Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 31



Category:GAR

 * 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 to Category:Wikipedia good article reassessment to match Category:Wikipedia good articles. - jc37 16:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:GAR to Category:Wikipedia Good article reassessment or Category:Good article reassessment
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. "GAR" has a number of meanings and it's not obvious from this category name what it is. The relevant article is Good article reassessment and it is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia editorial validation and Category:WikiProject Good articles. Whether we need the category to include the "Wikipedia" is perhaps debateable per the relevant naming convention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support as speedy as possible, per nom. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer Category:Wikipedia good article reassessment. Good is not capitalized in the middle of a phrase. "Good article reassessment (or GAR) is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status." (emphasis mine) CaseyPenk (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure if "Good" was treated as a proper noun or not in these types of categories, so I do agree with you that it doesn't need to be captitalized if we use the first suggestion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Not sure if controversial. Speedy please! Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't imagine it is controversial, but the discussion would be useful if users commented on which proposed rename suggestion would be preferred. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to avoid confusion-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * rename to Category:Wikipedia Good article reassessment, since this is an administrative category and not content. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Update I am also fine with a lowercase "g". Either option works form me (uppercase or lowercase "G"). 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Wikipedia good article reassessment (compare to Category:Wikipedia good articles). The word 'good' does not need to be capitalized, per CaseyPenk, and the prefix 'Wikipedia' is needed to identify that this is a project/administration category. A good example of this distinction can be seen by comparing Category:Good articles (contains articles) and Category:Wikipedia good articles (an administration/tracking category that contains talk pages). -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support -- Abbreviations need expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Wikipedia good article reassessment per Black Falcon's eloquent rationale, but capitalisation per CaseyPenk. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Did you mean to capitalize the g in good? CaseyPenk (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Now fixed, and thanks for the nudge. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to title including wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2012 (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.

Populated places in Egypt by governorate

 * 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: speedy rename (C2C). The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Populated places in the Beheira Governorate to Category:Populated places in Beheira Governorate
 * Propose renaming Category:Populated places in the New Valley Governorate to Category:Populated places in New Valley Governorate
 * Propose renaming Category:Populated places in the Red Sea Governorate to Category:Populated places in Red Sea Governorate
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. I started creating other subcategories of Category:Populated places in Egypt by governorate and did not use the definitive article between Populated place and the name of the governorate. Eliminating it will make these categories consistent with the subcategories of Category:People by governorate in Egypt which do not use "the". Tim! (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per accepted naming practices; categories generally lack "the" / "of" unless necessary. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:21, 1 June 2012 (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:Defunct American movie studios

 * 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 for now; deletion could be pursued with a fresh or a broader nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Defunct American movie studios to Category:Defunct American film studios
 * Nominator's rationale: Film is the agreed term (per WP:FILM) and this is a child category of Category:American film studios.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete film studios come and go too often to make it worthwhile to seperately categorize those that are defunct.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Which studios have come back to life in their previous form? Most film studios are dead forever, or are reincarnated in very different forms under different owners. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And this is also a sub-cat of Category:Defunct media companies of the United States, which contains cats for Defunct broadcasting companies,  Defunct newspaper companies,  Defunct radio stations, etc.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. Per your research, if we want to propose deletion of the category in question, I think we should first consider defunct XYZs as a whole rather than make an exception for film specifically. This is a good testing ground for sentiment about defunct-stuff categories. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * rename per nom clearly a better name. No reason at all to consider deletion of this well populated category. Hmains (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. A "present/past/future" categorisation scheme, which are, and should be, discouraged. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you perhaps be willing to separate the CfR question from the CfD question? It might be helpful to pull this "movie" category into line with the "film" naming conventions, and then we can consider deletion of the "film" category. And really, the faster this CfR gets finished up the sooner we can pursue deletion (if you would like to do so). CaseyPenk (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename, not because I love the word "film" (I think it's anachronistic), but because I would prefer any category to no category. For all intents and purposes, defunct studios are defunct forever. Even when a studio is said to be "reborn," it usually does so under new management and significantly different principles. See CBS Records from the 1960s and CBS Records from the 2000s; the former is defunct and the latter is.. alive. To delete this category would also jeopardize the status of Category:Dead people. I don't believe "defunct" or "dead" is really about time; it's more about status. "Defunct" is comparable to "publicly-traded" or "multinational" - it's a description, not a prescription or description. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your WP:OTHERSTUFF argument fails in that Category:Dead people is a container category for specific death-related subcategories. This however is a 'past/present/future' diffused category which has become strongly discouraged. The movie/film studios should be simply in Category:American film studios, without the qualifier. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please point me to the relevant discussion(s) about past/p/f categories? While I agree that Category:Dead people is a container category, its various subcategories refer to deaths (therefore, the subcategories refer to the past). You can't "already have died" in the future; you can't "already have died" in the present. Death inherently happens in the past so the two are interchangeable.


 * Also, from a purely practical / usability standpoint, I think a combined "general/defunct" studio category would be confusing to navigators who want to distinguish between defunct studios and just regular studios. Considering the very large number of defunct studios, upmerging such studios would impede navigation. I try to imagine if I were writing a research paper about the state of modern Hollywood, I wouldn't be interested in defunct studios. Similarly, if I were writing about the downfall of Hollywood I would look to defunct studios for useful examples. It seems like a very useful categorization scheme to me. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's been a lot of them, invidiually; there hasn't been any unified discussion, but the general consensus through them seems to be that categorising by things like "Former ships of the Fooian Navy", for instance, is something that isn't desirable. What benifit does it give to the reader to split defunct studios from current ones in categories? - The Bushranger One ping only 17:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any of those discussion so I wouldn't know. I'm going off what I think makes sense, any I don't see defunct status as a time-sensitive or "evolving" issue. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While that's true, it's also not one that is useful to the readers in a categorisation sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom, and do not delete. There is a huge tree of "defunct Foo" categories, and no reason has been offered for treating this one differently to the others. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason is that the vast majority of that huge tree shuldn't exist, and fixing that has to start somewhere; keeping some because others exist would mean none would ever be done. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think it would be valuable to have discussion about "defunct" categories as a whole, but if you want to start that discussion you should probably do so with the parent Category:Defunct media companies of the United States. Because many of the responses you're going to get in this particular discussion are going to cite OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, for better or for worse. This discussion hasn't really uncovered if people support or oppose "defunct" categories - but then again, as I said before, the original proposal is not to delete but to rename. I'm asking for your help if you want to move this forward, and we can handle the deletion discussion separately and solicit more feedback. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2012 (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:Police brutality in England

 * 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: keep. There are some impassioned arguments for renaming, and some purging may be needed. This is part of a larger scheme, so this result should not prejudice a discussion of the parent categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Police brutality in England to Category:to be determined by consensus
 * Nominator's rationale: See the category talk page for full reasons.  Cottonshirt  τ   09:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please copy your remarks from the category talk page to this page before we proceed. That is, after all, the whole point of this page. Cgingold (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as is As part of the scheme Category:Police brutality by country. The whole tree would need nominating if one change is going to be made.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

1) There is nothing in the article Battle of Cable Street to suggest that police brutality occurred; rather it says that the, "...demonstrators fought back with sticks, rocks, chair legs and other improvised weapons. Rubbish, rotten vegetables and the contents of chamber pots were thrown at the police by women in houses along the street." Which sounds like people being brutal to the police rather than police brutality. Also we have, "...Several members of the police were kidnapped by demonstrators", but the only mention of action by the police is that, "Over 10,000 police, including 4,000 on horseback, attempted to clear the road to permit the march to proceed." If you want a category called "Police Brutality" then the articles in it should at the very least be undeniably about or showing police brutality. This article does not pass that test. 2) In the Christopher Alder case, the police went on trial and were cleared of all charges. The claim, by including it in a category called, "Police Brutality" that it is an example of police brutality is not supported by the text of the article itself. 3) In the Richard O'Brien case, the police officers accused of manslaughter went on trial and were acquitted, so again there is no evidence of police brutality and the claim, by including it in a category called, "Police Brutality" that it is an example of police brutality is not supported by the text of the article itself. 4) The Ian Tomlinson case has yet to come to court so whether or not there was any police "brutality" involved continues to be subjective and unproven. 5) Battle of the Beanfield is slightly different, because the Wiltshire Police Force, not individual officers, were found guilty of, "...wrongful arrest, assault and criminal damage", but whether this constitutes, "brutality" remains a point of view. 6) The London Riots article deserves consideration because one of the sources (number 72) is titled, "G20 police officers may face multiple claims over brutality allegations" and the existence of claims of police brutality is repeated in the text of that source. (There is a further source with the word "brutality" in its title but it is a) a blog, and b) has no meaningful text so I am ignoring it). 7) Kevin Gately died from a blow to the head but neither a coroner's inquest nor a public inquiry established how this blow occurred. The claim, by including it in a category called, "Police Brutality" that it is an example of police brutality is not supported by the text of the article itself. 8) Windsor Free Festival also requires consideration since there was a prosecution of the Chief Constable for, "...creating a riotous situation". But as with the Battle of the Beanfield, whether this constitutes, "brutality" remains a point of view.
 * The title of the category Police brutality in England sounds to me to be highly subjective, not remotely neutral in point of view and not supported by the text of most of the articles in it. For example:

To be clear, I am convinced that these articles represent a category of police action, a category of action that is both encyclopaedic and of public interest, I am just not convinced that the word "brutality" belongs in the category title. Havaing said that, I don't have any good alternative suggestions that do not use the weasel word, "alleged". Alleged police brutality, Alleged police use of excesssive force, Police use of allegedly excessive force, maybe something along those lines.  Cottonshirt  τ   11:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Police brutality is not determined by prosecutions, successful or otherwise. Some of your examples may be inappropriately labeled as it, but others do not cease to be it in the eyes of the wider public, just because the law is weighted in favour of the perpetrators. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - useful category for a phenomenon that undoubtedly exists in the UK. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - 1) neither the nom nor anyone else has suggested any feasible alternatives or euphemisms for this that are likely to go anywhere with consensus. 2) As Lugnuts points out, it is consistent with the wider scheme already titled 'Police brutality by country' 3) Sometimes I know it is hard to look in that mirror and say, 'yes, such has happened even in my beloved country too'; but really, in fairness - to pretend otherwise would be something of a white-wash. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as part of the wider scheme Category:Police brutality by country, and per head article police brutality. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm going to have to agree with the nominator on this one. 'Police brutality' is an inescapably POV phrase, more an accusation than a neutral description. It's fine to use it in an article, but it's not appropriate for categories (and Category:Alleged cases of police brutality would be little better). In any case, most of these articles are already in more neutrally-titled categories such as Category:Deaths in police custody in the United Kingdom, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom and Category:Protest-related deaths, so this one adds little navigational value. Robofish (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If this one is kept, its use should be restricted to cases where it's undeniable police brutality occurred... which of course is the whole problem, there is rarely a consensus in these cases. Robofish (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per Robofish above. While the term "policy brutality" is certainly a scholarly one, it's POV to suggest that any of these cases are unambiguous; the current category is accusative or speculative at best. Depending on who the police are, ascribing to them police brutality is potentially libelous as well. Police brutality does have implications for individuals as well as legal proceedings and should be handled with utmost care. The fact that Cottonshirt can raise concerns means there's some degree of doubt involved. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, but surely none of these conditions can be England-specific - so to avoid looking like we think it is, perhaps going after the entire tree rename first would be more proper...? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a wonderful idea, and I did just that. See nomination at Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 1. Thanks for the thought! CaseyPenk (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussing these categories together is the right approach. However, starting the new discussion before this one closed is not a good idea, because Category:Police brutality in England is now being discussed in two separate CfDs :( -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is very confusing to have two concurrent CFDs on essentially the same general category scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I started a new nomination was because three people cast their votes on this British category based on the larger situation. Here are their votes: (1) "Keep as is As part of the scheme Category:Police brutality by country." (2) "As Lugnuts points out, it is consistent with the wider scheme already titled 'Police brutality by country'" (3) "Keep as part of the wider scheme Category:Police brutality by country, and per head article police brutality." Thus, this discussion was already tilted towards keep and I created the new one to address the justifications people used in their votes. If someone wants to merge the two discussions, feel free. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename Brutality is rather POV for the reasons stated by CaseyPenk. Might be better off as Police conflicts, while purging for notability, ie, documented coverage in the media. Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note. A larger discussion is here. At close, the two discussions should be considered together. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename I am not persuaded by arguments such as, "...it would be too difficult because there is a whole tree of these categories" because we are an encyclopaedia and should get it right, whatever the effort required. If we adopted the view that it would be "too difficult" then Wikipedia would not even exist. I suggest that we ignore pleas to maintain the status quo out of expediency and concentrate on determning what is the right thing to do.
 * I am also not in favour, as suggested or intimated by both Nick Cooper and Til Eulenspiegel, of pretending that the phenomena does not exist; I thought I made that point in my reasons for the change. As Robofish mentions, we already have a Category:Deaths in police custody in the United Kingdom. I actually created that category and took care to define "in police custody" so that it covered as wide a variety of situations as possible. The definition of "police custody" I chose covers people who work in police stations as well as people at political demonstrations, witnesses being interviewed in the street and lots more. Basically, if the answer to the question, "was the person owed a duty of care by the police" is yes, then they are in police custody. But it covers deaths only, not injuries. I therefore suggest that we rename the category, "Police brutality..." to, "Injuries in police custody...". This allows us to categorise the phenomenon, group similar articles together, and yet remain neutral as to attribution of cause.
 * Some articles will not neatly fit. Kevin Gately, for example, died from a blow to the head but there is no evidence that at the time the injury occurred he was, "in police custody" as defined above. I think the solution to this might be to widen the definition of "police custody" so that it includes persons at events being policed, even if it is not possible to show that the specific individual was, strictly speaking, owed a duty of care by the police.  Cottonshirt  τ   07:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a novel idea. I like it because it allows the reader to make his or her own judgments (which should be the goal of any categorization scheme on Wikipedia). We're not a journalistic agency; it's not our place to "hold criminals accountable" or "make them look bad." All we're here to do is relay the facts regarding the situation. And I think environment / location / context is a perfectly rational categorization. Rather than trying to ascribe motives / ethics / morality to events. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * keep for its undoubtedly factual basis (as found in the articles). Some of the suggestions above seem not to grasp the scope of police activity and assume that the only brutality to be found is 'in custody'.  Brutality also occurs whereever police encounter 'civilians', be it in houses or other buildings or on the street. Others suggest there is only brutality when the result is that police kill someone.  Being assaulted or tortured in various ways by police is also brutality by any definition.Hmains (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly the current categories account for a wide variety of incidents, from killing to torture, which is appropriate. The problem, in my view, is grouping together cases where the police were acquitted of any wrongdoing with cases where they were almost certainly involved in the wrongful killing or murder of someone. We have a responsibility to be careful about how we talk about crime, rather than jump to the worst possible conclusions about the police. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you (Hmains) did not read the rationale for making the change or the reasons given by me as the nominator for the change, because it is clear that since "brutality" is not a specific crime but an assessment by the editor tagging an article as "police brutality" contravenes the NPOV policy within Wikipedia. Secondly, I made it clear in my reasons that a majority of the articles do not support the claim that they are examples of police brutality and you might productively read my comments on each one, above. Thirdly, your comments about "police custody" seem to ignore the definition of police custody found on the category page and discussed above which pointedly does include the situations you mention, "...in houses, or other buildings, on the street" etc. Fourthly, the claim in your last sentence that police brutality exists is irrelevant. This is not about whether it exists as a phenomenon, the discussion is about whether labelling a particular incident as an example of police brutality complies with Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view.  Cottonshirt  τ   03:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article Police brutality is the governing factor here, not assertions made in this discussion. Wikipedia is not a 'support the police,  right or wrong' website  Hmains (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When you say, "Wikipedia is not a 'support the police, right or wrong' website" I agree with you. Wikipedia is actually about being neutral, and presenting the facts from a non-biased point of view. Labelling anything as "brutality" does not maintain that neutrality because it requires the editor to make a value judgement about the incident. Wikipedia asks editors not to make value judgements but to maintain a neutral point of view. Labelling anything as "brutality" whether it is by the police or anyone else, does not maintain a neutral point of view. And incidentally, your claim that the governing factor here is not "assertions made in this discussion" seems to imply that anything said in this discussion is irrelevant. That would seem to defeat the object of discussing the proposal, don't you think?  Cottonshirt  τ   05:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but purge -- There is the making of a category here, but the title is a POV one. The police are entitled to use force where necessary to make an arrest, and will have to do so where a suspect is resisting arrest.  Occasionally the police shoot some one dead in circumstances that are "justifiable homicide".  Sometimes, on investigation it turns out that the victim was innocent, but the fact that the police believed him to be a threat meant their action was justified.  Sometimes a defendant will allege police brutality as part of his defence strategy, hoping that the prosecution will be unable to prove the contrary.  Nevertheless, the police are not perfect:
 * In the past there have been cases where the police have beaten an innocent man into making a false confession.
 * There will be cases where police have used exceessive force in making an arrest.
 * Etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The proposer should address themselves to the broader category of Police Brutality not just one country in the sub category. -  Gallo glass  11:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to category:Alleged police brutality in England the current name is too much a Point of View pusher.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (copied from the other CfD) - Delete all except "victims of..." - I took a look at the categories and they're filled with BLPs, and riot events, and the like. A person is not "police brutality". A riot is not "police brutality". And so on. That means that, in application, these categories are (mis-)applied very broadly. As an alternative this tree could be split to Category:Victims of policy brutality by country and Category:Events with instances of police brutality, but really, I think WP:TNT applies here. For one thing, "by country" could be confusing due to questions of whether it meant the victim's home country or the location of the event. - jc37 16:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Rename to avoid POV --Nouniquenames (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2012 (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:Video game collections

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Video game collections to Category:Video game compilations
 * Nominator's rationale: The previous CfD received very little discussion and lacked consensus. Video game collecting, as Wikipedia and reliable sources report, is similar to stamp collecting or museum collections; video game collections are owned by hobbyists and include multiple, discrete video games. On the other hand, video game compilations are single video games that combine previous releases into one (see product bundling). The category in question refers explicitly to games such as Wii Sports, not to John Doe's collection of video games. A video game compilation category has almost nothing to do with Category:Collections. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom - potentially ambiguous (although I doubt we have any articles on video game collections in the hobby sense, it's conceivable someone might think that's what this category is for). Robofish (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename. Yep, compilations is far more unambiguous. Collections is way too broad and unencyclopediac.Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2012 (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:Competitions by nationality

 * 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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Competitions by nationality to Category:Competitions by country
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Subcategories take the form Category:Competitions in the United Kingdom etc. and appears to be based on where the competitions are held, not the nationality of the participants. Tim! (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: People have nationalities; countries do not. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as the daughter cats are countries.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom RafikiSykes (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2012 (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:Comics featuring anthropomorphic characters

 * 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: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 01:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:Comics featuring anthropomorphic characters to Category:Comic books featuring anthropomorphic characters and Category:Comic strips featuring anthropomorphic characters
 * Nominator's rationale: This category features both comic books and comic strips. Since "comic" is an ambiguous term, I think it should be split by which is which. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - the term used by long consensus is comics, This is due to international usage of the various terms, among other naming issues. That aside, comics characters often appear in multiple venues, so they would end up in both categories anyway. - jc37 05:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Comic books are ultimately compilations of comic strips; strips and books are thus not mutually exclusive categories. A split would introduce unnecessary overlap. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2012 (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:Politicians of Chinese descent

 * 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 arguments for deletion are very strong, but they are not held by a majority of commenters. Perhaps a broader discussion of the "(nationality) (occupation)s of (X) descent" categories would produce clearer results.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting politicians of chinese descent


 * Propose deleting american politicians of chinese descent


 * Propose deleting american politicians of hong kong descent


 * Propose deleting american politicians of taiwanese descent


 * Propose deleting thai politicians of chinese descent

Nominator's rationale: Try as I might, I just can't think of any serious reason why we would actually need to categorize politicians who work and live in countries outside of China by the fact that they happen to have Chinese ancestry; it seems to me like classic WP:OCAT by a fairly superficial shared characteristic that has little encyclopedic relevance. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: In my view, ethnic or national background is a worthy subject of discussion; see Asian Americans in government and politics. Whether you believe ethnicity and nationality should define someone or not, the categories still provide valuable insight. You can interpret someone's background however you wish or ignore it entirely, but often ethnic identification is a source of pride rather than an invitation to stereotyping. The article on Barack Obama belongs to the following categories, among others: African American academics, African American lawyers, African American memoirists, African American United States presidential candidates, African American United States Senators, and African-American Christians. I feel those categories are useful because they help to contextualize his experience. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * False comparison. "African American" is a broad sociocultural grouping which encompasses dozens of different ethnicities, not a single ethnicity as "of Chinese descent" is. To actually provide a valid comparison to this, Obama would need to be in a category specifically for "Politicians of Kenyan descent", which I note that he isn't (as one does not exist); "African American" categories would only be a valid parallel if the categories up for discussion were broadly defined as "Asian American", rather than specifically "of Chinese descent". And Asian Americans in government and politics certainly legitimizes a general category for Asian American politicians, as it fulfills the requirements of WP:CATGRS — but it does not warrant subcategorizing them by each and every individual ethnicity that falls within the umbrella of "Asian American". Bearcat (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support except these should be merges to eg Category:American people of Chinese descent. There is no objection to Category:American people of Chinese descent but Category:American people of Chinese descent by occupation and its subcats are dubious. Oculi (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Were we to merge the categories as you suggest, for the sake of consistency we would need to do the same to literally thousands of other categories. As I mentioned above: African American academics, African American lawyers, African American memoirists, African American United States presidential candidates, African American United States Senators, and African-American Christians... those would all need to be merged to African American people per your criteria. CaseyPenk (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * False comparison, per above comment. Nobody's suggesting that we shouldn't categorize people by sociocultural groupings, such as "African American" or "Asian American", which do actually have a demonstrable impact on the cultural and political context that the people operate in — but what's not necessary is to further subdivide that into individual ethnicities (e.g. Chinese or Japanese or Vietnamese; Kenyan or Ugandan or Malian or Nigerian; etc.) Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In principle I see what you're saying, but common scholarly practice supports the current categorization. That is, it's quite uncommon to break down the African American term by national or ethnic origin -- probably because many African Americans trace their ancestry to several decades or centuries ago, and to a variety of countries (or countries that don't exist in the same form today). The situation is quite different with Asian Americans, whose individual sub-groups each constitute distinct and perhaps independent ethnic / national categories. Since many Asian American families are recent immigrants (within the past 100 years, almost certainly) they retain much of their native culture and have not necessarily assimilated to broad Anglo-American culture, let alone "Asian-American" culture. (And what is "Asian American" culture? It's not driven by broad cultural traditions such as gospel music or the Civil Rights Movement. Perhaps Buddhism unifies Asian Americans, but even that comes in many forms and most people in East Asia aren't overtly religious anyways.)


 * The short of what I'm saying is that "Asian American" sometimes serves as an offensive and over-broad stereotype that ignores the very unique cultures of each of the respective Asian countries, and it's often necessary to discuss the individual practices of people from different countries. Perhaps even more important than scholarly practice, it's common for Korean Americans (for example) to identify as Korean in origin, while it would be most uncommon for Obama to identify as Kenyan in origin.


 * I do share your concern over the encyclopedic nature of these categories. Could we really make a full article out of these individual categories? That's open for debate. All I know is that this phenomena is not exclusive to this situation; for example Category:War video games set in the United States ... Category:Novels about orphans ... it's hard to say that novel-orphan cross-sections deserve entire articles independent of orphans and novels, so in these cases I think the categories are simply artificial sorting mechanisms that aren't encyclopedic in their own right. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - There is nothing remotely "superficial" about ethnic descent. What a ridiculous assertion. It is no less important than nationality. Moreover, many Chinese Americans (and Canadians) maintain strong ties to China, Taiwan and/or Hong Kong, which can be of great importance in terms of shaping diplomatic and/or commercial relations, etc. Cgingold (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that we delete all "People of X ethnicity" categories. What's superficial and unencyclopedic is the "Occupation of X ethnicity" intersections. Per WP:CATGRS, a category of this type should exist only if you could write a substantial and encyclopedic article demonstrating that the grouping has actually been recognized in academic literature as a meaningful and significant one — so this should only exist if you can write a real article which demonstrates that "Politicians of Chinese descent" are meaningfully different, in a sourceably significant way, from siblings such as "Politicians of Japanese descent" or "Politicians of Vietnamese descent" or "Politicians of Nepalese descent". Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, and upmerge them to the applicable "FOOian people of BARian descent" categories. I don't think we need to break down these highly specific ethnicity intersections by occupation, and I don't see these as being akin to the African-American categories. IMO, "American people of Asian descent" would be more akin to "African American". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete the problem with the African-American analogy is that for it to work people would need to demonstrate actual coverage of American politicians of Chinese descent as an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither American politicians of African descent nor African American politicians nor any article of that type exists. By your standards, we should also delete African American profession-related categories. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As close as we get to that type of thing is List of African-American Republicans and List of African-American officeholders during the Reconstruction, but nothing approaching what one would call a "lead article" or even a broad list. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CATGRS doesn't require that a lead article actually exist to support a category of this type; it merely requires that it be possible to write one. So the fact that you could write a legitimate article about the role of African Americans in politics is sufficient — that article doesn't have to already be in place. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's very much possible to write lead articles for each of the categories you propose to delete. Given my personal interest in the subject I very well might, but in any case I consider these legitimate topics that can stand on their own. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you honestly propose even one serious reference that provides a serious, in-depth discussion of what makes "politicians of Chinese descent" a notable and unique class of thing? Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say Chinese American politics would be a more appropriate and feasible title. The issue at hand is about much more than individuals - it's about the community as a whole, not just the (small number) of elected officials. In fact, the lack of elected officials would be a large topic of discussion within Chinese American politics. (I also believe we should have an article on Asian American politics, because there's absolutely enough content to write a lengthy article on political participation, enfranchisement, notable people, etc.) But, to answer your question, I found
 * Multiplexing Racial and Ethnic Planes: Chinese American Politics in Globalized Immigrant Suburbs. Lai, James S. Amerasia Journal.
 * Chinese-American Politics: A Silent Minority Tests Its Clout. Kwong, Peter; Lum, JoAnn. The Nation.
 * Not a lot, but somewhere to start. First and foremost though, I do think Asian American politics is a worthy subject of inquiry, because there's a large amount of literature on the topic. As to more specific articles, I think it can be done; it will just take some work. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; that makes a lot more sense and indeed sounds a lot more plausible. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if you're willing to commit at least a bit of time into developing that (no rush, obviously). Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying, develop Asian American politics? (I know of at least one book entirely on the subject.) CaseyPenk (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Most of this discussion has been quite US-centric. I have no opinion for or against Category:Thai politicians of Chinese descent, though I note for example that Britannica (access required) states that "... the Sino-Thai have come to play a preeminent role not only in the economy but also in politics. Since the 1990s several prime ministers and a majority of members of parliament have had Chinese ancestors." --Paul_012 (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. Intra-Asian Chinese immigrants play a significant role in several countries. CaseyPenk (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Most of these categories seem to be well enough populated to be worth having. There is a substantial Chinese (mostly Cantonese) diaspora in southeast Asia, and this ethnic group tends to operate together politically, partly because they constitute a commercial elite.  I note that the Marcos family appears in one category: this points to the need for a Filipino sub-cat.   Peterkingiron (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually the above argument only suggests to me that category:African American politicians should be deleted unless someone makes a lead article. The head article here is truly bizarre, why do we accept trans-national politicians by descent articles at all.  Descent is not the same as ethnicity, although the line between the two is blurred.  So a category such as Category:Roma politicians would be a very different issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat and Oculi --Nouniquenames (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is over-categorization. The idea behind the creation of these categories should be transcribed to a list which would be just as valuable, (if it doesn't already exist.) There is no need for this to be a category. Brad7777 (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the problem here is one of naming and scope. What we should seek to catpure via categories are significant intersections of ethnicity and occupation, such as Category:Thai Chinese politicians and Category:Chinese-American politicans. What we have instead are thousands of almost meaningless intersections of Country1 {occupation} of Country2 descent. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all and consider individually. In the context of a career in politics, Chinese descent – or, more to the point, Chinese 'ethnicity' – can be highly defining if we consider countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and Panama. The same applies, to a different extent, in the United States, where people somtimes are grouped under the label 'Asian-American' but social organization often reflects narrower identities, such as Chinese-American, Korean-American, and Japanese-American. Linguistic differences between the various Asian-American communities play a large role in perpetuating separate Asian-American identities.
 * Comment In which case wouldn't articles/lists be more efficient? Brad7777 (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keeping the categories might help editors write the associated articles. So perhaps the categories can be useful in the short- to medium- term for organizational purposes. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Brad7777 (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends, I think, on the specific instance. In my opinion, a category for Thai Chinese or Indonesian Chinese politicians is warranted regardless of whether we have a list – see e.g. Category:Sri Lankan Tamil politicians and List of Sri Lankan Tamils. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not know enough about the subject to have an opinion about that. For the cases that you have stated there probably is a good reason for the category as well (which is always helpful in the category summary,) but a lot of the time the divisions like this seem arbitrary, adding unnecessary depth where I think a list could be used instead. Brad7777 (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that many times they are arbitrary and unnecessary. In those situations where ethnicity is salient (e.g. Sri Lankan Tamils in the politics of Sri Lanka, Thai Chinese in the politics of Thailand), it is useful to have an ethnic category. It becomes ridiculous, however, when taken to the extreme to create intersections for no other purpose than because it is possible: e.g. Liechtenstein people of Palauan descent. Unfortunately, the former, more selective approach is also more time-consuming, and so it appears, for the moment, that we have defaulted to the latter approach. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * delete (sorry if I said this before) this is an excessive three-way intersect of nationality, descent and profession, with little to show there is any connecting characteristic of all the people in these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite, I think. At least the Thailand category is a two-way intersection of ethnicity and profession; granted, the correct name would be Category:Thai Chinese politicians, but that's an issue better left for another discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per everyone voted "Delete". Steam5 (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the ethnic descent could effect peoples.--Alfredo ougaowen (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2012 (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:Celebrity Twitter accounts

 * 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) 03:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Celebrity Twitter accounts to Category:Twitter accounts
 * Nominator's rationale: celebrity is highly judgemental. this should be for any notable twitter feed (account) which has an article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We should never have an article about a Twitter account, celebrity or not, separate from the article on the person who maintains it — the person might well be notable, but that doesn't mean their Twitter account is notable as a separate topic from them. Delete category and shitcan every last article in it too (please, please, please.) Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and Support rename Deleting the category makes little sense unless the articles are going to be deleted. Support per nom. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename category and keep it
 * Rename because... celebrity is difficult to define and can be seen as a pejorative. And it's kind of redundant for Wikipedia to call someone a celebrity -- their mere inclusion on Wikipedia means they are (probably) notable, and thus a "celebrity" of some form. In other words, the only people on Wikipedia are celebrities.
 * Keep because... At the very least, the subject of "King of Twitter" Justin Bieber on Twitter has reached notability. From the article: "Dustin Curtis, a Twitter employee, said 'racks of servers are dedicated' to Bieber." Whether you believe Twitter is a valuable medium or not (I tend to think it's a waste of time), these phenomena have received widespread media attention. We are talking about tens of millons of followers here. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And CaseyPenk is right: this is a discussion about how to categorise existing articles. Discussions of whether or nor articles should be deleted are made elsewhere, at WP:AFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Cat and the articles should go. Just because something has received plenty of coverage in the media doesn't mean that we need to have an article on it. Wikipedia is not an advertisment.Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I encourage everyone giving their responses to keep in mind the purpose and scope of this discussion: we are deciding what to do with the category, not the articles within it. If you want to delete all "John Doe on Twitter" articles, that's a very different issue. Please see Article for deletion if you would like to pursue that route. CaseyPenk (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator. No need to divide articles by whether or not they relate to celebrities.
 * Rename per nom. No need to specify 'celebrity'; anyone whose Twitter account is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article is necessarily going to be a famous person. But there is a need for the category, as long as we have the articles. Category:Twitter accounts is fine. Robofish (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I just created the new category. It is sort of a no-brainer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And I just emptied it and deleted it. You've been here long enough to know that attempting to pre-empt the result like this is disruptive. BencherliteTalk 22:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not convinced that this is needed. However right now two only two of the 5 articles are up for deletion or merger, so it appears 3 of them are stable.  It is not clear these articles would really go anywhere else, so I reluctantly have to say we should rename the category per nom, for now.  If it is decided that the content articles are not needed, than the category should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, which will also allow certain articles currently in Category:Twitter to be put in it e.g. THEDavidTennant and USAbilAraby. Tim! (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to category:Twitter (its only parent) which is not so large that it needs to be subdivided yet. Categories with only one parents do not generally add value to the category navigation structure.  There's no comparable subcategory at category:Facebook or category:YouTube, for example, but if it is going to be kept, under whatever name, can someone please find another parent category for it? BencherliteTalk 08:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is no compareable category at category:Facebook or category:YouTube (yet), does not mean this should not exist. If a second parent is found would that make it a more proper keep?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. RafikiSykes (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge somehow or Delete Rename -- It is well established that the question of who is (or is not) a celebrity is completely POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleting will leave some of these without any categories.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. are you stating your opinion about the articles or the categories?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As pointed out to me my initial suggestion was inappropriate. Nevertheless, I am doubtful of the value of the articles.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2012 (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.