Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 29
July 29[edit]
Category:Ex-gay organizations[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: Don't rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Ex-gay organizations to Category:Organizations of people with unwanted homosexual attractions
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Ex-gay incorrectly implies that sexual orientation can be changed. Hardly any of these organizations claim to change sexual orientation, nor do they self identity as ex-gay. The usage has been denounced by a prominent leader in the movement. Many members of these organizations never self-identified as gay, and others seek after celibacy rather than heterosexuality. Unwanted homosexual attractions is a term that is consistent through all of these organizations. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose suggested rename - I don't agree that "ex-gay" is necessarily inappropriate in the category name but the suggested rename is incredibly cumbersome and non-intuitive. I can't imagine anyone using such a phrase to locate the information they're looking for. Otto4711 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose suggested rename, but... the rename suggested is combersome, and may be inappropriate for other reasons. However, the current name seems inappropriate as well, and also sounds like it refers to defunct organisations of gay people. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose suggested rename The term "ex-gay" and the controversy (rightly IMO) surrounding it is sufficiently well known and understood, and Ex-gay is there for those who are not familiar. The proposed choice of name is unwieldy and unclear. Orderinchaos 03:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose suggested rename Nominator's suggestions about what "ex-gay" implies not backed up by any evidence. Born Gay (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per master category Category:Ex-gay movement and main article Ex-gay. I agree it looks a bit odd, but this is the accepted name, it seems. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep the ex-gay label is in use, but does not apply to most of these organizations. Ex-gay usually refers to American Christian organizations that try to change people from being gay to straight. Groups like Courage International encourage celibacy, not heterosexuality. 4 of the groups, Atzat Nefesh, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality, StraightWay Foundation and People Can Change are not Christian groups, but Jewish, Muslim and secular. The new name is cumbersome, but better a cumbersome name than an inaccurate name. I'm open to other options, but ex-gay does not apply to most of these groups. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The existing name is less than perfect, but it has a clear parent article and the proposed name creates more problems beyond wordiness. Alansohn (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep "Ex-gay" is an established term with a main article and makes the category clear. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The name in use is "ex-gay", and we should go by that. Not to mention that the proposed name is very ambiguous: to me, all homosexual attractions are unwanted. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Destroyer classes[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Suggest renaming:
- Nominator's rationale: Consensus naming style for ship classes is without the hyphen. Also for consistency with common naming style employed by the other 158 (or so) subcategories of Category:Destroyer classes. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support per convention. We had another few examples of the same a few weeks ago. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Criminal categories implying POV[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: End of discussion. This discussion appears to have come to an end and I don't see that it calls for any particular action by the closing admin.
- I will just make a brief contribution wrt the suggestions towards the end for Category:People implicated for rape, Category:People indicted for rape, Category:Historical figures associated with rape. These, to me, seem to cross a line. In the absence of a specific finding of 'guilty' I would suggest that it is inappropriate to categorise on the basis of innuendo and suggestion. This applies especially to the first two, where significant WP:BLP concerns would exist given the implication of involvement in rape (or any other crime) in the absence of a 'guilty' verdict.
- Nominator's rationale: Rename for neutrality and reconcile with existing naming scheme. These categories use labels that [in American English] imply disparaging and/or sensational connotations. Per the established principles of WP:N, WP:WTA, WP:BLP, and WP:MORALIZE, it is unencyclopedic to use pejorative descriptors for which there is a reasonable alternative. Additionally, I propose that the category names be reconciled with the much broader categories Category:People convicted of murder by country and Category:People convicted of murder by nationality. Relevant discussion may also be seen at WP:BLP/N#South Park Mexican and Talk:South Park Mexican. — C M B J 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - These categories refer to the nationality of the convicted person, not the country of conviction. A Fooian person can be convicted by the State of Boo. Additionally, most people convicted of these crimes (at least in the US although I expect it's the same in other countries) are not convicted at the federal level; such prisoners are not convicted by the nation. Otto4711 (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- The list of categories has been updated to reflect this issue. — C M B J 08:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose all but the last three, per Otto. Yes, if you look at the American criminals category, there's plenty of examples of how the category could be constructed, i.e. Fooian people convicted of crime. But the last three categories -- English, Welsh and Scottish -- seem fine, they're constructed differently. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
-
- I should add that the nominator has proposed new parent categories above for "People convicted of FOO by country" and People convicted of FOO by nationality" that would address the nationality/country of conviction issue. But that has huge implications for all other crime categories, does it not? It means people currently categorized as Fooians convicted of crime would now have to be categorized twice? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- See below:
Examples
|
|---|
|
- It is important to differentiate an individual's nationality from the body of authority because of the differences and discrepancies in law around the world and during different eras. Category:German people convicted of murder may have entirely different implications than Category:People convicted of murder by Germany.
- Also, more importantly, it is absolutely critical to acknowledge that not all people convicted of committing foo are guilty of foo. Being convicted of witchcraft by the Salem witch trials (from a historical view) does not make you an American witch. By categorizing someone as an American rapist, we are making a moral judgment. I am also aware that this change would have implications for other categories -- and that is one of my motives in pursuing this proposal. — C M B J 21:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Egads, I was criminally unaware of all these categories. And the American cat does reflect the state level issue that Otto raises. Sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- An innocent person may indeed be convicted of a crime but (except when pleading nolo contendre) a person convicted of foo is guilty of foo, a convicted fooist and a fooist. Calling someone convicted of the crime of rape a rapist carries no moral judgment, any more than calling someone convicted of theft a thief or of jaywalking a jaywalker. The Salem example is a bit off the mark because of the religious connotations now attached to the word "witch". I don't think anyone is clamoring to claim the words "rapist" and "child molester" the way that some neopagans claim "witch". Otto4711 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- If a person convicted of foo is guilty of foo and becomes a fooist, then do you believe that it would be appropriate for us to label Giovanni di Giovanni as a sodomite? Sodomy is regarded as a capital crime in some parts of the world, but yet there is no Category:Sodomites. This either means that we have an ethnocentric double-standard, or that calling someone a sodomite carries a moral judgment. — C M B J 17:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Question. So, just to be clear, why does the proposal take nationality categories and convert them into jurisdictional categories? Are we saying the nationality ones should be deleted and jurisdictional ones created to take their place? Or should both types exist for people convicted? I'm not clear on this. But obviously, not all FOOian people convicted of rape were convicted by FOO, so I don't understand the rationale for a straight renaming here. Also, what would we do with a serial rapist who commits suicide in prison prior to trial, for example? To not categorize them as a "rapist" might cause some degree of upset, especially if secondary sources universally consider the person guilty as charged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent question. I'm more or less just proposing that we reconcile the style of these categories with that of an existing category set that seems to have already been accepted by the community. I have amended the proposal and list of nominated categories to clarify.
- The suicide scenario is undoubtedly complicated. For a comparison of controversial -ists and -isms, I took a look at Mohamed Atta's article. He is not categorized in Category:Terrorists -- but is instead categorized in Category:Perpetrators of religiously motivated violence in the United States. If we can find a neutral way to categorize a man that simultaneously killed himself and thousands of people, surely we can find a way to neutrally categorize an infamous serial rapist. — C M B J 16:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Quote:"Also, more importantly, it is absolutely critical to acknowledge that not all people convicted of committing foo are guilty of foo. Being convicted of witchcraft by the Salem witch trials (from a historical view) does not make you an American witch. By categorizing someone as an American rapist, we are making a moral judgment."
- While that may be the case, we cannot make a judgement on the issue, all we an do is present the issue as it stand, they were convicted of "foo" that should be the limit of our intervention, then the facts must speak for themselves. I like the idea of limiting by country of conviction, ie People convicted of "Foo" in the (Foo Country), then let the article state any specifics nessasary. It is unnecessary to disambiguate the country of origin. I think that could even fall under Undue weight. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's essentially what I'm saying about labels. Stating that %person% is a %pejorative% implies POV. However, stating that %person% was convicted of %crime% is simply reiterating an irrefutable fact.
- Limiting the categories based on place of conviction is something I had given consideration to as well, however, there are some convictions (think Germans convicted of war crimes by American, German, and international courts) where a nationality:crime ratio is inherently disproportionate enough to be considered informative to the reader. I'd like to hear more input from the community on this subject. — C M B J 22:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support the general idea of the revised proposal, to make categories by nationality and jurisdiction for those convicted of rape. This would obviously need to be done by hand and could be quite laborious. Would prefer to see a good solution to what to do with the unconvicted but unambiguous rapist. However, not being aware of an actual article where this problem would arise (though one may in fact exist), I can support the proposal for now. (Perhaps the solution is just to do as is done with the murder categories—have a parent that is "FOOian rapists" but then have most of the articles in the subcategory "FOOian people convicted of rape". I'm not sure. I do hesitate to eliminate the nominated categories completely.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Category:People implicated for rape (unambiguous and undisputed, not yet/never caught)
- Category:People indicted for rape (arrested and charged, but pending or died before trial)
- Category:Historical figures associated with rape (universally accepted historical figures)
- Perhaps something like this would work for the tricky ones that are without conviction. — C M B J 00:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think the best idea is to find all relevant categories (I think there are bots that can assist), list them here, or on a separate page depending on the number of articles. We discuss necessary changes and implement them. Could be done quite quickly. Changing all the articles under them will take time and assistance of dedicated editors. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Coastal towns[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 per nom and cleanup. The subcategories are already parented so that they will roll up correctly if this category is removed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Suggest merging Category:Coastal towns to Category:Coastal settlements
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Nominated category is recently created and was not a sub-cat of the settlements category until I (just) added it. "Settlements" includes cities, towns and villages, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- WikiProject Australia should be notified explicitly. There are some people there who may have strong opinions on any changes to these categories. __meco (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Maintain as subcat of Coastal settlements. I've always been of the opinion that "___ settlements" is an artificial categorisation which makes sense only internally at Wikipedia and defies normal English usage (given this is the English Wikipedia) of "cities" and "towns" (and in some places "villages" or "hamlets" in addition). At least "coastal settlements" makes sense implicitly, although it's a strange designation indeed to use for a city of several million as is indeed presently the case (eg Chennai, Dar es Salaam or Hong Kong: it's not what comes to mind when I hear "coastal settlement"). For that reason I propose that "coastal cities" and "coastal towns" be retained as subcats of "Coastal settlements" and appropriately filled. Orderinchaos 01:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Question. Where does Category:Ports and harbours fit into this? Are Coastal towns merely by the sea, or do they interact with the sea? Or have they outgrown their initial port function and are now towns? Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I believe Category:Ports and harbours is supposed to contain articles directly related to ports and harbours, not the settlements that grow up around them. In the case of my home province, Category:Ports and harbours of Quebec only contains the article for Port of Montreal, not the settlement, nor others in Quebec that have grown up around ports.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. If individual countries have Category:Coastal towns in Foo (or cities, or port cities or various other entities) then this is a subcat of Category:Coastal settlements in Foo. No need to have Category:Coastal towns and Category:Coastal towns by country as well. Occuli (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Railway stations by served venue[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) 10:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Category:Railway stations by served venue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Railway stations serving campuses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Railway stations serving hospitals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Railway stations serving sports venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete or listify Someone please explain to me why this is not a trivial intersection. There's one sub-cat, Category:Railway stations serving airports that I could see possibly retaining as it might be a defining intermodal hub, but the other cats for transit stations serving campuses, hospitals and sports venues are equally non-defining, IMO. These categories are defined as "railway stations, including rapid transit, light rail and tram stations, that serve FOO directly." (Whether "directly" means a covered link or just adjacent street-level access is not clear.) But many subway, metro stations, light rail stations and the like serve a host of neighbouring venues and structures, and while that's very useful to know as a commuter or tourist, I'm not at all convinced it merits categories grouping such stations globally, or that it describes any defining characteristic of said stations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Let me be a little more clear for the closing admin and say we should retain only Category:Railway stations serving airports as a valid subcat of Category:Airport rail links, unless anyone has strong objections. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Orderinchaos 01:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Articles actively undergoing construction[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Articles actively undergoing construction to Category:Pages actively undergoing construction
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not all pages covered are articles. Simply south (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep -- I presume this is genreated by the tag {{underconstruction}}. While this could be used on other kinds of page, the main occasion for use is that a page is being editted. This is a warning to other editors not to alter the page, because another editor will get an undesirable edit conflict, when he has done major work to an article. I nearly wasted an hour's work as a result of something of the kind yesterday (when I failed to add such a tag). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nominator. I do not find Peterkingiron's argument against to be internally logical. He uses "page" himself. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Articles actively undergoing a major edit[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Articles actively undergoing a major edit to Category:Pages actively undergoing a major edit
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not all pages covered are articles. Simply south (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons as with item above. I presume this comes from the {{inuse}} tag. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nominator. I do not find Peterkingiron's argument against to be internally logical. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, for the occasional non-article page that gets sifted into this category. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC).
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:StarFox 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: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:StarFox games to Category:Star Fox video games
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Add space for consistency with Star Fox series, Category:Star Fox, and all of the articles within Category:StarFox games. Also change games to video games to be more specific. Currently Category:Star Fox games redirects to this category. It seems to have been changed without discussion. A discussion to change it to StarFox that happened years earlier resulted in keep all. Both StarFox and Star Fox are used interchangeably but it seems to be Star Fox officially. Despite the logo, which is not an accurate indicator of how it should be spelled, Nintendo and other sources spell it Star Fox. See here, here, and also here. Here are the past discussions about the name: Talk:Star Fox (SNES)#Name of the game, Talk:Star Fox Command/Archive_1#Naming, Talk:Star Fox Adventures#StarFox vs. Star Fox. RP9 (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Songs written by Darryl Worley[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Convert to article Category:Songs written by Darryl Worley to article Darryl Worley discography
- Nominator's rationale: Llistify. This is a minor list that probably would do better on a discography page. The information can be ascertained from the single's infobox. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep – the writer of a song is a 'defining characteristic' of the song; and per larger scheme Category:Songs by songwriter. Occuli (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - per User:Occuli. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep "Llistify", beyond the misspelling, is an invalid argument for deletion that should not be accepted under any circumstances because of the arbitrary personal opinion that a list would be "better". A song's author is a strong defining characteristic and an appropriate grouping for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per precedent; this is a category which is part of a larger scheme as established in Category:Songs by songwriter and its subcategories. The writer is a defining characteristic of his song, and while he has mostly written his own songs and not someone else's, it's still an acceptable subcategory per precedent. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Poker Halls of Fame[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) 22:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Category:Poker Halls of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Category with single article with minimal expectation for growth. 67.100.127.120 (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:ARMPAC recipients[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) 22:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Category:ARMPAC recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: A category for members of congress who have received money from former Republican Congressman Tom Delay's political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority. This is not an "essential, "defining" features of article subjects," as required by Wikipedia:Categorization#What categories should be created. That guide goes on to say "Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features." There's hardly a Republican member of Congress who didn't receive money from Delay, since he was the Majority Leader for many years. The articles that populate this category are subjectively tagged, possibly in an attempt to smear the article subject by guilt by association. If an individual was implicated in the ARMPAC scandal, that should be covered in the text of the article. But just receiving a political donation from the party's leader is not an essential or defining characteristic. Blargh29 (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom, not a defining characteristic of the recipients and would potentially lead to thousands of "Congresscritter by donor" categories. Otto4711 (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and Otto4711. Debresser (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Doctors Without Borders[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Doctors Without Borders to Category:Médecins Sans Frontières
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose matching to main article Médecins Sans Frontières. I personally don't care if we choose to use the original French name or if we choose to use the English translation of it, but should not the category and the article at least use the same one? Could be moved back if the article ever moves. Whichever is chosen, it seems like a good candidate for a category redirect to exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rename – to match the article (and also UK-usage). Occuli (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rename per main article. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rename as nom. When the organisation is referred to UK it is always by its French name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Without Borders organisations[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:International nongovernmental organizations. --Xdamrtalk 01:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Category:Without Borders organisations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems like a form of categorization by shared naming feature. All of the organizations use "Without Broders" or "Sans Frontières" or "Sin Fronteras" in their name, but they are otherwise not associated with each other. There is no overall governing body that oversees all of the "Without Borders" groups. Essentially, any NGO can adopt "Without Borders" as part of its name. It's like classifying all organizations together because they use the naming format "FOO Union", except here it's "FOOs Without Borders". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Upmerge to the parent Category:International nongovernmental organizations. Occuli (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)- Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:International professional services organizations or something similar. This is not a case of WP:OC#Unrelated subjects with shared names as Shawn in Montreal (talk · contribs) asserts. It is instead a legitimate subset of int'l NGOs. Of a sample of about seven category members I looked at (including Emergency (NGO), which obviously doesn't fit the category under its current name) were organizations of professionals seeking to provide their services on an international basis, particularly within developing countries. 68.165.77.71 (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC).
- I think the above comment has some merit—it certainly makes more sense than keeping the current name, which because of its name does at least appear to be be WP:OC#Unrelated subjects with shared names. I could support the above-proposed rename as a compromise position. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. There is an article Without Borders which gives the origin of the name as being Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors without Borders. There are so many organisations that have followed the example of Médecins Sans Frontières that it seems reasonable to give them a category. They are all based around a single profession/issue rather than other organisations which are associated with general international aid. It is the Category:International nongovernmental organizations that needs sorting out. The greater use of subcategories such as this one would help. Cjc13 (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete/Merge - this is a case of categorizing based on shared name. These organizations have diverse goals and methods and, were they named something other than "Foos Without Borders" this subset of organizations would not be broken out into a separate sub-category of the INGO parent category. If the paent category needs to be sorted out, I suggest breaking it down by the function of the organization (e.g. famine relief, medical care, infrasctructure, etc.). Otto4711 (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:IIHF[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:IIHF to Category:International Ice Hockey Federation
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation to match main article International Ice Hockey Federation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rename, although I do not support that expanding the abbreviation of a cat page(, (especially supracat page as this is,) needs to depend on the name used for its corresponding article page. Category pages should be more formal in their naming. Mayumashu (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rename as nom. Abbreviations are frequently meaningless except to cognosci. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support per guideline to avoid (most) abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
ISS[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:
- Propose renaming Category:ISS components to Category:International Space Station components
- Propose renaming Category:Russian ISS components to Category:Russian components of the International Space Station
- Propose renaming Category:ISS service spacecraft to Category:International Space Station service spacecraft
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviations to match parent Category:International Space Station and main article International Space Station. ISS redirects to that article, but it also has other meanings. Propose rephrasing the category for Russian ISS components so it doesn't sound like "Russian International Space Station" is a proper name—"Russian" is an adjective which applies to "components", not "International Space Station". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Category:International Space Station service spacecraft just does not sound right. Most of these are supply vehicles. At least one is a container flown up in the bay of the space shuttle which probably makes it not a spacecraft. I'd suggest Category:International Space Station service vehicles or Category:International Space Station supply vehicles, but some might object to not calling these spacecraft. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agree (nom). Sure, either of those changes would be fine with me. (Perhaps one reason it doesn't sound right because it has 4 "s"-words in a row?) I agree that it's a bit of stretch to a layperson to call a container a spacecraft, but what do I know? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rename as nom. Abbreviations are frequently meaningless except to cognosci. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support per guideline to avoid (most) abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support the first two per nom and the last one to Category:International Space Station supply vehicles as the nom has agreed. Clearly a container that is carried aboard the space shuttle and lacks a propulsion system and is not placed into orbit can not be considered a spacecraft. And it is clearly a supply component. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Rename. To expand acronym. — Σxplicit 00:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
OECS[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Foreign missions of the OECS to Category:Foreign missions of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States
- Propose renaming Category:Economy of the OECS to Category:Economy of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviations to match parent Category:Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States and main article Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rename as nom. Abbreviations are frequently meaningless except to cognosci. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support per guideline to avoid (most) abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:APEC[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:APEC to Category:Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation to match main article Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. APEC redirects to the article, but the abbreviation does have some alternate meanings. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support expanding the abbreviation of the supra category page name, for absolute clarity Mayumashu (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rename as nom. Abbreviations are frequently meaningless except to cognosci. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support per guideline to avoid (most) abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Economic Cooperation Organization[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.
- Category:Economic Cooperation Organization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Has existed for 1 year; still the category only contains the main article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rename and repurpose as Category:Economic Cooperation Organization members. The main article has a category for "economy of MEMBER" for each member (which is clumsy). I think what we need is a category for the members, which will need the present content as its main article. This will mean that all the "economy of MEMBER" items in the main artivle can be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. I oppose Peterkingiron's proposal, since we do not need categories for members. That is what lists are for, or even just a mention in the articles. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ethical banking[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Category:Ethical banking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - it's a small category and also has non-specific inclusion criteria. What constitutes "ethical banking" under one government, legal system or ethical construct differs from what constitutes it under another. No nonPOV way to determine what is or isn't universally "ethical banking". Otto4711 (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Ethical banking is a topic of growing importance, which certainly has variable definitions, like many topics, but is clear enough for a category. There are plenty of articles that could and should be added - we have several articles that could go in a Category:Ethical banks for a start. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Category:Ethical banks has been deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and put the articles from the deleted Category:Ethical banks into it. There is no shortage in the UK of references in highly reputable sources to ethical banking, as I observed in the previous cfd: here is one from the Guardian, Apr 2009. (Indeed it might well be a '2000s UK fad'.) Occuli (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As long as it is carefully defined per the particular modern phenomenon which bears the name, I see no problem with keeping this category. Orderinchaos 11:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep defining characteristic in finance that corresponds to and is defined by its parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Mosques in Newfoundland[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 immediately (per discussion with creator below) (nominator self-close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Mosques in Newfoundland to Category:Mosques in Newfoundland and Labrador
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Name of the province is Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland is an island in the province, though I think the province is intended in this context. Parent category is Category:Places of worship in Newfoundland and Labrador. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Originator concurs, my bust, I overlooked the full name of the province. Not to pass the buck, but I hang around too many NL separatists what with their Newfoundland Tricolour flag and all. But yes, the official name is as above, as as Originator I agree that the above follows Canadian nomenclature. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose if you agree as the originator, you could just rename it now, or I could do so for you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Overcategorization of sportspeople[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.
- Category:Skating people from Ontario
- Category:Skating people by Canadian province of territory
- Category:Figure skating by century
- Category:20th century in figure skating
- Category:21st century in figure skating
- Category:20th-century figure skaters
- Category:21st-century figure skaters
- Category:20th-century male figure skaters
- Category:20th-century female figure skaters
- Category:Male figure skaters by century
- Category:Female figure skaters by century
The first two categories are over categorization based on location, and "skating people" is too broad a term. Consider the disambiguation article skating. What does "skating people" mean? There are already categories on skating-sports athletes from Canada. Is it really necessary to break it down by province?
The rest of the categories are overcategorization based on time period. Figure skating as a sport has really only been contested since the late 1890s. Therefore, the vast majority of figure skating articles will fall into the 20th century category, and there will be an overlap. There's no point in categorizing when nearly every article will be in the category. And there is certainly not a need to further subcateogorize them by gender or skating discipline. Kolindigo (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comments - Keep the first 2 which merely follow the format in Category:Canadian sportspeople by province or territory and sport and it seems unfair to deny the skating people their place in this pantheon. Category:20th century in sports is not divided by sport (with 2 or 3 rather surprising exceptions) so upmerge the rest to appropriate parents. Occuli (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- On further investigation I see that the creator of some of these is the nom, User:Kolindigo. There is {{db-author}} for such deletions. Occuli (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Category:Skating people by Canadian province of territory needs 'or', not 'of'. Occuli (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. But rename the first two to Category:Skating sportspeople from Ontario and Category:Skating sportspeople by Canadian province or territory for clarity, which is lacking as pointed out by nominator. All, however, are part of greater trees that extend to all sports - see Category:20th-century sportspeople, which lists by separate sport. As for listing by century, figure skating, like most sports, has existed over 3 different centuries. More significantly however, these are sub-categories of Category:People by occupation and century, and to deny a particular occupation its place is wrong. A nomination needs to be address the whole tree, not just a limb (of interest). (I nominated we get rid of 19th, 20th, and 21st century cats for people by nationality, but users expressed the wish to have people divided by century and, from there, by nationality and occupation - see here [1]. And as for dividing by gender, it is, of course, legitimate, as female and male competitors compete in solo competition separatedly. Mayumashu (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. These categories are overcategorisation. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep All When a person participated and where they are form are strong defining characteristics of sportspeople that are effective means of subdividing these articles for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Olympic athletes of Canada[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename per nom. Per WP:ENGVAR, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation." Given the usage of the term "athlete" in the United States and Canada to refer to any sportsperson, the current category names are misleading, and require disambiguation. Erik9 (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note: To preserve accessibility for editors who expect these categories to be named in the "Olympic athletes of (country)" format, the original categories will be converted to category redirects when empty, and should not be deleted. Erik9 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Propose renaming
- Category:Olympic athletes of Canada to Category:Olympic track and field athletes of Canada
- Category:Olympic athletes of the United States to Category:Olympic track and field athletes of the United States
- Nominator's rationale: for clarity, as 'athlete' tends to mean any sportsperson in North America Mayumashu (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I'd never be able to find anything if this were the name. For me they are just "Olympic athletes". Debresser (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- We do have Category:Canadian soccer players and not Category:Canadian footballers, amongst many others, to suit local language convention Mayumashu (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support as usage in Canada and the US means that these categories as currently named are identical to "xxx Olympians", which is not what they are supposed to categorize. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. We also have Category:Canadian track and field athletes and Category:American track and field athletes. The difficulty for North Americans to understand that an athlete does athletics and not just any sport is more significant than for a non-North American to not surmise that a 'track and field athlete' means an 'athlete' Mayumashu (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment -- Different countries have different usages. WP needs to reflect local usage, not impose its own (foreign) usage. I do not vote as I am the wrong side of the pond. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.