Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 1

== October 1 ==

===Politics===

Rename all. 03:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Here are the categories in which should surely stay as it is, as the political arrangements of the Vatican State itself are only a tiny part of its signficance:

(added)

(added)

Rename all It looks a lot but it s only a small fraction of the total. 23:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename and merge all as suggested. -- Reinyday, 02:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename and merge as suggested. I believe the other two (nom d separately) are ) 04:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Rename all 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename, see closure note. 03:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename to standard form 23:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename. -- Reinyday, 02:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename (could be speedied per criterion #4). Also rename ) 04:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

**Comment: Don t think standard form is necessary. If a government prefers to call itself Foo Government or Fooian Government, what s the point to rename its category as category:Government of Foo — 09:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC) ***These categories are about all government in the country, not just the national government. The name of the national government isn t relevant, indeed I don t think most government have an official name , and if the French government did it would be in French. 11:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC) ****Right. However in some smaller countries there are only one tier of governments. — 12:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *****The Vatican city maybe Even Andorra has subdivisions. And in any case that doesn t make the standard form inappropriate. 11:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC) **Oppose renaming category:Hong Kong Government. — 13:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC) ***Could you please explain why you oppose this -- ) 18:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Rename 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Closing note cat:Hong Kong Govt will not be renamed, if this were a speedy it had an oppose vote, which would require further discussion. No other voters specified specifically to rename all. Please submit it as a Cfd on its own. 03:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Delete. 02:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Vague, somewhat old-fashioned and most importantly non-standard. It contained an entry about a car, which I have moved to the Technology category mentioned below, and an article about a manufacturing company, which was already in 22:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep where would the coal industry/oil industry/mining industry/refining industry go 23:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

*: In the economy section until there were enough articles to justify subcategorisation, but there aren t any articles at all, so please consider amending your vote. There are a few countries with categories for mines or oilfields. 01:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Delete 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Delete 13:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 03:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename to standard form 21:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Rename 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 02:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Reverse merge. 03:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Just want to remove redundant category. The other similar category is 18:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose 19:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC) **Comment I will point out that the rest of the Canadian provinces with the exception of Nunavut use the naming convention above, example 00:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Oppose I have nominated the other categories for renaming above. 01:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Oppose per 02:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Support No sense in renaming all other provincial categories, see discussion above 03:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *There is a clear Wikipedia policy set in this matter, and it favours keeping the category that s proposed for deletion and deleting the one that s proposed for keeping. Whether we like it or not, we cannot simply ignore the policy that s been determined. Parent categories do not each get to define their own individual standard which needs to be respected even if they re the opposite of defined policy on Wikipedia-as-a-whole. As per 05:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverse Merge/Rename as suggested by Bearcast, CalJW, others. 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverse Merge/Rename as suggested by Bearcast, CalJW, others. 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverse Merge/Rename as suggested by Bearcast, CalJW, others. 02:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - reverse merge and rename as suggested by Bearcat et al. 19:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose per Bhoeble. 02:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

===subcats of ===

Rename, Naming conventions candidate. 03:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

There aren t very many or these, but I suggest we rename as follows and establish Theme parks in foo as the convention for (by country) subcats of ) 17:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename 21:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Rename as suggested 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 02:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

===subcats of ===

RENAME per revised list. At least several of the pre-revision comments lean quite clearly towards supporting the revised list which effectively takes account of local usage and fixes of → in . - 15:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Per ) 16:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

*: Oppose 01:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

*: Oppose This is a legitimate subcategory. Nominator shows no awareness of non-U.S. usage. 21:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *:: Commment It was, however, incorrectly categorised in both 04:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *:Support -- 02:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

*: Hold until disagreements around the use of the term 18:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

:Oppose: In germany there are Universities and 19:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose The 20:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

*: Oppose - it might lead to confusion as college in Romania may refer to a type of high-school (tertiary education) 17:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *:: Err, high schools are secondary education. Is this what you meant 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC) :::Presumably. It seems a perfectly clear comment to me. 11:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Comment: Don t think it s necessary to standardise all subcategories. In North America universities are often called colleges, but this may not be the same case elsewhere. — 18:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC) **But there will usually be some colleges as well. Subcategories can be created for specific types where there are enough articles. 19:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC) **Just for the record, this is not the case in North America as a whole -- it s only the case in the 05:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC) ***The proposed change most certainly does create problems. In the case of the UK the proposal is to abolish the subcategory for universities, and the implication is that no other country should have a sub-category for universities either, including Canada. 11:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Oppose all apart from those which merely change of to in . I ve changed my mind as there are already problems with 2 categories. There may be many others where there are complications which no one has commented on yet. There are many countries where college is used for some schools and Oxbridge colleges for example do not belong here either. Defer to local usage and nominate those where change is appropriate one at a time after researching local usage. 19:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep all except those which are just format tidying where college and university already appear. In almost every country in the world except the U.S. universities are formally defined and never referred to as colleges. There are many types of colleges around the world (including lots which are schools). Universities should be a subcategory of Universities and colleges . I suggest that the nominator goes through all of these and creates universities and colleges parent categories if he wishes to standardise these. 21:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Oppose artificially adding the term college where not justified by local usage. In many of these places colleges are more like High Schools in the U.S. and not at all comparable to Universities. No problems with changing of to in though. FYI, there has been related discussion on this point previously 23:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Rename all which merely change of to in . Oppose all others. 04:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename only those where university and college are synonymous (that is, almost none ) - same as Steve block, as it were. 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose in line with everyone else, except for changing of to in . 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. Here s an amended list. -- ) 16:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Fooish universities → Universities [and colleges] in foo

(Note: This category includes universities in both the PRC and the Republic of China and it includes some institutions named colleges .)

***Hold. This category, like many others titled Chinese , has been 08:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

(Note: includes a college )

(Note: includes a subcat of colleges)

miscapitalized , Taiwan → Republic of China

(Note: the current category name is miscapitalized. This rename fixes the capitalization and uses the proper country name.)

Universities and colleges of foo → Universities and colleges in foo

No change

(Note: includes colleges)

(Note: includes colleges)

(Note: includes a college)

dup category

Universities of foo → Universities in foo

*Support revised list. 01:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC) *Support revised list too 19:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC) *Support revised list 01:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

No consensus (no change). 02:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

*Delete this is far to POV one man s Freedom Fighter is another man s terroist. This is just an attempt at labeling.-- 14:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

*Delete or create a main category Terrorist organizations proscribed by the government of the United States and then create sub categories for these organizations, and then further sub categories Members of ***** 17:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *:Keep Bhoeble is correct if you read the description on the page, it is thorough and very clear that only those that use terrorist tactics should be included, freedom fighters may also use terrorist tactics so then they are also terrorists and should be listed in a terrorist and also freedom fighter category 23:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep The usage is defined appropriately. 19:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Another inherently POV category! 23:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *: surely it is obvious what a terrorist act is so surely it is not POV to describe people who use terrorist tactics as terrorists 23:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *:It is entirely opaque what a terrorist act is (not all violence, obviously; not all non-military violence; basically, it s whatever the other guy does). And it s no less unclear what type of involvement in an allegedly terrorist act qualifies one as its actor (does funding an act does advocating it abstractly does providing instructions for the act etc). No group has ever called itself terrorist (as opposed to guerrilla, insurgent, revolutionary, freedom fighters, etc); and virtually every group has called its opponents terrorist. *Delete POV-pushers will salivate when they find this category and use it as a tool to push their agenda. Just moments ago I had to remove it from 01:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *:Now it s 01:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *::But Reagan and Kissinger unambiguously meet the criteria stated on the category page (unlike a number of others listed). Of course, the term is pejorative, not NPOV, but if you look at the definition given. I think especially of Reagan and the anti-Sandinista terrorism, and Kissinger and the bombing of Cambodia, but there are other examples. 05:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC) **Where are all these so-called POV-pushers There are just NINE articles currently listed in the Category:Terrorists. All seem to me to be properly categorized. Therefore, the question is: if this category has previously been listed for deletion, and been voted to be retained, why are we re-running the debate now 13:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep This has survived one nomination already. If we removed things because they might attract vandalism our coverage of contemporary politics would be fulls of gaps. Counteracting it is just part of the normal maintenance routine. 02:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Delete. POV-label. 04:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Thought we d deleted this a year ago or so. 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Keep as an objectively-defined category. Then argue on the respective talk page about the individuals thus categorized. 11:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep as per CalJW. 14:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Marginal keep. 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep - all categories are attempts to label , that is their purpose. I agree with 05:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Delete Even if an objective definition of terrorism can be agreed on, deciding who it applies to is too difficult as the facts surrounding such issues are often disputed. I think it would be easier to create bad guys (according to somebody) category. -- 07:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep with a disclaimer stating that the category only contains things widely and objectively considered terrorists, but it may still be subjective and POV-loaded to some. — 13:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC) *DELETE wasn t this category deleted already 19:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep, see 09:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 02:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename to standard form 09:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename and do so also with 11:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename both (could be speedied per criterion #4). -- ) 17:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename both as per 19:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename both as suggested. 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Rename both as suggested 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Comment: Does this mean the Northern Ireland category is nominated Is it tagged If that s not the case, then, procedurally, it has to be separately nominated. — 13:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC) **The Northern Ireland category is not tagged. In that case, rename category:rivers in Ireland, and nominate category:rivers in Northern Ireland separately as speedy. — 07:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 02:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename to standard form 08:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Rename as suggested. 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 02:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

===National symbols===

Rename to Fooish cultural icons , see closure note. 03:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I have some doubts about this set of categories, but they do relieve some clutter from the main culture categories. I suggest that the best convention would be National symbols of X and it is the favoured from in practice, though there aren t many categories yet. Therefore I suggest renaming:

(but there may be some cultural/political reason why that won t do)

06:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *While going through to mark them cfru I was reminded that the Scottish one is marked for renaming to Scottish cultural icons (and I voted for it!) and the Singapore category is also in 07:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC) **Renaming 07:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC) ***Finally so that everything I have tagged is listed (I haven t retagged the Scotland category, but I have linked the discussion below to this one), here are the other two: **** **** Comment: the proposed new category 16:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC) ::This is not correct. There are plenty which apply to the whole of the UK, starting with the 19:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC) :::In which case the very obvious solution is to have two categories: a 21:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC) ::::I proposed to have only one because I don t fancy trying to decide which is which, but I suppose it could be done - with a lot of dulpication. So amend proposal to: rename 02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC) :Rename all 19:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Comment: Would cultural icons be a better choice than national symbols — 19:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC) **That s the question. What do you think and why I am willing to support either of those options if we can obtain consensus for it as the only one to be used, but I marginally prefer symbols as I think it will reduce the risk of these categories becoming too baggy, with lots of marginal items. 21:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I like Cultural icons much more than national symbols (it s much more flexible, at the very least). 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Cultural icons is my preference too. 11:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Make them consistent I marginally favour cultural icons, but I m not really fussed. 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Vote for consistency, to which I too prefer cultural icons . However, I m puzzled as to why it should be British cultural icons rather than cultural icons of the United Kingdom. I would prefer the latter. 19:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC) *Amendment Okay, I ll go along with cultural icons - and please don t let the disagreement over the British category lead to all this effect being wasted by a no consensus conclusion when there seems to be a consensus on the main issue. Let s just go along with the majority preference on that specific point, whatever it may be at the end of the voting period. It tied go for British (ie. not my preference) as it is more standard. 05:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC) *Maybe we re already past this problem by now, but calling the new category British and English is probably the silliest idea I ve seen in my time at Wikipedia. England is a part of Britain: it s not England, with the rest as an inferior addition. 23:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC) *Closing note all listed categories will be renamed to Fooish cultural icons . No specific preference was given except that of consistency, which is currently and . However this leaves the parent cat and the remaining subs inconsistent. 03:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 02:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename to standard form 06:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename. -- Reinyday, 02:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 02:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename 06:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename. -- Reinyday, 02:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

REname 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 02:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Let s deprive this one of its mysteriousness by renaming it 06:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Rename 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Rename 19:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)