Wikipedia:Categories for discussion: Difference between revisions
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
These renames could be done by a bot. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 05:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
These renames could be done by a bot. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 05:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
||
: ''Sportspersons at the 1960 Winter Olympics'' seems like a nice pattern, or Sportspeople. ''Atheletes at the xxx Summer Olympics'' also needs to be changed to the ''Track and Field Atheletes at the ...'' [[User:132.205.15.42|132.205.15.42]] 00:49, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
===[[:Category:Conservatives]]=== |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/British conservatives}} |
{{Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/British conservatives}} |
||
Revision as of 00:49, 7 October 2004
- Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or being created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
- Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies there, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas.
- Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
- Add the name of the new category and {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
- Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day. (New ones at the top.)
- Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
- Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
- Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.
Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.
Old discussions from this page have been archived to:
Categorization of people works as a more or less stable guideline by now, which you may want to look at if you are thinking about nominating a people-related category for deletion. Many such disputes are ending up in /unresolved.
See also mega-discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion phrases regarding the content of the {{cfd}} template, and about advisory/non-advisory phrases to be used on this "Categories for deletion" page.
Current (tentative) cleanup practices:
- Categories nominated immediately after creation by their creator, or due to misspelling may be speedy deleted and de-listed after 2 days if there are no objections. Presumably these discussions are not interesting, and so do not need to be saved on /resolved.
- People-related discussions that do not have a clear consensus for deletion after 5 days are moved to /unresolved (interim measure until the current mega-controversy is resolved).
- If there is a clear consensus for deletion after 7 days, then de-populate the category and move it to the "Delete me" section (unless it is a "red link", in which case, it is already deleted). Save interesting conversations in /resolved; discard uninteresting conversations.
- If there is a clear consensus to keep after 7 days: 1.) Copy the discussion to the category's talk page. 2.) Remove the {{cfd}} tag from the category page. 3.) If the discussion is precedent-setting, put a note in /resolved with a link to the category's talk page.
- There is currently a poll on Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion about what to do if there is no clear consensus.
Likely nominees
Your help is needed sorting through a list of /likely candidates for deletion.
Oct 6
Managed to completely miss the "fictional weapons category" by some amazing bit of daftness, created this instead. Redundant As I'd categorised the only articles in the category, I changed those articles appropriately. Should be a quick delete. Sockatume 16:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Noting that "athletes" means "track and field athletes" in British English, should we rename this Category:Olympians or Category:Olympic_sportspeople?
Subcategories would also need re-treatment. We currently have two styles:
* Athletes at the 1900 Summer Olympics * Olympians at the 2004 Summer Olympics
Could I interest you in one of these instead?
* 2004 Summer Olympians * Sportspeople at the 1900 Summer Olympics
These renames could be done by a bot. -- Beland 05:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Sportspersons at the 1960 Winter Olympics seems like a nice pattern, or Sportspeople. Atheletes at the xxx Summer Olympics also needs to be changed to the Track and Field Atheletes at the ... 132.205.15.42 00:49, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I think the Category:Conservatives is highly suspect, akin to the issue with liberals. At any rate, this category is very misleading, and empty. There is a political party with the name Conservative Party in the UK. If this were for members of that party (who do not necessarily hold to the conservatism ideology), it'd need a captialized C. If it isn't it's highly POV. 132.205.15.42 01:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I created this by mistake. Note the "=edit" as part of the name. It's never been populated, can be speedy deleted.-gadfium 01:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There is a populated Category:People of the Philippines, which this is a subcategory of. This is probably the more appropriate name, however. For the time being, I've moved the only entry here, Category:Filipino poets, to Category:People of the Philippines for the time being.-gadfium 01:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete . There is already a People of the Philippines category. --Jondel 01:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Already a Category:Models; this is needlessly specific. tregoweth 05:52, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
- There is a clear diffrence here, thong models model thongs and the hip/thigh reigon specifically. where as swimsuit models are more general. as a comprimise this should be added as a sub category under swimsuit models, because the diffrence is a real one.
-maximusnukeage
- I don't think many "thong models" even have articles here, so creating a category for them is unnecessary. —tregoweth 19:04, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Creating the category allows for its use. of course the second its created, not many people will be using it. another possible candidate for "thong models" is Darlene Crawford. your right, although swimsuit models and thong models are simmilar, I feel there is a slight distinction. like I said, it should be a subcategory.
-maximusnukeage
Oct 5
Same reason as for Leaders of Liberal parties that was concluded to be POV-centric. Note parties in Liberal International are listed on that page. 132.205.15.42 00:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. The same discussion is going on about the article Liberal parties. Most people at this moment voted in favour of keeping. The same should go for this category. This category is comparable with the other sub-categories in Category:Political parties by ideology (including Anarchist organizations, Christian Democratic parties, Communist parties, Conservative parties, Green political parties, Liberal parties, Libertarian parties, Nordic Agrarian parties, Right-wing populists, Social Democratic Parties and Socialist parties). If one doesn't agree with the categorization of one of these parties in this category, one should start a discussion page of that party or on the discussion page of that category. There was no category of Leaders of Liberal parties, but on Liberal leaders, which concentrated on the United States. It was POV in the US context. BTW, the list includes also many parties outside Liberal International. --Gangulf 20:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- As Liberal parties was renamed to List of liberal parties, should not this category also be renamed then, to Category of liberal parties or Parties that are liberal, maybe Politically liberal parties? 132.205.15.42 00:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be a easy name to handle. I made a remakr on the category page. --Gangulf 06:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Category:List of liberal parties would solve the problems. 132.205.45.110 15:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be a easy name to handle. I made a remakr on the category page. --Gangulf 06:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- As Liberal parties was renamed to List of liberal parties, should not this category also be renamed then, to Category of liberal parties or Parties that are liberal, maybe Politically liberal parties? 132.205.15.42 00:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand the debate. It seems, to me, to be totally detached from my (European) reality. Keep. /Tuomas 10:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It is dependant on the definition of liberal, liberalism, left wing, conservative, right wing, Liberal, and liberal. 132.205.45.110 15:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- That is true, but we have an article on liberalism and an article with a List of liberal parties. At the main page of the category there is an explanation why parties are listed in this category. --Gangulf 18:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep category. Not inherently POV; the criteria for the list are explained. Cool Hand Luke 03:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep--Josiah 23:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Seems to be replaced by Category:Buddhists. One of them has to go. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:26, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How is this different from Category:Marxism? The other subcategories there seem more useful. -- Beland 03:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There is a more complete Category:African history, this one also has some cryptic text in it. —siroχo 04:54, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
No articles/subcats in this category, and seems a bit obscure to have sitting around empty. —siroχo
Less acurate than Category:Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where these articles have been reclassified. Cool Hand Luke 00:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oct 4
We already have USS North Carolina that lists the five ships. Small cat and bad precedent. Almost all ship names get reused. The project page recommends the use of an index page for this type of thing. Jinian 20:26, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
has been replaced by Category:Original Nixon "enemies" to distinguish it from the later, longer enemies list. -- Jmabel 18:34, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
has been replaced by Category:Volkswagen platforms --SFoskett 14:21, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
has been replaced by Category:Universities_in_Singapore, but shouldn't it be the other way around? -- Beland 07:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- As also discussed elsewhere on this page, in some countries the terms "university" and "college" refer to distinctly different types of institutions making it an odd categorization to include them together. I don't know the specifics of Singapore, but I suggest this be determined on a case by case basis according to local usage. [[User:Bkonrad|User:Bkonrad/sig2]] 15:28, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Non-obvious" childless orphans
- (0) Category:Mathematical_occupations Category:Computer_and_mathematical_occupations
- (0) Category:Computer_occupations -> Category:Computer_and_mathematical_occupations
- (0) Category:Computer_security_attack -> Currently listed directly in Category:Computer_security
- (0) Category:Banks_of_the_UN -> Category:International_banks
- Not all international banks are banks of the United Nations. Postdlf 05:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Does there exist *any* bank of the United Nations? The couple children in the categ that had once existed there were all false entries -- e.g. the Category:World Bank being named as a "bank of the UN". Aris Katsaris 05:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- If there are any banks of the UN, they are very small in number, and they are also International banks. -- Beland 07:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Not all international banks are banks of the United Nations. Postdlf 05:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- (0) Category:Composers_by_nationality -> Obsolete; now also sorted by genre, e.g. Category:Classical composers by nationality
- Sounds like it would make a great parent for all of those genre by nationality subcategories. Postdlf 06:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Should be a parent fot all the genre by nationality categories. —AlanBarrett 06:48, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- See Category talk:Musical compositions: normally it's rather "CLASSICAL composers by nationality" that should go: "classical composers" has more borderline issues (e.g. "classical music" does not equal "music of the classical music era", etc..., etc...) than "composers". Other examples: Andrew Lloyd Webber definitely composed Operas, so he should be in category:opera composers, but does that make him a "classical" composer? I wouldn't want to decide on that one... Is Frank Zappa a "classical composer" or even a "20th century classical composer", because he "composed" Bob in Dacron and Strictly genteel? Furthermore I refuse to categorize Erik Satie either as a Classical composer, or worse a 20th century classical composer (not to mention Romantic composer): see "Business Card" approach on wikipedia:categorization of people: at least he had composer (for some time) on his business card, that's the only non-problematic approach I see for this difficult to classify composer. So I would suggest to forget about the idea of "classical" composers as opposed to ...(what exactly?)... kind of composers, and in any case when starting to group composers by nationality. I.e. "classical composers" category can maybe have a limited use for some composers up to late 20th century (when for most composers boundaries become extremely fuzzy whether or not they are still "classical"), but when you start to classify by "nationality" you better stop classifying by "genre" or "style": wikipedia is rather about having multiple entrances to a field of knowledge: I see "who is composer?" as a field of knowledge, to be approached either by "style" or by "nationality", if one classifies by both at the same time the maze might get too narrow to have further significance. --Francis Schonken 14:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-- Beland 05:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oct 3
An inherently POV designation. This category can never been neutral. -- Viajero 20:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It definitely has POV problems, but how else would you categorize articles on the 9/11 hijackers, Timothy McVeigh, etc? There are quite a few individuals who are notable purely because of their substantiated connection to a violent act. One option would be to categorize them by membership (i.e., "Members of Al Qaeda", "Members of Hamas"), but that would leave out the lone guns, and also beg the question of what parent to put those categories into? We could also categorize them by their actions, but that not only seems reductionist (the 9/11 hijackeres accomplished a little more than just being "plane hijackers") but also still will run into POV problems ("suicide bombers"). So what do we do instead? Postdlf 22:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I think this category is ok as long as it is restricted to people officially designated as terrorists by the government. —Mike 22:14, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Heh. May I ask which government is the government? ✏ Sverdrup 22:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Interpol? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:48, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Heh. May I ask which government is the government? ✏ Sverdrup 22:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I think we can keep this, but we should have instrutions for what to include on its talk page. ✏ Sverdrup 22:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- DELETE, A terrorist is any individual who uses terror threats, or terror acts to obtain their ends. This would be a very broad category indeed. George W Bush frequently threatens North Korea and Iran. If you limit it to acts of terror on innocent civilians, then you'd have a very large list still, since any war attrocity used as a control measure to incite fear would fall into means, and then every soldier who carried out the acts would be a terrorist. (ie. the Abu Gharib guards). Perhaps it should just be Category: religious fundamentalists and racial purists who use acts of brutality against civilians to acheive political turnover of governments and societies, but that's an awfully long name. This noticibly lets off freedom fighters who are not overly into racial purity or religious fundamentalism. (I would include communism as a form of religion, by the way, so the Shining Path would count as terrorists) 132.205.15.4 04:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A category branch all written by the same kid, it seems. Unfortunately:
- Category:World just doesn't fit any scheme.
Aris Katsaris 17:35, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Catagories for deletion/Galaxies by Constellation and subcategories The consensus appears to be that the "extrasolar system" categories should be deleted (only one keep vote and four deletes, although one was anonymous). Category:Compact stars received one clear delete vote and at least three clear keeps. Category:Neutron stars ended up with nothing but keep votes.
This page is now an archive. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Objects in the extrasolar system and subcategories
- Category:Objects in the extrasolar system
- Category:Compound objects in the extrasolar system
- Category:Simple objects in the extrasolar system
- Category:Compact stars
- Category:Neutron stars
These categories are not used by anyone except User:Joseph Dwayne, and he cut off the categorizations of several things to put into his pet categories, making them lost from where they were. (Why would Category:Pulsars not be in Category:Stars? It appear in Category:Compact stars with no linkage to stars whatsoever (where it used to sit)). Compact stars is empty, so is Neutron stars. In any case they are in the wrong heirarchy of categories. Extrasolar system also has a different meaning... an extrasolar planetary system. 132.205.15.4 09:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Why not simply recategorize Category:Compact stars under Category:Stars? I think it's not unreasonable to have a separate category for these kinds of objects, since they're rather different from the fusion-powered massive objects that are usually what people think of when they think "stars". The fact that they're currently empty doesn't mean they'll stay that way, I can think of several articles that could fall under them. The first three categories listed, on the other hand, are indeed poorly named and IMO probably worthy of deletion. Bryan 00:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I get your point. Compact stars and neutron stars could be recategorized under Category:Stars, though someone should populate them. 132.205.15.4 02:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that "Neutron stars" and "Pulsars" are reasonable categories, though it'll be interesting to decide which ones are notable enough to deserve articles. I'm not sure "Compact stars" is a meaningful and necessary category, though. -- Beland 05:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please also delete these childless orphans: Category:Extended_objects_in_the_extrasolar_system Category:Extrasolar_system -- Beland 05:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Woah dudes, chill out, following the convention used in the astronomical objects article. Why don't you help in filling them up instead of deleting them? *boggle* I remember cutting some cats by accident, but we can include both schemes, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical Objects, I asked there, got no answer so I started categorizing stuff since no one seems to help. But alas, I'm not an octopus and I don't have several hands to do this task alone. Some help would be nice you wacks. —Joseph | Talk 05:20, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, looking at the Astronomical objects article, I changed "Extrasolar system", which I find to be somewhat...improper...to "Extrasolar objects". I like the idea of aligning the category scheme with this table. I think that "Solar System" and all the top-level items in "Extrasolar objects" (Exoplanets, Stars by luminosity class, Compact stars, Galaxies, etc.) should also be an equivalent subcategory of Category:Celestial objects. So, keep Neutron stars and Compact stars, and delete the "extrasolar system" categories. -- Beland 05:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- I think that "Solar System" and all the top-level items in "Extrasolar objects" (Exoplanets, Stars by luminosity class, Compact stars, Galaxies, etc.) should also be an equivalent subcategory of Category:Celestial objects. So, keep Neutron stars and Compact stars, and delete the "extrasolar system" categories. -- (what Beland said) (extrasolar system is wacky, dude, does that mean everything not in this star system? I'm not sure, I don't get to the 'extrahouse location' much.)Seriously, though Joseph Dwayne, nice try, and we all DO appreciate the effort you are going to to try to develop a usable scheme for this... At least I do... also I think pretty much any pulsar is worthy of an article, if there's enough data. Black Holes too... but should we not call them collapsars, as it seems to me that the term Black Hole is sort of Anglocentric/America-centristic? or am I misled?Pedant 01:35, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
Delete Category:Compact stars and put its subcategories into Category:Stars. Category:Neutron stars should be kept and populated. The extrasolar categories including the two listed by User:Beland should be deleted. We already have suitable subcategories under Category:Stars for most of these, and we also have Category:Extrasolar planets, Category:Galaxies etc.-gadfium 00:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oct 2
Contained a single entry, Fenfluramine, which actually belongs to Category:Anorectics. Rick Block 23:45, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
beta-lactam antibiotics
Rendering here is problematic, so I'll just note that the category at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:%26beta%3B-lactam_antibiotics should probably be written "beta-lactam antibiotics", but there are no children to be moved or anything. -- Beland 21:38, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. Besides, articles about elementary schools are deprecated unless they are notable. RickK 20:50, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Please keep the category it is not nonsense it is a good distinction. - Haydes
- No it isn't. You're not answering the objections with any sort of examples of why it's good, useful or encyclopaedic - David Gerard 21:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 21:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is good because it seperates elementary schools which have uniforms and one's which don't. There is no objection to answer because it just says that it is utter nonsense but it isnt.
- If we needed to subdivide Category:Elementary schools, surely a division based on nations would be more appropriate? Delete.-gadfium 21:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This information is notable because of the controversy over school uniforms. However, a comprehensive list of such schools would involve many that do not have articles. So this information would probably better stored in list format, not as a category. Convert to list and delete. -- Beland 21:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We can add subdivisions after it gets more filled. You could subdivide by nation too and that doesnt mean you can't also subdivide this way. Think about it - you can do both.
- Delete. This category is just as worthless as the substubs that have so far populated it. Postdlf 21:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi Postdlf I have reported you to Jimbo Wales because you are going around trying to act like you are in charge.
- Speedy delete category, delete article, and delete user who created this crap. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:49, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Seconded! Delete also contents of the category. jni 13:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete category and contents. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 00:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- As Beland said, convert to list and delete. Haydes, you need to learn how it is we do things here before you take offense at the community deciding to undo your work. The category is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. the category does not fit with the methodology we are working under. Postdlf is not "going around trying to act like [he's] in charge". He's working within a system of community activism that helps maintain a certain degree of order and commonality in what is inherently a very chaotic venue. - UtherSRG 14:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
May arguably be subtly different from its parent Category:Dramatists, but in practice the distinction is unhelpful. Actual population of "writers who write plays" is distributed between the two at random. --Bishonen 16:01, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Difference is more than subtle: in my view problems originated from a wrong category definition of Category:Dramatists (exclusively referring to playwrights, instead of to the Dramatist article). I started the extensive work now needed: creating more subcategories for the Dramatists category (along the new definition), and re-categorizing articles that are now in the Dramatist category. Please give a hand on that! --Francis Schonken 11:06, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Francis, I'm afraid I don't agree with the new category definition. Please see note on your talk page. --Bishonen 14:56, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- See also reply, and additional questions, on User talk:Bishonen - if this keeps interesting as it is I move the discussion now on the user talk pages to Category talk:Dramatists --Francis Schonken 16:11, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- After my suggestion on Category talk:Dramatists, I proceed with the creation of Category:Dramatists and playwrights, and will re-categorize the "Dramatist" category and its present subcategories to subcategories of this newly created "supercategory". At least for "Dramatists" (but probably for "Playwrights" too) that is only a temporary measure, till all present dramatists are recategorized to the "Dramatists AND playwrights" category. The POV difference over where exactly the distinction between "Dramatists" and "Playwrights" lies seems too broad for any of these two categories to work separately in a stable way over a period of time. "Librettists" and some other subcategories of the present "Dramatists" category, on the other side, will probably work very well as subcategories to "Dramatists and playwrights". --Francis Schonken 18:31, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Operation described in previous paragraph more or less completed, at least as far as the involved CATEGORIES are concerned... Still major help needed for re-categorizing the articles in Category:Dramatists (and in Category:Playwrights) - If nobody else objects, a robotised recategorization in this sense would be fine for me! Is there somebody who can do that? Please don't destroy the categories yet (as follows from discussion, before you know somebody else would re-create them; also the content on the discussion pages should be kept & is linked from several pages, e.g. as example now from Wikipedia:categorization of people). --Francis Schonken 22:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- After my suggestion on Category talk:Dramatists, I proceed with the creation of Category:Dramatists and playwrights, and will re-categorize the "Dramatist" category and its present subcategories to subcategories of this newly created "supercategory". At least for "Dramatists" (but probably for "Playwrights" too) that is only a temporary measure, till all present dramatists are recategorized to the "Dramatists AND playwrights" category. The POV difference over where exactly the distinction between "Dramatists" and "Playwrights" lies seems too broad for any of these two categories to work separately in a stable way over a period of time. "Librettists" and some other subcategories of the present "Dramatists" category, on the other side, will probably work very well as subcategories to "Dramatists and playwrights". --Francis Schonken 18:31, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- See also reply, and additional questions, on User talk:Bishonen - if this keeps interesting as it is I move the discussion now on the user talk pages to Category talk:Dramatists --Francis Schonken 16:11, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Francis, I'm afraid I don't agree with the new category definition. Please see note on your talk page. --Bishonen 14:56, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Musical theatre" subcategories
User:Francis Schonken was requesting the following:
- Category:Musical theatre director (not empty) -> Category:Musical theatre directors
- Category:Musical theatre librettist (not empty) -> Category:Musical theatre librettists
-- Beland 05:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sept 30
Inherent POV, breeding ground for revert wars. Have moved content to the objective (if unwieldy) Category:People considered political prisoners by Amnesty International. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:28, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- That seems a bit extreme. Most people would agree that Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner, but in his autobiography he describes how Amnesty International would not intervene on his behalf because he had engaged in armed insurrection against the state. --Saforrest 00:11, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
- -> "...breeding ground for revert wars...": is that a "prophecy", or just a "self-fulfilling prophecy"?
- -> "...objective...": please re-read NPOV guideline: "objecitvity" has no place on wikipedia, only a combination of POV's, which is defined as the NPOV.
- -> "Amnesty International" is inherently POV (that's the reason why they exist in the first place!), so they have their place on Wikipedia, but not as the only reference for the political prisoner idea: I suggest to make the "AI" political prisoners category a subcategory of the existing "political prisoners" category.
- -> For what follows I use some of the terminology of wikipedia:categorization of people, so I go from the supposition Neutrality at least read that article (note: if not agreeing to the content of that guideline, please feel invited to post your objections on its talk page):
- I saw no attempt to start a discussion on Category talk:political prisoners, and even less an attempt to contact user:Lupin (who had started this category), or anybody who had assigned this category to a wikipedia article.
- I saw no attempt to give a good category definition of that category, and I see no problem re. the political prisoners category that could not be solved by a good category definition.
- In short: I saw no avoidance of dispute technique used by Neutrality, before jumping to the 3rd step of a dispute resolution procedure (a poll on CfD) - that's why I called this a "self-fulfilling prophecy" above.
- --Francis Schonken 07:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Note: de-problematised this category one step by applying "SCD" tool instead of "CfD" - further I move this discussion to the category's talk page: discussion to be continued there first, in the case there would still be problems regarding this category (and its present subcategory). --Francis Schonken 09:11, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sept 29
We already have Category:Pakistani people. It seems unnecessary to categorize by gender. I know there's a major debate going on about categorization of people, but does anyone think it's necessary to have people of all countries categorized by gender? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 16:15, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Note: "...major debate going on...": well, the debate over categorization of people is drawing to a consensus by now: probably soon it will be moved from "thinktank" to "policies and guidelines".
- --Francis Schonken 07:57, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Having read Wikipedia:Categorization of people, I am a bit less sure of this, but practically speaking, the category is useful. — iFaqeer | Talk to me! 19:35, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Would you consider Category:Men of Great Britain to be useful? Should Charles Dickens be categorized as a British man, in addition to being categorized as a British writer? If you wouldn't recommend adding a gender category for every biographical article on Wikipedia, then why only do so for Pakistani women? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:47, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- I am not saying I would. I see the point about gender categories in general only increasing volume of data without adding much value. Just that I have found this one useful. — iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:01, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Preliminary remark: discussion of gender-neutrality in "categorization of people" context had nothing to do with technical limitations of wikipedia system, it was rather an attempt to adapt to general ideas of gender-neutrality discussed at other places of the "wikipedia:" domain (see discussion page of wikipedia:categorization of people, you can find the links there). Nonetheless, when I open the "women of Pakistan" category page I expect to find some general explanation why it exists as a separate category (for me, not particularily acquainted with the topic, it might be as viable to split up Pakistani according to "Pakistani living in Pakistan" and "Pakistani living abroad", or whatever other split, I really don't care, but I do care that if I open the category I am informed why it exists as a separate category. Especially while deviating from the general guideline - deviation is always possible, in fact I like deviation from general rules - but if you don't want to be subjected to criticism, please try to write a text that makes other people understand why you think this category a good idea). So:
- Invitation to iFaqeer: please try to give a good category definition first (presently I see only some "see also"'s and external links, nothing explains in a few words what the category is about: is it about women's rights in Pakistan? Is it about philosophical objections that men and women are in the same category? etc???)
- Next recommendation: please continue this talk about this category on Category talk:women of Pakistan, I don't see this category being ready for a CfD vote before a discussion there.
- --Francis Schonken 07:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Postdlf 05:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Possibly unnecessary categories
These seemed to have more potential for disagreement. They were all childless orphans when I found them. -- Beland 06:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Category:Albums_by_editor -> Category:Albums_by_record_label, Category:Record producers
- Category:Autonomous_communities -> Not sure what this was for. Perhaps along the lines of Category:Autonomous_communities_of_Spain and Category:Autonomous_Districts_of_Russia
- Category:Canadian_Senators -> Category:Speakers_of_the_Canadian_Senate
- I don't understand thinking these are redundant—a Senate Speaker would be a member of the Senate, but not all Senators would be Speakers, so this is a pretty obvious parent-subcategory relationship. Postdlf 21:45, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Category:Fine_arts -> Not needed by Category:Arts, POV
- Category:Letters_by_language -> Category:Letters_by_alphabet is much preferred.
- Category:Liberal_leaders_in_the_United_Kingdom -> Category:Liberal_(democratic)_leaders_in_the_United_Kingdom
- Category:Louisiana_places -> Does not fit the standard scheme for states.
- Category:National_Mall_(Washington_DC) -> Category:National_Mall
- Category:Nobel_Peace_Prize -> Category:Nobel_Peace_Prize_winners and Category:Nobel_Prize
- Category:Peaces -> Category:Peace
- Category:Peerage_dignities -> Category:Lists_of_peerages, Category:Peerage, or Category:Peerage_by_surname
- Category:Proper_names -> Category:Given_names, Category:Last_names, Category:Family names?
- Category:Queens_of_the_Stone_Age -> N/A
- Category:Republic_of_China_athletes -> Category:Republic_of_China_sportspeople, Category:Republic_of_China_track_and_field_athletes
- Category:Roman_people -> Category:Ancient_Romans
- Category:Separatists -> POV?
- Category:Specific-language_related -> Huh?
- Category:Television_programs -> Category:Television_series, other subcategories of Category:Television
- Category:Terrorism_and_violence_against_Israelis -> Category:Terrorism_and_violence_against_Israel
- Category:The_history_of_Lybie -> Huh?
Delete all of them. Maurreen 05:12, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Seemingly unnecessary aircraft categories
These were all childless orphans when I found them. After a while, I got tired of sorting through the various alternatives. You should probably just check out Category:Aircraft in general if you aren't familiar with it. -- Beland 06:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- All "aerobatics aircraft" and "racing aircraft" categories have been condensed to the "sports planes" category.
- All "business jet" categories have been expanded into "business aircraft" categories --Rlandmann 10:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Category:Aerobatics_aircraft_1930-1939 -> Apparently not needed by Category:Aircraft_1930-1939
- Category:Aerobatics_aircraft_1980-1989 -> Apparently not needed by Category:Aircraft_1980-1989
- Category:Aerobatics_aircraft_2000-2009 -> Apparently not needed by Category:Aircraft_2000-2009
- Category:Australian_aerobatics_aircraft -> Apparently not needed by Category:Australian_aircraft
- Category:Australian_aerobatics_aircraft_1980-1989 -> Apparently not needed by Category:Australian_aircraft
- Category:Aerobatics_aircraft_1950-1959
- Category:British_racing_aircraft
- Category:British_racing_aircraft_1930-1939
- Category:German_aerobatics_aircraft
- Category:German_aerobatics_aircraft_1930-1939
- Category:Italian_aerobatics_aircraft_1950-1959
- Category:Italian_aerobatics_aircraft_1960-1969
- Category:Polish_racing_aircraft
- Category:Polish_racing_aircraft_1930-1939
- Category:Racing_aircraft_1930-1939
- Category:South_African_aerobatics_aircraft
- Category:South_African_aerobatics_aircraft_2000-2009
- Category:Soviet_aerobatics_aircraft_1980-1989
- Category:Soviet_and_Russian_aerobatics_aircraft
- Category:British_business_jets
- Category:British_business_jets_1960-1969
- Category:Business_jets_1960-1969
- Category:Business_jets_1990-1999
- Category:Canadian_business_jets
- Category:Canadian_business_jets_1990-1999
- Category:German_business_jets
- Category:German_business_jets_1960-1969
- Category:US_business_jets
- Category:US_business_jets_1990-1999
Should not exist if "Category:World cities" does not, which we already decided it shouldn't.
- Delete – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:56, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- As this seems to be just a parent category for all cats and articles on neighborhoods, it needs to be renamed rather than deleted. Postdlf 05:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Colleges and universites in Canada
- Category:Universities_in_Quebec -> Category:Universities_and_colleges_in_Quebec (The latter is currently a childless orphan.)
- Category:Universities_in_Alberta -> Zzt. (currently a childless orphan)
- Category:Alberta_universities -> Category:Universities and colleges in Alberta
Is "universities and colleges" appropriate Canadian terminology? It is pretty standard for Wikipedia; see Category:Universities_and_colleges.
- In Quebec, a "college" is sort of in-between "high school" and "university" (which are each a year shorter to leave room for two years of college) . "Universities in Quebec" is correct. Even schools that are called "colleges" in, say, the U.S., are referred to as "universities" in Quebec. See CEGEP, which is a Quebec phenomenon not shared by the rest of Canada, so it wouldn't affect the Alberta category. Category:Canadian universities does seem to include colleges. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:05, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- "Universities and colleges" is appropriate Canadian terminology; however, would something like "Postsecondary education in Canada" or better "Canadian postsecondary institutions" be better?
- Aranel, I think that including CEGEPs on Wikipedia as 'colleges' is borderline; one could argue they are effectively senior high schools. Are all colleges in Quebec really CEGEPs? --Saforrest 23:46, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- I should add to Aranel's comments that there is a pretty sharp distinction between colleges and universities in Ontario, at least, and probably in the rest of Canada too. The ambiguity in American usage does not exist here, so if there are colleges under Category:Canadian universities, they should not be there (or better yet, the category should be renamed to something inclusive). --Saforrest 23:52, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- CEGEPs are not senior high schools. It's the combination of a technical school, pre-university prep-school, community college and liberal arts college. They should not be place in any high school category, since registration and class performance are judged by university and not highschool standards (IOW, it's up to you to pass, they will fail you, if you can't get the class you need to graduate, tough luck, try another semester, inter-CEGEP registrations are permitted, just like inter-university ones). They are also not univesities though... In Quebec, official college type of school is a CEGEP, but any school can call itself a college. As such there are elementary schools with college in their names, as there are middle schools (junior high school), senior highs, technical schools, etc. There are ofcourse subdivisions of universities that are also called college, as there are everywhere. 132.205.15.4 05:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We also have now: Category:Universities_in_Ottawa (childless orphan) Category:Universities_and_Colleges_in_Ottawa Category:Universities_and_Colleges_in_Toronto (Populated, but wrong capitalization.) Category:Universities_in_Toronto (a childless orphan) -- Beland 07:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Cricketers by skill and country
Use it or lose it. If these childless orphans don't belong under Category:Cricketers, then they don't belong anywhere. -- Beland 06:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- (0) Category:English_cricketers_by_skill
- (0) Category:Indian_cricketers_by_skill
- (0) Category:New_Zealand_cricketers_by_skill
- (0) Category:Pakistani_cricketers_by_skill
- (0) Category:South_African_cricketers_by_skill
- (0) Category:Sri_Lankan_cricketers_by_skill
- (0) Category:West_Indian_cricketers_by_skill
- (0) Category:Zimbabwean_cricketers_by_skill
I'm scratching my head to think of why these categories are needed. Perhaps the author meant to list opening batsmen, middle order batsmen, wicket keepers, slip fielders, pace bowlers and spin bowlers etc together. Surely a list would be a better idea? In any case if nobody is prepared to do the (huge) amount of work required IMO delete them.GordyB 15:26, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think Category:Cricketers by skill should be enough. At least for now.-- — iFaqeer | Talk to me! 18:34, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Maurreen 05:19, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Even if you only have Category:Cricketers by skill, you are going to have to specify what subdivisions are required and the categories are going to have to be broad. I suggest Spin Bowler, Seam Bowler, Batsmen, Wicketkeeper, All-rounder, Captain. Otherwise you are going to have arguments about exactly what kind of spin bowler x bowls, batsmen may start their career as an opening bat but may later bat down the order so should they belong to Opening Batsmen or Middle-order Batsmen? Is a number 3 a separate category or part of Opening Batsmen etc. GordyB 12:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've created Category:French cinema to fit the present naming style; also, is easily confusable with Category:French films. Tregoweth 00:55, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Sept 28
Redundant with Category:2004. Davodd 01:10, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- I see "Timelines" as a subcategory of the other. Maurreen 05:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I'd rather see "2004 in Canada" in Category:2004 or Category:2004 in Canada than in Category:2004 timelines. -- User:Docu
Recommend keeping these to be consistent with Confederate Navy categories. While technically part of the United States Navy, this was a unique time in the Navy's history. Breaking them out helps clarify where people fought. The alternative is dumping everyone into "American Civil War people" which is less helpful. Jinian 17:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Works for me. Maurreen 05:28, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete both. I don't think keeping these creates any consistency with the Confederate categories, because the U.S. clearly continued to exist during the Civil War, and the Confederacy was a government in opposition. That the U.S. had another nickname during this time does not justify a separate category for that nickname—it's merely going to be confusing to those not familiar with the topic, who are going to think that the U.S. and the Union were two separate things. But it is reasonable to try and subcategorize Category:American Civil War people, so the problem is more the name. We need something more along the lines of Category:U.S. military officers during the American Civil War. Cumbersome, but a more clear designation. Another thing to keep in mind is that we don't need categories for every relationship and every bit of information about a subject. But let's come up with a better solution than "Union" categories. Postdlf 23:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- How about making the Union Navy a subcategory of the US Navy? Or perhaps "Military officers during the American Civil War", with subcategories of "Confederate" and "Union"? Of course, that new category would be a subset of "American Civil War people" which would also contain politicians, activists, journalist, etc. Jinian 17:09, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sept 27
POV. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:51, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed—delete. Possible NPOV replacement, Category:Political advisors?Postdlf 21:52, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Public relations would see to suggest Category:Public relations professionals or perhaps Category:Publicists, both of which would allow for a broader (therefore containing more than three articles) category. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- "Publicists" works. Or "Spin, propaganda and disinformation." Maurreen 05:37, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Category replicates Category:Galaxy clusters. As galaxy groups are just small galaxy clusters, see Galaxy groups and clusters, this category is redundant. 132.205.15.42 17:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sept 26
Inherently POV. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:39, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Er, how? Are any of the entries reasonably disputable? (They may not like them, but that's a different matter.) Keep - David Gerard 12:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's in accordance with general usage. /Tuomas 11:51, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sept 22
Not NPOV. -- Beland 04:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed—delete. A NPOV substitute that may collect together some of the content that the author of this category had intended may be Category:Overturned criminal convictions. Otherwise, we're totally in subjective judgmentville. Postdlf 20:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sept 21
SOC Occupation categories
Category:Life, physical, and social science occupations
- Has been divided in more sensible Category:Science occupations and Category:Social science occupations. - SimonP 03:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Category:Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations
- As there is no reason to cram four different things into one non-intutive category it has been replaced with Category:Sports occupations. Category:Entertainment occupations. Category:Media occupations, and Category:Arts occupations. - SimonP 03:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - This was already discussed here on CFD (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/unresolved#Category:Occupations and all its subcategories) and the majority at the time prefer a "pre-packaged" system of top-level Occupation categories. The "new ones" Simon created can be housed with no conflict under that system, using only slightly different names. More discussion is being held at Category talk:Occupations. -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
- Comment, I am combining these related items. I'd also like to point out that User:SimonP has gone ahead and jumbled the entire Category:Occupations tree - before allowing sufficient consensus to be reached. Only two people disagreed with the SOC system (now at Category:SOC occupations, thanks to Simon). I feel the formal SOC system, with its built-in occupation->category look-up, is a far better candidate to occupy the root "Occupations" category - and it's an excellent fit for WP. -- Netoholic @ 22:25, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that Category:Occupations is "jumbled"—there are only 36 subcategories of it, and it's much easier to find everything by not having arbitrary conglomerate subcategories. BTW, consensus on this page means that a category is deleted or not deleted—if it is not deleted, that doesn't mean that its contents are forever locked in. SimonP was bold and fixed the system. Kudos. Postdlf 20:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This is an arbitrary grouping of categories, whether or not it's an arbitrary grouping that the U.S. government happens to use. It's much more helpful to see the variety of subcategories all at once under Category:Occupations than it is to submerge and obscure them under these undigested lumps. Postdlf 06:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Don't see the harm. Keep. anthony (see warning) 13:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I do see the harm, delete. Arbitrary groupings serve no real purpose. Gentgeen 04:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Arbitrary grouping. Andris 07:26, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Comments
- There are 23 categories defined as part of the SOC groupings (Category:SOC occupations). To arbitrarily pick two to delete makes the whole categorization scheme break. The SOC categories (all 23) were already posted on CFD and survived. -- Netoholic @ 19:17, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
- And now someone has wisely bypassed them with better categories—surviving CFD in no way prevents that. Postdlf 22:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Idunno about that, but any of these that are still empty by Oct 9 will be deleted. --ssd 15:54, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sept 16
- Category:Christian_Bible -> Category:Bibles, Category:Christian_texts
- These aren't synonymous—certainly there are more Bibles than the Christian Bible, and more Christian texts than the Bible. Postdlf 13:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, but my thought was that anything that's a Christian Bible can go in both Bibles and Christian_texts, but things that are non-Christian Bibles and non-Bible Christian texts only have to be in one of these. Having all three of these just seems to be too cumbersome and confusing. Actually, things are already working that way, and this category was empty when I found it, so... -- Beland 06:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Category:Denver_metropolitan_area -> Category:Denver, Colorado
- Category:Denver_metropolitan_area is probably the better named category as the metropolitan area includes more than just Denver. —Mike 19:54, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think we need to create categories expressly for metropolitan areas...I started doing this at first by creating "(city) suburbs" categories, but I think the better idea is to follow the MSA designations, as in Category:New York metropolitan area. Postdlf 01:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Category:Denver_metropolitan_area is probably the better named category as the metropolitan area includes more than just Denver. —Mike 19:54, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep—intended as a parent for not only Category:Washington public education, but also Category:Universities and colleges in Washington. Allows these to be grouped together under the state category, as well as in Category:United States education by state. This format can apply to all state categories. Postdlf 00:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Is this ever going to have more than two members? If not, I think these two should be listed directly in Category:Washington, and have "United States universities and colleges by state" and "United States public education by state". Can anyone name a few articles that might go here? -- Beland 06:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Discussions moved off-page
Ireland
Discussion of the Irish reorganization, or of the reorganization of Ireland, the Island of Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and/or Northern Ireland, has been moved to Category talk:Ireland because it is complex and taking up a lot of space on this frequently-accessed page. It may need to come back here eventually for cleanup of any leftover categories. -- Beland 01:56, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Empty me/Move me
The below meet the eligibility requirements for deletion at the top of this page. These categories need to be de-populated.
(User:Pearle will automate article reassignment if she is approved. -- Beland 05:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC))
- All the subcategories of Category:Athletes need to be moved to Category:Track and field athletes and sub-sub-categories to "Country X track and field athletes" instead of "Country X athletes". Summary of discussion: British English for "track and field athlete" is "athlete", and the American English meaning of "athlete" is "sportsperson". "Sportsperson" is not standard American English, but it is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
- This doesn't seem logical. Change the contents of 50+ categories for the sake of one anomalous country? Why should those countries that use 'track and field' rarely, if at all, have to conform to the US classification, rather than the other way round? [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 13:40, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This was debated and everyone agreed. Perhaps the debate should be revived? --ssd 13:48, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I will soon be able to do this automatically, so it's not that much effort. Once this is changed, everyone will be able to understand what's meant, including the hundreds of millions of people who speak American English who might want to browse Wikipedia. -- Beland 05:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- If you can do it automatically, what about the 2004 Olympians? Between 2004 and the previous Olympiads, Athlete became "Track and Field only"... 132.205.15.42 00:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Good point; I'll submit this as a separate nomination. -- Beland 05:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- If you can do it automatically, what about the 2004 Olympians? Between 2004 and the previous Olympiads, Athlete became "Track and Field only"... 132.205.15.42 00:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I will soon be able to do this automatically, so it's not that much effort. Once this is changed, everyone will be able to understand what's meant, including the hundreds of millions of people who speak American English who might want to browse Wikipedia. -- Beland 05:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This was debated and everyone agreed. Perhaps the debate should be revived? --ssd 13:48, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This doesn't seem logical. Change the contents of 50+ categories for the sake of one anomalous country? Why should those countries that use 'track and field' rarely, if at all, have to conform to the US classification, rather than the other way round? [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 13:40, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Category:Liberal leaders and all sub-categories, except those few that refer to a specific party --> N/A
Delete me
The below meet the eligibility requirements for deletion at the top of this page. These categories have been de-populated, and any documentation of this decision taken care of. Admins may delete these categories at will. If there is a particular category which is replacing the deleted category (if redundant, misspelled, etc.) as noted below, that should be mentioned in the deletion log entry.
The category to be deleted is listed first, followed by the proper category that renders it obsolete.