Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The wub (talk | contribs) at 11:40, 14 April 2005 (→‎April 13). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, and how to do cleanup.

Some people feel that this page could benefit from restructuring. Please give your opinion and/or vote on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Restructuring.

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.

How to use this page

  1. 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.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies here, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas. (See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
  3. Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
  4. 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.
  5. Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. (If you are recommending that the category be renamed, you may also add a note giving the suggested new name.) 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.
    1. Alternately, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
    2. If you are concerned with a stub category, make sure to inform the WikiProject Stub sorting
  6. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
  7. 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).
  8. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
  9. Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

Old discussions from this page have been archived to:

In light of various new policies, some /unresolved disputes will be re-listed here in the near future.

See also meta-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.

Request for comment

Some people feel that this page could benefit from restructuring. Please give your opinion and/or vote on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Restructuring.

Discussions

April 14

More number categories

  • Please note that all information here is far better explained in (already existing) articles on the subject, all in Category:Numbers. Radiant_* 11:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Warhammer

Duplicate and misnamed category. 2 articles it contained moved to Category:Warhammer Fantasy. 2 subcategories (Category:Warhammer Fantasy and Category:Warhammer 40,000) moved to Category:Games Workshop. Sorry about emptying it before a formal decision (I really should have read the policy before acting :p) but I doubt it's controversial. --the wub 09:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Los Angeles area airports

Rename to fit naming convention of Airports of Blah. I am also wondering if Los Angeles County might be better. Burgundavia 06:18, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Andorra geography stubs

At last count, there were only six Andorra geo-stubs, yet this hasn't stopped someone from creating this template and the related category. There's no Andorra WikiProject, and no chance that this category will ever be heavily populated. The person who created this has also been heavily featured on tfd in the past for his unneccessary Andorra and Switzerland articles, and the stub category was not vetted prior to creation by WP:WSS. Oh, did I mention that Category: Andorra geography stubs says it is about the geography of Switzerland, by the way? Grutness|hello? 02:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 13

Category:Lists of lists

Doesn't seem to have much of a use. Only had two articles, both of which were primarily just lists. --SPUI (talk) 14:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hungarian history

I think this category should be renamed to Category:History of Hungary, because (1) it sounds better, (2) it seems to be more proper in meaning, (3) it seems to be more usual among similar categories (see Category:History by nation). However, I'm not a native English speaker so you should decide it first of all. Adam78 11:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree. -Kbdank71 13:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree --the wub 11:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

category:Articles with OSGB36 coordinates

There are templates that link out to Ordnance Survey maps that are useful. However, using them also puts in this ugly category within the article, and usually as the primary category (e.g. Great Central Railway (preserved)). If there was felt a need to create such a list of pages, then it should be done with a bot registering to all what links here such as Wikipedia:links to dismabiguation pages. Dunc|☺ 10:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps just rename to "(OSGB36)" -- Downthepub 14:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
D: As far as I can tell this category serves no purpose. All British settlements and locations will eventually be using one of those templates, and they will be categorised by region and type of location/feature, this one just lumps all British settlements and locations into one category. Joe D (t) 17:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Renaming Category:American people by occupation subcategories

For consistent and proper naming:

These are the only nonconformists. Postdlf 07:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Disagree. Maybe it's just me, but I prefer either U.S. or United States to American. -Kbdank71 13:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that all the American named categories should be shifted over to U.S.A. because of the reasons stated before in the American v US debates here. 132.205.15.43 02:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree. You're moving them the wrong direction. Unless, of course, you want Brazilians, Canadians, and Cosata Ricans (all of whom are American) in those categories. Grutness|hello? 03:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree America ≠ U.S.A

Category:American visual artists

Redundant with Category:U.S. artists. It has never had any more than three articles, which I've already moved to the proper category. Postdlf 07:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree. However, how does this differ from the opposite CfD above? -Kbdank71 13:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Because it was a subcategory of "U.S. artists", as if "artists" did not only refer to visual artists (which it did and does). Postdlf 16:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Category:Rivers in Wales

Rename to Category:Rivers of Wales to follow the established naming convention of Rivers of Foo at the national level. RedWolf 04:38, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Loan

This category went through CfD about a month ago and was deleted. It was recreated by an anon IP addy. There are no articles in the cat now, but the previous CfD discussion determined that almost any article placed under "Loan" would better fit under an already-exsisting category. Feco 04:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 12

Category:Chicago transportation

renamed to fit style of Category:Transportation in Chicago which all the other transportation articles (and indeed all country specific ones should). Burgundavia 16:56, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


April 11

Category:Video directors and Category:Music video directors

are both about music video directors. --Nikai 23:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Milli Vanilli

Why do these guys need a category of their own? There were only two members. RickK 22:49, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete SchmuckyTheCat 02:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep unless you're going to delete all the other barely famous bands that have fewer than three members or whatever criteria that the consensus establishes. --ssd 01:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is about a category on the band, not an article. Radiant_* 09:20, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree, an article is fine, a category, not so much. -Kbdank71 15:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, mainly because the articles on the "members" should be merged into Milli Vanilli. They're barely stubs, and there really isn't much to say about either of them as individuals. Postdlf 16:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:New York government images

Please delete because the New York State government does not release matierial into the public domain. Sorry for creating this category. Thanks. --Howrealisreal 19:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Aboriginal peoples of Canada

Should be renamed to Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada. The Government of Canada's Department of Indian and Northern Affairs specifically states in their naming guidelines that authors should "Avoid describing Aboriginal people as "belonging" to Canada"[1]. This policy of not implying belonging has been followed by several older Wikipedia categories that group aboriginal peoples, for example Category:Aboriginal peoples in the Canadian Arctic. Discussion regarding this renaming has also been held on the Canadian wikipedians' notice board. Kurieeto 20:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Category:English trade unionists

Content should be merged into Category:British trade unionists. These two categories seem to have been used indiscriminately (most of those in the latter category are English too), and as most British trade unions operate UK-wide the latter category seems more appropriate. -- Necrothesp 12:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Yugoslav and Serbian aircraft

It previously only held the ... military aircraft subcategory, I've relocated that to Category:Yugoslav military and made this one redundant. --Joy [shallot] 12:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 10

Numerical categories

Category:Binary digits, Category:Ternary digits, Category:Hexadecimal digit and Category:Roman numeral symbol. Also, Category:Digits, which only exists for this foursome.

  • This is pretty pointless, and better illustrated in the articles on the same name. These aren't categories of related articles, they're long-hand for {0,1}, {-1,0,1}, {0123456789ABCDEF} and {IVXLCDM}. Radiant_* 11:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a very useful categorization. --Azkar 13:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Löschen. Articles should define these terms not categories. And the articles themselves should be in a category called Number bases or whatever the correct terms is. Greg Robson 16:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Löschen. No possible use. – Smyth\talk 11:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Computer and video games by name

"X by name" categories are not needed, and will hopefully be rendered redundant with future implementations of MediaWiki. List of computer and video games by name already exists. -Sean Curtin 20:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Postdlf 20:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur, delete. Radiant_* 20:35, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. KingTT 02:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Kbdank71 13:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. List of computer and video games by name is harder to edit and has no connection to the category system. I prefer seeing a future Mediawiki replacment function working before i vote to delete this category. --Horst_F_JENS 18:14, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
    • There are better categories for CVG than this one. Radiant_* 15:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Biblical Studies

This was nominated below as an empty orphan, but since an anonymous user has expanded it hugely. I haven't read it, but perhaps it should be moved/merged with article Biblical studies or something before deletion? --ssd 14:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Concur, merge redundant cats. Radiant_* 20:35, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    You missed my point I think. I am NOT proposing to merge redundant categories, but to merge the article portion of a category into a non-category article. --ssd 00:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, yes, sorry. Guess someone mistook a category for an article. This should definitely be merged with the article as you suggest, and the cat is pointless as it has only one article (which should probably be in Category:Theology or something. Radiant_* 18:52, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a subject area I'm familiar enough with to offer any difinitive suggestions on, but we should note that there are currently articles on Biblical studies as well as Biblical Studies. The definitions for each are slightly different, and I'm not really sure if they should be considered as redundant or not. Both are stubs - whereas the content in this catagory would not be, if this were an article and not a category. --Azkar 00:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Merged now. I don't think it's ever appropriate to have two identical articles with different capitalization. Radiant_* 18:52, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


Category:Active Wikipedia votes

Misleading name, as it can refer to either any page that sees regular voting (i.e. VfD/CfD/TfD/RFA/...) or a policy under discussion. The latter, however, are in the policy thinktank, and the former have a better location as well. As such, this is near-empty and should be removed to avoid confusion. Radiant_* 08:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Fraternities

This a dup of Category:Student Fraternities. Should it be deleted or redirect to the second one? -- Riffsyphon1024 03:33, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

April 9

This is a friendly notice regarding mainland China-related categories. There is a poll here for assessing the applicability of the naming conventions on each of the articles and categories. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Instantnood 15:01, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • geebus keeriste, it's the applicability of his interpretation of the naming conventions. he can't even make a non-biased proclamation. SchmuckyTheCat 15:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Nevermind. I always look biased in your eyes, anyways. :-D — Instantnood 16:17, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Miscellaneous engineers

"Miscellaneous" is ambiguous. There is currently only 1 article. — Instantnood 07:26, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep It's obviously intended to be ambiguous, and to serve as a waypoint in the creation of new subcategories as necessary. It serves a useful purpose when you are in Category:Engineers and this fits under "subcategories" along with other specific branches, which are not all-inclusive. It also gives people unsure of the subclassification a logical place to put them; somebody will probably eventually put it in a sharper category, if it is noticed in this subcategory. Gene Nygaard 15:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see any logical difference between putting an article in this category vs the parent category:engineers category. Also violates BOTH of the guidelines at WP:CG#When to use categories (although it is amusing to imagine an article which should obviously be in this category - perhaps it would start J. Doe was a miscellaneous engineer from a miscellaneous country who lived in a miscellaneous era of history ...). -- Rick Block 16:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No need for a "miscellaneous" category - just put those entries into the parent. --Azkar 20:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think Miscellaneous should be a banned word in category names. I can't think of any case where just leaving it out wouldn't be better. --ssd 13:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ssd took the words out of my mouth. -- Linuxbeak 03:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Category:English dramatists and playwrights

The entries in this category have been moved to Category:British dramatists and playwrights with the exception of dramatists and playwrights from Wales and Scotland who have been moved to separate categories. Ganymead 03:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. This decision ignores the way the British people categories work and I am in the process of reversing it. category:English dramatists and playwrights needs to be a subcategory of category:English writers because the latter will be some users starting point. Most of these people are described as English in the opening sentence of their article, and a good number of them lived before the concept of Britishness existed. Ganymead has taken the Scottish and Welsh subcategories out of the British category, but all the main subcategories of category:British writers are subdivided into national categories, including an English category, as are most of the other British occupational categories. This way people can get to an article whether they start from the subject menu or the national menu. Oliver Chettle 04:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
While I realize there are differences between "English" and "British", I'm simply attempting to streamline the categories. I have used categories to search for British authors in the past and have found it difficult to have to search two categories as there is seemingly no standard for referring to someone as "English" or referring to them as "British". Indeed, some articles refer to the playwright as being one or the other, but it could be reversed for many and still be correct (i.e. Kwame Kwei-Armah oder Alan Ayckbourn). The reference works that I have consulted in my work (both the Oxford and the Cambridge Guides to Theatre) delineate these with earlier (mid 19th Century back) personages referred to as "English" and all others as "British". So I should ask, should we delineate by time period or is there another standard? I haven't a problem with keeping the English category, but there must be a standard. Ganymead 06:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Before I step off of my soap-box, I should also address my reasons for placing Wales and Scotland in the national category. I did so due to the nationalistic tendencies of these regions as well as cultural and linguistic differences. Indeed, these playwrights would be considered "British", but doing so would ignore the cultural traditions of their region. I shall step down from my soap-box now and go to bed. :-) Ganymead 06:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Either have Welsh, Scottish and English subcategories or none at all. (And Northern Irish if needed.) Scottish and Welsh playwrights have their own categories because that's where they were born and/or lived, not because they share 'nationalistic tendencies' — like England, these countries are not culturally homogeneous. Jihg 23:53, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Jihg's reasons. --Azkar 18:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Jihg. Category:British dramatists and playwrights should be a parent category for separate cats of Welsh, Scottish, English and NI dramatists and playwrights. Grutness|hello? 00:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 8

Category:Independent television stations

This category currently has only 1 article - WVCY, and is a subcategory of category:U.S. television networks. — Instantnood 20:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete or empty and redirect to category:ITV Thryduulf 21:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Makes sense.
  • Keep and reparent to category:television stations. This category is for stations which are not affiliated with a parent network, CITY in Toronto and CKVU in Vancouver are two more. category:ITV is for articles related to the British ITV network, which is something else entirely. I'm not sure whether category:ITV should even be a subcat of this one (it sounds like ITV is independent only in the sense that it is not BBC). -- Rick Block 17:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The original philosophy of ITV was a network of regional stations independent of the BBC and each other. Only the former of these is true these days though, bar one or two, since the Carlton-Granada merger. Thryduulf 18:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • A Network of affiliated, non-network-owned, TV stations, is not a set of independant non-network stations. Independant stations usually connotes to non-network stations. Otherwise, every US network would qualify under your definition of independant. 132.205.45.110 18:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Astrology by school

This category currently has only 1 article - Rosicrucian Fellowship. In my opinion it can be up-merged with category:Astrology. — Instantnood 20:11, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Concur with that, merge the content and delete this cat. Radiant_* 21:56, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Formulae

This category currently has only 1 article - Virial expansion. I am not a mathematician, and I don't know if there will be any article fitting into this category. — Instantnood 20:11, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, important mathematical ideas are under theories or axioms, not formulae. Radiant_* 21:59, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Category:SI derived units of angle

This category currently has only 1 article - Radian, and I don't think it will be populated. — Instantnood 20:07, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment Why pick on angles? Since the SI is a coherent system of units, as that term is used in metrology jargon, there should only be one unit in any Category:SI derived units of XXX, plus multiples and submultiples built with prefixes. Milliradians are in common use, and someone could write an article about them and a few more possibilities. The Category:SI derived units of time, has only microsecond and zeptosecond and a few other prefixes, but there is one major difference for that one; it is misnamed because the second is not a derived unit, it is a base unit. Whoever made these categories is just using a nonstandard meaning of "derived unit", something different from what this term normally means in metrology jargon. Gene Nygaard 23:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, categories with this few entries are pointless; should be obviated by the more generic category SI derived units. Plus, we don't even need articles on <prefix><unit> - I'd be in favor of merging the lot of those. Radiant_* 09:25, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Buzzwords

Inherently POV, controversy-provoking label. No straightforward, objective way to determine what belongs here or not. --Smithfarm 18:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Please see my comment about it at Category talk:Buzzwords. Also, I have never thought of it as a "controversy-provoking label". If it is, I'm sorry. No vote. --cesarb 19:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think the term "buzzword" is inherantly POV. Some of the examples on the buzzword article are a little iffy, but I'm sure we could come up with proper inclusion criteria. --Azkar 19:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Azkar. As for objectivity, there's a pretty good definition of a buzzword in the article. Does word x match it? Then it belongs in the category. Don't see the problem here. -Kbdank71 20:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can see where the potential for controversy is not obvious -- after all everyone has words they consider "buzzwords". In the Wikipedia context, the controversies arise over what belongs in the category. It's like having a category "Racist pigs", but a couple of orders of magnitude more subtle. For example, scientist Wikipedians don't like the term "paradigm" so they put it in the buzzword category as a subtle way to belittle the concept. The same applies for the category Pseudoscience, which scientists have stuck on a bunch of articles. I'm not saying Buzzword and Pseudoscience don't warrant articles of their own -- they do -- but having them as categories gives people ammunition for pushing their POV agendas in articles on things they don't like. Although they can't prevent the articles themselves from being on Wikipedia, with these categories they can at least put belittling labels on. This is a kind of "collateral damage" of having categories - they are useful, but can be abused. Shouldn't they be reserved for things that are completely straightforward with no potential for controversy? I read the categorization pages but didn't see any policy on POV as it relates to categories. --Smithfarm 20:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Since you are commenting here, could you sign your nomination? ☺ --cesarb 22:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually I do think Smithfarm has a point, so I'd go for weak delete. Radiant_* 08:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: By the way, completely straightforward with no potential for controversy doesn't seem to include China, Taiwan and their related categories... ☺ --cesarb 13:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I got a similar answer on Category talk:Pseudoscience when I tried to explain why that category was too POV to have around. Somebody brushed me off by saying there are more serious category POV issues than this one on Wikipedia, implying that those should be dealt with first. Doesn't that beg the question, though? By the way, I found a small paragraph on POV categories in WP:CG, here it is:
"Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."
That seems to suggest a strict set of criteria ("self-evident and uncontroversial") for inclusion in a category. It also seems to suggest that categories with potential for controversial application should not be created. --Smithfarm 13:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Transport in Merseyside

Should be renamed to Category:Transport on Merseyside. as this is the correct usage. See Merseyside.--Jirate 10:17, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

note: I have just moved this from WP:RM Thryduulf 18:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • abstain - Merseyside is also the name of a former county, in is consistent with them, but on is the normal useage for -side areas (e.g. Tyneside, Deeside, etc). Thryduulf 18:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is because of the former county argument. JuntungWu 14:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong-related categories with only one article

Contains only one article--Huaiwei 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Contains only one article--Huaiwei 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Contains only one article--Huaiwei 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Contains only one article--Huaiwei 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Contains only one article--Huaiwei 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Kommentar (non-vote): Wikipedia is a working in progress, and these categories are getting populated. — Instantnood 17:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Agreed. So you might do well not using this page as a place to play your games. I do not appreciate your delibrate attempt in picking only on under populated Singapore-related categories.--Huaiwei 18:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I am not playing any game. — Instantnood 19:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • Actions speaks louder then words. You can be sure I will be noting this habit of yours.--Huaiwei 19:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • With respect, you're both playing games, and it's not helping to write an encyclopedia. Perhaps we can try to work out your differences somewhere other than CfD? I'm sure any number of people would be willing to help, me included... -Kbdank71 20:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • I do not deny that the above 5 nominations were made in responce to his antics, and I do agree this is plain childish. I suppose the point has been made thou. On my part, I will just try my best to write more sg-related articles, hopefully more for the good of this site, and not just because someone is picking on me. I apologise for the above abuse of this page.--Huaiwei 09:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • While I don't care whether it was a response to my "antics", nor whether anything was "plain childish", please don't shift the responsibility to anybody else. I am not particularly interested in your hometown, and I have never been picking on it. — Instantnood 16:23, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
                • As I said, may I hope your actions reflect your true intentions. That you have to suddenly start shifting your attention in nominating several one-article categories above in topics which you are obviously unfamiliar with just raises suspicions on you.--Huaiwei 20:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • Don't suspect about this and that, and speculate what I am familiar with. — Instantnood 20:34, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
                • No I didnt "suspect". I read it from your own comment above. You might also do well doing as you preach too. Whatever the case, I wont think it is a good idea to embarrass ourselves in a page like this, so our petty exchanges can go somewhere else if required.--Huaiwei 11:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sufficient basis in itself for a nomination. Gene Nygaard 18:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Kommentar Sure it is. Superfluous categories are a drain, which is why there is a serious policy discussion to limit their creation. I'd also suggest to Instantnood, , honestly, not as his foil, that maybe he should focus his attention on creating a few good articles, rather than constantly creating categories and stubs that end up on VfD and CfD. Categories and stubs are good and useful, but not as useful as really good content. You've made hundreds of stubs, and plenty of categories, but they wither. Backup a step and write. Set a minimum of say, five good articles, then create the category to house them and you won't be constantly seeing your creations up for deletion. SchmuckyTheCat 18:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. May I point out, that he is using this page to play his childish games of revenge against me just because I nominated several HK-related categories below, in which none of them were nominated purely because they were underpopulated. category:Hong Kong surnames is the most recent example.--Huaiwei 18:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Please be careful when you're accusing somebody. I am not only picking Singapore-related categories. — Instantnood 19:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • I am not retracting my accusation. Your behavior is way too obvious to be denied. I saw how you were complaining about me with your "friends" with regards to several categories I nominated, and the next moment I know, you started targeting Singapore categories. I dont think this is pure coincidence. If you think the category has room for growth, you can leave a note in the discussion page. Listing it here means it is the LAST step towards deletion. I do not consider this a "cordial" way of getting people to develop content, if that is your "kind intention".--Huaiwei 19:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Currencies of Singapore

Contains only one article - Singapore dollar. — Instantnood 17:17, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Lakes of Foo --> Lakes in Foo

More logical naming convention. Again, we could get a bot to do it:

--165.161.3.12 14:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. -Kbdank71 15:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please be reminded to put on the {{cfru|Target|Lakes of Foo --%3e Lakes in Foo}} tag for block renaming. — Instantnood 15:30, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep current logical naming convention goes the other way. Natural features use "of", man-made features use "in". Look up all the other changes in natural feature categories from about February of this year. Grutness|hello? 02:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Support keep, Mountains of... sounds right as well. I suppose it's because they are part of a country, rather than placed in it. Greg Robson 16:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Grutness comments. RedWolf 20:55, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Rivers of Canada --> Category:Rivers in Canada

More logical name. 165.161.3.12 14:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Strongly support. -Kbdank71 15:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep current logical naming convention goes the other way. Natural features use "of", man-made features use "in". Look up all the other changes in natural feature categories from about February of this year. Grutness|hello? 02:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Grutness comments. RedWolf 20:55, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Grutness comments. Linuxbeak 03:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mexican rivers --> Category:Rivers in Mexico

More logical name. 165.161.3.12 14:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Strongly support. -Kbdank71 15:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Category:Rivers of Mexico current logical naming convention goes the other way. Natural features use "of", man-made features use "in". Look up all the other changes in natural feature categories from about February of this year. Grutness|hello? 02:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename as per Grutness comments. RedWolf 20:55, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move, as per Grutness's comments. James F. (talk) 21:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:U.S. rivers --> Category:Rivers in the United States

More logical name. 165.161.3.12 14:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Strongly support. -Kbdank71 15:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Category:Rivers of the United States current logical naming convention goes the other way. Natural features use "of", man-made features use "in". Look up all the other changes in natural feature categories from about February of this year. Grutness|hello? 02:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename as per Grutness comments. RedWolf 20:55, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Fooican rivers --> Rivers in Fooican

More logical naming convention. Perhaps we could get a bot to do it?:

--Neutralitytalk 14:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Strongly support. -Kbdank71 14:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Generally agree. What about the inconsistence between "Rivers in Foo" and "Rivers of Foo"? — Instantnood 15:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please be reminded to put on the {{cfru|Target|Fooican rivers --%3e Rivers in Fooican}} tag for block renaming. — Instantnood 15:30, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Category:Rivers of Foo current logical naming convention goes the other way. Natural features use "of", man-made features use "in". Look up all the other changes in natural feature categories from about February of this year. Grutness|hello? 02:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename as per Grutness comments. RedWolf 20:55, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Category:1 hit wonders

Bad idea. Categories should be immediately verifiable through objective criteria. Something as subjective as classifying one hit wonders is better handled in list articles, such as One-hit wonders in the United States, One-hit wonders in Canada, and One-hit wonders in the UK. Rhobite 04:40, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • At a minimum, the category is named poorly (1 vs. one). Different people have different criteria for what would be considered a "one-hit wonder", so I agree that lists are probably better - although I'm not entirely convinced we really need even that. Delete the category, move anything that's not already listed to the apporpriate lists. --Azkar 05:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Azkar. And note that several related articles (e.g. 0-hit, 1.5-hit and 2-hit wonders) are currently under heavy fire on VfD, so if there are cats for them we should get rid of those too. Radiant_* 10:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Löschen. I'm not sure how much more objective you can get: "Do they have exactly one hit, or not?" However, it probably does belong in a list. -Kbdank71 14:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The definition of a hit is rather arbitrary and subjective. --SPUI (talk) 03:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a $417load of one hit wonders in this whole whopping world! I think we should keep it. --TheSamurai 03:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ambiguous and not universal (eg pop stars who are one-hit wonders in the US but megastars in the UK). -Sean Curtin 03:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 05:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Category:Dewey Decimal Classification

Looks like this old stupid idea of mine is still alive, albeit in a zombie state (only two other people added some subcategories to it, and that's all). Nobody really followed up with it. While before I had thought it would be a good idea, nowadays I know it's a bad idea and why it's a bad idea. I would like to see it and its subcategories gone (delete). See also the previous discussion. --cesarb 02:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • This has sat idle and undeveloped long enough to justify deletion. I've gone through and weeded out all the empty categories. What is left requires edits to substantial articles and category descriptions (i.e., removing the dewey category) before it can be deleted. --ssd 05:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Löschen, or convert to list. Neutralitytalk 05:46, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP This system is used by most libraries. It is historically older than than category:fundamental, hence it should be kept as a viable option for those who prefer to use it. -- John Gohde 22:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not a viable option unless someone volunteers to maintain it. On the previous discussion, I believe it became obvious that the best way to do so would be to use a list, not a category. The list still exists, and I'm not voting for its deletion. I'm voting for the deletion of the category. --cesarb 23:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Löschen. Sounds like a perfect subject for a list, but an unviable one for a category. Grutness|hello? 00:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unviable category. Radiant_* 09:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Category:New York Giants players --> Category:New York Giants baseball players

To distinguish from players for the football team. MisfitToys 23:20, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Brooklyn Tip-Top players

Empty category, apparently duplicate of Category:Brooklyn Tip-Tops players. MisfitToys 23:31, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge or delete, as necessary. Linuxbeak 03:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 7

Category:Australian towns and subcategories, subcategories of Cities in Australia

For consistency with the other "Towns in..." categories (see Category:Towns by country), I propose the following renamings:

On a similar note, using the "Cities in" convention, which has already been applied to *Category:Cities in Australia, I also propose:

Hopefully this is just a pretty minor suggestion! VivaEmilyDavies 20:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Botanists studying spermatophytes,Category:Botanists studying fungi,Category:Botanists studying fossils,Category:Botanists studying algae,Category:Botanists studying lichens,Category:Botanists studying ferns,Category:Botanists studying bryophytes

Self-nomination. On reflection the following would be improvements (The more technical usage seems to be preferred; I am afraid that "mycologist" was pre-existent, I was confused by the current split between Category:Mycology and Category:Fungi)

Category:Botanists studying spermatophytes-> please delete (turned out to be too broad to be useful)

Category:Botanists studying fungi-> please merge into Category:Mycologists

Category:Botanists studying fossils-> please rename to Category:Paleobotanists

Category:Botanists studying algae-> please rename to Category:Algologists

Category:Botanists studying lichens-> please rename to Category:Lichenologists

Category:Botanists studying ferns-> please rename to Category:Pteridologists

Category:Botanists studying bryophytes-> please rename to Category:Bryologists

VivaEmilyDavies 17:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all. Don't bother renaming. Why in the world would we need them? Aren't these categories supposed to be helpful as finding aids? They will only result in one of two possibilities:
  1. Someone looking for a botanist can't find him or her for the forest of possibilities to look under, or
  2. We get a half-page box of category listings including a couple of these as well as all the categories in the tree above it for each article dealing with some obscure botanist, so we just say to hell with trying to find the category most likely to include a colleague out of that mess.
  • Gene Nygaard 17:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: One one hand, they'll be easy enough to find, being under Category:Botanists, but then again, I wouldn't know what a Pteridologist was if you showed me a dictionary entry and explained it to me in very small words. So I'm not sure how helpful it would be to people who don't already know the meanings. -Kbdank71 19:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment:Which is precisely why I picked those category names in the first place :) The downside is that they are too long, and also some biologists reckoned they'd prefer the technical terms. So long as there is a definition included at the top of the category page that will help! Categories are used for collecting related articles togethers and linking them, as well as for browsing and finding (remember: there is also "search" for finding people; along with lists; along with "foo-ologists by nationality" if you know the nationality... besides, if you did want to find an algologist, how would category:algologists not be a useful finding aid?). Compare with zoologists, for example, where "ornithologists" are a recognised subcategory; or "engineers" where there are civil engineers, electrical engineers, and mechanical engineers. Subcategorisation by field provides a useful bridging link - it brings people "closer" in information terms with the object that they studied. If we classed all ornithologists only as zoologists, then the link in category space between Category:Birds and an ornithologist would not be straight between their categories but up via Category:Animals, then across to zoologists, and the ornithologists would be spread out unidentifiably in that category. Isn't that a loss of information?
Perhaps Category:Engineers should serve as a model? Engineers are broken down by both field (e.g. civil engineers) and nationality (e.g. German engineers)- a pretty good analogy for this. Isn't that the way to go? If/once "category intersection" is implemented, "X by nationality" is a useless categorisation scheme anyway (you'd just intersect "German people" with "engineers" to find German engineers). But categorisation by field will still be valuable - all civil engineers would be kept in the same place. Getting rid of a parallel subcategorisation can not make it easier to find somebody - consider the Category:Engineers example again. Why would scrapping "Civil engineers" and the like make it easier to find an engineer by browsing? It would just force you to look in "Engineers by nationality", even if you knew the person you were looking for was a civil engineer! Conversely, if you are looking for, say, an American engineer but you don't know quite what type of engineer he was, then nobody is forcing you to look him or her up by field - American engineers is the place to look! If you know neither the nationality nor the field, and you can't exactly remember the name (so you can't search for him) but you would spot it by eyeball search, then use the list of engineers (equivalent here is the list of botanists; the list of botanists by author abbreviation is also helpful if you know only the botanical abbreviation). Keeping such subcategories doesn't make it any harder to find anybody. If anybody else agrees with Gene that they should all be deleted, could you make it clear what you want to do with the proposed merger? Effectively we currently have two lists of mycologists. Why delete one and save the other? Surely we should either delete both or merge? VivaEmilyDavies 19:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Woah! I said small words. :) Ok, you sold me. Agree with proposal. -Kbdank71 19:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But Category:Engineers doesn't have Category:Natural gas petroleum engineers and Category:Township civil engineers, does it? Just because we can make a distinction doesn't mean we should make a distinction. Gene Nygaard 19:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment You also seem totally confused about how these things work. No, I can't necessarily just look in Category:Engineers if I don't know either the engineering specialty or the nationality, because there is no guarantee that the individual articles will be listed in the supercategory (and in most cases, they should not be). No, I can't just look in Category:Botanists if I don't know whether the botanist I am interested in should be in Category:Algologists or Category:Lichenologists, because there is no guarantee that she will also be in Category:Botanists. Somebody would have to put her in both categories for that to be true. So what are the guidelines on how many different levels of the category tree we are supposed enter these people into? Where are those guidelines published? Even if such guidelines exist and are perfectly clear (both highly improbable), how well is Joe Blow going to follow them in creating a new article? Gene Nygaard 03:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, but make list articles of each sub-specialization—those can then go in the botanist category as well as the categories for what they are studying. Having categories at this level of particularlity, however, are simply unnecessary and likely to be confusing to all but experts. Postdlf 19:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'd be prepared to put the time in to make a list, but the problem is maintenance. Keeping a bunch of lists up to date as more and more new articles get added requires more time and effort than keeping categories up to date. VivaEmilyDavies 20:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Lists are the way to go. Gene Nygaard 21:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support move and retaining of specialist categories. / Tupsharru 20:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename. JuntungWu 14:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Kanchi_Shankaracharyas

This category seems unnecessary for two reasons. First being that there is only one article in the cat, this may of course change, but it is possible that it will not exceed three (see the anti article in the controversy, listed at Jayendra Saraswati for reasons, essentially this argues that the history of the matha only includes the last three individuals, that some of the rest were before it moved to Kanchi, and that most of the rest are made up). Second, that there is a adequate chronological list at Kanchi matha, this list is more appropriate for this group of people, real or otherwise, and the category unnecessarily duplicates it by creating an alphabetic list. Imc 16:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Leeds Railways and Category:Transport in Leeds

both refer to more than Leeds. The article Metro (West Yorkshire was written by me to make it clearer as to the true identity of the main contents of the articles included: ie, a greater area than the city. It has been suggested that a new, combined, Category:Transport in West Yorkshire might better meet the subject. I am unsure of the procedure, although have noted on both the existing categories the need for cleanup. Peter Shearan 08:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. If there are any other categroies for transport in any UK counties then it should be named the same way as them for consistency. If there is no consensus on the naming then perhaps one should be formed (would here be an apropriate place for that discussion?). Thryduulf 13:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is this a duplicate of the CfD for Leeds Railways from March 26th? (see below) -Kbdank71 13:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Bridge railing styles

Underpopulated; more articles unlikely. —tregoweth 07:24, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. -Kbdank71 14:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the articles are to be kept, there is no reason they can't go in Category:Bridges. Postdlf 20:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:United States bridge railing styles

Underpopulated; more articles unlikely. —tregoweth 07:24, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

April 6

Category:English paleontologists

palaeontology has 2 "a"'s i it. Same for the Scottish ones. One for a bot. Dunc|☺ 21:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you think it should be moved to Category:English palaeontologists?
And, as 26,700 Google hits on "paleontology" in domain ".uk" tell you, that spelling is also used in the UK. So what's your point?
Futhermore, your emotional United States-bashing argument is based on facts not in evidence; a false assumption that this spelling is limited only to the United States. In Google, while the paleontology/palaeontology hits are only in a ratio of 1:2.5, for domain .ca (Canada) the ratio is the opposite direction at 4.1:1 in favor of paleontology, for example. On .nz, it's about an even split. Do we really need to survey each country, for their in print usage as well as their web site usage?
Overall Google ratio is 2,660,000 for paleontology vs. 314,000 for palaeontology, or 8.5 to 1 for the version with only one a. Gene Nygaard 20:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Er, sorry? Where did I become emotional, or 'bash' the U.S.? If you want to conduct the discussion at that level, I'll leave you to it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You most certainly implied, and intended to claim and for others to believe, a uniform, universal usage outside the United States and Liberia and whatever other English-speaking areas you would exclude from your definition of "Commonwealth." Do you still stand by your claim of "always used in the U.K."? Gene Nygaard 21:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So who do you propose to do the research on "local usage" for all the various English-speaking countries? Are you going to take Belize? Does Indien count? How are we going to verify the accuracy of that determination by whomever? KISS! Otherwise it's all a bunch of nonsense, worthless as a finding aid if we have to guess whatever someone might have determined as the prevalent usage of each little precinct where English might be spoken. What would you guess for the Trinidad und Tobago Republic? For Irland? --Gene Nygaard 18:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Or for Scotland, for that matter. Why should we presume that you are an expert on that, and just take your word for it? Gene Nygaard 18:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I might be mistaken, but I think palaeontologist is the Commonwealth spelling, while paleontologist is the US spelling. Does that simplify things? --Azkar 18:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's pretty easy to figure out how to spell these things. Americans use American English spellings. Most of the rest of the English-speaking world uses English English spellings. If there were any Trinidad and Tobago palaeontologists, they would spell it according the the standard English spelling. The only real variant in spelling is American (although "z" is used for "s" in many cases where otherwise English spellings are used. See International English. Guettarda 18:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
With Google limited to "site:.uk" we get about 26,700 hits for paleontology and 66,200 hits for palaeontology, and only a few for palæontology. That's certainly room enough for there to exist regional variations within the U.K. itself, let alone some vague notion of a fictional "Commonwealth" standard. Let's see you prove that usage is not different in Wales from what it is in Scotland, for example. Then you can tackle Kanada (a Commonwealth country) and the like. Gene Nygaard 19:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Gene, you forgot to add, "I'm right and you're wrong, nya nya." :) -Kbdank71 19:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If anybody is interested, the Oxford English Dictionary (which tries to establish the locality of different usages) mentions "paleo-" merely as the U.S. variant. Of course, U.S. variants then wind up being used in the UK (and elsewhere) too, but it's a matter of taste, not geography. Does anybody else smell a fish in the following logic: "Wales is part of the U.K. - however that doesn't mean that their regional usage of English is the same as British English. Since you haven't proven that it is the same in this instance, the obvious thing to do is assume they use U.S. English". :) I am going to warn you that there are a fair number of Brits who really dislike "paleo-", just like "encyclopedia" (in fact many Brits still haven't come to terms with "-paedia"...). Here's a suggestion: keep things as they are until someone complains. So rather than delve into a Canadian dictionary, lets leave Canada until somebody, probably Canadian, kicks up a stink. However, somebody has spotted that the UK usage is not being used for a UK category, and has complained that it is jarring. Fair enough, so why not move it? VivaEmilyDavies 20:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And the only one which still uses the encyclopædia spelling is a United States encyclopedia! That probably irks more than anything else. -- Gene Nygaard 20:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: See also the previous poll on transport and transportation. — Instantnood 15:19, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move: based on local usage. Iota 15:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move (see my reply above). Guettarda 18:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I notice a lot of people are making the argument that since it's about English pal(pick your spelling of choice)ontologists, we should spell it like the English would. That would hold water if the only people who were going to view that category lived in England. We shouldn't get to spell something a certain way just because "they would spell it that way there". Unfortunately, aside from a redirect, I don't have an answer to this category. I'm personally ok with either spelling. And that's another thing we should consider. Is anyone going to be confused with either spelling? Not are they going to get their knickers in a twist, but will they be confused? If not, then the spelling shouldn't matter. -Kbdank71 20:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In a time of transition, there are often age-based differences as well. Old fogeys in the United States, as anywhere else, are more likely to use the palaeontology spelling than the younger generation are. The trend is toward dropping it. Gene Nygaard 20:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move. UK category => UK (and other parts of the commonwealth) spelling. Grutness|hello? 02:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thinking a bit more about it, I abstain and strike my comments above, as this whole discussion is idiotic. Unless there is some ambition towards consistency in either direction, I don't see the point. I would support moving all categories if such a proposal is made. / Tupsharru 06:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It is consistent now, or was when I looked at it, except for one duplicate in both spellings. Gene Nygaard 09:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure, that is why I don't really support moving one category (or just a few). / Tupsharru 09:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Category:Towns and Cities in Armenia

Rename to Category:Towns and cities in Armenia. — Instantnood 15:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Category:A albums

There's only one article in it out of a possible maximum of 4. The band's article is just as useful. Trylobyte 12:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, album categories are semantically useful even if they have one member. Rhobite 05:47, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. One article does not a category make. -Kbdank71 14:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since we're not debating keeping the article (although feel free to list it on WP:VFD). The "natural" category for albums by an individual or group ARTIST is category:ARTIST albums, which is in category:albums by artist. If an article exists for even one album by an artist, the corresponding category should exist (perhaps this should be a guideline or policy someplace since it seems to come up repeatedly). We could perhaps have category:unnotable albums or category:albums by unnotable artists but these seem like synonyms for WP:VFD. -- Rick Block 18:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Löschen. Album categories should only be created when there a minimum of 3 albums (my personal view). RedWolf 05:36, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • When there are only 1 or 2, into what category would you put them? I was kidding about the categories named above (and this one, category:albums by bands or artists who have less than 3 albums with wikipedia articles), but is there a serious suggestion that is actually any better? -- Rick Block 13:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      Albums are already classified by year and genre. There is over-categorization in a lot of places. Why create an albums category for a band/group when the band/group category has only a few articles itself? RedWolf 06:40, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)



Category:Places in Hong Kong

Places is too broad a term. Category:Places and various subcats were previously deleted along similar lines. See Places CFD discussion. RedWolf 05:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a category for neighbourhoods, but the term neighbourhood is almost unheard in Hong Kong for this meaning. — Instantnood 06:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • What word would be appropriate? -Kbdank71 13:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: People just say the names of the places. Actually there's no specific word. And there's also no systematic nor official classification and demarcation. — Instantnood 14:45, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Change to Neighbourhoods JuntungWu 14:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Change, but i'm not sure to what - i favor neighborhoods. though that also isn't exactly how the category is being used now. "places", as i understand it, is a too-direct translation of the chinese and used by such. it's not a native english speakers usage. usage of "areas" is the same ("areas" is more common in hk govt writing). "places" and "areas" are just too regional (and inaccurate) to be useful to an encyclopedia. nobody misunderstand "neighborhoods" when i speak it but that doesn't mean it's used natively there. SchmuckyTheCat 15:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. There are random locations that don't fit common categories: vista points, neighborhoods, etc., notable for one reason or another. "places" category is a good place to collect them into one place; at least until a more resonable new category of them emerges. Mikkalai 18:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Additional information: the category is linked to zh:Category:香港地方 and de:Kategorie:Ort in Hongkong, both titles meaning "places in Hong Kong". — Instantnood 19:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Oh, and it'd be "neighbourhoods". James F. (talk) 21:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 5

XXX of Taiwan - AGAIN.

Was anyone here aware Instantnood is running another poll to move "XXX of Taiwan" to "XXX of the Republic of China" at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC? The poll "started" a week ago, but since no pages link to the polling page, I thought maybe it was a little onesided and needed some publicity... SchmuckyTheCat 21:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Native flora of Singapore and Category:Plants of Singapore

Both categories have only 1 article each, which is the same article (Vanda Miss Joaquim). Either one can be deleted, or both be deleted and up-merged to category:Flora of Singapore. — Instantnood 21:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Update: Two stub articles, namely Bird's Nest Fern and Pigeon Orchid has just been created by Huaiwei (who also created the two categories), and are categorised to both category:Native flora of Singapore and category:Plants of Singapore. — Instantnood 21:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, move articles to category:Flora of Singapore. -Kbdank71 13:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Kommentar. There is a difference between what qualifies as "native" and what is not. I created that category to emphasize this distinction, and at present not every article in second category appears in the former.--Huaiwei 16:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Right. I notice you are populating the categories. Would you mind telling what actually has been changed? — Instantnood 16:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe I do reserve the right to populate a category called up for deletion just because it is empty. There is nothing unethical about it, and new votes should reflect its current situation. As for changes, I do not understand your question?--Huaiwei 17:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's perfectly alright to populate the categories and there is nothing unethical. But would you mind keeping this section up-to-date so that votes will be cast reflecting its current situation? — Instantnood 18:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • I didnt know I am required to do so?--Huaiwei 19:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not a requirement, but it helps readers to vote according to current situation. — Instantnood 19:27, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Category:Native flora of Singapore / Delete Category:Plants of Singapore (doesn't flora mean plant?). Though it might be useful to have something at the beginning of the subcat explaining what qualifies as "native". -- Lochaber 16:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)



Category:Singaporean cuisine

All articles are also categorised under category:Malaysian cuisine. The two categories should either be merged, or the Singaporean one be expanded to demonstrate the differences, if there's any. — Instantnood 20:45, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • I see that you have taken to "revengeful" antics after the spate of Hong Kong-related category appearances in this page. Nonetheless, you will need to be more convincing than the above, because some of these cuisine pages does include details on the variations present in each country.--Huaiwei 20:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Kommentar: The two categories are currently almost identical, except Asam fish and Cuisine of Malaysia. — Instantnood 21:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • You might wish to try looking within articles.--Huaiwei 21:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Out of the 14 articles, Bak kut teh, Char kway teow, Hainanese chicken rice, Nasi lemak, Otak-otak, Popiah, Rojak, Roti canai, do not address the Malaysian-Singaporean differences. Hainanese chicken rice addresses the differences among different places within Malaysia. Hokkien mee said there's one variation for Penang and Singapore, and another variation for Kuala Lumpur. Ketupat and Sambal do not mention Singapore at all.
        • 5 of those are also Indonesian cuisine. — Instantnood 21:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
          • I do wonder how familiar are you to that category. I once created Roti prata before, the Singaporean name of Roti canai, and the two were merged with the contents meshed together. I am surprised you fail to even detect this. Secondly, you ask for a "merger" of the two categories. May I know what form will the merged category be? Category:Malaysian and Singaporean cuisine? Or are you suggesting the Cuisine in Singapore can be called Malaysian Cuisine?--Huaiwei 08:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Singaporean and Malaysian dishes share a certain degree of similiarity, thanks to the geographical proximity and similar climate. Even though they are now two sovereign States, exchange and traffic of people have never been interrupted. There is a poll below on category:Food and drink by country, that addresses the same issue. — Instantnood 10:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
          • And the same applies to just about any category in Category:Cuisine, so why pick on this category alone? Again I ask...even if there is a degree of similarity in cuisine between the two countries, may I know what you would call cuisine in Singapore then? Northern Peninsular Malaysia has dishes quite similar to those in Southern Thailand. Shall we amalagamte the two cultures too? Why do you bother having "Cantonese Cuisine", when it can also be called "Chinese cuisine" like the other 5 major cuisines of China?--Huaiwei 10:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I did a similar comparison among categories of Dänisch, Norwegian and Swedish cuisines, and they do not share the same articles in the way the Malaysian and Singaporean counterparts do. I guess we'd better let other users to decide on what should be done with category:Singaporean cuisine. (By the way, there are Eight Great Traditions of Chinese cuisines, not five.) — Instantnood 11:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
          • COMMENT Shouldn't Indonesian Cuisine, Malaysian Cuisine, Singaporean Cuisine, cuisine of Brunei, Sumatran cuisine, Bornea cuisine, Javan cuisine all go under Category:Malayan Cuisine ? 132.205.45.148 18:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)



Non-Italian popes

note differing capitalisation

The first two are empty and duplicated by the third. I would suggest deleting the first two and the third from Category:Non-Italian popes to Category:Popes by nationality. All the popes could then be sorted this way, in addition to sorting by, say, the century in which they served. --BaronLarf 13:06, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • I forgot Category:Jewish popes for Cephas, "the Rock", aka "The Big Fisherman". Sure, a million years from now there might be more than a dozen non-Italian popes, maybe even one or two in the next 50 years; but do we really need to allow for that? Creating 9 or 10 categories (including the necessary supercategories) to cover a dozen people isn't very helpful as a finding aid. Gene Nygaard 15:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Basically agree with Postdlf, except popes who are the only members of their nationality should just be under Category:Popes. It doesn't make sense to structure the category structure such that Italian popes are considered the "default" , even if historically they are overwhelmingly more common. Considering that there are 16 French popes its hard to argue against that category, but I would also allow those of smaller size as long as they have more than one member. Actually, I am current working on an article on another "Jewish pope", the legendary figure from Jewish folklore of the Middle Ages, and someone could probably write an article about Pope Peter II, apparently a figure who some people believe will be the last pope, not to mention Jean-Marie Lustiger if he's elected, but it really would be over-the-top to have a category for "Jewish popes". Incidentally we probably need a Category:Legendary popes for Pope Joan and the article I am currently working on.--Pharos 07:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the first and the second ones, as per BaronLarf. — Instantnood 16:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the third Above:too emotional to handle debate. Subcategories are historically correct.Leonard.007 21:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Category:Harry Potter parodies

Had only three entries, one of which wasn't actually a parody. Merged to main Harry Potter category for lack of content. Radiant_* 07:50, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) I can see the point of this category, but its name is too narrow. I propose that it be renamed to Harry Potter derived works (since every parody is derived, but not every derivation is parodic). Radiant_* 08:33, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and restore inappropriately-removed contents. It is unfortunate that you have ignored the instructions in the very notice you yourself placed on the category:

    Please do not remove this notice or empty the category while the question is being considered

    As it is, the three articles you have moved are now in the main Harry Potter category which is wholly inappropriate for any of them. --Phil | Talk 13:30, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Not to nitpick, but the category might have been emptied prior to posting this for cfd, which would have been following the letter, if not the spirit, of the "notice". -Kbdank71 14:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, sorry for moving Barry and Tarri. But note that Tanya Grotter is not a parody, but a derivative work. Maybe the category should be renamed instead, but I still find it to be inappropriately small. I do hold that "things related to <foo>" would fit in "category <foo>". Radiant_* 15:11, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Paradies of Harry Potter aren't part of the Harry Potter universe, and therefor shouldn't just be plunked into the main category. They should remain in this category, which is a sub-cat of Category:Harry Potter. --Azkar 17:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Point taken, but I request that it be renamed, see above. Radiant_* 08:33, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • That should probably work - derived works would include fan fiction too, which I'm sure there's a boat-load of. I'd probably prefer a more explicit category name, but I can't think of anything that isn't excessivly wordy. --Azkar 13:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Support renaming. Thryduulf 14:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


April 4

Category:Official Residences of Australia

casing error, should be renamed to category:Official residences of Australia. clarkk 11:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Either they are very big residences (big enough for 25 000 000 people) or that should be Category:Official residences in Australia, surely! Grutness|hello? 11:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
that is even better. clarkk 11:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hong Kong surnames

A superfluous category, considering that Category:Chinese family names are shared by any ethnic Chinese preserving his Chinese name in just about any country or territory.--Huaiwei 11:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

      • Note that the ongoing discussion between Instantnood and SchmuckyTheCat, part of which is visible below, is currently listed on Requests for Arbitration. Radiant_* 12:01, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: This poll on surnames is not related. It is nominated after the RFAr. — Instantnood 12:14, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The way surnames in Hong Kong are romanised are different. Articles in this categories have separate listing of notable people. Rankings of these surnames, if available, will be added later. — Instantnood 11:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Kommentar. The romanisation of these surnames are not confined to Hong Kong. Each of the entries listed has countless Chinese all over the World sharing that surname's spelling and has nothing to do with Hong Kong. In addition, the same romanisation can actually mean different surnames in different dialect groups, which some of these articles fail to address.--Huaiwei 12:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Add necessary content and categories to these articles if necessary. If you're not happy with the current name we can rename all such categories as "category:Chinese surnames romanised/transcribed according to [language name]". — Instantnood 12:26, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • That is not neccesary either. Category:Hong Kong surnames is the first category trying to classify surnames based on a geographic locality. In Category:Surnames, however, all other surnames are classified according to language, groups of languages, religion, or specific and unique naming systems (as opposed to surnames) confined in geographic locality like in India, or by language such as in Germany. We do not need "Category:country name surnames" for every country on Earth, let alone a sub-territory of a country, or else a common surname like "Chen" is going to have countless subcategories by country just because there is one "Chen" who migrated there yesterday, for example?--Huaiwei 12:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Interestingly list of most common surnames is currently sorted according to countries. I agree surnames should be categorised according to language and transcription system, and I thought about that when I created the category. The surnames I have categorised are all Chinese surnames transcripted from Cantonese and according to Hong Kong conventions. — Instantnood 13:10, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • I asked for a deletion of a category, and the example you quoted was an article. An article like this will not result in countless subcategories in surname pages, which a category will. In this case, it is not neccesary to classify surnames according to transcription systems, because as I said, these systems are not unique to Hong Kong. You added lines like "XXX is a Hong Kong surname" in disambig pages at the same time that you add the above category. This is highly erroneous, because none of them are specific to Hong Kong either.--Huaiwei 13:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • To repeat, all of these surnames are Han surnames transcripted based on Cantonese and Hong Kong conventions. I have never rule out they are at the same time surnames elsewhere, transcripted based on other romanisation method and other spoken variants. Add content and categories to these articles if you think it is necessary. — Instantnood 14:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • If all of them are Han surnames, why cant they stay in Category:Chinese family names? When you say "transcripted based on Cantonese conventions", is this specific to any country or territory? Is Cantonese a language spoken only in Hong Kong? You asked me to "add content and categories"...what kind of categories? More surnames classified by countries? Is it ever neccesary to mention where these surnames are used, when it is probably far better and less contentious to simply indicate how each dialect group may anglicise these surnames, which btw is well described at List of common Chinese surnames?--Huaiwei 14:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't you think it is necessary to categorise non-Pinyin- and non-Mandarin-based surnames separately? As far as I know it's not only the case in Hong Kong but also in Singapore, such as Teo, Ong, Goh, etc., and perhaps Kho in Malaysia. — Instantnood 14:28, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • Why should it be neccesary? Anglicised surnames which were not based on Mandarin should actually be made to redirect back to the Mandarin pronunciation, because they all refer to the same term. In cases such as Ng, which corresponds to different terms in Mandarin when used in different dialect groups, a disemg page should be created instead. In this setup, would any subcategory be neccesary?--Huaiwei 14:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • What do you think about the current Ng article, despite the categories? — Instantnood 18:09, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Löschen. Not quite sure why we even have a category for names (or articles, for that matter). -Kbdank71 13:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • These are not the only articles on surnames. — Instantnood 13:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete! I thought like Kbdank71 did, but saw categories for other names so I left it. Huaiwei's suggestion though, is great. The Cantonese romanization should be listed on the relevant, already existing, surnames - which I note many already have two or three alternate romanizations. Essentially, Instantnood is creating DUPLICATE articles to populate his category. The relevant surname is presumably expressed in the same Chinese characters (or with minor variation, like Smith/Smythe) everywhere. So why create seperate articles based on different english spelling? Instantnood is also being racist, is he going to include all the Smith's and Mathesons who have lived in HK for two centuries? No, because they are adequately covered elsewhere, as are his new articles. We don't (or shouldn't) make geographical distinctions for names. SchmuckyTheCat 15:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Kommentar: More than half of the articles were existing ones. Han surnames in Hong Kong do not correspond one-to-one to Pinyin counterparts, and redirects wouldn't work. — Instantnood 15:37, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • Examples please. I have yet to hear of any Chinese surname only found in Hong Kong.--Huaiwei 17:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Wait. Do you actually understand what I was saying in the above comment? — Instantnood 18:09, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Löschen. Geographical rather than ethnic classification for names makes no sense. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 15:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Kommentar: I agree. But it is geography that leads to the differences in transcription. — Instantnood 15:37, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • It is not so much of geography, but more of politics in this case. Singapore's adoption of the pinyin romanisation system does not make it geographically closer to the PRC, for example.--Huaiwei 17:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Han surnames in Singapore are not entirely transcripted based on Pinyin. — Instantnood 18:09, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Löschen I don't see why these surnames can't just fall under the Category:Chinese family names. The only difference is the transcription system that is being used. The surnames when you get down to it are the same, whether it is Wu, Woo, or Ng. We probably will need a separate discussion on how we would like to organize these names though (perhaps at Talk:Chinese surname?). --Umofomia 18:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Kommentar Request: In this discussion several logical and reasonable problems are suggested, and they have to be dealt with. The surnames are the same Han characters (despite traditional/simplified) no matter how they are transcribed, and the articles can perhaps be merged, with redirects and disambiguations. Should the poll be paused until how the surnames should be presented is settled? — Instantnood 18:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • NO It just becomes another parallel universe for you to plug stuff into as long as it exists. SchmuckyTheCat 19:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't you think it is necessary for it to be settled? — Instantnood 05:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • Given that, so far, everyone except you wants to get rid of the category, I think that settles it perfectly well. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I am now requesting to work for a solution on how Chinese surnames should be dealt with on Wikipedia, given the existence of many spoken variants, and romanisation methods based on different variants. — Instantnood 12:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • (response to Instantnood's comment at 05:38, Apr 5, 2005) I do not see why this vote has to be suspended. The category in question is being debated on, and it is clear few can see its usability, a result which can actually aid the formulation of how Chinese surnames should be subsequently treated and/or categorised.--Huaiwei 12:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Would you mind further elaborate how the result here can "actually aid the formulation of how Chinese surnames should be treated"? — Instantnood 12:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Huaiwei. Radiant_* 12:01, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The discussion has now started at Talk:Chinese surname#Chinese surnames on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 15:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)



Category:Food and drink by country

Renaming request. There was a cross of Category:Food and drink by country and Category:Cuisine. I started recategorizing, then realised that a better one would be Category:Cuisine by ethnicity or region, because cultural things not always match state boundaries. Examples: category:Slavic cuisine, category:Basque cuisine, category:European cuisine and some others that fit poorly into the "by country" schema. I had the same problem with category:dance and found that Category:Dance by ethnicity or region was a good choice. Any better ideas? Mikkalai 03:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Category:Cuisine by ethnicity or region, consistent with your dance example. --VivaEmilyDavies 17:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) Now agree with Pharos. Keep and move. VivaEmilyDavies 17:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What about simply Category:Cuisine by culture?--Pharos 09:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Move. I like the Category:Cuisine by culture because food traditions follow the people where they go and though the regional origins might still be clear, the actuality is becoming more disconnected with place as time goes on. That doesn't mean that "Meditteranean cuisine" would be excluded, but that "Meditteranean" would not have a geographic but a cultural meaning. Maybe that's a finer line of distinction than is practical, but I hope I've made the gist of what I'm saying clear enough. Courtland 14:13, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • Keep and move (to "Food and drink by culture"), as per Courtland. The same could perhaps be done for other categories sharing some similarity, such as Scandinavian/Nordic. I prefer "Food and drink by culture" to "Cuisines by culture". — Instantnood 19:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • "By culture" is a very good idea. Mikkalai 18:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (the way it is, or at least keep one "by country"). There isn't anything that says an article can only be in one category. If a food belongs to different countries, it can go in that many categories. (Incidentally, what does "keep and move" mean? I think of "keep" as keep it the way it is, but "move" as move it to another category. In other words, I think of "keep and move" as voting "yes and no".) -Kbdank71 19:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Keep and move = Don't delete but move. :-D — Instantnood 19:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • You are missing the points of the discussion above. Cuisine is part of culture, not of politics. If you are going to place Basque cuisine into Spanish cuisine, you will offend many. On the other hand, restricting Jewish foods into Israel will look ridiculous. But then where? Into Poland? Into medieval Europe? Into Nazareth? Into US of A? Mikkalai 20:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Well said :) - although actually I guess Basque cuisine probably logically ought to be a distinct subcategory of Spanish cuisine (in the sense that it is one of the cultural cuisines present within Spain - and similarly it should probably be put under French cuisine too, if memory serves that is where a third of Basques live!). The point is that it shouldn't be restricted to being a subcategory of Spanish and French cuisine, it should also count as a culture in its own right and therefore appear directly as a subcategory of "cuisine by culture", "European cuisine" etc. I think this is actually one of those cases where an exception is acceptable to the "don't make Cat:X a subcategory of both Cat:Y and the parent of Cat:Y" rule. "Jewish food" is a clearer example, it should certainly be in "cuisine by culture" itself. Making it also a subcategory of the cuisines of countries with particularly large Jewish communities would probably be overkill due to the number of such countries and the difficulty in deciding a cut-off point. VivaEmilyDavies 23:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Category:People associated with University of Chicago, Category:People associated with Northwestern University, Category:People associated with Columbia University, Category:Stanford University people, and Category:U.S. Naval Academy graduates

Worthless category clutter. Use a list, like the ones in Category:Lists of people by university affiliation. Neutralitytalk 21:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

April 3

Category:People of the Philippines

Move to Category:Filipino people - not only would this be consistent with the vast majority of nationalities (see Category:People by nationality), this category has a subcategory for "Filipino Americans", indicating that it is actually used for Filipino people in a wider sense than simply citizens or inhabitants of the Philippines. --VivaEmilyDavies 03:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See discussion at #Category:People of Foo and Category:People from Foo below.

Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, makes sense to keep discussion there, but separate votes up here perhaps? This is slightly different in that it clearly has "Filipino Americans" as a subcat, indicating to me that it ought to be ambiguous between nationality and country.--VivaEmilyDavies 17:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Please read the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) you quoted. "The naming conventions for adjectives is a naming convention for how to create Wikipedia pages about adjectives" so "At the current time, elegant redirects to elegance, democratic redirects to democracy, and adjectival redirects to adjective". That's about redirects of articles, in the article space, whose title is purely an adjective. The relevant policy would actually be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) but that is still in "proposed" state. --VivaEmilyDavies 17:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


April 2

Category:Sportspeople by country

Move to Category:Sportspeople by nationality. We have Category:Olympic competitors by country, but that's logical because all modern Olympians compete for a particular country. In general we sort people by nationality (e.g. Category:People by nationality, Category:Actors by nationality, Category:Scientists by nationality). At present, Category:Basque sportspeople is listed under "Sportspeople by country", which is inappropriate. --VivaEmilyDavies 21:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:People of Foo and Category:People from Foo

Category:People of Grenada, Category:People from the U.S. Virgin Islands, Category:People of Swaziland, Category:People from Luxembourg, Category:People from Macao, Category:People from Bosnia and Herzegovina

Standard practice is to use "Fooian people" rather than "People of Foo" (as seen in Category:People by nationality, although this wouldn't work for Category:People of the Dominican Republic or Category:People of Dominica as "Dominican" in used for both). Category:People from Bosnia and Herzegovina should be merged with Category:Bosnian people, under the name of the latter. "Bosnian" seems to be the preferred "neutral" adjective for Bosnia and Herzegovina, as opposed to "Bosniak" which refers to a particular Bosnian ethnic group - "Bosnian" is neutral even though it does not specifically reference the distinct geographic region of Herzegovina, possibly because that region does not have a distinct political, legal or cultural identity. The others should be moved to Category:Grenadian people, Category:U.S. Virgin Islands people, Category:Swazi people, Category:Luxembourgeois people and Category:Macau people (please note that, perhaps confusingly, "Macau" can serve as an adjective, and that while both "Macao" and "Macau" are used in English, "Macau" is used for both the Macau article and Category:Macau. The adjective "Macanese" refers to people of Portuguese-Macau ancestry and wouldn't be appropriate.) Sorry the length of this proposal! --VivaEmilyDavies 21:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding People from Bosnia and Herzegovina, I'll just paste what I already said on the talk page:
Your argument is correct, except that it unfairly discriminates against the people from Herzegovina. Go ask any Hercegovac if they feel like a Bosanac and they'll probably tell you to go to hell, if not something worse. :)
Hence this entry must not be changed back to "Bosnian people". "Bosnian and Herzegovinian people" would be correct, but cumbersome and awkward, so it might as well stay as it is. --Joy [shallot] 22:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A very good point. (Should Category:Bosnian people be emptied?)
Oh, I just moved that one article over. I had redirected it over previously so I didn't notice the new entry. --Joy [shallot]
Maybe it would be better to actually delete Category:Bosnian people? If people put articles into it they'll think it's worked okay because it shows up in blue at the bottom of the article. Most people won't double-check by clicking on the link to make sure! VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm still not 100% convinced by you - the adjective "Bosnia-Herzegovinian" is also used in English (actually it is the adjective I usually use), as is the slightly more common "Bosnian-Herzegovinian", so either could provide a slightly less unwieldy fallback. Standard English usage is to use "Bosnian" to refer to the entire country.
That's probably because there are many more things Bosnian than there are Herzegovinian. Bosnia is first mentioned in the name of the country for a reason, but Herzegovina isn't omitted for a reason, either. --Joy [shallot]
Searching the BBC website, which uses fairly standard British English, "Bosnia" and "Bosnian" combined throw up approaching 30,000 hits to "Herzegovinan" 3 and "Herzegovina" 306. (1, 2, 3, 4)It is discriminatory and it is unfair. However, it is standard English (unfortunately... I guess it would soon change if most English-speakers had to meet a Hercegovac on a regular basis!). I dislike the word, but as an English language work, en.wikipedia really ought to use standard English (unless it either technically incorrect or highly offensive). Something that makes me lean slightly further towards "Bosnian" is the fact that the embassy of BiH in the UK calls itself the "Bosnian Embassy" of the "Bosnian government" here - but elsewhere the embassies in the USA, Pakistan and Australia prefer to avoid an adjective altogether by strenuously using the phrase "... of Bosnia and Herzegovina".
*.embassyhomepage.com is a known scam site, so it's not authoritative at all :) Omitting Herzegovina is both technically incorrect (because the country's name includes it) and offensive (because they *never* consider themselves Bosnians). --Joy [shallot]
Oops sorry! VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It would be silly to cause offence for no good reason, and there are some grounds for saying that BiH lacks a suitable neutral English adjective for use in WP (not uniquely - Dominica and the Dominican Republic do, for a different reason). Yet I think it is impossible to deny that in modern English "Bosnian" is the standard term and some official BiH organisations do use it, so while I wouldn't use it privately, on Wikipedia I still believe it's the correct choice. --VivaEmilyDavies --VivaEmilyDavies 00:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)00:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Consider an analogous example: Category:Trinidad and Tobago people. Tobago is much smaller than Trinidad, but it's not discriminated against in the naming. --Joy [shallot]
I guess it probably helps that T&T is an English-speaking country so standard English just copies the way they refer to themselves, whereas we often mess up foreign countries in translation :) Two cringeworthy examples are the most recent BBC news stories with a BiH slant (1, 2) which use "Bosnia" for the country of BiH and "Bosnian" for the adjective. Contrast this to T&T (as the press sometimes refer to it when they don't write it out in full) where "Trinidad" is only used when referring to that particular island, not the entire political entity. However, the reason that WP uses "Trinidad and Tobago people" is that it is standard English. All I was querying was whether "Bosnian" is now so widespread that it has become standard (it's really the opposite situation to "American" where the adjective is underinclusive - rather than to the Americas, we usually, save for e.g. "Organization of American States" use it to refer to the USA alone. Hence, even though it might strictly speaking be wrong, we do have a lot of categories beginning "American...", simply because it is standard. I for one much prefer "U.S." for the USA, "Trinidad and Tobago" as the adjective for T&T and "Bosnian and Herzegovinan" or similar for BiH). Anyway, since you made a lot of very strong points, and I do dislike "Bosnian" myself, I think I'd rather opt for something like Grutness's current idea, but spell it with a "z" as seems to be more usual (Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian people). If anybody is interested the EU manual of style recommends using "of Bosnia and Herzegovina" instead of an adjective. However, if that approach is to be taken I'd prefer "from" (you wouldn't say "X is a writer of Bosnia and Herzegovina", more likely "X is a writer from Bosnia and Herzegovina, unless you're the BBC in which case you'd apparently say "X is a Bosnian writer"!) VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually "Trinidad and Tobago" as an adjective is not correct usage (in my experience as a Trinidadian). The only correct adjectival forms are "Trinidadian" and "Tobagonian". But to call the list "Trinidadian and Tobagonian people" would force the removal of Derek Walcott who, despite being St. Lucian, spent a significant part of his life there, and alludes to Trinidad extensively in his poetry. Guettarda 19:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have apparently been fooled by usage like "Trinidad and Tobago government", "Trinidad and Tobago Defense Force" and "Trinidad and Tobago Police Service" into believing that "Trinidad and Tobago" has become a kind of quasi-adjective. Thanks for pointing that out! VivaEmilyDavies 20:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(I thought I had made it clear that) it was the inclusion of Tobago that I was referring to, not the actual form with the adjective. That's another matter, please feel free to address it separately. --Joy [shallot] 21:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is just another case of political correctness or of foolish consistency run amok among the Wikipedia categorizers. The very notion of "Foowegian people" is fraught with difficulty, since that is the form usually used in reference to peoples. "Swazi people" can refer to an ethnic group, the Swazi people, and to individual members of that group, rather than to individuals "of Swasiland". Gene Nygaard 00:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I do see the point, but it is an overwhelming consistency (see Category:People by nationality) and using "Foowegian ..." rather than "... of Foo" makes more sense for people - precisely because (a) it is a bit fuzzier round the edges (just like people - and unlike, for example, political structures or geographic features which are better categorised by country) and (b) many historical figures can be classed as Foowegian even though Foo did not exist as a country at that time. The real "categorisation gone mad", as far as I can see, would be to try to class people together by country instead, with the view that that, being less fuzzy, it is somehow more exact. "Swazi" is better for categorisation than "... of Swaziland" when referring to people because a person who would fit easier into the first than the second ought to have a place to go (and does it really matter that Swazis who don't fit the Swaziland definition are side by side with those who do? They really aren't so different, and people will know how to find either). On the other hand, "Mountains of Swaziland" and "Olympic athletes of Swaziland" make more sense than their "Swazi" equivalents because the ambiguity would hold no benefit there. Consistency is only a limited good, but here it makes sense - I can't see why Swazis and Swaziland should be treated any differently to Bulgarians and Bulgaria (not everyone in Bulgaria is ethnically Bulgarian, the ethnic group predates the modern country, there are ethnic Bulgarians outside Bulgaria and the adjective doesn't distinguish nationality from ethnicity - but those problems don't cause much fuss and moving "Bulgarian people" to "People of Bulgaria" would probably get little support on its At the current time, elegant redirects to elegance, democratic redirects to democracy, and adjectival redirects to adjective.own) --VivaEmilyDavies 01:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: If consistence is necessary I would prefer "People from Foo" or "People of Foo" to "Fooian people". The latter can mean ethnicity and citizenship, which is ambiguous. — Instantnood 06:06, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

It is precisely for this reason that I prefer "People of Foo" to "People from Foo". After all, an immigrant can become "of" a country, consider it home, play a major part in its life, and yet never become a citizen, so never be "from" a country. Guettarda 19:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: please don't assume ambiguity is bad :) In an article, it would be bad, but that's where the ambiguity ought to be elucidated. Some people best fit multiple categorisations. I would really like it if everybody debating this thread had a quick look at Nikola Tesla first. The intro describes him as of Serb ethnicity, yet he worked mainly in the USA. He was, however, born in Croatia - which he regarded as his homeland! He is a messy and ambiguous person, and deserves to be categorised as such: which he is! He's in "American physicists", "Serbian scientists" and "Croatian scientists" - all of these are quite correct, and indeed useful. A person trying to browse for him but who has forgotten his name, yet remembers he was born in Croatia, or that he was of Serb descent, may try to use the category system to find him, and will be successful either way! Now if we did everything by "country from", he would be restricted to "Physicists from the United States" and "Scientists from Croatia". That would be silly, especially when his Croatian link is not even mentioned in the introduction. Just because it is seems less ambiguous and therefore seems somehow more "accurate" doesn't make categorising people by "from country" any better - I believe that it is a genuinely "foolish consistency". Now, I wouldn't want to see "Croatian mountains" - I wouldn't know if it contained mountains that only lay historically in Croatia, or mountains with special cultural significance to Croats, or mountains where the local population is ethnically Croat. But people aren't like mountains - people move around, change affiliations, belong to cultures that themselves rise and fall and very often they either predate or postdate the "country" that would describe them best (even saying that Tesla was from Croatia would actually be wrong, to be strictly accurate you might cat him in "scientists from Austria-Hungary", hence losing even the Croat connection). Also, could people please spend just a few minutes browsing around Category:People by nationality, Category:Professionals by nationality and Category:Nationalities by occupation to see how many hundreds of categories use "Fooian..." for people! You could change them all, but doesn't the sheer existence of this near-universal format suggest there is some consensus for classing people in this way? One that I would like to change to "from Fooland" format is politicians - e.g. ethnic Hungarian politicians in an ethnic Hungarian political party in Serbia-Montenegro ought to be classed in "Politicians from Serbia and Montenegro", because politics relates to the political structure of a particular country (as a political and legal entity). That would be in line with e.g. Category:Political parties by country. But I still think that "Fooian people" and the majority of their subcategories should be preserved, and exceptions without a particularly strong reason ("People from Dominica" and perhaps if, we take the EU convention, Bosnia and Herzegovina... but not Luxemburg) ought to be converted into "Fooian..." form. VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Personally I too am against this "Fooilonian X" idea, and have said so when this sort of thing has come up in the past. X of Foo tends to work far better in practice. If, howeverm the decision is to go with it, would Category: Bosnian and Hercegovinian people work? Grutness|hello? 11:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I dislike "Bosnian" too, just suggested it because I thought it had (unfortunately) become standard. If we do use an adjectival approach, would you agree with Category: Bosnian and Herzegovinian people spelt with a "z"? I think the "c" spelling is now regarded as wrong. Also, I agree that "X of/from/in Foo" is far better for almost everything - I just think that on the whole people are an exception. As I said above, please look at Nikola Tesla and have a think about it :) --VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I too much prefer "People from Foo" to "Fooian people" - see the quiz at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (country-specific topics)#Pop_quiz and see how many adjectival forms you can get right, and then look at the answers and see how many are less than obvious. Thryduulf 12:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Categories are different from articles though in that they are browsed to, and rarely typed in. And even if the adjective is completely non-obvious (e.g. Myanmar not Burma for the country, but Burmese for the adjective, is currently in use) you can still browse via "Myanmar". However, in general, and especially for article titles, I too much prefer "of/from/in Foo". I just think that broadly, the categorisation of people should be an exception.VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It would become Category:People from Glasgow (similar to Category:Chicagoans, which would become Category:People from Chicago). Actually I thought about nominating both of these for renaming myself, and if somebody else did, I would support! Cities don't usually have quite the same ethnic/cultural importance as nationalities, and many lack adjectival forms, so I would far prefer these to be standardised as "People from Chicago" and "People from Glasgow" etc. VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In addition to my comment above, I oppose moving "People from Foo" to "Fooian people". In my opinion "Fooian people" should be move to "People from Foo". — Instantnood 12:52, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Please read the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) you quoted. "The naming conventions for adjectives is a naming convention for how to create Wikipedia pages about adjectives" so "At the current time, elegant redirects to elegance, democratic redirects to democracy, and adjectival redirects to adjective". That's about redirects of articles, in the article space, whose title is purely an adjective. The relevant policy would actually be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) but that is still in "proposed" state. --VivaEmilyDavies 16:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Professionals by nationality

Rename to Category:Occupations by nationality. As noted on the talk page: "Shouldn't this be the more general Category:Occupations by nationality? The usage of "professionals" is usually limited to doctors, lawyers, accountants, architects, etc. The Wiki usage of "occupations" includes pirates, art collectors, etc. -Willmcw 00:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)" I now believe that Willmcw had the correct approach. --VivaEmilyDavies 17:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • COMMENT Somehow I think that these categories should be People of xxx-country by occupation 132.205.15.43 00:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree, obviously. 132.205.15.43's suggestion has merit. -Willmcw 18:09, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)


Category:Mountains in Greece

Rename to Category:Mountains of Greece for consistency with the naming convention of Mountains of Foo. RedWolf 07:36, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)


March 31

category:corporate leaders

Like my other nominations below this is an unhelpful and little used duplication of category:businesspeople. If this is deleted, I will find better homes for those articles which are not about individuals. Wincoote 00:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. -Kbdank71 15:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Duplicates category:businesspeople and category:entrepreneurs. Plus, it's a vague category. Many companies have a chairman of the board, a CEO, a COO, etc. Are all of those leaders? What about someone who shows leadership from a subordinate role? -Willmcw 19:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

category:entrepreneur

On the one hand this is a duplicate of the much more widely used category:entrepreneurs. On the other, if there is to be a broader category about entrepreneurship, which is what the contents seem to imply is the intention, it should be called category:Entrepreneurship. I will create the latter in due course. Wincoote 00:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Can't we merge category:entrepreneur and category:businesspeople into category:entrepreneurs (after fixing the capitalization problem first), and then move the non-people articles into category:Entrepreneurship? -Kbdank71 14:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I like that suggestion. --Laura Scudder 22:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course we can't. Huge numbers of important business people are not entrepreneurs. The latter is a subcategory of the former. Wincoote 14:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • And yet you propose to delete corporate leaders, saying it's a duplicate of business people. -Kbdank71 15:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Entrepreneur and entrepeneurs have the same meaning and should be merged. Seems to me we should strive for consistency in the use of plural for all people-related categories. --Leifern 14:59, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Merge Category:Entrepreneur into Category:Entrepreneurs and forget the "Entrepreneurship" nonsense and leave "business people" out of it. If it is about entrepreneurs and their activities, it belongs in the entrepreneurs category, just as much as listing individuals who might be given this tag. Gene Nygaard 16:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Category:Entrepreneur into Category:Entrepreneurs. If there were enough articles about starting businesses to justify a category:Entrepreneurship, then that should be a separate category. But the individuals should be categorized as "Entrepreneurs". Category:businesspeople is clearly different. -Willmcw 23:49, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)


March 29

Category:Foreign banks in Canada

I do not agree with deleting this category, but it is more or less the same problem as category:Foreign banks in Hong Kong listed below. The two categories should be dealt with in the same manner. — Instantnood 10:47, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. — Instantnood 10:47, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment This is the first time I see anyone nominating in this page a category to be kept! ;) --Huaiwei 11:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same reason as category:Foreign banks in Hong Kong. -Kbdank71 14:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly fine category. The difference with the Hong Kong category is that this category includes the specific Canadian branches of the banks. Eugene van der Pijll 15:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain Instantnood, the first point of understanding in the article Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is that Wikipedia is inconsistent. "Wikipedia tolerates inconsistency except where it creates some sort of practical problem." So, please to be pointing out the practical problem? Or are you spitefully disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? SchmuckyTheCat 15:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename - as Eugene van der Pijll points out, this is a category containing articles on foreign owned Canadian banks, which is a reasonable category and in no way similar to the Foreign banks in Hong Kong category. I'd suggest renaming to Foreign owned banks in Canada -- Chris j wood 16:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. So why is a category needed? Shouldn't the article state that there are branches in countries x? As for being similar, no, it's exactly the same. "Banks that have branches in country x but are based in a different country." x could be Hong Kong, Canada, whatever. -Kbdank71 16:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe have a list article of "Foreign owned companies in Canada", but I can't see the value of having this as a category. If kept, rename to "Foreign owned banks in Canada." Postdlf 16:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am beginning to have a change of heart, especially when I notice we are dealing with articles on subsidiaries of a main company. As I mentioned before, I do not encourage the listing of main bank articles within these pages if they are going to end up having more than one cagegory, but when talking about a local subsidiary, which can sometimes be a locally-incorporated company, they dont seem to fit well being called a company of its parent's location of incorporation, and yet might not be entirely "accurate" to be called a company of the location where it operates or is incorporated in either (although standard practise in the corporate world is to simply classify them according to location of incorporation. Based on this, "Citibank (Singapore)" is a Singaporean bank for example, although the monetary authority of Singapore still classifies it as "foreign", and most laypeople will find it being called a Singaporean bank odd!).--Huaiwei 23:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same reasoning as the Hong Kong one (see above) - the definition of "foreign" is unclear. JuntungWu 15:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please also refer to the poll below regarding category:Foreign banks in Hong Kong. — Instantnood 17:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

March 28

Category:High schools in Washington, DC

Duplicated by Category:High schools in the District of Columbia. Should all "Foo in Washington, DC" be changed to "Foo in the District of Columbia?" It falls in line more with the "Foo in State" method of categorization. --BaronLarf 16:58, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Sailboat types

Propose deleting this category because it misuses the English language. This is a related to the Category:Sailboat Names proposed for deletion on 26 March.
The reason is that sailboats, in normal usage, are the generally smaller vessels used in sports and personal use. Yet the introduction of this category (almost identical to that of "Sailboat Names") says (paragraphs run together) that "Category Sailboat types captures the the type name or class name of all types/classes of boat whose primary means of propulsion is by sails. e.g Dinghies, Warships, Merchant Ships, Racing Yachts, Skiffs, Windsurfers, Exploration Ships, Clippers etc etc. This Category does not capture the names of specific sailing yachts/boats/ships etc whos names are gathered in the Sailboat Names category." This is just plain wrong. Let each member of this category proposed for deletion be placed in Category:Sailing ships or Category:Sailboats or some other category which is appropriate. Each might have to be reviewed. Gene Nygaard 12:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Rather than deleting it, let's rename it to something that matches its purpose and includes both boats and ships. "Category:Types of sailing vessel", perhaps? Bryan 23:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bryan. Rename to "Category:Types of sailing vessel" or "Category:Sailing vessel types". -Willmcw 22:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Sailing vessel types. RedWolf 06:12, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Foreign banks in Hong Kong

This category appears to be created to display all foreign banks with operations in Hong Kong. Not exactly an issue with that, but imagine what happens when other cities, territories, and countries follow suit. Are we going to have our pages on banks filled up with a gigantic list of categories listing all the geographic entities they operate in, considering many of our banks worth to be mentioned here are usually major TNCs? Rather unneccesary, in my opinion, considering that detailed listings on areas of operation can be in the text, and listings detailing the banks which operate in territories such as in List of banks in Hong Kong can be created too.--Huaiwei 05:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose. This is a category for licensed banks not incorporated in Hong Kong, or subsidiaries of foreign-owned banks in Hong Kong. — Instantnood 14:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please consider nominating Category:Foreign banks in Canada as well. — Instantnood 10:17, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) See update below. — Instantnood 14:21, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree, it's not necessary. This is similar to "Banks not in Hong Kong". -Kbdank71 14:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: (Update) Though I do not agree with the deletion, I have nominated category:Foreign banks in Canada above. The two cases should be dealt with in more or less the same way. — Instantnood 14:21, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems to be a list of banks from all over the world, that just happen to have a Hong Kong branch. If all general articles are removed, and only the articles on the specific HK branches are kept, only one article remains (Citibank (Hong Kong) Limited); and a 1-article category is not yet useful. (but see Canada above) - Eugene van der Pijll 15:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) -- Update: Keep. This category now also mainly contains articles on Hong Kong branches. The other (general) articles should also be removed or replaced. (Good work, Instantnood!) Eugene van der Pijll 17:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. But that's the whole point of the category. You could, in theory, add articles from every bank that isn't based in HK but has a branch there. Ditto for Category:Foreign banks in Canada, ditto for Category:Foreign banks in every country on earth. You'll wind up with a category for every country, and most banks will be in every category but one. That makes no sense. Why not just have Category:Banks in wherever? Some categories just aren't good ideas, and add nothing to Wikipedia. This is one of them. -Kbdank71 16:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Have you looked at Category:Foreign banks in Canada? It only contains articles like Bank of China Canada Limited, a Canadian branch of a Chinese bank. That article only fits in that single category. All of the articles in the Canadian category are specific Canadian branches, which is good. The HK category contains contained almost exclusively general articles, which is bad for the reason you mention. Eugene van der Pijll 17:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • That's fine, but there is nothing stopping anyone from adding every bank's main article to Category:Foreign banks in Canada simply because that bank has a branch there. After all, that's the name of the category. Are you going to clean it up every few months if that happens? If so, I'll change my vote. -Kbdank71 18:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I see that the category has been shifted in scope, and I would think my nomination can be retracted now. But I have a question...do Bank of China (Hong Kong) qualify as a local or foreign bank now?--Huaiwei 17:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I have got to double check its ownership structure. The Bank of China remains the largest shareholder, but I am not sure the percentage of stock it holds. — Instantnood 18:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • (response to Eugene van der Pijll's comment at 17:12, 29 Mar 2005) Thanks. :-) — Instantnood 18:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I think this is a very messy category because the definition of "foreign" is tricky - being incorporated in a particular territory is sometimes considered "domestic" enough, while sometimes you need to look at ownership - 51%? 100%? 18% (in the case of Shenzhen Development Bank, which is controlled by a foreign entity)? You can't draw a line. JuntungWu 06:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please also refer to the poll above regarding category:Foreign banks in Canada. — Instantnood 17:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)



March 25

Category:National parks

Should be merged with subcategories of Category:National parks by country (moving in from Category:Protected areas by country after a previous WP:CFD vote was clarified - I originally misinterpreted the decision). -- Beland 02:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree. There aren't any NPs that aren't in a country are there?--ZayZayEM 04:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the word national gives us a clue there... :) agree. Grutness|hello? 10:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I beleive there are at least three that are in more than one country, but I don't suppose that matters. Wincoote 13:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If you follow the reasoning of all these pro/anti China categories then China has no national parks. (Course, I think that's ridiculous, just sayin') SchmuckyTheCat 20:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • (response to Grutness) There's a matter of name. In the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and some other parts of the world, the term "country park" is used instead. — Instantnood 05:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • You miss my point, which was replying to ZayZayEM. If a park is a national park then by definition it must be in a nation. Doesn't matter what they're called in other parts of the world. Grutness|hello?
  • Don't understand the proposal. What gets lost in the merger? What name/names are kept? I think that Category:National parks with the country categories under it and eliminating Category:National parks by country would be good. Multinational ones would also logically fit into each relevant subcategory (in unusual cases could be in the supercategory if necessary). It seems pretty redundant to include both "national" and "by country". Maybe not strictly so, but people going to "national parks" won't be surprised to see it subdivided by country, and should actually expect it since this isn't the type of thing that each country normally has only one of. Gene Nygaard 18:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Kommentar: Sounds logical, and to me, "natural reserves" or "protected areas" sound more all-encompassing. There is at least one airport serving three States on the border, and the airport itself is on the soil of two States (Switzerland and France). It is categorised in three [[category:Airports of Foo]] categories. — Instantnood 05:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)



Cleanup overhead

Discussions moved off-page

Please see:

To be emptied or moved

The following categories meet the requirements for deletion but are not empty. You can still review discussions, which have been moved to archive pages (in particularly controversial cases, discussion may be left intact on this page instead). This section is meant to be a summary with no discussion. Discussion should go in the previous section.

Kategorie delete keep other rename to / why
Category:Terrorist organizations 25 4 2 delete (POV) - manual depopulation, see discussion
- - - - -

Category:1555 in law --> Category:1550s in law (discussion)

This is unresolved because there is no clear consensus to delete. The votes currently stand at 10 to 6 in favor—short of 2 to 1. Postdlf 16:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Coup d'états --> Category:Coups (discussion)

Category:Weapons of the Czeck Republic --> Category:Czech weapons (discussion)

Category:Transportation by country --> Not quite sure. Beland is supposed to take care of this. See discussion

Category:Terrorist organizations --> Category:Irregular military (discussion)

University people categories

Vote summary (categories only):

  • (4) Keep alumni: Greg Robson, James F., flamurai, Wincoote
  • (5) Delete alumni: Tupsharru, Lowellian, Postdlf, Radiant!, Neutrality
  • (2) Keep people/affiliated: James F., Wincoote
  • (7) Delete people/affiliated: Tupsharru, Greg Robson, Lowellian, flamurai, Postdlf, Radiant!, Neutrality

Moved discussion to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:University people categories

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:

Category:Cities in Hungary --> Category:Cities, towns and villages in Hungary

Can't delete it, because of that block compression thingy. Grutness|hello? 03:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some people feel that this page could benefit from restructuring. Please give your opinion and/or vote on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Restructuring.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=12294918"