The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
Keep, or better yet rename. I gather this category is meant (and used) for the fine old sport of cricket, and holds articles on competitions in which a particular type of match is played, which are actually and formally called One-Day matches. It is not meant for general sporting tournaments with a duration of one day. However, it would be better I think to include Cricket in the category title, just to make it clear to those unfortunates who may not be familiar with this masterly pursuit- I'd suggest something like Category:One-Day International Cricket competitions, preferring 'competition' to 'tournament' as the former would seem to me to be more common. However, any name change should probably be run past Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket for input and discussion.--cjllw | TALK23:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, but rename. At the very least it needs better capitalisation, and the addition of the word cricket will no doubt save some confusion. I'd argue that tournament is more widely used than competition, however, though it's probably a close call either way. Grutness...wha?23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the category, but rename also. I have no preference one way or another as to the final wording, but I do agree with CJLL and Grut that "cricket" needs to be in the final cat name. — Dale Arnett23:49, 6 March 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 page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
Delete as inherently vague and POV. We've previously deleted categories for "controversial" books and films; this probably has less reason to exist, lest we see every article on a politician dumped in here... Postdlf15:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing 'vague' about this category. Few would argue that people like Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush, Louis Farrakhan, and Fred Phelps (just to name a few of the people listed) can't all be legitimately tagged as controvercial public figures. News, and mass media in general, regularly adds the "controvercial" stamp to specific names in the public eye — therefore, again, I see nothing "vague" about the category. Please do not delete this. Dtowng16:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about Prince? Tom Cruise? Courtney Love? You could argue that our fascination with celebrity lives doesn't necessarily equal controversy. This category has no set criteria and there's no rhyme or reason to the people who are listed in it. Rhobite15:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inherently POV. I am mostly concerned that people will get added to this list who just aren't so clearly controversial. There's no established objective way to determine if the person belongs in the category or not. While it may be clear for Bush and bin Laden, it won't be so clear for others. Paris Hilton, for example. She's not controversial, she's just slutty and stupid. --Yamla16:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The place for arguments about who belongs on this is on the discussion page. That disputes might arise is no reason to delete the legitimate information. This category is a good starting point for someone researching controversial people. pat872203:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. There are some people who HAVE made names for themselves on controversy. And I would say that Paris Hilton, with her public antics & much publicized sex tape IS controversial! - Nwdavis17:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could see a category for people who go out of their way to be controversial but I can't think of anything reasonable to call it. BTW is Wikipedia controversial topics an administrative category? If not, shouldn't it be deleted for the same reason? --JeffW17:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previous mistakes are not reason to make one again. The category "Controversies" was debated and not deleted. This should be kept for same reasons. pat872203:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if you attempted to apply some kind of objective measure to this, such as requiring that the figure has been called 'controversial' by some source or in the media, the category would end up containing such a range of figures as to be useless.--cjllw | TALK22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was my essential problem with it as well, a conclusion I believe has been borne out by the category's inclusion of Simon Cowell and George W. Bush. Not a very meaningful grouping. Postdlf22:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the category grows, it can be subdivided as necessary. Disputes about individual entries can be made on the discussion page, and are no reason to delete what is a useful and meaningful category. The efforts to rid wikipedia of public recognition of public controversies is nothing more than censorship. Let those who want access to the information, have it. There is nothing wrong with recognizing both Cowell and Bush as controversial people. pat872223:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and reasoning by others per POV. Special note to Nwdavis: Paris Hilton meets your criteria for controversial? God help us all. KillerChihuahua?!?20:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what is controversial to some may not be in other cultures. This category seems mean-spirited and is useless. Gilliamjf09:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for shere impossibility of neutrality. For one, out of the few which have already been added, I already dispute Osama bin Laden. I didn't think he was particularly controversial compared to a lot of public figures. It's pretty well accepted that he is a terrorist; he is more or less unanimously condemned for his actions except for by other anti-west militants. Is Western world now a controversial article too? BigBlueFish18:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sooner the better. Pretty much has every flaw in the book -- totally speculative and subjective, totally unuseful for any sort of research or browsing. Christopher Parham(talk)08:49, 7 March 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 page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
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 page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
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 page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
Category is empty, was prodded; I removed the prod tag and posted it here instead. I don't know the history or how or when it was emptied. Prodder's stated reason was "I don't think an arms manufacturer company really needs its own category. And as for israeli defence industries in general: there is an own category for this (Category:Defense companies of Israel)" Thatcher13112:26, 2 March 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 page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
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 page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
Statement by semi-closing admin - Based on User:Instantnood's polls from last year here, it seems that there is no clear historical consensus for using 'mainland China' instead of 'PRC' in the category names. I don't really see the reason to keep these as they exist now, other than history wrangling edit wars between User:SchmuckyTheCat and User:Instantnoodlike this...considering that per the software limitations, histories of categories are often discarded when they are renamed. However, I am loathe to WP:IAR and just close this by fiat...and declaring no consensus (which is how I view it atm) will suspend it in limbo again I'm afraid.
I propose keeping whatever talk pages as exist, migrating whatever articles to the PRC categories, and closing this discussion. If at some future time a clear consensus emerges to prefer mainland over PRC, the categories can be recreated. Does that sound reasonable? I'm going to leave this /unresolved for another couple days for responses to this... please make the responses in the appropriate category below. --Syrthiss22:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get something out in the open: Instantnood wants to USE these categories, either now or in the future. This has no consensus. That there is no corollary consensus to delete these POV forked categories shouldn't even be a discussion. Forked content goes away or redirects, it doesn't need consensus to delete once it's been determined that it shouldn't be there in the first place.
If it was just a matter of creating category redirects, I wouldn't care. But look at what 'nood actually wants: only those that are de-populated "at the time of nomination" and only "for the time being". So what happens is, these categories get cleaned out regularly (no, not always by me), and then after some time some new user unknowingly uses them or some bot goes awry and populates them. Then what happens when someone tries to move articles to the correct parent categories? It turns into the classic Instantnood edit war where he uses phrases like the below "there is no consensus to remove this article from the category" without acknowledging the existing consensus that the category shouldn't really exist in the first place.
Sorry, I wanted to make myself clear. In my proposal above, the deletion of the mainland categories is implied. It sounded like you might not have caught that from my text (and I hadn't made it explicit), and I wanted to make sure we were on the same page. If I misread, I apologize (and blame the limitations of plain text). ;) --Syrthiss13:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with proposal As an historian whose opinion of the People's Republic of China is very close to neutral, I find the category "mainland China" to be an interesting enigma. At first blush, unaware of the conflict between these users, I couldn't decide if its creator supported the PRC (and this nomenclature was a method of expressing the "one-China" policy) or if the creator wished to deny or denigrate the existence of the PRC. Examining the ArbCom record, it appears the latter is more likely. In any event, "mainland China" is a nebulous term, fraught with interpretive difficulties. The PRC is the name by which the nation currently recognizes itself, and is the name by which the region is most easily recognized. Wikipedia strives for NPOV, and also for user-friendliness and clarity: a consensus exists to use PRC for these reasons. As Syrthiss suggests, this consensus may change, at which point, an alternative category scheme may be recreated. Until then, his proposed closing best meets the spirit of consensus and the needs of WP's readers. The forum for Instantnood to raise his concerns about the flawed nature of previous discussions would be an RfC or in mediation, not this CfD. Xoloz00:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative agree. Having (a) only a layman's knowledge about the PRC/ROC(Taiwan) issue; but (b) knowing that there is this distinction, I'd lean towards an "X of the People's Republic of China" and "X of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" solution. If someone unaware of the distinction consults an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, seeing "mainland China" may lead them to assume that Taiwan is generally or normally considered to be "offshore China" or the like. (That maybe the PRC government's position, but is it anyone else's position?) Hope that helps somehow, David Kernow05:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Free China" ("Offshore China"?) view is also the position of the blue camp in Taiwan... and a surprising number of Mainland Chinese people I've seen online who appear to loathe the communists with all their being, and want the Kuomintang of Free China to liberate Mainland China. The issue isn't quite so black-and-white (or, in this particular case, red-and-green)... -- ran (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instantnood – As presented in the previous ArbCom case by third party, there was serious problem, including sockpuppets, when those polls were conducted, combined with the fact that many votes were from those who're not familiar with the subject matter. There is no clear consensus to kill all these categories either, just that user:SchmuckyTheCat depopulate them when community consensus did not exist. Some of these categories were not empty by the time of this round of nomination by user:SchmuckyTheCat. Another ArbCom case was, though in my opinion, inappropriately, opened recently. These categories are probably relevant. My suggestion remains, i.e.: Keep their edit history, protect them, and, only for those which are already empty with no subcategory or article as at the time of this nomination, tag them with {{category redirect}} (pointing to the corresponding parent categories, i.e., the ones for the PRC) for the time being. — 22:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Soft redirects are probably desirable, to avoid recreation (aren't they patrolled?). But let's be specific: All right, Instanood, which of them were "already empty with no subcategory or article as at the time of this nomination"? That's difficult to tell retrospectively.Septentrionalis00:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of them, except the final two for politics and laws, were empty at the time of this nomination. The economy category was empty too, although some articles were categorised to it by AWB-assisted edits after the nomination. Those article are all already settled. — Instantnood10:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And particularly, why would law and politics, which are distinctly political/governmental topics, not be named according to the official name of the political entity, isn't that what the naming conventions say to do? So why argue to keep these? SchmuckyTheCat17:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those topics are related to part of the state. They're not related to the entirety of the state. And.. please be reminded the term mainland China is in no way unofficial. — Instantnood17:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make them all category redirects I presume somebody sweeps these every so often; if not, I can put them on my (long) watchlist and will try to remember to do so. This will protect against good-faith recreation by someone inventing a category. Saving edit history is a minor advantage, but real. Law and politics of the PRC, since they are specifically of the institution so called, should join the others. Septentrionalis19:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. There are plenty of political issues that are related generally to mainland China, but not to the rest of the People's Republic of China. Same for legal matters, that most except a few laws apply and are applicable only in mainland China. — Instantnood19:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umbrella nomination. These are orphans and have been for at least six months, if not longer since many were made in preparation for an aborted mass rename a year ago. every one of them has properly titled cat at "Blah of the People's Republic of China". One or two might have been kept for their histories in an arbcom dispute that ended 3 months ago. strangely, some of them are category redirects to their own parent categories. SchmuckyTheCat08:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All these categories, except category:elections in China were depopulated by user:SchmuckyTheCat rather than "orphaned". Some of these categories, in fact, do have some content at the time of user:SchmuckyTheCat's nomination. Keep their edit history, protect them, and, (only) for those which are already empty with no subcategory or article as at the time of this nomination, tag them with {{category redirect}} (pointing to the corresponding parent categories, i.e., the ones for the PRC) for the time being. — Instantnood15:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC) (modified 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC), 19:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I wouldn't exactly call moving articles to the more appropriate category as "depopulating". There are no appropriate sub-categories, if articles or sub-cats exist in these then the obvious fix is to move them to the corresponding PRC category. There is absolutely no purpose in keeping and protecting them. And, your "for the time being" suggests you plan to use them in the future - a scary thought. If anyone thinks redirecting them is a good idea, they obviously shouldn't be in any parent category. SchmuckyTheCat20:07, 2 March 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 page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
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 page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
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 page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
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 page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
rename. first the controversial/obsolescent term 'race' is unnecessary - in this context the term 'ethnic origin' denotes the same meaning. second, what divides national and ethnic origins is too fuzzy a line so i suggest merging the two - a merger for the two separate cats Category:American people by ethnicity and Category:American people by national origin, as well as a renaming for sub-categories here would be in order (which i ll do subsequently) Mayumashu04:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend to delete this parent category and move its subcategories into respective subcategories of Category:People by nationality. If kept, I predict a parallel structure will grow over time and maintenance would get harder. Adding "national origin" would speed up this tendency, IMHO.
An OT: classifying people by a country citizenship is almost always clear and uncontroversial. Classifying by ethnicity and race is able to generate lot of warring and should be used only when it is explicitly confirmed as relevant for the person by sources. Just slapping one or even more of ethnicities/races/origins to everyone is against principles of WP. Pavel Vozenilek20:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename: I'm uncomfortable with labelling someone by their ethnicity, but grouping people in this way is done all the time and is usually meant in a positive way to highlight the achievements of a group. And merging the category into People by nationality won't work. What is the respective subcategory of African American? --JeffW21:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename; classifying is not inherently problematic -- what makes the current hierarchy here so problematic is that it mixes two different ideas: ethnicity and national origin, each of which is ambiguous.
Was someone born in Brussels prior to Belgian independence a Belgian by national origin? What about someone born in British Mandate Palestine, is he/she by national origin British, Palestinian, Israeli -- or does that depend on his/her ethnicity? You can see that by national origin things get murky (citizenship as articulated by Pavel Vozenilek may be a decent proxy in recent times, but people of minority ethnic groups may resent being labeled a citizen of the majoritarian regime: Albert Einstein was a citizen of Nazi Germany until the Nuremburg laws stripped his citizenship, and how useful is it to categorize Kurdish people as Turkish?; certain other problems result in using these labels anachronisticly: Was Julius Caesar Italian? or was Jesus Roman (Who ruled the land in the 1st century AD), Israeli (Nazareth's within its 1948 borders) or Palestinian (Bethlehem is in the Palestinian Authority)?).
Ethnicity is no better. Is there such a thing as a Belgian, Swiss, or American ethnicity? How much ethnicity does one have to have to be included: Bruce Lee, apparently one-quarter German, is categorized as a German-American. Is 1/4 the limit? Are we even going to venture there? I hope not. Another example might suffice: A Jewish person from Germany who emigrates to the USA as a refugee from the Nazis is categorized how? see Albert Einstein (Categorized as a German-American) or Henry Kissinger (not). Carlossuarez4623:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criteria should be how the people identify themselves. You can't argue that there aren't people who identify themselves as African Americans, even though objectively they all have some amount of European/white/whatever blood in them. If someone can find a source where Bruce Lee thinks of himself as a German American then put him in the category, otherwise boot him out. --JeffW23:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Carlossuarez46. By default people should be categorised by country(-ies) where the spend most of time or had major impact on its culture. Other classification schemes are worse than this one. Pavel Vozenilek19:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<rant>This is why all these ethno-vanity categories should just be deletedandreplacedwith annotated, referenced lists. This information is typically of highly trivial import to an understanding of the subject (I wonder how often Bruce Lee's "German-American" heritage is discussed even by many book-length biographies), is often unverified, and proliferates virally as each ethnic group claims as many role models and accomplishments for itself as possible. Unfortunately I am in the minority on this, which is why so much of our category system for people is simply an exercise in contemporary identity politics.</rant> Postdlf20:59, 3 March 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 page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
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 page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
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 page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
Oppose. Repopulate original category. The claim that transportation is standard is completely false. Both have exactly equal legitimacy in line with Wikipedia's language policy. CalJW01:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ynhockey, there's no required standard here. As long as the word order is relatively consistent, the category name can be whatever is more consistent with usage in the country in question. We have many categories where a national language difference is reflected in the category name. I'm not necessarily going to cast a vote right away, but since your user page says you're in Israel, I'd like an answer to this question, and will vote based on that: which term, "transport" or "transportation", would be considered more normative in Israel?Bearcat09:48, 6 March 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 page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
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 page.
