Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 30



Category:WCSN affiliates

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename (no opposition). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:WCSN affiliates to Category:Universal Sports affiliates
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. World Championship Sports Network now "Universal Sports". azumanga (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2008 (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:Kurdish Turkish people

 * 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: Renameto category:Turkish people of Kurdish descent. There was consensus to rename, however to what is at issue.  Using the normal form of the name here fixes a few problems, but not everything raised in the discussion.  I suggest that if this target is not acceptable, that the editors involved take this discussion to a related talk or project page to see if there is a better solution.  If in the end one is found, we can renominate.  In any case, this closing does not prohibit a renomination the near future.  Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * kurdish turkish people


 * Rename to Turkish people of Kurdish descent for consistency with other "Turkish people of ... descent" categories. --Adoniscik(t, c) 20:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or Rename differently What, like Category:Turkish Jews, and others? I would prefer a rename to Category:Turkish Kurds for consistency with Category:Iraqi Kurds.  Johnbod (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a poor example, if you don't mind my saying. I'm talking about ethnicity, not religion. If you look, the "X people of Y descent" formula is quite common, and for a good reason: "X-ish Ys" does not clarify which one the ethnicity is. For example, I've seen people use Turkish Armenians and Armenian-Turks to refer to the same thing. This longer wording leaves no room for confusion. --Adoniscik(t, c) 00:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Turkish Kurds or Category:Turkish citizens of Kurdish ethnicity, assuming the individuals listed primarily subscribe to Kurdish culture (speaking the language, practicing the religion are prime indicators). 'Turks or Turkish people of Kurdish descent' suggests Turkish people who subscribe primarily to Turkish culture and with Kurdish family historical roots.  Most Kurds who are citizens of Turkey however continue to subscribe to their own Kurdish cultures. Armenians are the same and there is a cat page for those who are now culturally Armenian Category:Turkish Armenians and those who are (more) Turkish with Armenian (partial or full) roots Category:Turkish people of Armenian descent)  And the Jewish example isn t poor - Jewishness is as much an ethnicity as Judaism is a religion, as [ethnicity]] is only partly about blood lines / race Mayumashu (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename but I do not think the present target will do, in view of the freedom struggle. Kurdish is an ethnicity.  Tirkish is a nationality for them.  The Turkish state seeks to suppress all ethnic diversity within their borders.  I think Category:Turkish Kurds is probably the best solution in this case.  The common problem of whether this might mean Kurds of Turkish descent will not arise (or exceptionally rarely).  We may also get "Fooians of Turkish Kurdish descent", which would not be a triple intersection, as Turkish Kurd is an ethnicity, like Iraqi Kurd and Irainian Kurd.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You suggest that one has to choose between a Turkish culture and a Kurdish one. This is a false dichotomy. Furthermore, it demonstrates confusion over the definition of Turkishness, which is simply a matter of citizenship, not race. --Adoniscik(t, c) 03:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don t think one "has to choose between" the two - anyone can do whatever they want with subscribing to culture (I know that I do). But I agree with you that we are describing Turkish citizenship +  Kurdish ethnicity.  The problem with 'descent' again though is that it suggests previous, and not present, subscription to Kurdish culture, but most if not nearly all Turks of Kurdish ethnicity speak Kurdish and subscribe to other aspects of Kurdish culture (ie. they are Kurdish), they are not 'of descent'.  The best rename then is Category:Turkish citizens of Kurdish ethnicity


 * Support I m gonna change my mind and agree with the nomination.  The alternative I ve suggested - Category:Fooian citizens of Booian ethnicity might be one for the future (as it gives greater clarity) but the established pattern for now is still better than the Fooian-Booian pattern, as the nominator points out. Mayumashu (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2008 (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:Vardar Skopje players

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Vardar Skopje players to Category:FK Vardar players
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. We call the club FK Vardar. Punkmorten (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - club name in category should match club name in article. Jogurney (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per above. – PeeJay 23:08, 30 December 2008 (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:Britannia High

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * britannia high


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small eponymous category for television program; all content in category is already linked through template. Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- If there are several article that need to be linked a template will do it better. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2009 (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:Theatrical flops

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * theatrical flops


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Undefined, suggesting an entirely POV/subjective and/or arbitrary standard of inclusion. Similar categories have been deleted for other media:
 * Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_6
 * Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_21
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_30
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_1
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_3
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_3
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_3 (includes similar "Broadway flops")
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_22 — Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Note also prior deletion of Category:Commercial failures.  Postdlf (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes; thx. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Subjective criterion. --Adoniscik(t, c) 23:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GDallimore (Talk) 11:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Completely subjective, with essentially no criteria. JeanColumbia (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only way to save it might be to rescope it as, but even that would be of limited use. Grutness...wha?  23:49, 1 January 2009 (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:Pilots That Attacked Pennemunde

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * pilots that attacked pennemunde


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Typically we categorize military personnel by nation and war, but I'm pretty sure we don't classify them by individual battle or target and as such this would be overcategorization. (Think of the number of categories that could proliferate for bomber pilots who went on multiple bombing raids over Europe!) Good Ol’factory (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This is a crystal clear case of "performer by performance". Cgingold (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was going to suggest possible listification, but with only a single article in the category, it seems there's nothing to listify. In fact, I was a bit surprised to discover that there is no discussion of the flight crews in the article Bombing of Peenemünde in World War II (though, weirdly, it does give the names of two German fighter pilots!) -- and no mention of Maxwell Kogon, the one bomber pilot in the category. Looking further, it turns out that the creator of that article and the creator of this category are one and the same editor. So it appears that the category was created for the sole purpose of honoring Maxwell Kogon -- a fine gentleman, no doubt, but I'm sorry to say, I'm not sure he even passes WP:NOTE...  Cgingold (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (nominator). I also thought about proposing listifying but decided against it for similar reasons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- this is a performer by performance category, albeit an unusual one. The problem is that the article Bombing of Peenemünde in World War II does not mention that the person in the category received a DFC for this part in it, or (I think) contian a link to that article.  This needs to be rectifed by amendment of that article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and previous comments. If retained for some unearthly reason then rename to Category:Pilots who attacked Peenemünde to comport with proper capitalization and the fact that people are "who" and not "that". Otto4711 (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2009 (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:Multilingual World Leaders

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * multilingual world leaders


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is essentially a modified re-creation of Category:Polyglots, which was recently deleted. Being a multilingual leader of a country is not defining—in most countries, it's somewhat expected and is by far the norm. Good Ol’factory (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, trait is by far not noteworthy enough to have a separate category for it. Punkmorten (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, the creator, Steve Dufour, of the article thought that it was a more appropriate medium for this then Linguistic capabilities of modern world leaders, and I doubt, though I cannot say for certain, that he did this in bad faith. See Articles for deletion/Linguistic capabilities of modern world leaders and Talk:Linguistic capabilities of modern world leaders. Thanks, --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (as creator). I think this is an interesting topic. Some world leaders are or have been noted for their linguistic skills. I didn't create it in bad faith, although I voted to delete Linguistic capabilities of modern world leaders because of its awkward form as a table.Steve Dufour (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And exactly why is this defining? While I think you are saying that for a few it maybe defining, this category is really rather subjective.  I sense that this may be a maintenance nightmare since many world leaders are multilingual.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. We also neither have Category:World leaders, nor Category:Multilingual people, so this is malformed and without foundation in either case.  However, note the recently created Category:Bilinguals, which should probably be listed for deletion per the polyglots category.  Postdlf (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Bilinguals nominated here. Thx. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In light of what has been said, go ahead and delete this category. I still don't understand what is the problem with some kind of category for multilingual people. There are quite a few who are notable for this. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A clarification of "world leader" would be the first priority if the category isn't deleted. Perhaps something less broad would be better (e.g. current heads of state), but it would still a cumbersome category. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- How good a politician is at speaking otehr languages seems to me a NN characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2009 (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:UK Retailers that went bust after the financial crisis of 2007-8

 * 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/create list. This is the kind of thing that will be way easier to assess in hindsight with a bit of time passage since the events in question, but for now choster's rationale for deletion of the category is persuasive. Will be placed at WP:CFD/W/M and after a list or article is created it may be speedily deleted. I'm not going to mandate a specific list/article name, but it should probably avoid the slang "went bust" at least, and the dating issue should also be considered. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * uk retailers that went bust after the financial crisis of 2007-8


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Another similar category to Category:Entities involved in late 2000s global financial crisis, see below, with similar issues. This category seems quite vague, is this going to now include every company that now goes "bust" after "the financial crisis of 2007-8" which is an abstract concept of indeterminate length and lacking a definitive start date. Also, is it worthy of note that a company went into administration or similar during the current economic situation since it is a routine occurrence and to decide that the event was due to the current situation seems very problematic. Adambro (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: OK, I'm new here. Can you help come up with a better name?  I created the category because I couldn't find a list that did this job. Guelphus(talk) 14:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename or Listify List of acquired or bankrupt banks in the late 2000s financial crisis - just renamed after a debate - gives a more suitable style. The understanding is that the date range will be made more specific when we have an end point! Personally I think this is ok as a category - the list is now growing daily, after a long period when relatively few notable UK retailers went bust. So Rename to Category:UK retailers acquired or bankrupt in the late 2000s financial crisis. Or listify. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: Sounds good! Guelphus(talk) 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Question - why is this called "the late 2000s financial crisis"? We have no category indicating that there was an "early 2000s" financial crisis so if this is kept why not cut the word "late" since this category name is already unwieldly? Thus, Category:UK retailers acquired or bankrupted in the 2000s financial crisis. Otto4711 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Older editors may recall the Dot-com bubble bursting in 2000. It seemed like a crisis at the time anyway. But here's another one: does Category:Subprime mortgage crisis differ from Category:United States housing bubble enough to justify two categories? Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Subjective/arbitrary inclusion criteria, non-defining or trivial intersection as follows: One of the reasons we have not generally classified bankruptcies and liquidations by economic downturn or industry crisis is that it is difficult even for the financial press to judge whether a company goes belly-up as a result of the downturn/crisis or on account of bad business decisions— or simply bad luck or timing; not every soldier who dies on a front is killed in action. According to some, Pan American World Airways was done in by the commercial aviation crisis caused by oil price hikes and terrorism fears related to the 1990 invasion of Kuwait (which also exacerbated the early 1990s recession, another contributing factor); others will point out that the company hadn't turned an annual profit from operations in two decades, and it was only a matter of time before push came to shove. And was the Lake Ontario Shore Railroad a victim of the Panic of 1873 and the collapse of speculative interest in railroads? Or was it just a really bad idea to begin with? Right now it is more or less someone's point of view. Even if we could devise some sort of spreadsheet to calculate whether sales or expenses would have trended differently in a different economy, recessions start and end at different times in different places, and sometimes merge into one another.
 * Now consider that those examples are companies within an industry experiencing an acute crisis. Attributing a company's demise on account of a general downturn in the economy, or problems in another sector of the economy, are even more prone to dispute. Birmingham Steel Corporation went out of business in 2002 after bleeding cash for several months. It wasn't a direct victim of the late 1990s Asian financial crisis, the dot-com bust, or the September 11 market shock, but none of those exactly helped demand for steel, either. There is no non-arbitrary way for WP editors to decide, and since no CEO would ever blame him/herself for failure when an external scapegoat can be found, the end result will be that any UK retailer in Category:Companies disestablished in 2007, 2008, 2009, etc. would fall into this category, making it non-defining and reduplicative of the existing Category:Companies by year of disestablishment, Category:Defunct companies by country, and Category:Defunct companies by industry trees.
 * I submit therefore that the thousands of entries in Category:Defunct companies are no better served by categorizing them according to external economic factors than they would be by which political party was in government or who was chief central banker.-choster (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is reading more into the category than it says. The category refers to a period of time only, and does not attribute causes. The category could very easily be the subject of a good article, and probably will be one day. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the category refers only to the time period, it is OCAT by trivial intersection, like saying Companies that went bust during the Gordon Brown premiership. Something like Category:Companies of the United Kingdom disestablished in 2007 would be healthier.-choster (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Your shotgun reasoning begins:"Subjective/arbitrary inclusion criteria, non-defining or trivial intersection". The criteria are neither subjective nor arbitary. There is a "late 2000s financial crisis" and UK retailers going bust is a very notable feature of it. It is defining for them and not trivial. But that does not mean the category is committed to any analysis of the causes or the history in each case. That is for the articles to examine (one hopes).  Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Choster's well-reasoned comments. Postdlf (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename or listify per Johnbod above. 137.44.10.3 (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC) (user:Thryduulf not signed in)
 * Listify and Delete. After reading the above, it looks like there is a need for this type of information. While not stated in the votes above, it seems that this is the logical consensus from this discussion.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2009 (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.

I have made such a list (See 2008-2009 UK retail crisis) The rest is up to you. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:LGBT-related lists of films

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:LGBT-related lists of films to Category:Lists of LGBT-related films
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename - per recent CFR that resulted in the rename of other similar categories. Not sure how I missed this one the first go-around. Otto4711 (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support for reasons described at previous CfD and for better grammatical wording. Alansohn (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2008 (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:Entities involved in late 2000s global financial crisis

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * entities involved in late 2000s global financial crisis


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete This category seems inherently subjective and potentially extremely broad. I just noticed this category when it was added to Woolworths Group but my understanding is that Woolworths is a company which has for a long time been in difficulties, whilst the current economic situation probably brought the downfall of the company, in my opinion it just brought forward the inevitable. Therefore, is it really possible to categorise articles such as this when many companies fail all the time, is there really a clear cut way of deciding whether this is related to the current economic situation and how do we decide where the start and end of the "late 2000s global financial crisis" is? This isn't an appropriate category in my opinion. Adambro (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - overly vague inclusion criterion. Virtually any company, elected official, etc. is an "entity" that is "involved" in the crisis, and "late 2000s" is also unacceptably vague. Otto4711 (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The category as defined (arbitrarily) now is nearly useless, as nearly every major financial institution has suffered losses, requested a bridge loan, purchased a failed competitor, etc. But I think there is an interest and a need to identify organizations which have failed, so perhaps this category simply needs renaming to match the main list, List of acquired or bankrupt banks in the late 2000s financial crisis, e.g. Category:Failed or acquired financial services companies in the late 2000s financial crisis. The list itself needs renaming as its own introduction states many entries are not banks (including two of the largest, AIG and Washington Mutual), and in fact a good many articles and categories in this space need attention, including the child Category:Entities involved in United States housing bubble which is similarly problematic yet potentially useful.-choster (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep or rename to Category:Failed or acquired companies in the late 2000s financial crisis which is a better name that the one I used in creating this. However, the category currently includes both acquired and acquiring companies.  The new name would require the acquiring companies to be dropped.  Is this a good thing? Hmains (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it significant when a stronger competitor acquires a weaker one?-choster (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ok. Category:Failed or acquired financial services companies in the late 2000s financial crisis would be would be the better name and contents. Hmains (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * looking again this category also includes, and I think it should, companies that received bailouts to survive or to complete an acquisition. So 'failed or acquired' is not inclusive.  Anything better ideas to help here? Hmains (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too ambiguous and POV for my taste.  I looked at one entry, and it is included here simply based on the date of its merge.  No mention at all of an impact from the crisis.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2009 (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:Thailand National Artists

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename (no objections here either). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Thailand National Artists to Category:National Artists of Thailand
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Should follow convention for state-based topics. The main article has been moved with no objections. Paul_012 (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2008 (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:Paraguayan ice hockey players

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * paraguayan ice hockey players


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete as per comments below Mayumashu (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per concensus at WP:HOCKEY that players are placed in the categories for the countries they were born in and the countries they play for internationally. These categories are not necessarily about citizenship which is why the parent cat is players by country. -Djsasso (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Place of birth is not defining, notwithstanding any WikiProject's consensus to the contrary. Category implies nationality, which is not the case if it is a mere birthplace. Good Ol’factory (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the player in question is clearly not defined as Paraguayan. Punkmorten (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: It would be impossible for us Wikipedia editors to go up to each person who has a biography article here and ask them personally what citizenship they have. As such, in order to be as complete as possible, we must include all we know. In this case, we know location of birth, so we need to categorize accordingly. We may also know if this individual has represented another country internationally, and thus we must categorize accordingly. Unless you explicitly have a verifiable source, you would be involved in original research to state someone is not of a particular nationality. Until those sources come to light, we must place individuals in the categories we know they belong to. Further, the parent category of this is Ice hockey players by country. This does not imply nationality. – Nurmsook!  talk...  22:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Unless you explicitly have a verifiable source, you would be involved in original research to state someone is not of a particular nationality." I think you have that backwards. We don't assume nationality based on place of birth. Without a reliable source stating that they are of a particular nationality, we don't assume they are and apply a place-of-birth/nationality category. And if it's just a place of birth category, that's not defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2008 (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:Brazilian ice hockey players

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * brazilian ice hockey players


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete people who are Brazilian-born and who acquired other citizenship before 1994 are not Brazilian citizens, according to Brazilian nationality law. Presumably these two players, Mike Greenlay and Robyn Regehr, raised in Canada during the 1970s/80s and born to Canadian parents, would have acquired Canadian citizenship at that time, but there is no proof.  Nor is there proof that they kept took the Brazilian citizenship that they were entitle to.  Neither of two players should be categorized by nationality (neither Brazilian nor Canadian) therefore, and this page should be deleted.  Mayumashu (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per concensus at WP:HOCKEY that players are placed in the categories for the countries they were born in and the countries they play for internationally. These categories are not necessarily about citizenship which is why the parent cat is players by country. -Djsasso (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Place of birth is not defining, notwithstanding any WikiProject's consensus to the contrary. Category implies nationality, which is not the case if it is a mere birthplace. Good Ol’factory (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: It would be impossible for us Wikipedia editors to go up to each person who has a biography article here and ask them personally what citizenship they have. As such, in order to be as complete as possible, we must include all we know. In this case, we know location of birth, so we need to categorize accordingly. We may also know if this individual has represented another country internationally, and thus we must categorize accordingly. Unless you explicitly have a verifiable source, you would be involved in original research to state someone is not of a particular nationality. Until those sources come to light, we must place individuals in the categories we know they belong to. Further, the parent category of this is Ice hockey players by country. This does not imply nationality. – Nurmsook!  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk...  22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Unless you explicitly have a verifiable source, you would be involved in original research to state someone is not of a particular nationality." I think you have that backwards. We don't assume nationality based on place of birth. Without a reliable source stating that they are of a particular nationality, we don't assume they are and apply a place-of-birth/nationality category. And if it's just a place of birth category, that's not defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2008 (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:Venezuelan ice hockey players
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Kbdank71 14:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * venezuelan ice hockey players


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Suspect this is one too that should go but short of proof. Rick Chartraw mentions being born to an American father.  Don Spring however says nothing either way.  No Venezuelan nationality law to refer to.  The burden of proof is however still on the person making the claim that these two guys are citizens of Venezuela.  (Being simply born to a place is non-defining, most of us seem to agree) Mayumashu (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per concensus at WP:HOCKEY that players are placed in the categories for the countries they were born in and the countries they play for internationally. These categories are not necessarily about citizenship which is why the parent cat is players by country.. -Djsasso (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Place of birth is not defining, notwithstanding any WikiProject's consensus to the contrary. Category implies nationality, which is not the case if it is a mere birthplace. Good Ol’factory (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, farfetched to label the players in question as Venezuelan. Punkmorten (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: It would be impossible for us Wikipedia editors to go up to each person who has a biography article here and ask them personally what citizenship they have. As such, in order to be as complete as possible, we must include all we know. In this case, we know location of birth, so we need to categorize accordingly. We may also know if this individual has represented another country internationally, and thus we must categorize accordingly. Unless you explicitly have a verifiable source, you would be involved in original research to state someone is not of a particular nationality. Until those sources come to light, we must place individuals in the categories we know they belong to. Further, the parent category of this is Ice hockey players by country. This does not imply nationality. – Nurmsook!  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk...  22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Unless you explicitly have a verifiable source, you would be involved in original research to state someone is not of a particular nationality." I think you have that backwards. We don't assume nationality based on place of birth. Without a reliable source stating that they are of a particular nationality, we don't assume they are and apply a place-of-birth/nationality category. And if it's just a place of birth category, that's not defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2008 (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:Tanzanian ice hockey players
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Kbdank71 14:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * tanzanian ice hockey players


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete only bio listed, that of Chris Nielsen, makes no mention of his ever having had Tanzanian citizenship - his citizenship is given as Canadian Mayumashu (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per concensus at WP:HOCKEY that players are placed in the categories for the countries they were born in and the countries they play for internationally. These categories are not necessarily about citizenship which is why the parent cat is players by country. -Djsasso (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Place of birth is not defining, notwithstanding any WikiProject's consensus to the contrary. Category implies nationality, which is not the case if it is a mere birthplace. Good Ol’factory (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the player in question is clearly not Tanzanian. Punkmorten (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: It would be impossible for us Wikipedia editors to go up to each person who has a biography article here and ask them personally what citizenship they have. As such, in order to be as complete as possible, we must include all we know. In this case, we know location of birth, so we need to categorize accordingly. We may also know if this individual has represented another country internationally, and thus we must categorize accordingly. Unless you explicitly have a verifiable source, you would be involved in original research to state someone is not of a particular nationality. Until those sources come to light, we must place individuals in the categories we know they belong to. Further, the parent category of this is Ice hockey players by country. This does not imply nationality. – Nurmsook!  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk...  22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Unless you explicitly have a verifiable source, you would be involved in original research to state someone is not of a particular nationality." I think you have that backwards. We don't assume nationality based on place of birth. Without a reliable source stating that they are of a particular nationality, we don't assume they are and apply a place-of-birth/nationality category. And if it's just a place of birth category, that's not defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2008 (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:Taiwanese ice hockey players
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Kbdank71 14:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * taiwanese ice hockey players


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete nothing provided in his bio even to suggest that Rod Langway has ever had Chinese citizenship Mayumashu (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per concensus at WP:HOCKEY that players are placed in the categories for the countries they were born in and the countries they play for internationally. These categories are not necessarily about citizenship which is why the parent cat is players by country.-Djsasso (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Place of birth is not defining, notwithstanding any WikiProject's consensus to the contrary. Category implies nationality, which is not the case if it is a mere birthplace. Good Ol’factory (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: It would be impossible for us Wikipedia editors to go up to each person who has a biography article here and ask them personally what citizenship they have. As such, in order to be as complete as possible, we must include all we know. In this case, we know location of birth, so we need to categorize accordingly. We may also know if this individual has represented another country internationally, and thus we must categorize accordingly. Unless you explicitly have a verifiable source, you would be involved in original research to state someone is not of a particular nationality. Until those sources come to light, we must place individuals in the categories we know they belong to. Further, the parent category of this is Ice hockey players by country. This does not imply nationality. – Nurmsook!  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk...  22:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Unless you explicitly have a verifiable source, you would be involved in original research to state someone is not of a particular nationality." I think you have that backwards. We don't assume nationality based on place of birth. Without a reliable source stating that they are of a particular nationality, we don't assume they are and apply a place-of-birth/nationality category. And if it's just a place of birth category, that's not defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2008 (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:South African ice hockey players
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Kbdank71 14:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * south african ice hockey players


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete less sure about this one but that Olaf Kolzig, the page's only item, did not grow up in South Africa, was born to German parents (in Johannesburg) and represents Germany, all suggesting that he is in fact not a South African ice hockey player and this page too is unnecessary (for now - there is a South African national ice hockey team Mayumashu (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per concensus at WP:HOCKEY that players are placed in the categories for the countries they were born in and the countries they play for internationally. These categories are not necessarily about citizenship which is why the parent cat is players by country. -Djsasso (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Place of birth is not defining, notwithstanding any WikiProject's consensus to the contrary. Category implies nationality, which is not the case if it is a mere birthplace. Good Ol’factory (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the player in question is clearly not South African. Punkmorten (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: It would be impossible for us Wikipedia editors to go up to each person who has a biography article here and ask them personally what citizenship they have. As such, in order to be as complete as possible, we must include all we know. In this case, we know location of birth, so we need to categorize accordingly. We may also know if this individual has represented another country internationally, and thus we must categorize accordingly. Unless you explicitly have a verifiable source, you would be involved in original research to state someone is not of a particular nationality. Until those sources come to light, we must place individuals in the categories we know they belong to. Further, the parent category of this is Ice hockey players by country. This does not imply nationality. – Nurmsook!  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk...  22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Unless you explicitly have a verifiable source, you would be involved in original research to state someone is not of a particular nationality." I think you have that backwards. We don't assume nationality based on place of birth. Without a reliable source stating that they are of a particular nationality, we don't assume they are and apply a place-of-birth/nationality category. And if it's just a place of birth category, that's not defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2008 (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:Indonesian ice hockey players
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Kbdank71 14:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * indonesian ice hockey players


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete as per comments below. The one player listed was born to parents working as missionaries in Indonesia at the time of his birth, his bio states Mayumashu (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per concensus at WP:HOCKEY that players are placed in the categories for the countries they were born in and the countries they play for internationally. These categories are not necessarily about citizenship which is why the parent cat is players by country. -Djsasso (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Place of birth is not defining, notwithstanding any WikiProject's consensus to the contrary. Category implies nationality, which is not the case if it is a mere birthplace. Good Ol’factory (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the player in question is obviously not Indonesian. Punkmorten (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: It would be impossible for us Wikipedia editors to go up to each person who has a biography article here and ask them personally what citizenship they have. As such, in order to be as complete as possible, we must include all we know. In this case, we know location of birth, so we need to categorize accordingly. We may also know if this individual has represented another country internationally, and thus we must categorize accordingly. Unless you explicitly have a verifiable source, you would be involved in original research to state someone is not of a particular nationality. Until those sources come to light, we must place individuals in the categories we know they belong to. Further, the parent category of this is Ice hockey players by country. This does not imply nationality. – Nurmsook!  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk...  22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Unless you explicitly have a verifiable source, you would be involved in original research to state someone is not of a particular nationality." I think you have that backwards. We don't assume nationality based on place of birth. Without a reliable source stating that they are of a particular nationality, we don't assume they are and apply a place-of-birth/nationality category. And if it's just a place of birth category, that's not defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2008 (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:Brunei ice hockey players
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Kbdank71 14:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * brunei ice hockey players


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete there has never been a notable ice hockey player from Brunei. One or two users have doggedly reverted attempts by a number of others to depopulate Craig Adams (ice hockey) from this list.  There is not indication on his page to suggest he is anything but a Canadian, having obstensibly been born to Canadian parents while expatriate in Brunei.  I believe Brunei, as do most Asian countries, abides by jus sanguinis and not jus soli.  Category:Brunei nationality law has not been created but Demographics of Brunei states ones needs to be somewhat proficient in Malay culture to acquire citizenship. (The point is that it is not automatically granted and therefore there is a burden on one claiming so-n-so is Bruneian to prove it.)   The supracat is however named Category:Ice hockey players by country and not 'by nationality'.  This however is not in line with the equivalent Category:Football (soccer) players by nationality and Category:Basketball players by nationality.  I think a weeding out is in store and then a rename to 'by nationality' - this is the first step  Mayumashu (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per concensus at WP:HOCKEY that players are placed in the categories for the countries they were born in and the countries they play for internationally. These categories are not necessarily about citizenship which is why the parent cat is players by country. -Djsasso (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Place of birth is not defining, notwithstanding any WikiProject's consensus to the contrary. Category implies nationality, which is not the case if it is a mere birthplace. Good Ol’factory (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the player in question is obviously not from Brunei. Punkmorten (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So being born somewhere means you are not from there? I guess I don't understand the definition of from. – Nurmsook!  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk...  22:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Place of birth is not defining, so yes, being born somewhere does not necessarily mean you are "from" there. If a person is born somewhere but has otherwise no connection to the place, having not lived there or grown up there or obtained nationality there or anything like that, then it's a trivial non-defining fact that belongs in the person's biography, but not as a basis for categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that we have "People from x" categories everywhere and the requirement for them is that a person is born in that location. So obviously it has been deemed that a place of birth is defining. This is a perfect example, the fact that someone born in Brunei managed to make it to the NHL is extremely rare and makes him stand out from most other hockey players (ie defines him from the others). -Djsasso (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: It would be impossible for us Wikipedia editors to go up to each person who has a biography article here and ask them personally what citizenship they have. As such, in order to be as complete as possible, we must include all we know. In this case, we know location of birth, so we need to categorize accordingly. We may also know if this individual has represented another country internationally, and thus we must categorize accordingly. Unless you explicitly have a verifiable source, you would be involved in original research to state someone is not of a particular nationality. Until those sources come to light, we must place individuals in the categories we know they belong to. Further, the parent category of this is Ice hockey players by country. This does not imply nationality. – Nurmsook!  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk...  22:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But 'Brunei (sic) ice hockey players' does imply ice hockey players with Bruneian nationality(=citizenship). All the catting that we do for people on wikip is based on citizenship - this is the convention.  Now, addressing the difficulties of doing this versus the ease of catting by place of birth, it s simple - if we don t know, then we should not cat.  If we have no sources to say what Craig Adams's citizenship is, then he should listed as neither Bruneian nor Canadian.  This is rather pedantic, given that rather simple deducation tells us that he is a Canadian citizen, yet any deductive work at all is WP:Originial Research. Mayumashu (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Unless you explicitly have a verifiable source, you would be involved in original research to state someone is not of a particular nationality." I think you have that backwards. We don't assume nationality based on place of birth. Without a reliable source stating that they are of a particular nationality, we don't assume they are and apply a place-of-birth/nationality category. And if it's just a place of birth category, that's not defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2008 (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:Conservatives
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 (many problems with category have been indicated and those favoring keep do not agree on how to use/define the category). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * conservatives


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is inherently subjective and does not add anything to the articles in it, as its talk page makes clear. It is also similar to a category deleted some time ago.  Coemgenus 01:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but tighten definition. I don't see how the category can be deleted when several countries, including Britain have major parties called this. It is important to note the previous deletions had a small "c" - this has a large one. All the American people seem to have migrated to the main category here, however.  They must all or nearly all be small "c" types. Personally I don't see a reason to object to a controlled category for self-declared American conservatives.  The original debate was very long ago & is not preserved. This should be kept as restricted to countries where the label is meaningful - the French sub-cat seems fairly silly - & perhaps a small "c" American category should be tested in another debate. If we allow small "c"s, large "C"s should be a sub-cat of that. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a much more recent deletion discussion regarding Category:American conservatives than the one linked to by the nom. Postdlf (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - as with other such categories, especially in American politics, the same person can hold what is considered a "liberal" viewpoint on some issues (civil rights for example) and what would be considered a "conservative" position on others (tax policy for instance). Then you get into the whole "moderate" discussion. It is too complex and likely original research for editors to try to figure out, based on public statements or even self-descriptions (noting that self-descriptions can be unreliable), where to place someone on the political spectrum. This also implicate WP:OCAT as categorization by opinion. If the person claims a party affiliation then categorize them by party. Otto4711 (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep An important and strongly defining characteristic of the individuals included. Supposed issues of "original research" are best address by the use of reliable and verifiable sources for the description, as is appropriate for every single category in Wikipedia, whether tracking political beliefs, ethnic and racial backgrounds or sexual preferences. If we cannot rely on reliable sources, and we are also told that even "self-descriptions can be unreliable", we are essentially being asked to toss out virtually every aspect of the category system for people. Alansohn (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Should Bill Clinton be categorized as a liberal or a conservative? Here we have a reliable source that calls him a conservative on page 10 and a liberal on page 117. If reliable sources can't figure it out, how are Wikipedia editors supposed to do so without resorting to a POV judgment of which pages of what sources to believe or to original research? Otto4711 (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See above "self-declared American conservatives". Johnbod (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting that we go strictly by what the person says about themselves and disregard sourcing to the contrary? And if someone describes herself as a "social liberal" but a "fiscal conservative" then what category do they go into? Otto4711 (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Otto, you stated your case and I stated mine. We have a very simple deal that's been working well so far. I fail to see why it should end here. Alansohn (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that someone other than you is engaged in this line of questioning. Otto4711 (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, vague, simplistic, and ever-shifting characterization. This category will unavoidably equivocate unlike things because the meaning of "conservative" varies so much from country to country and from time to time.  Even within a single context (such as the 21st century United States), it's still a simplistic and superficial characterization, regardless of the prevalent usage of such a label.  Self-declaration is too self-serving because what will dictate the labels people proclaim is more the political climate rather than their "true" beliefs or documented actions (e.g., is the term "liberal" viewed with hostility), and it will also depend upon what one's view of the center is (for example, moderates on the U.S. Supreme Court get tagged as "liberal" by contrast with the very conservative justices).  And as Otto pointed out above, individuals may declare themselves "liberal" on certain issues or "conservative" on others, which this category completely glosses over.  This category furthermore is not targeted towards those individuals who actually put their political philosophy into action (as a politician, commenter, activist, etc.) and so will be trivial in many cases.  Political philosophy or orientation is simply far too complicated for a simple label like this to capture, and categories are simply too brute and clumsy of a tool to address this topic meaningfully or accurately.  Postdlf (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. So vague as to be useless. Conservative fiscally, socially, ... ? If not delete, rename very precisely. --Adoniscik(t, c) 00:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Categories like this one and Category:Moderates were probably created in an attempt to make Category:People by political orientation comprehensive. The problem is that while some political movements are easy to identify— because their members adhere to a relatively well-defined credo (e.g. Category:Republicans), belong to a party or other organization espousing a distinctive brand of politics (Category:Social Crediters), or are singled out as fringe elements— the vast middle part of the spectrum where most of us reside is quite muddy. That is why we refer to it as a political spectrum, not a political meter. Conservatism is particularly problematic: there is no central defining ideology (as conservatism is customarily defined as a philosophical skepticism of change from an established order). A Marxist or a Nazi is a Marxist or a Nazi anytime and anywhere, but someone considered a conservative (or a moderate) in one movement in one country in one time period might not would not be considered by many outside of any of the three, even by a political scientist who might be able to parse categories like Category:Liberal conservatives without thinking. Lastly, to the point that membership in a political party defines someone's politics, I'd reply that such membership is notably unreliable for the United States into the late 20th century; both parties had notable center-right and center-left elements— Larry McDonald, Robert LaFollette, Howell Heflin, and John Lindsay come to mind. -choster (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but only as a parent category. In the UK "Conservative" means a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party.  In some other countries, it also refers to party membership.  In USA it refers to political attitudes.  The present category covers a multitude of different things: its content MUST be Renamed to a more appropriate title.  Furthermore the term does not only refer to political attitudes: "Conservative Evangelical" is a theological stance, whose adherents are not politically conservative.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone is definingly a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party then they should be categorized as a member of the party and not by the vague "Conservative." Ditto for other party or religious affiliations. Keeping this category as a parent is inappropriate not only because it will lead to people being categorized as "conservatives" without any sort of party or religious affiliation but because it would gather people who are unrelated to one another beyond happening to belong to something that has "conservative" in its name. Otto4711 (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "people who are unrelated to one another beyond happening to belong to something that has "conservative" in its name"?! Right. I mean, that could happen to anyone, couldn't it? Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what the snark is all about, but looking at what's in this category right now, what exactly is the relationship between members of the Federalist Society and German conservatives opposed to the Third Reich? Otto4711 (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Conservative is ambiguous in that its meaning depends on its usage.  How is being financially conservative related to being socially conservative?  That is what this category effectively attempts to do.  Subcategories focused on subsets of conservationism avoid this problem since they are specifically targeted. I don't see how a renaming or defining inclusion criteria can fix this. Keeping as a container category does not make sense to me since it is more like a grouping by name.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2009 (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.