Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 3 June 5 >

June 4[edit]

American soccer players by State[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. - and was withdrawn by the nominator over a month ago. The Bushranger One ping only 06:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unlike Baseball players, American football players, Basketball players or Hockey players, American soccer players should remain in the main category American soccer players. If listing a players under both the main category and one of the subcats violates the categorization guidelines, then Category:American soccer players by state and its subcats need to go. – Michael (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the upmerge, I think the nominator's concern is - and one shared by me - is that these categories are being used by some editors to replace (and not complement) Category:American soccer players. In football/soccer, a player being from a certain state is completely unimportant, only nationality counts. Players do not represent their state, they represent their country (if they are good enough!) Therefore it is vital that all applicable articles remain in Category:American soccer players (and every other nationality category!) GiantSnowman 13:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These categories are large enough to be justified. I see no reason given to ditch this category and not other by state categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Secondly, if that's your attitude, how are we ever going to change anything around here? WE need to start somewhere! GiantSnowman 19:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to scrap by state categories, than go after all of them. As long as we categorize any group of people by state, we should categorize these plenty large sets of people by state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You get consensus from one discussion, then use that around the rest of the site. What point is there in wasting time & effort nominating dozens of these sets of categories - hundreds in total - for deletion if you don't know whether or not consensus exists to delete them? It also makes sense to have the discussion in one place rather than spread out over numerous threads. GiantSnowman 08:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All The parent category is rather large and breaking this down by state provides a rather clear defining characteristic that is an effective aid to navigation within the structure of soccer players and of people by state. Of course we can have an essentialist debate as to "what does it mean to be from a state?", "what does it mean to play soccer?" or "what if it depends on what is means?" Of course how do we define what it means to be from a country would necessarily loom over us if we were to delete these categories. Hoe exactly do we deal with this supposed BLP nightmare for all of the other categories that are broken down by state and other sub-national locations? Alansohn (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, for football fans/editors, navigation by state makes zero sense whatsoever. Your argument is incredibly weak; of course we can verify if someone is a soccer player. Of course we can verify if a player is American or not - you either hold nationality or don't. But if a player was born in Texas, and spent 5 years each in Oregon, Idaho and Alaska, what category do you put him in - all four? There is no "supposed" BLP nightmare, it is a reality - you are imposing categories on living people that are a) not supported by reliable sources and b) probably incorrect. The size of the parent category doesn't matter, diffusing based on a made-up geographical 'fromness' does nobody any favours. GiantSnowman 19:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, being American is more complex than you imply. One does not "hold nationality", one holds citizenship, but in actual use we do not limit American categories to citizens. Plus, lots of people hold dual citizenship. We categorize people by the state they are from, and even more specifically. We subdivide people by state into very specific categories. If you are going to upmerge these people not only should it be to Category:American soccer players but also to Category:People from Michigan and the other states involved, but we need to make sure that they do not already fall in other applicable sub-cats, so I think we would be much better to leave things as is. With the amount of soccer players and the amount of people we have from each state these are workable and useful subdivisions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "so I think we would be much better to leave things as is" mean you view the task as too daunting as opposed to without merit? GiantSnowman 08:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if recategorized - The "People from" three won't disappear, even if we delete these categories, and these categories are valid subcategories of "Sportspeople from STATE". The only problem with these cats are that they are a sub-cat of Category:American soccer players, because being from a place doesn't mean that you got the nationality of that place. Because of this, the captain of Norway, Brede Hangeland, is categorized as an American soccer player, which he never was - he was just born in Texas when his father were working there. Looking at Category:Footballers from North Yorkshire, it is a sub-cat of Category:People from North Yorkshire and Category:Football in North Yorkshire, which seems much more reasonable than to bring nationality into this three. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If these are kept, then they shouldn't under any circumstances be listed as subcategories of Category:American soccer players. – Michael (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sounds like a fair compromise, so I will also be happy if these categories are kept but recategorised i.e. Category:Soccer players from New Mexico should be in Category:Soccer in New Mexico and Category:People from New Mexico. These categories should NOT form a part of 'American soccer players' category. GiantSnowman 08:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to go ahead and withdraw my nomination. But again, these cats should be recategorized. Which means, they shouldn't be listed as a subcategory to Category:American soccer players. – Michael (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • wait, what? Since when is a soccer player from texas not an American soccer player? we cannot start to get caught up in this mess - we have journalists by state, writers by state, TONS of people categories by state, and they are hosted under the top level "americans" tree. Why does it matter so much? Can you give an example of where this causes a terrible result? If you don't like that people aren't in the head cat, then mark all of these as non-diffusing categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and keep them as a diffusing structure. There is simply nothing special about soccer players to deviate from our standard categorization guidelines. I understand the FOOTY project may think they own these categories (as demonstrated by the series of events that started this process [1] [2]) but they are far broader than the FOOTY project. The top cat is simply not a nationality defined category, despite the name. American is simply easier than Soccer players from the United States. Now FIFA may have rules on this, but we are not bound by FIFA on anything. Further, as I've stated before, there is no OR or BLP issue with this or any of the other similar cats. As with any category there has to be support in the article for it to be in any category, and yes, just like any other occupation category an article may end up in more than one (just like where a US citizen represents another country at the Olympics one would presume they would be in that sports categories for two different countries even outside of dual citizenships). Lastly, there is a CANVAS problem in that only one WikiProject was notified, a project in which a pre-discossuion was held. I have no problem with the nomination or notifying a relevant project, but please act properly and notify all relevant projects, as we want a true consensus on this much broader topic and not simply the opinions of a certain, specialized project that already came to a decision. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support your suggestions of having these articles a subcat of Soccer players from the United States
  • Keep - Categories are useful for research and the other advantages listed at WP:CLN. Hmlarson (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nominator - Some of you do have good points. So I'm gonna drop my nomination, but again these shouldn't be listed as subcats to Category:American soccer players, so that needs to be fixed. – Michael (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2013 (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.

History of Upper Volta[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. I will note that the point was raised about the results of {{estcatCountry|xxx|x|country name}} being used. If that template is not appropriate for any category it does not have to be used, so bad parent categories created by that category should not hold back otherwise proper changes. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename, and sub-cats should follow. This started as a speedy (see below) for Category:1960 establishments in Upper Volta, which does not match others of the period in Category:Establishments in the Republic of Upper Volta by year, since they use "the Republic of". Rather than harmonising that one, the Speedy discussion pointed to a discussion on using the short name. The point of using "Republic of Upper Volta" is to disambiguate it from the French colonial period which in Wikipedia is called French Upper Volta, see Category:Establishments in French Upper Volta by year. However, in both those periods it was actually known simply as "Upper Volta", and the split does not help navigation. (Since 1984 it is Burkina Faso.)
Alternative: If this proposal is rejected, then I suggest that the original speedy proposal for renaming Category:1960 establishments in Upper Volta to Category:1960 establishments in the Republic of Upper Volta should be approved instead. – Fayenatic London 19:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy discussion on 1960 establishments in Upper Volta
Question 1: Is it necessary to tag all the sub-categories, or can they be speedied if this is agreed? – Fayenatic London 19:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the 1910 category includes Grand Theatre, Poznań, which was clearly established in Germany, even if where it was established is now in Poland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant when we are not dealing with an entity whose borders changed at all? We are not faced at all with problems of "where was it then" vs. "where is it now"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use Upper Volta. Upper Volta changed its name to Burkina Faso in 1984. The general parent should be Burkina Faso, but any pre-1984 categories should use Upper Volta. Since the boundaries are (I think) much the same, there is no need to distinguish between the French colony and the Republic. The centuries and millennia subcats are pointless and should be deleted: a decades category can adequately cover whatever annual categories are needed. We may need both Upper Volta and Burkina Faso categories for 1980s - one for 1980-4 and the othe for 1984-9. I hope the closing Admin can sort this out without a load of follow-up noms. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:History of the Republic of Upper Volta by period to Category:History of Burkina Faso by period; merge Category:Establishments in the Republic of Upper Volta by year to Category:Establishments in Burkina Faso by year; merge Category:Establishments in French Upper Volta by year to Category:Establishments in Burkina Faso by year. Why in the world would we want separate trees for the "history of" or "establishments in" Upper Volta and Burkina Faso when Upper Volta became Burkina Faso? I can understand the desire to have different names for subcategories referring to specific years, but these can all just happily be included in the Burkina Faso tree to best facilitate navigation. I don't know if the by-year subcategories are nominated, because they are not listed here, but everyone seems to be talking about them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the sub-cats are included although not tagged, see "question 1". If we go this way, at what level would you keep "Upper Volta" in the category name to avoid anachronisms? and would you keep "French"/"Republic of" in any category names? e.g. Category:1960s establishments in the Republic of Upper Volta? Note that this started because of the inconsistency between that decade category and JPL's new sub-cat Category:1960 establishments in Upper Volta. – Fayenatic London 05:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm, not sure about that. When the borders are unchanging, I don't have very strong opinions on the need to use former names. I think the important thing is that the subcategories are within the Burkina Faso tree. Truth be told, I'd be fine with just using "Burkina Faso" for all of them. But if we're going to use an alternative—I can see pros and cons for both approaches. (A JPL edit started this?—shocked; I am shocked!) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I fully support Peterkingiron's specific proposals above. – Fayenatic London 14:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The benefit I see of the current names is that it at least brings some intra-WP consistency to naming. Upper Volta is a disambiguation page right now, and the specific articles are at French Upper Volta and Republic of Upper Volta. So it allows the category names to match the usage in the article names. If this approach were kept, category redirects on the plain "Upper Volta" would be helpful. (Not that I necessarily support this approach with gusto, but I can see the benefits and the drawbacks of it, and I mention it here just to get the other side of the argument at least presented.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This started because any map from 1980 would use "Upper Volta", not a more convoluted name, for the place. There is no need to disambiguate the different time frames of the place. The reality is our establishments by country by year tree is extremely under developed, and we fail to use common name rules in that. The common name is Upper Volta.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been thinking about the parenting issue. I think Category:1960 establishments in Upper Volta should remain a child of Category:Establishments in Upper Volta by year. I have no problem with making that category a child of Category:Establishments in Burkina Faso by year, but since the common way to create a new establishment by year category is to apply the template {{estcatCountry|xxx|x|country name}} which automatically puts the new category in Category:Country name establishments by year it makes things too confusing to not have all 4 potential parents. It is much easier to sub-cat those parents. I think we should also create categories like Category:1960 establishments in Burkina Faso and make them redirects to the relevant years in Upper Volta category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be more clear I oppose merging any of the Upper Volta categories into Burkina Faso categories. We can have them be sub cats but we should still have categories with the Upper Volta name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can follow the pattern at Category:Establishments in Ghana by decade, where the visible sub-cats are supplemented by category redirects to avoid unnecessary redlinks in the template at the head of Category:1950s establishments in Ghana. Another approach would be to subst' the template and then edit it to use the colonial name in the early periods and the post-independence name in the later periods, but category redirects are probably better as they help to avoid unnecessarily (re-)creations of anachronistic categories. – Fayenatic London 16:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I was getting at with my !vote is the approach outlined by Fayenatic. We don't really need all the subsidiary "holding" cats named after the colonial name—all we need is the individual by year categories with the old names. There are easy ways around the template issues and therefore template application should never dictate what we decide to do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2013 (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:Video games based on retired National Hockey League players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:National Hockey League video games. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is the purpose of this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:00, 4 June 2013 (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:Motley's Crew[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 (it has already been emptied by its creator).
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article and unfree media. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 4 June 2013 (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:1989 establishments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo[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. Fell free to add other parent categories and redirects as needed. The higher level can be a new nomination or wait and see if the RFC provides any guidance. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John assumes that all our readers are not "geographically challenged" I do support this however given he is entirely correct. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see that mess, because I was only looking at the establishments cats, and I only found one by year in the relevant setting. We generally categorize things by the applicable historical name, so I see no reason to ignore Zaire, when we have Dahomey and Upper Volta categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "we generally categorize things by the applicable historical name" is a fairly recent trend, and on balance it's not applied more than the alternative. Personally, I see no problem in referring to current names in the historical context. Users would (rightly) assume that that refers to things that went on within the current borders of that state in the year XXXX. Especially when there are no territorial changes to consider—Zaire→DRC was just a name change—I don't think it's a big deal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the trend is that recent, see for example Category:Years in the Thirteen Colonies which has been around since 2007, and Category:Years in Great Britain (as opposed to United Kingdom) since 2006. I think just its just cropped up at CFD a lot recently due to the establishments by country and year being created and populated. Tim! (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All contents of Category:1770 establishments by country are either using 1770 names, sub-cats of things using 1770 names, or in the case of Ireland reflecting a unity of country that no longer exists (we have Category:1936 establishments in Northern Ireland, while at the same time Category:1936 establishments in Ireland does not have any sub-cats). We clearly use the boundaries of the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about instances in which boundaries have changed. The boundaries of the DRC did not change when it was renamed Zaire or when it was renamed back to DRC. There are plenty of examples where we use the current name when nothing changed but the name of the country. See, eg, Category:Years of the 20th century in Belarus. Belarus was the Byelorussian SSR for many of those years, but the boundaries have not changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally look at the categorization of Haus der Technik, which clearly shows we are applying Category:1925 establishments in Germany to reflect its 1925 boundaries.
Actually, if you want to get technical, your examples kind of prove my overall point. By WP naming convention, "Germany" was the German Empire in 1910 and the Weimar Republic in 1925, but we don't use "German Empire" or "Weimar Republic" in the name of the categories. But anyway, I'm not referring to issues of boundary changes at all; it is an irrelevant issue to this rename, since the boundaries of Zaire were identical to the boundaries of the DRC. Shifting German boundaries are an entirely different matter. Not sure why exactly the 1770 categories are relevant at all; this one is from 1989. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However at all times the generally used name was "Germany". Germany was the understood and used name of the place in 1925. In 1989 Zaire was the understood and used name of the place. You are confusing names used to distinguish articles that cover specific periods of time with names used to refer to the country. A 1925 Encyclopedia would have the article at "Germany". My 1990 Britannica has the article at Zaire. To use any other identifier for the country in that year is just plain incorrect. It is so Zaire, that the map of Africa on that page can say "Congo" alone on the country to the West. I would not advocate renaming to using Congo, because Congo is way to ambiguous, but when we have an article Zaire it makes much more sense to reflect the reality of 1989 and use that name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now you're just freewheeling and mixing outside, common usage with Wikipedia usage. If you want to play that game there's almost nothing that can't be demonstrated. I can find sources that refer to this country during the Zaire years as "Congo (Kinshasa)" and even "DR Congo". "Germany" was commonly used pre-1871 as well, but you're on record of not accepting that approach either, so ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename this and other categories listed above: Zaire→DRC was not "just a name change". The government was overthrown and replaced. groupuscule (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I referred to "just a name change", I was referring to the fact that there were no changes to the territorial boundaries of the state. Of course, there are always internal changes which precipitate name changes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you have said "the boundaries of the DRC did not change when it was renamed Zaire or when it was renamed back to DRC". But these two events are quite different. The Congo was named "Zaire" by Mobutu in 1971, after he had already held power for six years. So I think there's a good case to be made that the government did not change, and that Zaire under Mobutu is a state dating from 1965 to 1997. On the flip side, the territorial boundaries of the USA have changed many times with no regime change. On another flip side, regime change doesn't always change the name of a country... as reflected by its Wikipedia article. For example there is continuity within Category:Establishments in Iran by year (and the Wikipedia article about Iran is called Iran) although the state was renamed to "The Islamic Republic of Iran". But in this case, one can't say "Congo" ... in conclusion, I'm going to Slowly Back Away from this discussion because I think we need need to replace the "Category" system and I'm not sufficiently invested to try and "fix" it for this case. :-) Good luck, groupuscule (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the various name changes were different in cause, but none of that history changes the fact that the effect on borders was nil, which was my point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the other similar categories are not going to be nominated in tandem, I would change my !vote to a straight "oppose". I see no benefit of changing one category our of 15-odd that exhibit the same issue. I liked your conclusion, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nominator - we should use the historically accurate name of the country. If we keep the category at '1989 establishments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo' then it should have a population of zero as there was no country called 'the Democratic Republic of the Congo' in 1989. GiantSnowman 09:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom -- Categories should use the contemprary name for the country. It will need a follow-up per Good Ol’factory. We should be using Belgian Congo to 1960; Congo (Leopoldville) 1960-66; Congo (Kinshasa); 1966-71; Zaire 1971-1997; and DRC from 1997. This is simialkr to the case made for Upper Volta above. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above calling on Germany is a classic example of bait and switch. What was the common named of Germany in 1910, 1925 or 1942. Germany. What was the name people used to refer to the country under discussion here in 1989? Zaire. To call it anything else is to incorrectly represent what the actual name at the time was. Germany was Germany in 1925, Zaire was the name of the country in 1989. Additionally the boundary change issue is not the one that was brought up above. We have on multiple occasions decided to rename things to reflect the name at the time involved, such as using Dahomey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was the only sub-category of Category:Establishments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by year specifically from the time frame when Zaire was the name used for the country. Thus it is clearly a specific case calling for specifically answering its specific issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In March of last year we had a CfD where we decided to rename various by year in Benin to by year in the Republic of Dahomey categories. That seems like a strong precedent for this action. That name change also did not involve any boundary change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now made a motion for renaming all the year in categories effected by this as well. As I said there, both my 1994 Oxford World Atlas and my 1989 Times Atlas of the World refer to the country as Zaire. The sources I have found are all clear that Zaire is the name of the place at that time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone disputes that. Link to other discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You disputed it above, claiming that I was cherry-picking sources to demonstrate Zaire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I didn't. If that's what you think I was disputing, you misunderstood the point of the comment. I have never disputed what the official name of the state was during the time period in question. I was pointing out that you were playing an apples vs oranges game—using sources to back up your claim when what I was referring to all along in that portion of the discussion was the WP article for the entities in question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The principal firs off in such categories is "what was the place called at the time", and only look to other ideas when that does not work. Using Zaire for the years Zaire existed is a perfectly workable solution, so we should adopt it. In the same way in 1925 the country was known as Germany.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to [[Category:1989 establishments and Category:Establishments in Zaire, and Category:Establishments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This comment ignores the fact that these are just establishment by place and year of founding cats. Some of the contents that appear in these categories are things that later were moved to other places. We are saying the thing was established in a given place in a give year, not that it was always in that place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that there are cases where subjects were established in, 2000 in country A (which is now still country A), and that they operated from there for 5 years, and then they move their base (headquarters) to country B (which was country B in 20##, and is still country B) .. so such a subject would be classified as Category:2000 establishments in B?? And now mix in that the exact location of founding is in an area and in a time where country borders are redefined every so many years .. These categories become less correct the more examples are being brought forward ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Although things that move from one base to a new base in a different polity have rarely been placed in a second establishments category, but even a short look at Category:Companies established in 1998 will show things that were established in one place and are now headquartered in a different one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2013 (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:Celebrity-endorsed video games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial association--being endorsed by a celebrity is not a type of video game. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why was it even created? Frankenstein had an excuse at least. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why? That's a good question... See the category-"creator's" talk page (archives) and you will know what I'm talking about... He's a pain. Yet he still insists on creating these useless pages/categories, making Wikipedia a confusing/lame place. And he doest not stop. He has been warned many times by different editors, yet he keeps doing the same kind of edits. --31.22.164.142 (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable and purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a horrible way to categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not defining that a celebrity endorsed it. It makes me shudder the idea of taking this to its logical conclusion (products touted by celebs anyone?) The fact that this survived 2 years indicates that we need more oversight over new category creation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - This is "x by association with y" made even more noxious by the vagueness of "endorsement" and "celebrity". --Lquilter (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2013 (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:Disney videos and DVDs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Disney films. Consensus was actually for a delete, but that would have left some articles without a parent in the Disney or film tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is this? Just things that have been released on VHS, Betamax, or DVD by Disney? And why is it named "videos and DVDS"--are those contradictory? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a waste of server space. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - believe it or not, it seems we actually have articles about these things - e.g. individual DVD releases. There is another category for their films, but this categorizes articles which are not really movies for things only released on DVD/video, but which also aren't direct-to-video films. Given we have a number of articles, this categorization is useful.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ill-defined, poorly named. It's not intuitive to include only certain Disney video releases. All things Disney video is better captured in List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 10:18, 7 June 2013 (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:Anti-Muslim pogroms in India[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. As was pointed out, the main article was deleted for violation of NPOV. It has been deleted 6 times. So if the article title has POV issues, then that would apply to the category also. If the existence of the article can be fixed, then we can review the appropriateness of a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This Category is not required at all, we have multiple categories like "Persecution of Muslims", "Riots and civil disorder in India" ,"Religious violence in India" to cover the same thing. The articles covered in this category are not even pogroms sarvajna (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They have been described as pogrom by a handful of people, For example you added Paul Brass's view, they are not considered as pogroms in general.-sarvajna (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry no, Gujarat 02 is commonly defined as a pogrom and there are thousands of academic sources which say that the most recent being Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India Nellie, "Undoubtedly, the Nellie massacre is one of the single largest and severest pogroms that the post-World War II history has witnessed." The Fleeing People of South Asia: Selections from Refugee Watch Forced migration in the South Asian region: displacement, human rights and conflict resolution calls it a pogrom, Peace Studies: An Introduction To the Concept, Scope, and Themes calls it a pogrom and with good cause when 5000 mostly women and children are butchered. Every article in the cat can be backed be plenty of sources which call those barbarities pogroms, as that is what they are. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let us consider Nellie, a political party A was in power when the violence occured, a different party B(it was not really a political party before violence) was accused of being party to violence(too many party).Now the party B comes to power after violence, so was this is pogrom? What is the general term or view, it is not pogrom for sure. Of course you can find sources but they are not enough to call these incidents as pogroms. I don't think we should discuss these things here as they are best suited for the article talk page. Unless it is proven that these were pogroms they are not suitable for this Category and Category itself is not required as there are no proven cases.-sarvajna (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let us invoke common name. None of the riots or incidents added to this category are commonly referred to as "pogroms" by general media.
I would also like to direct uninvolved users to read this, where DS wanted to move the article about 2002 Gujarat violence Google HITS to Anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002 Google HITS. It didn't happen so he created Anti-Muslim pogroms in India with cherry-picked sources that suit his cause while omitting other-sides of the argument like the cause and the steps Government took in the aftermath of the riots mentioned there. Then the category was created and here we are. "Pogrom" has different connotations from the words "violence" or "riot". Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darkness Shines makes it seem the Gujarat violence was a "pogrom"-thing as of now. The trigger cause of the violence was Godhra Train burning. It was not instigated/approved/condoned by the Gujarat authorities. That accusation has been nullified in the court of law. Far from stoking violence, the authorities, in an attempt to quell the riot, actually declared a curfew immediately after the first signs of attack — and this was spelled out even in media reports. Thus, the police didn't sit back and watch idly. Post-2002 Gujarat violence a good many people (mostly Hindus) were punished (sentenced to life in prison). Hence, the perpetrators weren't acting with impunity. How come, after all this, Gujarat ′02 violence is still a pogrom? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. Because I use academic sources over newspapers you say the MSM do not refer to these as pograms? Let us check that claim, The Hindu 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom Asian Tribune Five years after 2002 Gujarat pogrom: While the victims languish, the perpetrators go unpunished Daily Times Periodic anti-Muslim riots and pogroms The Hindu again the 2002 Gujarat communal violence and anti-Muslim pogrom The Milli Gazette a massive anti-Muslim pogrom was unleashed in Nellie in 1983 And all the others can also be sourced vis the MSM. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a soap box, Darkness Shines. Your cause is great but go take it up somewhere else. You are cherry-picking sources.
Also http://www.dailytimes.com.pk ← is a Pakistani website. We have seen more often than not that Pakistani websites are not neutral when comes to reporting about anything related to India, let alone a violent incident between Hindu-Muslims. Without irrefutable proof usage of the word "pogrom" is inherently a matter of opinion. None of the listed incidents are commonly labelled as "Pogroms". No matter how hard one may try to change that fact it is not going to change. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? The Political Logic of Ethnic Violence: The Anti-Muslim Pogrom in Gujarat, 2002 "Like its predecessors, the anti-Muslim violence was termed a “pogrom” that the Sangh Parivar planned and executed—with support of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in the state" Darkness Shines (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then, let's take the biggest story of them all, Gujarat Violence in 2002.
Google returns 478,000 hits for "2002 Gujarat violence"
Google returns 498 hits for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002"
Google returns 1 hit for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002 Gujarat"
If we generalize even further and perform a sweeping search of all the articles about anti-muslim pogroms in 2002 irrespective of location, even then google returns only 11,000 hits for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002".

DS, you're cherry-picking sources to suit your conclusion that is patently tendentious editing. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Pointless nomination, that's an important category. As per DS. Faizan 08:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Persecution of Muslims and Religious violence in India. -sarvajna (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mar4d, did you miss the following portions of the page WP:CAT where it said, "Standard article naming conventions apply" or "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view", or "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" (italicized in original) or that "editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles"? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Besides, "pogrom" is a value-laden label and implies that Government has officially approved the killings which is, so far, unsubstantiated. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination seems nothing but an attempt to hide facts. A renaming can be proposed if the actual problem is with the word pogrom. But deletion of category will be against WP NPOV.Wasif (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Naming is not the only issue, the issue is that the category is redundant. There are already several categories for the same thing. How would it result in hiding the facts if this category is deleted?-sarvajna (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The various instances referred to in the article/category are not considered "pogroms" per common name. Shovon (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a well defined subject. We have an article on it, it is clearly something that is studied, there is no reason to remove the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, the article is also something to be considered. Almost all of the various incidents covered in that particular article are NOT considered as "pogroms". Isn't it? Shovon (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every source in the article of the same name? Or the sources I presented above? Darkness Shines (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That won't be enough actually because these are not "pogroms". The use of the word "pogrom" is in itself an innuendo. For instance, the vast majority of the sources don't refer to 2002 Gujarat violence as "2002 Gujarat pogrom". Same goes for 1989 Bhagalpur violence, Nellie massacre which are not pogroms. These are very controversial articles and must not be categorized without solid proof (by proof I mean a successful conviction, not mere accusations) that authorities officially instigated it while being the ruling side and police sat by and watched idly. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As soon as I saw that Mr T, among others, write that he thinks Pakistani websites are not neutral because they're not Indian is when alarm bells started to ring - from what I've read above, there is persistent drama or drama-to-be arriving here from this user. News websites are news websites. They are always somewhat partisan. And neutrality cannot be determined from merely saying they are Pakistani alone. Besides this, I'm with Darkness Shines on this one for the issue at hand - he argues a good case for inclusion, whereas others are putting forward a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The definition of pogrom stands; they bear striking similarity to those that were seen in Russia and in other nations in days past. Cut the drama, quit the word-play, this is not a war of words. It's more than obvious, and frankly quite a little ridiculous, the word "pogrom" is bringing such emotion to some people that they're beginning to become wikilawyers for the sake of a mere word. Pogroms happened. Deal with it. NarSakSasLee (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"there is persistent drama or drama-to-be arriving here from this user." - KINDLY FOCUS ON THE CONTENT, not the editor. Since you've questioned my intentions here allow me to place an observation, the vehement support you display for the use of the label "pogrom" while describing the Hindu-Muslim acts of Inter-faith violence in India, including '02 Gujarat riot which was triggered by the slaughter of 59 Hindu pilgrims and included murder of 250+ Hindus and ended with the criminals getting their due share of comeuppance from the court, gives away your neutral inclinations.
I have produced enough evidence that the common label for referring to the haphazardly enlisted incidents is not "pogrom".
"News websites are news websites. They are always somewhat partisan." — says NarSakSasLee. Besides, some are more partisan than others when it comes of violent incidents between Hindus-Muslims in India. Not everything is equally reliable. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes you believe that Category:Persecution of Muslims cannot have a subcategory that is exclusively India-specific? Mar4d (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Mar4d: after all this what could possibly make you think that "Anti-Muslim pogroms in India" is an acceptable option? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Mar4d: Category:National presidents gets subcategorised as Category:Presidents of Pakistan and not as Category:Presidents of Pakistan who detest Hindus. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't understand what point you're trying to make. I think what I stated is quite simple, that there needs to be an India-specific category on Persecution of Muslims and we have a number of relevant articles that can be categorised in it. The category's name can be proposed to be changed, but outright deletion is not the way to go. This seems to be an attempt of censorship. Mar4d (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Persecution of Muslims doesn't mean pogroms against Muslims, Dharmadhyaksha gave a perfect example.-sarvajna (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Mar4d: If you mean this category should be renamed to Category:Persecution of Muslims in India, that will be rolled under Category:Persecution of Muslims by country. And what else will this main category have other than India? Being host to only one country, it will be CfDed and very likely be deleted and then "in India" will stand just as a separate category without any sense. Check how Category:The Holocaust by country has 29 subcats per country. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, Category:Persecution of Muslims in India will be a subcategory of Category:Persecution of Muslims. There is no need for CFDs or any more drama. Mar4d (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you need to have this specific focus on India? I mean, why single India out? What, you really believe Muslims are not facing violence, discrimination anywhere else? Do you know how Ahmadis and Shiites are treated in Pakistan itself? You claim to be from Pakistan you should know better. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Questions:
  • What is a pogrom? Why does our article say that pogroms are mostly targeted against Jews? Why doesn't our article include/discuss violence against indigenous and Black Americans?
  • Are there words besides "pogrom" that would describe these events more fairly?
  • Is there anti-Muslim violence in India that does not manifest as "pogroms"?
  • If Pakistani news media are unreliable on this topic, what nation's news media would be reliable? Should we exclude US and Israel news media from discussions of Palestine? Why is there so little discussion of Israeli violence against Palestinians? Why is state-sanctioned anti-Palestinian mob violence never described by Wikipedia as a pogrom? (Try a web search for "Acre pogrom"; see what Wikipedia says about this event at Acre, Israel.) What about Israeli violence against others?
  • Peace? groupuscule (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why has my comment been flagged as off-topic? I am challenging editors to define "pogrom" and to articulate the rules by which events are classified as such on Wikipedia. I believe this discussion is completely germane to the question of "anti-Muslim pogroms"—and, indeed, that we cannot answer the question posed here without engaging in this deeper discussion. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pogrom has come to have a wider meaning. It is widely used to refer to the attacks on Armenians in Azerbaijan in the early-1990s for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an issue I have addressed in greater depth above... but my comment has been censored. Would someone kindly remove the "off topic" label and restore my comment to the general discussion? Thank you. groupuscule (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You comment was flagged because it brought up the not at all related issue of Israel. We are talking about India here, not Israel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that not everyone calls it a pogrom does not mean that is not the accepted way to refer to it. I think the wide and dispersed sources referring to it as a pogrom make clear that it is within the accepted definition of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As already said by User:Shovon76 bec'z the various instances referred to in the article/category are not considered "pogroms" per their common name. The category name is misleading and mischievous. - Jethwarp (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per User:Shovon76, I didn't know that there was a category too about the POV subject Anti-Muslim pogroms in India. Don't drag me into the discussions, thanks for understanding.  Brendon is here 08:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Shovon.Pectoretalk 06:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The category should now be speedily deleted as the main article Anti-Muslim pogroms in India created by the same editor who started this category has already been deleted [3]. I have already voted for delete earlier. Thanks. Jethwarp (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2013 (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:Modern military vehicles[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Category:21st-century military vehicles. DexDor (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is unnecessary as we have Category:Military vehicles of the post–Cold War period and Category:21st-century military vehicles. The word "modern" is highly ambiguous and does not have a constant meaning. DexDor (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The M970 article shouldn't go into Category:21st-century military vehicles. I haven't found an RS with a date of entry into service, but this [4] indicates they were being made in 1993. DexDor (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC) (I've removed that article from the category as M970 goes back to 1980s at least). DexDor (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Military periodisation should use military history periods used by military historians and standard periods, so merge to both categories (post-Cold War and 21st century) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2013 (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:Host cities of the Olympic Games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having hosted the Olympic Games (or eany other sporting event) is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of an article about a city. This is an event category (which fails WP:OC#VENUES) and/or an award recipients category (which fails WP:OC#AWARD). We don't categorize cities by things like whether a city has an underground (metro) system or whether it has ever been beseiged which (IMO) are much longer-lasting and significant characteristic (although also not strictly a WP:DEFINING characteristic). These categories are not part of a wider "Host cities" category tree. It doesn't make sense to put an article like London under Category:Sports; it's not under similar categories for religion, science, art, warfare etc. Also, articles like Örnsköldsvik, Stoke Mandeville and Geilo shouldn't be under Category:Cities. For info: Previous CFDs of host cities categories include this and this. There are lists at Summer_Olympic_Games, Winter_Olympic_Games and List of Paralympic Games host cities. DexDor (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the links to the lists is for information only as lists and categories covering the same subject is common.
    Question: Is London in officially considered to be category:sports because a category it is in eventually "reaches" this category?
    I'll admit the categories nominated fail WP:OC#Venues (as would e.g. Category:Olympic athletics venues, though that clearly is a defining characteristic). As Academy Awards can be exceptions to WP:OC#AWARDS, it conceivable it would be reasonable for the Olympics to be an exception to the venue rule. In order to conclude I reviewed the categories currently on London, Beijing and New York City. My view is that "Category:Host cities of the Summer Olympic Games" doesn't look out of place at London and Beijing, but that "Category:Summer Paralympic Games host cities" looked out of place for Beijing (if kept it certainly shouldn't be first) and New York City. My concusion is that I think the Olympic ones should be retained as the Olympic status is memorable, and (though not "defining" in most cases) widely used and remembered, whereas the Paralympic ones can be deleted as, in modern cases the city also hosted the Olympics, or in older cases the city is not widely remembered as a Paralympic host. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hosting an olympics doesn't make a city notable, any more than being flooded, windy, withstanding sieges, having gay mayors, or such...that we wouldn't categorize upon. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lisitfy per decisions of Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_19#Category:Host_cities_of_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_13#Category:Host_cities Tim! (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no hesitation in deleting the others, but I think that the Summer Olympics is a special case which needs some discussion.
    I am leaning towards a delete even for the Summer Olympics, but I can see a case for arguing that hosting the Summer Olympics is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a city. Cities such as Barcelona have sen a massive change in their fortunes as a result of hosting the games, and have been left with a big infrastructural legacy.
    The reason I am leaning towards deletion is that I doubt the durability of the legacy; Amsterdam's hosting of the 1928 games seems much less significant than Beijing 2008 or Athens 2004. And that feel to me like WP:Recentism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "X by association with Y" is not a good model for category systems. Moreover, "hosting events" is just not a good precedent. And at this point we're already up to, what, 50+ places? And that's not even counting the little suburbs and what-not that might want to start listing. And then we've got the gay games and the paralympics and the all-state regional championships and the iron bowl. No, I say, no. --Lquilter (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete best nip this in the bud before it blossoms. Not defining for the cities, especially in the long term. When people go to Beijing in 10 years, they won't say "Beijing, which once hosted the olympics, is an ancient Chinese city..."--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The characteristic is notable. The category is justified. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is in the nature of a performance (games) by performer (city) category. If anything is kept, with no disrespect to the paralympics, these are always held in the Olympic venue (except possibly the earliest ones), so that no separate category is needed. I also do not think we hardly need a summer/winter split. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2013 (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/2013_June_4&oldid=1139196017"