Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 9



Category:Astroturf groups

 * 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 14:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose deletion astroturf groups
 * Nominator's rationale: I saw this category added to an article on my watchlist, and the first thing I thought was "That's a violation of NPOV." "Astroturf" is clearly used as a pejorative term in this context, and renders a judgment about the subject of the article which is a violation of the seventh point of CAT: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option. DickClarkMises (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. If kept, rename to Category:Astroturfing groups. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. While it may be accurate in some cases, it's a pejorative term that no groups uses to refer to itself. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & Will Beback, and not meaningfully distinctive either because most groups are a bit cagey on their finances regardless of their good or ill intents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV and subjective term. It could be defining, and I don't think it matters whether groups use it to describe themselves or not, but there's no getting around the POV & subjective nature of the term "astoturf". --Lquilter (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposed rename below does not get around problems with term astroturf and exacerbates them making it into an accusation category, almost by definition something described by someone else. Being called names by someone else is also not going to be defining. --Lquilter (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete reluctantly. While I think its a useful cat, and I don't think it matters whether a groups self-apply it or not, I'm starting to come around to the perspectitive that is a bit POV. Yilloslime (t) 20:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - too controversial and POV to be a category, per WP:CAT. -- Beloved Freak  18:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keepthe category is very useful. The term is widely used within the PR industry and is a valid term for a group funded in whole or part by another organisation with a different mandate, and a reason to hide lobbying or influence peddling.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.125.224 (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Groups accused of astroturfing. To define these groups unconditionally as astroturf is undoubtedly POV, but there are a large number of groups which *are* astroturf groups, full-stop. This new category would acknowledge that there are notable accusations of astroturfing, without Wikipedia defining them in unquestioned terms. FCYTravis (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per FCYTravis. — CharlotteWebb 17:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per FCYTracis. (Changed from delete, above). This gets around the POV issue while preserving a useful category and suggesting a workable criteria for inclusion in the category, namely that the group has been accused of astroturfing by notable sources. Yilloslime (t) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, POV and subjective. Oppose rename suggestion, as it turns the category into another "allegation" categroy, several of which have come and gone here in recent weeks. The rename would still require editors to make value judgments about the quality of the accusations. Otto4711 (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The proposed rename by FCYTravis convinces me that the best choice is to delete.  That proposed rename actually takes us deeper into the POV realm.  So anyone can accuse a group of astroturfing and bingo you are in the category.  Let's not even wait for the 'well we can define it as' discussion.  Delete and if someone can come up with a reasonable alternative let them create it.  Whatever it is, it will not be using the current name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 14 February 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:Encyclopedias on anthropology

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


 * The result of the discussion was: upmerge the one article.  If more articles are written or found, permissible to recreate. Kbdank71 14:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Encyclopedias on anthropology to Category:Anthropological encyclopedias
 * Nominator's rationale: The current category is far too narrowly defined, and is subsequently massively underpopulated. A name change to Anthropological encyclopedias would at least allow this category to include other encyclopedias written within anthropology (rather than specifically about anthropology), such as the Handbook of North American Indians Robotforaday (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The existing name seems more consistent with subcategories at Category:Specialized_encyclopedias. Doczilla (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that actual utility of the category would be better than just following the same word formula as similar looking categories. Robotforaday (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose rename on grounds of consistency; perhaps a broader rename proposal involving all of the subcategories would be appropriate? Snocrates 20:54, 10 February 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:Rocky Horror actors

 * 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 14:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * rocky horror actors


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete performer by performance. Recreation of deleted category. Doczilla (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, as overcategorisation. -- Beloved Freak  18:41, 11 February 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:3 Dvyne 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 result of the discussion was: delete, empty. Kbdank71 14:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 3 dvyne albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Non-notable group (and album) with article deleted. No group, no album—no need for this category. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony  16:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, or speedy C1 if it's been empty for four days. -- Beloved Freak  18:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Empty categories don't need to come here, they can just go in the delete queue by typing in the article header.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:04, 12 February 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:Cal State Northridge alumni

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 13:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * cal state northridge alumni
 * Merge into Category:California State University, Northridge alumni, to match California State University, Northridge. -- Prove It (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-defining. Snocrates 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. It is as defining as any other alumnus category. Carminis (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom; out of interest, has a university alumnus category ever been deleted? BencherliteTalk 13:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. -- Beloved Freak  18:48, 11 February 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:History of sport in London

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


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus.  Just a question which has nothing to do with the close:  If we, today in 2008, are calling 1974 history and 1975 not (Per Johnbod's example), do we have change the category in 2009 to say 1975 is now history and recategorize all of the "now history" articles (and do so every year), or is 1975 going to remain the cutoff for eternity?  Is anyone seeing how labeling something as "history" has problems that we can very easily avoid?  Sorry, that was two questions.  Feel free to ignore the second one if you still think using "history" categories is fine. Kbdank71 14:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:History of sport in London to Category:Sport in London
 * Nominator's rationale: No reason for this new category to exist. Neither category is that large there isn't a need for basically duplicate categories. It's also not cleary when something would go from Sport in London to History of sport in London.  TJ   Spyke   14:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Sport in London does not seem limited to contemporary events.Dimadick (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep That is hardly the point, Dimadick. Merging would mean two of the three parent categories: Category:History of London, Category:History of sports would be inappropriate. Plus the history category has 39 articles and four sub-cats, which seems plenty to me. Articles like Upton Park F.C., defunct for nearly 100 years, will just confuse in the main category. 1973 FA Cup Final seems the most recent article not called "history of ..." etc, which seems fair enough.  Says the nom:"Neither category is that large there is a need for basically duplicate categories." - Category:Sport in London has 49 sub-cats and 149 articles for heavens sake!  Thoughtless nomination. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you taken a look at Category:Sport in London? Currently includes 1908 Summer Olympics, 1948 Summer Olympics, 1966 FIFA World Cup Final, Battle of Highbury and other articles which are purely historical. That is why I don't see the parent category limited to ongoing events. Dimadick (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They should be moved across; or rather we should choose a cut-off point and standardize the contents of both. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. I agree with Johnbod. However, TJ Spyke does have a point with the question: When should an article make a transition to History in... category? This question must have been addressed before, can anyone point to those arguments? In particular, Sports categories will become more cluttered unless we find appropriate generic methods of sub-categorisation. A major city like London needs its history categories dividing by topic, by borough and by period. This will help anyone navigating from the topic category; investigating a time period in sport or by location; or coming upwards from a borough category.
 * Integration of Category:Sports festivals hosted in London into Category:History of London is another problem - again when to make an event historical. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have discussed this here, although there is a history (very misguided in my view) of removing all uses of "historic" etc as subjective. Clearly there is no right answer. I can remember 1973, but I'm sure it's history for most sports fans here.  You just have to pick a date as a cut-off point and make it clear in ther category definition. 1975? Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually since most items in Category:Sports festivals hosted in London predate 1950, I would place it as a sub of both the history and the main cat. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There are many more FA Cup Finals to be added (but cricket and rugby finals don't seem to get separate articles). It would be far from cromulent to merge these large categories. Carminis (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - It is fatally arbitrary and POV to pick a date and declare that here be the dividing line between history and non-history. Otto4711 (talk) 23:19, 14 February 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.