Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aranel (talk | contribs) at 23:12, 10 November 2004 (→Misc from 24 Sep 2004: rm deleted cats). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

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

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


How to use this page

  1. Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or being created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies there, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas.
  3. Please read the new policy at Wikipedia:Categorization of people if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
  4. Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
  5. Add the name of the new category and {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
  6. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
  7. Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
  8. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
  9. Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.


Special notes

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

Old discussions from this page have been archived to:

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

See also meta-discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion phrases regarding the content of the {{cfd}} template, and about advisory/non-advisory phrases to be used on this "Categories for deletion" page.

November 10

Category:Crime victims

Only used for murder victims, redundant with Category:Murder victims Susvolans 17:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Honda Engines

Bad capitalization - replaced with Category:Honda engines.--SFoskett 15:03, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

Category:Kazakhstani people duplicates Category:Kazakh people and Category:Kakazh people by occupation duplicates Category:Kazakh people by occupation. Susvolans 11:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Towns of...

These should follow the "Towns in..." convention for US states. -- Beland 06:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Fictional places

Redundant with category:fictional locations, and currently a redirect but category redirects effectively don't work. -- Rick Block 02:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Computer workstations

Argh, I was too quick with this one -- realised a couple of minutes later that Category:Workstations was a better name for the cat ... --Wernher 23:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 9

Category:Programming language articles

Redundant with the subcategorised and more comprehensive Category:Programming languages, which oddly is a parent of this one. -- Smjg 16:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 8

Category:The Get-Up Kids albums

Mis-punctuated title. I already moved the one article to the corrected category. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 14:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Misc naval ships

Gdr 00:17, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Category:Americans by national origin

Redundant with Category:American people by national origin. -- Rick Block 15:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Engine

Rendundant & non-plural form of the Category:Enginescategory should be removed. I've migrated the few child articles to their proper parents.--Hooperbloob 02:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:U.S. Marine Corps

Redundant sub-category of Category:United States Marine Corps. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Virtual pet games

Redundant category with only one member. The more populated Category:Virtual pets should be used instead. Norman Rogers 01:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 7

Category:Bond

Category:Bond should be renamed to its plural form, Bonds--Hooperbloob 19:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:recursion theory

Category:recursion theory should be merged with Category:computability. I think both categories describe the same topic. According to my knowledge recursion theory is the old term used to describe computability and computable function due to historic reasons (computability defined as recursive functions). Computability is the current and more suggestive term.

I did not know of this page so I already depopulated the page and deleted the content. If the category is not deleted I will try to revert my changes.MathMartin 16:34, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Military equipment

I'm not sure whether these childless orphans should be deleted...these categories seem to be in a state of flux. -- Beland 09:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem with the above is that there are two competing philosophies about how to categorise militairy equipment at the moment. The first one insists on categorising by decade, the second one, which has my favour, has been arguing that it is pointless splitting World War II German tanks per decade, rather than include them all in a Category:World War II German tanks. Some discussion of this problem has been posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weaponry. I would suggest leaving these categories alone for the moment --Martin Wisse 07:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


November 6

Category:United States third political parties and Category:United States minor political parties

Strongly POV to separate these articles from the two "major" parties. Should be moved to Category:United States political parties. Sarge Baldy 15:11, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

second the notion, third is just wrong (as there are over a hundred of them in the US) and minor (implies these parties opinions are less valid than the big two). Alkivar 02:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not so much less valid as just less accepted. But because there are only two major parties I don't see any reason they can't all appear in the more generic "United States political parties". —Mike 10:19, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
I agree delete and move all to Category:United States political parties. History has shown that the "main" parties do change...Vote in Whigs 2008! Ht1848 00:39, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

November 5

Category:Gulf states

There is already a Category:Persian Gulf states, and the term Gulf states is ambiguous, as the corresponding article explains. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:34, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Chantal Kreviazuk albums

November 4

Category:Airports of Georgia, US State

superseded by Category:Airports of Georgia (U.S. state) Burgundavia 18:26, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Fantasy writers/to do

Created in a misguided attempt to make it easier to navigate from Category talk:Fantasy writers/to do to Category:Fantasy writers. Sole content was 

#REDIRECT Category:Fantasy writers

but the REDIRECT fails to operate. If the first colon is removed it appears as a sub-category. Sorry. --Phil | Talk 14:45, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Forgot to mention: very important not to delete the associated talk page. --Phil | Talk 14:51, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

November 3

Category:Ashlee Simpson albums

She has only one album, so this category is useless, and I refuse to allow the article Autobiography (album) to be so ridiculously categorized (as has been attempted before). Everyking 20:35, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Delete. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 12:45, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. How is it ridiculous to categorize Autobiography (album) in this category (which makes it findable starting from category:albums by artist)? Rick Block 14:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Because she only has one album and this category, by its very title, implies she has more than one, thus misleading the reader. Everyking 15:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • The naming convention for list categories is to use the plural form (WP:CG#Special conventions for lists). I wasn't in on the creation of this convention but I suspect the point is to accommodate categories with one or more entries, i.e. the category name should be understood as category:Ashlee Simpson album(s). -- Rick Block 04:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Well then, I suppose we'll just keep a category that isn't categorizing anything. I suppose eventually she'll have a second album and then it will serve a purpose. Everyking 04:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and more importantly re-add to Autobiography (regardless of Everykings "refusal"). It defeats the purpose of Category:Albums by artist if album articles are wilfully left out of it. - 18:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
    • Well, you try it, then. I suppose you think you can just dictate categorization, but I won't accept useless, misleading categories being added to articles I work on. Everyking 20:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Please don't make this ugly. I've voted keep, you've voted delete, that's all. Nobody is trying to dictate anything. Implicit in any keep vote is that the category should be used, I only stated it explicitly because your last comment seemed to ignore the implicitness in Rick Block's vote. You are not the sole arbiter of what is and isn't useful, and if there is a consensus to keep and use this category, then I trust you will respect that. - 22:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
  • Keep. It's good for category:albums by artist. Tim Ivorson 00:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Which is more important: categorizing, or properly informing the reader? Because if we include this category, we are effectively including a falsehood in the article. Everyking 02:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Disagree that applying the category includes a falsehood. It's an Ashlee Simpson album, so it should go in the category called "Ashlee Simpson albums". Rhobite 02:57, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Albums doesn't imply to you "more than one album"? Because it sure does to me. Moreover, I think people are carrying categories way too far when they feel they have to categorize things even when only one of them exists. Everyking 02:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • No, I don't think most people would assume the plural means there's more than one. It's simply a naming convention for categories. It's better to categorize now than later, and it's better to have the names consistent. And I also think you're underestimating the benefit of categories for purposes such as extraction and visualization. Rhobite 02:59, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and use DCEdwards1966 12:13, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep—I think it's proper to have categories that will eventually be filled. For example, we have a category for Secretaries of the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security even though thus far there has only been one, because we know there will be more, and there will likely be more Ashlee Simpson albums. If she were to die tomorrow, however, tragically cutting short her glorious career, the category should be deleted. Postdlf 00:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, well, I don't agree with you, but the consensus seems pretty clear that we ought to have the category, so I'll drop it. Everyking 03:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 1

Category:State parks in the United States

A duplicate of Category:U.S. state parks, which is to be preferred for brevity and format (in parallel with its subcategories, e.g., Category:Idaho state parks, etc. -- Decumanus 17:51, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

Category:BBS software and Category:BBS

Unnecessary abbreviation, the proper categories are Category:Bulletin board system software and Category:Bulletin board systems. Rhobite 02:57, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

better known by the abbreviation BBS than "Bulletin Board System" (3 720 000 results) vs "BBS" (32 300 000 results) which is the case in some rare cases like "NASA" for example Alkivar 03:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also think BBS is more clear than Bulletin Board System for general consumption 132.205.45.148 15:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See RAM (20,300,000 on google) vs. Random Access Memory (400,000 on google) for precedent. Even though "RAM" is more widely used, the article here is Random access memory. This isn't a jargon file, we should not use initialisms. This especially applies to categories, which are self-descriptive. Rhobite 18:17, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)


Category:States of Brazil vs Category:Political divisions of Brazil

These categories are almost the same: the only political division which isn't a state is the Federal District. Both categories are populated. I'd be happy to merge the contents to one or the other if I could get some guidance here which way to go.-gadfium 00:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:World_War_II_stub

Has not expanded since its creation. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 05:40, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:World War II equipment stub

Same reason as Category:World_War_II_stub. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 05:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

October 31

Category:Gods and Category:Goddesses

These should be merged into Category:Deities (and then probably sub-categories by type, affiliation, or whatever, due to the sheer number of members) for the following reasons:

-- Beland 23:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Excellent reasons. Delete. VeryVerily 03:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm against gender-categories for real individuals, but in the case of deities I think it makes sense. Gender was such a defining characteristic of the characters and forces in mythology that it makes sense to classify them as such. Male and female were very different powers from one another. Postdlf 03:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Why not just have a third category for Godlings of indeterminate gender, intersexed, or alternate non-male, non-female gender 132.205.15.4 23:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Deleting these will just end up cluttering Deities. Alkivar 02:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into relevant subcategories and delete. I don't see how this would create clutter, rather than clearing it up. -Sean Curtin 04:18, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
perhaps because everyone wants to merge it into the parent group Deities of which Gods/Goddesses are sub-groups? Alkivar 03:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To be clear, these deities shouldn't be just dumped at the top level. That would certainly be cluttered. They should be re-sorted not by gender, but by type or mythology and whatnot, since there are other deities that are already sorted that way. -- Beland
Exactly. I thought that that would have been obvious upon looking at the current categorization hierarchy. The only individual articles in these two categories are God, Goddess and a few articles with no obvious specific parent categories beyond these two. -Sean Curtin 04:10, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Merge--Josiah 14:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Postdlf is right. Alternately God is a generic term including both, as Man means the entire human race so if merged it should be into Gods (deity is a clumsy word & is not the first choice people looking for gods or indeed goddesses will type in anyway). Neil Craig

Whether it is the word people would be looking for is not as important for categories. Anyone who is not familiar with Wikipedia is unlikely to type in "Category:Gods", but if they do, they can still navigate to Category:Deities very easily from that page and the notice at the top should explain clearly what is going on.

How about this scheme? 

Category:Deities
  Category:Deities by association
  Category:Deities by culture
  Category:Deities by gender
    Category:Gods
    Category:Goddesses
  Category:Fictional deities
  Category:Singular God

The sub-categories of these could all be broken into gods and goddesses (as is the current system), which would also go into the Gods/Goddesses parent categories. Thus there would still be a lot of dual categorization of sub-categories (but not so much of articles), but I don't really have any problem with having parallel distinct categorization schemes. This would make it easy for folks to browse deities by association/type, culture of origin, or gender. We could introduce a third "by gender" category for cases where the gender is ambiguous. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Strongly-typed programming languages and Category:Weakly-typed programming languages

These two categories are fundamentally bad ideas for the reason that you could make an argument for almost any programming language that it is strongly-typed and that it is weakly-typed. See the strongly-typed programming language article for why this is so. These categories should not exist, and therefore should be deleted. (Judging from their comments on Category talk:Weakly-typed programming languages, users K.lee and Danakil agree with me on this.) —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 18:14, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Observer's 50 Funniest

Far too specific, a contest in one year run by one newspaper in one country. Replaced by article Observer's 50 funniest. Riddley 00:39, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


October 24

Category:Nigerian political parties

Category:Nigerese political parties

  • should be Category:Nigerien political parties if anything; "Nigerese" isn't a word. And the cat only contains a list, which is just redlinks. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Niger vs Nigeria, how do you keep them separate? Should be Political parties of Nigeria and Political parties of Niger. 132.205.15.42 17:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or replace by a category political parties of Niger, as I thought was supposed to be the format? --Martin Wisse 07:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:US-Iraqi relations

rename Category:U.S.-Iraqi relations per MoS. --Jiang 02:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Defunct railroad companies of the United States

Found linked to RfD, should be here. Noel 00:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 23

Category:Ohio county namesakes

I think this is setting a bad precedent. If all the similar entities were to have such categories, then articles such as Andrew Jackson, John Adams, George Washington, etc., will quickly become overwhelmed with categorizations that do little to enhance that article. This purpose is better served by a list article than a category. older≠wiser 18:59, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • DELETE with extreme, extreme, extreme prejudice. I agree entirely. Especially since I'm sure most states are likely to have a Washington County, an Adams County... Do we really want articles cluttered with 30 or so [[:Category [state] county namesakes]]? Postdlf 03:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Aside from the Presidents, few of these are well known, e.g. Andrew Holmes, William Crawford (soldier), or the captors of Andre (David Williams (soldier), Isaac Van Wart, and John Paulding. The category shows connections between people that would not be obvious and I think it fascinating how things are connected. One could make the same argument as Bkonrad in re the births/deaths categories User:D6 has been adding. They don't really contribute anything to the article, but it is interesting nonetheless to see who else is in that category. Does it contribute anything to know that Lincoln and Darwin or John Major and one of the Monty Python blokes (Eric Idle, I think) were born on the same day? Not really, but it's neat to know all the same. PedanticallySpeaking 14:57, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • While I agree that the birth/death categories are largely tangential in the information provided about the subject, they have the saving virtue of being self-limiting. A person is born and dies only once. However, there are dozens, possibly hundreds, of sets of places that could claim Washington or Adams or Jefferson as a namesake. How many states have a county named for them? And then what is to stop someone from making a similar category for cities and townships and high schools. Where does it stop? older≠wiser 15:19, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete before a large number of famous person articles get drowned in categories. Rmhermen 22:57, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; this would be better served by a list or (better still) a series of lists. -Sean Curtin 01:00, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should be list. -- Decumanus 06:49, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
  • A PROPOSAL: How about for the much-honored people such as George Washington, the category tag go on one of the associated pages, e.g. List of places named for George Washington, instead of the underlying article, so "famous person articles (are) drowned in categories"? Again, I would point out there are only a handful of people who would have many namesake counties and that most of the people, e.g. Samuel Finley Vinton, are pretty obscure. PedanticallySpeaking 15:37, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Delete Category:Ohio county namesakes, create single article Ohio counties/names; second PS's proposal. Each state would have its own article, members of say, Category:U.S. toponymy, in turn members of Category:Toponymy. The actual subject is of interest, of course. — Bill 09:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


October 22

Category:GNU images

The category name implies images from the GNU project but actually contained images licensed under GNU licences so I moved all the subcategories up to Category:Free images and flagged this for deletion. Gdr 13:02, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Category:Other conditions that may be a focus of clinical attention

Poor use of categories, vague and long name. Rename to "Miscellaneous disorders". -- +sj+ 12:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Rename I agree with Sj. This category name is too long. NeoJustin 22:40 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

October 21

Category:Swiss people by occupation

Redundant, use Category:Swiss people instead. -- User:Docu

Not at all redundant. By clearing the easy categories of "occupations" out of the way, we open up the capability of having the harder and equally useful Category:Swiss people by period, Category:Swiss people by canton, etc. The same goes for all the "people by occupation" categories, of course. Considering how far Wikipedia has come in so little time, this in turn by way of preparation for Categories like Category: 18th-century painters from Zug which will allow researchers to zero in on things much better. (No, I haven't been creating any of these latter double-tiered cats yet.) — Bill
It possible to create Category:Swiss people by canton there without needing to subcategorize everything else. There isn't much need to create categories by period as we can select biographies based on years of birth/death. -- User:Docu

Category:Slovakian people

Redundant with Category:Slovak people. -- Rick Block 02:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This has already been nominated. Delete Category:Slovak people and keep Category:Slovakian people, for my reason see further down the page.GordyB 20:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 19

Category:Towns in Hungary, Category:Hungarian towns

Obsolete, use Category:Cities in Hungary. Markussep 10:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does Hungary not distinguish between towns and cities? In many places, putting a community called a "town" into the cities category would be factually incorrect. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 14:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please explain the justification for making Hungarian towns the same as cities? --wayland 12:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) The distinction between towns and cities is an Anglo-Saxon thing. I doubt Hungarians make any such distinction.GordyB 23:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Minister presidents of Turkey

Empty orphan at this point. User:beland suggested on Category:Orphaned categories using Category:Turkish politicians instead, and all articles have apparently been moved. -- Rick Block 14:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 18

Category:Towns of England, Category:Towns of Yorkshire, Category:Towns of Wiltshire, Category:Towns of North Yorkshire

Should be Towns in, not of. Almost all these categories have only one occupant. Warofdreams 17:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Not surprising, people keep changing the county boundaries. If the regional assemblies bill gets through there will be no 'North Yorkshire' anyway.GordyB 11:08, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Why would that make people use of instead of in? Warofdreams 15:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Dunno that it applies to the Yorkshires, but what I found, by and large — there's always the exception — before I got started was "in" countries, "of" subnational entities. So I've been following that ever since: Category:Towns in Italy, Category:Towns of Umbria. If there's an automated way of transferring them all to one or the other, that would get my vote. (Similarly for American, United States, and U.S.; and X of Y vs.  "Y-ian X".) — Bill 22:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I meant it's not surprising the category is empty. English countie aren't like American states with fixed borders. They are prone to being carved up and renamed every few years. I didn't see much point arguing about North Yorkshire towns when the county might have disappeared (looks like this won't happen). 'In' is better than 'of' GordyB 23:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Replaced by Towns in North Yorkshire etc Jeff Knaggs 11:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Goddesses of hunting, Category:Celtic Goddesses, Category:Goddesses by type

Should be Category:Hunting goddesses, Category:Celtic goddesses, Category:Deities by association. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be Category:Goddesses of the hunt? Hunting goddesses a patron goddess of hunting need not actually hunt, while a hunting goddess, is a goddess that does hunting, and not necesarily the goddess of the hunt either. 132.205.15.4 17:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's more accurate. — Bill 10:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As a parallel to the other goddess categories (Category:Sky and weather goddesses, Category:Lunar goddesses, etc.), it's fairly clear that the intent is to imply goddesses associated with hunting. The adjectival forms work better for most of the other categories; can't there be goddesses who are associated with hunting but could not properly be called "goddess of the hunt"?. Although I didn't create any of these categories so I would not be heartbroken if the scheme were changed. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 03:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think Category:Goddesses by type should be kept to ease navigation. Take a look at Category:Goddesses—the subcategories of goddesses by culture are mixed in with the subcategories of goddesses by type. Why not separate these out? Postdlf 03:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Category:Olympic tennis players of India

This is a very narrow category. There's not much potential for growth. I proposing to delete this category. Alren 22:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 17

Category:Icelandic people by occupation

Redundant with Category:Icelandic people -- User:Docu

This is actually in keeping with other such categories (see Category:American people by professions—whether it is profession or occupation seems to be somewhat random), although I admit that in this case it's unnecessary. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 12:43, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the other category is of much use either, I think it's rather the ones remaining in Category:American_people that could use some grouping. -- User:Docu


Opose to delete both categories. How many Icelanders do you know? How many sagas? How many settlers? I am happy that I found this category. See Egill Skallagrímsson. Gangleri 19:30, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

It's less a question about potential than about not being able to find the articles in too many layers of subcategories. (BTW in the meantime Category:Icelandic people has 2nd direct subcategory). -- User:Docu

Presidential redirects

The talk page discussions should be moved over, BTW, because they document the formation of the inclusion policy. -- Beland 03:45, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


October 16

Category:US_naval_ships

Seems to be redundant with Category:United_States_Navy_ships. -- Beland 22:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's also Category:U.S. Navy ships. I've been trying to figure this out (without much success) at Category talk:United States Navy ships. I think "United States Navy ships" is to be preferred. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Unresolved; see Category talk:United States Navy ships and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships. -- Beland 02:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Problematic childless orphans

Please help decide whether these childless orphans should be deleted; or kept, parented, and populated with articles. If you are voting to keep, please suggest a good parent category. -- Beland 22:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

People

Heavy Equipment

Misc from 24 Sep 2004

Misc from 2 Oct 2004

Category:Art

It boggles the mind that Category:Arts and Category:Art both exist, and that one is a subcategory of the other, but they both cover the territory of all art(s). Some people think of "visual art" when they say "art", so perhaps "arts" should be used to mean art-in-general, and "visual art" (not merely "art") to mean visual art. I therefore propose the following:

-- Beland 21:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also note reorganization discussion(s) on Category talk:Art which should be preserved if they have not been implemented. -- Beland 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep - I'm not surprised if you are confused, but it is probably best to leave alone. Category:Art is in practice Category:Visual art, but you don't want to call it that because some of what contemporary artists get up to isn't purely visual any more. Category:Arts is the umbrella which includes all the arts, including music and theatre. -- Solipsist 01:25, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Renaming Category:Arts to Category:The Arts sounds like a good idea to me. -- Solipsist 15:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - If it could be reduced to something too logical it would lose the quality which makes art valuable. --wayland 14:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep both. They make sense this way. Filiocht 14:39, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep both. A more descriptive name for Category:Arts, relative to Category:Art, would be nice. Walden 00:25, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
  • Keep both. --ssd 19:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep both Juggling is an Art, but is not usually considered Art for instance.Pedant 02:22, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Category:Genera

  • Is it really a good idea to list all genera, regardless of how closely related (or not) they are? - UtherSRG 20:23, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • 'Keep I think having a list of all the genera in one place organizes them better. NeoJustin 22:37 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • If it is kept, then they should atleast make sure it's subcategoried by phylum . (or kingdom or ___domain (ie. Virii, Archea, Mimivirii, Prokaryota, Eukaryota) )132.205.15.42 17:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • seems backward to me to have Phyla be a subcategory of genus... but it would be useful to be able to look up a genus without knowing what class or order etc. it was in, so I think each specific genus should be a member of the category, and nothing but genus names should go in it IMO. Would be handy for reference use. KeepPedant 02:19, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Comics people

Is it just me, or do these need to be merged? -- Beland 19:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about this: 

Comics
  Comics people
     Comic book artists/writers
     Comic strip artists/writers

[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:53, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

I've depopulated Category:Comics_book_artists and Category:Comics_book_writers so they can be summarily deleted. For what it's worth, I vote for Category:Comic_book_artists over Category:Comics_artists and I think artists and writers should have different categories, even if there is some overlap. Also, using a term like artist/writer in a category may cause confusion as people who do both tasks are usually called writer/artists, so putting non-drawing writers or non-writing artists in that cat might make people think they do both tasks. Gamaliel 20:03, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And I would also dispose of the "Comics people" category since there should not be very many subcategories and there shouldn't be any articles within that category. —Mike 20:41, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
And please note that there is also Category:Cartoonists to consider, a heavily populated category. It could easily take the place of the "Comic strip artists/writers" subcategory suggested above. MisfitToys 18:58, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
Do you need separate comic book, comic strip, graphic novel artists (and also writers) categories? Why not one each for penciller/artist, inker/colorist, scenarioist/editor, and dialogist/writer? 132.205.15.4 17:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete Category:Comics artists and Category:Comics writers and instead use Category:Comic book artists and Category:Comic book writers, respectively, adding crossreferences to Category:Cartoonists to both for the cases of notable writer-artists. -Sean Curtin 01:32, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Works for me -- the hierararchy Neutrality suggested, delete the 2 depopulated/defunct categories, Keep: ; Category:Comics; Category:Comic book artists; Category:Comic book writers; Category:Cartoonists. I'm neutral on Category:Comics people, if someone feels it's needed, it won't bother me, but doesn't seem too useful to me, if it was just me I'd delete that one.Pedant 05:30, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
Is the idea that all comic strip writers and artists should go under Category:Cartoonists? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Beach volleyball players

Category too specific with not enough articles, use Category: Volleyball players —Mike 18:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • But these are two different sports! Might as well merger Rugby union footballers with Rugby league players! jguk 20:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm sure some people would merge rugby with rugby with football as well. KEEP they are different sports, you can tell by the playing surface, and number of players on court 132.205.15.4 17:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Slovak vs. Slovakian

Convert Slovakian to Slovak in the titles of the following categories:

See Slovakia and Category:Slovakia regarding usage. -- Beland 18:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Surely Slovak=ethnicity Slovakian=nationality. Many Slovakians are ethnic Hungarians or ethnic Gypsies and not therefore Slovaks, an ethnic Slovak might live outside Slovakia and therefore not be a Slovakian. In the light of this I think 'Slovakian' is correct.GordyB 22:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is an analogy from some places further south. But nearer to home, Czech means both nationality and ethnicity. You wouldn't use *Czechian. --Henrygb 19:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)



October 13

Category:Pediatrics

Was created to be a redirect to Category:Paediatrics "to avoid confusion". But category redirects don't really work, and it's even more confusing as a redirecting sub-category. Needs to be deleted or else there needs to just be a message pointing to (but not redirecting to) the correct category. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note that articles "in" Category:Pediatrics don't currently show up under Category:Paediatrics. Rick Block 01:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to prevent insertions into Category:Pediatrics, because people are bound to try this (especially Americans?) JFW | T@lk 11:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd say put a note on Category:Pediatrics to see Category:Paediatrics, and if articles show up in the former category, move them to the latter. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 03:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suppose it is naïve to think that if you put Category:Pediatrics on Category:Paediatrics and vice versa it would work? - Nunh-huh 04:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't quite work that way. They would look like sub-categories of each other. I removed the CfD notice and added a note that specified that articles should not be placed in this category. How's that? [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


October 12

Category:Dead people

Is this a joke? Gamaliel 05:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. - Isn't it a common denominator of the two subcategories? Besides, the description reads: "Do not add articles directly to this category; instead, add them to the appropriate subcategory.". -- User:Docu
Three subcategories now.
Name seems kinda trite, but with above listed qualifications, I see no reason to not keep it. --ssd 12:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - what next? Category: Alive people???? jguk 23:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep only if it is restricted to those subcategories. Delete on sight if it metastisizes beyond that. Postdlf 23:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - The two categories could easily be part of the parent category (People), and thus eliminating an uneeded level of catagorization. Hobie 02:54, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
Keep: useful parent for other categories and not intended to be used for categorization of individual articles. -Sean Curtin 03:37, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Should we also have a Category:People who have lived as a parent to Category:Births by year, and any hypothetical Category:People born by Caesarian section and Category:People born in strange places categories? This is not a vote.-gadfium 05:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Gary D 06:29, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It's a[gainst common sense. Etz Haim 20:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Photojournalism

Use instead: Category:Photography -- Beland 06:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Photojournalism is a proper subtopic of photography and journalism(both of which it is...or was...a subcategory)—not all photographers are photojournalists. Postdlf 01:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Looking at the current category structure, Category:Visual journalism is what should go. Photography and graphic design are in no way subtopics of journalism. Photojournalism is the obvious overlap between photography and journalism, it is the subject of its own article, and there are many photographers and works of photography properly classified as photojournalists and photojournalism, in a manner separable from photography in general. Postdlf 01:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Category:Graphic Design fits nicely in Category:Visual journalism but not in Category:photojournalism, so I can't agree. --ssd 12:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • It doesn't fit in either, because not all graphic design is for a journalistic purpose. I wasn't suggesting that photojournalism replace the function that visual journalism serves now—Category:Visual journalism simply isn't a discrete category in the sense it is being used, and the topics within it now are hardly mere sub-subtopics of journalism. Postdlf 23:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep perfectly good category, no reason at all not to have categories be members of more than one parent category, think Venn diagram and Boolean algebra, not Dewey Decimal System Pedant 01:57, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
  • Keep, sensible category, although there may not be many articles to populate it with. There should be a subcategory Category:Photojournalists, which can be populated from List of photojournalists.-gadfium 00:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

October 10

Category:Eccentrics

Removed cfd notice from category and this discussion to category talk:eccentrics.

Reason: No form of discussion had taken place on that discussion page, prior to CfD listing. The category definition seem pretty much OK and workable (referring to definition on List of notable eccentrics). All the rest to be done before re-listing here is described in wikipedia:categorization of people.

--Francis Schonken 10:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) Definition cited above:

"Eccentricity is necessarily a relative definition. An eccentric is someone whose behaviour, beliefs and/or hobbies deviates in significant way from the accepted norms that the rest of the society that defines that person recognizes as proper or as traditional. He or she may be regarded as strange, odd or at least unconventional, irregular and erratic. Other people usually regard the eccentric with apprehension but also with considerable amusement."

Although I am an eccentric, (by this definition most wikipedians are -- who does this kind of thing for free but an eccentric?) I might be offended to find that an article about me was listed at the bottom as being part of Category:Eccentrics, but it might not bother me to see Category:Notable eccentrics, and any article on any eccentric in wikipedia is likely to be a notable eccentric. Maybe we could change the category name?Pedant 01:52, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Japan

Duplicate of Category:Japanese towns. Rick Block 17:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oops (although not maybe completely oops): I created this one, on the model of other cats in other countries. The category in many other countries is "Towns in X"; others (most?) have "Cities in X" (but villages of 200 people are hardly cities); some few had both — before I did anything — and I took a useful cue from Category:Coastal cities where a city is reasonably defined as >100,000); France has "Category:Cities, towns and villages of France; and the provinces of Canada and some few others have "Communities in X" ... A uniform scheme would be good, grandfathering maybe some few categories with very large populations. Inconsistent nomenclature is going to have to be dealt with at some point, probably via robot. ("U.S." vs. "American", etc.) — Bill 21:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
On looking a bit closer at Category:Japanese towns: most of the subcategories are of the form Towns of X, and as the number of town articles increases, they could usefully be moved into cats for each prefecture, and the prefectures into (Towns in Japan/Japanese towns) by prefecture — suddenly making the top category navigable for visible categories like "Coastal towns", "Town planning", "Town governments", etc.? — Bill 21:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merge and moveCategory:Japanese towns to Category:Towns in Japan Note though, that the number of people does not define the difference between a town and a cityPedant 01:44, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Oct 3-8

Wikipedia:Catagories for deletion/Galaxies by Constellation and subcategories The consensus appears to be that the "extrasolar system" categories should be deleted (only one keep vote and four deletes, although one was anonymous). Category:Compact stars received one clear delete vote and at least three clear keeps. Category:Neutron stars ended up with nothing but keep votes.

This page is now an archive. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Objects in the extrasolar system and subcategories

Category:Objects in the extrasolar system
Category:Compound objects in the extrasolar system
Category:Simple objects in the extrasolar system
Category:Compact stars
Category:Neutron stars

These categories are not used by anyone except User:Joseph Dwayne, and he cut off the categorizations of several things to put into his pet categories, making them lost from where they were. (Why would Category:Pulsars not be in Category:Stars? It appear in Category:Compact stars with no linkage to stars whatsoever (where it used to sit)). Compact stars is empty, so is Neutron stars. In any case they are in the wrong heirarchy of categories. Extrasolar system also has a different meaning... an extrasolar planetary system. 132.205.15.4 09:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why not simply recategorize Category:Compact stars under Category:Stars? I think it's not unreasonable to have a separate category for these kinds of objects, since they're rather different from the fusion-powered massive objects that are usually what people think of when they think "stars". The fact that they're currently empty doesn't mean they'll stay that way, I can think of several articles that could fall under them. The first three categories listed, on the other hand, are indeed poorly named and IMO probably worthy of deletion. Bryan 00:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I get your point. Compact stars and neutron stars could be recategorized under Category:Stars, though someone should populate them. 132.205.15.4 02:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that "Neutron stars" and "Pulsars" are reasonable categories, though it'll be interesting to decide which ones are notable enough to deserve articles. I'm not sure "Compact stars" is a meaningful and necessary category, though. -- Beland 05:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please also delete these childless orphans: Category:Extended_objects_in_the_extrasolar_system Category:Extrasolar_system -- Beland 05:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Woah dudes, chill out, following the convention used in the astronomical objects article. Why don't you help in filling them up instead of deleting them? *boggle* I remember cutting some cats by accident, but we can include both schemes, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical Objects, I asked there, got no answer so I started categorizing stuff since no one seems to help. But alas, I'm not an octopus and I don't have several hands to do this task alone. Some help would be nice you wacks. —Joseph | Talk 05:20, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the Astronomical objects article, I changed "Extrasolar system", which I find to be somewhat...improper...to "Extrasolar objects". I like the idea of aligning the category scheme with this table. I think that "Solar System" and all the top-level items in "Extrasolar objects" (Exoplanets, Stars by luminosity class, Compact stars, Galaxies, etc.) should also be an equivalent subcategory of Category:Celestial objects. So, keep Neutron stars and Compact stars, and delete the "extrasolar system" categories. -- Beland 05:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC).
I think that "Solar System" and all the top-level items in "Extrasolar objects" (Exoplanets, Stars by luminosity class, Compact stars, Galaxies, etc.) should also be an equivalent subcategory of Category:Celestial objects. So, keep Neutron stars and Compact stars, and delete the "extrasolar system" categories. -- (what Beland said) (extrasolar system is wacky, dude, does that mean everything not in this star system? I'm not sure, I don't get to the 'extrahouse ___location' much.)Seriously, though Joseph Dwayne, nice try, and we all DO appreciate the effort you are going to to try to develop a usable scheme for this... At least I do... also I think pretty much any pulsar is worthy of an article, if there's enough data. Black Holes too... but should we not call them collapsars, as it seems to me that the term Black Hole is sort of Anglocentric/America-centristic? or am I misled?Pedant 01:35, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Delete Category:Compact stars and put its subcategories into Category:Stars. Category:Neutron stars should be kept and populated. The extrasolar categories including the two listed by User:Beland should be deleted. We already have suitable subcategories under Category:Stars for most of these, and we also have Category:Extrasolar planets, Category:Galaxies etc.-gadfium 00:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sept 2004

Possibly unnecessary categories

These seemed to have more potential for disagreement. They were all childless orphans when I found them. -- Beland 06:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete all of them. Maurreen 05:12, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All of what? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 13:13, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Since no one has put anything into Category:Medical conditions, should we delete it, or put it in Category:Underpopulated categories? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Colleges and universites in Canada

Is "universities and colleges" appropriate Canadian terminology? It is pretty standard for Wikipedia; see Category:Universities_and_colleges.

In Quebec, a "college" is sort of in-between "high school" and "university" (which are each a year shorter to leave room for two years of college) . "Universities in Quebec" is correct. Even schools that are called "colleges" in, say, the U.S., are referred to as "universities" in Quebec. See CEGEP, which is a Quebec phenomenon not shared by the rest of Canada, so it wouldn't affect the Alberta category. Category:Canadian universities does seem to include colleges. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:05, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Universities and colleges" is appropriate Canadian terminology; however, would something like "Postsecondary education in Canada" or better "Canadian postsecondary institutions" be better?
Aranel, I think that including CEGEPs on Wikipedia as 'colleges' is borderline; one could argue they are effectively senior high schools. Are all colleges in Quebec really CEGEPs? --Saforrest 23:46, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
I should add to Aranel's comments that there is a pretty sharp distinction between colleges and universities in Ontario, at least, and probably in the rest of Canada too. The ambiguity in American usage does not exist here, so if there are colleges under Category:Canadian universities, they should not be there (or better yet, the category should be renamed to something inclusive). --Saforrest 23:52, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
CEGEPs are not senior high schools. It's the combination of a technical school, pre-university prep-school, community college and liberal arts college. They should not be place in any high school category, since registration and class performance are judged by university and not highschool standards (IOW, it's up to you to pass, they will fail you, if you can't get the class you need to graduate, tough luck, try another semester, inter-CEGEP registrations are permitted, just like inter-university ones). They are also not univesities though... In Quebec, official college type of school is a CEGEP, but any school can call itself a college. As such there are elementary schools with college in their names, as there are middle schools (junior high school), senior highs, technical schools, etc. There are ofcourse subdivisions of universities that are also called college, as there are everywhere. 132.205.15.4 05:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We also have now: Category:Universities_in_Ottawa (childless orphan) Category:Universities_and_Colleges_in_Ottawa Category:Universities_and_Colleges_in_Toronto (Populated, but wrong capitalization.) Category:Universities_in_Toronto (a childless orphan) -- Beland 07:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Universities and colleges specifies all instutions of post-secondary education. My understanding is that Quebec CEGEPs are considered post-secondary (although they would overlap with the last year of secondary education in many other regions, they also overlap with post-secondary in those regions). So it would be perfectly reasonable to use "universities and colleges in..." for Canada (as far as I can tell, all Canadian "colleges" are at least partially post-secondary), but I think it would also be appropriate to subdivide those into "universities in..." and "colleges in...", at least for Quebec, since in some cases those are entirely different types of institutions. Or perhaps it would make more sense to have Category:Universities and colleges in Canada and then put two categories for eahc province (as appropriate), one for universities and one for colleges? Comments? Category:Canadian colleges specifies local community colleges. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Union Navy officers

Category:Union Navy admirals

Recommend keeping these to be consistent with Confederate Navy categories. While technically part of the United States Navy, this was a unique time in the Navy's history. Breaking them out helps clarify where people fought. The alternative is dumping everyone into "American Civil War people" which is less helpful. Jinian 17:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Works for me. Maurreen 05:28, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both. I don't think keeping these creates any consistency with the Confederate categories, because the U.S. clearly continued to exist during the Civil War, and the Confederacy was a government in opposition. That the U.S. had another nickname during this time does not justify a separate category for that nickname—it's merely going to be confusing to those not familiar with the topic, who are going to think that the U.S. and the Union were two separate things. But it is reasonable to try and subcategorize Category:American Civil War people, so the problem is more the name. We need something more along the lines of Category:U.S. military officers during the American Civil War. Cumbersome, but a more clear designation. Another thing to keep in mind is that we don't need categories for every relationship and every bit of information about a subject. But let's come up with a better solution than "Union" categories. Postdlf 23:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • How about making the Union Navy a subcategory of the US Navy? Or perhaps "Military officers during the American Civil War", with subcategories of "Confederate" and "Union"? Of course, that new category would be a subset of "American Civil War people" which would also contain politicians, activists, journalist, etc. Jinian 17:09, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • It's ok to have a category or article be a member of more than one category, completely ok, no problem with that. Change to Category:U.S. military officers during the American Civil War since that seems like a good name if we aren't quibbling about the American part... and since we have American Civil War I guess it makes sense for consistency. ...and break out the Union and Confederate as well. I don't think we need a separate category for naval officers and for admirals... do we?Pedant 01:22, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Reincarnated

Category:Olympic athletes

Noting that "athletes" means "track and field athletes" in British English, should we rename this Category:Olympians or Category:Olympic_sportspeople?

Subcategories would also need re-treatment. We currently have two styles: 

* Athletes at the 1900 Summer Olympics
* Olympians at the 2004 Summer Olympics

Could I interest you in one of these instead? 

* 2004 Summer Olympians
* Sportspeople at the 1900 Summer Olympics

These renames could be done by a bot. -- Beland 05:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sportspersons at the 1960 Winter Olympics seems like a nice pattern, or Sportspeople. Atheletes at the xxx Summer Olympics also needs to be changed to the Track and Field Atheletes at the ... 132.205.15.42 00:49, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In this context, in British English 'Olympic athletes' is synonymous with 'Olympians', so I don't see a need to change from 'Olympic athletes'. Using the word 'sportspeople' is distinctly American, and should therefore be avoided if at all possible in an International encyclopaedic. It can be avoided here, so it should be. jguk 20:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Possibly "Olympic competitors" as an alternative? MisfitToys 23:25, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
I like Category:Olympic competitors. Completely unambiguous. Also makes it clear that this category inclues all who compete the in the Olympics, whether or not they win anything. Could theoretically also contain teams. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 02:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I like Olympic competitors for exactly the same reasons as stated by all of the editors above. this wording seems to satisfy the requirements.KeepPedant 01:12, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Cleanup overhead

Discussions moved off-page

Please see:

Empty me/Move me

The below meet the eligibility requirements for deletion at the top of this page. These categories need to be de-populated. Discussion on these items should still be listed above.

(User:Pearle will automate article reassignment if she is approved. -- Beland 05:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Delete me

The below meet the eligibility requirements for deletion at the top of this page. These categories have been de-populated, and any documentation of this decision taken care of. Admins may delete these categories at will. If there is a particular category which is replacing the deleted category (if redundant, misspelled, etc.) as noted below, that should be mentioned in the deletion log entry.

The category to be deleted is listed first, followed by the proper category that renders it obsolete.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=7316219"