The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename, This is not a big deal, but "sports equipment" probably gives a clearer idea of the scope of this category, as "sporting goods" is more of a retail term than a sports practitioner's term to my mind. The lead articles is at sports equipment and several of the subcategories use the word "equipment". Nathanian22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete, Do we really need categories for fraternity? I thought not, so lets have a discussion. Catchpole19:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep, I think categories for fraternities is very important. Brothers of almost every fraternity consider their fraternity to be a defining part of their life as much as where they went to school. Acidskater21:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have a lot of categories on the subject. I think it should depend on whether the fraternity is a dozen of guys on a campus, or a chapter of an old nationwide organization. This appears to be the latter, so keep. (Radiant) 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete There is an existing hierachy of categories for dozens of types of death, so this one is a duplicate unless it is restricted to people who meet a fixed definition of "celebrity", which would not be possible. Wimstead22:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename This directory currently contains articles on different morphological types of galaxies (spiral galaxies, elliptical galaxies, etc.), different types of active galaxies (galaxies with supermassive black holes such as Seyfert galaxies, quasars, etc.) and some additional extragalactic astronomy jargon that can only be loosely conisdered to be a "galaxy type" (such as satellite galaxy).
The listing of all of these different articles together is not ideal, as the subjects are not necessarily analogous. Most galaxies can be classified simultaneously as one type of active galaxy and one morphological type (for example, a spiral galaxy may also be classified as a Seyfert galaxy, or an elliptical galaxy may also be classified as a Seyfert galaxyorradio galaxy). This is analogous to having a category that lists both the professions and nationalities of people (for example, having the articles American, French, astronomer, and accountant in the same category).
Another problem is that the listing of articles on active galaxies currently replicates the listing in the top level of Category:Active galaxies. Placing them in another category is simply redundant.
Currently, Wikipedia does not have a category for galaxy morphological types. If the active galaxies and some of the other non-morphology terms were removed from this category and the category was renamed Category:Galaxy morphological types, the category would be much more useful. Therefore, I suggest the rename.
The creator of this category, Zzzzzzzzzzz, has stated that he is attempting to list articles on types of galaxies in a separate category from the articles on the individual galaxies themselves. However, as the hierarchy of Category:Active galaxies demonstrates, the top level of a category tree can be used to list the general articles on the types of active galaxies, and the subcategories can be used to list articles on specific galaxies. A category on general galaxy types (the status quo) is simply redundant.
Oppose, as galaxy types is useful for navigational purposes by allowing people to access a category where they can look up all articles on types of galaxies. galaxy morphological types would be a subcategory of galaxy types. Class and specific-individual articles should be able to have separate but related heirarchies. The related specific-individual category to galaxy morphological type would be Category:Galaxies by morphology. That the base level of the heirarchy active galaxies contains articles on all types of active galaxies does not exclude their membership in a future Category:active galaxy types under galaxy types. Aside from that, there are galaxy types that are in Category:Galaxy types that would not belong under Category:Morphological galaxy types because they do not pertain to morphology. Zzzzzzzzzzz08:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for now. I know nothing about galaxies (apart from assuming that I live in one), so I have approached this as a layperson, which is probably advantageous in assessing what's to be done. So far as I can see, Dr Submillimeter is right that a category on morphological types would be useful, to avoid comparing apples and oranges. However, I think that Zzzzzzzzzzz is right that the types of active galaxy also need categorisation, and I like the idea that they could be categorised under a new Category:active galaxy types, but I dislike the idea of sticking an extra layer in between. So rather than having Category:Galaxy types with the subcats Category:Morphological galaxy types and Category:active galaxy types whhy not create Category:Morphological galaxy types and Category:active galaxy types as new sub-categories of Category:Galaxies? I may have misunderstood something, but it seems to me that answers all concerns, witout creating an extra level of hierarchy. If that's acceptable, I would then support deleting Category:Galaxy types (which should by then be empty). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)11:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename and Populate If properly used would be useful category for the Hilton Hotels Corporation. For example, it should be used for the corporation Hilton Hotels Corporation, the flagship brand Hilton Hotels, the founder Conrad Hilton, all other brands noteworthy enough for articles from the following list Doubletree, Embassy Suites Hotels, Hampton Inn®, Hampton Inn & Suites, Hilton Garden Inn, Hilton Grand Vacations, Homewood Suites by Hilton, Scandic and The Waldorf-Astoria Collection. It could also have links to many of the companies in this section Hilton_Hotels_Corporation#HistoryTonyTheTiger19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional characters with the power to absorb kinetic energy
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Strong keep. We have Category:Cult films which corresponds to article Cult films. This category corresponds to article Cult computer and video games and it can be regulated as such. Inclusion of any particular game should be determined on that article's talk page, and properly sourced. When that systematic approach is taken, there will be few worries of ambiguity here. — coelacantalk — 02:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The definition in the article doesn't even SAY anything. They "usually" have limited sales, and they have "generally" great reviews. Oh look, the weasel words took away any definition. -Amarkovblahedits05:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article clearly defines what makes a cult game - & examples of such - if you just read the first few parts of it. Also, like Coel says, discussions about whether certain games should be included or not can just be made on the discussion page, & if we have a category for cult films, why not cult games? There certainly are more than enough of them to warrant a category. I really see no reason to delete this article other than some people may be confused about some inclusions. If you don't agree about some of the games included, just tell me what they are & I'll look them up further. - SlyDante 02:51, December 15, 2006
Hey, I actually found my info from various sites & video game magazines, which I will mention if neccessary. But I just categorize them, I'm not in charge of maintaining all the articles there. I only put in certain games that I knew were "cult", some put in others. I say that if the game's actual article can't provide a source (or at least mention what makes it a cult game), then we should just remove it from the category. - SlyDante 02:51, December 15, 2006
Once again, you can say the same things about cult films as well. A lot of the 185 films in that category are apparently supposed to have cult status, but there are several fuzzy choices there as well. And cult games gain their status for very much the same reasons films gain it as well (low sales, word of mouth, critical acclaim, large fan base, success found a while after initial release, etc.). So why doesn't anyone complain about that category as well? - SlyDante 16:47, December 16, 2006
Okay, Game Informer - an actual gaming publication compared a bunch of random Wiki users - Defines cult games as the following in their November 2006 issue (#163):
"The games that are remembered in every console generation aren't necessarily the ones that sold the most or scored the highest. recent years have seen several titles that have made crucial and lasting contributions to art of game deisgn, yet their releases have gone largely unnoticed by the gaming public. Of course, there have been examples of this throughout the industry's history, but this list chronicles just those released in the past six years - cult classic that may have been lost in the shuffle, but with dedicated fans to ensure they are never forgotten."
...The intro to their article "The Top 10 Cult Classics of the 21st Century". And as you may have figured, it provides 10 good examples of what cult games are. And also, some of you say this is a POV topic. But aren't your comments on how useless cult status POVs as well? Just because you "think" cult status is useless, that automatically makes it useless? This here is actual research. All you have are just your opinions that the term "cult status" is useless. So just because you disagree with a term, that gives you the right to delete categories based on cult status in media? This whole consideration began with questioning how you define a cult game. Well, there's the definition. Enjoy. - SlyDante 12:40, December 21, 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
No vote. Is it current as of this week? It might be theoretically difficult to keep current, but we do have some hardcore space enthusiasts around here. If they are currently maintaining it satisfactorally, then let them continue. If the entries are out of date, then delete. — coelacantalk — 03:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for several reasons. The cat is kept up to date as there are hundreds of hardcore space enthusiasts on wiki. One time I added a Soyuz crew as they were blasting off and I was greeted by an 'Edit conflict' message as someone had beaten me to it. If the main argument against the cat is that it must be kept up to date to be useful, please find a time when the cat has been even minutes out of date, never mind weeks or months as some have been suggesting. Also, if you wanted to know who was in space right now, where would you go to if not here? Philip Stevens06:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The category requires continuous active maintenance to account for people on short-term space flights. Moreover, Wikipedia would not have a category for the analogous situation for people on the Earth (such as Category:People currently in France, or Category:People currently inside the White House). Dr. Submillimeter07:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the maintenance is coming along just fine. The upkeep isn't falling upon you, it's being diligently performed by people who enjoy doing it. Wikipedia is still a community, and if this subset of the community is pulling their own weight, then good for them. Of course there would be no category for "people currently in france" because that's not particularly remarkable, is it? And this category has no danger of being overcrowded, unlike your earth-based categories. — coelacantalk — 14:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dynamically changing data is not encyclopaedic. No one will be interested what "currently" was used to mean after 100 years have passed. -- Goldie(tell me)07:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, "not encyclopedic". While commonly used, I'm afraid that this is still a made up weasel term and it doesn't mean anything in these discussions. As for the validity or usefulness of changing data, why do we have the {{current}} tag if it's not useful? The fact is we aren't using Wikipedia 100 years from now, we're using it today, and if this is useful today then there's no reason to get rid of it.
I didn't mean "self-contradictory". In my opinion, the average "living person" will remain alive for longer than the average "person in space" will remain in space. Besides, the only reason we have the category for living people is so that people can watch it for libel and other negativity; it's not a particularly useful for grouping articles otherwise. (Radiant) 14:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We also have "living people" to anticipate question, "it says this person was born in 1925. What has happened to them?" You might not find it useful for your purposes, but others do. The same may apply here. You might not find it useful to know who is currently in space, but others may. And it doesn't matter how long someone might be in space. You're not the one who has to maintain it. The people who are maintaining it are doing a fine job. You might have an argument if the category was out of date, but it's not. — coelacantalk — 14:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the category is well-maintained, and all the deletion arguments so far have been extremely weak. Also per Philip Stevens, "if you wanted to know who was in space right now, where would you go to if not here?" Good point. — coelacantalk — 14:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible Keep, Here is some evidence of how well maintained this cat is. STS-121 launched at 18:37:55 UTC 4 July 2006 and entered space some minutes after that. Here is the edits of the crew pages from that time. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. The shuttle then landed at 13:14:43 UTC 17 July 2006. Look at the edits at that time, [8][9][10][11][12][13]. To put this cat up for deletion because it's not kept up to date is ludicrous, and insulting to those who do keep it updated. It is probably to most diligently kept up to date page on Wikipedia. 86.142.90.1514:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I'd prefer it if all entries were in a {{selfref}} to prevent this showing up out-of-date information in mirrors. --ais523 15:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Living people is the exception to the rule, the rule being that we should not have categories whose members would change frequently because they are difficult to maintain. The fact that people are (for now) maintaining it doesn't change that at all. Recury17:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hogwash. There is no such rule. If there is, point me to it. A category may be deleted if it is unmaintainable. This category is maintained, proving that it is maintainable. When you have no grounds for deletion, don't try to make up new ones. — coelacantalk — 18:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is informal so there's nothing to point to except other experienced editor's comments here and that there aren't any other categories whose members change as frequently as this (except for Living people). Recury22:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a guideline at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28categories%29#Occupation that specifies that Occupation categories should not be divided into "current" or "former" categories. For example, Category:Former child actors and Category:Current Minnesota Twins players should not exist. So you should not, for example, create "Category:Current astronauts" and "Category:Former astronauts", but instead merge both into "Category:Astronauts". Note, though, that this category is dividing people by status, not occupation, so is slightly different. Dugwiki20:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd usually be very keen to delete any category where entries become out of date so quickly, but the exceptionally thorough maintenance of this category has encouraged me to make an exception: the only problem I can see here is with mirror sites, and I think that's an acceptable risk. However, I don't want this keep to set a precedent, and this category should be deleted if it ceases to be so thoroughly maintained. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)19:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is it not reasonable to presume that if and when it ceases to be kept up to date, no-one will think to nominate it at that time? Wimstead22:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever met a space enthusiast? I assure you this is a question of if, not when. And if that ever does happen, roving deletionist cabals will ensure that it will come up for deletion within two months, tops. Overall, it would be inaccurate for far less time than it was accurate, so the overall utility of the category remains in the black. And again, this is a very unlikely if. — coelacantalk — 23:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While browsing the Sunita Williams page, I wondered how exclusive a club she belonged to ... seeing the Category:People_currently_in_space at the bottom of the page my immediate thoughts were, "How brilliant!" and "Only on Wikipedia!". Imagine my surprise then, when I read that the category was up for deletion. Given the fact that it is kept current, and its obvious usefulness, I don't see any reason for that. My only complaint is that there does not seem to be an overarching Category:People who have been in space. Hope you'll forgive my stream of consciousness reasoning. Abecedare00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories that date quickly are a bad idea. Maintenance, even if it happens to be well performed right now, is too difficult. ×Meegs04:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this category is included by Template {{In space}} and is removed when that template is removed. It is a specialized version of the {{current}} tag and is maintained the same way. It's displayed at the very top of an article and notes "information may change as the mission progresses", and if someone sees it there and the mission's over, then the template comes down. Due to the high visibility of this template, maintainance issues for this category really should not factor into anyone's worries. Furthermore this category may in fact be part of the maintainance system for the template, so it would be a very bad idea to cut them apart. — coelacantalk — 04:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I mentioned above, there is a Wiki guideline against dividing occupations into current and former subdivisions (eg Category:Former astronauts and Category:Current astronauts). As a general rule of thumb, like the occupations, most categories shouldn't hinge on keeping up to date with current information. But there are exceptions, such as Category:Living People and Category:Upcoming albums, which categorize articles based on their current status and which require constant maintainence. In such cases, I think it's ok for a category to require constant maintainence if it is both a particularly noteworthy way to categorize the articles and it does not appear that maintaining the category will be particularly difficult. Given that there are so few people in space at a given time and it appears the category is being maintained without much difficulty, and that most everyone above seems to agree that knowing someone is in space is particularly noteworthy, I'm ok with keeping the category intact. Dugwiki21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but make a list. I can see both sides of this, and I came very close to saying keep. I don't think Category:Living people should be used as justification for any category. When it was created, many (most?) of the CFD regulars wanted to delete it and it was kept by Jimbo's decree. However, since it has been around a while, the sky has not fallen, and I think it even serves an encyclopedic function as an biographical index. Category:People currently in space could be useful, but I think the claims about problems with updating it are valid. Even if it is being kept up to date now, it might not remain so, and anyone looking at the category would have no way of knowing if it was up to date. AList of people in space, listed in chronological order (I'm really surprised this doesn't exist) can haveLists that already exist convey information about the mission, say when they went up, when they came down, or when they are scheduled to come down. This is a much better way to present this information. It is much more useful, easier to maintain, and easier to verify. I see no such advantage for the same information in category form. The issue here is not just whether this information could be maintained in category form (it could), but if this is our best option, and I don't think it is. -- Samuel Wantman07:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, populated by a reasonable template ({{in space}} - most other current event templates also have categories), contains useful information on its own, and is kept up to date. Mairi21:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
This category is overlapped heavily by Category:American basketball players. At least 75% of professional American basketball players are African-American, making not helpful to anyone interested in editing these articles.
Delete (reluctantly), it would be appropriate if we anticipated categories for most other races. I think they may be forthcoming as international influence increases. However, given that they do not exist it does not seem right to keep this one. TonyTheTiger19:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My point is that this cite says the demarcation is where the "combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". For all other races other than AA it probably is a cultural topic, but they don't have categories, thus making this one deletable. TonyTheTiger20:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the category is the majority of Category:American basketball players cat. Race/ethnicity are useful axes when minority or under-represented in the field (it's an indication of social connections, not natural/subject connections). Asian-American basketball players might be of use; African-American, not. --LQ23:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The noninator's reason for deletion is not important. It doesn't matter for this discussion if having this category causes redundant work. We should not make individual categorization decisions based upon how much work they create. What does matter is our guidelines. This category is an intersection of Category:American sportspeople and Category:American basketball players. The only reason to keep an intersection like this would be if it is useful and studied. I think this is a borderline case. Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories says that Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writersorCategory:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You must be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category is not valid. I think an article, or part of an article could be written about the topic. It could discuss the importance of basketball in inner-city black neighborhoods, the large percentages of players that are black, etc... Saying that we "must be able to write a substantial and encyclopedia head article" might be too strongly worded. Perhaps it should say that it "must be possible to write a valid cited article or substantial section of an article about this topic." There are also many exceptions to this. A glaring one is many of the subcategories about nationality. I think it would be very difficult to write an article or section of an article about Canadian biologists yet we have a category of that name and thousands like it. As far as I know, there is nothing special worth mentioning about being a biologist from Canada as opposed to any other country. There is a strong community consensus to have these intersection categories and they do serve a purpose and should probably stick around until the software can create these intersections automatically. I also don't think it matters if other ethnicities have similar subcategories. If there is nobody who thinks "African-American basketball players" is a useful and studied categorization, I'd remove my support. That is the litmus test -- studied and useful. As this is a borderline case, I think it the default position of "keep" should prevail. If this category is kept, this category should duplicate the listings in Category:American basketball players -- Samuel Wantman00:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Youngamerican. It's a very redundant category; for example, the Washington Wizards currently have only black players on their active roster (their only non-black player, Darius Songaila, has been injured all season). Most other teams have maybe 2-3 non-black players. If kept, please follow T. Anthony's suggestion and create categories for other ethnicities. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article you're talking about would be the history of segregation in basketball, or history of racism in basketball (or perhaps in U.S. sports as a whole). The category under debate here is almost entirely populated by players who are active today or were active in the last ten years, and that proportion will approach (asymptotically) 100% over the next few years. There's no connection. | Mr. Darcytalk04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I appreciate that this has little value, but the African American category is not going to go away and needs to be broken down. Chicheley11:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. This is not an easy decision. The category has about 1,200 members. Rather high. I don't see this as a meaningful way to classify basketball players. Given this, it does not address the issue of how to sub cat Category:African Americans, but that is a different problem. With Category:African Americans being so large, there needs to be a better way to subcat that. I'd like that 'problem' addressed. Vegaswikian01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how Vegaswikian or anyone else will be able to think of a more appropriate subcategory of Category:African Americans in which to place articles about about African American basketball players than this one, so the options are adding them all to the parent category, which would be a great deal worse than the present position, excluding basket ball players (and only basketball players!) from the African American category, or keeping it as it is. Olborne02:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why do we need an African American category at all when we don't have a similar one for Asian, caucasian, or hispanic players.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename all to follow the category naming convention for events in military history (c.f. Category:Battles by country, Category:Naval battles by country, Category:Wars by country, etc.), and, more generally, the guideline adopted by the Military history WikiProject that military conflicts be categorized by the countries that participated in them, not by their geographic location (which, incidentally, is the case for the actual contents of these categories; hence the presence of both a UK and an England category).
For reference: the reason why WPMILHIST has rigorously avoided categorizing by location is because it's a choice between using the modern country where the battlefield is currently located (which is often a fairly meaningless association; the battles of Alexander the Great wind up being scattered over a dozen arbitrary countries, for example), and using the historical country at the time of the event (which begs the question of which country to use, as battles—particularly sieges—have a tendency to result in border changes; if the cause of the battle is a dispute over the border, it's not particularly NPOV—or even correct—to arbitrarily assign it to have taken place in one of the countries in question). Kirill Lokshin00:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by these changes, and weakly oppose for that reason, despite the valid points raised re: WPMILHIST. "Sieges of X" seems to imply a siege of an entire country, whereas surely these categories hold items about sieges within a country. The Balcombe Street Siege was not a siege "of the United Kingdom", only of a very small part of it. Blockading the English Channel, however, could be regarded as a siege of the UK. Grutness...wha?07:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename! I have missed the discussion as am not participating to this project. However the proposed names can be read as if the aggressor have besieged the whole country which is, er ... inadequate. IMO much better approach will be to use historical countries - "Sieges in Persia", "Sieges in Assyria", etc. The siege is held only in defender's territory, the border change is happenning afterwards, so there is no need for hundreds of categories. -- Goldie(tell me)07:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about the case when country A besieges a city that it had controlled before a war, but that had been captured by country B? Or when ownership of a city is disputed between two parties, neither of which controlled it before the war? Why is the defender always assumed to actually own the place, in other words? Kirill Lokshin10:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NCCAT. Also not all sieges are military, "sieges of" sounds wrong, and I don't see how "of" avoids the question of choice between present and defucnt countries anyway. Tim!08:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using "of" avoids the issue of location; if we're talking about the countries that participated in an event, we pretty much have to use the historical ones of the time. (And anyways: what part of NCCAT supports this?) Kirill Lokshin10:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err, that's utter nonsense. The convention for battles was originally added to the still-developing guideline in November 2005 by the people working on it at that time, and has been unquestioned since. Kirill Lokshin18:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do recall that guidelines are meant to represent the actual practice of Wikipedia editors, yes? The fact that something has been universally applied for a year with no objections shows a definite consensus for its use. Kirill Lokshin19:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true here too; it's possible for country A to be besieging a city in country B defended by country C, for example, in which case knowing where the siege was wouldn't tell you anything about either the besieger or the besieged. Kirill Lokshin10:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I do contend that it can be perceived as ambiguous on the besieger/besieged, the ambiguity of "of" is rather non existant and fits into the naming convention used by MilHist.--Dryzen16:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any ambiguity at all. "Sieges of England" means "Sieges upon England". Just like "Battle of Gettysburg" was an "attack upon Gettysburg". Any attack "of" a place is an attack "upon" that place, no ambiguity whatsoever. — coelacantalk — 17:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. That said, "Sieges of England" strongly implies a very large-scale attack upon most of England, or most of populated England. Whereas a single siege of London is a "siege in England". — coelacantalk — 18:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of the word "siege" is to "surround and attack a fortified place in such a way as to isolate it from help and supplies, and if you read through [this] definition, you will find that siege implies "surrounding a 'city' and cutting off its communications." This would seem to be at odds with your contention (and that of a number of other editors) that users are likely to become confused by this renaming. If the implication (and general usage) of the word is limited to a city, I do not think it likely that users will believe that the entire country of England has been besieged on several separate occasions. (A country might be blockaded, but that is another matter). Carom19:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be nitpicky now. The city of Altamira, Brazil is larger than the nation of Liechtenstein. Can the nation of Liechtenstein be sieged? It contains more than one city. — coelacantalk — 19:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, it's not realistically possible to besiege the "nation of Liechtenstein". This isn't a factor of size, though, but of the fact that the target of a siege must necessarily be some defined "fortified area" (whether purposely, as in a castle, or incidentally, as in a cluster of buildings"). A siege of an entire nation doesn't make any more sense than a siege of an open field; there's no system of defensive works against which a siege could be directed. Kirill Lokshin19:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict)The question at hand is not really whether, in theory, an army could lay siege to Liechtenstein (or Andorra, or any of the other tiny countries around the world). If it has never been done, maintaining category names based on the possibility that someone might, in the future, lay siege to an entire country is, in my opinion, teetering dangerously into crystal balling. The question is really whether or not users are likely to believe that the category "Sieges of England" refers to sieges laid to the entire nation. Some editors believe that this is the case, I believe that the general usage of the word siege (never mind the correct usage) make such an interpretation unlikely. Carom20:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Malta" wasn't a country before 1964; it's used here as merely the name of an island. You'll note that the first one isn't called the "Siege of the Order of St. John", for example. Kirill Lokshin21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose None of these countries have ever been beseiged. It seems blindingly obvious to me that when a convention will lead to names that are patently factually incorrect, it cannot be applied. It might be possible to rename this category, but only if someone comes up with new names that aren't blatantly misleading. Wimstead22:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose It seems to me that sieges are more clearly defined by the place they occurred at, rather than who besieged who. There have been sieges in France by the French (Compiègne, Orléans), the English (Boulogne, Harfleur), the Vikings (Paris) and the Germans (Paris, Strabourg),amongst others. However, French made sieges in Italy (Genoa...), China (Tuyen Quang), the Ottoman empire (Acre), Spain (Saragossa, Gerona...) etc. Renaming the categories severely alter the scope. Circeus00:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes; the whole point is that sieges (and all battles) are actually being categorized according to the second principle in practice. (You'll note that these are sub-categories of the relevant "Battles of X" categories for that very reason.) Kirill Lokshin02:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the proposed names don't tell anyone that. The category names need to be clear to everyone, not just people deeply involved in writing military history articles on Wikipedia. Renames on the lines of Category:Seiges involving French forces might work, but the present proposal is worse than useless. Greg Grahame19:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While I recognize that "Sieges of X" can have the connotation (or, in fact, denotation) of "Sieges upon X" or "Sieges against X", it does fit beautifully within our standards for other categories- "Battles of X", "Wars of X", "Military history of X"... LordAmeth14:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as the proposed names imply that it is the country being besieged, which isn't the case. If naming conventions result in poor names, it's a good reason to ignore the conventions for that case. Perhaps something like Category:Sieges involving England might be better? Mairi20:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very silly proposal per comments above. This is a good example of why renamings should be dealt with on this page, and not foisted on it by prearrangement between groups of people who do not normally deal with categories, who discuss a proposal elsewhere, then come here and load this page with rapid fire votes for their bad idea. Osomec08:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Very strong oppose and reverse merge into Category:Silicon Valley people It is empty now, but I strongly suspect that this is a bad idea. "Silicon Valley people" refers to people who work in the tech industry in Silicon Valley, and it is a hundred to one on that that is what the creator of this category intended. It is not the same sort of thing as a "people by location" category, and in any case there is no administrative unit called "Silicon Valley". Category:People from San Jose, California should be removed after merging, as that is a geographical category. Landolitan21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous discussion was not allowed to run its course or closed in an appropriate fashion. The majority of users who contibuted recognised that this is an industrial category, not a gegraphical category. By choosing to ignore that in his reference to the previous discussion, and incorrectly implying that the previous debate simply endorsed his preferred option (and he participated last time too) ProveIt started this discussion on a misleading footing and I would ask Amarkov and TonyTheTiger to review their position. Landolitan21:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what happened was that the previous discussion got closed when it was discovered that the original incarnation was created by a banned user. As to Silicon Valley people vs. People from Silicon Valley it's sort of an edge case, since yes, it's obviously an industrial category, but it's also a real place, a place I've lived and worked for over twenty years. I think there's a case that could be made for either convention. These two categories ought to be merged together, I don't actually care that strongly which gets kept ... but one should become a redirect so it doesn't happen again. -- ProveIt(talk)01:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
