty until a minute ago a minute before nomination. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge PR. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_1#Category:Open_source_video_games. Category was not "empty until a minute ago". Category was temporarily empty due to anon depopulating every open source/free license game category. However the category have only two single entries and we usually let our categories group open source and free license software together. Taemyr (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I do not think empty is a suitable rational since it was only temporary and due to an anon unpopulation. merging the categories seems to make most sense. --WinHunter (talk) 16:07, 8 February 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:Diet and food fads[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Diet and food fads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Unnecessary , all that's here, and more, is already in Category:Diets. Also, title is perhaps not WP:NPOV as (although possibly rightly) it labels some things 'food fads' :) Sticky Parkin 16:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A category that meaningfully groups similar articles by a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is already done in Category:Diets of which all the content here is a duplicate, but that one also includes far more. Hence this is unnecessary. Sticky Parkin 22:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
roflmao! I want to see what was in that.:) Sticky Parkin 23:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can get a taste of it in the CFD discussion, which includes a link to the CFD for the previously deleted Category:Strange and exotic foods. Cgingold (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what is or isn't a "fad" is subjective, arbitrary, and contextual rather than an objective or stable quality of the diet or food. Postdlf (talk) 16:20, 8 February 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:Members of the United States House of Representatives by seniority[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives by seniority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Lists of United States Senators by seniority[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Senators by seniority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note: I have joined these two together becasue the raise precisely the same issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I don't mind your combining them, but you didn't modify the link on the CFD page, so I'm putting the editable sub-section heading back, as I have to run and that's the quickest way to go. Cgingold (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom. A category by seniority would not work. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. Nom correctly states the facts regarding the subcats and the normal naming conventions used by WP Hmains (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to more accurately reflect content of category. Alansohn (talk) 18:41, 2 February 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:Manchester United F.C. goalkeepers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Manchester United F.C. goalkeepers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Categorisation of players by the position they played at any particular club is overcategorisation. Similar categories have been deleted in the past (see here and here). – PeeJay 10:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which lists about 55 - much better than 4. Occuli (talk) 21:02, 1 February 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:Members of the House Committee on Un-American Activities[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. While the HCUA was notable and non-ordinary, I agree that it was not defining for its members. In addition, it was correctly pointed out that we do not have categories for various house committees. Kbdank71 16:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Members of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. It seems that categorizing U.S. House of Representatives by the Committee they served on in Congress is overcategorization. House members can and do serve on a variety of different committees during their tentures, and serving on any particular House committee is generally not defining for the politician. There's the chance that categorizing someone into this category is just another way of saying from our perspective 50 years later, "what an ass!" Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but only in this case. This was a very significant committee of which I have heard from the other side of the Atlantic. However, committee membership is unlikely to be significant for most committees. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Cleary we don't want categories for ordinary committees -- but this was no ordinary committee. It was almost certainly the most famous committee in the entire history of the US Congress. Congressmen jockeyed to get a seat on the committee -- and some of its members built their political careers squarely on the basis of their service on the committee, most notably Richard Nixon. So, while the committee itself may have been "POV", having a category for it would not be. Cgingold (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename. I agree with the the nominator's rationale. A list contained in the HUAC article should be sufficient. This opens a can of worms (a "slippery slope"?) deciding which committees are prominent enough. Clearly this is a famous committee, perhaps the most well known; but why should it be the only committee? This is one of those instances where a list is enough. However, if this category is kept, the name should be made either more accurate ("Members of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities") or better known ("Members of the House Un-American Activities Committee").—Markles 15:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most notable committees in US history. I am completely unfamiliar with the "retrospective 50 years late 'what an ass' policy" as a justification for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an argument could be made that any particular committee is "one of the most notable" committees in US history. Keeping this category opens the door to categories for every committee and members of Congress move from one committee to another with some frequency, which would lead to category clutter. Each Congressperson's article should contain a list of that member's committee assignments and each committee article should contain a list of committee members. If kept, rename to Category House Committee on Un-American Activities members. Otto4711 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In response to Markles' & Otto's concerns, which (as I indicated above) I take very seriously: What I am saying is not merely that this committee was notable or famous, but that it was exceptionally notable, and as such, I think an exception to the general rule should be made for this category. Can either of you (or anybody else) point to even a single other example of a Congressional committee which aroused such strong feelings about its operations that a years-long campaign was waged to have it abolished? (I didn't think so.) I know of only one other committee that could even be given consideration for such an exception, and that would be the Senate Select Committee on Watergate. In short, we can establish a very high threshhold to ensure that categories for committees don't proliferate. Cgingold (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the members of this committee defined by having been members of it? With sourcing please? Otto4711 (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there is a clear difference between this committee and others. What makes this so problematic is that despite the extensive number of articles and books written about the HUAC, and the pivotal role it played in the McCarthy Era, all any editor has to do to play the CfD game is just insist that it isn't, along with the foot stamping insistence that this will lead to a dreaded slippery slope that won't stop until all articles are categorized by useful and defining characteristics they just don't want. For individuals who want to make categories a useful means of navigation for similar articles, this is a perfect one for retention. For those whose IHATEIT game allows them to turn their nose at what they don't like (while approving far less useful or defining categories that pass their arbitrary test), there is no reason that can't be tossed out as a rationalization for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always so nice to have one's concerns about a category reduced to "foot stamping" and "IHATEIT" in another editor's desperate bid to retain the category... Otto4711 (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always unfortunate to see further pointless comments from someone who appears unable to abide by a rather simple deal. If there is some issue in your agreement that is causing problems, please discuss offline in any appropriate location where you can get my attention. I'd be more than happy to supply dozens of sources on definingness for service on the HUAC, but there has never been any evidence that any will ever satisfy your demands. Alansohn (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alansohn, you can't expect no one to protest when you mischaracterize everyone who disagrees with you as "foot-stomping" and playing an "IHATEIT game". That dismissive rhetoric has no place here, and I can't count at this point the number of contributors who have taken issue with you on this. It doesn't advance your arguments, and it serves to fester unnecessary hostility and ill will. If you can't participate in CFD discussions without making it personal, without accusing people of playing games, or without reducing others' comments to arising from some kind of hatred of the subject matter, then you have no business participating in this forum. Postdlf (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reading some of the comments, it seems to me that we are conflating issues here. The fact that HUAC was a very prominent and exceptionally famous committee is one issue that is not really in question here. What is in question is whether membership in the committee is defining for a Congressperson. They are very different issues. Off the top of your head, can any editor name one or more of the 9 chairs of the committee? I'm not aware of any politician who is defined by his membership in HUAC. Nixon undoubtedly is the most famous, but he's not really defined by having been in HUAC. The next most prominent person who others might associate with HUAC is Joseph McCarthy—who, of course, was a Senator and was never a member of HUAC. I knew a bit about Richard B. Vail before coming to this discussion, and I can't say that membership in HUAC was at or near the top of my list for things he was known for. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete parlimentarians by committees, subcommittees, etc. is a bad idea. The partial list in the article could be expanded (and as an aside, "notable members" as the section is called is improperly labelled: presumably all members of the US House of Representatives are notable). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe HUAC is better understood as an investigative body, like a semi-perpetual version of the Cox Committee or the Iraq Study Group, and not dismissed as if it were Agriculture or Ways and Means. Perhaps, then, the contents should be upmerged into Category:House Un-American Activities Committee to parallel Category:9/11 Commission and Category:Warren Commission. Membership on those bodies were not defining, but membership on a blue-ribbon panel will not be, essentially by definition. On the other hand, these two categories are quite thin, with only a couple of articles not about members; HUAC material is thinner still. For all the discussion of how important and historic HUAC was, there seems to be little content on its activities in WP itself, much less on its members' participation in those activities.-choster (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment prompted me to have a look around. I easily found half a dozen articles (not including any of the committee members) which would belong in such a category (and there may well be others). Cgingold (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are interesting comparisons; I for one would not consider membership in the Warren Commission defining of either Earl Warren or Gerald Ford certainly. Both the Warren Commission and HUAC have left significant historical and cultural impressions, HUAC I would think more so. Certainly this category has no less reason to exist than those Choster mentions (at the risk of having WAX thrown at me from certain quarters). Postdlf (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Membership in those (and other) commissions are fairly static whereas HUAC lasted many decades and its membership fluctuated over time. I suggest, again I think, that this subject doesn't really need a category.—Markles 13:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly per Markles and Otto. While the committe was exceptionally notable and its members also were notable, it is not apparent that participation in HCUA was defining for its members. Since we are, in this case, discussing categorization of biographies, we should focus on the significance of individuals' affiliation with HCUA rather than the general significance of HCUA in American political history. Also, since HCUA lasted for 3–4 decades (and had many, many members), I don't think that a comparison to Category:Warren Commission is justified. A category for HCUA should be created if there is a sufficient quantity of non-biographical articles related to the subject, but such a category should not function as a repository for biographical articles about HCUA's members. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:37, 13 February 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:Former Labour Party politicians (UK)[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. Kbdank71 16:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Former Labour Party politicians (UK) to Category:Labour Party politicians (UK)
Nominator's rationale: Categories are not conventionally split between current and former. This category appears so far to be populated with people who resigned from the Labour Party but remained active in politics. Most of these politicians are already heavily categorised, and this category adds little to the readers navigation aids that is not already covered by other categories or lists. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 1 February 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:Publications by interest[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. Kbdank71 16:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Publications by interest to Category:Publications by topic
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Technical nomination. Found with a regular merge tag. Bringing here for discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merging - Although superficially similar, these are actually based on quite distinct organizing principles. We all understand what's meant by "topic", so no need to elaborate. The problem, of course, is that "by interest" is not so readily understood (in fact, I would definitely support renaming, if a better name can be found). "Interest" seems to translate to something like "of interest to people of a particular group or orientation" (or something to that effect). So, for example, Women's magazines are not about women -- rather, they are magazines which focus on topics that are of interest to women. Fashion magazines, on the other hand, are rightly included under Publications by topic. That said, it does look like there are some items that don't really belong under Category:Publications by interest, like Criminology, Energy, and Military publications. So some cleanup is in order. And a more readily understood name would really help -- or at least, a clear explanatory note for users. Cgingold (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up The category needs a short headnote to define its scope and cross-refer to Category:Publications by topic, in order to discourage miscategorisation. The "topic" (i.e. subject) subcategories need to be recategorised to the "topic" category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 1 February 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:Publications by medium and topic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Publications by medium and topic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The single entry is a subcategory on television. Television does not fit my definition of a publication. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:06, 1 February 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:Texts by topic[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Texts by topic to Category:Publications by topic
Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. The two categories contained here appear to be related by the fact that the names begin with texts. So this appears to be categorization by name and OCAT. I'm not sure that the included categories are needed or correctly named, but that's a different issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to make it cognate with similar categories listed as cross-references. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 1 February 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_February_1&oldid=1138392123"