Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions 

Shortcuts:
WP:CFD/All
WP:CFDALL
Deletion discussions
Deletion policy
Skip to current discussions Skip to current discussions

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Contents

Speedy renaming and speedy merging

Shortcut:
WP:CFDS

Categories may be listed here if they fall under the criteria specified at Wikipedia:Category renaming and repeated below. Deletion and de-listing may occur after 48 hours if there are no objections. They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|new name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal. This delay is to allow for objections over correct spelling, etc. to be made and to ensure that items are not listed here that do not meet the criteria.

Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g. "patent nonsense", "recreation", empty categories (that have been empty for four days) can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}, and no delay is required for these.

Speedy criteria

Criteria for speedy renaming or speedy merging are strictly limited to:

  1. Typographical errors (such as, Brdiges → Bridges).
    • Note that differences between British and American spelling (for example, Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors, but if both exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
  2. Capitalization fixes (such as, Characters In harry Potter → Characters in Harry Potter)
  3. Conversions from singular to plural, or back (such as, Steamship → Steamships)
  4. Non-conformance with "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).
    • This should only be used where there is no room for any doubt whatsoever that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory. It should not be assumed that an incorrectly formatted "radio stations" category was intended to be a "radio" category, or that an incorrectly formatted "archaeological sites" category was intended to be an "archaeology" category.
  5. Expanding abbreviations for country names: The name of the country should appear as it does in the name of the article about that country (for example, US or U.S. in reference to the United States should be renamed to United States, but this criterion specifically does not apply to renames between the terms "American" and "United States").
  6. Renames to match a disambiguated parent category such as Category:Georgia (country) or Category:Georgia (U.S. state) from an unqualified name are eligible for speedy renames.

When the speedy rename procedure should not be used:

  1. When proposing that the category name should be reformatted in addition to one of the speedy criteria
  2. When proposing that two or more changes should be made, each of which qualifies under the speedy criteria
  3. When proposing to change a country name to an adjective, or vice versa, as in United Kingdom to British, American to United States, Germany to German, Argentine to Argentina, etc.
  4. When proposing a change that is based on a naming convention adopted by a specific WikiProject but does not otherwise meet any of the six speedy criteria listed above
  5. When proposing a change that does not qualify under any of the six criteria above, regardless of whether or not the proposed change will bring the category into conformity with existing categories

Note: If the nominator decides to change a nomination based on comments, simply delete the old nomination and create a new one as long as it still meets the speedy criteria.

Add requests for speedy renaming here

If the category does not match one of the five criteria listed above PRECISELY, do not list it here, but list it in the main section instead. If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here. Use the following format:

* [[:Category:OLD Name]] to [[:Category:NEW Name]] ~~~~

Don't forget to tag the category with {{subst:cfr-speedy|new name}}

Please add new entries at the TOP of the list and sign and datestamp your entries with — ~~~~.

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, the timestamp shown is 14:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC) or earlier.

I disagree with this renaming for two reasons. First of all, the main article is named Public-key cryptography with a dash, and that dash was the result of extensive discussions. So if the category should be renamed then the new category name should have the dash too. Secondly, as far as I know all public-key cryptography systems use asymmetric keys, but not all asymmetric-key cryptosystems have public keys. Thus Category:Asymmetric-key cryptosystems is the broader name including more algorithms and systems. That is, even if we do make a Category:Public-key cryptography we would still need the Category:Asymmetric-key cryptosystems for some articles. (But I don't know if we currently have any articles on such asymmetric but non-public algorithms.) But there is one advantage with the name Category:Public-key cryptography: I know from when I taught crypto that beginners have an easier time with that name since they tend to mix up "asymmetric" and "symmetric". --David Göthberg (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In any case it's certainly not a candidate for speedy renaming. A full CfD should be proposed, if desired. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ready for deletion

Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.

Current discussions

July 26

NEW NOMINATIONS

US Navy ships by state

Suggest merging for each of the following 27 categories:
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Merge/Delete. Based on a discussion with the creator here and at WikiProject Ships here, I'm proposing an upmerge of the first 27 categories. The creator of those categories was not familiar with the "Ships built in Foo" style of categories. I'm also proposing a deletion of the final listed category which I created as a temporary umbrella category solely for the 27 "United States Navy ships built in Foo" categories. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As creator of almost all of these categories (United States Navy ships built in STATE) it appears more appropriate to place them in (Ships built in STATE). This does not cause any confusion since when a USS Ship is place in "built in state" it becomes obvious by its listing name that it is a USS ship. --

I request that they all be converted as I was the original creator except for (United States Navy ships built in Michigan).Wikited (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - the alphabetical ordering could sort the Navy ships (USS XXX) together anyway in case there are non-Navy ships in some of these (eg see Category:Ships built in Oregon; admittedly the sort is not doing this at present). Occuli (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

People from US counties

Propose renaming each of the following six categories to match the other 43 in Cat:American people by county.
Category:People from California by county to Category:People by county in California
Category:People from Michigan by county to Category:People by county in Michigan
Category:People from New Jersey by county to Category:People by county in New Jersey
Category:People from Pennsylvania by county to Category:People by county in Pennsylvania
Category:People from Virginia by county to Category:People by county in Virginia
Category:People from Washington by county to Category:People by county in Washington
  • Rename all Neier (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:American people by county

Propose renaming Category:American people by county to Category:People by county in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Recent discussions moved all of the categories in Cat:People by second-level administrative country subdivision and Cat:People by first-level administrative country subdivision to the "People by foo in country" standard, rather than adjectival forms. This one was just recently catted into one of them, so, it was missed in the original go-round. Neier (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Pan-European advocacy groups

Propose renaming Category:Pan-European advocacy groups to Category:Advocacy groups at European level
Nominator's rationale: The advocacy groups listed in the "Pan-European advocacy groups" category have been set up by entities in >1 country to lobby the EU/EU institutions/EU&EEA. Their distinguishing characteristic is their intent in lobbying such bodies to gain advantage. So far, so good. The problem is the use of the "Pan-European" prefix in this context. It's a problem because Pan-European nationalism is an extremist political ideology advocating nationalism for a single-nation Europe. The use of the "Pan-European" prefix in this context is therefore misleading. The suffix "...at European level" (sometimes rendered as "...at a European level" or "...at an European level") is usually used for transnational bodies interacting with EU/EU institutions/EU&EEA (e.g. "parties at European level", "groups at European level", "foundations at European level", and so on). So unless anybody seriously thinks that the Europe a Nation and Quaker Council for European Affairs belong in the same category as each other, renaming "Category:Pan-European advocacy groups" to "Advocacy groups at European level" is probably a good idea. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Loatians of Fooian descent

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per recent precedent Mayumashu (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Nigerian American sportspeople

Suggest merging Category:Nigerian American sportspeople to Category:African American sportspeople, Category:Nigerian Americans and possibly Category:Sportspeople of Nigerian descent
Nominator's rationale: as per nomination and comments thereof below Mayumashu (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:African American coaches, baseball players

Suggest merging
Nominator's rationale: so-called triple intersection of ethnicity, nationality and sport - convention is for categorizing by ethnicity end at type of occupation and not particular occupation (sportspeople and not particular sport) Mayumashu (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for both. - Oh ferkrisake, how many times do we have to go through this, Mayumashu??? There's just no end to it. To begin with, have you forgotten that you took Category:African American baseball players to CFD on April 8, 2008 -- completely disregarding the fact that it had recently won approval here after having its deletion reversed at DRV. That time, of course, it was closed Keep -- and this time it should be closed Speedy Keep. (And there really should be a limit to how often the same category can be taken to CFD.)
    As for the rationale you've offered -- first of all, it's just plain w-r-o-n-g to call these categories a "triple intersection of ethnicity, nationality and sport". They're nothing of the sort. "African American" is their ethnicity, and "coach" or "baseball player" is their occupation. Secondly, there is no such "convention" as you allude to. Saying that somebody is a "sportsman" is almost meaningless -- Category:sportspeople is merely a super-cat that groups together all of those very disparate (some of them barely-related) sub-cats for navigational purposes. It's not even comparable to, say, Category:scientists, where at least you can be sure that all of the individuals are actually scientists. Cgingold (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep both - have to agree with Cgingold on all points. Occuli (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Deaths by type of illness

Propose renaming the following:

Nominator's rationale: this is follow-up to complete the rationalisation of category names under Category:Deaths by type of illness, as follow-up to CFD 17 July 2008. Again, these categories should be consistently named in the pattern Deaths from <illness>, which from the previous CFD seems to be consensus. Dl2000 (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Rename - per nom.--SRX 01:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename all - per nom. Cgingold (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename all as per nom, to have uniform naming pattern Mayumashu (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename, uniformity. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


July 25

Category:Foreign relations of the United States by country

Propose renaming Category:Foreign relations of the United States by country to Category:Bilateral relations of the United States
Nominator's rationale: After a massive cleanup of the 600 articles which were in Category:Bilateral relations all articles have been placed into categories in the format of Bilateral relations of Foo; this category being the only hold out. The category should be renamed to Category:Bilateral relations of the United States; there is no need for the by country as this is assumed by the term Bilateral relations. Россавиа Диалог 19:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom -- Though I was tempted to say something like, "I didn't know the US had Bilateral relations like other countries do -- aren't they all unilateral?" And of course, it would also be ever so appropriate symbolically for the US categories to be the only holdout (kinda like the real world :). Cgingold (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Unqualified "Terrorism"

  • Delete: This situation has gone on long enough. There are way too many problems with these categories:
  1. They rely on various definitions of terrorism, none of which are universally excepted. Category:Terrorists‎ has the clearest definition, but it's still our own definition, which is POV and OR. Others use the definition from Category:Terrorism ("events, organizations, or people that have at some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc.") which is so open as to easily allow for libel. Anyone ever referred to as a terrorist?! Yet these categories have not been applied widely to anyone ever referred to as terrorist, but rather, quite selectively, creating a glaring POV slant to the categories.
  2. Classifying any person/organization as terrorist is clearly one point of view. Because of this, WP:WTA suggests it "should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article" but since such qualifications are not specifically mentioned in the category (unlike ":Category: Organizations designated as terrorist by Government X") all of the above categories effectively DO use the term "terrorism" without qualification/attribution. It's my understanding that this is why "Category:Terrorist organizations" was deleted, yet we've allowed these other categories to circumvent that decision.
  3. Again, "Terrorist Organizations" has been removed, but incidents, victims of, etc, have remained, which is totally ridiculous. "Incidents/Victims/Counter-actions of Terrorism" all clearly state that the originators/perpetrators/targets are terrorist. You can't avoid libel by describing someone's actions as fraudulent instead of describing them as a fraud.
  4. Terrorists is problematic for reasons of libel. I don't believe we categorize people based on crimes they've been accused of, when they have neither publicly admitted it nor been found guilty. TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, following Themightyquill's comments above. Moreover, the word terrorist has become so widened in meaning, but is still so overwhelmingly negative, that it is more than likely to be misleading to a reader outside of a sourced, direct quotation. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too broad category, like Cat:Dictators which was deleted a long time ago. - Darwinek (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Themightyquill gave most arguments. The terrorist of one is the freedom fighter of the other. So, these categories cannot respect NPoV in giving all point of views. An alternative would be to merge all of them in a category named activism or better political violence. Ceedjee (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per well-written nom and Ceedjee's "terrorist vs freedom fighter". --Kbdank71 19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also, categories are POV magnets. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Surely you can't be serious (and don't call me Shirley)...Russian aircraft bombings of August 2004 was political violence? Or how about September 11, 2001 attacks, that was activism? To call these acts anything but terrorism is not keeping NPOV, but sheer...ummm....you don't want to know the rest. And this coming from me, one who is often regarded as a terrorist tree-hugger. The solution is not a mass deletion of categories, but attacking the issue individually on articles if and when needed. --РоссавиаДиалог 20:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Hello. From my point of view, 9.11 was -of course- terrorism. And the invasion of Afghanistan was a normal answer to this terrorism. But for the Talibans and for most of the people who support(ed) them, it was a act of war in an asymmetric warfare against an enemy they don't have the power to fight. I would add that both terrorism and fight for freedom are examples of political violences : both use violence (whether legitimate or not) to realize a political aim (whether against good or against evil). Ceedjee (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. In fact, I would even propose a bot that alerts whenever a "terrorist" category is created. Hours of arguing over those categories would be saved. -- Nudve (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename to things with "political violence", as Ceedjee more or less suggested. Ucucha 20:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • What's your proposed rename for Category:Terrorists? Thanks. TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
      • "Perpetrators of political violence", but I am open to better proposals. Ucucha 06:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Political and social science do necessarily include an amount of opinion. This lies in their very nature, as they are not mathematical sciences. Nevertheless, they are scientific disciplines; they form in scientific dialogue, discourse and sometimes consensus. Now while there may be some who argue that there is no such thing as terrorism, this can hardly be considered a consensus. Claiming that the mere description of existing terrorism would be "original research" and thereby invalid seems outrightly ludicrous to me. If this holds, we can move on to delete each and every topic of society and politics, as no point on any of these matters is accepted by absolutely everybody; there will always someone who claims that e.g. blowing up 3000 people is no terrorism, because blah blah blah whatever. I think it would be really destructive to push this, claiming to enforce a "neutral point of view". We arrived at a point here where alledged neutrality turns into neutralizing facts, for the sake of a misunderstood concept of political correctness. -- 790 ♫ 22:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Did anyone here say there is no such thing as terrorism? If they did, I missed it. Moreover, while political and social science may deal with scientific method now and then (mostly through statistical analysis), they are heavily muddled with narrative. Meanwhile, all Wikipedia categories are not overwhelmingly negative, politically charged, polarizing and yet so wide in meaning as to have little or none at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
You seem to imply that statistical analysis was the only "scientific method" in the social sciences. Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that there are perfectly valid scientific methods outside number crunching, that is: descriptive methods, and that social science without those is little more than administrative accountancy. Now, you claim above that the term "terrorist" was "so negatively charged" that it would be "misleading" to a reader. Could you give an example for that? Because if there is terrorism, as we agreed, I don't see why it shouldn't be called and categorized as such. -- 790 ♫ 22:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
We can disagree on how deeply the scientific method threads into the social sciences. The categories themselves are flawed and misleading because in encyclopedic terms the word has little or no meaning other than politically-driven threats of violence and murder (the dicdef). With sources like the ones found in Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States, if not for Wikipedia's widely acknowledged systemic bias, these categories could carry most criminal, politically militant and government organizations worldwide. The pith being, whatever you or I or anyone else might think of such an outcome, either way it's hopelessly PoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Procedural keep. Not even close to all of the subcategories have been tagged as of this timestamp. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I did make a request for help on the talk page. Is there not a way to do this without me tagging them all manually? Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Not that I know of, unless someone has a bot that can tag categories effectively. Creating these categories would have been a lot of work so it's really only fair that it will be a lot of work to have them deleted. We can't do it without tagging them, which might take a lot of brute work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - BLP landmine. Sceptre (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jewish Peronists

Category:Jewish Peronists - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Irrelevant and dubious category. Tazmaniacs (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OCAT, even if there were more than 1. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Overcategorisation. - Darwinek (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. What is relevant in the fact a Peronist would -additionnaly- be Jewish ? Ceedjee (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • At first I figured this one was a real "eye-roller", but it piqued my interest. And it turns out that there actually was a rather interesting link between Juan Peron and Argentine Jews, as I learned by reading this section of the Juan Peron article. I also added another person to the category. But in the end, I have to say Delete this category -- if only because, amazingly enough, the obvious parent cat, Category:Peronists (or Category:Peronistas), doesn't even exist! Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Law enforcement workers

Propose renaming Category:Law enforcement workers to Category:Law enforcement occupations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Everything related to a career specialisation is now categorised under Occupations. It seems that no category relating to employment and specialisations has the word "worker" in it; the exceptions are Category:Sex workers and the nominee. "Workers" stands out, and ought to be renamed to follow this very large category's naming convention. It essentially means the same thing but sounds more formal and structured. — Skittleys (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. No objections so why not? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Scientific and engineering occupations

Propose renaming Category:Scientific and engineering occupations to Category:Science and engineering occupations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Science" is broader than "Scientific". With the rename, social science-related occupations can be moved here. This is actually part of a proposal to restructure the science-related occupations so that they are all encompassed in one category instead of being distributed throughout Category:Occupations. Please see both the proposal and a relevant CfM for more details. — Skittleys (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Here's another current CFD that might be related: Types of scientist by nationality. --Orlady (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. No objections so why not? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Students of composers

Category:Students of Johann Sebastian Bach (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Category:Students of Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Turkcell Super League

Propose renaming Category:Turkcell Super League to Category:Süper Lig
Nominator's rationale: Other related categories do not include the sponsor's name, eg it is Category:Premier League not Category:Barclays Premier League. Also, as Turkcell did not sponsor the league until 2007, it is inaccurate to classify many of the entries as relating to the "Turkcell Super League" specifically. Also, renaming the category now would prevent it having to be renamed in the future every time the sponsor changes, as it is bound to do over time...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Categories should match main articles. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestion Could it not be called something like Category:Turkish football league level 1 as it contains First Division articles, followed by Süper Lig ones? ('TFF First League is the second level of the Turkish football league system'. Turkey seems to have followed the England example - it will be the Championship in a few years.) Occuli (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The league was renamed in 2001, so those articles are in the correct category, and I think we should stick with the current name. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That is the same league, just under an earlier name. There's no need to separate out pre-2001 articles and post-2001 articles into separate cats when it is the same league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is different - the Premier League was a new entity. The Super Lig was merely a rename of the existing first division. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
OK then, rename per nom - I am convinced. Occuli (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Invertebrates of South America

Category:Invertebrates of South America - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nomi