Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:55, 25 November 2007

November 23

Journalist renames

Category:Scientific journalistsTemplate:Lc1
Category:Automobile journalistsTemplate:Lc1

• Rename using standard terminology to Category:Science journalists and Category:Automotive journalists. Cgingold (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename one to Category:Science journalists and the other to Category:Motoring journalists "automobile" is strictly American English, and the "motor sport" categories have all made this move - these ones should too. Anyway, Category:Automotive journalists implies they move by themselves, which I suppose they do if there is a bar nearby. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm. "Automotive journalists" is what they're commonly called here, e.g. Western Automotive Journalists (I suspect it derives from "Automotive industry", as in Category:Automotive industry). Is the term "Motoring journalists" actually in widespread use across the pond? Cgingold (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There is really no general use of "automotive" etc here at all. I thought you all drove "cars" like we do anyway? Johnbod (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

True enough -- except for Boston, where a lot of people drive cahz (I think that's how they spell it). On the other hand, Boston IS home to The Car Guys. But of course, they're not even journalists, much less cah journalists. Now where was I? Oh yes -- I suppose "Automotive journalists" is somewhat odd-sounding, but then so are both "Motoring journalists" and "Automobile journalists". So how to choose?? (see below for more) Cgingold (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support rename of Category:Scientific journalists to Category:Science journalists per ordinary usage. Plus, the journalists are not, themselves, "scientific"; they cover science. --Lquilter (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Precisely. In fact, I'm afraid some of them fall well short of the description. Cgingold (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Rename one to Category:Science journalists and the other to Category:Motoring journalists per Johnbod. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: (picking up where I left off above)- For what it's worth, I just googled all three terms, and here are the results: after ten laps, "Automotive journalists" has opened up a big lead with ~75,000 hits; "Motoring journalists" is a distant second at ~20,000 hits, with "Automobile journalists" (which mainly seems to be the preferred term in Canada) close behind at ~15,000 hits.

Obviously, my personal preference is for "Automotive journalists", but it's clearly fair to say that all three are valid terms -- so I think I would like to let other folks work on sorting this out for a while. Cgingold (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcat: Misplaced Pages:Overcategorization#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue. Similar recent deletion: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_24#Category:_Critics_of_Islam. Flex (talk/contribs) 21:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment A debate on this was closed just two days ago. See Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 7. As it is now the category is just equivalent to Category:Anti-Christianity, Category:Anti-Buddhism, or Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment. If you disliked what the closer did you should have tried Deletion Review.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I suggest that unless the nominator has some exceptionally good reason for another CfD so soon after the last one, that this debate should be speedily closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I didn't see the most recent iteration on this topic until now. I retract. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Frisian-Dutch_people

Category:Frisian-Dutch_people - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category is the same as Category:People_from_Friesland. This category contains only two articles while Category:People_from_Friesland contains those two articles plus a lot more SK-luuut (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Comedian politicians

Suggest merging Category:Comedian politicians to Category:Celebrity politicians

Nominator's rationale: Merge, as tautology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me, BHG, but I think this goes to the question of intent. In my experience, most (though not all) politicians are complete duds when they're trying to be funny -- whereas all too many are inadvertently very funny indeed when they least want to be. Cgingold (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• You obviously never heard the late lamented Tony Banks, who was notorious for his ability to reduce the British House of Commons to a combination of outrage and helpless laughter. But you're right that while most of them are unintentionally hilarious, very few politicians can do this intentionally, and Banks was one of the exceptions which prove the rule. My nomination was indeed based on the unintentional comedy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, BHG - I knew you would rise to the occasion! You do realize, I hope, that your comments could be construed -- perverse though it would be -- as an argument for keeping this category? :) Cgingold (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ooh no it aint't. See WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth: "Avoid categories that will never have more than a few members" :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Upmerge and delete per BHG and also because this is a trivial non-notable non-defining and absurd category. --Lquilter (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• The late David Lange is another who, like Banks, was a wit and comedian (see http://en.wikiquote.org/David_Lange). The category, however, seems an unlikely one - delete. Grutness...wha? 08:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Upmerge and delete as overcharacterisation, and also as tending to encourage the misplacing of "politicians who are funny" in this category. Of course "politicians who are funny" is different to "politicians who a lot of people laugh at". Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• I'm going to end the suspense and say Merge. Not even the Kinkster and Al Franken combined require a category of their own -- though I might reconsider if Mort Saul were to make a serious run for political office (not too likely, seeing as he's 80 now). Cgingold (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of Italy

Propose renaming Inconsistency with categories such as Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in France which is in rather than of. i'd either suggest moving to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Italy or moving the french one to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of France, Either way I think its important to be consistent. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 17:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Germany. I suggest renaming the Italian one, which is awkward, really. A diocese doesn't belong to the nation-state it's in. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• I agree

Propose renaming to:Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Italy ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC) I'd also propose moving Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of Piedmont to in or deleting that category depending on how many there are likely to be

Others include Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of England & Wales, Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of Scotland and Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of Croatia to in.

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 17:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Rename all per nom - Poland & Portugal are currently "of" too. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes rename Roman Catholic dioceses of Poland and Roman Catholic dioceses of Portugal also to in ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Heirs Apparent

Category:Heirs Apparent - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete, as the aristocratic equivalent of categories for political candidates, which we deprecate in nearly all cases; it's categorisation by the likelihood that someone will attain a notable rank in the future. And since this category explicitly includes heirs apparent to baronetcies, some of the are only heirs apparent to non-notable ranks. If kept, it needs a capitalisation fix to Category:Heirs apparent to match the main article Heir apparent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, also a "current" category. By a strange coincidence, all 3 members are clearly NN, and have been prodded. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment since Prince Charles has been heir apparent for decades, though this is a current category, it isn't actually in high flux. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• He's not in it, & your newspaper won't tell you when any of these inherit. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Populate properly - The appropriate population would be as a parent category for Princes of Wales, Princes of the Asturias, Dauphins, Princes Imperial, etc. All the present contents of the category appear to be NN eldest sons of British peers, and all are nominated for deletion. However Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury while Viscount Cranborne would have been a legitimate member of the category, until he succeeded as Marquess of Salisbury in 2003; likewise the politican Michael Ancram until 2004. Nevertheless heirs apparent should only have articles if notable in their own right. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The royalty are all in Category:Heirs apparent (note the capitalisation), and it would be a pity to clutter it with the less significant issue of heirs to noble titles. It my be appropriate to rename Category:Heirs apparent to Category:Royal heirs apparent and create a new Category:Heirs apparent to peerages, but in most cases, but I would suggest that such a category is not really a great idea, because as a "current" category it would need regular maintenance and changes in British society mean that a heir to a Dukedom or whatever is much less significant than would have been the case a few decades ago. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though strictly it should perhaps be Category:Current royal heirs apparent - every Prince of Wales, Dauphin etc was "heir apparent" once, & many died without inheriting. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Artists against crime

Category:Artists against crime - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete as categorisation by non-notable myspace group. None of the articles in this category even mention "Artists against crime" other than as a category entry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete because as written the category is a vague and non-defining "opinion"; and per BHG -- if capitalized to refer to the MySpace group, it would be non-notable organizational membership (overcat). --Lquilter (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as overcategorization by non-notable group membership. Maralia (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all, unless someone produces RS coverage of this group. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:American Samoa territorial agencies

Suggest merging Category:American Samoa territorial agencies to Category:American Samoa

Nominator's rationale: Merge, single-article category, little immediate potential for growth (Category:American Samoa has already been properly dispersed to subcats). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:2pac Shakur

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. The text is a copyvio, and an eponymous category already exists at Category:Tupac Shakur ×Meegs 08:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:2pac Shakur - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete, article in category space and eponymous overcategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete only member (with huge copyvio) is in Category:Tupac Shakur songs where it belongs. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Xingyiquan

Category:Xingyiquan - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete, single-article orphaned category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Democracy Alliance

Category:Democracy Alliance - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete, as undefining categorisation by connection with political party fundraising group, in this case Democracy Alliance of the Democratic Party (United States); most politicians are involved in numerous internal party groups, and and categorising on this basis would leads to massive category clutter. All those categorised here could be listed in the main article Democracy Alliance, and most of them already are. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per BHG -- I was going to nom this one, too, and had been talking with the creator of the category about this one. I believe s/he agrees that listing (as appropriate) is better. See User talk:Buellering & User talk:Lquilter. --Lquilter (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I started the category. Having read over the Misplaced Pages article suggested to me by User talk:Lquilter about when lists are preferred versus when categories are preferred, I think this category is a way to provide information about the Democracy Alliance that will be preferred by those people who tend to prefer categories over lists. I'd prefer keeping the category for the reading ease and comprehension of those who prefer categories to lists. The Democracy Alliance is not part of the Democratic party but, rather, a new group of extremely wealthy individuals who came together starting in 2005 to fund a progressive infrastructure outside the party's confines. I'd encourage those who want to delete the category to hold off for a month or two and see how the category develops. I haven't finished researching and adding DA donors and DA-funded groups. Its most recent national director, Judy Wade, has been quoted in the Washington Post maintaining that within a few years, the DA will be sponsoring progressive infrastructure to the tune of $500 million a year. This is a very significant addition to how politics is funded in the U.S. and there will be a growing body of research on it. My concern is that using lists within the article would make the article difficult to absorb. Over 80 donors have been identified as associated with the DA, for example. The point here is to make the information easier to grasp for readers.Buellering (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buellering, thank for the long reply and clarification. Having read more of the links, you are obviously quite right that this is a significant and notable grouping worthy of the substantial article you are developing.

However, I think that it might help to separate out two questions: a) whether he category is appropriate, and b) how to present the data otherwise.

On the category, the first problem is that we have deleted several funded-by categories over the last year, because funders are rarely a defining characteristic of the recipient, and I can find no equivalent funded-by-categories either under Category:Philanthropic organizations or under Category:American political organizations. Funders may well be worth mentioning in the article, but not always, and it's a form of categorisation we have avoided.

Secondly, the category groups donors with recipients, which seems to me to be unhelpful, because they are very different types of entity, and I'm not sure that a Category:Democracy Alliance donors would be appropriate either. Just to take one example, Pat Stryker has funded many things, and isn't categorised by any of them.

So some form of list is he way to go, and the question how best to do that. If the lists get huge, then they could be split out into separate articles, but it looks to me like that is some way off (though in the meantime I have used {{div col}} to arrange the list in 3 columns on Mozilla browsers). But as the article grows to cover of the history and aims of the DA the lists will appear less likely to overwhelm the article.

With the template facing deletion too, you are probably feeling a bit fed up, but I do hope that this won't put you off. You are doing great work on the subject, but the organisational tools of the template and these don't seem to fit with what other experience has shown to be viable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that grouping donors with recipients--and also grouping them with the major DA activists or operatives or whatever one might call them--is an important and positive feature of the category. The record of this group (the DA) appears to be that the very wealthy individuals associated with it decided that existing Democratic or progressive or left-leaning organizations were insufficient as they stood to meet their self-professed goal of creating a permanent Democratic/progressive majority in the U.S. In other words, these wealthy people felt that there were deficiences in existing organizations--new kinds of organizations were needed or, at times, very significant new funding was required by some older groups--to accomplish their objective. This raises the question--what kind of organizations does the DA fund? Are they funding certain types of organizations? What are those organizations? What do these DA-funded groups do that previously existing groups didn't do? Most political commentators, left and right, who have addressed this issue say that the DA funders have settled on certain types of organizations. Grouping donors with recipients in a category allows one to see the themes that emerge from the grouping. The themes that emerge from that should be an accurate reflection of the DA's own views on what type of organization or political activity needs to be funded and developed in order to support their goal. I am not a political historian but I'm not aware of anything like the DA ever happening before. The DA is an unusual and perhaps even unique donor's collaborative or collective that jointly decides to fund certain organizations. In many cases, I would imagine, the donors who are members of the DA already fund (and continue to fund) organizations outside of the DA. That would not tempt me to create a category. What we have, though, with the DA is a situation where the DA comes together twice a year and votes on which groups to fund, while simultaneously agreeing to fulfill a commitment they incur as dues-paid members of the group to kick in a certain amount of money every year, as individuals, to the DA-approved groups. If there were another donor's collective in the US that did this, I would advocate for a category for that group too.Buellering (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are good arguments for a list, but not for a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading the editorial guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes, it does not appear that a consensus has evolved from which one could say in the case of a dispute about a category that "This type of material is only suitable for a list". Rather, I get the impression that some people are list-builders and some are category-builders--that a preference for categories over lists and vice versa is based on how different people like to absorb information, and that material that is suitable for a list is generally also suitable for a category. A consensus might evolve--or may have already evolved, but has been reported elsewhere--that defines the characteristics of material that is suitable for lists, but not categories.Buellering (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The real issue here is that of a defining attribute, as above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Goldman Sachs alumni

Propose renaming Category:Goldman Sachs alumni to Category:Goldman Sachs people

Nominator's rationale: Rename per convention of Category:people by company. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename per nom, although I got a chuckle out of imagining their Spring Break festivities, football team, etc. Maralia (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Is this not about former Goldman Sacks staff? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Kot Dial Das

Suggest merging Category:Kot Dial Das to Category:Cities and towns in Punjab (Pakistan)

Nominator's rationale: Merge, POV category rescued from the orphanage, and rather oddly designed, categorising a big town by its proximity to a small village. (BTW, I propose merger rather than deletion in case the category is more heavily populated before the CfD is closed). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Australian Club

Category:Members of the Australian Club - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation this category rescued from the orphange. Being a member of the Australian Club is not a defining characteristic of these people, who are in case listed at List of Australian Club Members. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not mentioned in most of a sample of articles. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Massacres of Palestinians in Israel

Suggest merging Category:Massacres of Palestinians in Israel to Category:Massacres in Israel

Nominator's rationale: Merge, un-needed subdivision of a small parent category. (Note: this categ was orphaned). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:RiffTrax movies

Category:RiffTrax movies - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: DELETE Non-notable category, filled with OR. Who really cares if some random people did their own commentary for movies and TV shows? Anakinjmt (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete - previous discussion here. So many problems. Performance by performer overcategorization for starters. Also non-defining. None of the films or TV shows categorized here are notable for having been riffed, which stands in stark contrast to the category for MST3K-riffed films because many of those films wouldn't be notable were it not for being riffed. It's also borderline spam. Listify it and put it in the RiffTrax article if the information is wanted but it's not suitable for a category. Otto4711 (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Star Trek-style starship simulators

Category:Star Trek-style starship simulators - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Not notable, original research, games already covered by other categories: Category:Space combat simulators, Category:Space trading and combat simulation games SharkD (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Byzantine allies

Category:Byzantine allies - Template:Lc1

Category:Byzantine enemies - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This categorisation scheme is not viable, for several reasons. First, if expanded across time and space, we'd have enormous category clutter on many articles. How many "Allies of X" and "Enemies of X" categories could be appended to articles about individual countries? Second, the allegiances of political leaders – and the tribes and/or nations that they represent – are about as stable as the attention-span of a 3-year-old. One's ally today may well end up to be one's enemy the next day (for instance, the Lombards appear in both Category:Byzantine allies and Category:Byzantine enemies). Third, categories are simple creatures by nature, and are simply not suited to capturing the complexities of foreign policy. Few can be neatly classified as either allies or enemies, and certainly not without substantial original research. Politics consists of infinite shades of grey, and a simple Manichean classification scheme not only fails to reflect its essence, but can also easily mischaracterise it. – Black Falcon 06:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete per well-reasoned nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per both & the precedent a week or so ago. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Listify can be put into a detailed list with periods of adversarial and cooperative relations. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • While possible in theory, I don't think a list of only four items (that's all that current appears in these two categories) is viable. – Black Falcon 21:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both - and add Category:Ancient Roman tribal enemies, Category:Female enemies of Rome, Category:Ancient Roman enemies, Category:Ancient Roman allies and Category:Female allies of Rome to the nomination if it's not too late. Otto4711 (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Since more than 24 hours have elapsed, I started a new nomination, with an expanded deletion rationale. See Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 24#Category:Ancient Roman allies. – Black Falcon 15:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Hebrew Bible quotations

Propose renaming Category:Hebrew Bible quotations to Category:Hebrew Bible words and phrases

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The new name would be more exact, follow conventions used elsewhere, and help distinguish this category from Category:Hebrew Bible verses. Also, it would clearly enable the inclusion of articles dealing with words but not phrases. Perhaps its parent category, Category:Biblical phrases, should be changed to match, specifically: Category:Biblical words and phrases. Eliyak T·C 05:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 05:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Fayenatic (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed - very good idea. Please make this a multiple nomination to include Category:Biblical phrases exactly as suggested earlier; that one already includes words as well as phrases. In terms of head categories, will it be OK for them (or just Category:Biblical words and phrases) to go into both Category:Phrases and Category:Words? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know about this - there are 10 times more HB/OT phrases in Category:Biblical phrases, and I suspect what we should be doing is either merging the two or (better) properly dividing them into HB & NT. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:People born in Mozambique

Category:People born in Mozambique - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Totally the same function as Category:Mozambican people. Matthew_hk tc 04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• merge to Category:Mozambican people or its subcats; no reason to think about delete. Hmains (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• question. If someone was born in Mozambique but never really lived there for a substantial amount of time, isn't he/she not included in Category:Mozambican people but is included in Category:People born in Mozambique. And if that is correct, is that a reason to keep the cat? --Brewcrewer (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. People born in the former colony of Portuguese East Africa were born Portuguese and only some became Mozambican nationals or citizens after independence; others remained Portuguese. Nor is this a unique case. There's more on this on the talk page. SamEV (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Absolutely Keep! - there are a lot of people (namely Portuguese), who were born in Mozambique, particulary during colonial times (up to 1974), that are not Mozambican! The Ogre (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Put them on Category:People of Mozambican descent or Category:People by city in Mozambique. Misplaced Pages had its effective Categories Tree system, not create by you own view. Matthew_hk tc 17:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - They are not of Mozambican descent. They are not Mozambican at all! And Category:People by city in Mozambique seems to be more directed at nationals of the country. The Ogre (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Please read why Category:People from Suriname deleted. Matthew_hk tc 17:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. As stated already, not all people born in the country identify as "People of Mozambican descent". It's not an automatic identity we should be attributing to them. That's OR. Many born in colonial times in Mozambique have never been anything but Portuguese, so they only belong in People of Portuguese descent. SamEV (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Under the cat Category:Mozambican people by ethnic or national origin, there may have Category:Expatriates in Mozambique, is that enough? Matthew_hk tc 21:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. There's a couple of problems with that. The issue is that some of them are not nor were Mozambican, so they shouldn't be in any sub-cat of a "Mozambican people" category. Many of them, such as Heinz, do not live there, so they're not expats in Mozambique. They were never Mozambican nationals; though born there, they were born into a different nation (Portugal), before there was an independent Mozambican state. Their nationality and citizenship belongs with Portugal, so by leaving Mozambique, as they did, they did not become expatriates. Many went to metropolitan Portugal and continued being Portuguese just as before; they weren't expatriates. They were one thing: people who were born in Mozambique. Not Mozambican nationals; not Mozambican citizens; not ethnic Mozambicans. They were Portuguese born in the colony (later a province) known as Portuguese East Africa or Mozambique. So some of the people in the category are Mozambican, but others are not. SamEV (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Summary Category:Portuguese expatriates in Mozambique, Category:Mozambican immigrants to Portugal, Category:Mozambican expatriates in Portugal, Category:Mozambican-Portuguese, Category:Portuguese-Mozambican people, Category:People by city in Mozambique have all the function of above cat, although look-likes over-categorization. Matthew_hk tc 21:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. So you go ahead and create - how many new categories was it? - in order to justify your nomination? That's not efficient, Matt. But anyways, it still doesn't do it. At (and before) independence many left, as Portuguese, and cannot be categorized as Mozambican; they can at most be categorized as people born in Mozambique. SamEV (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And another reason, all native African were also born in Mozambique, then the cat will over-sized. If you want all non-black people, whatever he spent entire life in Mozambique, or just childhood, the only possible way to put in cat is above trees. Matthew_hk tc 22:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The category has blacks and whites in it! That's how it should be. It should just be a category about people born in Mozambique, period. What's so complicated about that? Who cares how many native Africans it contains? It's not about all people born in Mozambique, it's like any other category: it's about notable people born in Mozambique, of whatever race. The stuff about who among them is Mozambican or not belongs somewhere else. That's what the other categories are for. Didn't you read the cat talk page? SamEV (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and deplore the creation of these extra ill-considered categories such as Category:Portuguese expatriates in Mozambique (an expatriate is someone living outside their country of birth). 'Born in Mozambique' is entirely unambiguous. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment at least Category:Portuguese expatriates in Mozambique is the best place for those governor-general. Matthew_hk tc 10:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cities by geographic region

Category:Cities in Samaria - Template:Lc1

Category:Cities in Judea - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete These seem to be some artefacts from the early 'pedia. They aren't inherently useless, but I haven't found a "cities by geographic historic region" hierarchy for them, or even sister categories. Tewfik 01:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Judea and Samaria are the district names used by Israel to describe the West Bank. Those names are in common use in Israel. These 2 categories are currently listed as subcategories of Category:Cities in the West Bank and Category:Cities in Israel. Going up the category tree takes one to Category:Cities. That overall category breaks down cities by states, regions, continents, countries, bioregions (such as Category:Cities on the Great Rift Valley and Category:Cities on Lake Kivu), religion (Category:Holy cities), history (Category:History by city), etc.. See also Category:Ancient cities, Category:Hellenistic colonies, and many more. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Big can of worms, this is. Judea and Samaria are the Israeli terms for these territories, which are occuppied but not formally annexed by Israel. The categories include many towns (such as Tulkarm) which are under the control of the Palestinian National Authority, and this seems inappropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No need for them if we have Category:Cities in the West Bank. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Judea and Samaria refer to historic areas, not just to places in the West Bank. Judea and Samaria refers to the West Bank. Slightly ridiculous, but that is the world... Tewfik 10:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that there is no Category:Judea or Category:Samaria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. OK. I now see that Israel uses this district name: Judea and Samaria Area. Localities are already listed under Category:Judea and Samaria Area. So the categories Category:Cities in Samaria and Category:Cities in Judea are redundant, especially since they list some modern Palestinian cities. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. For more info on how the government of Israel uses the area name "Judea and Samaria" or "Judea and Samaria Areas" see:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.cbs.gov.il+%22judea+and+samaria%22

http://www.cbs.gov.il/population/new_2007/table1.pdf --Timeshifter (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Arab localities in Palestine 1948

Propose renaming Category:Arab localities in Palestine 1948 to Category:Villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict

Nominator's rationale: The article-space list that this category serves was long ago renamed to List of villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict. Additionally, it is in some cases being attached to every village that is over 60 years old, to the point that it is becoming useless. Tewfik 01:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is useful to have a category that lets us know and learn about the cities and towns in historic territories or nations. The list page only names the depopulated cities and towns. It does not name the populated cities and towns in 1948 before the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. See also my comment in the previous section. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• See also a closely related discussion at CfD 2007 May 14#Category:Jewish_communities_destroyed_in_1948. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see both points of view in that discussion. I lean towards the view that categorizing towns destroyed or depopulated or moved due to war is very difficult. Because in the Vietnam War and World War 2 many towns were largely or totally destroyed or removed. What percentage of destruction of a town is required before categorization occurs? Many bombed-out German, Russian, and Vietnamese towns were rebuilt even after near total destruction. The discussion here is different. It is very useful to learn about the history of nations, territories, bioregions, etc. by following category trees for cities. It is a lot simpler to categorize too. A city either existed, or it did not exist, in that place and time. A list is better for delineating the various degrees and timelines of depopulation, destruction, removal, ethnic cleansing, etc. for cities, towns, and localities during and after wars. On the other hand one learns a lot about historical regions, nations, empires and cities by drilling down their category trees to various subcategories such as the category for cities. See Category:Ottoman Empire. Drill down to Category:Geography of the Ottoman Empire, and then drill down to Category:Cities of the Ottoman Empire.--Timeshifter (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment At present the category contains some places not depopulated, like Kafr Qasim. Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That was my point. The list was already scoped so as to only have depopulated places, while many, if not most of the categorised locations were not depopulated, but are tagged only because they existed before 1948. Tewfik 10:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• So you are proposing changing a category that fits its current name to a different name and a different purpose. What is the objection to having Category:Villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict as a sub-cat of the present cat? Johnbod (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The current name and purpose is untenable. We already have broad consensus that we don't categorise by previous forms of government (Ottoman 1918, Mamlukes xx), neither can cities like Tiberias or Acre be called "Arab localities". The article space list has already reached a neutral and encyclopaedic scoping, and it seems that the category should as well. Tewfik 14:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Palestine was the name of the area before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. See Image:PalestineAndTransjordan.png, Image:Map of Jewish settlements in Palestine in 1947.png and the related maps at commons:Atlas of Palestine. In the previous CFD section concerning the Israeli names for the West Bank area (Judea and Samaria) the problem is that the names used by some Israelis for the West Bank is not the common name (West Bank) used by almost everybody else in the world. I don't know if that officially disqualifies their use as categories or not. An "Arab localities in..." category is analogous to the many "Ancient Greek cities in..." categories listed under Category:Hellenistic colonies. If we keep Category:Judea and Samaria Area and then delete Category:Arab localities in Palestine 1948, I think it would be a sign of Western systemic bias on Misplaced Pages. Category:Judea and Samaria Area lists Jewish settlements in the West Bank. See the Districts of Israel map: Image:Israel districts.png . To keep a category for what some would call "colonies", and then to delete a category for the localities of what some would call the more indigenous inhabitants of an area (Palestine in 1948) would be wrong on so many levels. I think we should keep both categories so that Misplaced Pages is not seen as taking a POV.

• Comment. There are many historical settlement and city categories. Here are some more below. Check out their many subcategories:

Category:Former settlements in North America.

Category:Roman sites.

Category:Native American settlements --Timeshifter (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• support but as Category:Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. Should there also be a similar category for Jewish villages in the West Bank? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I appreciate the support, but that sort of scoping was explicitly rejected here. For one, it leaves out Arab villages depopulated in 1967. I again suggest that people look at the consensus-produced List of villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict, which was what this category was "meant" for, if it wasn't well designed. Tewfik 22:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Friends

Category:Friends - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - following cleanup and with the remaining material all linked through text and templates, this is an unwarranted eponymous TV series category. Overcategorization per extensive precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and per WP:OCAT and per squazillions of precedents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete overly generic category name. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Already have {{Friends}}. Wikipedian 08:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - if retained, it should be "Friends (TV series)", since Friends also means members of the Society of Friends, known by outsiders as Quakers. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)