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 06:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Confusing redirect. There are two bands and at least two other musicians all named Exile. Even though only the American band has articles on its songs (so far), this could create confusion for someone who navigates by categories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer) 19:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. If categories are created for song of other entities named "exile", this title could used be re-created as a {{category disambiguation}} page. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 22:43, 27 February 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:PIAA District 6
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The categorisation of school boards by athletic grouping seems like a rather undefining characteristic of them. I would suggest that the category be listified, except that there isn't even a head article on the
Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Assocation, so I am not sure how notable it is. If this category is kept, the obscure acronym PIAA should be expanded, and it needs some parent categories.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 13:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. I see no evidence that this is defining for the schools and school districts in Pennsylvania or elsewhere. I might have thought otherwise if there was an overarching scheme for categorizing schools and districts in the U.S. in this way, but it doesn't look like there is.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
If kept, expand acronym, but do we have categories for districts 1-5 and 7 on? Do we have categories for the equivalent in the 49 other states and the US territories? If not, delete.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete Generally, "prep" sports in the U.S. are organized by private non-profit corporations which are federated under the
National Federation of State High School Associations, itself a private non-profit corporation. I would not generally think of athletic regions as defining, as they are somewhat arbitrarily set based on geography and assigned from the top down rather than being an organic association. If anything, most schools identify first with their league (indeed, there is a well-populated
Category:High school sports conferences and leagues in the United States), and my high school in California has been shuffled between four or five different leagues in the last two decades.-
choster (
talk) 21:43, 1 March 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.
Liberal conservatives
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 06:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete: another flawed category using a
WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE concept to try to group people from different cultural and political contexts. Per the head article,
Liberal conservatism, "conservatism" and "liberalism" have had different meanings over time and across countries, the term "liberal conservatism" has been used in quite different senses. Trying to pin down these important but subjective ideologies to create an objective and NPOV set of inclusion criteria would be a form of
original research, creating categories with
WP:OC#ARBITRARY inclusion criteria. (It's a bit like nailing jelly to a wall). The two logical parent categories have both been deleted:
Category:Conservatives was deleted at
CfD 2008 Dec 30, and
Category:Liberals was deleted at
CfD 2009 January 6. More recently,
Category:Conservative organisations was deleted at
CfD 2010 Feb 13. This category contains only one individual article, and three sub-categories of members of political parties. Categorisation by membership of a political party is an objectively-verifiable fact, so those by-party sub-categories are fine. The problem is solely in this attempt to join them together in an ideological grouping. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 13:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete Totally arbitrary; what these words mean varies widely from place to place and time to time. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 23:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete -- There is no party of this name listed in the main article, so that it is all highly subjective.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and per the other recent deletions for the other categories with similarly subjective/arbitrary names. The political spectrum is an imaginary concept that is primarily used to introduce young students to political theory—it doesn't really mean anything in the real world, except to "ideologues" who use slogans and words as rallying calls. Deleting these isn't harming the project in any real way.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:50, 2 March 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.
Progressive organizations
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 all. —
ξxplicit 06:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete all. A series of recent discussions have deleted categories of political organisations with subjective names, per
WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE: see
Cfd for Conservative organisations,
CfF for American liberal organizations,
CfD for American progressive organizations. The latter discussion is particularly relevant: even in the American context, where
Progressivism in the United States describes various strands and phases of progressivism, no stable definition could be found which would allow an objective decision as to whether an article belongs in the category. The broader article
Progressivism shows the term "progressive" has wildly differing means in different countries. It opens by describing it as "a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform", but acknowledges plenty of contrary examples, such as the
Progressive Democrats (a right-wing party in Ireland), and the
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
Having deleted the category of "American progressive organizations", it makes no sense to continue to categorise other organisations around the world by such a subjective term, contrary to
WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Most of the "keep" arguments in the
CfD for American progressive organizations centred on the ntion that American Progressivism was a distinct tradition; that argument failed then, and is inapplicable here.
Delete as too subjective. Any organsitions specifically related to a Progressive Party should be recategorised first.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I can't say more than this:
Category:Conservative organizations has already been deleted and after
Category:American liberal organizations has been deleted as well,
Category:Liberal organisations is going to be the next candidate. I argued against those deletions, but as both
Conservatism and
Liberalism have at least a stable definition which
Progressivism doesn't, it is only consequent to delete these ones as well. However if we keep the parent category
Category:Progressivism open to anything, including specific organizations, we'll end up again with a huge bunch of unsorted articles on supposedly progressive organizations and parties and whatever. We'd need to come up with a rationale with rather rigorous criteria excluding specific organization and including only concepts of progressivism.
PanchoS (
talk) 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per the deletions of the other categories for categories with similarly subjective names. The political spectrum is an imaginary concept that is primarily used to introduce young students to political theory—it doesn't really mean anything in the real world, except to "ideologues" who use slogans and words as rallying calls. Deleting these isn't harming the project in any real way.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:45, 2 March 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:Lists of infrastructure-related Registered Historic Places
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename, because it contains only bridges, and the text on the category page makes it clear that it is intended to contain only bridges. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 11:52, 27 February 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:Nazis assassinated by Mossad
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. One article, I don't think there's anyone else who could be placed in this category.
Prezbo (
talk) 08:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge as nom -- There are few Nazis left and few were murdered by Mossad (even if it admits that it did it), so that the category will never grow.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:17, 28 February 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:George Washington Colonels football coaches
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 07:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Speedy rename. I made this category a little while back, but in my haste I accidentally titled the
George Washington University defunct football team as the "Colonels" when in reality the school's nickname is the "Colonials".
Jrcla2 (
talk) 06:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I fixed the navbox, and created the new category. When the articles move and the category empties, then the errant category can be deleted.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 19:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Speedy merge as created in error. It would have eben rename if the target category had not been created.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:14, 28 February 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:Faust songs
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 06:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Propose disambiguating the song category to match main article
Faust (band). As devout readers of
Tintin will know, there is an
opera by the same name, so confusion is entirely possible on these grounds. There is also
Randy Newman's Faust (a musical), a
lesser known opera of the same name, and
Faust (musician). Propose renaming the albums category for essentially the same reasons and the members category for the sake of consistency.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom to disambiguate. (And a mild
WP:TROUTing to the nominator for the sacrilege of mentioning Tintin without paying homage to
Snowy) --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 11:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per above since there is both a musician and a band with this name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer) 19:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Rename to match title of parent article.
Alansohn (
talk) 03:59, 28 February 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:20th-century actors
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.
We may or likely will eventually delete all, but let s do so systematically, upmerging the most refined branches of the tree first. Or, one could nominate
Category:20th-century people and
Category:21st-century people for deletion, cutting to the chase, so to speak. I think the clutter argument is equally valid for any other century aside from the 20th and 21st, so I don t see why we don t push for eliminating all by century cat pages for people; that or just have
Category:16th-century people,
Category:21st-century people, etc. with no sub-catting of them by nationality or occupation
Mayumashu (
talk) 14:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, I'm glad you agree that we will likely purge all the 20th and 21st-century categories of people, and maybe some day somebody will do a group nomination. But in the meantime, there is no useful purpose to be served by increasing category clutter on the articles which have already been subjected to these ill-conceived categories. They are (inevitably) so incomplete that they are little use for navigation. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 15:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
An upmerge would not increase clutter, only keep it (and then only for the time being, if your argument holds for the majority of contributors), and a straight delete just leaves gaps (causing the tree to be incomplete and not useful for navigating). The clutter argument, again, needs to apply (at least for me) to all centuries not just these two. If contributors are against having
Category:19th-century people,
Category:18th-century people etc., then they truly are ill-conceived.
Mayumashu (
talk) 16:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Mayumashu, please read' before replying. I set out above why an upmerge would increase clutter.
But it doesnt. Two of my four suggestions do not increase clutter. And of the other two, another will likely not either, given the below mentioned nomination (which I do not oppose). (And the one you cite does, of course, as you spell out.) But, again, why not apply the clutter argument to the 19th-century, 18th-century, etc.? Shouldn t we have complete
Category:People by occupation and century and
Category:People by nationality and century trees, for all centuries, or no trees at all?
Mayumashu (
talk) 00:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)reply
So you agree that two out of the four merge proposals will increase clutter ... except that one of the merge targets is likely to be deleted anyway. If you don't oppose deletion of the merge target, why merge to it?
The by-century categories do not yet appear to be causing the clutter problems on pre-20th cent biographical articles, partly because many of those articles are not so heavily categorised. Other editors seem keen to give those earlier ones a try, so we'll see how they work out. I'm not persuaded that more that a small number of them will work, but we'll see. However, I don't see why completeness of a category set should be an end in itself: if only part of it works as a navigational tool, then let's keep the part that works and dump the rest. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 01:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support all (Merge)-- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far too like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. A 19th century and possibly 1900-50 category might be useful. However, the French target should surely be
Category:French actors, but this is not a field where I am expert.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
delete all per BHG. I agree that having categories for 20th-century actors of various types is not useful. I appreciate the efforts to have a internally consistent and complete "system" of categorization, but I don't think it needs to be "complete" if having specific categories are not helpful in a self-standing, meaningful way.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:48, 2 March 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.
Relisted at
today's CfD page.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 00:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)