Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 23 August 25 >

August 24[edit]

Category:Incomplete buildings and structures[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. — ξxplicit 03:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Incomplete buildings and structures to Category:Unfinished buildings and structures
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article, unfinished building. Also incomplete could imply that the building is missing something like Harmon Hotel or for a building where floors are left unfinished to allow for future growth. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 24 August 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.

E-mail[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 all. — ξxplicit 03:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:E-mail to Category:Email
Propose renaming Category:E-mail agents to Category:Email agents
Propose renaming Category:E-mail authentication to Category:Email authentication
Propose renaming Category:E-mail clients to Category:Email clients
Propose renaming Category:E-mail spammers to Category:Email spammers
Propose renaming Category:E-mail storage formats to Category:Email storage formats
Propose renaming Category:Free e-mail hosting to Category:Free email hosting
Propose renaming Category:Microsoft e-mail software to Category:Microsoft email software
Propose renaming Category:Wireless e-mail to Category:Wireless email
Propose renaming Category:E-mail worms to Category:Email worms
Propose renaming Category:E-mail devices to Category:Email devices
Propose renaming Category:E-mail websites to Category:Email websites
Propose renaming Category:Free e-mail software to Category:Free email software
Propose renaming Category:Linux e-mail clients to Category:Linux email clients
Propose renaming Category:Mac OS X e-mail clients to Category:Mac OS X email clients
Propose renaming Category:Mac OS e-mail clients to Category:Mac OS email clients
Propose renaming Category:Windows e-mail clients to Category:Windows email clients
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, email. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:37, 24 August 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:Slovakian architecture[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. — ξxplicit 03:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Slovakian architecture to Category:Slovak architecture
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be an accidental fork from the main Slovak architecture page, and "Slovak" would probably make more sense than "Slovakian". TheGrappler (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. "Slovak" is the correct form. - Darwinek (talk) 21:03, 26 August 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:Puerto Rican Political Prisoners[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 and merge to Category:Puerto Rican prisoners and detainees. Categorization should be based on objective criteria, but none has been specified here. Also per past precedents. Ruslik_Zero 13:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Puerto Rican Political Prisoners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Hopelessly POV. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_17#Political_prisoners for the precedent. Pichpich (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the issue is whether the Category should be deleted. Renaming to a category such as "Imprisioned Puerto Rican independence activists" would not work because it is too broad: [Note: Remainder of comment & other responses have been moved to new sub-section following main section...]
  • Upmerge to Category:Puerto Rican prisoners and detainees. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Patriot or terrorists,now those are terms which would be POV since they depend on the perspective of different parties, however if we go by the definition of what the term "Political Prisoner" means which is " someone imprisoned for holding, expressing, or acting in accord with particular political beliefs" then there is no denying that some Puerto Ricans have been incarcerated because of their political beliefs. This holds true not only for the United States, but for China, Russia and every other country where people have expressed their political in-satisfaction and have imprisoned for it. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys, this may surprise you, but Nelson Mandela isn't categorized as a political prisoner either. We just don't categorize people that way, because it's unnecessarily controversial. TheGrappler (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could say that, but it then begs the question: Categorized, yes, but, by whom, by Wikipedia editors or by the real world at large? The Real World already categorized Mandela as a Political Prisoner. We at Wikipedia are suppossed to be mere reflectors of what the Real World is, and the Nelson Mandela article does present Mandela as a political prisoner. We can accept that and do accordingly, or you can look the other way, and get overruled for pushing our own WP:POV.
In addition, the fact that there is no Wikipedia Category for throwing him into shouldn't actually surprise anyone: The fact is he is repeatedly described in his article as a Political Prisoner. The fact that a Wikipedia category for Mandela exists or not neither proves nor disproves that Mandela was a Political Prisoner. (If your logic was correct, then you can also establish that the U.S. is not located in North America because it is not in a Wikipedia category of "Countries in North America"! AND, that the U.S. is not categorized into a Countries in North America "because such category is "unnecessarily controversial"!!!) The proof that someone is a Political Prisoner is provided by Verifiable and Reliable Sources, and nothing else. And this WP:V and WP:RS is what we have provided for the category "Puerto Rican Political Prisoners". My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • The fact that Mandela is not categorized as a political prisoner does not mean that he was not one, or that he should not be included in that category in the future. The "We" that you mentioned is not exclusive to those editors who tag Categories for Deletion or for renaming. The rationale for deletion due to "controversial", is frankly not good enough, including the addition of the adverb in front. Nelson Mandela being described as a "Political Prisoner" is not a matter of opinion, it is a verifiable defining characteristic from Objective sources. QuAzGaA 00:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mandela is less contentious than most. But even with him, there are plenty of people who would prefer to call him a "convicted terrorist". Other instances are even more contentious. Isn't the fact that this debate is as long-tempered and drawn-out as it is, something of an indication that the Puerto Rican "political prisoner" is potentially controversial? David Lane and Matthew F. Hale are often called "political prisoners" by their supporters - and verifiable sources can be produced to demonstrate that (sources which, their sympathizers may declare, are "objective"). But we don't categorize them as political prisoners either. There is no anti-Puerto Rican agenda at play here, just an aversion for potentially controversial or non-NPOV categories. TheGrappler (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason "We" don't categorize white supremacists as political prisoners is that "We", as wikipedians - and not white supremacist supporters, judge sources as objective. That should be the criteria for deletion of any category. In regards to this discussion, it should be noted that this category has objective sources in its articles. Furthermore, I find your comparison of these white supremacists with Nelson Mandela, and this Category, to be extremely distasteful. Not even in the same ballpark. Please keep this discussion relative to the issues at hand and don't compare apples to goats. QuAzGaA 04:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will proffer that the reason Mandela is less contentious than most is because he is from a country other than the US, and most Americans understandably find it less difficult to admit someone into a PP (any PP) category if it involves a country other than the United States. And, English Wikipedia is dominated by Americans. Here the issue is, of course, that the imprisioning country is the United States. Will there be "plenty of people" who would call him a convicted terrorist as you state? Well, that is just your opinion, not a fact.
No, the fact that "this debate is as long-tempered and drawn-out as it is", is NOT "something of an indication that the Puerto Rican 'political prisoner' category is potentially controversial". If that was the case, then you would almost certainly have to say that a previous similar discussion on this topic but involving other countries (HERE), and where a decision was made to Delete the Category, should in fact had been decided in favor of "KEEP" the Category because that discussion was not as drawn-out as this one! So that rationale, imo, in entirely invalid.
I am not sure where you can draw that the Lane and/or Hale cases have any bearing with the Puerto Rican Political Prisoners (PRPP) category being Discussed here. Of course Lane and Hale will be called PPs by their supporters: Supporters will probably call them "god himself" if you let them. When we pointed out the contents of the reflists in the PRPP articles (namely, the US Govt, the American press, U.S. Judiciary, the U.N., etc), we are not listing supporters, we are listing neutral entities. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Delete. It doesn't look like any of the people on this list were imprisoned because of their political beliefs. Rather, according to the articles, they were almost all imprisoned for possession of deadly weapons or other violent crimes. --M@rēino 21:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You haven't done your homework. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC) and I approve this message.[reply]
      • No, I did my homework, and read the Wikipedia articles on these people. A political prisoner is someone who is imprisoned for their beliefs. According to Puerto Rican independence movement, there are thousands of U.S. citizens who support Puerto Rican independence, and the U.S. government isn't rounding them up and jailing them. Rather, it's arresting people like Lolita Lebrón, who shot bullets at people. Shooting bullets at people will get you jail time regardless of your political beliefs. Lolita Lebrón is not a political prisoner; she's a prisoner who happens to have strong political beliefs. --M@rēino 13:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The primary basis for the jail time convictions for the bulk of the prisoners in the Category under discussion was not the shooting of bullets, but seditious conspiracy, a political crime. No offense, but you need to do more of the homework. Please don't take this as rudeness, but it is clear your research so far has been rather superficial. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
        • Mareino: OK, where do you get that definition from? It seems pretty weak to me because, how are you going to assess what someone's beliefs are??? More accurate, imo, is the WP definition at POLITICAL PRISONER. You see, there has to be an element of political activity that is contrary to what the Establishment requires so that the Establishment can charge you and throw you in prison. Wouldn't you agree? Finally, please check out the article on Luis Rosa (which is one of the people in the Category: Puerto Rican Political Prisoners), and tell me if that person "looks like [he was] imprisoned because of his political "beliefs" (your words) or not. Bear in mind that before they were arrested, Mandela and others who have been considered political prisoners did engage in activity (not just in beliefs) that were contrary to the Establishment, even if that activity was as mundane as giving out a fervent political speech before a group of people. Also, your statement about Lolita Lebron is well taken. Though I am not saying I agree with you on that (in fact, I disagree, but that's not the point now), your objection against her being in the list would not be an argument as to the validity of the Category itself, but an argument as to the validity of her membership in the Category. Just wanted to point that out, as the former is what is at issue here, and not the latter. Thanks, My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Comment - Do not let yourself go by those articles which you referrer to since they are mere "stubs" which lack content and substance. The fact is that those people belonged to a radical political group which was an advocate of Puerto Rican Independence. Proper information to this regard can be found in this New York Times article: 12 Imprisoned Puerto Ricans Accept Clemency Conditions. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The people in this category were not imprisoned because they hold a particular political opinion or belief nor were they imprisoned because they belonged to a particular political group. They were imprisoned because they committed crimes. Their motives in committing those crimes are not relevant to a fact-based categorization system. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course they committed crimes, crimes such as sedition which, if you check, is defined as "behaviour that, including speech and organization, is deemed by the Government as insurrection against the established order" (read: the political establishment). No offense but it is very naive to believe the Govt doesn't -ever- imprison people that hold beliefs different from those of the established order. Following that rationale then we would also have to say that Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for reasons other than political. That would be ludicrous to most reasonable people. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC) and I approve this message.[reply]
  • If the this-was-tried-before-and-it-didn't-work rationale was to be used, then man would had never made it to the moon. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC) and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Perhaps my comment confused you. I wasn't making an "I give up" comment of "I wish we could but we can't because we've failed before". Let me be clearer: delete this category, because of the past decisions to delete Category:Political prisoners. Twice. In other words, this is re-created material that was previously deleted pursuant to a formal discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, your comment did not confuse me, thanks. But let me be clearer: You are simply making the same argument as earlier in your opinion here. And the argument is that it failed before. Things are different now, Olfactory, with different people and different articles, and differet supporting evidence, and you name it, different just about eveything...one thing that is the same is your argument,,,that thing about it was tried before but failed. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • I appreciate the attempted smack-down, but actually, my arguments succeeded before, because the category tree was deleted. Twice. And I don't think that the POV nature of the term has changed at all in the intervening weeks. There is no "different supporting evidence". I think the only real difference this time is that this category is about Puerto Rican prisoners as opposed to other nationalities and a notice of this discussion was placed on the Wikiproject PR discussion page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • You seem troubled by appearance of "a notice of this discussion...on the Wikiproject PR discussion page". Why is that, and what is your point with that comment? Do you care to explain? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
I also point out the notion that these political prisoner categories you refered to above, actually appear to have taken place years ago, and not weeks ago as you stated. Specifically one took place 2 years ago, and the other took place 4 years ago. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
As I said, "I think the only real difference this time is that this category is about Puerto Rican prisoners as opposed to other nationalities and a notice of this discussion was placed on the Wikiproject PR discussion page." This is an observation; it does not trouble me. You claimed that the situation had changed substantially since the last discussion, and I disagree. The only thing that has changed is additional users are involved in the discussion; I don't believe the underlying principles have changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, seems the basis being presented is that there is POV in the very term "Political Prisoner". Yet, a 2002 ARTICLE on the Political Prisoner subject still exists, and the term POV is not mentioned THERE even once! If you feel that strong about the term for just a Category, you might want contributing at THAT ARTICLE also...just a suggestion. Maybe it was done -- since the 2008 Category discussions you alluded to -- but I cannot find it anywhere that a similar attempt was been made THERE in all these years despite your strong opposition to the term. As for the "different supporting evidence", be a bit patient: I am working on that. But, and I don't mean to sound presumtptious, yet I confess I am almost convinced already it will not make any difference in your case. Still, it's the right thing to do for the benefit of the discussion, and I will do it. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Additionally, you may "think the only real difference this time is that this category is about Puerto Rican prisoners as opposed to other nationalities", but these facts (the new evidence I spoke about) prove otherwise:
  • In that other Discussion no one bothered to bring the Mandela precendent to the surface,,,Which alone proves there is at least 1 case of a PP the U.S. conservative movement is willing to admit to. If there is 1 case, that's enough and sufficient proof that there is such thing as a generally-accepted categorization of prisoners as "political prisoners" in the Real World.
  • That other discussion there went on for 7 days and filled less than 10K of space, while this lively discussion here is, in less time, over 4 times as long already!,,,reflecting the considerable amount of evidence presented against the Delete nomination
  • There were no solid Reliable Sources presented in that other discussion over there, compared that to the long lists that have been presented here,,,so many sources that at one point an editor replied with a "This is not the place to produce sources".
  • Unlike here, at that other Discussion there was no attempt, other that the various editors' own personal, biased opinions, to establish how a Political Prisoner was different from any other "old" prisoner,,, something we have done here via both the Nelson Mandela case and via the significant number of Reliable/Neutral Sources including several from even within the United States Government itself that undeniably called that group of people "Political Prisoners". I don't know whether or not the U.S has called PPs the ones from Armenia, Italy, Syria, VietNam, Russia and the others, but I do know the U.S. has called "Political Prisoners" the ones from Puerto Rico.
So, stating that "the only real difference this time is that this category is about Puerto Rican prisoners as opposed to other nationalities," amounts to ignoring these measurable facts. Responsible editors, imo, will review the significance of this new evidence; others, of course, may still choose to look the other way. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
The concept in the abstract does not have to be POV. When POV typically becomes and issue is when it is applied to specific individuals, as with a category. You must not have looked very hard, though. (From someone who has repeatedly criticised other users here for not having done their "homework", this is kind of ironic.) If you examine the talk page of the article in question, there are plenty of comments from the past that including so-and-so in the article's list of political prisoners is inappropriate, POV, or otherwise questionable. See also this comment in section 9 of the talk page: "From reading this article, it appears that there is no objective standard that determines who is or is not a political prisoner. Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)" And different users have disagreed about who is and who is not a political prisoner on the list: see this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The talk page and the article are two different pages. If the alleged POV in the term "Political Prisoner" was that important, at a mimimun a single statement to the effect would had been introduced in the article itself. It's just common sense. Your accussation about my "criticised other users" (as in plural USER-S-) is an exaggeration: I used the word "Homework" when responding to only 1 user. Double check the record. Better yet, I suggest you stay on track with this Discussion and leave any issues that might be perceived as personal outside, unless you have concrete evidence of uncivility being displayed. And in that case, this is not the forum to lodge such complaints. So far you have made various attempts to distract from the Discussion. That is not helpful to anyone. Just because you disagree with something is no justification to display frustation in those various manners. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Trust me, it's not mere disagreement that would cause frustration with this discussion ... You told one user that they didn't do their homework and you said to another (below), "Yes, and if you did your research you should had also noted ..." The two phrases are essentially equivalent in meaning. You can nit pick that you haven't used the same phrasing twice, but it still remains quite amusing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My statements in each case were justified: they were statements of fact, not opinion. I can't be held responsible for your frustation. This ain't a matter of winners and losers, but a matter of following WP rules for the inclusion of facts - and categories. Being amusing is not a reason for objecting. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • No, but it is a reason to take all of your other comments with a decent dose of salt. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP :

When someone -- like Lolita Lebron -- gets jail time after shooting at US Congressmen based on her claim of her political views, the person becomes not only an "attempted murder prisoner" but, by the definition of political prisioner, the person also becomes a "political prisoner" as well. The same can be said of Pedro Albizu Campos, Oscar Collazo and the others in that category. If any member of that category is not documented with citations as a political prisioner it's because such article is still in its stub stage. For those cases, you don't delete the category, you simply expand the article.

I would argue that any Puerto Rican who is jailed with a charge of sedition or conspiracy, also belongs in the political prisoner category. The fact that the U.S. Govt does not always brand detainees as political prisoners is irrelevant: being a political prisoner (like being Asian, Latino, or American) rests more on how you identify yourself as than with how the "imprisioning" country labels you as.

If we are going to have articles/categories about, for example, sedition which provide a Government's perspective about these individuals in question then, to stay neutral, we also need articles/categories that present the prisoners' (i.e., their supporters') perspectives as well. I would consider it "hopelessly biased" if only one side is represented. Consider, as an example, the terms "freedom fighter" and "assassins, rebels, insurgents, or terrorists". It's all in the eyes of the beholder. The US considered the Minutemen freedom fighters; England considered them assassins, rebels, insurgents, or terrorists. To be neutral Wikipedia needs both sides to be represented in articles and, accordingly, categories. The category "Puerto Rican political prisoners" does just that. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC) and I approve this message.[reply]

  • I note that Minutemen is categorized under "Militia" and "Militia in the American Revolution" and are not categorized as "freedom fighters" or "assassins" or "rebels" or "insurgents" or "terrorists". IOW, objective inclusion criteria and not subjective ones. "Political prisoner" is a subjective criterion. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and if you did your research you should had also noted that sedition is categorized under "Crimes", also an "objective" criteria if you are wearing the glasses of a government representative,,,but not an "objective" criteria if you are on the shoes of the individual getting affected by the prison term. Unless you believe Wikipedia is written with the (biased) purpose of supporting the US Govt (or any other govt by extension), you would have no problem casting your support for the inclusion of a category about which any decent library holds scores of documentation. The fact that some might be offended by the publishing of literature they might consider biased don't make it less factual. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC) and I approve this message.[reply]
  • So... according to this view, essentially it's "two wrongs make a right", or two POV presentations somehow creates NPOV? I don't think this is the way to go about seeking that standard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, maybe that would be your deduction, but I suspect reasonable people would see that the argument, from the start of this KEEP line of thread, is that sedition 'IS' a 'political' crime. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Category:People convicted of sedition is an objective category regardless of where one falls on the political spectrum. If there is a crime called "sedition" on the books and a person is convicted of it, then that person is objectively a person convicted of sedition and is properly categorized as such. Whether or not sedition is a "political crime" is irrelevant to the fact of whether a person is convicted of it or not. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your Category, COW of Pain, is worth a second look. Still, it seems both categories are needed as they are neither mutually-exclusive nor is the first a strict subset of the second. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • And to suggest that someone who is imprisoned for shooting at a U.S. Congressman is a "political prisoner"—well, that's one view, but it most certainly is POV. We don't subcategorize prisoners by motive, nor is motive relevant in a criminal law context. At most, we subcategorize them by their nationality, the jurisdiction where imprisoned, and what crime they were convicted of. If we categorize prisoners by motive, we're almost assuredly going to get tangled up in all sorts of OR and POV problems. A perusal of those in this category amply demonstrates that already. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOST INDIVIDUALS IN THIS CATEGORY, such as Pedro Albizu Campos, Adolfo Matos, Luis Rosa, Carmen Valentin, and most others, never shot a single bullet. For some reason you are obfuscated with 1 single individual in that category. If your objection is 1 individual in the list, that needs to be discussed elsewhere. This Discussion is for whether or not the Category itself should stay.
In any event, These people were Political Prisoners because:

  • They considered themselves Political Prisoners
  • They themselves claimed to represent a country, nation, and Political ideology
  • They declared themselves to be combatants in an armed Political struggle
  • They sought the intervention of an international authority for the passing of judgement for their actions
  • Other sovereign nations considered them to be Political Prisoners
  • The United Nations considered them Political Prisoners
  • They argued that the United States legal system did not have jurisdiction to try them as criminals (whether or not the US acknowledged that is irrelevant)
  • The international media reported them as beloging to a Political group
  • The international media called them Political Prisoners
  • The American media reported them as beloging to a Political group
  • The American media identified them as Political Prisoners
  • Officials of the American Government indicated these people represented a political ideology different from that of the US Government
  • They went on a mission to fight for a common ideology; they were -not- independent individuals who just happened to stumble accross bombs and planted them indiscriminately
  • Their activities targeted what, in their view, were symbols of Political oppression, namely, the US, its officials, institutions, property, symbols, representatives, or delegates
  • Their activists were oriented towards the United States as a Country, and not towards its citizens (whether or not the USA considers the activities criminal or not is irrelvant - for help in understanding this concept, see the American Revolution)

Obviously, the above are -not- characteristics of your day-to-day "regular" prisoner: Thus the label "Political Prisoners."
Also, note that there is nothing OR nor POV in reporting (using the same label ("Political prisioners") that the news media used), that these individuals were "Puerto Rican political prisoners". Thus the Category.
Also, the criteria for the existence of the Category is not based on "motives" or "beliefs" as some have suggested, but on membership in a unique group that required three qualities: (1) Be a Puerto Rican, (2) Be a Prisoner, and (3) Be/Have Been incarcerated as a result of Nationalist Political actions.
Please do not confuse my listing here with POV. It is not. I simply believe there is POV in NOT including the non-US Government side of this story. In particular, keep in mind this Discussion is not about any particular ideology, but about whether the Category should stay or not. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

As you have demonstrated, the "non-US-govt side of the story" is complex, and it can't be adequately dealt with by a category. It can be discussed in the appropriate articles. But categories must remain neutral and objective, like Category:Puerto Rican prisoners and detainees. The nominated category is neither neutral nor objective. You've just admitted it is POV—it is "the non-US-govt side of the story". But as I said, we simply don't categorize prisoners and detainees or criminals by motive. (By the way, you brought up the example of Lolita Lebron, not me.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to put words in my mouth as there has been no such "demonstration". I suggest you limit your comments to those directly about the Discussion at hand, and don't seek to make this a personal matter in the least of fashions. In spite of this, let me address your implication: Just because something is "complex" does mean it doesn't belong in Wikipedia; and what appears complex to some (quantum mechanics, for instance) is child's play for others. Your previous innuendo implying WP:canvassing when the editor's actions are entirely with wikipedia policy (and encouraged by wikipedia to be exact) were not welcomed either. You are trying too hard to defend your position on this: the line gets drawn where you attempt to put words in other editor's mouth or influence other editors via innuendos. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Hahaha. This is great. First, you complain that I'm putting words in your mouth. Then, probably without drawing a breath, you accuse me of making an innuendo of canvassing. ... Oh the irony, the irony. Incidentally, you're confusing a discussion of what is appropriate for WP as a whole with this discussion, which is about what is appropriate for categories in specific. But I have discovered that you are either dense either I haven't been clear enough to help you understand or you just don't want to concede any ground. Suit yourself, but I won't be wasting any more time on you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- Reliable sources are available to justify the inclusion of the category, passing the test of NPOV (ex. Judge Bars U.S. From Isolating Prisoners for Political Beliefs). --Jmundo (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article discusses the practice of isolating prisoners in prison because of political opinions they express once in prison. A political prison is ostensibly someone who is imprisoned because of their political opinions. The people mentioned in the article were imprisoned because they committed other criminal offences, not "political offences". Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The significance of the New York Times article referenced by JMundo is that the major media in the United States and even the U.S. Judicial System itslef recognizes the presence of Political Prisoners in U.S. prisons. It further established that discrimination of political prisoners does not stop in the Courts (with, for example, jail terms that are incongruent with their offenses) but discriminatory treatmnet also continues throughout their prison terms. To think that this article is addressing discrimination based on, for instance, that some prisoners are Republican but others are Democrats is, imo, quite naive. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
That's one interpretation, but it relies on OR unfortunately. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of an inclusionist Wikiproject does not serve as a rationale for keeping this category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not about existence, many things exist but are not notable enough for an article or category. Please read the principles, cow of pain.QuAzGaA 15:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I am aware of the inclusionist principles and frequently find that inclusionists are rather ridiculous in the lengths to which they will ignore policies, guidelines and common sense to keep material that clearly has no place on Wikipedia. Again, the principles of inclusionism and the existence of an inclusionist Wikiproject - which existence is after all your only stated rationale for retaining the category - do not override consensus, precedent and WP policies and guidelines. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you cite WP policies and guidelines. Very Well. Then explain your statement above that "inclusionists are rather ridiculous" in their actions, this clearly violates a Wikipedia code of conduct. But that just a reflection of your method of interaction with other editors and has no place in this discussion. Furthermore, your opinion that the "guidelines and common sense" (your common sense?) would "keep material that clearly has no place on Wikipedia" plainly proves you are a deletionist and that is purely your opinion of which I respect and by no means call ridiculous. Explain to me this Wikipedia Policy: WP:IAR. As you see, it is Wikipedia policy to ignore policies if that policy does not let you improve upon an article... a necessary paradox that balances arguments and maintains Quality. Bottom line, keeping this category affords readers a link to similar articles which spreads their knowledge of the subject in question, and creates a more informed reader. QuAzGaA 19:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am neither a deletionist or an inclusionist and I will thank you not to apply either of those contentious, loaded labels to me. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IAR is not a trump card that lets you ignore any rules. The policies on neutral point-of-view and original research are part of the Five Pillars. They are not to be ignored lightly. I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist. I consider myself a pragmatist. I will comment to support retention or deletion on the merits of each nomination. In this case, I feel that the merits lie with past consensus, the stated pillars/policies. IAR is not appropriate in this case, because to objectively define someone as a political prisoner, that person would need to be convicted of a crime explicitly defined as a political crime, or imprisoned for their political beliefs. These are all people convicted of violent crimes who only coincidentally have strong political beliefs. Sorry, but the category doesn't fit. It doesn't improve the articles when it adds unsupported information. Imzadi 1979 → 20:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Imzadi, you are incorrect, these people are not "all people convicted of violent crimes." If you care to check the articles there you will in fact see that in over half of them the President of the United States himself indicated "involved no deaths or injuries". (And this does not mean the other few cases were violent; it simply means that the President did not comment about the others.) Please read the articles before making such statements. As you can see, since some of them involved the commitment of a violent crime and some did not, then the commission of a violent crime is not the determining criteria for inclusion in this Category. The determining criteria is that all these people fought for the independence of Puerto Rico in a radical way and got incarcerated as a result. I also wish to mention that, imo, the "past consensus" criteria of yours is as wild as it is unfair. Fundamentally what you are saying is, "past results are a guarantee of future performance". Also, I read you as saying that Political Prisoner is WP:OR, and your basis for that is that the US Govt has not defined a category of crimes called political crimes. Please Imzadi, can you be serious? You are not serious when you pretend to make anyone here believe the US Govt has the rational option to legislate itself out of existence, are you? Come'on you've got to be kidding! Last, don't forget that Wikipedia is overwhelmingly dominated by Americans, if you are trying to write an NPOV encyclopedia, bear that fact in mind. What this means is, Allow some room for views and opinions that are different from yours. Of course that's your prerogative; it's just that whether you do it or not, defines if you are here to be an equal partner or just 'cause you get a thrill from forcing your POV on others. Nothing personal, just some food for thought. I would like to continue to believe you are in Wikipedia, like the others, because you "simply write articles about roads", and that you continue to "have no political agenda." So long as you continue to hold those values, then we are both on the same side. If not you would terribly dissappointed me. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Thank you for expressing your feelings Imzadi. I would like to point out that this en.wikipedia.org is not the United States wikipedia exclusively. Thus when you cite WP:NPOV, you should also take into consideration the POV of the prisoners themselves, which call them selves political prisoners, that violated a law they do not recognize due to their political affiliation. Thus and only thus can you truly be neutral. Directly implying that "to objectively define someone as a political prisoner" based solely on the explicit definition of US law does not meet a NPOV for the prisoners themselves. The US will never pass a law making it a crime to be a part of any particular political affiliation, but that does not mean that this category cannot exist. Finally, when you say that no improvement is gained "when it adds unsupported information", I invite you to look at the references cited in each article listed in this category which make their statements Supported. QuAzGaA 01:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per past precedents, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. There is no objective set of criteria what what differentiates a political crime from a regular crime. They're still crime and the people who perpetrate those acts are criminals. Should a government legislate a class of crime it defines as political crime, then we'd have objective criteria, like hate crimes enhancements in the US. Until then, it's all WP:OR. Imzadi 1979 → 21:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is no set of criteria, as you argue, that qualifies political crimes as such, then how do you explain that Nelson Mandela ever became a political prisoner? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this messsage.[reply]
  • Using one of the most obvious examples in history of a "political prisoner" sets up a straw-man argument. The problem does not relate to Nelson Mandela; rather, it relates to the hundreds (probably thousands) of other people that some people consider to be "political prisoners" but other people vigorously disagree. You can't have a viable category where 99% of the contents will be the subject of disputed inclusion. Citing the 1% exception that maybe everyone can agree upon doesn't solve the problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC) [I might also add that Nelson Mandela is explicitly, deliberately not categorized as a political prisoner so if he is to serve as a precedent, it can only be that these more contentious categorizations should not occur either. TheGrappler (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)][reply]
My point, and I am glad I have been able to get it across this time, is that the category "political prisoner" that, up to a minute ago, was non-existent in everyone's minds, now suddenly does exist. Things in life do have a way to BECOME real only when they have manifested themselves in some bigger-than-life way. And Mandela is the reason why most people all of a sudden some years back started to agree that such thing as "Political Prisioners" do indeed exist. Now, if you will simply be more open minded and try to reach out to me the way I have tried to reach out to you, maybe we will both start seeing why it is this group of people were in fact PP's right here in the United States. Look, this has nothing to do with POV, or ideology, or any of the other things I have seen flying around this Discussion. I am not trying to push any agenda here. It has to do with a recognition that "it is what it is", these people were political prisoners. The category was created to impart knowledge. Nothing else. For membership into the Category, I don't intend to go by what "some people" or by what the "other people" believe, consider, or disagree. Let's them drown in their misery (forgive my French), for I intend to go by what [WP:RS] say. The rest, seems to me, is irrelevant. If there are no RSs saying such and such, then my luck,,,but if there are RSs saying it, then that's "their" luck (whoever they might be!). My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
The problem for most of these is that some reliable sources will claim one thing and others will claim the opposite. Pardon the crude example, but it's like trying to have a category for "national heroes". Some sources will be more than happy to bestow such a status on someone; others will vehemently disagree. In other words, you're extending the straw man argument—making it taller, perhaps—but at it's core it's no stronger. I believe the problem has everything to do with POV and OR and very little to do with objective "reality". Because in this area, there is no "correct" answer. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have yet to see you or anyone here produce one single reliable source that claims the people on the Category were not Political Prisoners. "In this area there can be no objective reality"???. No. In this area there can be no objective reality only for those whose beliefs are so strong that such beliefs block their ability to see what "the other side" is able to see. Sometimes a bigger-than-life event will come around that will help some (but, unfortunately, only some) in the blinded camp see the neutrality in the other side's view.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
This is not the place to produce sources, despite what some think. If you have to produce sources to justify inclusion in or exclusion from a category, it's usually a sign that the category is inappropriate. As it says at WP:CAT: Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. It sounds like there is just a basic misunderstanding or unfamiliarity with categories and their appropriate usages. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There will always be Wikipedia editors that will be objecting to one thing or another: I bet we can find a few that will argue that THE SKY IS NOT BLUE. The reason this Category appears controversial is not because it is controversial in the real world amongst governments, businesses, political entities, world organizations, the media, etc., but because there are Wikipedia editors that, no matter what, choose to look the other way.
We have already proven that there are Political Prisoners in the world (Nelson Mandela). Thus the presence of a "Political Prisoners" category (of any kind, country, or nationality) in Wikipedia has no grounds for deletion. We have also established, following WP:V AND WP:RS, that these Puerto Rican prisoners in question were all called Political Prisoners by "everyone that matters", thus dismissing the accussations of WP:POV and WP:OR. We have even asked "What else, do you want us to do", with no response. The Category should be acceptable as it is for it passes all the necessary Wikipedia tests. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
I disagree that it does. The way I read WP:CAT, it fails miserably. (Not to mention OR and NPOV, which are still the central concerns.) It would be helpful to acknowledge that there is a disagreement on this point and not simply allege that all tests are "passed" when there is disagreement on that point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course there is disagreement -- I have already addressed that issue. But your assumption is incorrect in that the disagreement you are pointing at is disagreement here, among Wikipedia editors! There is no disagreement in the Real World (except of course in the extreme right) about what these people were called (PPs). Don't give yourself so much credit: we are supposed to act as reflectors of the Real World, and NOT reflect our own personal opinions. We are not to act as judges of which Real World facts are acceptable to include and which are is not. The extreme right, like the extreme left, do not matter here. What matters are the neutral, reliable sources that exist in the Real World, and those sources have categorized these folks as "Puerto Rican Political Prisoners." Again, don't put yourself (yourselves) for judges: the "tests" that matter at Wikipedia are the 5 pillars, the WP policies, etc, NOT the test of whether biased WP editors are trying to re-write the rules on the fly to fit their own view of "political prisoners". That's not how it works. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
No, when I refer to disagreement, I'm referring to "real-world" disagreement, as you put it—and the fact that I disagree with you that the WP "tests" are met. And there is disagreement in the real world, as you've pointed out. It's always convenient to dismiss all those who disagree with your own view as political extremists, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I have already shown there is no disagreement in the Real World, except by the extremists, that is, by the "NO-THE-SKY-IS-NOT-BLUE;-IT-IS-GREEN" crowd. I am not sure what part of that you do not understand. Once more, don't put words in my mouth: I consistently stated that everyone that matters has called these people Political Prisoners (and as a reminder that includes the US Gov't itself). Again what part of that you might not understand is beyond me. I am not even sure you are entirely aware of what you are saying when you state "It's always convenient to dismiss all those who disagree with your own view as political extremists" as this is not a matter of who agrees or disagrees with me. This is a matter of the correctness of the Category as it exists when compared agaisnt what is documented the rest of the World is saying. In all honesty, it is beyond me why it seems so difficult for you to grasp this concept. Everyone else has used the term "Puerto Rican Political Prisoners" to refer to the men and woman in this Category. My supporting this fact is not a matter of my own view, I don't have "my own view" on this. This is the view of mainstream American media and the view of the US Gov. and all the others that these people were Puerto Rican Political Prisoners. That you decide to forcefully argue this, does not do away with the fact that they are called by that name. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
It must be nice to live in such a bifurcated world of black-and-white, with no ambiguities, disagreements, or shades or gray. I'm glad you think that's the real world, but I think you're so caught up in confirmation bias that you can't even countenance an opposing view as possibly reasonable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the deletion rationale is based on blanket statements about the term and prior discussions. We are not talking about propaganda websites but mainstream media, Saldrá en libertad preso político puertorriqueño Carlos Alberto Torres, the source is no making judgment or claiming anything when describing the prisoner as "preso politico" ("political prisoner"). Are we passing judgment on the neutrality of mainstream news in Puerto Rico? Do we ignore them because the English Wikipedia lacks a worldwide view? You can't use prior discussion as precedent by dismissing WP:V or because you have a strong view on what terms Wikipedia should use or avoid. --Jmundo (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fairly clear delete - just don't classify people by a contentious description. I wouldn't want to see a "political prisoners" category for any country. Category:Imprisoned Puero Rican independence activists I could live with... TheGrappler (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I provided a list above which disproves your assertion. A category could not possibly be contentions if the press, the Courts, prison officals, the US Government, other foreign governments, the United Nations, those imprisioned, their families, etc, their supporters and opposers alike, all have termed this group of people as Political Prisoners. The one exception I see to this are the dissenting views of Wikipedia editors. Even if we brought a statement from God Himself on this matter to make this any clearer there will always be a dissenting side. But opinions is not what Wikipedia is all about; but about facts emerging from verifiable, reliable sources. And in that context the Category stands on its own. This is a matter of facts, and facts show these people have been repeatedly categorized as Political Prisoners by just about every existing organization that matters. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • My assertion was that it is contentious (i.e. arguments exist from two sides) - not that sources can't be found in its favor :-) In fact, if I'm stating that it is contentious, the fact that a supporter of the proposition can find sources that follow their argument, only backs up what I'm saying. If I stated it was uncontentious - it was well-known and obvious that they weren't political prisoners, and it was only a fringe position that they were - then yes, you'd have proved me wrong very thoroughly indeed. It is of course harder for someone who claims that they're not political prisoners to find sources stating as such, but the fact is there are plenty of mainstream sources that do not routinely describe them as political prisoners. TheGrappler (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks for the clarification on your point but that, in and of itself, would not be reason enough to delete the Category. Second, where are those "plenty of mainstream sources that do not routinely describe them as political prisoners" that you are stating exist? You did not include at least one. Please include just a handful of examples to back your claim. Thx. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Proposing to rename the Category is in itself inherently POV towards the existing Category unless evidence can be provided that there are no reliable, verifiable sources that support the existing Category name. Everyone that matters has already called them Political Prisoners. What else do you want? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Aside from the fact that you are dead set on using the term "Political Prisoners", is there even one thing that is in the least objectionable about the proposed rename? Cgingold (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An editor proposed a rename to Category:People convicted of sedition. Though the proposed category does not accurately describe these folks (because a subset of them served time for crimes other than sedition but which were jail terms ostensibly based on their political activities), I indicated it was worth a second look but still expressed the current Category would still be needed.
Look, the fact is everyone here dropped the invariable WP:OR argument (a legacy from having won some favors at a similar delete proposals in 2006 and 2008) once it was shown that the categorization as political prisoners was not coming the imaginative mind of some extremist WP editors dead set on forcing a POV on others, but coming from reliable, verifiable, multi-lateral official reports which established that "political prisoners" is what these folks ware called everyone. Suggesting a rename when the matter has yet been ruled 'on its own merits, is premature.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • You completely ignored/evaded my question. Why am I not surprised? Cgingold (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There wasn't anything else to say about your question; I had already addressed elsewhere here why the proposed category name of "Imprisoned Puerto Rican independence activists" would not work because it would then also include every case of activists who got incarcerated for writing bad checks, etc. That. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • And I have not "dropped" the WP:OR argument—I still think the category should be deleted for POV and OR reasons. I just don't always see the need to restate my opinions ad nauseum as some do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, I think you're not quite seeing my point. You're stating that "everyone who matters" calls them "political prisoners" - although in that context, "everyone who matters" seems to mostly include pro-independence activists, anti-colonialists, and human rights organizations. All you have demonstrated is that the sort of people who are likely to call these guys political prisoners, call them political prisoners. This might surprise you, but there are LOTS of Neo-Nazis and White Pride activists in prison in the States today, who are frequently called political prisoners also. Give me a few minutes and I could find a ton of political organizations, charities and activists who would support that point of view. Now I am expressing no opinion on whether those White Pride folk are really political prisoners. I am expressing no opinion on whether Puerto Rican independence activists are political prisoners. The only comparison between the two that I am trying to draw, is that in both cases, organizations and writers sympathetic to their cause, will naturally describe them as such, whereas the mainstream press coverage doesn't and very many people fiercely disagree with their characterization as "political prisoners". (If you find my comparison odious, substitute Marilyn Buck, you'll find the same issues there. Does bombing Washington D.C. make her a "political prisoner"? Some say yes, some say no.) Here are four mainstream news stories that cover the life of Lolita Lebron, without calling her a "political prisoner": [1] [2] [3] [4] Of course you could demand from me that I produce a source that explicitly specifically says "Although Lolita Lebron is sometimes described as a political prisoner, in my opinion she wasn't" but that's asking me to prove a negative. On the flip side, can you produce one mainstream American news report calling her a political prisoner? I suspect you can't. TheGrappler (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudos to you for this excellent explanation. I don't think I could have covered it any better myself. (Btw, it so happens that I am sympathetic to the cause -- it just isn't a suitable name for a Wiki category.) Cgingold (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, appreciated. :-) TheGrappler (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why isn't it suitable, Cgingold?
Grappler, all the 4 references you give above have in effect named her (though maybe unbeknownst to you) a "Political Prisoner" by virtue of the label "Nationalist": a Puerto Rican Nationalist is a member of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, a POLITICAL party in Puerto Rico. Thus an imprisioned Puerto Rican Nationalist is, in effect, a Political Prisoner. In the US the media wouldn't label her "Nationalist" unless they were attempting to highlight her political views. All the 4 articles in your list are seeking to establish a link between her imprisionment and her political views: Otherwise, instead of "LOLITA LEBRON, PUERTO RICAN NATIONALIST" the headlines could have been chosen to read, say, "LOLITA LEBRON, PONCE MASSACRE SURVIVOR" or,,,,,, "LOLITA LEBRON, FORMER PUERTO RICAN BEAUTY PEAGENT WINNER" OR even,,,,, "LOLITA LEBRON, PUERTO RICAN MOTHER OF THREE", etc. The American media you listed called her "Nationalist" to establish a link between her political views and her imprisonment. You cannot have the one without the other, and "Nationalist" is what those 4 references chose because it describes the connection the headline writers are seeking to establish. The two (Political Prisoner, Nationalist Prisoner) are one and the same. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Hi, the Discussion in this page is "whether or not the category Puerto Rican Politican Prisoners should be deleted"; the Discussion is "NOT whether or not a single individual there should or should not be a member of the list". So your response does not address the subject under discussion here. The Lolita Lebron fallback argument was, btw, was already discussed EARLIER. You may have missed that. If you have 4 similar news stories that addresss any of the other members in the group, namely:
Adolfo Matos, sentenced to 70 years in prison.
Luis Rosa, sentenced to 75 years in prison.
Carmen Valentin, sentenced to 90 years in prison.
Elizam Escobar, sentenced to 60 years in prison.
Ricardo Jimenez, sentenced to 90 years in prison.
Dylcia Noemi Pagan, sentenced to 55 years in prison.
Alicia Rodriguez, sentenced to 55 years in prison.
Ida Luz Rodriguez, sentenced to 75 years in prison.
Alberto Rodriguez, sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Alejandrina Torres, sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Juan Enrique Segarra-Palmer,sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Pedro Albizu Campos, sentenced to 30 years in prison.
then THAT would help your argument.
I am not sure how you got to interpret my "everyone who matters" to mean anyone in your carefully picked list of clearly biased individuals and organizations ("pro-independence activists, anti-colonialists, and human rights organizations") who obviously would support the prisoners' cause anyway. The "everyone that matters" -- and I made this perfectly clear to everyone here, except apparently to you (so my apologies to you if that is the case) -- the "everyone that matters" means institutions and organizations sush as the U.S. Government, the U.S. Judiciary, the mainstream American press, the International media, Government officials from over a score of Sovereign Nations around the world, the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement, etc.; these are the organizations that matter to most reasonable people. I hope that puts that concern you had to rest.
With that comment made, I will be looking forward to see if you can come up with a list of 4 links that actually call the people in this category anything but Political Prisoners.
You asked me to "produce one mainstream American news report calling her [LL] a political prisoner", here is, not one, but four:The LA Times, The Washington Post, ABC News, Chicago Sun-Times.
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Umm, dude? You might not have noticed this but the same Associated Press newswire piece appearing in multiple newspapers isn't a new source each time. And you might not have noticed this either, but that's exactly the same AP piece I linked to, as explicitly not calling them political prisoners? Have a look at this guy at Newsbusters - he is arguing that AP coverage was too sympathetic, and Lebron was simply a terrorist. There are many other such voices (particularly conservative bloggers). You can argue about whether they're "reliable"; but that's missing the point, it'd be ridiculous to think that they'd call Lebron a "political prisoner". They disagree with anything that gives her a "legitimate" political status, and calls her anything other than a convicted terrorist, and we must respect their opinion in so far as acknowledging that there is a disagreement. (It's perfectly valid to pick on Lebron, by the way. If she can't be categorized without controversy, that's enough to show the category is flawed.) So far the only citations you have provided that support your case, are from sympathetic sources. Other sources you've claimed are non-sympathetic, simply haven't used the "political prisoner" label explicitly (for instance the court case you were talking about is not concerned with whether she was imprisoned for political activity, as was explained to you elsewhere). We don't categorize Nelson Mandela as a "political prisoner" because even that's controversial, there's really no way we should be unambiguously treating these guys as political prisoners either. TheGrappler (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You made 4 points in your message above:
(1) Yes, I take exception that your sources are all non-reliable (bloggers and ultra-conservatives [UCs] do not represent mainstream America, and definitely, not mainstram mandkind). The sources I have presented are all reliable (LA Times, Washington Post, ABC News, Chicago Sun-Times). That you chose to look the other way, that's something else. Then your next move was to pick on whether my reliable sources all originated from a single source (AP) or not. This behaviour, of course, does not surprise me: What else can the opposition say at this point that we have proven the existence of plenty of reliable source right in America that call these people Political Prisoners??? Then you state the UCs judge that the American media was too soft on Lebron. But what else would any reasoble person expect the UCs to say? The fact is, Wikipedia is not about a collection of what the extreme right or the extreme left has to say, but about WP:V from WP:RS. Please focus on that; everything else is an editor's IMO. Even if your focus on the AP piece was valid (which is not as I have demonstarted), you also ignored (1) all the pertinent WP policies above, PLUS (2) you have ignored all the other RSs I had provided (many were already given in the articles about these Political Prisoners if you cared to read them), PLUS (3) ignored all the organizations I also highlighted (US Gov, US, Judiciary, U.N., numerous foreign governments, the NAM, etc) that called them PPs. Hanging your hat on a single (and invalid) AP argument doesn't do much good for your position, imo.
(2) On your comment that they are not being explicitly called political prisoners, forgive my honesty but that is truly naive. A Puerto Rican Nationalist, as they are almost invariably called, is a member of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, a POLITICAL party in Puerto Rico. I suggest you catch up on your reading as you have clearly been arguing a case that you seem to have known very little about.
(3) I won't even bother objecting to your argument that "If [Lebron] can't be categorized without controversy, that's enough to show the category is flawed.") as you are stating something so illogical, even the littlest among us can recognize the flaw in "if she doesn't belong in the Category, then the category should be deleted."! The purpose of this Discussion is to determine the validity of the proposal to delete the Category. If you agree, just say so and tell why, but do it with a good rationale because the burden of proof is on the side of those who agree the Category should be deleted.
Ah, and one last point, as you wrote your message immediately following mine, I must assume you were responding to me: It so happens that I have a name by which I am known in this community. That name is Mercy11; it is not "dude", so in the future refrain from the name-calling. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • The only thing about that my suggestion that I have some reservations about, is that there ought to be a link between the imprisonment and their activism for the category to make much sense. But I can live more easily with that category name than this one. TheGrappler (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True—it could suffer from the same problem—but it's kind of like "motive lite". I see it as a decent compromise in this instance, since there are some editors here who appear to be quite attached to the current category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that the link is implicit in the category name. Cgingold (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It cannot be just renamed "Imprisoned Puerto Rican independence activists", because then you end up with a list that also includes all the independence activists that got thrown in jail for writing a bad personal check, for going 70 in a 65mph zone or for spitting on the sidewalk. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Fine—delete it then. I was trying to compromise but I can see some editors may not be open to compromise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mercy11, your argument is a very good example of reductio ad absurdum. As I said above, the link is implicit in the category name. There's no way it would ever be used for the trivial sorts of things you've suggested. Cgingold (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why is it acceptable to ignore the first sentence of WP:V in nominating this category for deletion? The articles in this category have Objective sources which are cited. Anyone? QuAzGaA 18:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability isn't being ignored here. The deletion nomination has been made because describing these people as political prisoners highlights only one point of view (i.e. breaches WP:NPOV). Be aware that policies and guidelines impinge on CFD discussions in a different way to discussions at AFD and article talk pages. A major issue with categories is that they are binary (you're in or out) and largely incapable of nuance. Article text can be much more sophisticated: from citable sources, one can write that "A and B have described person X as an example of Y". This is only expressing their point of view, and might be counterbalanced by the opinion of other sources later. Categorization is less subtle: Putting article X in "Category:Y" does not allow discussion of who describes X as Y, or how widely held that opinion is, so among other considerations, it's best used when "Y" is something uncontroversial, objective (which largely boils down to: we don't need to attribute who believes this categorization to be the case, because their subjective opinion is not important), with a clear, binary definition (not something which is "fuzzy" or by degrees). In general, more neutral descriptions are less controversial and more objective. There are plenty of people where it is verifiable that they have been described as "tall", but "Category:Tall people" fails on fuzziness grounds (we do, however, have Category:People with gigantism). We have people where it is verifiable both that they have been described as "freedom fighters" and as "terrorists"; that information can be put in the article and referenced, but neither makes a good category to file the article under, because of NPOV implications. TheGrappler (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please guide me to where it says that WP "policies and guidelines impinge on CFD discussions in a different way to discussions at AFD and article talk pages.", that will be enlightening to me in regards to this discussion. It seems that, in your description of the issue, the NPOV argument has greater "weight", or greater standards are required of Categories due to their binary nature? I would like to note that the only mention of Categories on WP:NPOV is: Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.. Are there not reliable sources that present the competing view that those listed in this category are Political Prisoners? If the deletion nomination is based primarily on NPOV, the argument still does not meet the first sentence threshold of WP:V. Is this inclusion threshold ignored for categories and used only for articles? They will have the term because of WP:V. Some policies will have to be ignored in order for the deciding admin to base his conclusion on. I just want an explanation on why they will be ignored, or have more weight than other policies. Thus we will all be better informed after this discussion, and strive to create more informed categories and articles. QuAzGaA 02:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is obvious that policies and guidelines have to be dealt with in a different way when discussing categories than article texts, that's a consequence of both the purpose and the technical limitations of categories. Article text can contain qualifications about prior statements, or identify "X said this person is a Y", while categories can't. Similarly, categories serve a different purpose to article text (see WP:CLT and WP:CAT for details about the purpose of a category - e.g. for navigation, browsing, "eye-ball search"). Sometimes "X is a Y" is completely true, neutral and verificable, and noteworthy enough to include in the article, but we don't want to put X in Category:Y because we think Category:Y will not be a good navigational structure (for instance Lolita Lebron is verifiably a woman, but we don't put her in Category:Women). You're making a mistake about "the inclusion threshold of WP:V" - the inclusion criteria for categories are about much more than verifiability. TheGrappler (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Guide me to where it lists "the inclusion criteria for categories". This is definetally relevant to this discussion. Also, Since its obvious to you to apply guidelines and policies different to Categories than articles, please explain why that is not in direct contradiction with WP:NPOV when it states that "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."? Its obvious to me that WP:NPOV does not make your same distinction. Categories contain articles themselves, thus having to provide a citation on why a certain individual is in a Category is not a technical limitation, its an unnecessary one. The sources are in the articles themselves and that discussion can be made on a case by case basis on each article within the Category if the sources can be argued as not reliable. Why is Lolita Lebron not in Category:Women? Because no one has added her yet. She should alse be in the Sub-Section Puerto Rican Women. Not because "we" don't put her there. (added later) QuAzGaA 02:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may as well ask to be directed to the holy grail. These issues have mostly been addressed by consensus discussions, not by spelled out policy. But we do have WP:CAT and WP:CLN, which seems to be the best we can do right now. We would all like to have these things spelled out better in guidelines, but every attempt to do so has failed. Generally, I can tell you that typically articles about women have not been categorized as just "women" or women of a particular nationality. But if someone can be categorized as a women of a particular nationality and occupation (like Puerto Rican women writers), then that has been more broadly accepted. I suppose one reason the broader categorization of just "Puerto Rican women" has been shied away from is because it implies that the default status of a person is male. Thus it states on Category:Puerto Rican women: "This category exists only as a container category for other categories of women. Articles on individual women should not be added directly to this category, but may be added to an appropriate sub-category if it exists." See Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't believe there's anything left to say, but amazingly enough there is: The reason this category name is not suitable is the very same reason that Category:Puerto Rican terrorists is not acceptable. Need I point out that many (if not all) of these individuals are regarded as terrorists by a lot of people? (I could produce thousands of citations to support that statement.) And I assure you that those people feel every bit as strongly about labeling them as "terrorists" as you guys do about labeling them as "political prisoners". The fact is that Wikipedia no longer has any Categories for either of those designations -- and we're certainly not going to make an exception for one particular group. Cgingold (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing: if we rename this to Category:Imprisoned Puerto Rican independence activists, that would accomplish the key objective of assisting our readers in finding the articles about these individuals -- leaving it up to them to "read between the lines" and infer that these people are "political prisoners", if they are so inclined. Cgingold (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Discussion is not about the correctness/"acceptabilitily" of Categorizing them into a WP "Category:Puerto Rican terrorists" so I am not going to address that. That would be discussed at a Discussion where such other Category was being considered for deletion. So to address you comment, yes, you can probably come up with sources that call these people "terrorists" - sure. But that is not enough and sufficient reason to determine inclusion into WP. Inclusion is determined by the existence of Reliable Sources. And when equally reliable sources (which is not the case here) label these people as Political Prisoners and as Terrorists, then the next criteria is to determine the frequency of one versus the other. And if the frequency was determined to be about equal (which, trust me, this is not the case here) then the next thing you check is the age of those sources. (After all, who today would use 5-year old and older sources to establish that Pluto is a planet?). When these factors are considered, the evidence is unquestionably stacked in favor of the Category "Puerto Rican Political Prisoners", and not in favor of a category such as Puerto Rican terrorists. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • I'm afraid that the, um, procedure you've laid out is entirely of your own personal invention, Mercy11. It's not how things are actually done here with regard to Categories. Cgingold (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remind you that it is not "you guys" that are labeling them as "Political prisoners" but reliable sources, and there may be some female editors commenting here so try and be a little more open-minded and use less demeaning terms. Also, if you can produce reliable sources that label these or any individual as terrorists, you are free to edit their articles accordingly, which includes the creation of the category you mentioned, as long as you meet undue weight criteria. Now why did the President grant those so called terrorists clemency?, those discussions can be made on the article talk pages. QuAzGaA 03:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, the point is not whether there are sources that call them either "political prisoners" or "terrorists" -- nobody disputes any of that. The point is that over a period of years, encompassing multiple lengthy discussions, a very solid concensus has developed with regard to the unsuitability of both of these terms for Categories. That is the bottom line. There is no way that we are going to carve out an exception for either Category:Puerto Rican Political Prisoners or Category:Puerto Rican terrorists. Btw, the word "guys" is now very widely and commonly used in a non-gendered way, referring to both males and females -- there's nothing in the least "demeaning" about it. Cgingold (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A definition of "guy" from my desktop dictionary: "colloq., any person, female as well as male". It's amazing to me that discussions range into minutiae like this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sigh)....I have yet to read from anyone the principles that where the impetus for the previous consensus that was reached in regards to this issue. By saying that very solid consensus has developed with regard to the unsuitability of both of these terms for Categories" is in direct contradiction to WP:consensus as I stated above. I still await the answers to my questions above, which are being dodged by the unsound "Past Consensus" argument. QuAzGaA 14:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one is "dodging" it—the implication being that we're not doing it because we can't or to do so would go against our arguments—perhaps we just don't have the energy to trawl through five years worth of precedents and tabulate detailed results for the benefit of an editor's curiosity when it's well-known to nearly everyone else what the overwhelming thrust of such a review would be. That and frustrated sighs aren't usually a great motivator. If you really want to find it, I suggest you start at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2006_January_1 and go through the days one-by-one, examining the discussions where categories were deleted because of name that was thought by consensus to be POV. Some of us have cared enough about the issues involved to actually do this, and we're not about to do it again on behalf of someone else who can't be bothered to research it him/herself. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I won't either. It is not my job to research the reasoning of your vote (Like citing NPOV just because?). As I pointed out from WP:Consensus, that is an invalid reason. It's continued use is becoming increasingly irrelevant. At this juncture, from the Policies and Guidelines that I have Cited, and the lack of evidence presented to support the "Past Consensus" reasoning, there is an increasing failure of the editors that have voted for deletion to properly defend their arguments with any concrete neutral reasoning. For this reason I have come to the conclusion that the editors who actively watch, and take part in these deletion discussions may be actually providing a disservice to WP by just saying a category violates WP:NPOV, YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN YOUR REASONING AND WHY THE POLICY APPLIES. This applies to all CfD and AfD. To think that I came here, and asked my questions, to actually learn something from this discussion. (sigh) It really is disappointing....not frustrating. Its like editors with Blinders on. Really incredible that this has been going on since 2006. QuAzGaA 01:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if you fail to "do your homework" as one of our cohorts typically likes to put it, you have little grounds to complain when you don't understand. I've pointed you in the right direction, but if you don't want to do it, I don't blame you. It actually takes a bit of work. But for an easier route, you might also want to put your mind to thinking about whether hypothetically, there could be a disagreement between sources of whether these people are political prisoners. Could any two people have different opinions on the matter, or is there an objective "truth"? If the former, it is POV. If the latter, it is NPOV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, "We vote delete but you have to find out why." That is not how WP works. Maybe the editors in this discussion have lost the reason why? I have asked my questions and failed to get answers here, so as you can see - I have tried to understand. That speaks volumes for the quality of work that is being done here. I repeat myself in saying that the articles contain reliable sources. If you dispute this, those discussions should be made on the articles themselves. QuAzGaA 12:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you essentially ignored one of my reasons that I (helpfully, I thought) set out immediately above, I'll restate it: "But for an easier route, you might also want to put your mind to thinking about whether hypothetically, there could be a disagreement between sources of whether these people are political prisoners. Could any two people have different opinions on the matter, or is there an objective "truth"? If the former, it is POV. If the latter, it is NPOV." Once you consider the issue from a hypothetical standpoint, then you can worry about actual sources and see what happens. (The fact that you left no bolded, parenthetical sighs tells me I must be getting through to you ... progress!) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the? Please reread this discussion thread, especially my first Question, and not my last comment before making further comments. This will save everyone time. What you took as me ignoring you was actually me not addressing something which has already been established. But since you have been a good sport, I'll summarize my point again. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability with reliable sources, not anyone's particular hypothetical definition of "truth". The articles themselves have the sources. Like I said above, this is not the place to further a discussion on whether or not the sources are contentious, that is done in articles themselves. This CfD discussion has already presented that most, if not all articles in this category have reliable sources which state that the people in this category are identified as political prisoners (again repeating myself). Seem's like you are trying to change the subject. This category is nominated for deletion. All editors who have voted for deletion (including yourself), have IMO failed to adequately defend their votes by citing any particular points contained in any policies or guidelines. As you can see, I did address your "reasoning" with my opening question. The fact of the matter remains that no one is addressing mine. QuAzGaA 23:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you still haven't answered the hypothetical, either here or above. I'm trying to take you through a stepwise approach, of considering the hypothetical issue, then moving on the practical aspects. I'm trying to take you beyond what was said above, and go through the reasoning stepwise, in case you can't tell. You're jumping to the practical. If you don't want to be helped, don't reject the premise of the help being offered. I see you've resorted back to the bolding, which seems to indicate to me that all "the guys" here have made up his or her mind, so I'm not sure continuing would be productive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now you are just wasting my time. How can you say I have not discussed the Hypothetical? Ive only asked repeatedly how in this hypothetical future you can justify deletion of this category. For an administrator, you really disappoint me. QuAzGaA 00:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't referring to the WP:Hypothetical Future Consensus; I was referring to the question I posed, which wasn't explicitly answered in a hypothetical sense one way or the other by you. This was step 1 of my explanation to you, which I guess we won't get beyond. (Oh, if you only could have seen step 2—it was so great. Steps 3 and 4 were pretty OK too.) You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink; although it's always good to continue to beat it if it dies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sigh), I did answer. Will not repeat. But my questions above have yet to be answered. It seems that I am just another unhappy customer of the CfD Cabal. But I have come to a Conclusion (which is my last comment). Regardless of the outcome of this CfD, I have expressed my valid policy concerns which have not been addressed. I believe this to be strong evidence for a lack of proper application of WP policies and guidelines by those editor's who have voted to Delete this Category. QuAzGaA 01:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you couldn't give me a straight-up answer to the hypothetical rather than referring me to the dog's breakfast discussion above. Cause if your answer is there to my limited question, I can't see it. I can see you jumping ahead a few steps (ie, citing WP:V), but nothing in the abstract. On the other hand, if "V" is your final answer, then that kind of does take us to step 3, since there are reliable sources that dispute the status of some of these fellows as "political prisoners". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: Wikipedia rules establish that a category is not to be deleted unless there is consensus for it: IMO, here there is no consensus. As such the category should be allowed to stay. Even if there was number consensus favoring the Delete Proposal (which there is not), the arguments we have presented are founded solidly on facts, on Wikipedia policies, and attending to the present reality rather than resting on past laurels. With that said, Wikipedia rules establish that "Consensus is determined, not by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy." As such the existing category should be allowed to stay as is. I could not support a category such as "Imprisoned Puerto Rican independence activists" except only as a distant second and only because the members of the current category still need a "place" where they all reside together. I maintain that the most appropriate category, based on the granularity of its description, would still be the current and existing category, "Puerto Rican political prisoners." My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • I think WP:CONLIMITED may be relevant here. Talking something to death and then claiming there is no consensus is cute, but ultimately not very convincing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion re alternative proposal[edit]

Note: I have consolidated the previously-posted comments that were scattered throughout the very lengthy discussion above. Cgingold

  • Proposing to rename the Category is in itself inherently POV towards the existing Category unless evidence can be provided that there are no reliable, verifiable sources that support the existing Category name. Everyone that matters has already called them Political Prisoners. What else do you want? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Aside from the fact that you are dead set on using the term "Political Prisoners", is there even one thing that is in the least objectionable about the proposed rename? Cgingold (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing about that my suggestion that I have some reservations about, is that there ought to be a link between the imprisonment and their activism for the category to make much sense. But I can live more easily with that category name than this one. TheGrappler (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True—it could suffer from the same problem—but it's kind of like "motive lite". I see it as a decent compromise in this instance, since there are some editors here who appear to be quite attached to the current category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that the link is implicit in the category name. Cgingold (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It cannot be just renamed "Imprisoned Puerto Rican independence activists", because then you end up with a list that also includes all the independence activists that got thrown in jail for writing a bad personal check, for going 70 in a 65mph zone or for spitting on the sidewalk. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Fine—delete it then. I was trying to compromise but I can see some editors may not be open to compromise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mercy11, your argument is a very good example of reductio ad absurdum. As I said above, the link is implicit in the category name. There's no way it would ever be used for the trivial sorts of things you've suggested. Cgingold (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming to a category such as "Imprisioned Puerto Rican independence activists" would not work because it is too broad: It could include, for example, every independentista who got thrown in jail for contempt of court, for writing bad checks, for disorderly conduct, etc. So that idea would not fulfill the need to group these individuals into their own category. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Don't be ridiculous. There's no way it would include such things -- that's sheer hyperbole. Cgingold (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not get so excited. I wasn't purposely trying to exaggerate, I was making a point. If it sits better with you, just replace "got thrown in jail for contempt of court, for writing bad checks, for disorderly conduct, etc." with something like "got thrown in jail for murder, rape, theft, etc." and you will see that Renaming to a category such as "Imprisioned Puerto Rican independence activists" would not work because it is too broad: It could include, for example, every independentista who got thrown in jail for murder, rape, theft, etc. Point is: Clearly a Puerto Rican independence activist who gets thrown in jail for murdering a neighbor, raping an underage schoolboy, or stealing from Walmart is not a Political Prisoner. However, such unrelated felons would also fit the "Imprisoned Puerto Rican independence activists" category you are supporting simply because they happened to be Puerto Rican independence activists, and yet this proposed category is not intended for them. Agreed? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Okay, let's put hard numbers on this issue so we can evaluate your concerns. Can you tell me how many of the individuals in this category have in fact been convicted and imprisoned for serious crimes unrelated to their activism? Cgingold (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename. - I could not support a category such as "Imprisoned Puerto Rican independence activists" except only as a distant second and only because the members of the current category still need a "place" where they all reside together. I maintain that the most appropriate category, based on the granularity of its description, would still be the current and existing category, "Puerto Rican political prisoners." My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Comment - I suggest that everyone maintain a "cool head" within the norms of civility. Now, I can see where this discussion is headed and it seems that it is headed towards the usage of the term "Puerto Rican political prisoner" as a non valid one since it depends on the perspective of the parties involved. On one side we have people who were imprisoned because of their political beliefs, which is to seek the independence of their homeland with the use of arms, thereby upon their imprisonment they are considered by many as "political prisoners". Which is logical when we observe what a political prisoner is in accordance to the terms definition which is "someone imprisoned for holding, expressing, or acting in accord with particular political beliefs". While on the other side we have the US government and media, who may have been too embarrassed to admit that they had political prisoners, since they consider that Puerto Rico is "their" territory and as such an admittance that they had political prisoners would invoke dis-favorable world wide opinion. Therefore it is more logical for the US to charge these revolutionaries for the possession of fire arms and attempted murder, as if they were common criminals, then to state that they were people who believe that their island should enjoy the God given right of independence, the same right that the US sought when they were a colony of England. That is where the issue of perspective comes in, I mean I doubt, that had these people not believed in the cause of independence of their homeland, that they would have indulged in any criminal activities. This is similar to the colonists of the English colonies, who participated in the Boston Tea Party and who were just common folks who believed in defending their rights. Those who were caught were considered as criminals even though the truth was that they were political prisoners. Getting back to the subject of the category, even though I believe that these people were political prisoners, it still all depends on the perspective of different parties and as such an alternate category which satisfies the parties involved must be found before the fate of this category is decided. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no consensus to delete the category. This Cfd has become a toxic place to discuss any improvements. The history of the edits summaries give you a glimpse of the lack of civility, and the battle ground mentality ignoring the fundamental principle of AGF . I suggest we search for another venue where real consensus can be reach, may I suggest WP:PUR or requesting informal mediation (WP:MEDCAB). --Jmundo (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 'Imprisoned Puerto Rican independence activists' as proposed above, or otherwise Delete. 'Political prisoners' is a hopelessly subjective description, that many would disagree with; these people should be categorised by their activism and/or their imprisonment, both of which are objectively verifiable, rather than such a controversial description. Robofish (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Imprisoned Puerto Rican independence activists per the alternate proposal; if there isn't consensus to rename, then delete as pov. --Kbdank71 17:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment If a Category:Imprisoned Puerto Rican independence activists is created then it would be of out most importance that a statement be placed within the category that these people were imprisoned because of the acts, be it directly or indirectly, committed as a result of their political beliefs. This way a person who beliefs in Puerto Rico's independence, but lets say, was arrested for selling drugs, would not qualify for inclusion in the category. Does these seem fair enough? Tony the Marine (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just reading the discussion above leads me to think that this has BLP issues, or at least NPOV issues. If no consensus to delete, then weakly supporting a Rename to Category:Imprisoned Puerto Rican independence activists per the alternate proposal. Though again, I think deletion would probably be better in this case. - jc37 01:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck through, because there seems to be real issues of confusion due to trying to intersect these things into a single category. - jc37 20:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename - as noted elsewhere in the discussion, this carries the connotation that these people were imprisoned because they are PR independence activists. They were not. They were imprisoned because they were convicted of breaking one or more laws. They may have broken those laws because they believed in PR independence, but motive is not relevant for purposes of categorization. Categorize them as independence activists and categorize them separately as prisoners and detainees, but do not categorize them by the intersection of the two. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:56, 4 September 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:Knights First Class of the Order of the Zähringer Lion[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Knights First Class of the Order of the Zähringer Lion to Category:Knights Cross First Class of the Order of the Zähringer Lion
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proposed name is the correct English translation of the German title. Caponer (talk) 22:08, 31 July 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) 03:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting note: Category was not tagged for renaming. It is now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete/Listify to Order of the Zähringer Lion. And I'm not thrilled that the only external link is to another wiki... I see the other two references (which I don't have), but I am not finding the original title in German is so that I can verify as to what the actual name is (in German, much less in English). Maybe this should be relisted with a request for more info? - jc37 20:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 19:34, 24 August 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:Knights Second Class of the Order of the Zähringer Lion[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Knights Second Class of the Order of the Zähringer Lion to Category:Knights Cross Second Class of the Order of the Zähringer Lion
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proposed category name is the correct English translation of the German title. Caponer (talk) 22:06, 31 July 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) 03:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting note: Category was not tagged for renaming. It is now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete/Listify to Order of the Zähringer Lion. And I'm not thrilled that the only external link is to another wiki... I see the other two references (which I don't have), but I am not finding the original title in German is so that I can verify as to what the actual name is (in German, much less in English). Maybe this should be relisted with a request for more info? - jc37 20:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 19:34, 24 August 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:College football seasons with Heisman Trophy winner[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. — ξxplicit 03:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:College football seasons with Heisman Trophy winner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A trivial intersection if I have ever seen one. Each of these seasons has nothing to do with any of the other seasons. Seasons are not usually defined by having an award winner but by wins and loses. TM 19:32, 24 August 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:Mediterranean Revival Style Buildings of Davis Islands, Tampa, Florida[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. — ξxplicit 03:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mediterranean Revival Style Buildings of Davis Islands, Tampa, Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A redirect at a very unlikely title. TheGrappler (talk) 19:26, 24 August 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.

Seats of Government[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 on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_11#Seats_of_Government. Ruslik_Zero 08:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:City and town halls in Maryland to Category:City halls in Maryland
Propose renaming Category:City and town halls in Minnesota to Category:City halls in Minnesota
Propose renaming Category:City and town halls in Pennsylvania to Category:City halls in Pennsylvania
Propose renaming Category:City and town halls in Puerto Rico to Category:City halls in Puerto Rico
Propose renaming Category:City and town halls in Texas to Category:City halls in Texas
Propose renaming Category:City and town halls in the United States to Category:Seats of government in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. With the rename of the parent Category:City and town halls, it is time to start cleaning up the remains of this blended category structure by renaming categories that only contain one type of building. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does Maryland have any town halls? (Even if such articles have not been written yet!) If we are likely to have town hall articles for Maryland in future it seems desirable to keep city and town halls together. TheGrappler (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they belong in Category:Town halls in Maryland, likewise you can also have Category:Village halls in Maryland or Category:Borough halls in Maryland. With in the US, we don't just have cities and towns. So separate categories are preferred. In addition, city and town categories don't have good parents since if you added it to a city, that would not be correct since the contents also contained towns. Better to split. So far in going through the subcategories here, they all only contain city halls. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there any benefit to splitting those all up into separate categories? I can see that separate categories are, at least, well-defined. But they do all seem to be, fundamentally, the same type of building, even if they differ somewhat in scale? TheGrappler (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no article on City and town but we do have seat of government and Seat of local government. Also the parent category for this tree was renamed to Category:Seats of local government so that all of the various types of building could be included. If you would like, it is possible to have Category:Seats of local government in Maryland to include all of these, but I don't think that is the best option. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the reply, It's not just a U.S. thing - several of the European countries have "seats of local government" categories and they do seem fairly sensible. Perhaps we should try to see things from a reader's point of view - what do you think a user would prefer? Are they likely to be browsing seats of local government of Maryland as a whole, in which case they'd probably prefer a unified category, or to browse seats of local government by type? It seems to me, that if I wanted to look at the category for e.g. town halls of Maryland, it's most likely because I had an interest in the municipal buildings as a whole, and splitting out the city halls doesn't benefit me - it just adds another tab to my browser. If I did really care about city hall vs town hall, that would be evident from the article names in the category anyway. (If there were 200+ articles in the category then splitting them out by type becomes more attractive for browsing purposes, of course, but we're not anywhere near that point yet!) But of course I am only one reader so this is not a very scientific poll! If you can name me a benefit that a typical browsing reader might experience from splitting, then I'm very open to persuasion - I just can't see one yet myself :-) TheGrappler (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Be aware that the name does not always tell you what it is. Many past and present government seats are in courthouses! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's interesting. It reduces my preference for the unified solution somewhat. Are there particular reasons why someone would want town and city halls distinguished into completely different categories? That's the aspect I'm struggling with at the moment. TheGrappler (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Probably the easiest answer is so that they can roll up into the Category:Towns. They are the seat of government for towns and not cities or villages or boroughs. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Oh of course, I should have spotted that. Suggestion: rename these categories to Category:Seats of local government in Maryland etc as it makes sense to have state-wide compilations (ultimately as subcats of "Seats of local government") and spin off city/town/whatever hall subcategories as needed? Or alternatively, rename all these to "City" etc and create "Seats of local government" categories for them to fit into. Whichever's easiest. Does that sound reasonable to you? TheGrappler (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Probably easiest to let these renames go since they are actually correct and then if anyone desires they can add Category:Seats of local government in Maryland if we get articles on any town halls. The other argument is to have the identical name at the state level. Let's leave this option open and see where other opinions are. I think we have laid out a lot of the issues and options. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Thank you for a very reasonable and thought-provoking discussion, much appreciated :-) TheGrappler (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Thank you. Now we need to wait and see if anyone agrees with us. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Category:Seats of local government in (X). It seems silly to separate town halls from city halls from village halls in the same region. These all have a defining feature: they are the center of government for a municipal area. That's what we should focus upon.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seats of local government sounds like it also includes county government. Wouldn't :Category:Municipal governments in (X) not be a better name? Seats of Local government sounds awfully close to the current category for state governments which is: Category:Local government in the United States by state. In Mass. We have 3 levels of "local government": 1) state ("commonwealth") level government, 2) then county government (still in Western Mass), and then 3) cities towns and villages (municipalities). Wouldn't boroughs fall under municipalities as well? CaribDigita (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I support the general proposal, but, after taking a quick glance, it looks about half of the articles in the existing categories are about former city halls that are on historic registers, so they would probably need something along the lines of Category:Former seats of local government in foo as a subcategory of Category:Seats of local government in foo. Altairisfar 17:06, 26 August 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:Music of Russian subdivisions[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Music of Russian subdivisions to Category:Music in the federal subjects of Russia
Nominator's rationale: "Russian subdivisions" are numerous and various, but this category very specifically includes the articles about music in various federal subjects only. The proposed name is also more in line with the naming conventions elsewhere in the federal subjects category tree.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 24, 2010; 13:41 (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:Union Square[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. — ξxplicit 03:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Union Square to Category:Union Square (Hong Kong)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:20, 24 August 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:Museum places[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Museum places (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. While not in the title, one of our favorite words is in the introduction, related. These places are notable on their own and not because they are somehow tied to a museum. I found in interesting that Category:Open air museums is included. These are not related to museums, they are museums! I would never consider Fifth Avenue as a museum place so I have no idea why it is included. Clearly that's a shopping place. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there's the kernel of a good idea here, and the following articles in the category are instructive. Museumsquartier, Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District, Museum District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Museum Planning Area, Houston Museum District. These all seem to deserve to be grouped together in a category and "museum places" is the best we have so far - but that is far too vague. We should have some way to group together geographical areas containing clusters of museums. I wonder whether a pruning of this category and a rename to Category:Clusters of museums (better title would help!) would work? TheGrappler (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with TheGrappler (incidentally, I was drafting a list on this very topic today...). Category:Museum Districts is just as relevant as Category:University towns. These districts exist, and usually can be formally defined through local heritage registers, municipal ordinances etc. - they're not made up. The case of Fifth Avenue needs more research (if a certain stretch of Broadway is recognized as Theatre District, New York, then ... why not?) East of Borschov 19:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Museum [D/d?]istricts" works better for me than "clusters of museums" and is more likely to be defined. But I don't think it's guaranteed to be defined officially - Albertopolis appears to be a prime example of lots of notable museums packed together in London, but with a name like that, it certainly doesn't sound official! (I can credit British humo[u]r only so far... I'm sure officialdom there is as dull as anywhere ) TheGrappler (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Category:Museum districts could work as a new category if we provide a good introduction to explain what it covers. Category:Open air museums should clearly not meet the inclusion criteria, but Museum Planning Area should. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed. Should Albertopolis? Or is that the kind of thing we're prepared to sacrifice, if we can't fight a tight (possibly official) definition? TheGrappler (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that Albertopolis needs to go unless there are more museums in there. Museums seems to be a small part of that area and probably not the major focus. I guess the real question is, does a district that happens to include some museums belong in Category:Museum districts? I'd say no unless that is the focus or they contribute a majority of the buildings like Museumsufer. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • To be fair, that's a decent amount of museum space - several of the UK's biggest museums all pretty much right next to each other. Perhaps it's fairer to say they only make up a sub-area of the entire "Albertopolis". Rather hard to nail down criteria on this. TheGrappler (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, percentage of space in the district could be a better criteria then the number of buildings. Could be more difficult to pin down as an inclusion criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking about excluding Albertopolis, right? Three massive international museums all right next to each other, plus several smaller ones in other institutions listed! Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, probably renaming but not restricting to places officially designated - that's the reason why only the US is allowed to have "historic" houses, but nowhere else is. Streets that happen to have one or two museums on them should go, unless the museums are really massive. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is recognised concept. Possibly some of the contents do not belong, but that is a matter of pruning them out, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A street with museums is not an open air museum, but Black Country Living Museum Ironbridge Gorge Museum are (to give some UK examples. In America, I think Colonial Williamsburg would belong. I know there are examples in Sweden, but cannot think of their names at present. These are large areas of land wholly managed as a museum. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 29 August 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:Films set in San Fernando Valley[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. — ξxplicit 03:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films set in San Fernando Valley to Category:Films set in the San Fernando Valley
Nominator's rationale: Rename - per correct grammar and all sibling categories. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 03:12, 24 August 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:Square Co.[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. — ξxplicit 03:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Square Co. to Category:Square (company)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match name following a move of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:10, 24 August 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.

Buildings and structures by former use[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 on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_11#Buildings_and_structures_by_former_use. Ruslik_Zero 08:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Former church buildings to Category:Buildings formerly used as churches
Propose renaming Category:Former fire stations to Category:Buildings formerly used as fire stations
Propose renaming Category:Former houses in the United States to Category:Buildings in the United States formerly used as houses
Propose renaming Category:Former library buildings to Category:Buildings formerly used as libraries
Propose renaming Category:Former post office buildings to Category:Buildings formerly used as post offices
Propose renaming Category:Former school buildings to Category:Buildings formerly used as schools
Propose renaming Category:Former railway bridges in the United States to Category:Bridges in the United States formerly used for rail traffic
Propose renaming Category:Former road bridges in the United States to Category:Bridges in the United States formerly used for road traffic

Since 2005, Wikipedia has used former buildings and structures to refer to edifices that no longer exist. Over the last couple years, we've also started categorizing them by former use, and many of the categories have taken the former of Former foo buildings. Rename to clarify that the buildings and structures in these categories may still exist. - Eureka Lott 01:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with this if this is what consensus wants; however I think the problem was in the naming of the "former buildings" cat to begin with. "Demolished buildings" would have been better and far less ambiguous; "Non-extant buildings" the absolutely clearest but the word is not immediately understood by everyone.

And as per some other discussions, how about "Repurposed buildings" for buildings whose use has been changed? Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former buildings is broader than demolished buildings, as it encompasses buildings that were lost in a variety of ways, including intentional demolition. Non-extant buildings is somewhat ambiguous, because it could include Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures.
Most buildings that burn down or collapse have to have their remnants demolished anyway. "Destroyed buildings"? I suppose "non-extant" could include never-realized buildings, but the dictionary meaning of extant, "still in existence", seems to imply the frequently understood meaning of something that once existed when negated. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repurposed buildings is probably a more elegant solution than my initial proposal, although it would entail adding Category:Buildings and structures by former use to this nomination. - Eureka Lott 02:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep buildings as is. Correct me if I'm wrong - to me "former church buildings" mean "originally built as churches but then...". Or, perhaps, built for some other purpose, but then permanently converted for religious use "and then...". Renaming to "formerly used as churches" apparently expands the scope to (for example) commercial properties once rented by some driveby preachers. But being rented by a preacher, usually, is not significant for a commercial building - tenants come and go, the buildings themselves aren't "religious". Same reasoning applies to fire stations and libraries, less so to schools: these functions usually require purpose-built buildings. East of Borschov 09:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Let's sort out the confusion about "former", "repurposed", "demolished", "non-extant" etc. before honing the order of words. Right now "former" category is for extant buildings, not intersecting with "demolished". East of Borschov 09:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, and merge Category:Buildings and structures by former use into Category:Former buildings and structures. This parallel structure is confusing and unneeded. If the question is "is it still a church?", the answer should be found in Category:Former church buildings.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:16, 9 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_24&oldid=1138393556"