Category:Social justice and poverty
- 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 result of the debate was no consensus
Tim!
19:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Social justice and poverty (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Delete - See the nomination for
Category:Social justice below. It is unclear as to what "social justice" means, as it appears to be a catch-all phrase for virtually any activist movement or other things. If
Category:Social justice is deleted, this should also be deleted.
Dr. Submillimeter
22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - I think it is pretty clear what "social justice" means in this context.
futurebird
00:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete "Social justice" is just a media friendly term for socialist redistributive policies and liberal permissive ethics. It is designed to exclude things that I regard as socially just, like support for marriage. In short it is biased.
Annandale
01:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Keep the wiki is a strange place, only here could you have a debate about something like this. If we are talking about "anti poverty efforts" then maybe we could rename it. I think it is very useful.
JJJamal
01:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- In the PC establishment-controlled media few dare to challenge politically correct orthodoxy because they know how vindictively the politically correct liberal establishment treats people who dare to express independent views. Wikipedia is a much better reflection of society as a whole, though still controlled by PC orthodoxy to some extent.
Wimstead
13:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename - I'm not sure to what, but there has to be a clearer name. I have no problem with a category that covers articles on campaigns to ameliorate poverty, or anti-poverty efforts, or whatever exactly we want this to be.
Metamagician3000
04:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Much too vague. I don't like "anti-poverty" either, which casts a warm glow over efforts which may or may not genuinely be motivated by concern about poverty and may or may not actually reduce poverty (on the whole the "anti-poverty" movement probably increases poverty by opposing free global trade).
Wimstead
13:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, but rename to
Category:Anti-poverty campaigns. The category system should provide some means of grouping articles relating to campaigns and other efforts to alleviate poverty and promote what its propononents call social justice. Whether one regards this as a form of godliness or, (per Wimstead) as part of some liberal delusion, is an irrelevant
POV issue. The question for CFD is whether there can be a useful category to group together articles on this subject, and what it shoud be called.
As far as I can see, there are articles such as
International Day for the Eradication of Poverty and Make Poverty History which ought to be categorised together.
However, I think that the category as presently structured tries to do too many things, and that renaming it to
Category:Anti-poverty campaigns will keep it more tightly focused on campaigning; a parrallel category, called perhaps
Category:Poverty alleviation could look at practical efforts such as as food banks, and (per Wimstead) other forms of poverty relief. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
14:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete or merge to
Category:Poverty. "Social justice" adds nothing but an assumption that all poverty is unjust.
Craig.Scott
23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- keep, even if some people here believe that poverty and hunger are perfectly just, this is still a big issue, with a lot written about it, under this title. We don't change things because we 'know' that "socialist redistributive policies and liberal permissive ethics" would be a better name than the one everyone else uses. That would be OR. We just use the names things are given. Regards,
Ben Aveling
22:16, 26 February 2007 (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 result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!"
20:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Social justice (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Delete - This is an all-inclusive category that seems to include everyone and everything that is somehow connected to social issues. The category contains a few lines of text that say, "This category includes disparate topics which pertain in one way or another to matters of the human condition by creating a social structure which is allegedly more democratic, just, and considerate of individuals from all social stations." This description is not only vague and all-inclusive, but it also pushed a point-of-view with weasel words. Looking at the contents of the category, it includes things such as articles on democratic rights movements, equal opportunity movements, labor rights movements, anti-occupation movements (such as for Northern Ireland and Palestine), prisoners' rights movements, and a few odds and ends (such as
libertarianism and the
Roman Catholic Church). It also contains articles on people associated with any of these things and probably other things that I have not identified yet. I find it particularly funny that both
Category:Pro-choice movement and
Category:Pro-life movement are both in this category. Anyhow, given the overwhelming breadth of this category, its vague title, and its POV interpretation, it seems like it would be better to categorize things under more specific categories (such as "labor rights movements" or "pro-democracy activists") rather than in this one broad category. Hence, this category should be deleted.
Dr. Submillimeter
22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep- It is harder to know what it means in this context.
futurebird
00:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom, especially the comment about pushing a point of view with weasel words.
Annandale
01:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - meaning too vague and contestable.
Metamagician3000
04:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete POV category. Wikipedia should not have an opinion on what constitutes "social justice" of on the underlying motivations of political campaigns.
Wimstead
13:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strong keep. The concept of social justice is one with a lot of different meanings, but they all amount to applying the notion of justice to groups of people rather than to individuals, so I have no problem with this category including both sides of the abortion debate. However, the wishy-washy category text should be replaced with something much more rigorous. That would probably lead --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
- Delete per nom. Any policy or belief that is intended to amend society in any way that anyone thinks is right is concerned with social justice - and that doesn't rule many things out.
Craig.Scott
- Weak keep - not very useful as a bottom cat, but if articles can be rapidly diffused into subcats, it remains useful as a higher level organizing category. --
Blainster
19:22, 21 February 2007 (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.
Category:NBA All-Star Game Venues
- 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 result of the debate was delete.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:NBA All-Star Game Venues (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Delete - This seems similar to categorizing performers by performance. The NBA All-Star Game can potentially be played in any high-capacity basketball arena, and the location changes from year to year. Conserquently, many facilities have hosted the game. Therefore, this category indicates little more about the facility other than that it is a large basketball arena. However, the category does contribute to category clutter, as seen at
Madison Square Garden. The category's contents are already documented at
NBA All-Star Game, which is probably better for navigation anyway. Given these reasons, I suggest deleting this category.
Dr. Submillimeter
20:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, or at least rename to
Category:NBA All-Star Game venues. I think this kind of information works better as a list. --
Prove It
(talk)
00:03, 18 February 2007 (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 result of the debate was keep
Tim!
19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Double-named places to
Category:Reduplicative placenames
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, since "double-named" is insufficiently precise (double could just as well mean
competing, successive, amalgamated or bilingual names) and is used elsewhere in Wikipedia to signify names assembled
from two names. The resulting hierarchy would then be:
-
Category:Reduplicants
-
Category:Reduplicative personal names
-
Category:Reduplicative placenames
Category:Double-named places in Australia
- The Australian subsection is in my opinion overkill and should be upmerged. No separate category of "Reduplicative English words" is required, since these are adequately
listed in the Reduplication article.
Tacitus
20:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose merging
Category:Double-named places in Australia into
Category:Reduplicative placenames
- Nominator's Rationale: The higher-level category currently has 19 items and the Australian sub-category currently exceeds it with 22 items. After the merger it will be plain which items are Australian, because they will have state names after them.
Tacitus
20:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- You got there before I could finish editing! ;-) Geographically they might have nothing in common, but this is a toponym category of interest to linguistics.
Tacitus
20:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - If this is really of interest in linguistics, then write an article on it. Categories should be used to bring together articles with similarities. These articles are not about related places.
Dr. Submillimeter
21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - As the creator of the category, naturally I think it should exist (but, of course, I'm biased). Frankly, if a category for fictional penguins is considered valid enough for Wikipedia, I don't see why this isn't. I found the idea to be of linguistic interest, but I am not well versed in that subject, so I would not presume to write an article on it. *shrug*. Keep it, or delete it. I've duplicated most of the info on my own web page and so would not consider it a loss to be removed.
Swestrup
21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep do not rename - the new name is linguistically clumsy. There is nothing to say that the category has to link like topics geographically - to link like topics linguistically is perfectly legitimate. Do not merge with Australian - there are adequate numbers of Australian articles at present to justify separate category. There may well be more articles to add to that category - some yet to be written since our coverage of Australian places is not 100% --
Golden Wattle
talk
23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per
Golden Wattle . The new name is indeed clumsy and the current one is clear. The Australian category is usefull. --
Bduke
05:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - I agree it is an interesting category; must admit 'reduplicative' is a meaningless word to me, whereas double-named is descriptive, so would favour the latter; I like the Australian category - it is interesting and should be kept
ROxBo
00:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strong keep per Golden Wattle. It's nice to see some sensible debate on renaming categories and good to see people are in favour of keeping something that isn't linguistically clumsy and hard to think of.
JROBBO
00:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, useful category. I don't think the new suggested name is any better than the existing, but I'm open to better ideas for renaming. Double-named places just doesn't sound right to me. --
Longhair\
talk
10:04, 28 February 2007 (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.
Category:Double-named places in Australia
- 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 result of the debate was keep
Tim!
19:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Double-named places in Australia to
Category:Double-named places
- Merge. Please discuss above.
Tacitus
21:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete both - This is categorization by name, a form of
overcategorization. The articles themselves are about cities from multiple parts of Australia that probably have little to do with each other except for their names. Grouping them together is inappropriate. The category should be deleted.
Dr. Submillimeter
20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - overcategorisation.
Metamagician3000
04:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as trivia/overcategorisation. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
00:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Amusing quirky category. These are mostly small places with few other categories.
Craig.Scott
23:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Categorisation by name is inappropriate. --
Xdamr
talk
14:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep linguistic phenomenon of indigenous Australian languages. Topics related to indigenousAustrlaian languiages are currently underrepresented. This categorisation may be useful to someone who seeks to write on that topic. --
Golden Wattle
talk
23:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per
Golden Wattle . Indigenous Australian languages are important and this cat will help people to study. --
Bduke
05:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per
Golden Wattle . Reasonably populated and links various places with name of similar meaning. My understanding is that in Indigenous Australian languages, duplication is used as an intensifier.--
Mattinbgn/
talk
11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep this categorisation is a very useful tool for finding places in Australia that detail direct language and mutually respectful relationships between European Settlers and the
Indigenous Australian populations. Towns so named are related to each other by the relationship of either a single Indigenous peoples eg:
Wiradjuri or by trading (and thus language) relationships between two or more of those peoples. Maintaining this categorisation will hopefully prompt the development of specific articles or sub-parts of other articles that reflect that relationship. --
VS
talk
21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - concur with
Golden Wattle . This is a very useful category for indigenous Australian language.
SauliH
23:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strong keep per Golden Wattle.
JROBBO
00:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, per Golden Wattle. It's a useful category, although I initially created it, I agree the current naming is somewhat irky and I was following category naming norms at the time. --
Longhair\
talk
10:02, 28 February 2007 (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.
Category:Vanished (TV series) characters
- 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 result of the debate was delete.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
23:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Vanished (TV series) characters (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete - Category contained about a dozen stubs for characters from the show, which was cancelled before all of its episodes aired. I merged and redirected all the character pages per
WP:FICT and the category is now empty.
Otto4711
20:19, 17 February 2007 (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.
Category:Categories of American people
- 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 result of the debate was merge into
Category:American people
-
Category:Categories of American people to
Category:American people
- 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:Comedy and humor in India
Category:Psycho cast members
- 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 delete. This was part of the
CFD discussion to remove Actors by series categories. The result of that debate was to delete after listifying. Since there is a list, this category can be deleted without another discussion. It seems pointless to have to post this a second time once the lists are created. All of these categories are in the process of being tagged with {{
listify}}. As long as the listify template was correctly added to the category page as a result of a CFD discussion, and the replacement list exists, is there any need to repeat the debate? We don't have guidelines for this, so I'm being
bold and sticking my neck out to say that there is no need to clutter up CFD with categories that we have already made decisions about. --
Samuel Wantman
20:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Psycho cast members (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete Single member category. A list containing the information within this category(!) already exists within the article.
Xdamr
talk
17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- 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:Lists of military professionals
Category:Vanished (TV series) cast members
Category:Queer as Folk cast members
- 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 result of the debate was delete as recreation
violet/riga
(t)
17:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:The Simpsons guest cast members (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Sorry but is it really of that much interest that a person has happened to contribute a few words to The Simpsons? Talk about the overloading of categories! Before the debate starts in the other direction they shouldn't appear as a cast member either. Delete it.
violet/riga
(t)
15:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep! and see these *
[1], or this
[2], or this
[3], or this
[4], or this
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9] So we have these that are overun by guest cast, but not one for guest cast?
Lugnuts
15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy delete, recreation of deleted content, see discussions of
October 21st and
December 25th. --
Prove It
(talk)
16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
Delete - per
this CFD for Actors by series, a cast category may be deleted if a suitable cast list exists.
List of guest stars on The Simpsons covers this territory better than a category could. The existence of the several other cast categories that Lugnits linked is not relevant, as they too may be deleted in favor of a suitable cast list.
Otto4711
16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete (depopulated already).--
Mike Selinker
11:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
I've depopulated this category as almost all characters in it were already in
Category:Dragon Ball characters. One of the main problems I have with it is how to define supporting character, as it's subjective.
Beowulph
13:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- 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:List of fictional characters who can resurrect themselves
- 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 result of the debate was speedy deleted by
Woohookitty.
Vegaswikian
23:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:List of fictional characters who can resurrect themselves to
Category:Fictional characters with the power to resurrect themselves
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "List of" is not necessary. Also I fear this has been CFD'd before, so count my nomination as Rename/Delete, although I'll add it may be useful to subcategorise the hefty immortals category. ~
Zythe
Talk to me!
12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename
Beowulph
13:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename Yes, that's it!
Power level (Dragon Ball)
17:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename As said before List of is unessesary. -
Dark Dragon Flame
17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
- Addendum: I'd also suggest Salt for this cat, the previous two, and the proposed rename. —
J Greb
04:41, 18 February 2007 (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 result of the debate was no consensus
Tim!
19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge into
Category:The Beatles songs, somehow this strikes me as
overcategorization. --
Prove It
(talk)
06:43, 17 February 2007 (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 result of the debate was delete;
WP:CSD G4 applies (G5 does not, Creepy Crawler is blocked rather than banned).
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
23:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Daytime actors (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete category that is unnecessary and redundant to other categories. Category name makes no sense either. Outside the people who habitually refer to soap operas as "daytime," this could mean people who do afternoon shows on Broadway. Should qualify for speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted categories. Category was created by
User:LedgerJoker, suspected sockpuppet of
User:EJBanks who had been a sockpuppet of banned user
User:Creepy Crawler.
Wryspy
02:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, as duplicate of
Category:Soap opera actors --
Prove It
(talk)
05:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: redundant, repetitive, and saying the same thing over and over again. Plus, and in addition, it's redundant. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
06:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete based upon redundancy noted above
Bbagot
07:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as redundant and repetitive, in addition to the comments above plus what everyone else said.
Otto4711
17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per all above. --
Samuel Wantman
20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, but it is only a duplicate of
Category:Soap opera actors from an American perspective.
Wimstead
13:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, delete per
Wimstead
TheDJ (
talk •
contribs •
WikiProject Television)
14:54, 18 February 2007 (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.