Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 5

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:People from Trenton, Maine to Category:People from Hancock County, Maine

Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Category contains 1 article and, with only 1,300 residents in 2000, unlikely to grow. TM 23:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Merge to Category:People from Hancock County, Maine. Occuli (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge: Into county cat.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. If a significant number of people from the town get Wikipedia articles, then it can be recreated. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to Category:People from Hancock County, Maine per nom. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: Rename Category:Royal Warrant holders to Category:British Royal Warrant holders and Category:Royal Warrant to Category:Royal Warrant holders, keep rest. Jafeluv (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Category:Royal Warrant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Belgian Royal Warrant holders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Purveyors to the Court of Denmark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Purveyors to the Imperial and Royal Court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Purveyors to the Russian imperial family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Royal Warrant holders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify. In today's world royal warrants are basically reduced to marketing ploys giving companies with traditional (or newly acquired) ties to the royal courts of Europe a flair of luxury and exclusivity which can only help in the battle for market shares. I definitely do not think this is a defining characteristic for a brand. I find it personally to be an anachronism and a rather unsavory reminiscence of and nostalgia for a time period where groveling before nobility and attaining higher status by association with same was the ubiquitous norm of Western societies. I would like to see the categories deleted, but I will not object to List of Royal Warrant holders of the British Royal Family being kept and the other categories made into similar lists. meco (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Your deletion request is based on your own personal subjective view. It does not change the fact that these companies were or even are warrant holders. Gryffindor (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No, my personal opinion aside I find these categories to be anomalies that categorize per characteristics that do not belong in categories. __meco (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – there is already List of Purveyors to the Court of Denmark. Most of the articles in Category:Purveyors to the Court of Denmark don't mention this accolade so it is difficult to see how it is defining. The others seem similar. Occuli (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I suppose it would be appropriate to keep Category:Royal Warrant as a holding category for these lists, perhaps renamed to Category:Royal Warrants __meco (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

To meco: don't see how these categories are anomalies. And lists do not replace them either. Where is the policy that states this? Gryffindor (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Nominator does not provide objective rationale as to why these categories are redundant. Please, stay clear of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: The Russian cat seems to have clear historical value. The British one seems to be just a marketing ploy, as you suggest, but major marketing campaigns are notable. What I'm looking to delete a cat is that it is unused, unnotable, undefined or not meaningful. "Unsavory" doesn't do it for me.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Royal Warrants and their holders are not a "marketing ploy" but an encyclopedic fact of the British monarchy. Gryffindor (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll be sure to remember that the next time I unwrap a smelly soap from Crabtree & Evelyn covered in royal stickers {-: We can certainly disagree about what the British warrants mean but agree it's a valid category. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Like it or not, there were and are royal warrants, and they remain a distinction of importance. Listing them together in a category provides some perspective on who does and does not possess such a distinction. Even if the cynics are correct and the royal warrants are now only used for monetary gain, the distinction still has relevance. Udibi (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, but Rename: Category:Royal Warrant holders to Category:British Royal Warrant holders and Category:Royal Warrant to Category:Royal Warrant holders, since this is what each contains. Johnbod (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Rename: Category:Royal Warrant holders to Category:British Royal Warrant holders and Category:Royal Warrant to Category:Royal Warrant holders per Johnbod. Clearly, if these are kept, the names at least need to be cleaned up in this way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Potentially support last two - but is this not essentially an award category, which we would normally listify and delete? However, perhpas the distinction is significant enough for it to be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (Changing vote) -- Rename per Johnbod. There are very large numbers of Royal Warrant holders, so that this will make an appropriate category. However, there are few equivalent awards, so that the normal objection to award categories hardly applies. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Rename per Johnbod. --Kbdank71 15:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Rename: Category:Royal Warrant holders to Category:British Royal Warrant holders and Category:Royal Warrant to Category:Royal Warrant holders per Johnbod. I think we can come away with some consensus and revisit this once these category name changes are made. Category:Warrants was being used for law warrants. I added royal warrants and finance warrants as it seems like a good upper level category. There also are business/guarantee warrants and law/government warrants issued by a judge or Board of Selectmen to call a town meeting, and warrant in media (films, music, etc.), each of which might make use Category:Warrants as an upper level category. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I expanded the Warrant disambiguation page to give a better overview of warrants within Wikipedia. Some cats probably could be developed around some of these. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: keep, at least for now. When it's no longer useful, the creators can remove it or request its removal.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Category loop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Migrate to http://test.wikipedia.org/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete/migrate unless someone can explain why Koavf's suggestion wouldn't be sufficient. VegaDark (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Deleting the category will break the test suite. If necessary, it could be moved to testwiki when the next version of MediaWiki::Bot is released.  – mike@enwiki:~$  02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Migrate once the next version of MediaWiki::Bot is released. Any idea when that will happen? --Kbdank71 15:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

  Patches welcome :)  – mike@enwiki:~$  04:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  And in fact, a patch to the test suite is not the largest impediment. That is actually moving all the test data from enwiki to testwiki. This category is obviously not the only resource the test suite requires. For example, we need a category with many pages; we need pages with known content; we need sandbox pages; and we need pages/revisions/users/log entries/etc with certain attributes. Finding and/or creating all that is the real work.  – mike@enwiki:~$  04:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename to "(X) alternative rock groups templates". "Artists" doesn't get support, but the goal of reducing the size of the category names is embraced. The main category for such articles is Category:Alternative rock groups, so I'm following that. This is not meant to prejudge a more sweeping set of renames.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Alternative rock musical groups templates to Category:Alternative rock artists templates

Propose renaming Category:American alternative rock musical groups templates to Category:American alternative rock artists templates

Propose renaming Category:Australian alternative rock musical groups templates to Category:Australian alternative rock artists templates

Propose renaming Category:British alternative rock musical groups templates to Category:British alternative rock artists templates

Propose renaming Category:English alternative rock musical groups templates to Category:English alternative rock artists templates

Propose renaming Category:Irish alternative rock musical groups templates to Category:Irish alternative rock artists templates

Propose renaming Category:Scottish alternative rock musical groups templates to Category:Scottish alternative rock artists templates

Propose renaming Category:Canadian alternative rock musical groups templates to Category:Canadian alternative rock artists templates

Propose renaming Category:European alternative rock musical groups templates to Category:European alternative rock artists templates

Propose renaming Category:Japanese alternative rock musical groups templates to Category:Japanese alternative rock artists templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Musical groups" is too specific. If we change "musical groups" to "artists" we can incorporate the stragglers over at Category:Alternative rock musicians templates. We're supposed to be capturing all the artists of an era, right? I, for one, find it more useful to see them all in one place... Listing for Wikkitywack. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - These are Wikipdia administrative categories. How does this all jive with something like Category:American rock musicians templates? Rock musical groups means a collective of people in a band. Rock musicians means people who play the instruments. Rock artists? Does that include the production crew who design/sets up the Kiss concert stage or painters of rock bands? Category:Argentine alternative rock groups and a bunch of other similar categories doesn't need "musical" in the name. The only "alternative rock" Wikipedia category having "artist" in it is Category:Alternative rock albums by Canadian artists. I'm seeing rock groups templates, rock music groups templates, category:British rock musicians templates, etc. The following list contains template and artist categories for rock related topics:

Any rock-template-artist scheme change should be consistent within the above lists. Since these are just templte categories, they probably won't get filled to the brim. How about just dropping the "musical groups" portion from "alternative rock musical groups templates" and creating a parent category "alternative rock templates" as in Category:American alternative rock musical groups templates changes to Category:American alternative rock templates. Perhaps even revise all 51 rock template categories above similarly and come back here to propose a change consistent for all the 51 rock template categories. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:Hindu mathematics to Category:Indian mathematics

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Redundant to Indian mathematics; adds nothing to that category except to introduce religious division. — goethean ॐ 19:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – According to this history of Hindu mathematics (which is now a redirect to Indian mathematics), Hindu mathematics is a particular type of mathematics. So a Hindu mathematician would be one who studied Hindu mathematics rather than just any mathematician who happens to be Hindu. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete this malformed category (no parents), with a 2 line stub main article. All the good stuff isa already in the "Indian" category. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That's not a reason to delete. The category can easily be correctly categorised and things could be moved down from Category:Indian mathematics if appropriate. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge – Hindu mathematics was merged into Indian mathematics. If Hindu mathematics is recreated, then the category can be too if necessary. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: Rename to Category:International opponents to apartheid in South Africa. Consensus is for a change. This name seems to have the most support. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Note this was not correctly closed on the above date. It will be renamed per the above close today. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:Non-South African anti-apartheid activists to Category:International activists against apartheid in South Africa

Nominator's rationale: Rename I am open to other names, but I think "Non-South African" is an awkward sounding name. It is more consistent with Category:International opposition to apartheid in South Africa.TM 18:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Rename: Category:International opponents to apartheid in South Africa might work too but I agree "non-South African" is forced. Normally "international" might be vague but, in the context of apartheid, I think it clearly means non-South African. My only concern would be which one to use for Namibian/SWA activists but I see they already have a cat to avoid that classification issue. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:International opponents of apartheid in South Africa - "Non-" and "anti-" double negative in the same phrase leaves my head spinning. The proposed name is much clearer and a big move forward, even if it does create minor issues. Per RevelationDirect, I also suggest using "opponents" of instead of "activists against" since passive opponents can still be against against apartheid in South Africa without being an active opponent. Category:Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is the only other similar double negative category. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Further on the above. Category:Opponents of same-sex marriage and Category:Opponents of the Articles of Perth use "of" instead of "to" and there are no categories having "opponents to" in them. Category:International opposition to apartheid in South Africa uses "opposition to apartheid" which is correct. Also, Category:Anti-apartheid activists, Category:South West Africa anti-apartheid activists, and Category:Anti-Apartheid organisations should be revised as well. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Further, further on this topic - Category:Apartheid in South Africa and Category:Apartheid seems redundant since Apartheid only is/was in South Africa. Of course, there's Apartheid in the United States. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, apartheid was also practiced by South Africa in Namibia. They utilized the exact same tactics there as in South Africa.--TM 16:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't know too much about the event. Wikipedia's apartheid article "South Africa under apartheid" says "apartheid" only was in South Africa. However, what you say makes sense (a dominate country enforcing its own policies on a weaker country/area/region). You probably could start an article Namibia under apartheid or South West Africa under apartheid. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it does not say that anymore. Either way, saying apartheid "in" South Africa is necessary because of Namibia as well as the United Nations crime of apartheid resolutions and the ongoing comparisons to elsewhere.--TM 16:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

At the time, SWA was administered as part of South Africa although it was never formally annexed. So the Apartheid laws were passed by one country's parliament but applied to what are now two countries. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• While we're here ...

Rename Category:Anti-apartheid activists --> Category:Opponents of apartheid

Rename Category:Anti-Apartheid organisations --> Category:Organisation opponents of apartheid

Rename Category:South West Africa anti-apartheid activists --> Category:Opponents of apartheid in South West Africa

or consider these for a future nomination. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose those other categories and advise that you nominate them separately. I would support using opponents instead of activists as well.--TM 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: merge since there are no objections. Kbdank71 15:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Propose merging Category:Songs with music by Tetsuya Komuro to Category:Songs written by Tetsuya Komuro

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Incorrect nomination made by another user. Fully supported by me with reference to WP:Songs which states Only one category should be created for each songwriter, so if a songwriter contributes words and/or music then the category should be in songs by songwriter only. Richhoncho (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete both. Kbdank71 15:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Category:Victims of British political repression (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Irish victims of British political repression (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete both for so many reasons:

• WP:WEASEL
• WP:POV
• Subjective
• Potentially unlimited
• A similar category, Category:Victims of American political repression, was deleted for cause in 2009.

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• If you wish to nominate a category for speedy deletion, place a speedy deletion tag on the category. You only need to suggest it here if the speedy deletion is declined or it doesn't actually qualify for speedy deletion in the first place. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, removed Speedy. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE, the last, very lengthy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression. Johnbod (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Procedural Provisional oppose. At the last, lengthy discussion, I strongly supported deletion of all these "victims of repression" categories as hopelessly subjective, and my view in that regard have only hardened over time. Whilst I have a long list of people from the last thousand years who I personally would add to these categories, other editors may legitimately disagree with my inclusions, for reasons which from their perspective are as fair and honest as mine ... and that's the problem with categories such as this: they are a diabolically subjective POV-fest, incapable of objective definition, and their existence sets up good-faith editors for battles over nuances of political values.
  However, I see no reason to single out these two examples of this POV rubbish whilst the rest of the dung-heap exists, so I suggest that this nomination be withdrawn in favour of a reopening of the wider discussion on the whole "victims of political repression" tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

  I have changed my ! vote to a "Provisional oppose". If the group nomination of the other victims-of-repression categories is passed, I will withdraw my objection to this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support – very POV. I see no reason to keep them just because there are more that could be deleted. If support is shown for the deletion of these, then we can open the discussion on the rest of them. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

  Is there some particular exceptional principle which applies to these two categories but not to others such as Category:Victims of French political repressions? Because unless there is some huge difference between repression in the UK and in France, then it is a breach of the principle of neutrality to remove one but keep the other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

  If the others are nominated, I will support the deletion of those too. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support as test cases for the whole "diabolically subjective POV-fest". The principle of doing test cases here is well-established, although one might not think these were the best to choose. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

  My concern is not whether these two were the best or worst to choose ... but rather that any subset of these categories invites editors to apply their assessment of that particular country, rather than to consider the principle of this type of category. Piecemeal deletion will only exacerbate the situation whereby categories such as this are more likely to be retained in respect of countries and regimes which are viewed negatively in the English-speaking nations whose editors predominate here. I am sure that this nomination was made in good faith, and that those supporting it are acting in good faith ... but nonetheless the effect of a selective approach is to facilitate systemic bias, even if that was not the intention.

  It is a long-established principle at CFD that we do not delete one category out of set unless there is a clear consensus that the category under consideration is in some way exceptional. I hope that whoever closes this discussion considers this point carefully in deciding how to close it, but it would be even better if the nominator chose to either withdraw this nomination in favour nominating the whole of Category:Victims of political repression, or to add the others to this nomination.

  Deleting these national sub-cats whilst retaining the parent Category:Victims of political repression will not solve the problem identified by the nominator, because it will still be possible to apply the same value-judgements through the category system, e.g. by adding Category:Members of the 1st Dáil directly to {cl|Victims of political repression}}, with a truckload of references from reliable sources to justify its inclusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl is right in principle, of course. However, I just checked out the April 30, 2009 CFD discussion wherein the subject was raised to remove Category:Victims of political repression and it was closed out as no consensus. Does anyone think anything will have changed since then? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change, or can emerge in places in places where it was previously elusive. In nearly five years I have seen many things remain unresolved, but also a remarkable number of previously contentious issues reach stable solutions. So I think it's worth seeing what happens when this one is revisited. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, one thing that is likely to be significantly changed is the number of people joining the discussion, and, probably, the depth of the arguments. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom as POV and always problematic categories. Now that a broader nomination has been started, I see no problem in deleting these ones first per consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete both -- as POV categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename as there are no objections. Kbdank71 15:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Propose renaming Category:Squash at the 2009 World Games to Category:Squash at the World Games 2009

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: put it all back. This nomination was compromised by the nominator, who removed any ability of editors to tell what was in the categories. It can be renominated after the contents are all put back.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Underground rapid transit by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Is a subcategory of Category:Rapid transit by country which is were the vast majority of similar articles are located. This subcategory is sparsely populated and seems to be overcategorization. Articles in this and its own subcategories can be recat'd to Category:Rapid transit by country and its subcategories as appropriate. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete/merge per nom. There is no practical distinction to be made as nearly every single system categorized here also has elevated or surface services— in some cases, a majority of the trackage. Underground rapid transit redirects to rapid transit.- choster (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • With no objections after 7 days, the category and all subcats were emptied and redirected. Still need an Admin to delete the cat and the subcats (beginning with "underground rapid transit in...". jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Please don't do that.- choster (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Trout to the nominator. Why did none of the affected categories (certainly not Category:Underground rapid transit in England for one) have CfD banners on them? We require such banners so that those editors connected with the articles and categories might find out about their deletion, not just those who haunt AfD / CfD.

Whilst I'm not averse to renaming, the use of "rapid transit" is every bit as inappropriate as "underground" ever was. We now have the inanity of the Tunnel Railway being categorized as a Rapid Transit system (it very plainly wasn't), but no longer even an underground one. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• • CfD banners were placed on the main cat and all of the first level subcats. There were some subcats with multiple levels of further subcategorization. I did not place the CfD banner on each of these sub-subcats. If that was insufficient, then I take the "trouting", but I felt that 2 levels of adding the banner was sufficient. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, if the Tunnel Railway was not a rapid transit system, then remove the cat. I simply converted all the "Underground rapid transit..." to "Rapid transit...".jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and redo all the edits made without consensus. Extra trout. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How was there not consensus? 7 days elapsed without objections, and with one concur. What is the rationale to keep? jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No consensus is possible without discussion. No discussion is possible without editors knowing that it's under discussion. Putting banners on a meta-cat like Category:Underground rapid transit by country is unlikely to be seen by anyone except its creator, because who watch-lists meta cats? Did you attempt to raise this on any of the relevant wikiprojects? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This also appears to have removed any sort of category structure for "underground railways", something we surely ought to be categorizing for (and many of these are not rapid transit systems). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• See also CfD 2007/Jul/12 Subways; Category:Underground rapid transit systems, Category:Underground railways.- choster(talk) 16:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The last of these was only established (by Andy D), two hours before your post. It does improve the situation. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• I did not remove any structure for "underground railways". I understand that you are upset about the way that I did the nom, and I have explained and said I accept responsibility, but what is the rationale for undoing? Of course there is further cleanup that needs to be done, but this was one step. I agree that not all articles listed as rapid transit are actually rapid transit, but that has nothing to do with the CfD. I will be glad to help clean up the articles and properly cat them as rapid transit or other cats as needed. Also, there were VERY few articles in the entire structure of this meta cat. There were only 3 countries with articles, versus many, many more in the "Rapid transit by country" cat. Again, what is the rationale for keeping and undoing my edits? There was ample opportunity for discussion, even if I omitted the tags on a few sub-subcats. As I said, there were only 3 countries in the category (UK, USA, and Germany), and even then, not there were only a one or two articles in each of those. It was an underused, overcategorized category. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• This was premature and may have influence the open CfD discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Please don't empty a category that is listed at CFD until the discussion has closed. That said, I don't see the benefit of going through the motions of undoing the actions just so it can be redone by bot later. "Keep because you didn't follow the rules" isn't a reason to keep, IMHO. --Kbdank71 16:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete then redirect per nom - Category:Underground rapid transit by country is too much when we already have "Category:Rapid transit by country", so I'll consider renaming to "Category:Underground rapid transit". Wikipedia does not have any "underground" transit, "underground" rapid transit, or even underground transportation titled articles, so it seems unlikely that people will know to put their article in this category. Underground generally means in or into hiding or secret and that is how Wikipedia articles largely use the "underground" term. However, the Rapid transit article seems to make extraordinary use of the term "underground". Also, there is London Underground, Sydney underground railways, Underground Electric Railways Company of London, International Tunneling and Underground Space Association. Underground transportation mostly seems to be a London approach to identifying such transportation. A lot of world rapid transit systems travel both above and underground on the same line and they don't identify the line as underground or separately treat the underground portion of the line. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Further - Category:Underground rapid transit systems seems ripe for confusion per my review above. Also, if the closing admin want's to close as no action taken due to being out of process, I'm fine with that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: keep. There are a lot of good pro and con arguments here, and some red herrings. It's true no one deserves an article for growing up on a base, but no one deserves an article for growing up in California either, and yet Category:People from California exists for very good reasons. After reading the arguments, it seems to me that it's a locational category, saving Shaquille O'Neal's article from needing Category:People from Wildfleken, West Germany. It is possible there's a less US-centric term for the category, though none has been proposed here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Military brats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as an intersection of unrelated characteristics. No one has ever deserved a Wikipedia article for growing up on a military base and I don't see how this is any different than Category:Left-handed people or Category:Clowns with red hair. TM 14:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – there was a long cfd discussion (no consensus) in 2007. I don't see how it is an intersection. Occuli (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is an intersection of a lifestyle (growing up on a military base) and being notable for something else. It is no more notable than Category:People who grew up on a farm or any other lifestyle-centric category. I would suggest that 3.5 years is long enough away that this cfd can stand on its own merits.--TM 15:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Intersection usually means the intersection of 2 specific categories. The question is whether being a 'military brat' is defining (for a person who is notable): this seems to be a US-related question on which I have no views. 3.5 years is certainly long enough; I was merely referring editors back to the previous discussion. Occuli (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• I don't know what the criteria for including or excluding categories is. From what I've seen previously wiki is pretty arbitrary on this. Personally I believe it should be left in place. Military brats have a childhood that is different from many people. I think it is a possible area of research and people doing research in this area could gather a list of notable military brats through wiki. Tweisbach (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• If we follow that, then just about every category that isn't for an occupation or an award "intersects" with an unrelated characteristic. Category:1910 births is not the basis of notability for anyone, neither is Category:People from Montana... And that even applies to some occupation categories: Category:United States Army officers is the basis of notability for some, but not all of those included. So that's really a poor way to analyze it. It's not an "intersection" except when the category itself expressly links two different things. postdlf (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Children who grow up on US military bases tend to move every few years and be in a social setting with more traditional gender roles. That could certainly influence them later in life, as could some other childhood backgrounds. We also have a category for people who grew up on a kibbutz for instance. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:American military brats but keep, noting Occuli. Category seems exclusively US, but the term is not. The old name should then be reinstated as a global parent. Johnbod (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - essentially per nom. Not a defining characteristic; we shouldn't be categorising people by the careers of their parents, or what happened in their early childhood. (I'd be up for deleting Category:Kibbutzniks as well.) Robofish (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm convinced that categorizing children by parents' occupation is overcategorization. This is -- dare I say it -- list cruft, but not especially defining for those included. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not "categorizing children by parent's occupation" but rather by a characteristic that has been studied and researched to determine how growing up as a military brat affects a person as an adult and long term.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Not an intersection, but not defining, either. --Kbdank71 16:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems to be a lot going on with this topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Military Brats (deleted), List of military brats, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Military brat (U.S. subculture), List of fictional military brats, Military brat, Military brat pretends to navigate T43, Military Brats waiting for Service Member's return. Military brat (U.S. subculture) making it to FA status and List of military brats supporting that former FA article would seem to justify a need for this category to include topics linked within List of military brats, each of which are reliably sourced. Google books, Google scholar shows "Military brats" to be widely used. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as it's a worthwhile category of people, plus it's not US-only, anyone whose parents were in the military and moved often could be included. --AW (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The category is well-populated by persons notable enough to have wikiarticles (e.g., Pam Grier, Mary-Louise Parker, Robert Duvall, etc.). — SpikeToronto 19:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That seems to miss the point a bit, since we could also well-populate Category:Left-handed people: that consideration alone doesn't mean we keep the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and create Category:Left-handed people - I am genuinely astonished that we don't have that one, given that there are associations, organisations and clubs for the left handed all over the world Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The comparisons to "left handed people" is a red herring. People do not identify themselves as part of a "left handed culture" nor do others identify themselves as such nor does handedness create a bond between fellow left handers. Yet each of those is true with military brats. Military brats have been studied on how the individual is impacted long term. It is used to describe people, from the news:
  • How Michael French, a Military Brat Turned Dealmaker, Kept Marina Biotech Alive DATE - 12/20/10
  • Elizabeth Edwards called a brat by the WSJ 12/8/10
  • Novelist Pat Conroy called a brat by USA today on 12/19/20
  • NH Speaker of the House O'Brien described as brat on 12/18/10
  • Somebody's random obiturary on 12/17/10 describes her as a brat
  • Fredricksburg news paper descibes a grandmother as a self proclaimed military brat dated 12/17/10
  • Sequim Gazette describes residents fighting "dont ask dont tell" as military brats 12/15/10

• This is just the tip of the ice berg, the reason why these sources describe these people as military brats is because it is a relevant social indicator for the community being described. Without knowing anything else about these people, you have some idea as to their potential background and upbringing. Without knowing anything else about them, you have soem idea as to various stereotypes and attributes that these people might share. Why? Because they share a common background/heritage---one that has been studied and funded by the US government. An area where psychologist and sociologist have specialized in studying the effects of. One that various news sources think is relevant to their stories.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Delete it is just possible that growing up a military child is a defining characteristic, although I doubt it. However, the problem with this category is its name. Either this is US specific or it isn't. Someone above has argued that it wouldn't just be US citizens that would be in this, but then the problem is that this term is not used outside the US, and is unencyclopedic in form. "Brat" is a derogatory term for a spoilt kid, maybe "military brat" means something else in the US - but it doesn't translate into a category in an international encyclopedia.--Scott Mac 16:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, or possibly rename to Category:American military brats. It should be a category for those who have self-identified or have been called that by a major newspaper, but the existence of Military brat (U.S. subculture) is enough to say that this is a useful category for someone who reads the abovementioned article and thinks "What are some examples of famous military brats"? NW (Talk) 16:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Examples should go on the article page to help people understand it. Categorising living people in order to create examples is poor form. I'm sure an article on people with cleft lips would wish to cite some celebrity examples, that wouldn't justify a category.--Scott Mac 16:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Being a military brat is clearly a notable feature in someone's life. A cleft lip? Not so much. Taking your response to the logical conclusion, what is the point in having categories at all? NW (Talk) 18:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think people with cleft lips might take issue with that assertion. "Military brat" is a US specific coloquialism that has no place on Wikipedia. If this is retained, the more general Category:Children of military parents ought to be used.--Scott Mac 19:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

When did the trait "US specific" become sufficient to bar content or categories from Wikipedia? That's an argument to clarify the category name, not an argument for deletion. Nathan ^T 19:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The "trait" is NOT US specific. Lots of people grow up a military kids. However, the term is a US colloquialism, and ought to be replaced with a proper less US-centric description, if the category is kept. This title is clearly unacceptable.--Scott Mac 20:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I misunderstood. Let me try to be more clear: Your complaint seems to be that the term "military brat" is US-centric. I don't see why the "trait" of being US-centric (in this case, a trait of a trait?) is such a problem. The term refers to the particular culture of American children of military personnel, so obviously the term is going to apply primarily to Americans and be used primarily by Americans. Why is that an issue? Nathan ^T 02:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the research done in the cutural group of military brats has been heavily focused on the US version. There is very little research done outside of the US. But the term is heavily used by Canadians and British brats (although Pad Brat seems to be their more common historical term in england.) If you do a search on Canada and military brat/army brat/air force brat you will have hundreds or thousands of hits---mostly from individuals (eg not reliable sources) but you will also find news articles, magazines, the Canadian Government, schools, etc using it. Same thing for England/British/United Kingdom---but here you'll have thousands of individuals who use terms (Many who are now in their 60/70s.) Sifting through the personal stuff is harder for the UK because there is so much. Then there are other English speaking parts of the world... they use it too. The reality is, that it is not just the US. Nor as Scott claims is it derogatory, what would be derogatory and OR would be to move away from the term used by sociologist, psychologist, and the described community's self identification.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing a term with an experience. The experience is universal - and categorising people who've shared that experience is perhaps valid. The term is utterly unacceptable, and unencyclopedic for a category. An article on the term is fine, but to use a US coloquialism to categorise people from other nations is not on. No doubt some non-US people will have used it, such is US cultural dominance. Nevertheless, a more generalised, more descriptive, more neutral term must be used.--Scott Mac 17:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Scott, you clearly do not know or understand the term. To use another term would not be the "netural" term nor more generalized/descriptive. The term military brat is, by definition, a descriptive term that is used to describe children of military personel, it does NOT contain the derogatory undertones that you apply to it. As several people noted in their research, they use the term because it is what the community calls itself and uses themselves.

As for it being an US colloquialism, again you are mistaken. You will find news articles and government sources using the term for military brats in just about every English Speaking Country. There are several "origin" stories for the term, the most oft cited one is that it stands for "British Regimented Attached Traveler." (Personally, I'm not sold on that one, but it is the one that most people [including scholars] cite---I Morton Ender's hypothesis more.) If you do a web search, you will find THOUSANDS of non-Americans who identify themselves as brats. There are scores of Facebook Groups for non-US Brats, here are a few of the more notable ones:

• Philipine 161 members
• New Zealand 500+ Members
• Canadian Brats 6400+ Members
• British 6500+
• Indian Brats 3,000+ members

(Note there are many other Canadian and British groups, the two cited above were the two largest that I found.)

The term PAD BRAT is a British Term---it does not have a US antecedent and has been around for decades. There are several Face book groups on that:

Pad Brats from the 70/80’s---notice the years. Pad Brats 368 members PAD Brats re-united 259 members UK Army brats 201 members I am a Pad Brat and PROUD <3 582 members

Another term that has no US antecedent is strictly a British Term is Scale E Brats (also Scalee or Scaley or Scalie). The term apparently originated because the British soldier was put on the Scale E pay schedule when they had a child.FB discussion on Scale E Brats.

So far you have given us nothing but opinion and original research. The facts are 1) Military Brat (and various Brat derivatives) is NOT a derogatory term as you assert, but rather a neutral descriptive one and 2) It is not merely a US term, but one used around the world and 3) that use is not a result of modern US culural spread---in fact, I would suggest it is from British.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Balloonman, you are kidding me right? Your source is facebook? Please provide me with one non-US academic or official source that uses this term to categorise people?--Scott Mac 19:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm showing that the term is in wide usage by people from around the world.... I could provide scores of other sources where people from around the world call themselves brats. I could give you many anecedotal individuals from around the world who use the term, but I felt that showing that THOUSANDS of people identify with the term would be better than flooding you with hundreds of links of marginal value. Thousands of people calling themselves brats is more than your opinion that a few might. But here are just a few sources:

Canada

• Military brats born overseas not Canadians?
• NY Times talks about Canadian Military Brats
• CBC news talks about how Canadian Military Brats might not be Canadian
• Canadian Military Brat Memory Lane
• Canadian Military Brat Facebook Communities include (but not limited to)
• Website dedicated to explaining Canadian culture/history talks about Canadian brats as a "Canadian Institution
• The Canadian Air Force Brats Association
• The Canadian Military Brat list(registry)
• Canadian Forces Family Resource center (government) provides information about Military Brats
• DODEA (the US Military education system) provides links to various Canadian Brat sources
• Canadian War Brides talks about brats
• Chilina Kennedy: The army brat who became a star Dec 2010
• Even merchandising Canadian Brats
• CBC news Nov 2010
• Vangaurd:Canada's premier defense and security magazine talks about brats
• Plus hundreds of blogs/personal websites of canadians identifying themselves as Military Brats.

UK/England/British

• Facebook pages:
• BBC person? describes self as british army brat
• Some guy who identifies himself as a british army brat from 1953-1972 EG it isn't just a new thing.
• has piece by a british military brat
• The Army Children Archive---a british source---tends to use "children" more but does use the term army/military brat. The founder wrote the above column in the guardians.
• Clifton Grace did a "study" on british brats (The study was more of a hypothetical comparing Morton Ender's research on US Brats and how British brats might differ.)
• Sifting through the blogs and person comments related to British/UK/English brats is overwhelming... tons of people call themselves brats via the UK's military.
• People from the 1960's talking about themselves as "Pad Brats
• Military Wives and pad/scalie/military brats

New zealand Bio of computer firm IDG talks about his being an army brat

Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg... there are scores of articles/websites/news broadcast/etc from around the globe that use the term. Virtually all of the research shows that Military Brat is embraced by the described culture---the only research I've seen where it had negative reflections was when looking at younger kids who didn't know the term. So please Scott, start backing up your claims.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• comment

The article related to the same subject-- Military brat (US subculture) has been very recently updated-- please review it again before making any decisions. Here is a key point that most of you are missing--

Military brats are a not merely children of soldiers, they are a distinct subculture that many of you are not aware of. (I am not boldfacing in anger, but I am trying to be heard above the fray here).

Being a military brat is a very different way of growing up.

FROM THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE RELATED TO THE CATEGORY--

"===Research by Mary Edwards Wertsch: Identification of Military Brat Cultural Identity==="

In 1991, Mary Edwards Wertsch "launched the movement for military brat cultural identity" with her book Military Brats: Legacies of Childhood inside the Fortress.^[1] In researching her book, Wertsch identified common themes from interviews of over 80 offspring of military households. While this book does not purport to be a scientific study, subsequent research has validated many of her findings. In the introduction to the book Patrick Conroy, the author of The Prince of Tides and The Great Santini, wrote,

Her book speaks in a language that is clear and stinging and instantly recognizable to me [as a brat], yet it's a language I was not even aware I spoke. She isolates the military brats of America as a new indigenous subculture with our own customs, rites of passage, forms of communication, and folkways .... With this book, Mary [Wertsch] astonished me and introduced me to a secret family I did not know I had.^[2]

98.245.148.9 (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• keep

98.245.148.9 (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• comment I do however think that Scott (who has posted previously in this discussion) makes a good point that military brats are an International phenomenon (not only American) and that the language (or format) of the category should encompass all military brats from all nations.

I also want to add that military brats are also a historical phenomenon, formerly called "child camp followers" (among other terms) there have been military brats under various names for thousands of years in many parts of the world.

Lets take care not to omit any of these groups as we create, or shape, categories since Wikipedia is an International encyclopedia.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: I lean towards delete, despite the good arguments put forward here. There are lots of things that people identify with from their childhoods, but I don't think we should be categorizing people based on things that happened to them as children. There is a lot of research done on the effect of being an only child but we don't have a category for that. I assume there is a culture of children who grew up in refugee camps, in political exile, or with diplomats as parents. If there is a distinct "American Military brat" culture, that isn't inclusive of the whole world, so it isn't an international category. On the other hand, we do have Category:Descendants of Holocaust survivors, which seems less useful than this category. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not only "what happened in your childhood" it's an entirely different culture that military brats grew up in.

Would you delete the category for African American or Hispanic?

Telemachus.forward (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Point of order (question).

If I vote with only my IP address (as I did before) does that count? Or can I only vote with a Username?

Telemachus.forward (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We do not really vote at Wikipedia. We !vote. (See the Straw poll guidelines section (shortcut → WP:!VOTE) of Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion (shortcut → WP:POLL).) And, to answer your question, according to WP:CFD: Users without accounts (anonymous users) may nominate and comment on proceedings, just as in Articles for Deletion (AfD). So, yes, an IP-only (i.e., anonymous) editor can !vote. However, you only get to !vote once. And, it would be preferable if you were to !vote using your logged-in, registered account. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SpikeToronto, I appreciate the clarification!

Telemachus.forward (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

*comment Here is more evidence (along with citations) of why military brats are a subculture and not just a demographic attribute--

Also from Military brat (US subculture) (in this case from the opening to the article (note that this is supported by citations)--

"Military brats (especially current and former children of career military families) are largely viewed by themselves and by those who study them as a distinct, 200 year-old American subculture, with millions of members."^[3][4]"

Telemachus.forward (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Also-- Given that the word "subculture" is in the title of the article about the same subject as the category, that word should not be ignored here--

From the Wikipedia article about "Subcultures"--

"Subculture...

...In sociology, anthropology and cultural studies, a subculture is a group of people with a culture (whether distinct or hidden) which differentiates them from the larger culture to which they belong, for example, if a particular subculture is characterized by a systematic opposition to the dominant culture, it may be described as a counterculture."

Telemachus.forward (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

See also the other Wikipedia article on Military Brats From All Countries (recently updated): Military brat.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete, except for Uncategorized good articles, which is used when someone tags an article with a template but neglects to specify a topic; see the category for more info. Kbdank71 16:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

---

• Category:Uncategorised musicians
• Category:Uncategorised sportspeople
• Category:Uncategorised Brazilian people
• Category:Uncategorised Chinese people
• Category:Uncategorised Danish people
• Category:Uncategorised German people
• Category:Uncategorised Indian people
• Category:Uncategorised Italian people
• Category:Uncategorised Japanese people
• Category:Uncategorised Korean people
• Category:Uncategorised Spanish people
• Category:Uncategorised musical groups
• And Category:Uncategorised people
• And Category:Uncategorised albums
• And especially Category:Uncategorized good articles
• Delete – As well as a wealth of other categories prefixed with "Uncategorised" or "Uncategorized", these categories are illogical. Apart from the fact that categorising a page into a page for uncategorised pages is contradictory, the specific names of these categories make them pointless. If a Chinese person needs categories, perhaps it would be easier to categorise the page into Category:Chinese people instead? Pages cannot be categorised into these categories automatically because they're so specific. Therefore, it would be easier for an editor to categorise the page correctly. If the pages need additional categories, then they are not uncategorised and can be included in Category:Articles needing additional categories. These categories are empty and should be deleted. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Purpose?: Is there some sort of editing function going on here? I left a notice User talk:Conquistador2k6 of these nominations in hopes that (s)he can provide some background on why these were created.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I agree that if the article doesn't have any other categories, it can just as easily be placed in the applicable Category:FOOian people category. They seem somewhat redundant to other means of getting further categories applied to an article, unless there is some special purpose we are all missing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• The parent category Category:Uncategorised people can also be deleted. Category:Uncategorised albums is a similar affair but its sub-category Category:Albums without a by-year category is useful. Category:Uncategorized good articles is ridiculous: a good article would never be uncategorised and an uncategorised article would never be good. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• The amount of uncategorised articles is very low. It is unlikely to ever be big enough to warrant subcategories for Category:Uncategorized pages (except perhaps Category:Uncategorized stubs). McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• weak keep for some, improper to submit together, close and resubmit individually - I feel this way because, back when I was looking for articles to submit to AfD, "uncategorized" categories were the best places to look for topics that often failed WP:N. Category:Uncategorised musicians and Category:Uncategorised sportspeople should remain, as well as other such categories, as those are helpful for this. Similarly, those same "uncategorized" categories perform a useful function, in that they help the categorization process: if you don't know how to categorize e.g. a musician, you put them in Category:Uncategorised musicians and someone who might know more about the topic can fish it out and put it in its proper place. I agree though that categories like "uncategorized chinese people" seem to have no purpose, and failing a good explanation as to why those categories exist, they should be deleted. Basically, this discussion should be broken up into individual ones for each "category" to be submitted. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If someone did not know how to categorise, they wouldn't know to categorise something into an uncategorised category. The categories you mentioned are not useful; pages could just as easily be put into Category:Uncategorized pages. That category will never be large so does not need to be broken into sub-categories. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, and Also Nominate Category:Better category needed. Articles that are specific enough to be in one of these categories can just be left in the regular category. If an article is in Category:Sportspeople, you know that they can probably be categorized further. Edit: See also Special:PrefixIndex-->"Category:Uncategori" for a full list of categories. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 21:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: I was thinking the same thing as Vgmddg. If you saw an article loose in Category:Musicians, you would infer it probably needed further classification. That would accomplish the same goal as the purported use of these cats.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I've been keeping an eye on Category:Uncategorised people and its subcats for a while now, and they spend the vast majority of the time empty. My impression is that deciding an article belongs in, say, Category:Uncategorised Chinese people, requires enough effort that an editor willing to make that much effort is likely to skip the middle step and categorize it properly in the first place. —Paul A (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete -- This whole scheme is an oxymoron. Uncategorised Chinese people are "Chinese people" and should be categorised as such. Perhaps the answer is to upmerge all so as to omit the word uncategorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: no consensus. Something needs to be done here, but it's not clear what. The scientists and architects can't be put into Category:Tensile membrane structures. Some recategorization is recommended, and after that occurs, if one or the other category is made unnecessary, then it can be deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Tensile architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Tensile architecture is a building which uses a tensile membrane structure, thus it duplicates Category:Tensile membrane structures. Currently Tensile architecture redirects to Tensile structure. Elekhh (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep but rearrange articles: There are a number of tensile-related architects and concepts (I count 11) that are not "structures" and justifiy an enveloping cat. But, currently, the structures cat contains many non-structures and the general architecture cat contains many structures so they would both need to be cleaned up. The main article should be renamed to "Tensile architecture" to reflect the actual content.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Buildings are structures, do you want to create separate categories? Than Tensile membrane buildings would be a clearer category name. Tensile membrane engineers would be another, but I am not sure if any structural engineer limited him/her-self to membrane structures. Same with architects. --Elekhh (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No, buildings and structures should stay together, especially since many of these may be borderline. I don't want to create new categories if they are too small but there are already a number of names listed under these cats and, glancing at a couple of them, some at least are warranted.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Path Forward: Elekhh, we both agree that the curent cats usage is completely redundant. We just need to figure out the best path forward.

Your suggestion: One all-encompassing cat

My suggestion: A subcat with specific examples surrounded by an over-arching cat that includes people and concepts.

I'm open to just one cat but we would need to name it so that Vladimir Shukhov and Frei Otto would fit into it and I'm not sure Category:Tensile membrane structures works for people-related articles. How about keeping Category:Tensile architecture and moving everything into that?RevelationDirect (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the very clear summary. My further thoughts: currently all subcategories of Category:Structural system contain a mix of buildings, concepts/building elements and persons, with the majority of articles being about buildings. So this issue of separation would need to be addressed consistently to all of these. Maybe the best subcats would follow the format "Category:Tensile membrane buildings" and be joined together in a "Category:Buildings and structures by structural system", to become a subcat of Category:Buildings and structures. I am surprised this doesn't exist yet! However "Tensile architecture" remains an exception, as we do not have "Concrete shell architecture", "Timber frame architecture", etc.. I understand the exception might be justified given that by tensile structures the structure is most of the architecture. So if we are moving all buildings, structural engineering concepts and structural engineers to the subcategories (which I started doing), it will really only remain Otto and a few other architect-engineers which are specifically notable for tensile structures... --Elekhh (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Weak Delete: I went through the items under Category:Structural system and the vast majority are only structures/buildings so it doesn't raise our issue. Category:Concrete shell structures blends various article types into one cat as you suggested whereas Category:Timber framing structures articles in two levels as I proposed. So no clear pattern here. Merging these redundant categories into one is a definite improvement so I'm not going to stand in your way over the exact name of that cat.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - A main problem is that assembled human bones can fit into Category:Structural system. Per this, "Building Structural System: The completed combination of Structural Elements, Trusses, connections and systems, which serve to support the Building’s self weight, the applicable live load, and environmental loads." Thus, Category:Structural system should additionally include the term "building" as in Category:Building structural systems. Subcategories should use terms common in the industry or be based on Wikipedia article names. Goodle books seems to have info on "Tensile architecture" so it would seem an appropriate name for a category. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think "Structural system" is fine as it is, most people would understand it refers as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to a building or built structure. A description can be provided in the category page to exclude those exceptions you mentioned. "Building structural systems" would only be longer and still not 100% clarify content, for the same reason there is a Category:Buildings and structures (i.e. many human built structures are not buildings). "Structural systems of buildings and built structures" would be more accurate but awkward and unnecessary. The other argument does not hold: not every book title needs a category. --Elekhh (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.