Category:Communist parties in the Former Soviet Union
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The result of the discussion was:Withdrawn. Can be brought back here is discussions on the talk page require some action on this category in the future.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)reply
It any case I am withdrawing the suggestion and I will start a regular, working discussion about proper splitting this category, in some talk page. - Altenmann
>t16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose but needs cleanup. This category currently groups together communist parties of the early-Soviet era (e.g.,
Ukrainian Communist Party), communist parties of the Soviet era (e.g.,
Georgian Communist Party), and communist parties in the post-Soviet era (e.g.,
Communist Party of Ukraine). The only criteria for categorisation seem to be self-proclaimed communist ideology and presence in one of the 15
former Soviet republics. The current title is fine for capturing the third class of communist parties, but placing the other two classes into this category is misleading. Likewise, renaming to "in the Soviet Union" would be appropriate for the first two classes, but would miscategorise the third. I would suggest moving articles about communist parties that existed before the dissolution of the USSR to
Category:Political parties in the Soviet Union, leaving in this category only articles about communist parties that were founded after 1991. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)18:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I was part of creating the regional categorizing schemes for the
category:Communist parties. Usually, we would simply have had continental categories. But various parties in the former USSR posed some problems, as they organize cross borders and in some cases across continents. Thus, having a separate category for the erstwhile USSR made sense. --
Soman (
talk)
21:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment; a problem exists in the sense that some parties existed outside CPSU, and were later incorporated into it (such as Baltic parties).
Communist Party of Estonia cannot only be categorized as a CPSU branch, it also needs to be categorized as a communist party of its of own. --
Soman (
talk)
10:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)reply
There is no problem with multiple categorizations in wikipedia. Only I would recommend to possibly add an in-text comment with an explanation (e.g., [[Category:Communist parties in Europe]]<!--CPE was not part of CPSU during 1920-1940-->), so that someone would not delete a category which seems "redundant". - Altenmann
>t17:47, 19 December 2009 (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:Keshet
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 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:Esperanto native speakers
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 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:Power supplies
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current name is misleading as in common use power supply means electrical power supply (generation and distribution).
Beagel (
talk)
09:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose , per main article, "
power supply": power supply is a source of electric power, regardless where its own source is and where it is used. - Altenmann
>t18:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)reply
partly agree with
Category:Electrical power supply units - the title is specific according to intentions: "electric" for power type and the category is intended about the devices, rather than about the notion of supply of power". However the title
Category:Electrical power supplies is shorter and works just as well.
By the way, what devices called "power suppies" besides electrical ones you have in mind? Do we have wikipedia articles about them? If yes, then the common
category:Power supplies still has to exist, and the issue would be not about category renaming but splitting, and needs not to be handled here. - Altenmann
>t18:24, 19 December 2009 (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.
Villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:KEEP. There is not a consensus to merge these to "former settlements" (and which the arguments below establish would cause a loss of relevant information), and the disagreement below about whether "depopulated" is POV appears to have been resolved. As for the other issue of whether the "before," "during," and "after" categories should be combined into [?], there is no consensus for that within this discussion. The merits and specifics of that proposal would be best addressed by a new, separate CFD rather than relisting and continuing this meandering one. postdlf (talk)
00:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is to bring the name into line with all other
Category:Former settlements. It is not necessary to have these 4 categories linked to a specific war; nor is it necessary to have the word "depopulated" as "former" conveys this. Also note that "villages depopulated PRIOR to the 1948 war" occured during the
1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine - meaning that the current title is misleading. It is also unnecesarry to have specific
categories when a
template and specific
lists for these former settlements exist.
Chesdovi (
talk)
11:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose. The depopulation of settlements during that 1948 conflict is both a central part of history of the former Mandate territory of Palestine, and the single most important characteristic of the settlements themselves. There is no reason why the categories cannot all exists as sub-categories of
Category:Former settlements. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Question for nominator. There are a number of Israel- and Palestine-related wikiprojects, whose members will have relevant expertise. Have they been notified of this proposal? Given the sensitivities in this area, and the historical signficance of the events concerned, I do not believe that this discussion could reasonably be closed as anything other than "no consensus" unless the wikiprojects have been notified. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Agree 1. These villages were not depopulated. Their inhabitants left these villages of their own accord. 2. I have a feeling these categories were created and are being actively populated to make a
wp:point.
Debresser (
talk)
20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Reply. Firstly, whether everyone leaves voluntarily or is driven out at gunpoint does not alter the fact a village was depopulated, and the category names do not say "forcibly depopulated". Secondly, the question of whether the depopulation was voluntary or forced has been a major point of historiographical contention since the publication in 1988 of
Benny Morris's book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 and his followup The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited — there is plentiful evidence that in some cases the inhabitants were driven out, and the academic dispute actually focuses on the extent of forcible depopulation rather than whether it ever happened. Recording the fact that these settlements were depopulated in the course of the conflict is no more
WP:POINTy than categorising by their date or mode of establishment, and the only
WP:POINTy contribution I see here is Debresser's desire to expunge from Wikipedia's historical category system a set of undisputed facts which are central both to a contentious part of history and to the ongoing political dispute over Palestinian claims of a
Right of Return. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)reply
If your first argument is true, then why don't the categories use the more neutral "abandoned"? This conclusively proves my point about the
pointiness of these category names. The second point, and your claim to know what I do or do not desire, are not very relevant to this discussion.
Debresser (
talk)
01:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Reply. 1) I see no evidence that "depopulated" is anything other than a neutral term which allows for the possibility of either forcible or voluntary depopulation, but "abandoned" is a term which seems to exclude the possibility of forcible expulsion. "Abandoned" is also inapplicable to villages such as
Deir Yassin or
Kafr Saba which were repopulated after the war. 2) The second point is highly relevant, because you made a blanket and unqualified assertion that "their inhabitants left these villages of their own accord" (which can only be read as including
Deir Yassin). The fact that you base a deletion argument on a false claim and accuse others of
WP:POINTiness is highly relevant to the question of what you are trying to achieve by supporting deletion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment -- We need a NPOV title. We are on the horns of a dilemma created by the rival propaganda of the Israelis and Palestinians. I have little doubt that some were depopulated forcibly, and some abandoned out of fear, or even due to ill-advised propaganda from their own side. Keep as far as possible. Merging before after and during categories might be possible.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)reply
No it doesn't. These departure of the population of these villages during the war is the crucial event in the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem, and one of the most significant aspects of that war. Historians take divergent views on the reasons for people leaving those villages, and the subsequent fate of the refugees and their descendants remains a major point of historical and political contention ... but the fact that the origins and consequences of something are disputed does not make the category either pointy or partisan, since nobody appears to be disputing the fact that the depopulation took place during the war. The only basis I can see for debresser's continued allegation of pointiness is that he appears to take a particular partisan view on the subject, and doesn't like the existence of categories which could in any way be useful to people he disagrees with ... and that's clearly a
WP:POINTy argument for deletion. It's a similar position to arguing for the deletion of
Category:People executed by the United States on the grounds that the existence of the category might be useful to opponents of capital punishment. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I am not ascribing a POV to you. I am noting the POV you clearly stated above, when you wrote "These villages were not depopulated. Their inhabitants left these villages of their own accord". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
02:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)reply
That just was short for "These villages were not forcibly depopulated. Their inhabitants left these villages of their own accord in most cases".
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.
ODI cricketers
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.
Comment Can the nominator (or any of the other commenters here) tell me what this will actually achieve? All this seems to be doing is creating a large and unwieldy category name to replace a compact and unambiguous name. While ODI may be ambiguous, ODI cricketers most certainly is not. Smacks of change for the sake of it to me. --
Mattinbgn\talk19:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The qualifier doesn't refer to the sport but the team, the teams are "India women", "Australia women" and so on, so it should remain women.-
SpacemanSpiff00:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Having missed the previous discussion, which correctly expanded the abbrveiation, I would question whether the categories differ from those participating in other types of international cricket. Should they exist at all?
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:29, 19 December 2009 (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:Wikipedia images by quality
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.
Nominator's rationale: There are only two quality classes for images, "
valued" and "
featured"—both of which already appear in
Category:Wikipedia images directly—so this category cannot have more than two members for the forseeable future. "Selected" is a designation for images used by portals, but it is not an assessment of quality so much as of relevance and significance to the subject of the portal. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)05:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I did notice the selected pictures category, but it doesn't belong in this category since "selected pictures" is not an image quality class. That a picture is a "selected picture" just means that an editor decided to use it in a portal because it was relevant or significant to the subject of the portal; it is not an assessment of the image's quality. In the end, the category could house only the two categories for valued and featured pictures. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)22:34, 3 December 2009 (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.
IPFW athletics categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The school brands itself as "IPFW" for athletics purposes; see its official site at
gomastodons.com. Also, ESPN (and presumably other sports media) use "IPFW" instead of the full school name.
Dale Arnett (
talk)
02:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)reply
What convention are you talking about? I see only 1-2 abbreviations among the 200 on the first page, and it is they who should be renamed, as I explained in my vote here below.
Debresser (
talk)
20:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose per guideline of not using abbreviations in category names. Note that this guideline is not some obstruse and theoretical mindbog of some editor, but is being used in Cfd discussions every few days.
Debresser (
talk)
20:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Hmm, that category isn't quite as clean as I thought, but it is absolutely longstanding convention to use Institution short name + Institution team nickname for collegiate sports. I'm quite familiar with the general proscription on abbreviations, but it is not the sole governing guideline.
WP:COMMONNAME also applies here, and the full name of the institution is essentially never the primary form used either in reliable sources or in everyday speech; pick your college sports authority (ncaa.com, nytimes.com, espn.com, cbscollegesports.com, etc.) and see how often "UCLA Bruins" turns up as opposed to the "University of California, Los Angeles Bruins." This is, in fact, true of all sports, and requiring the maximum level of disambiguation would be an unwelcome innovation— there is really no confusing
Category:Florida A&M Rattlers for anything else, just as we can use
Category:Boston Red Sox not
Category:Boston, Massachusetts Red Sox and
Category:Hanshin Tigers not
Hanshin Electric Railway Tigers.-
choster22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Coomment There are 233 sub-categories of
Category:College athletic programs by college. I count 20 of them using an abbreviation in the names, which is 8.6%. That doesn't sound to me like a convention, and in any case the convention against using abbreviations in category names still stands. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for the narrow subset who follow a particular sport intensively enough to recognise all the abbreviations. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Are we looking at the same category? Fifteen of the nineteen teams under "A" alone use the team name. Again, we are not willy-nilly assigning abbreviations, but using the team name. It's not the
UND Fighting Irish, it's the
Notre Dame Fighting Irish. Why suddenly the need to expand this to
University of Notre Dame Fighting Irish?
One shouldn't think of major U.S. college sports programs in the same way as a university faculty or research program. The major programs are, for good or ill, institutions in and of themselves, covered widely in mass media, and attracting many millions of fans with no ties whatsoever to the institution— in this respect, they no doubt differ from university sports in most of the world. But it also means that the team name will be by far the most common name found in reliable sources, and the name by which most people who would be interested in the topic would look for them by. Again, the team known as the "Fresno State Bulldogs" would essentially never be cited as the "California State University, Fresno Bulldogs," just as the proper name for the newspaper is The Stanford Daily not The Stanford University Daily (or The Stanford (University) Daily).-
choster23:55, 20 December 2009 (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:Guatemalans of Norwegian descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Absurd category; One-off case category -- unlikely to ever be populated by more than the current occupant, for whom it appears to have been expressly created.
Rms125a@hotmail.com (
talk)
00:48, 16 December 2009 (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:Zambian expatriates in Namibia
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.
Comments – I am not particularly keen on
Expatriates categories as no-one seems to have a clear definition of 'expatriate'. However a Zambian footballer playing in Namibia does seem to be a reasonably good example of an expatriate. And we do have the established scheme, particularly for footballers.
Occuli (
talk)
10:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)reply
On those grounds, respectfully, any sports player, established in another country, is an expatriate, by which logic Roy Keane qualifies as an Irish expatriate in the UK and Yao Ming a Chinese expatriate in the United States, to list but two examples.
Rms125a@hotmail.com (
talk)
11:51, 16 December 2009 (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:San Marinese Wikipedians
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.
Delete As an afterthought, the only member and the creator (and defunct now) was not sammarinese himself, since he used wrong word. So the category is useless. - Altenmann
>t16:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Mmmm. Maybe. It's possible that he is Sammarinese but - with Italian his first language - didn't know the correct English-language demonym for SM.
Grutness...wha?00:35, 18 December 2009 (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.