Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 1

< March 31	April 2 >

April 1[edit]

Category:American expatriates in Puerto Rico[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 16#Category:American expatriates in Puerto Rico. — ξ ^xplicit 22:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I m not sure but I don t think it is possible for an American to be correctly described as expatriate in Puerto Rico Mayumashu (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Puerto Rican people and "American" people share American citizenship, and PR is part of the territory of the United States. An American in Puerto Rico is thus not an "expatriate". This is probably meant for American people who resided in Puerto Rico after having been born in another part of the United States. I don't see a need to categorize in this way, just as we don't categorize Americans who have moved from state to state. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Broadly speaking, an expatriate is a person who is living outside their native place or homeland ("fatherland" if you look at the Latin derivation of "ex" and "patria"). A homeland can be defined in terms of legal citizenship or in terms of geography and culture. For most people, legal citizenship, geography, and culture coincide, but that's not always the case. A person from the 50 United States who relocates to Puerto Rico is clearly moving to a place that is geographically and culturally distinct, and I have a strong hunch that the majority of people in both "the states" and Puerto Rico would regard that person as an expatriate. Likewise, a Puerto Rican relocating to the 50 states is likely to feel that they have left their native land, even though they have legal citizenship in the new place. By the broad definition of "expatriate", the people in this category are "expatriates." --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By this logic, we could justifiably have Category:Canadian expatriates in Quebec, Category:Spanish expatriates in the Balearic Islands, Category:French expatriates in Corsica, and Category:Italian expatriates in Sicily. I wouldn't support any of those. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename somehow -- This is strictly an oxymoron, but the creator was no doubt trying to address the real issue that there is a differnece between those from the 50 states and the natives of Puerto Rico. I would suggest something like Category:Continental Americans in Puerto Rico, but I am a mere Englishman. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The "Continental Americans" suggestion is interesting, but it doesn't work for reasons that include (but are not limited to) the fact that not all of the 50 states are on the continent. Fundamentally, though, I believe that a strong case can be made that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens but they aren't "Americans". For example, the website http://www.topuertorico.org/people.shtml (a personally published website, but it seems to have very solid content) says:

Puerto Ricans consider themselves American but are fiercely proud of their island and their culture. They don't usually call themselves Americans or "Americanos", but "Puertorriqueños" or "Boricuas". To most Puerto Ricans, "my country" means "Puerto Rico", not the United States. ... It is known that Puerto Rican descendants call themselves Puerto Ricans. "I am Puerto Rican, but I wasn't born there." The term "Nuyorican" is used to identify New Yorkers born in Puerto Rico or of Puerto Rican descent who live in or near New York City. The word Nuyorican derives from a combination of the words "New York" and "Puerto Rican".

Given that kind of statement (written by an articulate Puerto Rican who lives on the US mainland), I think it's safe to say that (notwithstanding the issues in defining the term rigorously) "American expatriates in Puerto Rico" would be widely (almost universally) understood to refer to U.S. people not of Puerto Rican birth or descent who live in Puerto Rico. I !vote for the clarity of "American expatriates in Puerto Rico" over any rigorously-correct-yet-idiomatically-appalling alternative such as "Non-Puerto Rican U.S. people in Puerto Rico". --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:British cabinetmakers[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. — ξ ^xplicit 22:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:British cabinetmakers to Category:British furniture designers

Nominator's rationale: merge: the distinction is so narrow as to be unhelpful. Globbet (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand the distinction (which may be the crux of the merge argument) - but would placing first as a subcat of second make sense. (The cabinetmakers are designers too..) - is "cabinet maker" just a "furniture designer" of pre-20th century times?Shortfatlad (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Only one could not be called a designer at all, & that's not enough for a cat. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Serbian propaganda[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. — ξ ^xplicit 22:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: We agreed here not to separate articles, per neutrality and per ARBMAC restrictions. Tadija^taking 22:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Please, do not spread half-truths, there is on going discussion and we have no consensus. Furthermore, we have discussed about article not about category. This is absolutely legitimate subcategory, in the Category:Propaganda by country. --Mladifilozof (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be more encyclopedic Category:Propaganda in Serbia?--Mladifilozof (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep for now. I don't think that the Category:Propaganda by country category is a good idea, because it slaps a "proganada" label on topics where that may be a POV judgement; those differences of view can be discussed in the article, but the category is a binary yes-or-no choice which allows for no nuances. However, my objection is to Category:Propaganda by country as a whole, and I no reason has so far been given to make Serbian propaganda an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as per legitimate subcat) Commment: The problem (if it exists) is the contents of the categories themselves, and to a lesser extent any lack of balance in coverage of countries. Also Serbian_propaganda_in_the_Yugoslav_Wars should be a member of this category.
More serious comment there does seem to be an issue with the contents of the category : Placing a TV station and newpaper in there (Radio Television of Serbia, Politika) doesn't seem justified. Opera Orientalis and Vukovar children massacre probably are fairly clear candidates for merging into Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars given there size. That would leave the category with one member.77.86.119.83 (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Expatriate football coaches in South Korea[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. — ξ ^xplicit 22:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Expatriate football coaches in South Korea to Category:Expatriates in South Korea

Nominator's rationale: no tree Category:Expatriate football coaches and just the one article linked to this page. Mayumashu (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. No reason to keep this category by itself when there's no precedent for it and it contains just one article. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There may not be any other categories for expatriate football coaches, but there is a well-populated tree for "Expatriate footballers". Although most of the categories are named in the form "Expatriate footballs in Elbonia," the parent is Category:Expatriate football (soccer) players. If football coaches are still considered to be "footballers", this could be merged into Category:Expatriate footballers in South Korea. (However, then Category:Expatriate football (soccer) players ought to be renamed to Category:Expatriate footballers.) --Orlady (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ancient Rome[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. — ξ ^xplicit 20:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wars involving Ancient Rome to Category:Wars involving ancient Rome

Propose renaming Category:War novels set in Ancient Rome to Category:War novels set in ancient Rome

Propose renaming Category:Prosopography of Ancient Rome to Category:Prosography of ancient Rome

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Ancient Rome to Category:People executed by ancient Rome

Propose renaming Category:Old maps of Ancient Rome to Category:Old maps of ancient Rome

Propose renaming Category:Novels set in Ancient Rome to Category:Novels set in ancient Rome

Propose renaming Category:Museums of Ancient Rome in the United Kingdom to Category:Museums of ancient Rome in the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:Museums of Ancient Rome to Category:Museums of ancient Rome

Propose renaming Category:Maps of Ancient Rome (city) to Category:Maps of ancient Rome (city)

Propose renaming Category:Maps of Ancient Rome to Category:Maps of ancient Rome

Propose renaming Category:Lists of Ancient Rome office-holders to Category:List of ancient Roma office-holders

Propose renaming Category:Industry in Ancient Rome to Category:Industry in ancient Rome

Propose renaming Category:Alternate history novels set in Ancient Rome to Category:Alternate history novels set in ancient Rome

Nominator's rationale: The capitalization of "ancient Rome" is inconsistent in categories; I am proposing that the capitalized "Ancient Rome"s become lowercase. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Capitalized - Since the categories Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, etc. all use capitals, I recommend all related categories for these civilizations become capitalized. The convention is used both ways in common usage, so either one is acceptable. Jllm06 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I named one of these categories, and accidentally capitalized 'ancient' even though I knew the prevailing style was lowercase. Glad someone's fixing it; to tell the truth, I didn't want to go through the effort. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. The capitalization (or lower case-ization) should be consistent, and while both are acceptable, lowercase "ancient" is more common in current scholarship and on WP. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: capitalised "A" is fine in Jllm06's examples; it's the first letter of the article name. Elsewhere, as Akhilleus and Cynwolfe point out, lowercase prevails. Haploidavey (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Capitals - when the adjectival modifier is capital it implies a specific political entity separate and distinct from the current. When it is not capitalized it implies that it is the ancient form of the current entity. Its the difference between the adjective being part of the Proper noun and not. The capitalization creates more clarity by clearly distinguishing specific periods and political bodies that have nothing to do with the modern ones with the same names. Sadads (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and don't have strong feelings about this, but most Romans today probably wouldn't say that 'ancient Rome' and 'modern Rome' have nothing to do with each other. Note that we wouldn't capitalize "Modern Rome" or "Contemporary Rome." My feeling is that 'ancient Rome' is similarly generic; the proper nouns for specific periods of history would be Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, and Roman Empire. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use whatever is considered correct. I have no idea. Here is a Google scholar search:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Ancient%20Rome - it looks like lower case is more common though that may not matter. I don't understand how capitalization or not would mean anything different. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably more of a stylebook kind of question than absolute right or wrong, I would agree. As Akhilleus points out above. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave capitalized. I think it's silly to go around removing capital letters for the sake of enforcing uniformity in an area where title case has traditionally been preferred, especially when doing so would make it inconsistent with related articles. P Aculeius (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an obsession with consistency can get out of hand to a deleterious extent. It's my impression (and only that) that it's mainly articles imported wholesale from 19th-century sources that capitalize 'ancient' in this instance, as well as other terms we now usually don't. Again, just my impression, but I agree with Akhilleus that most articles written in accordance with WP style use lowercase. Wikipedia applies 'downstyle' to article titles and subheads (though not all have been brought into conformity). At any rate, this change applies only to naming categories, which I do think ought to be internally consistent for ease. With article titles, redirects can resolve issues of capitalization (without imposing a burdensome consistency on editors). I don't have strong feelings about this, except that I've had problems before getting red links with categories when I create articles, due to this capitalization issue. See above for why I think (though not adamantly) that 'ancient' is generic in this usage, and not part of a proper noun. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Capitals. It is useful to have the capitals to emphasise that the categories relate to a specific period of history. Cjc13 (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Capitals -- The present form is throughly satsifactory. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - surely there must be a manual of style policy for the naming of "A/ancient rome" - follow that - usage is inconsistent anway see - perhaps it would be best to agree/find out a project wide standard form at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Shortfatlad (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More info - this seems an old chestnut [1] ancient egypt category talk - there are probably more examples of this than listed in this request - I'd suggest attempt to get a consensus at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) 77.86.119.83 (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested above, the discussion has been renewed at the Greece&Rome project. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cult classic films[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: SPEEDY DELETE as recreation. postdlf (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Entirely subjective criteria for inclusion. Essentially the same as Cult films under a different name. Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just another . . . Too bad as this makes it much easier for people to find movies when they cannot remember the title or actors who appeared in the movie. Categories is supposed to group like things together in order to find them easier. Also, I would argue that cult classic films is not subjective. It is determine over time and appears in critics reviews. Just my thoughts l santry (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 as a recreation of Category:Cult films, at deleted Cfd 2007 April 11.
Otherwise "delete" per nominator as subjective, per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nominator and BrownHairedGirl. Criteria purely subjective - violates WP:NPOV Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom[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. — ξ ^xplicit 22:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom to Category:Defunct railway stations in the United Kingdom
Also all subcategories of Category:Defunct railway stations (with exceptions)
A full list here User:Shortfatlad/cats (can I request help with tagging)

Nominator's rationale: Rename this category and all subcategories from "disused" to "defunct" to match the usage of the parent category category:Defunct railway stations as established here [2]. Also to solve issues with members that are demolished or in use but for non-railway purposes, also allows further sub-cats if needed - as it is a broader category eg "demolished stations".
Related discussions *Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Category:Disused_station *Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Station_categories_for_renaming *renaming of "Category:Defunct railway stations of Kingston upon Hull
The replacement "Closed stations.." has also be suggested - but some subcategories contain members that are not closed eg Category:Former North Shore Line stationsThese are of the type "Railway station of company xxxxx" rather than "Railway station in region yyyyy" (These are not in the renaming list)
Also relevant is the parent Category:Former buildings and structures by building type - which in general uses the "defunct" label. Thanks. Shortfatlad (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the linked cfd (Jan 2008) specifically addresses the UK case, where one does not usually describe a railway station (or a building) as 'defunct'. Occuli (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite:One editor had not heard the word term "defunct" , defunct is an English word. A demolished station is never described as 'disused' in any variant of english - this is the primary point.77.86.62.23 (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Here in the UK I have NEVER heard of a 'defunct' station of any kind" is the exact quote. Defunct is often used in UK English but not to describe a station. Here is an example of usual UK English: www.disused-stations.org.uk. Disused to me just means 'not in use (as a station)'. I would be happy with 'closed' as well. Occuli (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see [3] you need to stop conflating your experience with some sort of universal truth - defunct is a perferctly normal english adjective.87.102.32.226 (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy enough to find examples of any word being misused in any language. Occuli (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. "Defunct" and "Disused" don't have the same meaning, and for the contents of these categories "Defunct" is correct; some of these stations are still in use, just not as heavy-rail stations. – iride scent 17:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The vast majority of reliable sources (and legal notices) dealing with UK railways use the term "closed", and not disused or defunct. The term "Closed" should not be difficult to grasp: trains no longer call at that station, whether or not the buildings have since been demolished, whether or not the line is still in use. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whatever their status, they are not being used as railway stations. Defunct is not normally used in UK English to describe the status of concrete things like buildings, but rather abstractions such as organisations, so to impose this usage would be a form of OR. Globbet (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the proposals and links to the example categories? You say:"Defunct is not normally used in UK English.." - explain then Category:Defunct amusement parks in the United Kingdom Category:Defunct hospitals in the United Kingdom Category:Defunct hotels of the United Kingdom Category:Defunct museums in the United Kingdom Category:Defunct prisons in the United Kingdom ??? Shortfatlad (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That these categories exist is not evidence that they are felicitous examples of British English idiom. Globbet (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and Iridescent. I could also accept "Closed" as Redrose64 endorses. Either is better than the current state of affairs, which makes little sense at all. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Never heard anyone in the UK ever use the phrase "defunct station". Closed stations, yes. Disused stations, yes. Defunct stations, never. DiverScout (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the link posted by the IP five comments above. Fairly clear use of the term. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total nonsense. From google books: "disused railways" produces 614 hits, whereas "defunct railways" only 92, the majority of those being pre-1860 works or overseas publications. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst "defunct" is a valid English adjective, it's rare to be used for railway stations. The link "five comments above" goes to a forum page where the word "defunct" comes up four times, three of them by the original poster. It directs readers to this page, which doesn't mention "defunct" at all. Do any WP:RELIABLE sources use the term "defunct" in the context of railway stations? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar and precision of categorisation do not require verifiable sources - that's crazy - using adjectives correctly doesn't require a precedent. Here's another example [4]

also see commons - is anyone really suggesting that this category has been named "wrong"?77.86.119.83 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more:

A whole host of long-defunct stations and commuter lines are being touted as possible candidates edinburgh evening news
bottom of page
Last week, MP David Laws blasted the authority for missing a "golden opportunity" to buy the 3.14 acre former goods yard, near the defunct station thisisdorset.co.uk
rail specific website UK
BBC using defunct
guardian.co.uk ie The Guardian

All normal people/normal usage. Some of these are british institutions.77.86.119.83 (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also from kentrail.co.uk (which is a site used quite a bit for links/references on wikipedia see : [5]

So yes WP:RELIABLE 77.86.119.83 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find an equal number of sources referring to submarines as ships. That does not make it correct useage. This is really not a term that is in common use. A lot of editors have told you this, yet you continue to protest. I see little point in continuing this conversation if you are unable to consider that your idea is possibly not a good one. DiverScout (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes stop because if I provide reliable sources to respond to another persons point, and then you refuse to accept that, I personally would then start to think that you were simply being disruptive or trolling - which would be stupid because everyone can see you doing it.77.86.119.83 (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven forbid that you are wrong and all the other editors who have tried to explain the fact that you are misinformed and trying to push for something that is incorrect terminology are right. Far easier to call other editors trolls. DiverScout (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Regardless of its American use, the term "defunct" is more correctly and widely used in English in relation to companies and organisations, and not physical entities such as railways. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't change to "defunct" To my ear as a native speaker of American English, "defunct" refers to abstractions like companies and organizations, not to concrete things like railway stations. I would not call a rail station "defunct." (In the States we do have entire railways that possibly could be described as "defunct." The primary meaning in this case would be that the owning/operating company is no longer extant, but in some cases the physical railroad also has been abandoned.) I would prefer "closed" or "former." "Disused" is also good, but not preferred because "disused" is a word that is almost never encountered in U.S. English. --Orlady (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as before - did you look at the subcategories of Category:Former buildings and structures of the United States eg Category:Defunct airports in the United States, Category:Defunct amusement parks in the United States, Category:Defunct casinos in the United States, Category:Defunct hospitals in the United States, Category:Defunct hotels of the United States, Category:Defunct museums in the United States etc (and the subcategories..)

There's a reason why using closed is no good - it too is given above.77.86.119.83 (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a reason why we use UK English conventions on UK pages. Attempting to force US conventions that are not used in UK English onto UK articles and categories is not going to work any more than an attempt to force UK spelling conventions on US articles would. How many editors need to reiterate the same thing before you consider that you may not be right on this one. DiverScout (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the links above with numerous UK sources using defunct - including the BBC, guardian etc.77.86.119.83 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

or see railbrit.co.uk - a UK website - specialising in trains - using the term "defunct xxxx station" 77.86.119.83 (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the outcome of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 30#Category:Defunct railway stations in Kingston upon Hull and apply whatever convention is chosen in this discussion to that category as well. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question If the proposal included an agreement to separate stations into separate categories - "disused" (still standing but 'derelict') and another for demolished stations, both as sub-categories of 'defunct' would that be aggreeable to more people? 77.86.119.83 (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to me. This would create even more potential for confusion. Furthermore, determining whether a station is open or not is relatively simple - if a timetable shows a service, it's open, otherwise closed (for stations closed before 1 January 1995, an acceptably reliable source is available, in the form of Butt). Determining the present status of the buildings is much more difficult. What, for example, would we do with Culham? The original Brunel building on the up platform is still there, but not only is it not in use, it's fenced off to prevent damage. Then there's Oxford Rewley Road - the building still exists, but is now several miles from its original site. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culham is not defunct as a station (the fact that a particular building has been replaced by another and is not in use is not a big problem), the other is defunct as a station.

Question: what should be done with Category:Disused railway stations in Kingston upon Hull of which only one (as far as I know) is still standing - this is a common problem in urban areas due to redevelopment.Shortfatlad (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least in the case of those in the USA - I stand by my previous statement on WP:Trains that not every former station is defunct, disused, or closed. Such a category may apply to stations like Manorville (LIRR station), Eastport (LIRR station) or The Raunt (LIRR station) but not Rockaway Park (LIRR station) or Howard Beach (LIRR station). Plus, there may be a lot more commuter railroad stations that are former Amtrak stations than are currently being tagged with the existing category "Former Amtrak stations in ****** State." For example, on the List of Amtrak stations, they give Rialto, California (Amtrak station)(RIA), and the only station I know about in Rialto is a Southern California Metrolink station. I've found others in the past, and have been suspicious about more. ----DanTD (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note If a page is in category "defunct Amtrak railway stations in xxx" then it's not a problem - since all the cat does is to show that the station is defunct as an Amtrak station. If that station is open under metrolink usage then it would also be in "(non-defunct)Metrolink railway stations in xxx" - It's difficult to work with examples that don't exist as articles though.

eg Kensington (MARC station) is in both a "former" and a "in use" category - does it change the meaning if "former amtrak ..." is changed to "defunct amtrak ..." - I don't think it does.77.86.119.83 (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ie The difference in meaning between "Former Amtrak station of xxx" and "Defunct Amtrak station of xxx" seems small (and may be subjective rather than objective) - I don't think either conveys more or less information. ie is that station now totally closed or demolished or open under new management? - from my reading neither form actually tells that in isolation. (The article and other categories should do this though) If the difference is objectively different then the list needs altering.77.86.119.83 (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This one gets very complicated if you see a cross wiki sample - and interesting that the US and the UK are used as the main examples - in Australia we have ended up with different names for the categories for different states - Closed, Disused, and probably others not found - the very very big problem is that the status of a railway line/ station can vary - I personally think a coverall mother category should be accommodating of all the variants - rather than trying to twist the variants into a single term - cross atlantic examples could de-reail the whole process of resolving this particular CFD - I would suggest despite the attraction of defunct it is the grandmother and mother categories be changed to accomodate the variants - rather than the children Satu Suro 23:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Category:Defunct railway stations now contains Category:Closed railway stations in Australia (are there any other missing categories?). Question Does the different names of the subcats of Category:Closed railway stations in Australia have any meaning or is it just an example of inconsistent naming? At least some of the members of Category:Disused railway stations in New South Wales are described as "..been demolished ... no trace remains.." - this is one of the reasons why the cats need work on - how can a non-existent station be described as disused (rhetorical)

What are the alternatives? by reference to the members of Category:Former buildings and structures by building type it seems that for just about everything else "Defunct" (or Former) is completely acceptable in all the countries of the world. I fail to see why railways are different.

Is there a better term for the parent cats ? - defunct is the broadest I can think of - again the ubiquity of its use suggests that it is the right decision ("former" is very similar in coverage).77.86.119.83 (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category Category:Power stations by condition suggests a suitable "uncle" category for the various states of railway station - this could be done as well as part of a clean up.77.86.119.83 (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another unrelated problem is the utter non-notability of the majority of the stations in Category:Closed railway stations in Australia, yet they all have stub articles. They really should be (at least) organised into articles per line and the station info presented in a table or similar. Some of the UK articles have similar potential non-notability problems (when presented individually.77.86.119.83 (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSince when does an IP number conduct a running commentary and side issues on a CFD? I thought there were conventions as to the correct procedure? Re the australian stations - it has all been hashed out regularly and established as legitimate notability at the australian project - there is a smell of being WP:UNDUE - there are other countries in the world with closed railway lines as well - selective focus is not appropriate to the argument - why not Africa, South America? Satu Suro 01:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the same person as User:Shortfatlad (not signed in) - and I'm just responding to points made. There is no undue focus - I've applied this to all station categories that appear in the Category:Defunct railway stations - if there are any others not yet in that category you could properly categorise them - as I did for the australian stations. Can you link to where the notability of these stations has been established - I can't find it. For example I mean stations like these Mount Evelyn railway station, Melbourne Wesburn railway station, Melbourne Glenlee railway station, New South Wales Donald railway station, Victoria.

77.86.119.83 (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be contributing with 2 identities, obviously. Stick to the point - notability of railway stations in Australia has no bearing on cfd, especially one about ones in the UK (where any railway station is presumed notable, as there will obviously be 3rd party references to it in the archives of local libraries from its opening). Occuli (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on the subject of this specific CDF on UK railway stations, defunct is not a term that is generally used in the UK for describing railway stations that are no longer railway stations. Disused can be used to cover all states that is not currently in use as a railway station. I do not think that we should be over categorising by attempting to split into former, closed, demolished, derelict etc. as you will probably end up with numerous small categories. Also creates difficulties determining which category is appropriate for some stations, ending up with another category been created for ones that do not exactly fit in with those already defined. Keith D (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or rename to Former railway stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.150.205 (talk • contribs)
Comment - The proposer claims to have retired. Globbet (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's done similar in the past. According to his now-deleted userpage he used to be User:Carrolljon until he forgot his password, and User:FengRail after that, plus at least one other that I've forgotten. Chances are he'll be back with another account fairly soon. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Companies based in Oklahoma City[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: SPEEDY DELETE; copy of text already at List of companies based in Oklahoma City; category is otherwise empty and duplicate of already-populated category. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a proper use of categories. Nothing to merge to Category:Companies based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Tassedethe (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete – empty apart from a misplaced userpage. Occuli (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This a list-style article in category space, not a category, and we already have Category:Companies based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:2010 soundtracks[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:Soundtrack albums and Category:2010 albums. — ξ ^xplicit 22:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2010 soundtracks to Category:2010 soundtrack albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Someone has had the novel idea of creating the category intersect of 2010 albums and Soundtrack albums. I'm not sure the need for it, but at the least, the name of the category should be Category:2010 soundtrack albums as soundtracks are not the same thing as soundtrack albums. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Soundtrack albums and Category:2010 albums: no need to intersect these. (Quite a few of the subcats of Category:Soundtrack albums are of form 'XXX soundtracks'.) If kept it should be renamed per nom. Occuli (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This category was created on a whim. The person who created it, I guess wasn't aware that soundtrack albums are included with other albums. Quasy Boy 20:00, 5 April 2010

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:Yucky foods[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 (why wait?). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: april fool Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and do the trout slapping dance, then go for something completely different, with a bomb to it. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Religion-related listings on the National Register[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 the main category to Category:Properties of religious function on the National Register of Historic Places and the subcategories to Properties of religious function on the National Register of Historic Places in Foo.

Closer's notes
The argument was made that 'place of worship' is a more logical choice of terminology than 'property' in light of the fact that the main category under discussion is a subcategory of Category:Places of worship in the United States. The counter-argument was that not all NRHP properties "of religious function" are places of worship, so renaming to 'places of worship' would cause errors of categorization, and that 'property' reflects the terminology used by the NRHP itself.

The argument emphasizing consistency has merit but seems to overlook the fact that the category system consists of multiple, overlapping trees, which may require differing conventions and terminologies. We can define the scope of categories to suit our needs—e.g., in theory, we could have both Category:Properties of religious function on the National Register of Historic Places and Category:Places of worship on the National Register of Historic Places, though I do not recommend it—but must attempt, as much as possible, avoid category names that are ambiguous or misleading as to their scope. Consistency with the naming of existing, general Wikipedia categories is undoubtedly desirable in general, but not at the expense of accuracy. In this case, an exceptionally-compelling reason was not produced to use the terminology of one particular parent category tree instead of the terminology used in the real world by the NRHP.

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

... And numerous other categories (for U.S. states and other U.S. jurisdictions) that are named according to one of these patterns.

For the ease of the closing admin, I've listed the others below.- choster (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Also include similar categories for Delaware and Florida and possibly other states.

Nominator's rationale: Renames are needed to (1) create consistency between similar categories (two different formats are used now), (2) use the correct terminology (correct term National Register of Historic Places, not "Registered Historic Places"), and (3) eliminate use of the word "Buildings" in titling categories that include many entities that aren't buildings. (For example, several of the listed sites in Hawaii are outdoor sites of significance to Native Hawaiians, not buildings at all.) Most of the other categories for these topics were renamed to the "National Register of Historic Places" terminology a year or more ago, but this group was delayed due to the awkwardness of the "of religious function" wording. "Properties of religious function" is suggested since "property" is the generic term used by the National Register administrators for any entity listed on the National Register. --Orlady (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Rationale makes sense to me. Altairisfar 13:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note Category:Religious places (and its child Category:Religious buildings). Since it's a register of historic places, including things like historic districts, what was the objection there? Not to get in the way— I have no objection to the proposed form— but "Religious places" would sort more naturally in the NRHP category scheme of [Foo structures] on the National Register of Historic Places in [Bar]. - choster (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One interesting problematic wrinkle to contend with in dealing with the National Register of Historic Places is that it is not limited to actual "places." National Register listings also include (or potentially include) movable items such as boats and rail locomotives, and even possibly furniture, as well as structures (such as monuments and fountains) that may or may not be considered to be "places." Accordingly, the official generic term for items listable on the Register is "property", not "place." (See Property type (National Register of Historic Places) for details.) --Orlady (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename to the form "Places of worship on the National Register of Historic Places..." to match a logical (and now actual) parent of each of these categories. In this case, we are dealing with 'places', not something else and 'of worship' seems to be encompassing enough. Hmains (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unfortunately, not all of the religious functions associated with these properties or places can be described as "worship". For example, Medicine Wheel National Historic Landmark clearly has religious function(s), but it is not apparent that "worship" is among its religious functions, much less its primary religious function. Among the other examples in these categories are missions and monasteries, which likely include places where worship occurred (or still occurs), but that have other "religious functions." --Orlady (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment No WP category tree is perfect, and neither are their names. The vast majority of these articles are 'places of worship' and it is not up to WP editors to decide what constitutes 'worship', which can vary greatly. In any case, a few named exceptions do not make a difference. Hmains (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arbitrary decisions on nomenclature for convenience often lead to unneeded contention, and religion can be about as contentious as any topic there is. The terminology "of religious function" has been in use here for a long time, and it seems to have the scope needed to include all the diverse religious things on the NRHP , while avoiding offense to various sensitivities surrounding the topic of religion. --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Earlier discussions of these category names (none of them strongly conclusive) occurred at CfD in June 2007, CfD later in June 2007, NRHP Wikiproject in July 2008, NRHP Wikiproject in October 2008, and NRHP Wikiproject in December 2008. --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC) OOPS: Also NRHP Wikiproject in June 2007. --Orlady (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed to "properties". Religion doesn't need buildings; some Native American religions use natural locations that are more properly described under NPS criteria as sites. As, in fact, it would describe the ruins of a church (of which I'm sure the Register has a few). And I'm certain there are some religious building complexes treated as districts. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
commment what is the justification for creating a new naming convention just for National Register of Historic Places when 'places of worship' is already accepted and in use throughout WP? See Category:Places of worship in the United States, Category:Places of worship in the United States by state, Category:Places of worship by country for examples. Hmains (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That aspect of the proposal is not new. The main category has carried the name "Registered Historic Places of religious function" since June 2007, and its scope has not been limited to places of worship. It is in turn aligned with Category:Religious places. The current proposal is aimed at removing the Wikipedia-created neologism "Registered Historic Places" from the category name. An additional aim is to get the various categories "Buildings" and "Places" categories aligned in a single naming structure. Ideally, that structure would not require sacred rocks, mountains, and other outdoor sacred places to be placed in a "Buildings" category. Note that the actual "places of worship" in these categories are separately included in categories for Christian churches, Islamic mosques, Jewish synagogues, etc. that slot them into the main Category:Places of worship. --Orlady (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Sex segregation[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sex segregation to Category:Gender segregation

Nominator's rationale: Gender is a less ambiguous term. Thundermaker (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The parent article is sex segregation, and there are two separate articles on sex segregation in specific contexts. At any rate, I'm not sure I understand your assertion, unless you somehow think that sex here may be confused with sexual intercourse, which is unlikely when appended to the term "segregation". Could you explain? postdlf (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on a quick Google search these terms are equally in use, and other objections I simply don't see. Creating Category:Gender segregation as a redirect to Category:Sex segregation might be a good idea. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simply put, it's not ambiguous at all. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Gender segregation. The head article does not describe segregation according to sex (for which a test is rather complicated); it describes segregation according to the social construct of gender. It says so explicitly in the first sentence: "Sex segregation is the separation of people according to their gender". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: I just notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies, and while doing so I noticed that the category had not been tagged.
In view of the lack of either tagging or wikiproject-notification, I suggest that this discussion should be relisted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As another mentioned above on Google the two terms are about equally used: "Sex segregation" 147,000, "Gender segregation" 118,000 (only 20% difference), but gender can refer to languages (typically masculine, feminine, common, neuter). Gender is apparently the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones). Perhaps the beginning sentence in the head article needs to be improved. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I'm relisting this mainly because the category was not tagged for renaming. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the terms sex and gender are not strictly equivalent, in this context they are effectively synonymous and there should be no confusion about the meaning of this phrase. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There are two sexes, male and female. Gender is a grammatical term: Greek and Latin have three genders, masculine, feminine and neuter. The sex is often not identical to its gender, for example in Greek technon (infant) is neuter. The PC brigade have tried to distort the language, because "sex" has come to be used for what used to be called sexual intercourse, which in turn replaced a word of Anglo-Saxon origin f***, which has become a swear word. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Companies operating in Israeli-occupied territories[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. There was not enough support to repurpose the category. — ξ ^xplicit 20:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization. We don't categorize companies by the locations in the world in which they operate. We categorize companies by where they are headquartered. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a useless category. -- Ed (Edgar181) 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories are navigational aids. Companies that operate in the Israeli-occupied territories are of interest to readers are referred to as such by media, legislators and legal courts. That said, it is possible that Category:Companies with economic ties to Israeli-occupied territories will suffice. Unomi (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the fact that we never categorize companies by where they operate? This hasn't been addressed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. We have categories for which exchanges they are listed on, when they were founded, and whether they are Category:Oneworld_affiliate_members. These strike me as no more or no less 'defining characteristics' than whether they are operating in OTP. Unomi (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of a "not part of a larger scheme" argument. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I value your thoughts on this matter, but do you not find that "not part of a larger scheme" is also a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument? And further one which denies WP:NOTFINISHED?

If you want it to be, I'm sure you can shoehorn it in. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:( Unomi (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although "we never categorize companies by where they operate", I believe this is a valid exception, as companies operating in the West Bank/Golan are often subject to trade restrictions based on the illegality of the Israeli settlements in which they are based. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is this different than Category:Companies based in the Palestinian territories? My first inclination was that this overlaps with that category, or is it meant to specifically label companies based in Israel that operate in the Palestinian territories? Is there some law against companies operating out of occupied territories (while being based in the occupying country), or has there been controversy around such cases, or is this just editor politics? ← George^talk 08:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An occupying power is entitled under international law to make use of the economy and resources of the territory it occupies, but only in order to fulfil the needs of its army and to meet the costs of administering the occupied territory." Sean.hoyland - talk 08:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then companies in this category have are distinctly different than most, and I think it makes sense to keep the category. ← George^talk 10:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's useful and relevant information, but probably better if presented as a list, as it would allow more specific information than a category. snigbrook (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find this category extremely important so people can easily navigate through companies operating in Israeli-occupied territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: to make a distinction from Palestinian or Syrian companies in occupied lands, it should maybe be renamed to "Israeli companies operating in Israeli-occupied territories" - or something like that, but the category should definitely stay. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- a list is a must clearer way to add such detail. Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Over-categorization for political purposes. Categories aren't referenced, and generally shouldn't be controversial. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 14:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the controversy. A company either operates in OTP or it doesn't. Unomi (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, a company either operates in, or doesn't operate in: China, the U.S., Mexico, Russia, England, France, etc. We don't categorize them by the countries in which they happen to operate, and we wouldn't want to (category explosion isn't the goal here). Given that, category specific to the occupied territories is intrinsically exercising undue weight. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument. Having one does not necessitate having another. Undue weight is indeed an issue, but I believe it is WP:GEVAL that is what makes it so. Unomi (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would have to include any (notable) Palestinian companies operating in the area, making it worthless, even to supporting the WP:POV of the article creator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly, and everyone has a pov, that doesn't change the facts. Unomi (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has a POV, but there's no need to play up either side of it. This is needlessly inflammatory, as evidenced by the predisposition to tag non-Palestinian companies alone, despite the fact that *any* Palestinian company would qualify. The fact that an international corporation may have a presence in the West Bank is somewhat irrelevant; we're not going to categorize every multinational with a per country category, so emphasis on a presence in the occupied territories is clearly applying undue weight to one aspect of their operations. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category was a few hours old when it was taken to CfD, assumptions of bias are unwarranted, though I am unaware of any Palestinian companies which have articles off the top of my head. The OTP category is clearly exceptional and has good reason to be considered a navigational aid our readers can appreciate. As the sources below show, there is a definite interest in these relations in the media, governments and legal institutions so I can't see the that undue weight holds up as an argument. Such a presence is indeed a defining characteristic when it comes the bodies I just mentioned. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument. Unomi (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how the occupied territories are exceptional. Keep in mind, WP:OTHERSTUFF is:

A) Referring primarily to articles, not categories (though I won't argue it's completely inapplicable)

B) Explaining that using the lack of existence of another article does not prohibit the creation of a related article because the non-existent article is not presumed to be invalid.

In this case, the non-existent categories are invalid, for exactly the reasons I mentioned (category spew on every multinational that fails to capture any useful information). I'm arguing not to keep this category, not because similar categories don't exist, but because they shouldn't exist either. If the company in question has a presence in the occupied territories that has received verifiable, reliable and notable praise or criticism, then a section on that might be warranted in the article (assuming WP:UNDUE doesn't apply), but overcategorizing because it "might" be appreciated is unnecessary and trivial. While a specific company's actions may be criticized, the distinction between "active in the occupied territories" and "involved in morally or ethically questionable actions in the occupied territories" is important. People care about the latter, and sourced, high profile criticism belongs in the article, but it's no basis for a category. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that you were arguing from the basis of false consequence. That because we have a category on Companies operating in Israeli-occupied territory, it would naturally follow that we would have Companies operating in Nova Scotia etc. (at least that was what I understood your argument to be). That doesn't necessarily follow and it is covered in WP:OTHERSTUFF as We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. Which is to say that the existence of this hinges on the existence of y, y in this case would be companies operating in Nova Scotia, and I agree that it would not be particularly interesting, but that doesn't really have anything meaningful to say about this. We don't need to note that a company has received praise or criticism, the very act has a notable consequence: A. Loss of tax-exempt status. B. Being in contravention of the international law(for non Palestine companies). It is that simple, and it is not a pov issue, its the law. Unomi (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Category:Israeli companies based in the occupied territories. nableezy - 22:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based is difficult, and would likely be very few indeed, operating is a better delineation precisely because it follows the fault line dictated by the ECJ. Unomi (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, operating. nableezy - 22:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An increasingly important issue. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV and frankly preposterous to label every single company operating in each area. Microsoft and Intel do not have labels for every country they operate in, though we would have to add this label since they have distributors of hardware and software to these locations. Would the cat also apply to all companies dealing with the Arabs in this area or only those companies dealing with Jews? Many multinational companies operate in the area ruled by the Palestinian Authority. On top of that, it would need to be applied to virtually every single Israeli company (can someone count how many of them already have articles on WP?) since it is rare for a notable one to boycott the Israelis living in the 'West Bank'. --Shuki (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it POV? Unomi (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SOAP, a list would at least provide space for discussion that would otherwise have to span who knows how many articles. Poliocretes (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:CAT guideline, which says here that "[categories] should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects", "should generally be uncontroversial", and should not spark controversy. Categories are navigation tools, and not a mean to push non neutral labeling or political agendas. Noon (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this cat non neutral or controversial? Unomi (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much more suitable as a list which can be sourced with clear inclusion criteria etc. Tassedethe (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the purpose of this category is clearly to smear companies and/or individuals based on a particular political POV, not to assist our readers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

A discussion with Lankiveil is underway at User_talk:Unomi#Smearing, please do join in. Unomi (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dellete. This category isn't adding any useful information to Wikipedia... it won't help readers navigate articles. It's obvious that it's just a tool to trivialize companies based on POV. That doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Breein1007 (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I have concerns that its creation may have been done not for organizational purposes but to make a WP:POINT or push a POV, it does have relevance towards operations based in areas that Israel currently occupies but has stated it doesn't intend to keep in perpetuity, such as the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 05:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose (i.e. prune down to) Category:Companies based in the Israeli-occupied territories. Otherwise this almost become an ATTACK category to help campaigners. Note my view on the next item below is stronger - I want it deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

warning SupremeDeliciousness has created a new cat Category:Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories and started moving articles to it before this cfd has been closed. IMO, this is bad faith way to attempt to skirt a possible impending deletion given that a similar 'Category:Companies with economic ties to Israeli-occupied territories' was just deleted unanimously. --Shuki (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new category I created Category:Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories is a separate category.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been a little more reasonable to wait for this discussion to be closed before creating that. It could be viewed as an attempt to do an end-run around a potential result here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if that category gets deleted or not, my cat is a separate category that I would have created even if the cat up for cfd wasn't deleted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid it certainly would matter. I think you should make an attempt to consider why it might matter. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you explain it to me. Even if this gets deleted, it has nothing to do with my cat, and if it stays, it has nothing to do with my cat. My cat will stay either way. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did, but after I did you still appeared to think there was no problem, so I figured maybe you should think about it more. Let's assume only for the purposes of this thought experiment that the category is deleted. Then users see that during the discussion you created a category that differs from the deleted one only in that you have made it specific to Israeli categories. In other words, the one you created is a subcategory that would group a subtype of the articles that were originally categorized in the deleted category. So an observing party could come to believe that during the discussion you had seen the writing on the wall and that you anticipated that the category was going to be deleted, so in an attempt to do an end-run around the anticipated result, you created a category that is similar but slightly different. Thus, you would be able to keep categorizing the Israeli companies in this way when the Israeli companies were originally in the deleted category. In other words, it could be seen as a bad faith abuse of process. The observer could ask—if it's inappropriate to categorize all companies that operate in the occupied territories, why would it nevertheless be OK to categorize Israeli companies that do so? Even if you claim your motives were pure (which I assume you do), one could still legitimately ask: if the new category was desirable to have, wouldn't it at least be more prudent to have waited until the discussion of its parent category was concluded to at least avoid the appearance of what is outlined above? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is an obvious attempt at political POV pushing. Have they put any Palestinian or Arab owned companies in this category? The resemblance between the list of companies put in this category and lists of from organizations that boycott Israel is not coincidental. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose to Category:Companies based in the Israeli-occupied territories per Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have already other categories that cover companies that are based in Israel, the West Bank, Gaza or the disputed territories. We do not need category for firms that are operating in a geographic locale, as for many firms this would mean that we would have to add dozens of categories. If we make an exception for this one particular case, we have the problem that operating is not a clear criterion. Do they need to have production facilities there? Or sales offices? Or purchase supplies from firms located in the disputed territories? Pantherskin (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Companies with economic ties to Israeli-occupied territories[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: deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Vague and undefined. What level of "economic ties" with the IOT are necessary for a company to be included? Selling products in the territories? Employing people in the territories? Delete as imprecise and probably trivial anyway, since we don't categorize companies by places for which they have economic ties. We categorize them for where they are headquartered. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete let's not let our pov show in our categories. Hipocrite (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

We categorize as we see fit, acting in the interest of our readers.
It is not vague or imprecise at all please see http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/ for such a categorization within a international legal context. By following RS on the matter issues of being vague are moot. Unomi (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not trivial as a matter of international law. First of all, please recognize that there is no country in the world that does not officially recognize the settlements to be illegal, none, not even Israel. According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, all Israeli colonies are illegal and constitute war crimes. - This is compounded by a ECJ ruling on the matter of labeling as der Spiegel reports.
It is not trivial to our readers.
The only controversial pov matter is regarding our neglect of reflecting international consensus. WP:GEVAL. Unomi (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no definition in the category. Thus, it is undefined, and therefore can be interpreted in a variety of ways, which makes it vague and imprecise. You haven't answered the question I posed in the initial nominating statement: What level of "economic ties" with the IOT are necessary for a company to be included? The link you provided is for a report by two researchers—it's not even a government-sponsored study, and it certainly falls below the standards of what would normally be the basis for categorization. Most of your other points are good soapbox material but kind of miss the real point of this discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising these concerns, I have added criteria to the category page. It is simply not true that such a report falls below standards for categorization. I apologize for any perceived soapboxing, but I felt it necessary to counter the claim that such a category would be trivial and to provide rationale for the utility and notability of such a category. Unomi (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It is simply not true that such a report falls below standards for categorization." Do you understand that just because something is verifiable doesn't make it something that we should necessarily categorize by? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I follow your arguments and objections. A category that allows readers to find companies that have economic ties to the Israeli-occupied territories is useful and populating it is possible. It reflects a categorization in the real world (used in ethical investment metrics for example). I do agree that the decision procedure used to populate it should make sense and be clear but that's a generic issue for almost all categories. I don't see anything especially vague about this one. There seems to be a disconnect between the WP:V policy and category membership decision procedures in general but categorization carries on regardless and is useful. A company conducting their business in the Israeli occupied territories or having dealings with companies in those territories is a significant thing for many reliable sources, the reason why doesn't really matter. As for definitions, populating categories relies on a policy compliant decision procedure to populate the category rather than a definition of the category. For example, there isn't an absolute definition of an 'Abstract expressionist artist'. That would be quite difficult. Nevertheless it is quite easy and useful to have a category called 'Abstract expressionist artists' that can be populated in a policy compliant way based on categorization by reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you hang around CFD at all you'll find that the general approach is that just because something is verifiable doesn't make it category-worthy. The concern is more on whether or not a characteristic is defining—not on whether or not it is verifiable. But if you think "with economic ties" is not vague, then we just have different standards for what we look for in categories. Anyways, I was asking Unomi if he realised the existence of the principle I mentioned, and didn't get that user's response. I understand the intent of the category, but it seems a little bit amorphous in the abstract for a category. A list article would be of much more utility for a complex legal issue like this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and I take your point about amorphous categories and the advantage of a list article. However, the general approach is only useful if it makes it easier for a reader to find information of interest to them using a categorization system that makes sense to them. This is about the readers in the end. People will look for the same information using apparently mutually incompatiable taxonomies neither of which are defining in an absolute sense. For example someone might expect to see Hezbollah categorized as a terrorist group and someone else might expect to see them categorized as a resistance movement. Based on sources Hezbollah are a member of both sets and both sets are valid sets but I would hesitate to call either of them defining because the real world categorization that these wiki categories reflect aren't defining. A thing in the real world can be both X and not X according to different sources (and readers of course). We have to live with that. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting approach to categorization, but not one that has been widely adopted in WP, I'd say. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the vague wording. The category for discussion above should be sufficient. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Number 57. These categories are almost identical; one (or none) should suffice. ← George^talk 08:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not manageable, vaguely titled, not necessary. This comes from someone who was not ashamed to profit from some business over there.Cptnono (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic is indeed a significant one, but the category fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE: just how close do these economic ties have to be? It cover anything from a company with a large wholly-owned subsidiary in the West Bank to one which one sold a pencil to a settler in Hebron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... and the criteria added to the category are both subjective and arbitrary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Very vague cat, non definable. Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob please see the paper here, it sets fairly clear criteria. Unomi (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and kill with fire. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Over-categorization for political purposes. Categories aren't referenced, and generally shouldn't be controversial. This one is even worse than the last, since defining "economic ties" is nigh unto impossible. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 14:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much too vague, political, only source for the information is not reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as my comment in above cat. POV terminology and frankly too large a range of companies unless there is some ulterior motive to only label the companies with economic ties with Jews in these areas and leave out those who have ties with Arabs in this 'same area'. --Shuki (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it POV? Unomi (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious soapboxing. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as the above category, this one violates WP:CAT guideline, which says here that "[categories] should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects", "should generally be uncontroversial", and should not spark controversy. Categories are navigation tools, and not a mean to push non neutral labeling or political agendas. Noon (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this would be controversial in the sense that it is intended, clearly the cat would only apply to companies that live up to the criteria and hence the addition would be uncontroversial. Nor do I see how it is POV or political, it is very uncontroversial, the whole world agrees that Israeli-occupied territories exist. I fear that the controversy is wholly imagined. Unomi (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague and ill-defined. Not suitable as a category. Tassedethe (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the purpose of this category is clearly to smear companies and/or individuals based on a particular political POV, not to assist our readers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete previous (above) category is satisfactory, as per Number 57. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 05:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- much too vague. This seems to almost to be an ATTACK category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Metro Toronto[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 9#Category:Metro Toronto. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Metro Toronto to Category:Metropolitan Toronto (former municipality)

Nominator's rationale: for greater clarity, especially for those not familiar with Toronto. Mayumashu (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks OK to me after a brief scan of the category and the head article Metropolitan Toronto. But I have only spent a week in Toronto, and there are editors who know its administrative history much much better than that. Has WP:TORONTO been notified? I didn't see a notice there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the WP:COMMONNAME of the entity is "Metro Toronto"... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But people who aren't familiar with Toronto may not realize that Metro Toronto isn't the same thing as the GTA. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same thing for Metropolitan Toronto... so Category:Metro Toronto (former administrative region) or somesuch would preserve the common name... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as someone who has never been within 1000km of Toronto and wouldn't know it from a bar of soap, "Metro Toronto" sounds like a subway system rather than an urban area. "Metro Toronto" might be common lingo in the city, but presumably a lot of the people looking up the articles here won't be so well informed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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