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.
Delete both per nom. Not in support of Mayumashu's additional suggestion simply because quite a few secondary schools are defining, although its overuse as a category measure should be discouraged. (i.e. Past students of
Hale School is one thing but past students of
Belmont City College would be quite another.)
Orderinchaos01:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I'd note that one of the two articles in the Walsh category was the userpage of the editor who created it; I've removed that page from all articlespace categories. Also, this editor has a substantial history of being almost autistically devoted to the inclusion of reams and reams of unsourced Norfolk County-specific trivia — every individual cemetery, every individual public school, every individual pothole on Highway 24 through downtown Simcoe, etc. — and POV commentary —
this is still probably my favourite stunt of his. Delete both per nom; delete editor too, if at all possible.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Attendence of a particular primary school will rarely be defining. For this reason we discourage articles on primary schools. they are usually best merged to the place where they are.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. I have often argued that anything below tertiary level should be listified. In the past I have suggested that if secondary school categories are OK, then why not primary schools? "Oh, don't be ridiculous," I was told. "What a stupid slippery slope argument", they said. "No one would ever try to categorize by primary school ...."
Good Ol’factory(talk)10:30, 24 March 2010 (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:Mango
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.
Nominator's rationale: Most cultivated mangoes belong to the species Mangifera indica. Most (if not all) of this category's members should be categorized under
Category:Mangifera indica, which would make this category redundant.
Paul_012(
talk)20:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose per head article
mango and
WP:COMMONAME. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not the botanical specialists who known the scientifically-correct latin name. Surely there there is some way of accommodating the common name within the category system? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:55, 17 March 2010 (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:Australian health organisations
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.
Nominator's rationale: This one seems obvious - it's out of sync with all the other "by country" related categories and should be renamed for consistency, and the proposed name does not alter the scope of the category in any way.
Orderinchaos19:32, 17 March 2010 (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:Stained glass artists and manufacturers of the United States
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.
Yea, but no harm would be done by doing this one to make them all consistent. At that time, someone can nominate the lot if they think we should use the other form.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:51, 26 March 2010 (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:Country Parks in Cornwall
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 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:Joujouka
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.
Nominator's rationale: Confusing to relate, so please just see
Jajouka (which is an article),
Category:Jajouka (the parent of this category), and
Joujouka (a dab page.) Simply put, there is too much overlap and the names are confusingly similar. Since they're tranlisterated from Arabic, there is every chance that they are actually identical anyway. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
04:55, 9 March 2010 (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:WCVB-TV
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.
Delete per
WP:OC#SMALL. Individual local television and radio stations should almost never have their own dedicated categories, and I'm not seeing a compelling reason for this to be an exception, given that it only contains the station's article and a PNG of its logo which is already on the article anyway.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:18, 20 March 2010 (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:Shivatemple Melakadambur
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 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:Bureaucrat hopefuls
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. AFAICS the only purpose of this category is a form of canvassing-in-advance. Apart from that I cannot see how it assists collaboration, which is the purpose of wikipedian categories. The category is populated by the userbox,
Template:User wikipedia/Bureaucrat someday, and the question of whether to keep the userbox is outside the scope of CFD.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
09:35, 17 March 2010 (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:Female philatelists
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. All articles are already otherwise appropriately categorized, so merging is unnecessary. postdlf (talk)
03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)reply
What is the proposal here, to make Female Philatelists a sub-category of Philatelists or simply to delete Female Philatelists entirely? Every article in Female Philatelists is already in the Philatelists category. Female philatelists are so rare (at least 90% are male) that they deserve their own category IMHO. I think this is one occasion when an exception to the normal rule could apply.
Maidonian (
talk)
11:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
What the guidance actually says is: As another example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category (e.g. Presidents, Monarchs, Prime Ministers, Governors General). Do not create separate categories for male and female occupants of the same position, such as "Male Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom" vs. "Female Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom". Why does that not apply here? The vast majority of notable philatelists have been male. The rareness of the female ones is what makes that small group notable.
Maidonian (
talk)
12:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The deciding factor is not just whether men normally outnumber women in the field or not — it's whether you can write a genuine, properly sourced encyclopedia article about the phenomenon of "female X". Women rulers, for example, are actually studied as a distinct topic in their own right. Women writers are studied as a distinct topic in their own right. Where's the academic research into what makes female philatelists a distinct topic from philatelists in general?
Bearcat (
talk)
04:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. I found this by looking thought the empty categories about to be deleted where
Category:Women philatelists was apparently emptied to populate this one. There is no need to merge since all of the existing articles are already included in a subcategory of
Category:Philatelists. So a merge would make a mess that would need to be cleaned up.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. OK it's not strictly in accordance with policy but Wikipedia is better with it than without it and that is exactly when we can break a rule.
Maidonian (
talk)
21:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Non-defining intersection unless somebody can demonstrate that "female philatelists" actually constitute a field of actual academic or cultural study.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I must admit I was unaware of the discussion on this subject four years ago as I have only been active since Oct 2008. In any case, this is not about country categories it is about the validity of a female one, but thanks for piling on ww2censor, nice.
Maidonian (
talk)
14:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Whether you agree with it or not, this is a perfectly valid discussion to have — and participating in it does not constitute "piling on".
Bearcat (
talk)
17:19, 20 March 2010 (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 evil in Indian society
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.
But by labelling something like
Dowry as a "social evil", you are promoting a particular opinion or point of view. You and others may believe the dowry is a social evil, but I'm sure there are others who disagree. Wikipedia shouldn't be written or structured to advance one opinion over another.
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I respect every clauses that wiki has adopted over the years and I an not promoting a "particular opinion or point of view". I simply categorized social customs/trends/traditions/happenings on basis of the facts. may be it is simply a question of weather you agree with me or vice versa. If you can argue that one thing is "this way" then surely someone can argue it the "other way". Now as i said before, I'll support your actions for i support wiki. --
Swaminworld (
talk)
09:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
But murder being part of Category:Crime is something fact-based rather than opinion-based: you can look up the law to find out if it is true or not. You can't look up anything to decide objectively whether something is evil or not because evil is necessarily subjective. Bride burning is already part of the category Domestic violence which is to some extent categorising it according to its legal status. Theoretically, it could also be part of the Category Murder for the same reason. But putting it in any category with such words as 'evil' in it is POV.
Munci (
talk)
15:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)reply
"Or is it just murder of colored women that's not evil anymore ?" Good gravy, what a comment! I agree with Munci, let's not confuse a state labelling certain acts "criminal" and a Wikipedian declaring something to be "evil".
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Would agree with nom to merge, the members are important topics in Indian society, but the members already belong to that category. The name too POV. Suggest that all categories should have a parent article first. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. As with Smokey Joe, I would go for merge like the nominator but all already part of Idnian society category anyway.
Munci (
talk)
15:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete; POV. While there are certainly problematic traditions that can be attached to
dowry, for instance, dowry itself isn't "evil" (though maybe a bit archaic in some cultures) — and the more problematic aspects already have their own separate articles anyway.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:53, 25 March 2010 (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:Swingin Utters albums
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 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:Teenbeat Club
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. While the club is notable, it does not merit a category. I did remove the two groups that had populated the category since neither mention playing here. The article does a good job of linking to articles about what happened so deleting the category should not cause any problems.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:39, 17 March 2010 (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:Uzbekaistani expatriates in Russia
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 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:Southern Border
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Southern Border" would normally include the border areas outside of California, such as in Texas, especially considering debates on the war on drugs in the Texas-Mexico area, which refer to it as the southern border.
70.29.210.242 (
talk)
04:44, 17 March 2010 (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:Glass history
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete both per nom. Not in support of Mayumashu's additional suggestion simply because quite a few secondary schools are defining, although its overuse as a category measure should be discouraged. (i.e. Past students of
Hale School is one thing but past students of
Belmont City College would be quite another.)
Orderinchaos01:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I'd note that one of the two articles in the Walsh category was the userpage of the editor who created it; I've removed that page from all articlespace categories. Also, this editor has a substantial history of being almost autistically devoted to the inclusion of reams and reams of unsourced Norfolk County-specific trivia — every individual cemetery, every individual public school, every individual pothole on Highway 24 through downtown Simcoe, etc. — and POV commentary —
this is still probably my favourite stunt of his. Delete both per nom; delete editor too, if at all possible.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Attendence of a particular primary school will rarely be defining. For this reason we discourage articles on primary schools. they are usually best merged to the place where they are.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. I have often argued that anything below tertiary level should be listified. In the past I have suggested that if secondary school categories are OK, then why not primary schools? "Oh, don't be ridiculous," I was told. "What a stupid slippery slope argument", they said. "No one would ever try to categorize by primary school ...."
Good Ol’factory(talk)10:30, 24 March 2010 (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:Mango
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.
Nominator's rationale: Most cultivated mangoes belong to the species Mangifera indica. Most (if not all) of this category's members should be categorized under
Category:Mangifera indica, which would make this category redundant.
Paul_012(
talk)20:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose per head article
mango and
WP:COMMONAME. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not the botanical specialists who known the scientifically-correct latin name. Surely there there is some way of accommodating the common name within the category system? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:55, 17 March 2010 (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:Australian health organisations
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.
Nominator's rationale: This one seems obvious - it's out of sync with all the other "by country" related categories and should be renamed for consistency, and the proposed name does not alter the scope of the category in any way.
Orderinchaos19:32, 17 March 2010 (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:Stained glass artists and manufacturers of the United States
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.
Yea, but no harm would be done by doing this one to make them all consistent. At that time, someone can nominate the lot if they think we should use the other form.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:51, 26 March 2010 (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:Country Parks in Cornwall
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 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:Joujouka
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.
Nominator's rationale: Confusing to relate, so please just see
Jajouka (which is an article),
Category:Jajouka (the parent of this category), and
Joujouka (a dab page.) Simply put, there is too much overlap and the names are confusingly similar. Since they're tranlisterated from Arabic, there is every chance that they are actually identical anyway. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
04:55, 9 March 2010 (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:WCVB-TV
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.
Delete per
WP:OC#SMALL. Individual local television and radio stations should almost never have their own dedicated categories, and I'm not seeing a compelling reason for this to be an exception, given that it only contains the station's article and a PNG of its logo which is already on the article anyway.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:18, 20 March 2010 (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:Shivatemple Melakadambur
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 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:Bureaucrat hopefuls
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. AFAICS the only purpose of this category is a form of canvassing-in-advance. Apart from that I cannot see how it assists collaboration, which is the purpose of wikipedian categories. The category is populated by the userbox,
Template:User wikipedia/Bureaucrat someday, and the question of whether to keep the userbox is outside the scope of CFD.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
09:35, 17 March 2010 (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:Female philatelists
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. All articles are already otherwise appropriately categorized, so merging is unnecessary. postdlf (talk)
03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)reply
What is the proposal here, to make Female Philatelists a sub-category of Philatelists or simply to delete Female Philatelists entirely? Every article in Female Philatelists is already in the Philatelists category. Female philatelists are so rare (at least 90% are male) that they deserve their own category IMHO. I think this is one occasion when an exception to the normal rule could apply.
Maidonian (
talk)
11:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
What the guidance actually says is: As another example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category (e.g. Presidents, Monarchs, Prime Ministers, Governors General). Do not create separate categories for male and female occupants of the same position, such as "Male Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom" vs. "Female Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom". Why does that not apply here? The vast majority of notable philatelists have been male. The rareness of the female ones is what makes that small group notable.
Maidonian (
talk)
12:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The deciding factor is not just whether men normally outnumber women in the field or not — it's whether you can write a genuine, properly sourced encyclopedia article about the phenomenon of "female X". Women rulers, for example, are actually studied as a distinct topic in their own right. Women writers are studied as a distinct topic in their own right. Where's the academic research into what makes female philatelists a distinct topic from philatelists in general?
Bearcat (
talk)
04:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. I found this by looking thought the empty categories about to be deleted where
Category:Women philatelists was apparently emptied to populate this one. There is no need to merge since all of the existing articles are already included in a subcategory of
Category:Philatelists. So a merge would make a mess that would need to be cleaned up.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. OK it's not strictly in accordance with policy but Wikipedia is better with it than without it and that is exactly when we can break a rule.
Maidonian (
talk)
21:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Non-defining intersection unless somebody can demonstrate that "female philatelists" actually constitute a field of actual academic or cultural study.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I must admit I was unaware of the discussion on this subject four years ago as I have only been active since Oct 2008. In any case, this is not about country categories it is about the validity of a female one, but thanks for piling on ww2censor, nice.
Maidonian (
talk)
14:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Whether you agree with it or not, this is a perfectly valid discussion to have — and participating in it does not constitute "piling on".
Bearcat (
talk)
17:19, 20 March 2010 (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 evil in Indian society
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.
But by labelling something like
Dowry as a "social evil", you are promoting a particular opinion or point of view. You and others may believe the dowry is a social evil, but I'm sure there are others who disagree. Wikipedia shouldn't be written or structured to advance one opinion over another.
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I respect every clauses that wiki has adopted over the years and I an not promoting a "particular opinion or point of view". I simply categorized social customs/trends/traditions/happenings on basis of the facts. may be it is simply a question of weather you agree with me or vice versa. If you can argue that one thing is "this way" then surely someone can argue it the "other way". Now as i said before, I'll support your actions for i support wiki. --
Swaminworld (
talk)
09:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
But murder being part of Category:Crime is something fact-based rather than opinion-based: you can look up the law to find out if it is true or not. You can't look up anything to decide objectively whether something is evil or not because evil is necessarily subjective. Bride burning is already part of the category Domestic violence which is to some extent categorising it according to its legal status. Theoretically, it could also be part of the Category Murder for the same reason. But putting it in any category with such words as 'evil' in it is POV.
Munci (
talk)
15:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)reply
"Or is it just murder of colored women that's not evil anymore ?" Good gravy, what a comment! I agree with Munci, let's not confuse a state labelling certain acts "criminal" and a Wikipedian declaring something to be "evil".
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Would agree with nom to merge, the members are important topics in Indian society, but the members already belong to that category. The name too POV. Suggest that all categories should have a parent article first. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. As with Smokey Joe, I would go for merge like the nominator but all already part of Idnian society category anyway.
Munci (
talk)
15:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete; POV. While there are certainly problematic traditions that can be attached to
dowry, for instance, dowry itself isn't "evil" (though maybe a bit archaic in some cultures) — and the more problematic aspects already have their own separate articles anyway.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:53, 25 March 2010 (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:Swingin Utters albums
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 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:Teenbeat Club
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. While the club is notable, it does not merit a category. I did remove the two groups that had populated the category since neither mention playing here. The article does a good job of linking to articles about what happened so deleting the category should not cause any problems.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:39, 17 March 2010 (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:Uzbekaistani expatriates in Russia
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 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:Southern Border
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Southern Border" would normally include the border areas outside of California, such as in Texas, especially considering debates on the war on drugs in the Texas-Mexico area, which refer to it as the southern border.
70.29.210.242 (
talk)
04:44, 17 March 2010 (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:Glass history
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 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.