Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 10 September 12 >

September 11[edit]

Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights[edit]

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, frankly the arguments saying this is a POV category don't really stand up to scrutiny as there is no given alternative that is better and more clearly non-POV as considered by the respondents. I don't see any obvious POV issues with describing such organisations as opposing LGBT rights as that is what they do. (NAC) -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a rather POV category that goes against the community consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories. StAnselm (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This category is a container category for organizations that oppose rights for LGBT people (adoption, hospital visitation, same sex marriage, survivor rights, (US) Federal tax benefits, adoption rights, etc.) The category serves to organize information in alignment with Wikipedia's principles, making similar articles easier to locate. There is nothing POV about a category which simple serves to group related articles, but there something very POV by the constant attempts to suppress any and all LGBT-related content, especially where it intersects with religious or political content. Bias is a matter of perspective. – MrX 21:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the nom's removal of a subcategory from this parent category around the same time as the nomination is rather telling. – MrX 22:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • need some serious renaming here The various category names having to do with the social status of homosexuality all share a very strong presumption of guilt on the part of the non-LGBT side. I can accept the desire/need to categorize groups in opposition, but there need to be category names which do not presume that LGBT rights activists and the like are naturally in the right on this. Mangoe (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps better naming would be beneficial. In absence of clear guidelines, one tends to follow precedent. If you have recommendations, I would be interested in hearing them. – MrX 22:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I grant that Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT hate-crime legislation may work. I have removed it from American Family Association because it lacks sourcing, but it is framed in a fairly neutral way. However, it is still vague as to whether it applies to specific proposed legislation, or all such legislation. StAnselm (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is needed is a trio of categories: Category:LGBT hate-crime legislation (for laws or proposed laws establishing hate crimes against GLBT people), Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT hate-crime legislation and Category:Organizations that supporting LGBT hate-crime legislation. The latter two should have specific requirements (i.e. a section on the orgs posture towards LGBT hate-crime with specific referencing). Stuartyeates (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This extends well beyond just hate crimes. It includes various rights denied to LGBT people (adoption, marriage, hospital visitation, inheritance, taxes, military service, immigration, anti discrimination, social security, etc). The category needs to be broad enough to encompass all of the different types of rights opposition that exist. – MrX 04:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Therein lies the problem. One needs a sound and neutral definition of which rights are covered. Without that the classification into the category becomes a battleground. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The insistence by tendentious users that "LGBT rights" do not exist, and the corresponding efforts by such users to (being unable to actually delete the article LGBT rights, etc.) enforce their personal political views on categories, phrasing, and so on is very tiresome. The concept exists and has been described by neutral and reliable sources, and it is easy to populate a category with organizations that oppose it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ProposalThe issue is not whether LGBT rights exist as a concept, which they obviously do. The editors arguing against you dispute that they exist as law, and that the inclusion of THIS category asserts in WP's voice that they do. (actually the Hate crime legislation category IMHO should be uncontroversial, since the introduction of LGBT legislation is usually labeled as such) Would a rename to Category:Organizations that oppose the concept of LGBT rights satisfy everyone?--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not me - it's unnecessary to the point of being actively bad. These organizations oppose not only the concept of LGBT rights, but also specifically campaign against the extension of rights to LGBT people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The campaign to triple- and quadruple cover all things SPLC has got to end. Wikipedia is being (ab)used as a soapbox, and the campaign illustrates a clear case of WP:NOTHERE Belchfire-TALK 02:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Per Mangoe. "LGBT Rights" is POV and subject to dispute as to what are included. "LGBT agenda", OTOH, is politically charged and POV in the other direction. Perhaps something along the lines of "Groups opposing tolerance of LGBT people" (probably bad in the implication that LGBT-ness needs to be "tolerated"; "Groups espousing anti-LGBT positions" or "Groups advocating anti-LGBT positions"? These should be sourceable. There's still a definition problem, though. Would the Catholic Church and the LDS Church, e.g., belong in such a category? But if one master category name can be agreed upon – and preferably clear inclusion criteria included on the category or talk page – the concept seems worth keeping. (And the recent subcategories can all be upmerged). Fat&Happy (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have zero problem myself with "Groups advocating anti-LGBT positions" but I believe "anti-LGBT orgs" has been deleted in the past; your suggestion seems closer to that than the current category does. WRT the Catholic and Mormon churches, I believe the solution has been to put the sub-article on homosexuality and [denomination] in the category. I know the Catholicism article doesn't include nearly as much on the political aspect of the hierarchy's opposition as it needs to, but that's a writing issue; dunno about the Mormon article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no objection to renaming this container/parent category to something equal in meaning, but more neutral in language. We have to keep in mind though that these are organization that by their policies, actions and/or words do in fact oppose certain rights for LGBT people that are not denied for everyone else. Yes, that would include the LDS Church (contributions to defeat Prop 8) and possibly the Catholic Church for their stated position against same-sex marriage. – MrX 04:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Why does Category:Organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric point to this discussion, and why wasn't that speedily deleted, as should any category which uses "rhetoric" in a pejorative sense. The article (anti-LGBT rhetoric) could survive, if it doesn't name the organizations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Under what criteria do you think it speedily deleted? Or even nominated for CfD for that matter? The fact is that there are 'Organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric'. Did you read any of the articles, or the web pages of the organizations? Our role is to create a free encyclopedia of all knowledge; not to censor information that makes us uncomfortable. Perhaps you have ideas for how to keep this important category and rename it to address what you believed to be pejorative term.
Also, this category is not in the same branch as the nommed category. I still question whether should be discussed here or in a separate CfD. – MrX 13:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it doesn't meet the speedy criteri; however, unless a reliable source uses the term "rhetoric", and it's a defining characteristic of the organization, then the organization should not be in the category. I suspect that eliminates all the current listings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does eliminate all the organizations. None of the word "rhetoric" used in Wikipedia's voice in the article. Emptied. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category names do not have to literally be listed in the article. Interpretation and common sense are key. From the article that defines the category:
– MrX 17:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categories which are potentially pejorative need to be explicitly sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the community believes that "anti-gay rhetoric" is POV, I have proposed two branching alternatives: [:Category:Organizations that denounce LGBT people] and [:Category:Organizations that denounce LGBT activities]. I would welcome any ideas on how better to word these to maintain NPOV, while not losing the meaning, or the categories themselves. – MrX 19:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be happy with Category:Organizations advocating anti-LGBT positions as covering both the "oppose rights" and "engage in rhetoric" categories. StAnselm (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a fan of the rhetoric category either - it asks us to assume that what they say is just "rhetoric" and not a position, and/or ignores the fact that "rhetoric" is used in the service of positions. But I don't think it would be correct to delete it without a broader category to put the said articles into - that being "opponents of LGBT rights," "advocating anti-LGBT positions" or whatever. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now, but recommend a wider discussion about this whole type of categorisation. Maybe an RFC?
It seems to me that there are fundamental problems with trying to categorise people and organisations according to their stance on political issues:
  1. Different terminology may be used on opposite sides of the debate, making it very hard to find neutral wording for category names.
    The grammatical conjugation game which expresses views differently by whether they are held by the 1st, 2nd or 3rd person illustrates this simply. (Note that these are examples, not expressions of my views): I defend traditional families, you oppose same-sex marriage, and he wants discrimination. I support separate development, you want racial segregation, he is a racist. I support freedom to choose, you defend abortion rights, she is a baby-killer.
  2. Categories are supposed to group topics by defining characteristics, but the question of whether a particular political stance is a defining characteristic of an organisation may depend on perspective. For example, a Church's opposition to same-sex marriage may define it in the eyes of LGB people, but may not to be seen in the same way by the church. It's hard to see an NPOV solution to this, because the church may genuinely see its stance as just one manifestation of its core beliefs, while to those elsewhere in the controversy the church may be relevant only for its political position.
  3. Political positions may be nuanced. An organisation may take a stance only on one aspect of an issue, or its stance may be conditional (e.g. oppose same-sex marriage unless churches are forbidden to conduct the marriage ceremonies)
  4. For any issue X, it seems to me to be non-neutral to have pro-X categories without corresponding anti-X categories,and vice-versa.
  5. Political positions can change radically over time. In the 1980s, the Conservative Party (UK) enacted Section 28 which forbade a school to "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" ... but now it is back in government and intends to introduce same-sex civil marriage by 2015. Do we place that party in both pro- and anti- categories? Or do we duck the issue and put it in neither?
At this stage, I think that I would probably favour a huge a massive cull of all categories by stance on a political issue, whilst retaining categories which record only involvement in a political issue. The scope, nuances and history of an organisation's stance can be covered much more effectively in list-style articles than in categories which offer only a binary choice.
Whatever the solution, it should be developed from core principles and applied consistently. This discussion, which focuses on one side of one particular political faultline, is not the right way to find an NPOV solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to your very well thought out comments, the category in discussion was not intended to be a political category at all. It was meant to encompass rights denied to a group of people based on immutable characteristics. Unfortunately, just as with Women's suffrage or Racial segregation, those wishing to deny those rights and those wishing to secure those rights use political means to advance their positions. However, we can't view it in the same way as political parties, fiscal policy, government regulation or other political topics. If there is a way to properly structure categories for these rights issues, then that is where our focus should be.
Perhaps it would make sense to rename 'Organizations that oppose LGBT rights' to 'Opposition to LGBT rights' and simply remove the word 'Organization' from the category, and perhaps even the subcategories. – MrX 13:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that your reply rather confirms my fears about this sort of this category: that by discussing it in the framework of one particular issue, some editors would look at it as an issue about that topic — rather than as a wider problem of how to categorise those involved in political controversy.
I happen to share your view of LGBT rights, but it is quite clear that significant chunks of many societies do not regard these as fundamental rights, and these issues are matters of hot political controversy in many places. As an NPOV publication, Wikipedia cannot try to deligitimise one side of the argument as you are doing.
You may label it as matter of rights or politics or whatever, but the fact remains that there are two POVs here, and Wikipedia cannot privilege one POV over the other. The same goes for issues like the death penalty, the avoidance of which is enshrined in human rights law as a fundamental right throughout Europe, but is legal in most of the USA. Or issues which what socialist countries regard as fundamental rights, such as housing and access to medicine, but which are treated differently in the market economies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re the government thing, I think we would leave political parties out, the same way we currently leave the Republicans out of anti-abortion organizations and so on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Wikipedia should not delegitimize any viewpoint, but I'm still not comfortable classifying this issue as political. I would welcome any alternative for the word 'rights' that conveys the same meaning with a different word (perhaps 'pursuit of happieness', 'freedoms', 'liberties', 'benefits', 'prerogatives').
Eliminating the category alltogether, or white washing the category name of all meaning is not the solution, but I'm sure there is a solution to be had. – MrX 14:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make any difference whether we label the issue as political, cultural, social, religious, intellectual, or ideological. What matters is that there is more than one major POV here, and we need to be neutral between them, just as we are on fiscal policy or govt regulation or whatever. Your set of suggested words would be acceptable to only one side of the argument, and are no more neutral than the "special privileges" terminology used by some of those in the US who oppose anti-discrimination measures.
In any case you still seem to be starting from the assumption that categorisation by political stance is viable. For the reasons I set out above, I think it is so fraught with problems that it needs to be considered in a more abstract and comprehensive manner than this narrowly-focused CFD permits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am in complete agreement about the need to be neutral. I'm just hoping that we can make progress in actually doing so. With regard to "you still seem to be starting from the assumption that categorisation by political stance is viable" - I reject the premise that that is what I'm doing. But that's OK, we can agree to disagree on that point.
I acknowledge that there is cause to develop an alternative solution and I am just hoping for a proposal broad enough to address the scope of this categorization issue. – MrX 15:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal - Here is my proposal that I hope will lead to WP:SNOWBALL:
Delete: [:Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights]
Create/Keep:
  • [:Category: Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage]
  • [:Category: Organizations that oppose LGBT military service]
  • [:Category: Organizations that oppose LGBT adoption]
  • [:Category: Organizations that oppose LGBT hate-crime legislation]
  • [:Category: Organizations that oppose LGBT anti-discrimination legislation]
  • [:Category: Organizations that oppose LGBT immigration reform]
  • [:Category: Organizations that oppose civil unions]
  • [:Category: Organizations that oppose citizenship for LGBT people]
  • [:Category: Organizations that support killing LGBT people]
  • [:Category: Organizations that oppose LGBT subjects in public schools]
  • [:Category: Organizations that oppose LGBT clubs in public schools]
  • [:Category: Organizations that support criminalization of same-sex sexual activity]
  • [:Category: Organizations that support criminalization of homosexuality]
  • [:Category: Organizations that oppose LGBT lobbying (or activism)]
  • [:Category: Organizations that support LGBT sterilization]
  • [:Other categories worded in a similar vein]
To address the [:Category:Organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric] co-nom, change it to [:Category:Organizations that denounce LGBT people] and [:Category:Organizations that denounce LGBT activites]
I further propose that these categories be included in the existing [:Category: LGBT rights] or [:Category:Discrimination against LGBT people], or even a new category. I'm also open to using another existing category that could logically be considered a parent of the categories in the above list. – MrX 16:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, that's way too specific to be worekable,
I think that you have unintentionally provided a very good illustration of some of the problems that will follow if we continue to try to categorise ppl or organisations by their political stance. There are plenty of organisations which would fit in many of these categories, leading to massive category clutter on the relevant articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, I disagree on all points, but I look forward to seeing your proposal. – MrX 17:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, my proposal is above: a wider discussion about this whole type of categorisation, possibly as an RFC.
So how exactly do you intend to avoid category clutter if your long list of categs is created? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A wider discussion or RfC may be a good idea; I would just not want to see it framed as discussion about political viewpoints as I don't think it would be productive. I recognize the clutter potential of having very specific categories, which is why my intention was to create a general parent category and a few major subcategories. Then, any articles that do not fit in a subcategory, but do fit in a the parent category, would simply live in the parent category. According to Fat&Happy, this not allowable.. In any case, I think this discussion would benefit from additional input, so I'm going to lie low for a while. – MrX 17:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that they don't fit in a subcategory; it's that they all fit in all the subcategories. Pace BrownHairedGirl, your list of potential categories doesn't illustrate the problem with categorizing groups by their political activism; it illustrates the problem with trying to enforce on the encyclopedia the personal belief that LGBT rights don't exist. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roscelese, I don't see any such imposition. What I do see is an issue in which some people believe that such that LGBT rights do exist or should exist, whereas others believe that they do not exist or should not exist.
You appear to be advocating that Wikipedia should prefer one of those views over the other, by using the terminology of one side. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My eye caught the word "reform" in one of these categories - that's definitely POV as well. After all, everyone wants the legal system to be better, so everyone is in favour of "law reform", aren't they? StAnselm (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. "LGBT immigration reform" could mean reforms which restrict immigration by LGBT people, or reforms which remove barriers to their immigration. So on a plain, NPOV reading, the category means only those who want to retain the status quo. However, it appears to be intended to refer to reforms which would remove barriers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, educational and encyclopedic, high value for readers. — Cirt (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As named it is a pure POV categorisation of groups. Perhaps a category for groups which have religious or social objections to homosexuality might be proper but "opposed to rights" is rather a pointy name for such a category. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Roscelese. Insomesia (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without an objective characterization of "LGBT rights". In addition to most being not a "defining characteristic of the organization", the line between "LGBT rights" and "LGBT privileges" needs to be drawn by an objective source. I don't think such a source exists. This argument applies to some, but not all, of the newly created subcategories. (It applies strongly to the "rhetoric" cat.) Some of MrX's proposed categories have the same failing, some are not likely to be (a) "defining characteristic of the organization", and adding all of them would lead to excess caterogrization for those organizations which oppose all LGBTs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We've got to delete the category because LGBT people want special rights"? This is exactly the nonsense I referred to above. Reliable sources acknowledge the existence of LGBT rights, and the attempt to pretend that's not the case anywhere on WP you possibly can is really just shameful and embarrassing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'LGBT rights', more properly referred to as 'rights denied to LGBT people', was chosen as that is the common terminology used not only in societal discussions of the topic and in the media, but specifically on Wikipedia. The current category tree has an existing 2nd level category (also used as a 3rd level category) called 'LGBT rights'. To clarify, if a right is afforded to all citizens except LGBT people, that is what is commonly called 'LGBT rights', although technically, it should be called 'rights denied LGBT people'; after all if they have the same rights as everyone else in society, it ceases to be an issue.
With regard to the nom for the "organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric" I have proposed two branching alternatives: [:Category:Organizations that denounce LGBT people] and [:Category:Organizations that denounce LGBT activities]. I would welcome any ideas on how better to word these to maintain NPOV, while not losing the meaning, or the categories themselves. – MrX 14:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a POV name, only favored by those who oppose these orginizations. In reality the main thing these organizations support in the continuation of man/woman marriage. To them the issue is about government protection of the rights of children and encoraging the raising of children by their biological parents, while other groups are concerned that marriage redefinition will cause discrimination against religious people who seek to hold to the old definition of marriage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, most of these organizations do not "support the of man/woman marriage" If that were true, those organizations would be put their efforts into reducing or eliminating divorce rates from their current rates (US) of 40%-50%. The category name is not a POV name, except perhaps to those who do not believe that LGBT people should have the same rights as non-LGBT people. In the US, the law requires equal treatment of all of its citizens. Also, many of these organizations oppose many more rights than just marriage, as have been explained elsewhere in this CfD. – MrX 15:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment for many organizations this will be just one of many positions taken. It is not going to be their reason for being, and to imply such will be misleading.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I presume that's why these organizations call for the criminalization of homosexuality, promote bullying of children, oppose LGBT people serving in the military, think it should be legal to fire someone for being LGBT, etc. They're just protecting innocent straight married couples! Now why didn't I think of that? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the extreme example is the application of the category Category:Organizations that oppose same gender marriage to the Roman Catholic Church when there was no categorization of the Roman Catholic Church by its pro-life stance, when the church dedicates more time and energy to its pro-life stance. Categorization of Churches by their position on particular social or religious issues should be avoided. If there are lobbying bodies formed by churches that work on specific stances that is another case, but churches as a whole should not be categorized by their political stances.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every comment you've made in this discussion has been POV rubbish. The category is not and would not be on the RCC article. Churches are not categorized by their "stances". Arguing against a valid category based on stuff you've pulled out of (charitably) thin air is yet more evidence that opposition to the categories is about imposing a political view on Wikipedia, not about following WP policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Roscelese, there are at least two POVs here, and denouncing either one of them gets us nowhere.
        There are countless sources demonstrating that the Roman Catholic Church opposes LGBT rights, and especially same-sex marriage. If this category sort of category exists, why exclude churches from it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I completely agree with you - I was the one who initiated the past discussion on this subject because I thought it was very improper that such a category, template, what have you make no reference to an institution that has been so very influential on this issue. The result of the discussion was that there's so much else "going on" with the church that the category didn't belong on the main article, but that it should be on a sub-article like homosexuality and Catholicism once that article contained material on activism. Which actually reminds me that now that it does (a user added material recently! yay) the category can be added. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric seems like an outlying case of an extremely poorly worded, point-of view pushing, and marginalizing category. The validity of other slitly related categories seems to be a very different issue, and I think the whole matter would be helped if we could consider this clearly poorly named category seperately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Contrary to Roscelese's attack on my statements, the Roman Catholic Church was in the Organizations that Oppose Same Swex marraige category until I removed it, after I made my comment. My removal of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the same category has been once reverted, and now is the subject of debate on the talk page of that article, with the other two people who have contributed to the discussion on whether my removal was valid holding the view I am wrong and it should be kept there. If Roselese does in fact believe that Churches should not be put in this hierarchy, than I think (s)he should actively work to enforce this exclusion. As it is 3 different people have taken the view that Churches should be put in this hierarchy and actively worked to support this view by actions. One of these was MrX, a supporter of keeping this category, so to imply that I am pulling things out of thin air by suggesting that religious organizations would be put in this category structure is just plain false. The evidence is that people put religious organizations in this category structure, and some of them care enough to proactively seek to preserve the preservation of religious organization placement within the category structure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Roscelese said Churches are not categorized by their "stances". The discussion about categorization of Faithful Word Baptist Church for its opposition to same gender marriage suggests that in fact in some cases they are. That shows even more people feel that churches can be categorized for their stances than previously identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a possible solution is to limit church categorization by stance to cases where the Churches have only gained noteriety for their political stances. Put another way, we will categorize stand-alone one congregation churches for political stances, but we will not categorize national or multi-national religious bodies for their political stances. In the long run if we were to accept that categorization of the Roman Catholic Church by its political stances we would create a whole plethora of categories to put it in, that would lead to putting it in categories representing at times positions that are opposite to what it presently holds. The whole thing is a nightmare. On the other hand, Dove World Outreach Center has become notable merely because of its vitrolic opposition to Islam, and so categorization based on that might work for such a small group. However even there it was placed in the anti-same gender marriage category in a questionable way. The opposition to homosexuality identified in the article has nothing to do with opposition to same gender marriage. To categorize a group as opposed to same gender marriage it must be shown, at a minimum, that the group actually tried to influence law in some way to not allow for same gender marriage, something not shown in the article on DWOC. Put another way, opposition to same-gender marriage must be more than just a refusal to perform such, even when it is refusal to perform such within a polity that legally recognizes them without explicit religious-fredom exemptions to having to perform them. DWOC might fit such a definition, but there is no evidence in the article that it does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh, I wish it were possible to watch a category such that content going in and out could be monitored. I apologize - I hadn't realized that someone had tried to put the category on the main RCC article (past discussion had determined that it was best placed on a sub-article which would detail RCC campaigns against same-sex marriage). Pursuant to that, as I said, a "stance" isn't, in my view, sufficient; the Anglican Church also doesn't perform same-sex marriages, but they don't donate enormous sums of money to political campaigns against it, as far as I know. That is to say, the RCC would belong in the category (via a sub-article on Catholicism and homosexuality) based on their activism, as is proper. The same could be said of its campaigns against reproductive rights, as you suggested. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Roman Catholic Church in Scotland has been the most vocal opponent of current proposals to legalise Same-sex marriage in Scotland. To exclude them from such a category would seriously unbalance the category; but including them might add WP:UNDUE weight to that aspect of Church's activities.
        This sort of categorisation-by-policy-stance creates a nhuge ;pile of insurmountable problems, and should be avoided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That make's a lot of sense for organizations that oppose SSM but are not very notable for their opposition. Contrast that with, for example, the LDS church. Their involvement is notable. Even more so, a 'church' like the Westboro Baptist Church or an organization like the Family Research Council who are even more notable for their stance on SSM. We have to also remember, in spite of our personal biases, not to treat a church any differently than we would any other organization when deciding these matters. As to the potential issues posed by these types of categories; I think we have to work through them and develop naming, hierarchy and inclusion standards as a community. Otherwise, we do the 'pedia and our readers a disservice. – MrX 19:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment another thing I noticed in the mis-categorization of Westboro Baptist Church as opposed to same gender marriage is that these categories have somehow been attached to groups that the articles on such mention no taking of public stances on the matter by the group. The article does mention that Westboro organized a protest against a proposed same-sex commitment ceremony at Wake Forest Baptist Church. However this is not a case of marriage, since marriage is a government recognized union. Also since these categories are about political movements, the stance needs to be in the political arena. A Church's internal views on what sorts of relationships it will recognize as marriage is a very different one, and would require a whole different set of categories to categorize by. The fact that such views change over time would suggest that such categorization is unwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then there is Oregon Defense of Marriage Coalition. I think without the opposition to same gender category this article would be adequately categorized. The fact that it had 1,500 Churches supporting it, suggests that categorizing individual churches by their participation in this matter is unwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In case people overlooked it, I'd like to call attention to Fat&Happy's rename proposal of "Groups advocating anti-LGBT positions" or similar. What do people think of this? It avoids "rights," but continues to allow us to categorize groups in a meaningful way that helps readers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do need a category to group organizations that have an opposition to LGBT rights as a defining characteristic, and I don't see that the CfD cited in the nomination proves otherwise. Until such time as we can have consensus about a rename, keep. Also, the category does not imo imply that there are 'special LGBT rights', as has been argued above, rather that there are groups seeking to deny LGBT people full civil rights, including the right to marry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. One, we do not define organizations by what they do not do. We define organizations by what they do do. Two, this is just another way for POV pushers to tag organizations that they do not personally like. Three, how does this actually contribute to wikipedia? I'm sure gay rights organizations would like to have such a list, but that is not what the wikipedia is for. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Luckily, "categorizing organizations by what they do not do" isn't what this category is about. To take random examples, the Better Business Bureau and ASCAP "don't" support LGBT rights; the groups in the category actively oppose them, that's a thing they "do do." The rest of your comment is POV-motivated disregard of WP policy of the sort I've come to expect from your CFD votes, and I hope the closing admin evaluates it as it deserves. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The CfD mentioned by St.Anselm is not relevant here, as that one was seeking to categorise organisations by epithets they would deny. This one, however, is used for organizations who wold happily admit that they are opposed to LGBT rights, whose websites often parade those views on their front pages, and in some cases is their raison d'etre. Category:Organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric can go though. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete parent category but keep one of its sub-categories. This category contains almost nothing except one valid sub-cat, Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage. My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although using this category may be sometimes problematic, as I argued below, the benefits of having it are clearly more important, as explained here. My very best wishes (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain why you believe the organizations do not in fact oppose LGBT adoption, hate-crime legislation, and (if you feel like it) the other proposed subcats eg. military service and bullying prevention? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are any of them defining characteristics of (any of) the organizations? If we could come up with a neutral definition of "LGBT rights", then some of the organizations might belong in the parent. I doubt there are any notable organizations whose defining characteristic is "opposing gays in the military" or "opposing hate-crime legislation" (although, considering the current government definition of "hate crime", I might be willing to join the latter, even though I strongly support LGBT rights under almost any definition.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Most of these organizations are defined by their opposition to any and all LGBT rights - not same-sex marriage per se. Yet another reason why the long list of categories is undesirable, when the simple solution of "Organizations that oppose LGBT rights" is available. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Arthur Rubin. Indeed, if there is a conservative Christian organization (for example), it would be usually opposed to same sex marriage. Does it mean it is anti-Gay? No. This is not a defining characteristics. Labeling everything "Anti-Gay" is in fact WP:SOAP. Let's delete this entire propaganda category. My very best wishes (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Roscelese, Cirt and Black Kite. I agree the category is useful and educational and not POV, especially when the organizations actively and openly oppose and/or deny the existence of LGBT rights and/or people. Teammm TM 22:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is the problem. This category consists mostly of articles from sub-cat Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage (51 pages). Therefore, any religious organization which does not recognize same-sex marriage (which is essentially a matter of their personal beliefs) becomes a human rights violator. This looks like POV if not WP:SOAP to me. My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're looking at this the wrong way - most of the articles were in cat: orgs that oppose same-sex marriage because we didn't have a general category for opposition to LGBT rights, even though they campaign as forcefully against any other LGBT rights. This means that the solution is to move them up to the appropriate category, not to delete the appropriate category - that's entirely backwards! (The "personal beliefs" argument is baseless, when it's the defining characteristic of a political organization it ceases to be a "personal belief" - this isn't an entertainer who has stated, in passing, an opposition to same-sex marriage.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course if these organizations are actually hate groups, we need instead the Category:Hate groups for such organizations. At least some of them probably indeed belong there. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That category has been deleted, and I'm not entirely convinced that you wouldn't have made in that discussion the same comment you made here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I think it would be difficult to justify that most of these organizations are actually hate groups (at least according to FBI criteria) or even really anti-gay as a defining characteristics. Just to start from something, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is classified right now as one of such organizations. Which means that Mitt Romney belongs there... My very best wishes (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The hate group category is a non-starter; even a category that specified who had named it as a hate group got deleted. I don't see that contrast as especially productive in this discussion. The defining characteristic issue is different; for many of these groups opposition to LGBT rights is the main reason or one of the main reasons why the group exists. In cases like the LDS and the Roman Catholic Church, who are die-hard and influential opponents of LGBT rights but who also do other stuff (such that the main article doesn't contain a lot of material on their opposition), we could do what I suggested above, that is, apply the category to the redirect or sub-article that is most useful. Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism contains information on the RCC's campaigns against LGBT rights (I think only SSM currently but to be sure, there's more out there, like the Vatican weighing in against decriminalization of homosexuality at the UN) and homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a lot of stuff, so those are the articles that are useful for readers who would like to find out about these bodies' opposition to LGBT rights. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where this is coming from. There is a List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups. Unlike FBI, this Center designated a lot of religious and other organizations as "anti-gay hate groups" for something like conducting "demonizing propaganda" against LGBT (according to their interpretation). But this particular designation looks to me as a "demonizing propaganda" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, something that we should not follow per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting off-topic. Again, the hate groups category (SPLC specified or not) is not the issue here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not getting off-topic. Unfortunately, such use of categories implies that any organization which considers same sex marriage inappropriate (for whatever moral or religious reasons) is an anti-gay organization and therefore a hate group. Let's not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your belief that opposition to same-sex marriage makes a group a hate group is not shared by anyone, including the SPLC. Please edit Wikipedia based on policy, not on your personal beliefs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NPA. I said: let's not do it. It was not me who maid this edit (making opposition to the same sex marriages a sub-cat of anti-gay organizations). My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, now I'm really confused. If someone can tell me how an organisation which is opposed to same-sex marriage (even to the extent of it being it's main raison d'etre) is not an "organisation opposed to LGBT rights" (i.e. the right to marry) then I'd be very much obliged. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misunderstood something because this is a cultural thing, and I came from a different culture. So, let me ask this question. To be an "anti-gay" organization is an extremely negative connotation, perhaps this even implicitly imply to be a hate group, is not it? My very best wishes (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Anti-gay simply means 'opposed to gay' [people, topics, rights, etc.]. It doesn't mean hate. Anti-gay is used fairly loosely by the media in the US and has become a very common shorthand term to mean 'opposed to gay'. I hope that helps. – MrX 15:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However all these allegedly anti-gay organizations are actually hate groups? My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment both the Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have now been put back in a sub-category of this category. This is clearly a case of undue weight, and unless we more explicitly state that these categories need to be limited to organizations that have as their reason for being these positions, this category will always be guilty of undue weight.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly the problem. To be "anti-gay" is not the definitive feature of these organization, although they generally do not recognize same sex marriage. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment opposition to a move away from the man/woman definition of marriage is not in the mind of those who favor keeping the current definition of marriage an issue of rights. The underlying issue is that marriage is not by default a right. There is a standard defintion of what marriage is, the union of a male and a female, and any two people who fit that definition, with added conditions about age and relatedness, can marry. To those who favor a continuation of this definition, the issue is about what marriage is, not about who has the "right" to marry. The man/woman definition of marriage was created because the primarily purpose of marriage is to encorage the raising of children by their biological parents. Unlike race based restrictions of marriage it never had as its purpose the exclusion of anyone from marriage. To then define this view as being anti-anyone, is to twist its historic background and to ignore the logic and arguments of the most thoughtful of those who defend man/woman marriage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May I politely remind you that this is not a forum for ideological discussions, and especially not the place to discuss marriage? You have posted a great in this thread, but I don't see that it is helping to conclude the discussion about the categories 'Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights' and 'Category:Organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric'. – MrX 18:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Women comedians[edit]

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: Result was support for the rename to Category:Female comedians. While not discussed, the last comment indicates that Category:Women in comedy might be an acceptable alternative in a future discussion. MBisanz talk 19:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think this category should be renamed to Category:Female comedians. Why is it that we have Category:Male comedians but then "women" comedians? (That doesn't even sound grammatically correct, but that's a whole other topic.) Male and female go hand-in-hand, not male and women (not to mention one is singular and one is plural). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've started a discussion for all these type of articles here. thanks. Ncboy2010 (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferences 1-Delete this is essentially the same as actors, and we do not split actors by gender. 2- keep present name. Women is the prefered way to describe human females, so keep it as is, if we are going to keep it at all (which I dont want, but I prefer to keep the use of women if we are going to have this category).John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No its not the same: an actor usually performs a part written by someone else, but a comedian usually writes their own material.
    In any case the guidelines at WP:Cat gender specify that dedicated group-subject subcategories "should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created.".
    In the case of women in comedy, there are plenty of sources exist for just such an article. A brief trawl of books produced the list below. That's without consulting specialist bibliographies, looking at academic journals, or drawing on huge range of news coverage relating to women comedians.
    Please could we have a break from these attempts to delete any category of women whenever they are discussed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Some books on women in comedy
  • REname -- The context requires an adjective, not a noun. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a large group nomination on the next day's page which also includes this category. (The two discussions should really be merged)
    I posted there a data table on common usage in reliable sources, which shows that in this type of word pair, "women" is the more widely-used adjective. I will transclude it below this comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Common usage data for women by occupation

This is a comparison of the usage of "women fooers" and "female fooers" on Google News and Google Books.

For each occupational terms ("fooers"), a search was done on Google News for both "women fooers" and "female fooers". The higher number is highlighted in green. The search was then repeated on Google Books. See notes below for more details.

Fooers Gnews:
Women fooers		 Gnews:
Female fooers		 Gbooks:
Women fooers		 Gbooks:
Female fooers
academics 719 681 19,000 8,030
activists 9,120 1,780 117,000 17,900
anthropologists 82 49 10,500 2,430
architects 1,100 405 14,200 2,540
artists 25,200 13,600 434,000 57,700
bankers 1,170 231 2,910 546
chefs 1,970 1,230 3,440 1,080
comedians 405 1,360 1,720 1,360
composers 3,640 1,010 71,700 3,810
dentists 1,050 272 14,800 3,260
ethnologists 5 0 291 85
inventors 925 218 8,380 680
judges 5,760 3,000 46,800 10,200
painters 4,760 411 59,800 3,800
philosophers 116 45 27,800 2,830
photographers 1,880 722 36,900 2,120
physicians 6,440 3,970 139,000 45,800
scientists 5,650 2,310 110,000 14,900
sheriffs 134 157 281 386
social scientists 31 18 21,500 1,360
sociologists 109 0 4,660 1,570
sports announcers 14 22 2 8
writers 19,500 4,120 2,380,000 118,000

Notes on these searches
  1. All searches conducted by BrownHairedGirl 13 September 2012
  2. The searches follow the guidance at WP:COMMONNAME, which recommends:
    • excluding the word "Wikipedia"
    • a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources
    • exclude works from "Books, LLC" when searching Google Books
  3. The numbers are all clickable links, so that the searches can be replicated. Note that the Google database is constantly changing, so figures will change.
  4. Google searches are subject to some biases. See Wikipedia:Search engine test
  • Delete. Don't see what is accomplished by splitting up the men and the women. Does your genitalia improve your comedy? Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:Cat gender, and the evidence I posted above that an encyclopedic head article could be written on this topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all things that could have a head article are worth creating categories of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So why exactly do you want to make this one an exception to the general principle? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Should be "Female comedians" to be grammatically correct. The word "women" should be used only if followed by the words "by" or "in" such as "Woman by nationality" or "Women in politics". For An Angel (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Prodigies[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 21:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This was already deleted twice after CfDs in 2006 and in 2007. However consensus can change given that the last debate is five years old. I still think that, as was argued in the previous CfDs, the notion is too subjective to be a sound basis for categorization. Pichpich (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. The term is far too subjective to allow for stable categorisation. It's also one of those peacock terms which is widely abused, so there is endless scope for but-I-have-a-source-saying-this arguments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no clear definition of how young and how successful at a young age someone needs to be to be a prodigy. Beyond this fact, many people who were arguably prodigies, such as Mozart, are not notable for being prodigies but for the work they did as adults.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- Category:Child prodigies. Define so that youth prodigies are excluded: sampling including a 14-year old guitarist, and then purge. I would suggest that the upper limit should be 11, which I choose becasue it is the age at which in England most children move from Primary to Secondary School. It is also approximately the age of pubity. Mozart was a child prodigy (and ought to be in this category), and his works as a child are occasionally performed, though probably becasue of his prominecne as an adult. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although suggested rename is a little better, this restriction (age 11) would be arbitrary and also inconsistent with the article Child prodigy, which gives 18 as the age limit. Per BrownHairedGirls argument, the overuse of the term in the media means I can't see this ever being a useful or easy to maintain category. --Qetuth (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How would we define who qualifies as a child prodigy? How would we know if this category were to be complete? Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Development finance companies[edit]

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: speedy rename C2D. – Fayenatic London 13:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the corresponding article Development finance institution. Moreover, some of the members of the category are government agencies or institutions and not really "companies" in the usual sense of a profit-seeking entity. Pichpich (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy rename to match main article per nom. Mangoe (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Lufwanyama District[edit]

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete at least for now. This might be viable as a category once we get more articles about Zambian small towns and villages but currently, I don't think the category can grow beyond its current contents which means the main article about Lufwanyama District and the article on the town Lufwanyama that gives the district its name. That's not enough for the category to be useful for navigation. Pichpich (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Algerian company stubs[edit]

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: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Stubbornly keeps getting recreated, even though the article count just isn't there. Keep template, but delete category again, as it is severely undersized. Dawynn (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Undersized Pennsylvania geography stubs[edit]

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: upmerge to Category:Pennsylvania Registered Historic Place stubs.
Qetuth is correct: these categs are populated by {{CrawfordPA-NRHP-stub}}, {{EriePA-NRHP-stub}} and {{ArmstrongPA-NRHP-stub}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Undersized. Keep templates, but delete categories until 60+ articles tagged. Dawynn (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Indonesian football goalkeeper stubs[edit]

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: upmerge to Category:Indonesian football biography stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Severely undersized category. Keep the template, but upmerge to the parent until 60+ articles found. Dawynn (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - Looks to be one I missed from the group nominated on Sep 1st, but unlike those this template may eventually be useful. --Qetuth (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Nottoway County, Virginia geography stubs[edit]

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: upmerged to Category:Central Virginia geography stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Severely underpopulated stub category. Keep template, but upmerge to the parent. With only 200 articles in the parent, it can easily accomodate a couple more articles. Dawynn (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Filipino long-distance runner stubs[edit]

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: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only 11 articles tagged with the more generic {{Philippines-athletics-bio-stub}}, which does not have its own category, so no need to split. Propose deleting category and template, retagging any articles with the Philippines athletics stub tag. Dawynn (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - way too fine a split to be useful. --02:32, 15 September 2012 (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.

Category:Barbara Cartland stubs[edit]

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: speedy delete per WP:CSD#C1. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty, unrequested stub category. No permanent category. I don't see any other author for which we have a stub category. Dawynn (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Adventure games in space[edit]

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: relisted at CfD 2012 September 21. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems redundant since Category:Science-fiction adventure games was created at the same time. Also most of the games in that category are not in fact adventure games.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Mika1h (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Mika1h (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. We do not delete categories based on their contents, but rather upon their scope and whether it is valid and workable. clearly, some of the items within that category ARE adventure games. the category of "adventure games" is perfectly valid and is established here at Wikipedia. Clearly, there are indeed at least some adventure games which in fact are set in space. the category "Science-fiction adventure games" has been deleted, as it was redundant. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Category:Adventure games has become large and unwieldy. It would be helpful to have sub-categories, such as this one, so that people can find articles grouped by genre. Richard75 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Adventure games set in space or Category:Science-fiction adventure games. The current name is ambiguous and could refer to playing adventure games in space. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Be a good way to collate a genre of games. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Rajput forts & palaces[edit]

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: relisted at CfD 2012 September 21. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Special:Search/Rajput architecture shows several results, indicating that "Rajput architecture" could be a useful category. Its name should not be restricted to these specific building types. There are already related categories for Category:Forts in Rajasthan‎ and Category:Palaces in Rajasthan‎, which are currently sub-cats, but those are geographic whereas the nominated category is historical. – Fayenatic London 08:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom; arguably a merge to Category:Rajasthani architecture would do as well. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Only the sub-cats should be merged there, not the articles. Some member articles are Rajput but not in Rajasthan, e.g. Gwalior Fort in Madhya Pradesh. The member pages are each currently categorised in the relevant state's Forts or Palances category. Note to closer: by all means drop me a note to check this afterwards. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It is clear from the Rajput article that the term refers to a warrior caste, who rule rather larger areas than Rajasthan. The usual category is not architesture, but "buildings and structures". Hence something like Category:Buildings and structures of the Rajput kingdoms might fit; or would this pick up too much? Peterkingiron (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy discussion
Oppose. Rename to Category:Rajput architecture would be appropriate. Shyamsunder (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Maratha forts & palaces[edit]

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. The source category is not empty today (it contains 14 pages), so tis not just a token merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There are already related categories for Category:Forts in Maharashtra and Category:Palaces in Maharashtra. The nominated category is historical rather than geographic, and I do not think is it important to sub-categorise these particular types of building. – Fayenatic London 08:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Poverty and hunger organizations[edit]

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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 23. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Category:Hunger relief organizations" is a new subcategory. Instead of having poverty orgs in "poverty and hunger" and hunger orgs in "hunger", it makes more sense to rename and list the hunger category separately in the appropriate parent categories. -- Beland (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Are these organisations promoting or creating poverty ? If not, then the title should be "anti-poverty organisations". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment anti-poverty would imply they oppose poverty. Many of these organizations help people in poverty, put some cannot be said to advocate policies that they perceive as a way to end it. Also at least some see "anti-poverty" as a designation of those who seek zoning and other NIMBY policies to get the poor somewhere else, which would be the exact opposite of what some of these groups do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Poverty and hunger non-governmental organizations[edit]

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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 23. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There are very few if any non-NGO entries in Category:Poverty and hunger organizations; it's not a useful distinction. -- Beland (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Malnutrition organizations[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 20:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Anyone who is hungry (in the chronic sense) is malnourished; not sure the distinction is useful in categorization. -- Beland (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not supported Malnutrition is a medical condition that is defined by the WHO as "weight loss of at least 5% with evidence of suboptimal intake resulting in subcutaneous fat loss and/or muscle wasting." This is not the same thing as hunger. A malnourished person is not necessarily hungry, they are often eating foods that provide inadequate nutrition. Category:Malnutrition organizations does need pruning as there are organisations in there that don't have nutrition as a focus per se. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Social welfare charities[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 20:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The two categories are essentially the same, with the exception that "charities" might exclude some government or intergovernmental organizations. But articles are subcategorized by type of work, not type of organization, and this seems more useful. -- Beland (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep with no merge. these categories seem different to me, both in scope and in content. "organizations" exist to work on major social issues and efforts. "charities" exist mainly to provide financial help to those in need. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Humanitarian aid organizations[edit]

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: reverse merge. The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category:Humanitarian aid organizations seems to contain charities generally, but Category:Human welfare organizations contains the same and has a better name. For organizations that provide aid after disasters and whatnot, we have Category:Emergency organisations, which is a subcategory of Category:Humanitarian aid organizations. -- Beland (talk) 05:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Humanitarian aid organizations is the more common term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Wikipedians looking for help about policy[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete These categories are empty and are not populated through a template. In any case, I think it would be a bad idea to start splitting Wikipedians looking for help in small categories. In most cases, queries made through the {{help me}} system are straightforward and can be answered by almost anyone at the help desk. It would be a waste of time for anyone to start filtering them by subject. Pichpich (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. if someone finds these categories useful in addressing inquiries, then why not keep them? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because if a single user is using them, he might end up moving them out of Category:Wikipedians looking for help and thus out of view from everyone else. Pichpich (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Old Buildings of the Cape[edit]

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: convert to article and merge to Category:History of Cape Town. See the new page Old Buildings of the Cape. The discussion below refers to images, but those are all at Wikimedia Commons, so there may be a separate discussion there about whether to keep that Commons category. There may well be scope to set up a new category:National monuments of South Africa, but only two of the three pages state that the sites have this status. – Fayenatic London 19:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete There's no way to objectively populate a category that is defined by a vague adjective like "old". Pichpich (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete old is an undifined adjective.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert into an article. This has the makings of an article, not a category. Oculi (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is since old, Cape and other terms are clearly defined in the category description with reference bibliography that uses this terminology. Other existing categories do not adequately capture the vernacular of this style of architecture. Please read the category description before voting on this.
I did read the description and no, it's not clear. It cites five books and it would be absolutely miraculous that they agree on what "old" means, especially since one book is dedicated to the eighteenth century and another one to the early nineteenth century. In any case, we can't have a category that is intended to be "Buildings of the Cape considered as old by Hans Fransen in The Old Buildings of the Cape". Pichpich (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Old is clearly defined as before c1910. Hans Fransen is a recognised authority on this subject. The book referred to is a widely recognised desk reference on the subject, published and updated since 1965. Alternative texts were supplied exactly so that users do not have to depend on his opinion exclusively. There are plenty of other categories that refer to old or historical without any call to authority whatsoever. We cannot simply delete all categories with these words in them. I have to object to deletion of a category, to which no clear alternatives exist, before any other remedies have been pursued. Raymond Ellis 07:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Ellis (talk • contribs)
We avoid categorizes that are built around the views of one man. It does not matter how much of a leading scholar he is, his sole opinion can not be it. As far as I can tell the only reason to use about 1910 (which is odd to begin with) as the cut off is because he chose to. To use a date as a cutoff it needs to have some reason connected to something that happened that year, and no one has advanced any reason connected with 1910 for using it as the cutoff year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you have made some helpful points. The category scope was defined with reference to five authorities, and my references to these authorities on this topic was my attempt at being clear about what is meant. Obviously the definition can be changed by anyone if it is considered controversial. I also agree the wording of the category name needs to be changed. I don't understand how that leads to deletion and I don't understand why renaming is not an option: Historical Buildings of the Cape Province for instance. Your suggestion about referring rather to a heritage register is a very good idea, which I would also be able to pursue if able to rename the category. As for converting to an article, the category was created to classify images of these buildings. It cannot be an article.--Raymond Ellis 14:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Ellis (talk • contribs)
The problem with a renaming to something like Category:Historical Buildings of the Cape Province is that the word "historical" is too vague. Does it refer only to buildings which no longer exist, or does it include those still standing? How old is "historical"?
I just spotted a further problem: Cape Province no longer exists, and it is not used as for other geographical categories, Building in that are categorised under the new provinces, in Category:Buildings and structures in the Eastern Cape‎, Category:Buildings and structures in the Northern Cape‎ , Category:Buildings and structures in the Western Cape‎ and Category:Buildings and structures in North West (South African province)‎. Any categorisation of old buildings shoukd use the same geographical basis.
If there is an appropriate heritage register, I suggest that use it as the basis for a new category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A further problem with the term "historical" is that sometimes it is used for buildings that have had events of importance to a place occur there, even though they are not uniquely aged. It can also apply to buildings that are the last remnants of a past building style, such as Brutalism, when this fact is more a result of people realizing that they hate the style and get rid of the buildings quickly in favor of other styles, than the style having been truly old. Put another wy, some building styles have inherently shorter lives and thus become the focus of preservation efforts earlier than others because other styles survive and thrive. In this context historical preservationism becomes the antithesis or economic use of buildings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I stand by my delete stance. Yes, old is defined in the heading, but that merely moves it from being undefined to being arbitrary. We should rename this Category:pre-c. 1910 buildings of the Cape. Of course then we would object to 1-an imprecise cut-off date, and 2- that it is totally arbitrary. Old categories are discoraged for the very reason that they almost always involved aritrary cut offs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I support JPL's point about arbitrary cutoffs. Avoiding them is a long-established principle set out at WP:OC#ARBITRARY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articlise the headnote as a main article for the category, with a list of the category items; anything that requires references should be an article not a category. AND Rename Category:Colonial era buildings of Capetown. Since the Union of South Africa was formed in 1910, this is similar to JPL's suggestion. I may be wrong about the target being limited to Capetown, Category:Colonial era buildings of Cape Province would be an alternative. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Per Peter Kirkington. Dated to 1910 would make sense, prior to the Dominion of South Africa is established. Notable empirical category standard. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an arbitrary inclusion criteria, for both the use of old and the proposed 1910. If kept it needs a rename since cape is totally ambiguous. If someone thinks an article should be created, then fine, but given how little is in the intro and the topic, it would likely be better to move this into a section of the Cape Province article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Colonial-era buildings and structures in Cape Town, per Peterkingiron and Category:Buildings and structures in Cape Town, or upmerge to Category:Buildings and structures in Cape Town. I'm not sure, honestly, if the category is worth retaining in some form; however, I think that these two suggested courses of action are more consistent with the existing category tree. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

JEL classification categories[edit]

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. This is an extraordinarily complex nomination, involving a huge number of categories for which a range of different solutions are proposed. The resulting discussion is a series of sub-threads, some of which had reasonable participation and some did not ... but the whole thing is so unwieldy that I don't think it is possible to meaningfully weigh consensus on either the whole or on any of the parts.
I intend no criticism of the nominator, who has clearly put a lot of commendable work into analysing this category tree and presenting a detailed set of proposals. However, with the benefit of hindsight, it seems that a CfD discussion has not been able to review this many issues at once, and an alternative way is needed to structure the consensus-forming discussions around JEL-based categories.
FWIW, I suggest that it may helpful to first have an RFC on the meta question of whether Wikipedia's categorisation scheme should follow the JEL codes, and if so how closely ... and then proceed to a series of smaller CFDs to apply the agreed principles to more manageable subsets of categories. Breaking down the list of questions into more manageable chunks often leads to greater participation and clearer outcomes. That is only my suggestion, and there may be other ways of resolving this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the bolded categories are part of the JEL classification codes, a system used to classify articles published in economics journals. About 250 categories on Wikipedia are included in this classification (See Category:Categories which are included in the JEL classification codes). This has led to a few unusual, awkward and redundant categories. Most cateogories are good, but strict adherence to these codes is not needed on Wikipedia. jonkerz ♠talk 00:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2T. For those wishing to use (i) non-JEL WP classifications, that's fine. But for those who wish to use (ii) the JEL classification codes, that's also fine, because it encourages more precision and use of examples found in the guidelines (at http://www.aeaweb.org/jel/guide/jel.php) of the JEL classification codes). For example, there would be a loss of clarity [and precision] in combining the articles in:
[JEL: A] Category:General economics here and the general category Category:Economics. The latter includes Econometrics. The former JEL: A (here) as hierarchical relative to each respective sub-classification, properly does not. Why remove differen[t] uses of the respective categories? (You can make a case that many of the JEL classification codes listed at the top of that page deserve to be in Category:Economics as subcategories, but that's another matter.) [The 2 categories are differently defined with little overlap, not redundant to each other. Someone who wanted to find only articles under JEL:A would luckless if that category were eliminated.] --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 21:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2J. For those wishing to use non-JEL WP classifications or the JEL classification codes where they coincide with the general WP categorization scheme, that's fine, but for those who wish to use JEL classifications where they have been deemed to be unfit, that's tough luck (See the list of examples above). The same is true for anyone who would like to browse WP using AMS/MR subject codes as used in mathematics or any of the systems in Category:Classification systems (Category:Dewey Decimal Classification was deleted here).
WP's Category:General economics corresponds to JEL's primary category "A - General Economics and Teaching", but the name implies that it corresponds to the secondary "A1 - General Economics" (economics education is not included here). This is a loss of clarity and "General" is only defined in the JEL system and is not notable or well defined outside of it. In all other cases, the "general category" on WP is the base category (Category:Economics in this case). Category:General economics is the only primary JEL code with "general" in its name, but all primary and secondary JEL codes has a "General" category. jonkerz ♠talk 17:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2T.1. Jonkerz (J) above rightly notes that Category:General economics is used to refer both to JEL classification codes#General economics and teaching JEL: A Subcategories and within that section to linking JEL: A1 to JEL: A. That might be an argument for renaming JEL: A to its longer full name. It is not an argument for merging that category with Category:Economics. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grouping "general economics" and economics teaching makes sense in the JEL system, but Category:General economics and teaching is not a good name on WP. If kept, this category should be renamed, but that category would have the same problem: "general economics" articles should be categorized in the root category. jonkerz ♠talk 01:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Other economic systems
    • Upmerge - "Other" should be avoided in category names; in this case, it refers to "economic systems which do not fit strictly into the standard categories of 'capitalist' or 'socialist'." jonkerz ♠talk 00:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3T. Upmerge Category:Other economic systems? On the contrary, I believe that it is useful to distinguish the latter from its principal alternatives, capitalism and socialism. IMO it's useful to see where other systems fit relative to the principal alternatives [as recognized by the JEL codes]. Why substitute a much less-definite for a more-definite alternative?] --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3J-4J. Category:Other economic systems & Category:Other special topics (economics): Defining a few classes as principal and all other as "other" is not accepted anywhere else on WP. Per WP:OC#MISC: "Do not categorize articles into 'miscellaneous', 'other', 'not otherwise specified' or 'remainder' categories."
Category:Other special topics (economics) is a good example of why following the JEL codes where they do not coincide with the general WP scheme is confusing. JEL's "Z - Other Special Topics" is for topics that doesn't fit into any of JEL's A to R or Y categories. On WP we do not have this problem and can create any categories and can choose not to use JEL's naming conventions. "Other Special Topics" is not a generally accepted and notable category outside of the JEL system. If this category is kept, it should be renamed to reflect its content, perhaps Category:Other special topics (economics) as defined by the JEL classification system, which, of course, is absurd. We already have WP categories for all the children of this category (See Extended content below), and collecting them here in an container category to satisfy the JEL codes is not helpful.
Category:Other economic systems: "Other economic systems" is not a well defined term. If this category only is used for systems other than capitalism and socialism (which I think is POV), then the name should reflect this. What about Category:Economic systems other than capitalism or socialism or Category:Non-capitalistic and non-socialistic economic systems? With these names, it's easier to see that this type of categorization is problematic.
Extended content

Z - Other Special Topics 

   Z0 - General

       Z00 - General

   Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology

       Z10 - General
       Z11 - Economics of the Arts and Literature
       Z12 - Religion
       Z13 - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Social and Economic Stratification
       Z18 - Public Policy
       Z19 - Other
jonkerz ♠talk 17:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3T.1. It would violate WP:POV to say that an econ system that is neither capitalist or socialist is worse or better. But "Other economic systems" says no such thing, only that it is neither, for example the informal economy. Otherwise the uncertain reader would have to guess. Nor is it bias to indicate how the most widely accepted professional econ classification source (the JEL codes) might categorize a WP article. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The POV here is using "other economic systems" as a well defined group. Category names where the meaning of "other" isn't obvious (such as Category:Ships transferred from the United States Navy to other navies) or part of the name are used very rarely on WP. I could only find 4 cases in total; two of them being these categories. "Other categories" are normally only used where the grouping is notable outside of WP. For example, Category:Heterodox economics and Category:Pseudoscience are both OK, but Category:Other economic systems and Category:Other political systems are not. jonkerz ♠talk 01:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3T.2. Per J's comment above WP:OC#MISC: "Do not categorize articles into 'miscellaneous', 'other', 'not otherwise specified' or 'remainder' categories.":
When the JEL source itself uses ['other'], it's reasonable to accept that there is a good overriding reason for it, such as IMO above, exemplifying the WP:OC-guideline "occasional exception" standard. Similar comments apply (4T) below.
3T.3. Per use of "General" in "General economics", each WP-JEL category has a icon [box] stating the relevant JEL code linking to JEL classification codes. Anyone who follows that link to the corresponding code will instantly see how context-dependent that usage is. One need not bulwark against every possible mistake. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4T. Ditto upmerge of Category:Other special topics (economics). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 21:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
jonkerz ♠talk 00:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5T. Split Category:Taxation and efficiencyinto Category:Taxation & Category:Economic efficiency? That corresponds to JEL: H21, in which subcategory context the subjects are closely related. "Taxation" and "efficiency" in the JEL codes both occur elsewhere & not together in the JEL codes (as a ctrl-F search of JEL classification codes reveals). There is a case for preserving the distinct JEL: H21 category. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 21:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5J. Category:Taxation and efficiency: You are correct, I'll withdraw this one and Category:Taxation and redistribution per your and Eastlaw's comments. jonkerz ♠talk 17:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See comments in the below section. jonkerz ♠talk 01:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
jonkerz ♠talk 00:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6T. The same argument, with necessary changes, can be used against splitting JEL classification codes#Health, education, and welfare JEL: I Subcategories JEL: I3 -- Welfare and Poverty. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 21:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6J. "I - Health, Education, and Welfare": This is a good category if you only have the alphabet's 26 letters to assign a broad primary group to classify economics articles. This limit is not true for categories on WP, and 'health, education and welfare' as a group is not recognized as a distinct and unique topic.
Category:Welfare and poverty is redundant, because welfare topics are a subset of poverty topics; all pages in Category:Welfare are related to Category:Poverty, this is why Category:Welfare is categorized in Category:Poverty. jonkerz ♠talk 17:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6T.1. In particular, the Guideline for JEL: I3 (strictly speaking, "JEL: I30 - General" per preceding link, listed as I300 in electronic form at http://www.aeaweb.org/jel/guide/jel_sub.php?class=I3), reads:
I300 Welfare and Poverty:
General Guideline: Covers studies and data about general issues related to welfare and poverty.
Keywords: Poverty
Caveats: None Specified
Examples [of articles classified by JEL as under JEL: I3]:
  • Dimensions of Poverty: Status and Solutions towards the Millennium Development Goals: Review Article
  • Canada Needs Better Data for Evidence-Based Policy: Inconsistencies between Administrative and Survey Data on Welfare Dependence and Education
The subcategories that follow JEL: I30 are JEL:I31-JEL:I39 ("Other"). The last suggests that they are seemingly complete in themselves. So, what's leftover for JEL: 130? That's apparently for articles that do not fit into any single later subcategory.
The advantage of the WP category for JEL: I3 Welfare and Poverty (and the closely related JEL:I30 "General") is similar to the advantage available of users of EconLit in using the JEL codes to search the literature, and in particular to WP users of JEL classification codes is trying to locate WP articles on an JEL code area of interest, JEL: I3(0), not later subcategories. Eliminate the category, and users interested in pursuing that subject, as per (2T, end) above, are luckless. Per (6J) below, the JEL listing of articles for JEL:I300, despite the subcategories for poverty and welfare below, suggest that the category is not redundant.
More later. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 21:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment clearly quite a bit of effort has gone into this. The question is what, exactly, wikipedia stands to gain by having a set of categories which exactly parallel the JEL classification codes. This is the only classification scheme I'm aware of for which this exists and I think it deserves some consideration. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it is now, our categories does not exactly parallel the JEL classification codes, not even approximately. Most of the JEL codes does not have a corresponding category, and of the codes with "un-Wikipedian" names, most are found under another name better reflecting our naming conventions.
Examples

Here are a few that doesn't exist (and should not be created):

  • D23 - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
  • D24 - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
  • D61 - Allocative Efficiency; Cost–Benefit Analysis
  • D63 - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
  • D64 - Altruism; Philanthropy

Here are a few with different names (which should not be renamed):

Two already deleted:

jonkerz ♠talk 12:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 1T. I sympathize with the objective of simplicity but not at the cost of removing useful JEL categories and distinctions nor of eliminating existing well-defined JEL-WP terminology [and categories]. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 21:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying or elaborated edits in square [ ] in my edit above + double indented +ed points 2T.1 & 3T.1-3 there. To distinguish my numbered points above from Jonkerz corresponding replies, I have identifying T & J to each set of numbers. More later. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Minor edits + (6T.1) added above. More later to generalize the point there. TM 22:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the comments previously found here to the relevant nominations. jonkerz ♠talk 00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of these categories are useful separate and apart from the JEL scheme. For example, Category:Taxation and efficiency is for articles about taxation as it relates to efficiency, likewise Category:Taxation and redistribution deals with taxation as it relates to income distribution. I also agree with User:Thomasmeeks w/r/t to Category:Other economic systems. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 08:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn Category:Taxation and efficiency and Category:Taxation and redistribution. A reply to Thomasmeeks' comment regarding Category:Other economic systems can be found above. jonkerz ♠talk 00:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Market structure can be built around the main article Market structure. The word "funds" in Category:Government funds is more ambiguous, but I still think a split is needed here. jonkerz ♠talk 15:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_11&oldid=1138397352"