Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 23



Category:Political repression in Venezuela

 * 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. Those in favour of deletion have offered a number of strong reasons for their opinions. Those in favour of keeping have not offered arguments of comparable strength (i.e., they are variants of WP:USEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the topic "deserves a category", "all information is POV", etc.) I also note that inappropriate canvassing has taken place here, which I've taken into account when assessing users' comments. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * political repression in venezuela


 * Nominator's rationale: No basis for categorising any current articles here; created as part of campaign encompassing edit warring at numerous articles and creation of Political prisoners in Venezuela in lieu of pursuing discussion and WP:DR at Human rights in Venezuela Rd232 talk 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also hard to see an WP:NPOV purpose given existence of Category:Human rights in Venezuela. Rd232 talk 23:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Like other similar categories, this is too subjective to be viable; like other similar categories it is in effect a mechanism for using the category system to make unreferenced POV political comments on events. Some states are crude enough to charge people with some form of thought crime, but in many cases the events are mired in a dispute as to whether the state is prosecuting some form of ordinary criminality or using such charges as a cloak for political repression, or indeed criminalising the activities of political dissent. These shades of grey are highly POV, so it doesn't surprise me in the slightest to hear a this category arises out of POV edit-warring. I have no problem at all with an article on "political repression in foo", where the different POVs and nuances can be discussed and referenced, but since categories require a binary choice between inclusion or exclusion, they are a flawed tool for this sort of topic. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete no justifiable reason for creation of this category. In total agreement with BHG's argument.Cathar11 (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that it's hard to make categories NPOV. Also two articles do not warrant a category. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I did not invent this category. It is just here: Category:Political repressions by country. I saw it on some other pages and just added Venezuela to a long list of 21 countries. I only recently discovered the category system when creating the article Maria Lourdes Afiuni, because I was posted a request to put the article in categories. I just thought it was useful to add Venezuela to this list. This is really not WP:AGF to assume that I did that to campaign! As regards the accusation of Rd232 that I am "campaigning" and "edit warring" this is simply not true. But since I am not sure that this is the subject here, I don't want to confuse the discussion by entering this long debate which, lately, seems to become more productive. Voui (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * and by the way there are more than 2 articles to put in this category. That was only the beginning. Voui (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The fact that there are more of these irredeemably POV categories does not make this one a good idea.  I'm sure you created it in good faith, but it's still a fatally flawed POV category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Voui makes a strong case... for sending the entire Category:Political repressions by country tree up for discussion. The POV issues are too strong for these to work as categories. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a great idea. It maybe difficult, because previous discussions have shown that here are some fields (such as the former Soviet Union) where there are a lot of editors determined to retain these POV categories, but it's still worth a try. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, when it comes to the Soviet Union, it's not ver POV. Even rabid communists admit that it was an opressive dictatorship. :) But most of the categories in that category should go, I agree. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Venezuela is looking more and more politically repressed. If any doubt look at:, , , , but I agree not like ex-USSR. Voui (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still light-years away from anything like the Soviet Union, and still very much suspect to POV-pushings and fights, the USSR isn't. It can't be compared. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If a person is called a "terrorist" by some, and a "freedom fighter" by others, then just have him at both categories on Wikipedia. As long as there are sources. Wikipedia should be neutral. Neutral is not "avoiding information that is POV". Neutral is "presenting POV information in a neutral way". All information is POV after all, one way or the other. Debresser (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Debresser, are you sure you intended to post that to this discussion, rather than to another one? Neither "terrorist" not "freedom fighter" seem relevant to this category, so I don't know whether you intend some analogy. Should everyone in this category also be placed in a new ? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would such category do any harm? I am clearly not an expert at categorization, but the purpose of a category is just to help somebody find something isn't it? Articles are in any case in plenty of categories? It does not take away anything to keep this category. I tend to agree that if we delete we should delete the whole group Category:Political repressions by country. Also, this category is not so POV. After all, there is a USSR category, but also a category: Category:Political repression in the United States. For example, if someone believes that there is, or has been, some political repressions in the US, he can find here some pages that will be of interest to him. We could argue just the same as for Venezuela that this is POV to have a category "political repression in the US" Voui (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not particularily useful for that. How is The Boston Teaparty related to political repressions today, for example? But it's in there, I guess because of the British crowns reactions. The articles are a strange mix of discrimination against blacks (which isn't really *political* oppression), US independence articles and some that actually can be relevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Many nations have a category for this already. It is the same thing in this case.  The number of things the category has in it at the moment, is not relevant, more things can be added.  There is no valid reason to delete this category.  It meets all the requirements a category should have, helping navigate pages dedicated to a common theme.   D r e a m Focus  20:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply. Being related to a common theme is not sufficient grounds to keep a category. Issues such as subjectivity, POV, etc, need to be considered too. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * DreamFocus was canvassed by the category creator, User:Voui, after DreamFocus had !voted keep on Political prisoners in Venezuela. Voui also canvassed user:OpenFuture and User:Student7  who had done the same. Rd232 talk 12:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to understand why it would be bad to ask openly to people involved in Venezuela political pages to participate to this discussion. And the proof that this is genuine is that OpenFuture voted to delete this category and Student7 did not participate; I am really tactically bad am I not? By the way, JRSP, with whom you edit in tandem on all Venezuela pages concerning politics, is here like by pure chance of course! I believe it is just normal to inform people involved in these pages to participate. Voui (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Voui (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left a message on your user talk about WP:CANVAS; that canvassing doesn't always work out as planned doesn't make it OK. I don't know how JRSP found this page - you could try the radical step of asking him! And I do not edit "in tandem" with JRSP - it's just that on Venezuela pages (a rather smaller subset of my interests than yours, I think) there aren't that many active editors, and he's an experienced editor who knows the ropes (unlike you) and who I tend to agree with. Rd232 talk 22:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That said, it was limited, open, neutral canvassing. Which means that if he just had notified JRSP as well it would have also been non-partisan, and then OK according to WP:Canvassing. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place, but no, I don't think so. There are generally perfectly reasonable clearly non-canvas alternatives like posting a note at a relevant article or wikiproject talk page; there is no need to go to user talk pages at all. The letter of WP:CANVAS doesn't clear enough discourage this sort of behaviour, I think, but most people would consider it such. Rd232 talk 13:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the result is that most editors of Venezuela political pages have contributed here, except Student7, btw, who in general has views that are close to mine. Voui (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think there's a case for all categories of this type to be deleted or turned into lists. Lists at least can have sourcing requirements and definitions made clear, and discussions about criteria kept in one place. (NB I don't think there's any demonstrated need to turn this category into a list, at least not at this point. Articles and categories like Human rights in Venezuela / Category:Human rights in Venezuela exist to organise this content well enough for now, and the creation of articles and categories sidestepping existing debate and improved content/sourcing there is unhelpful.) Rd232 talk 11:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. It makes no sense to have a category with a polemical title to hold a few articles if all these articles are already included in the more neutrally titled Category:Human rights in Venezuela and the latter contains only a few articles. JRSP (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, a very useful category, and there are many articles that should be added to it. I understand that JRSP and Rd232 would like it deleted.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply. See WP:ITSUSEFUL. That doesn't answer the POV issues, and the presence at this CFD of editors from two sides of a POV diispute over Venezuela illustrates the POV problems rather well. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this the same "not needed for navigation" as an argument for deletion now criticizing the quality of arguments for retention? Alansohn (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alanasohn, plenty of editors have raised concerns about POV issues wrt to this category. It's a pity that you choose to entirely ignore them, and my concern about SandyGeorgia's comment is that a WP:ITSUSEFUL response doesn't address those issues. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Curiously, political repression seems to be disappearing from the Venezuela-Chavez articles, and categories are intended to help us track things like that. For example, Raul Baduel, who many reliable sources say is an example of political persecution in Venezuela, has been removed from all Venezuela articles, the article is an orphan, although he was one of Chavez's original buddies in his first revolutionary party, participated in Chavez's 1992 coup, was his defense minister, and was instrumental in getting Chavez reinstated after his 2002 overthrow.  Why has he been removed from all Chavez articles, and aren't categories intended to help us find groups of similar articles, to deal with things like this?  Anything that can be sourced should be in a category so we can begin to find who has gone missing, for example, in Chavez land. It's not subjective when it's reliably sourced.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also missing, and sourced, are Manuel Rosales and Sumate. Sourced articles. There's more, but cleaning up the POV that has been introduced over years of tendentious editing on Wiki and locating all of them will take some work.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Categories are navigational tools for the reader, and subject to neutrality, clarity of definition and sourcing requirements. If you want to make a userspace or perhaps WikiProject-based list of articles you want to review, do that. PS Your continuing unsourced and incorrect accusations of bad faith do you no credit. If Baduel was really "removed from all Chavez articles" rather than merely not present where you think he ought to be, provide diffs. Otherwise, WP:SOFIXIT. Rd232 talk 10:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea: I have. This category will help us find other BLP violations in the area of Venezuelan Human Rights.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Coherence needed => I guess that everybody agrees that if we delete the category Category:Political repression in Venezuela,we should delete all the categories that are inside the group Category:Political repressions by country. Voui (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep to allow navigation across articles grouped by this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And what characteristic is that exactly? A category with a vague and POV term is useless except for generating drama about what articles should be included in it. Category:Human rights in Venezuela will do fine for now, and if a well-defined NPOV term emerges, we can use that. Rd232 talk 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't help wondering what Venezuela political articles would not qualify for adding into this ridiculously vague category. Why not Hugo Chavez, for instance? In fact, which of Category:Venezuelan politicians don't have something to do with the "topic"? Which articles in Category:Politics of Venezuela don't qualify? Rd232 talk 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Political repression in Venezuela is a well known topic and deserves a category. --Defender of torch (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Human rights in Venezuela are a well-known topic. Political prisoners in Venezuela was created as a POV fork of that (since AFD'd), and Category:Political repression in Venezuela was created (by the same editor) as a POVfork of Category:Human rights in Venezuela. Rd232 talk 10:42, 31 January 2010 (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:Compact disc copy protection

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Compact disc copy protection to Category:Compact Disc and DVD copy protection
 * Nominator's rationale: per main article, see also cfd below —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment shouldn't this be two separate categories? Not every DVD copyprotect scheme can be used on a CD and vice versa. Even if there is a joint article, does not mean there should be a joint category. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with capitalisation of "Compact Disk" as below. Don't know about inclusion of DVD. Debresser (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Definitely correct the capitalization to match Compact Disc. Whether to include DVD or not is a different question, but I tend to support since the article discusses them together as well. Jafeluv (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2010 (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:Compact disc

 * 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) 02:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Compact disc to Category:Compact Disc
 * Nominator's rationale: Per main article. If you think that the article should be named Compact disc, please discuss that on Talk:Compact Disc. As long as the main article is entitled "Compact Disc", then the category should match that. There is no sense in them having conflicting capitalization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename I don't like it, but the argument is correct. Debresser (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per article title, although the article has been moved back and forth quite a few times over the years. Jafeluv (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2010 (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:Fellows of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Fellows of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence to Category:Fellows of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The AAAI has changed its name and we should change our category to match. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, since the article has already been renamed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename per proposed new speedy criterion. Debresser (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2010 (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:2007 aviation accidents and incidents in 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.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename
 * Category:2008 aviation accidents and incidents in the United States to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States in 2008 and
 * Category:2007 aviation accidents and incidents in the United States to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States in 2007. Jafeluv (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:2007 aviation accidents and incidents in the United States to Both parents
 * Category:2008 aviation accidents and incidents in the United States to Both parents
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Of the 34 incidents in 2007, the US represents 2. I don't see any advantage in breaking out these very small sub categories that on the surface appear to hinder navigation.  Clearly for me OCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose merger, but populate and rename to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States in 2007 per convention of . It only took me a few minutes to find two more articles in to bring this category to 4 articles, but  has over 200 such articles, many of which appear not be in any by-year categories.  If those are categorised by year, there will be scope for several more categories of the form "Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States in YYYY". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename as stated below. Debresser (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge to allow articles to be grouped for navigation purposes as part of the overall parent structure. Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2010 (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:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States in 2009

 * 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 Category:2009 aviation accidents and incidents in the United States into Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States in 2009. Jafeluv (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States in 2009 to Category:2009 aviation accidents and incidents in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename or Upmerge. Rename to follow the more common form of like categories in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States. Actually I think the better choice here is to upmerge to both parents since by year categories tend to be rather small. This one was apparently created under both names by one of our prolific category creators and the name not used is probably the more correct one and should be used if we decide to keep this. The empty one is up for speedy right now and that will be fixed shortly. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Reverse merge to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States in 2009 to follow convention of and   ... and similarly rename  and . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge this one and other ones as per BHG. Debresser (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2010 (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:People from Rousse

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:People from Rousse to Category:People from Ruse, Bulgaria
 * Nominator's rationale: To match the main article - Rousse redirects to Ruse, Bulgaria. The main article was moved from Rousse to Ruse with the edit summary of "moved Rousse to Ruse, Bulgaria over redirect: Consensus to use the official transliteration of Bulgarian (Русе)" in September 2009.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom and do likewise with Category:Rousse. Occuli (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom and do likewise with all other categories, articles, etc. refering to the city or the province in Bulgaria that include Rousse in their name. Preslav (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename and get the entire ball of wax done. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename this and related categories. Debresser (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2010 (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:United States Sentencing Commissions

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:United States Sentencing Commissions to Category:Sentencing commissions in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity, since this category includes both state and federal sentencing commissions. Honestly, the category confused even me, as I thought it meant individual groups who had served on the United States Sentencing Commission.  Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 07:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom for clarity. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to clarify content of the category. The all caps also confused me. Alansohn (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2010 (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:Skyscrapers between 50 and 99 meters

 * 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 to delete. Jafeluv (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * skyscrapers between 50 and 99 meters


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. According to Emporis Standards Comittee Skyscrapers start at 100 meters, and I have found no other references to a possible standard. As such, this category is equivalent to a category of famous pink unicorns. Arenlor (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. And Skyscraper does not set a fixed lower height.  Vegaswikian (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Also, who cares what Emporis thinks? That's like saying if the US government didn't recognize countries with fewer than 10 million people, therefor Wikipedia couldn't either. As in nobody died and made Emporis king/god/queen/emperor/dictator of all things related to skyscrapers. Not to mention the usually mentioned first skyscraper, the Home Insurance Building, was even shorter at 42 meters, which I guess means Emporis says its not a Skyscraper, though even it says it was the first. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Followed that link, found that it is listed as a high-rise building. Look at Structure in general => Construction type. I already stated that I could find no other group offering a standard, as such, and with the fact that they do seem to have some authority, since they are referenced even on the Skyscrapers page as being the group that generally defines the terms, I have to assume defacto authority. If the UN decided that unless a territory had 10M+ people it could not be a country, and since they are the defacto authority on countries, then I would expect Wikipedia to follow suit, yes. Unless you can show me a standard proposed by another group, thereby eliminating original research, I think that the category does need removed. Either that or we need to add a category for the skyscraper I live in (hey, it's taller than the ground, it should count.) Arenlor (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to sound uncivil, but read through carefully what I wrote. Emporis does classify the Home Insurance Building as a high rise (or as I wrote above "which I guess means Emporis says its not a Skyscraper"), but, and here is the important point, it then goes on to say "This is generally regarded as the world's first skyscraper." Sort of a problem there, as in it is difficult to be the first skyscraper if it isn't a skyscraper, right? Now, as to original research, sorry, but no. If I find a RS that says X building is a skyscraper, then in the article I call it a skyscraper, I don't defer to Emporis. Then, as the Wikipedia article then says it is a skyscraper, then per WP:CAT it goes into any category that it should, because, then ..."It [is] clear from the verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Not to mention WP:NOR only really applies to articles (we don't cite sources in categories), as it states at the top "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." (emphasis mine). Now indirectly, NOR has an effect, as in it would be difficult to populate a category of Category:Blue unicorns if only OR would produce articles that could go into that category (i.e. that is the category would be deleted as it is "Small with no potential for growth" and thus deleted under OVERCAT, not NOR). Of course OVERCAT does apply with the arbitrary criteria, but that applies to the entire Skyscraper tree of separating these buildings out be height. Though you could argue these separation points are not arbitrary, just picking "popular" numbers such as 50 and 100 (and if more than one person decided on these, then it is no longer arbitrary anyway). Aboutmovies (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The comparison with the UN is irrelevant; the UN has authority, but Emporis is just self-appointed. The fact that somebody says "ooh, let's apply an arbitrary threshold" does not mean either that this particular threshold is an accepted standard, or that there is any consenus to have such a standard threshold. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * ISO, IEC, IETF, W3C. All widely recognized as defacto standards organizations, all self-appointed. Beyond that: "A loose convention in the United States and Europe now draws the lower limit of a skyscraper at 150 meters (~500 ft).[3] A skyscraper taller than 300 meters (~1000 ft) may be referred to as supertall.[by whom?] Shorter buildings are still sometimes referred to as skyscrapers if they appear to dominate their surroundings.[by whom?]
 * The somewhat arbitrary term skyscraper should not be confused with the also ill-defined term high-rise. The Emporis Standards Committee defines a high-rise building as "a multi-story structure between 35-100 meters tall, or a building of unknown height from 12-39 floors"[4] and a skyscraper as "a multi-story building whose architectural height is at least 100 meters."[5]" from Skyscrapers.
 * The point still stands that it is the only standard I could find, no one else seems to have another. Follow the link and do a search for it and you'll see Emporis referenced authoritatively. I have offered undeniable proof of it being authoritative, yet you only offer Original Research that it is not. As Wikipedia states on the edit page "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" and since a building cannot be verified as a skyscraper unless it is at least 100 meters, and seemingly under some definitions 150 meters, this category would consist only of original research and should be removed for that reason alone. Arenlor (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clam down, Arenlor, and try a bit of basic civility.
 * First thing: are you really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really sure that you meant to label me as an SPA? Take a  look at List of Wikipedians by number of edits, number 15.
 * Second thing.  Don't accuse me of doing "original research".  If you read my comment, you'll see that I did no research at all, just critiqued your reference to a body for which you claimed no authority other than that it existed.  The article Emporis says that it "Emporis GmbH is a real estate data mining company", and while data mining companies can classify anything as they like, but that does not make their classification a "standard".  ISO, IEC, IETF, W3C etc all have huge international support for their standards. Do you have any evidence that Emporis is similarly supported?  (And don;t bother telling me to "do a search": you are making a claim, so you produce the evidence). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * By search I meant ctrl+f or whatever you happen to have as a keyboard shortcut. I produced the evidence. As the user below me states, either it needs deleted because there is no standard so it's arbitrary, or as I state, there is a standard and this is out of the range of the standard, so should be deleted. There seems to be no reason to keep it. Arenlor (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you think you have supplied evidence of. The link you supplied is http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2010/01/18/daily51.html ... which is an article from the Portland Business Journal about a property deal. Its only reference to Emporis is to describe it as "an online skyscraper Web site".  It does not say that they set standards, let alone that anyone else pays attention to any so-called "standards".    The fact that somebody runs a website does not make them a standard-setter. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Emporis defines skyscrapers as 100 meters+, and they are referred to authoritatively as a skyscraper website, so even if they don't have full authority to define a skyscraper by whatever definition you seem to think a groups needs to receive, they are accepted as being trustworthy and truthful, and reliable. Therefore: a skyscraper is accepted to being defined by them. I am really trying to not get pissed about this, File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg may be interesting to you, since it's referenced on the dispute page. You have yet to do anything other than say "Nope, you are wrong." to me, which is contradiction. Would you provide some evidence of what is required for Emporis to be recognized as a standards body, or provide evidence that a notable party has stated that Emporis can't/shouldn't be relied upon? Arenlor (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You make the claim, so you provide the evidence: it's not up to me to prove the negative. You claim that this data-mining website is the authoritative source for classifying skyscrapers, but the only evidence you have to support that assertion is one reference from one local newspaper which confirms that the website exists. Anyone can run a website on anything, but so far you have offered no evidence in support of a claim that this one is widely accepted as a de-facto standards authority. See WP:RS. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OC, which seems to apply to any height range. Occuli (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would apply to much of Category:Skyscrapers by height. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment the article skyscraper says the first skyscraper is Home Insurance Building, which is only 42 metres tall... 76.66.192.206 (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:High-rises between 50 and 99 metres tall. A high-rise being a building with 10 more more storeys... (since Ancient Rome built tall buildings of 8 storeys...) 76.66.192.206 (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Commons list of categories on this topic may be of interest.  Vegaswikian (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no ... please please please please please please please please don't follow that examples of sub-dividing by metre of height.  But I notice that most of the Commons categories in the 5-100 metre range are labelled "skypscrapers", although some are labelled "high-rises". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment how about Category: High-rises less than 100m in height and 10 or more storeys tall ? That would not be a per metre breakdown. 76.66.200.154 (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with Occuli that this seems like an arbitrary subcategory. We shouldn't be subcategorising skyscrapers by height at all, IMO. Robofish (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Labelling a building as a skyscraper is a categorisation by height: height is the only characteristic that makes a building a skyscraper.  Sub-dividing that height seems to me to be a good way of grouping buildings according to their degree of skyscaperness, even though the groupings are unavoidably arbitrary. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Almost all early skyscrapers (like the Prudential Building or Reliance Building) are under 100 meters tall. - Eureka Lott 17:49, 29 January 2010 (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:People from 20th-century Boston, Massachusetts

 * 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
 * Category:People from 20th-century Boston, Massachusetts into Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts and Category:20th-century people
 * Category:People from 18th-century Boston, Massachusetts into Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts and Category:18th-century people
 * Category:People from 19th-century Boston, Massachusetts into Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts and Category:19th-century people
 * Category:People from 21st-century Boston, Massachusetts into Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts and Category:21st-century people
 * While there were good arguments on both sides, the consensus seems to be here that one way or another the categories should not exist. Objections to the people-by-century categories in general are out of the scope of this discussion, but note that there's an ongoing discussion elsewhere on the topic. Jafeluv (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * people from 20th-century boston, massachusetts
 * Category:People from 18th-century Boston, Massachusetts
 * Category:People from 19th-century Boston, Massachusetts
 * Category:People from 21st-century Boston, Massachusetts


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete as absurd categories, which would cover anyone born or raised or resident in Boston over an entire century, to be fully filled. Thousands of names for what purpose? Are any other cities categorized in this fashion? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete , and do not merge. This is another of those absurd people-by-century categories which are being used to create absurd and useless intersections in all sorts of areas. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposed. I find this to be a very interesting category: articles in the Wikipedia about people from Boston of the 20th century. It does not cost much to keep it in. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this is a subcategory for Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts removing it will impact that category. If it is removed from pages, the parent category will need to be added. Also you will be proposing removing the other subcategories classified by century from Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts. I am now very much opposed, since obviously some thought went into the construction of this category and its subcategories and obviously a lot of editors have contributed to it. I doubt they would support your proposal. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename Notable people from Boston of the 20th century. Arenlor (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Notable" is not necessary. All people with biographies in the Wikipedia are supposed to be notable. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to point out, in good faith, the following for my fellow editor, Mr. Allen:
 * I find this to be a very interesting category and [o]bviously some thought went into the construction of this category and its subcategories and obviously a lot of editors have contributed to it. I doubt they would support your proposal -- are not valid reasons for keeping an article or category. (BTW: only one editor created and contributed to this article, anyway)
 * The following categories should be piggy-backed onto this WP:CFD but I don't know how to do it except as one by one as individual WP:CFDs. Any help or advice will be appreciated: Category:People from 18th-century Boston, Massachusetts, Category:People from 19th-century Boston, Massachusetts and Category:People from 21st-century Boston, Massachusetts. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not counting all the editors who added this category to pages. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Added. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Upmerge all – at least to the uncontroversial Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts and possibly to the appropriate Category:20th-century people etc. Occuli (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge all to, but not the disruptive by-century categories. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * If we decide to delete and upmerge, please note that the categories for 18th, 19th, and 20th century are also subcategories of Category:History of Boston, Massachusetts, so should probably (at least 18th and 19th, in my view) be upmerged to that category as well. (Can this work be done with some kind of Bot? Otherwise, it seems like a lot of work undone for very little gain.) [Note added later: there is also a subcategory Category:People from colonial Boston, Massachusetts. Should that be deleted as well?] --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, definitely do not upmerge to Category:History of Boston, Massachusetts. Doing so will simply flood that category with biographical articles, and destroy its utility for navigation. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point. But are the people subcats in the Boston History cat useful for finding articles on people important to the history of Boston (particularly the colonial, 18th, & 19th century ones), or should they be deleted? --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * These people by-century categories don't work: they just cause clutter. If the list has value, it's much better to listify them, and i have no objection to listifying the pre-20th century cateories. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Should the subcategories be deleted when the lists do not yet exist? (Or do they?) --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The categories can be listified at deletion time. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They would not be lisified unless that wish was made clear in voting to lisity. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 11:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that have to be done manually or is it an automated process? --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I am generally opposed to most century categories, as often they are irrelevant. Debresser (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that century categories could be relevant to a History category. Just putting the category People from Boston, Massachusetts which has over 1400 names into the History of Boston, Massachusetts category would not be very useful. (Perhaps I am missing something here. Categories seem to be conceptually a somewhat difficult area.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Upmerge each – to Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts and to Category:20th-century American people, and such. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 11:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Wikipedia must have tens of thousands of articles on 20th-century Americans, possibly hundreds of thousands. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of wikipedia's biographical articles fit in that category. What's the point is a huge category of all those people? I can't see it being any use for navigation. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Peterkingiron, If the categories are getting too large, the answer is to split them geographically into smaller areas. Please do not again repeat a call (here) to all remove [:Category:20th-century Fooisn people] since you can do that under the January 25 Cfm, and a Cfd made the call to keep Category:20th-century American people just this summer. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 11:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Lists vs. Subcategories: The problem I see with upmerging all of these subcaegories is that the process of creating a list and linking to it becomes more complex and may not happen. For instance, when I read the article on Sarah Caldwell, if I want to find related articles I might check the categories at the bottom of the page. (Isn't this one of the purposes of categories?) If the category is converted to a list then the link to it will disappear from the Sarah Caldwell article. Categories are helpful in that a single edit (adding the category to the article) creates the item in the list and the link to it from the article in one simple edit. The categories we are proposing upmerging these subcategories to already have way too many entries to be very userful. The subcategories help to break down these humongous lists of articles so that they are more useful. So I have doubts that upmerging and listifying will really improve the utility of this information. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This brings us back to the wider problem with the by-century categories. They group together so many unrelated articles (a "humungous" number, to use your term) that they become unusable, so then their creators want to sub-divide them, and end up splitting other more focused categories. As those become more heavily-populated, then the pressure comes on to sub-categorise further, and begore long we find that a whole load of final-belel categories are being divided ... and they are divided not because it is a  logical way of organising those catesories, but to resolve the problems created further up by the by-century category categorisation. Since more than half of all people live in more than one century, this leads to most people being being in two categories for ecah attribute: "19th-c people from Foo" and "20th-c people from Foo", "19th-c booers" and "20th-c booers", and so on. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * People should only be listed under the century that they were notable in-- i.e. were part of notable actions. That is much less then "more than half of all people" being in two centuries. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 11:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * People do not fit neatly into rigid 100-year time blocks, and historians do not use use rigid centuries for describing historical epochs. Trying to arbitrarily define a particular part of people's lives as a period of notability contradicts the wikipedia principle that notability is permanent, and is just a kludge to try to redeem some of the damage caused by the simplistic attempt to categorise people by rigid time-blocks with sharp edges. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. A quick search of WorldCat for "kw:biographical dictionary nineteenth" yields dozens of titles that treat narrow biographical topics by century  (e.g. -->Olympians of the sawdust circle: a biographical dictionary of the nineteenth century American circus;  or ... -->British authors of the nineteenth century: a biographical dictionary;  or ... -->Queensland architects of the 19th century: a biographical dictionary; ... etc.). In other words, there is solid precedent for encyclopedias devoted to subjects limited by time and place.  M2545 (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If kept, these should be renamed to Category:20th-century people from Boston, Massachusetts, etc. The current names suggest they might be time travelers.  postdlf (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the preposition "of" would be better, i.e., Category:People of 18th-century Boston, Massachusetts. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Upmerge all --It should not be necessary for a person who lived 1850-1930 and was prominent in the 1890s to 1910s to have to appear in two categories. If the categories are getting too large, the answer is to split them geographically into smaller areas, provided there are some boundaries by which this can be done.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is this such a problem? All categorization is somewhat arbitrary. Ferruccio Busoni (1866-1924) properly appears in several different categories of composer: Category:Romantic composers, Category:Neoclassical composers, and Category:20th-century classical composers.
 * Please suggest specific alternative categories. I find it a bit difficult to split up "Boston, Massachusetts" into smaller geographical areas. For instance, Sarah Caldwell resided for much of her career in the suburbs of Boston but was an opera director in the city of Boston and belongs in that category.
 * Also (re: further above) historians do indeed use centuries to categorize. For instance: The Penguin Dictionary of Eighteenth-Century History and The Penguin Dictionary of Nineteenth-Century History. There are many more examples, too numerous to list.
 * Regarding recommendations for upmerge, please specify one or both of the two parent categories, and if upmerged to one should the subcategory page then be deleted or should the parental category just be removed from the subcategory.--Robert.Allen (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: would one possible solution be to rename these to Category:People born in 20th-century Boston, Massachusetts, etc? At least that way it's clear which one a given person goes in. If that was done, I would support keeping these as an acceptable way of subdividing the (otherwise very large) Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts. Robofish (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As someone who is interested in the history of classical music, I just want to mention that this proposal would prevent the addition of the following articles from the people subcategories of Category:History of Boston, Massachusetts: Serge Koussevitzky, conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra from 1924 to 1949; Sarah Caldwell, head of the Opera Company of Boston from 1958 to 1991; and Seiji Ozawa, conductor of the Boston Symphony from 1973-2002. Do we really want to exclude links to these articles from these people subcategories? I think a better name might be: "People of 20th-century Boston, Massachusetts" so that articles about people who were important to the history of the city, regardless of where they were born, could be included.


 * It's hard to know which to give higher priority to: geography, era, or area of interest. (The category system certainly presents real difficulties in this regard.) When it comes to colonial Boston, the era seems pretty important. For the 19th and 20th centuries, less so. Where does one divide according to area of interest? Does one create "People in the arts in Boston, Massachusetts" or "People in the arts in 20th-century Boston, Massachusetts". Other examples would be "People in sports in 20th-century Boston, Massachusetts" and "People in politics in 20th-century Boston, Massachusetts". Since areas of interest are somewhat era dependent this might not be an unreasonable approach, but yes it would result in a lot of duplicate entries for people that span centuries. (As the encyclopedia grows these problems seem to be becoming more apparent, and the titles more convoluted. And also, unfortunately, it seems like a lot of relativley low importantance work every time we decide to change things!) --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The putative possible merits described above by my fellow editor, Mr. Allen, do not counterbalance the negative equities in creating a precedent whereby any city, state, country in the world will also have similar categories attached -- New York, London, Rome, Paris, Chicago - when (what century) and where does it end? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Upmerge all – to Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts and to the appropriate century category like Category:20th-century American people. NO reason to go with notable since by having an article they are notable.  By having the century category you can then search by century. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge all to Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts (and nationality by-century category, if desired). I do think the categorization of people by century has gotten a tad out of hand. There's nothing wrong with large categories, as they are organized alphabetically. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the "People from Boston" categories by century. Alphabetical lists of people are very helpful if you already know who you're looking for.  But how to differentiate between the 4,000+ names in the "People from Boston" category if you don't already know who's who?  The categories of people differentiated by BOTH place (Boston) and time (century) facilitate discovery of new information, without overwhelming the reader.  Encyclopedias and reference sources succeed when they help answer specific queries, AND also lead to serendipitous discovery.  M2545 (talk)
 * Do remember that you can still find these people by a simple search if they are in both of the above categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2010 (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.