Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 17



Category:Cardiological institutions

 * 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 to Category:Heart disease organizations. Further recategorization and/or subcategorization may be needed after that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Cardiological institutions to Category:UNKNOWN
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Really an ambiguous name. Per the introduction, it includes A list of medical institutions (departments, research centers, clinical centers, hospitals, etc.), devoted to cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery. which is a rather broad list.  Most interesting is that this introduction excludes the only subcategory, Category:Heart disease organizations.  Don't know if there is a better name or a more focused definition that should be used.  I fail to see how a hospital department can be put in the same class as a research center. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cardiology department at tertiary referral hospitals is often a research centre as well, so I have no problem with them in the same category. However, the definition is too broad as it appears to include any hospital that looks after patients who have had a heart attack. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And research center redirects to research where it is not mentioned. That leaves us with no definition. So research center itself is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I was too lazy to make this nomination myself but I agree that the name should change. But like VW I don't have the solution. Splitting the category might be the easiest solution. We could have Category:Cardiology research institutes as a subcategory of Category:Medical research institutes and Category:Cardiology hospitals as a subcategory of Category:Hospitals. Some articles will end up in both categories but that's fine. It's basically the solution adopted for psychiatry. For cancer, the research institutes are simply categorized as organizations. Pichpich (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The parent category Category:Medical and health organizations has all its subcategories as "foo organizations" except this one. Could we not simply rename to Category:Cardiology organizations? I note that the other health specialty organizations such as Category:Gastroenterology organizations don't have header definitions and as a result have remained reasonably "pure". I wonder if this one needs simplifying. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but would it be better to rename/merge the subcategory Category:Heart disease organizations to that at the same time? Or would something like Category:Cardiovascular organizations be broader and a better name? I guess it all depends on where the focus belongs. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have only just come back to this. I started by thinking that the subcategory needs to be upmerged into whatever we end up with as the new name. It's contents are not any different than one would expect in the parent category with both medical and surgical organisations. However, when I look at its other parent Category:Medical and health organizations by medical condition, doing so would take it out that tree, where it belongs. Presumably the main category under discussion was created because Heart disease wasn't the expected "magic word" and if Cardiology or Cardiac had been available it would have been used instead. The problem with broadening the category to Cardiovascular is that it then becomes the category for organisations that deal with the peripheral vascular system as well as the heart and would probably then need splitting again into Cardiac and Vascular. Taking these thoughts together, I suggest that Category:Cardiological institutions is down merged to Category:Heart disease organizations and that Category:Cardiology organizations is created as a re-direct category. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem with that as a way to move forward. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Question Would these research centers be research institutes, or are the things inherently different?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - some research centres are based in research institutes, while others are based in hospitals. For example, the Liggins Institute is both, whereas Auckland City Hospital as a tertiary teaching hospital has several research centres. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2011 (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:Cardiology Hospitals in Pakistan

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * cardiology hospitals in pakistan


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization. Category:Hospitals in Pakistan is not subcategorized according to specialty and Category:Cardiological institutions is not subcategorized by country so I don't think the present category is necessary. Pichpich (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree WP:OCAT while the (missing) parent categories are so small. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2011 (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:Amorphous matter

 * 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. Should a parent article be written, this can be revisited.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * amorphous matter


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Old category with a parent article that was never written. Seems to have been a mistaken hierarchical fork out of Category:Phases of matter, to which its subcats should return, as the only non-amorphous phase is solids. Mangoe (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment solids are amorphous unless they are crystalline. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * see amorphous solid 70.24.251.158 (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * keep unless shown that 'Amorphous matter' is not a science-used term for the items within the category. Hmains (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think it is used, then go write the parent article. I've only heard the phrase used in a very general sense. Mangoe (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2011 (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:Out-of-place artifacts

 * 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. The discussion is deadlocked, but some of the delete votes seem to be based on the concept that categories like this can't exist, when Category:Paranormal is loaded with them. I would recommend another nomination to a rename as happened with Category:Haunted houses, which became Category:Reportedly haunted locations. That said, category names are statements of fact, and this category requires someone to declare the artifact out of place. We cannot be that someone. So if the keep voters want this to survive its inevitable next arrival on CfD, it'll need to be purged and policed to only contain objects of significant discussion among noted Forteans or those of their ilk.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * out-of-place artifacts


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. A fringey category of misrepresented objects deemed "out-of-place" by Forteans and other crackpots/popularizers. Perhaps a rename might solve the WP:NPOV issues but as it stands it's hard for me to see having a category which implicitly endorses a pattern of fraud, misrepresentation, and flat-out stupidity. Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep : After initially reading Mangoe's explanation I thought this might warrant deletion, but after reading the main article on "out of place artifacts" (which the category does provide a link to) I am inclined to say keep. Just because the existence of "out of place artifacts" is debated by the majority of sane mainstream archaeologists/scientists/etc does not mean the term itself doesn't exist or that the category should be deleted on that basis alone. After reading the main article I was curious as to what had been deemed an "out of place artifact" and thought it helpful and informative that there was in fact a category on items claimed to be such. I don't think it is necessary to remove the category on the assumption that it somehow gives authenticity to the claims. That seems somewhat akin to removing a list of UFO sightings because one doesn't believe that alien spacecraft exist. Another option is renaming for more clarity, but what would the category be renamed to? MsBatfish (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the two situations are quite comparable, though I can understand the urge to draw parallels. In the case of UFO sightings, they are as a rule, um, identified primarily as that. That's not true of these items: some of them are things that probably would not be notable were it not for the Forteans and the ancient astronaut crowd, but some of them are otherwise notable objects which have been latched onto by the fringe (e.g. the Antikythera mechanism). In any case the category is really "artifacts which aren't really out-of-place even though someone says so". We need to do something to make it reflect that, if you have some suggestion. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete: Sadly, many of the things listed in our article as "out of place artifacts" haven't gotten any notice by independent and reliable secondary sources as "out of place artifacts". The result is that much of what is in the article is original research (some editor thinks some item fits the description) or attributed to an unreliable primary source (such as a fringe blog). This new category compounds the problem. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless secondary reliable sources can show that the entrants have been referred "out of place artifact", all of this is WP:OR.
 * Delete or Purge to just the entries known solely or primarily for the fringe beliefs. 86.** IP (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If kept and purged then I don't think it's fair to choose "solely or primarily" as the criterion. Some artifacts are well-known for perfectly reasonable reasons and also well-known as crackpot-theory magnets. The categories should reflect this. I also think the argument that the mere existence of the category endorses nonsensical theories is, well, nonsensical. If this is such a grave concern, rewriting the introductory paragraph of the category could make it unequivocally clear that WP is only documenting the existence of these theories. Ultimately, we have to trust the intelligence of our readers and the hard work of editors who make sure that articles such as out-of-place artifact make a clear distinction between facts and dubious theories. Pichpich (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Decent point, but it should at least be one of the article's primary talking points; if it's not important enough to discuss in the article, it shouldn't be in the category. 86.** IP (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I basically agree though I again take issue with the use of "primary". It absolutely has to be discussed in the article and evidence should be provided that it is considered an out-of-place artifact by prominent quacks. Thankfully, this is usually a secondary discussion but it can be significant nonetheless. Pichpich (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Consider Title Change, Edit List? That is a good point Mangoe, I wonder if anyone can come up with a title for the category that is more in line with "UFO"? But I do think that the term "out-of-place artifact" left as it is does not imply that there is concrete evidence to support the claims that they are "out of place", it is a just a term that has become known to describe artifacts for which there have been these claims made. I agree, as others have stated that items should be removed from the list if no reliable sources can be found for their "out-of-place artifact" status. MsBatfish (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Keep If the existence of a category "implicitly endorses a pattern of fraud, misrepresentation, and flat-out stupidity", then Category:Conspiracy theories should also be proposed for deletion. Having all of these articles on these subjects helps our users who are looking for this material -- not all of whom believe in this alleged phenomena. (Some of us simply want more information about stories we have heard from a FOAF, or imperfectly remember having heard decades ago.) As for the issue of original research, the criteria for inclusion seems fairly objective & established: if it is mentioned by authors like Charles Fort, Eric von Däniken, Ivan T. Sanderson, etc., then it is included. (FWIW, this was a notable genre of the paperback book market in the late 60s & early 70s, so those three authors are just the tip of the iceberg of possible authors to be used.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Rename - Are Ooparts a fringe subject? Yes. Just because something is fringe does not mean that it automatically qualifies as non-notable or outright fraudulent. The 'existance' and classification of these artifacts as Ooparts has been well documented in reliable sources rather than just in fringe media, otherwise (I should hope) the mention of these object as such wouldn't be included in the articles to begin with. If others believe there is a NPOV issue here, then perhaps renaming it to Alleged OOParts would be better but I think that would obfuscate the category and make it harder for those looking to research the alleged 'phenomena' more difficult. Personally, I don't think having a category which acknowledges the classification of these objects as Ooparts is necessarily an endorsement of that classification and as such the category should stay. If there is a problem with the articles included in the category themselves, then I think the articles should be addressed individually, not the category.
 * P.s. Please assume good faith of your fellow man. Just because someone may be scientifically illiterate or ignorant does not mean they are a 'crackpot'. Let's use the articles in this category to enlighten them shall we? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A comment on the keep votes The fringiness of this category comes into play because most of the items aren't really out of place. Almost all items are flat-out hoaxes (e.g. the Tucson artifacts), misrepresentations (e.g. the Iron pillar of Delhi), or dubious claims of technological incompetence (take your pick); there are maybe one or two entries which appear to be genuinely surprising, and even those are controversial. Fi we are going to keep this category, it needs a name that emphasizes the untruth of the identifications. Mangoe (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the sentiment, I think a renaming is overkill because the term out-of-place artifact is never used in a context that doesn't imply pseudo-science or in this case a mix of pseudo-science and pseudo-history. I believe that a careful rewriting of the paragraph at the top of the category would be sufficient to avoid any ambiguity. Note also that a title such as "alleged out-of-place artifacts" doesn't really work. The common use of "out-of-place artifact" already carries the pseudo-science connotation and if we stick to the definition provided in out-of-place artifact, then all of these are confirmed out-of-place artifact since (even though they're all bogus) they would indeed revolutionize our understanding of history if proved to be genuine just as the recently discovered faster-than-light neutrinos would revolutionize physics if they're not the product of some failed experiment. Pichpich (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So if I change the hatnote to say something like "artifacts alleged to be out-of-place by pseudoscientific writers", that would be OK? Mangoe (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I could kinda live with that but it's really bulky. I think the simpler Category:Artifacts alleged to be out-of-place is a good compromise between making sure it's not misinterpreted and not treating the readers as complete idiots. And I still believe that the introductory paragraph of the category is the most crucial aspect in order to address your concerns. Pichpich (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mangoe, could you please explain how the category name implies an endorsement of the classification? I'm happy to change my mind but that's what I'm having trouble with. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this whole category scheme is an example of NPOV. I am not sure why the Iron pillar of Delhi is here at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2011 (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:2-D films converted to 3-D

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2-d films converted to 3-d


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. To me, this seems like it could be quite common practice to convert older films into 3-D. In either case, it doesn't seem to be a defining aspect of the films themselves. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Not sure where I stand on this one but I don't think the nominator's arguments are sound. It's most definitely not common practice to convert older films into 3-D and it never will be because the costs are quite prohibitive and the returns are typically non-existent (you won't sell too many 3-D blu-rays of Driving Miss Daisy or Rain Man). The costs are somewhat lower if the movie is already computer animation or 90% computer animation like Star Wars or Harry Potter but in that sense these movies share a significant trait. Similarly, some of these movies where developed and shot in 2D but converted to 3D during post-production. This is certainly a defining characteristic and one that corresponds to a fairly narrow window of film history. Pichpich (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a focus on a characteristic of a film that is of only limited importance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2011 (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.

Amorphous liquids

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose deletion Category:Amorphous liquids
 * Rationale - A liquid by definition is amorphous. We have the category "liquids". --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete inappropriate definitionCurb Chain (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be easier to discuss this if the category hadn't been manually emptied by the nominator. I don't have the required expertise to judge this but I'm tempted to think that I'm not the only one: if the concept was as ludicrous as the nomination suggests then the category wouldn't have survived three years without incident and there wouldn't be corresponding categories in seven other languages. Pichpich (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A simple Google Scholar search shows that "amorphous liquid" is a term in wide use in scholarly journals. All indications are that the nominator is badly misinformed. Pichpich (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Curious. What is a "morphous" (shape-holding) liquid, then? And here all this time I've been using the common dictionary definition that a liquid takes the shape of its container. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As you may know, some scientific terms have a meaning that is partially at odds with the common meaning. For instance, an amorphous solid is not a solid that has no shape. But like I said, I don't have the expertise to tell you precisely what an amorphous liquid is and I invite you to contact any of the researchers that published work on the subject. here's the first relevant Ghit and here are the GoogleScholar searches  Pichpich (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because it's been on Wikipedia for a long time and in multiple languages, is no assurance that it's right. I've just Googled a dozen or so references to the word pair "amorphous liquid" and from what I've read, there is no *category* of amorphous liquids, but a repeated tendency of writers to say wordy things like "transition from the crystalline solid to the amorphous liquid phase". It's written for didactic effect, contrasting the change from ordered solid to disordered liquid; the scholars are emphasizing the contrasting properties of the two states, and are not saying there is a class of "amorphous liquids" - all liquids are amorphous by definition. All indications are that some editors have discovered a kind of mondegreen or dord.   --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is not "that which Wtshymanski understands". Case in point: the phrase "transition from the crystalline solid to the amorphous liquid phase" isn't wordy or didactical at all, It is an accurate description of a transition that is being contrasted with the much-different transition from the amorphous solid to the amorphous liquid phase. Rather than searching for "amorphous liquid", try searching for "crystalline liquid." Or you could look simply up Liquid crystal on Wikipedia. Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I call "dord" on this. A liquid crystal is still liquid - it has not (macroscopic) shape. There is no category of amorphous liquids, becuase that is the category of all liquids. If it holds its shape, it's not a liquid.
 * And isn't Wikipedia the place where we could read all about ceramic gases just a couple of years ago? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In this context "amorphous" does not mean "without shape", as evidenced by the fact that amorphous solids exist. This has been explained to you before. What I would really like to know is why, after the huge number of speedys, Prods, AfDs and merges you have proposed, you are still proposing speedy deletions using rationales that are not on the list of criteria for speedy deletion. Care to explain this pattern of behavior? Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I never claimed that every occurrence of these words side by side is pertinent. Have you checked out the PhysRev B article I linked above? Because the abstract contains the sentence "During freezing	or polymerization of	amorphous liquids, these clamped moduli behave in a strongly nonlinear fashion as a function of temperature or polymerization time." I should also note that (and you probably won't like this argument either) the category was created and populated by who unfortunately disappeared from Wikipedia but was far from the know-nothing idiot you seem to think he was. Pichpich (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * *I thought we were supposed to avoid arguments ad hominem. But anyway, it sounds to me like the use of "amorphous" in that instance may have been to differentiate from the frozen state (or perhaps from special liquids). It is not necessarily a special category of liquid, it may simply have been used to describe a normal liquid in its regular liquid state. Now, whether or not this actually meets the criteria for speedy deletion is another matter, as I've mentioned below. MsBatfish (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Bloody hell. Where am I calling anyone a "know nothing idiot" ? The people who created "dord" were doubtless knowledgeable scholars of impeccable credentials ...and they were wrong. Find me a "Handbook of amorphous liquids", find me a scholarly definition speaking of the difference between an "amorphous" liquid and the regular old-fashioned, "pour it in and it just lies in the bottom of the pail" kind. There's NO SUCH CATEGORY! --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your whole nomination is premised on the idea that it's utterly ludicrous to use the two terms in conjunction, so much so that you found it natural to simply depopulate the category without further consultation. Is it really such a stretch to assume that you believe the creator of this category knew squat about material science? Because, as far as I remember, his expertise in the field was appreciated by other Wikipedians. And now that I show you an instance in which this term is used in PhyRev B, your response is that they were probably mistaken or even more bizarrely mis-published (as in the dord case). How can this not give you pause? Pichpich (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem verbal attacks on random strangers via Internet are so rewarding; we get to exercise all that primate dominance display behavior, and never have to deal with the reek of sweat of our antagonist and his carrion breath in our faces. It still looks to me like every time the phrase "amorphous liquid" is used, it is reiterating a property held by all liquids and is not defining a subset of liquids with this property. Where there is no subset, there is no need for a subset category. Could someone please cite for me a scholarly discussion on NON-amorphous liquids? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete One would think that if this category actually existed, we would be able to readily find a definition of it in some book. But thus far I haven't seen such a definition. BTW I have checked W's edits about this and while I think you got overenthusiastic I only found about four articles and categories affected by this, one of which was water. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete?? / Comment I have no expertise in the area so I don't feel I'm qualified to make an educated decision regarding the category's deletion. However, I am inclined to agree with the nominator in that the category lacks notability and verifiability. Wikipedia does not have an entry for "amorphous liquid", nor was I able to find any definition online. It appears to me that the in rare instances I could find of the phrase being used it was used as a misnomer for "amorphous solid". MsBatfish (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that notability and verifiability are not listed under Categories for deletion. That page clearly states "For any categories that are not speedy candidates, use Categories for discussion." This is not a newbie error, Wtshymanski has a long history of trying to achieve back-door deletions by using a prod or a speedy to avoid the discussion that accompanies nominating an article or category for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Speedy Deletion for two reasons:
 * First, the rationale above is wrong. If a liquid is by definition amorphous, what are Liquid Crystals? If amorphous is by definition without shape, what are amorphous solids? Deleted because argument posted by MsBatfish (below) changed my mind.
 * Second, the rationale above does not match any of the categories in WP:CSD. Wtshymanski, as one of the most active deletionists on Wikipedia, is well aware of WP:CSD and has been asked to use criteria abbreviations on multiple occasions. This rationale is simply another attempt to game the system, and the speedy should be rejected on that basis alone, with Wtshymanski advised to re-submit with a rationale that complies with Categories for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Nominator changed nomination for speedy deletion to regular nomination for deletion. I am Neutral on the revised nomination --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. One pretty much expects a liquid to be amorphous. Having a category for Amorphous liquids is like having a category for Four-legged dogs. (Yes, in liquid crystals the orientation of the molecules is non-random so that liquid crystals are not completely amorphous, and yes there are dogs with three legs.  But neither one of those situations is what we expect to find.) Cardamon (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Then perhaps the nominator should re-submit this to "Categories for Deletion/Discussion" as opposed to "Categories for Speedy Deletion"? If I am reading the criteria right a category is only eligible for speedy deletion if it is unpopulated - and I don't think it counts if the nominator depopulates the article simply in order to meet the criterion? It doesn't seem to say anything about categories that shouldn't exist in the first place. (However, I do disagree with Guy Macon's rationale that just because liquid crystals and amorphous solids exist that somehow proves amorphous liquids is a real term or category. And a liquid is in fact amorphous by definition, see the 2nd line of the article on Liquid. [User:MsBatfish|MsBatfish]] (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator Would it help expedite things if I found out what the ritual is to submit this to "Categories for Discussion" or what ever? Initially I'd hoped this would be a straightforward matter.  Seems some of us are more concerned about procedures than results, though if prima-facie absurdity is not a criterion for speedy deletion, it really ought to be. Nobody can find a citation of a non-amporphous liquid, I looked at both dictionaries in the office last night and they both mention lack of shape as being an identification of a liquid, and most of the very excited discussion above is from the Two minutes hate that I so regularly inspire among some editors, as opposed to actually processing the deletion in an expeditious way.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: "Seems some of us are more concerned about procedures than results", You have a long history of trying to delete technical articles that other editors want to keep, and an equally long history of responding to any attempt to reach consensus with sarcasm. Given your history, yes, you do have to get the procedures right. In a perfect world, you would listen to the multiple editors who have made it abundantly clear that there is no consensus for your brand of extreme deletionism.  We can't make you listen, and we can't make you follow consensus, but we certainly can and will force you to follow proper procedures. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In case anyone is still listening to the schoolyard squabble, apparently to become an "extreme deletionist" requires nominating as few as 86 articles for deletion. I'm not over-impressed with a consensus of one. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you counting Prod, AfD, Speedy, Merges-without-moving-content and blanking? I think you are undercounting by a lot, that's without including all the AfDs others proposed and you supported.


 * Typing "Wtshymanski" in the Wikipedia search box reveals how valid your "consensus of one" claim is. As one user noted: "I wish to note that Wtshymanski ends up at these (Wikiquette assistance) pages far too often. If he's ending up here this often he is doing something wrong, other people are not really the problem, he is creating problems with his edit style." Also see:       --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Guy. You don't like me. We got that a couple of days ago. That's OK. I'm used to working around people who don't like me; it's actually kind of secure in a way, there's less fear of betrayal that way. Highlights of my career are summarized on my talk page with links to all the good bits, you don't have to repeat it here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the four-legged dog argument says it all. The arguments to keep seem built around the assumption that because two words are used together we should have a category for them.  No one has demonstrated that this is an actually used category to classify liquids in general.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2011 (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.

Deaths by paragliding

 * 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, with no prejudice against recreation once there are several articles which can be shown to belong in this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose speedy deletion Category:Deaths by paragliding
 * Nominator's rationale: Has a single entry only. For this list to ever be more than a single entry there would need to be content available to add to it: pages detailing paraglider pilots who died paragliding. It seems that such pages do not exist and if they were to be created they would likely be vanity articles created solely for inclusion in this category alone. A simple list of ordinary people who have died paragliding is not encyclopaedic material and as such there is no such WP page. This category is an attempt to provide such a list, but with no material available for inclusion. 88xxxx (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – single article already categorised adequately in . Occuli (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence that this is common enough in noteworthy people to warrant a category. Jontyla (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:OC, arbitrary category. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Category:Deaths by hang gliding was recently created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP The category is populated by a noteworthy person. Of the over 850 fatalities known since 2002 in paragliding, there are a number of persons that reach the noteworthy standards of Wikepedia; those noteworthy persons may or may not yet have articles about them in WP, but will probably. But having one right now is sufficient for the category. KEEP Joefaust (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Joefaust (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this CFD. The Bushranger One ping only 01:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no references for the figure of 850. 88xxxx (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the exemption in WP:SMALLCAT applies to Category:Deaths in sport. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Too few entries, better treated as list in main article. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2011 (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:I Am Weasel

 * 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) 01:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * i am weasel

Redundant. -- User JJ98, who had withdrawn his nomination, just deleted his withdrawal. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nominator's rationale: Links only into two articles, not enough to populate. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  08:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – insufficient. There are exactly 2 articles; the images are in the first article and the redirects all redirect to one or other of the 2 articles. Occuli (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: If this is deleted, it may make sense to replace it with a redirect to Category:I Am Weasel redirects --Guy Macon (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It not links only into two articles, also into two files and 103 redirects. See the subcategories. The Courage the Cowardly Dog category has the same situation: only three articles, and the other pages are two files and various redirects. It is not for deletion and was created by the nominator (see here), so this I Am Weasel category can't be deleted too. Inox   talk  09:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Inox, we can't have small categories per WP:OCAT. I've got new rules, since the Cartoon Network Wikiproject got converted into a work group of WikiProject Animation along with Family Guy and American animation work groups. Under WP:ANIMATION, I've removed its Style recommendations in favor of official Wikipedia guidelines and our own Manual of Style of the WikiProject Animation, I've started tagging off-network  and non-original Cartoon Network series under the Cartoon Network work group including animated series by Warner Bros. Animation (along DC animated universe series and Looney Tunes) and by other animation studios. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  10:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if this category is small, the Courage the Cowardly Dog category is small too. The question is: if this category has been nominated for deletion, why the Courage category hasn't been? They are the same, the difference is that one has one more article and some more redirects than other, what is irrelevant. Inox   talk  10:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but I don't think that its irrelevant. The WikiProject Animation is intended to cover any animation related related articles, including our Manual of Style guidelines that is intended to reduce any fancruft, notably and in-universe concerns for animation related articles just like my interview in the Signpost. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  12:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I mean irrelevant is the fact that one category has 2 articles and 103 redirects while the other has 3 articles and 135 redirects. Both them have few articles and many redirects, so the difference is irrelevant. I really don't understand why this category should be deleted. I don't want to delete the Courage category, but if it can be kept, why this not? They're the same. I think that if is to delete one, is to delete the other too. Keep both or delete both. That's what I think. Inox   talk  13:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well Occuli, if that's the problem, let's nominate the Category:Courage the Cowardly Dog for deletion too. It has exactly 3 articles, the images are in the first article, and the redirects all redirects to the same 3 articles. Just like this category. They're the same, so why manage them different? This is a question none answered me yet. Inox   talk  13:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that Category:Courage the Cowardly Dog is similarly defective (it has 3 articles in all, rather than 2, plus a host of redirects). Occuli (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral Do recall that WP:SMALLCAT allows for small categories, sometimes even if they contain a single article, in cases where there's an established tree. That said, I'm not sure Category:Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios series and characters meets the standards to allow that. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no established trees of eponymous categories. Occuli (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, its the violation WP:ANIMMOS guidelines of WP:ANIMATION. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  11:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Since the Category:I Am Weasel redirects can't be in Category:I Am Weasel because administration categories can't be in content categories, I decided to change my position. Without it, the I Am Weasel category becomes small with only 2 articles and 2 files, being not enough to be kept. This also applies to Category:Courage the Cowardly Dog, which I nominated for deletion for the same reason. Inox   talk  00:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Inox. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2011 (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.

Royal Navy categories

 * 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 all individual ship categories; keep bases and ship names categories; no consensus on anything else. Comparison to the helter-skelter US categories is not terribly useful, but all other categories of the Category:Ships of the Russian Navy variety are consistent in their formatting. Similarly, the Category:Navy bases and Category:Ship names subcategories are all in that format. Everything else seems specific to the Royal Navy and should be renominated to be considered separately or in groups of related types.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming
 * royal navy traditions
 * royal navy specialisms
 * royal navy bases
 * royal navy shore establishments
 * royal navy court martial
 * royal navy equipment
 * royal navy air squadron crests
 * royal navy submarine crests
 * royal navy ship crests
 * royal navy ship names
 * royal navy paddle sloops
 * royal navy merchant aircraft carriers
 * royal navy steam frigates
 * royal navy troop ships
 * royal navy torpedo boats
 * royal navy survey ships
 * royal navy support ships
 * royal navy storeships
 * royal navy sloops
 * royal navy sixth rates
 * royal navy ships of the line
 * royal navy schooners
 * royal navy post ships
 * royal navy q-ships
 * royal navy proposed ships
 * royal navy merchant cruisers
 * royal navy hospital ships
 * royal navy gunvessels
 * royal navy gunboats
 * royal navy galleons
 * royal navy fireships
 * royal navy cutters
 * royal navy carracks
 * royal navy brig-sloops
 * royal navy bomb vessels
 * royal navy battlecruisers
 * royal navy anti-submarine trawlers
 * royal navy nuclear submarines
 * royal fleet auxiliary training ships
 * royal fleet auxiliary tankers
 * royal fleet auxiliary stores ships
 * royal fleet auxiliary salvage ships
 * Nominator's rationale: Constested speedy. "X of Y" is the preferred category name format, and, currently, the Royal Navy subcategories are a mis-mash of "X of Y" format names and the older "Y X" names like these. These would standardise the category names on the preferred format, which is both preferred per WP:NCCAT and looks much better as well. Note that the "X of Y" format also is used by the pages these categories have as their "Main" links, i.e. List of survey vessels of the Royal Navy, List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy, etc.. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is semantic rubbish. These names are perfectly satisfacotry, perhpas it is the Y of X categories that need to be renamed to conform to these.  Peterkingiron (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm...these are the "Y of X" categories. And "X of Y" is strongly reccomended to be followed per WP:NCCAT. Quoting from there: Categories of topics usually in the domain of the state are named "... of country". The "Y X" categories are non-conforming to the consensus naming convention, and are to be renamed to match it whenever possible: in fact, according to NCCAT, Non-conformance to these naming conventions shall be treated as a criterion for "speedy category renaming" as defined on WP:CFD.. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Long overdue. I think the reason that you're not getting much response here is because this is dull house keeping.  More power to your elbow.  Shem (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename per the example of Category:Ships of the Royal Navy etc. (In the last one 'ships' has also been changed to 'vessels' (also in the 'survey ships' one). This seems to need a different rationale.) Occuli (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case of 'survey ships' vs 'survey vessels', that one was changed to 'vessels' because the catmain for the category is at List of survey vessels of the Royal Navy. The 'salvage' one, because 'salvage vessel' seems to be the more widely used term - note its subcategory, Category:King Salvor class salvage vessel - The Bushranger One ping only 15:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current names are consistent with those for the United States, see Category:United States Navy, and other countries. Most of these Royal Navy categories are merely subcategories of Category:Royal Navy and the current names help identify them with that category. For instance, Category:Royal Navy bases seems much clearer than Category:Bases of the Royal Navy. Cjc13 (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The current names are consistent with those for the United States, see Category:United States Navy, and other countries. Yes...because those other pages have yet to be renamed to meet Wikipedia's standards for category naming. As you can see by the number of categories here, there are too many to do all at once, and speedy-ing them gets objected despite the fact WP:NCCAT explictly says they should be speedied. So they have to be done one nation at a time - objecting to them because the rest haven't been done yet smacks of WP:DEMOLISH. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NCCAT says they should be speedied only when a convention has been established. In this case the convention you suggest does not seem to have been established. If you are going to start with one country why not start with the United States which would seem to be the most significant country in these matters. Are thses really state-based or navy-based categories? They appear to be navy-based categories so the convention for categories relating to states does not necessarily apply. The current names are concise and accurate. Cjc13 (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that Category:Military by country and Category:Military equipment by country are among the specific examples cited in WP:NCCAT's "...by state" section. And Category:Military by country -> Category:Military of the United Kingdom -> Category:Royal Navy -> these categories. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no consistency whatever in Category:United States Navy: it is about 50:50 at the top level and Category:Ships of the United States Navy is also about 50:50. Moreover Ships by navy were renamed at cfd unanimously to the 'of Foo Navy' formulation. This is exactly the sort of hotchpotch which The Bushranger is endeavouring to clear up, the speedier the better IMO. Occuli (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is 50:50 then the change could be made either way. It does seem odd to have Category:Ships of the United States Navy, when the articles for the ships use USS in the title. As I say above some of the names are clearer in their current form such as Category:Royal Navy bases, otherwise you have to use Category:Naval bases of the Royal Navy which seems clumsy. I also think the Royal Navy may be a special case as it does not include a geographical reference. Cjc13 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Courcelles 04:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose as gratuitously verbose. I also note that there is little consistency: for example, French Air Force categories also come in both forms. Therefore I think this is too big a topic to put on a CfD for a relatively few categories. Mangoe (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again: WP:DEMOLISH. Only small blocks of categories can be done at a time due simply to workload. There's a standard, the fact that everything has yet to be converted to that standard doesn't mean we shouldn't convert everything to the standard. If you think the standard is gratuitously verbose, you need to propose a change to WP:NCCAT. As for being "too big a topic to be at CfD" - this shouldn't have to be at CfD at all, since WP:NCCAT explictly says that changes of this nature, for categories in this tree, are to be changed through speedy renaming. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying, obviously, is that it's a poor standard. That's most likely why people are so often ignoring it. There's nothing here that can't be done without demolishing something, so I don't see the applicability. Mangoe (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - per WP:NCCAT. The change is overdue. Just because it is 50:50 currently, doesn't mean that change should not happen because of previous mis-namings. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCCAT. This is the right way to go. Some work for other entities necessarily follows. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: It seems like there is no clear consensus on the category naming convention for this type of category. Are we really going to rename Category:Royal Navy bases to "Category:Bases of the Royal Navy"? MsBatfish (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There was enough of a consensus for the guideline WP:NCCAT to explicitly state that categories in this tree (topped by Category:Military), which do indeed include Category:Royal Navy bases, are to follow the "X of Y" convention and are to be speedy renamed to "X of Y" format if not, yes. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I'm just blind, but I can't seem to find anywhere in that article on naming conventions WP:NCCAT where it explicitly states anything about how to name military-related categories. Can you kindly point me to the section? Thanks MsBatfish (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, it is a little hard to find. The specific section is at NCCAT. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks The Bushranger I'm still not convinced that section actually applies to this case. It seems to be talking about categories ending with "of country" or "of city", for example "Government of England" or "Navy of England". "Royal Navy" is not a country or region. MsBatfish (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can not see anywhere that says it applies to the whole tree. (Note it lists "Military equipment" and "Military units and formations" separately, which suggests a separate discussion on those items.) It appears to only apply to direct subcategories which appear on the category page, not to any categories that might appear further down the tree. Cjc13 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and what sense would that make? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It means that you do not have to change the names of the whole tree because of a discussion about a distant part of the tree. Cjc13 (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like a recipe for epileptic trees to me! ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 18:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. WP:NCCAT says in its opening that "Standard article naming conventions also apply". This would include WP:Commonname. Cjc13 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The basis for NCCAT is that it simplifes categories: but I'm unsure how this change would simplify things. At present, we have 'Royal Navy ships', 'Belgian Navy ships' etc. Changing to 'Ships of the Royal Navy', 'Ships of the Belgian Navy', 'Ships of the Vietnamese Navy', etc. doesn't simplify things - it just adds an extra word. Sure, they should have a common name, but I'm not convinced it should be X of the Y format. If we were talking about countries, rather than navies, it'd make sense and I'd support, because that does simplify things by doing away with the complex suffixes, from 'X(ian)(ese)(ish) merchant ships' to 'Merchant ships of X'. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So should the RN cats that are currently in X of Y format be changed? - 00:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on the category. For instance Category:History of the Royal Navy seems ok as there is an article History of the Royal Navy but I think Category:Destroyers of the Royal Navy would be better as Category:Royal Navy destroyers. Cjc13 (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, IIRC, all of the categories above that have articles have the catmain article in the "X of Y" naming format itself.... - The Bushranger One ping only 03:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You could argue that the catmain article for many of these is List of Royal Navy ships, which uses "Y X" format. Cjc13 (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * True - except there's List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy, List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy, etc. Regardless of the decision here though the categories in the main cat desperatly need to be standardised on one format or the other instead of the hodgepodge they currently are. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:04, 6 November 2011 (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:Serbian history timelines

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * serbian history timelines


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure I see the likelihood of this category being further populated. The single article, Timeline of Serbian history seems to cover whatever may qualify to be in this category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete: I agree. MsBatfish (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2011 (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.

Immigration detention centres and prisons in Great Britain

 * 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. There's no consensus here for a greater change beyond "Great Britain" being renamed to "United Kingdom." No prejudice against renomination on a greater change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Immigration detention centres and prisons in Great Britain to Category:Immigration detention centres and prisons in the United Kingdom.
 * Nominator's rationale: The term used for the parent categories and the term usually used (except for sports teams) is “the United Kingdom” . Hugo999 (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a subcategory of Category:Prisons in the United Kingdom which contains cats for prisons in England, Scotland, etc. (and - oddly - the Isle of Man). It would therefore make more sense to create Category:Immigration detention centres in England etc. Currently this part of the category tree looks messed up. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I don’t know if subcategories for England, Scotland etc are needed, perhaps, but looking at the content for each country (Australia, UK, US), how about Category:Immigration reception and detention centres in the United Kingdom with other country subcategories and the head category also renamed? The only prison included is a British one, which is apparently dual-use for immigrants and prisoners. This change would avoid the impression the existing title gives that Category:Prisons in the United Kingdom should be a subcategory with the category as presently named covering both immigration facilities and prisons. Hugo999 (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Hugo999, rename to Category:Immigration reception and detention centres in the United Kingdom.       MsBatfish (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Immigration detention centres are prisons, so it is appropriate for them to be a subcategory of a "Prisons in ..." category. We should avoid POV euphemisms such as "reception centres" (a sick joke for somewhere where people who have committed no crime can be detained, in some cases, indefinitely). Parts of ordinary criminal prisons are also used to hold immigration detainees, so "and prisons" is appropriate in the title. I support the nominator's original proposal. (Incidentally, I do not think that subcategorisation into Scotland/England/Wales is necessary.) --NSH001 (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: It was my impression that by "reception centres" Hugo999 was talking about other immigration facilities that are not the same as detention centres, not meaning that prisons should be referred to as "reception centres" - was this an incorrect understanding? MsBatfish (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, there are no immigration "facilities" in the UK calling themselves "reception centres", another reason why "reception centres" doesn't belong in the title. If you have in mind somewhere with no element of imprisonment or detention, then they wouldn't belong in a prisons subcategory, so, again, not applicable. --NSH001 (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment These facilities appear to be called Immigration Removal Centres, should this not be Category:Immigration removal centres in the United Kingdom ? MilborneOne (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Their names have changed several times over the years, but the common feature they all share is imprisonment - moreover, imprisonment without the requirement to have been tried and convicted of any offence. Detainees can be detained for months, and sometimes years, making a mockery of the "Removal Centre" name. The nominator's first proposal is the correct one. --NSH001 (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that not applying a NPOV over the common name, this is a sub-category of prisons to group together the same sub set of establishments - it is not a cat to make a point. MilborneOne (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly so, they should be categorised by what they are, namely detention centres and prisons, not some POV euphemism. --NSH001 (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2011 (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.