Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 18

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< January 17 January 19 >

January 18

Category:Bernini sculptures

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bernini sculptures to Category:Gian Lorenzo Bernini sculptures
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match the clear naming used for Category:Gian Lorenzo Bernini buildings. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match full title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Full names are best for artist, etc categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objections here. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2010 (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:Hague Conventions

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 and listify. Ruslik_Zero 14:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hague Conventions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is essentially a category that groups all of the treaties that are named after the city of The Hague. There is nothing that unifies these treaties apart from the fact that they were negotiated or signed at a diplomatic conference in that city. As such, this category is overcategorization by
Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907), but this is not how the category is being used, though there are some articles in the category that are not about conventions but rather about ideas expressed in the 1899 and 1907 conventions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2010 (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:People living in Dubai

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: Merge. NW (Talk) 01:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:People living in Dubai to Category:People from Dubai
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Propose merging to pre-existing category named in standard format. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per convention, since we don't use "People from Foo" to mean "People born in Foo." Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator (which is the same argument as Bradjamesbrown). Debresser (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. "Living in" wrongly suggests that it is (and only is) current. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONT Merge the people who are listed in this catergory ARE NOT EMIRATI! to come from a place and to be currently living there are two different things. Most of them dont even have Emirati citzenship. They are singers,actors and other people from across the world who are currently living in Dubai for work reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs)
    • Being "from" somewhere doesn't imply citizenship in the state that the place is in. It just means they live there. Right now I consider myself "from" a city in New Zealand, but I do not have NZ citizenship. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. "People from" may not be the perfect construct, but it works well as a catch-all category for people associated with a particular place. Dividing that into "people born in X", "People who lived in X", and so on would just create category clutter, which is why similar categories have been deleted in the past. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment expats In dubai are not considered from there most the people on that list dont consider themselves from dubai and its not how it works in the middle east you come from where origins are.
    Merging it would make no sense! they are not emiratis! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 01:30, 21 January 2010
    • If someone isn't considered to be "from" a place they temporarily lived, I suppose we should not be categorizing based on this place of residence, then. We only categorize people as being "from" some place because it's presumably a defining characteristic of the person. If what you say is true (I have no reason to doubt it), then living somewhere is not very defining for them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge People in Category:People living in Dubai who do not belong in Category:People from Dubai need not be categorised by where they live. Presumably they live there temporarily. Are we going to track all BLPs by their current location? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2010 (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:WikiProject Modern Talking

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: deleted per
WP:CSD#G6, below, and common sense. –xenotalk 22:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Category:WikiProject Modern Talking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
lots more sub-categories added by BrownHairedGirl:
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:Homophobia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus for the proposed rename. However, because consistent consensus has been to delete categories that label people, organizations, media, etc. as "homophobic" (see, e.g.,
WP:BLP concerns with adding this category to articles about living people. If this restriction cannot be adhered to, users can notify me and we can go from there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Suggest rename Category:Homophobia to Category:Anti-homosexuality
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The term
Dmcq (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
A new category 'Anti-homosexuality' might be better.
Dmcq (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Have changed to a proposal to rename to anti-homosexuality
I see there has been previous attempts to remove this category and opponents have quoted having
Dmcq (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Good example of the problem with homophobia, you'd have thought
Dmcq (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
You could just add one. [1] - Homophobia: A History would likely work well.
-- Banjeboi 17:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Well you can see the problem. Like to try doing that for all the others? And it does seem a bit worrying to depend on one book for that sort of label when there's so many citations for him. By the way the other two articles noted above
Dmcq (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Did you know that book was over 6 million in Amazon sales rank? I though I had some rare ones but that sure beats them.
Dmcq (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I just had a quick skim on google books and though it certainly implies he is a homophobe by putting in a section about him the book doesn't actually come out and say he is a homophobe that I can see.
Dmcq (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The category is not Homophobes which I agree would be absurd, but homophobia. Here's several hundred GNews hits that may help.
-- Banjeboi 17:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
And the other hundred or so in the category? Fred Phelps should be one of the easiest and just looking at the first couple of hits in GNews I can see problems but perhaps somebody else can find a good citation. What's the problem with just renaming the category to something like Anti-gay like the Times article in the first GNews hit? I get the feeling people support homophobia because it expresses p[ersonal feelings rather than something like anti-gay which is an observable fact. They're careful about their wording, I want Wikipedia to support
Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd remove
Dmcq (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Would you agree that Phelps belongs in a category such as "an-homosexual advocacy" or "bigotry against homosexuals"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly thinking now that Anti-homosexuality or Anti-gay might be a better name for the category. I don't know what the an- in an-homosexual stands for. I'd prefer to avoid saying
Dmcq (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, the "an" was a typo for "anti". You seem to be using a very narrow definition of bigotry which I do not believe is the common one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from the leader of the
Dmcq (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
If it needs to be said, let me be the one to do it - Wikipedia is not be considered to be a reliable source. Anyone can edit it and you wouldn't believe some of the ridiculous disputes that people get into over there, ostensibly over word use but really to push one viewpoint or another. It's no wonder so many educators advise their students not to use it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well whatever, but it does mean you'd need a disclaimer and I don't like having one bit of wikipedia disowning another. I think advocacy or activist would be fine though and having a separate category would stop the homophobia category being used improperly.
Dmcq (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
There seems to be a lot of people in
Dmcq (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
They shouldn't be there, for exactly the same reasons. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair-enough if all the names of living people are removed. If that is an agreed consensus there should be a bot that goes around all such categories and removes any entries that refer to names covered by
Dmcq (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
By that logic all people should be removed from Category:Racism and Category:Antisemitism and similar categories. That all seems a step backwards.
-- Banjeboi 18:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
You could always have a category of people convicted of homophobia like the ones in
Dmcq (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Homophobia, as far as I'm aware, remains non-criminalized throughout the world.
-- Banjeboi 19:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep per prior discussion at category talk page, particularly this thread. The irrationality component is present only in selected definitions of homophobia and therefore does not constitute a valid argument across the board. Homophobia is ubiquitous both in common parlance and in scholarly writings to describe bias against LGB persons; it would be highly inappropriate for WP to concoct a neologism (e.g., "anti-homosexuality") to replace it. Regarding the proposal for BLP entries, please read this discussion and consider carefully the wording at the category page:

This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of homophobia. Inclusion in this category does not imply that the subject of any article is homophobic. This category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for expressions of homophobia, opposition to homophobia, or involvement in controversy about homophobia. It is not intended for groups or individuals who have made homophobic remarks and related actions but are not widely known for stances that entail homophobia.

This careful wording makes crystal-clear what should be obvious to begin with: the word "homophobia" is not synonymous with either "homophobic" or "homophobe". Last year's efforts to undermine the integrity and coherence of this properly broad category by equating the root word with its derivatives were thwarted. It's sad to see them begin anew here. Rivertorch (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better to avoid having 'crystal-clear' wording that causes trouble every so often and complaints in the talk page and use a category for which there wasn't such problems? I'd be happy with Anti-gay or Anti-LGBT for instance for Fred Phelps as they can be defended. Brownhairedgirl sounds like she wants the name kept but all such names removed. I agree with her in so far as if the name is kept I will try and remove all names where the tag is being used in a manner that cannot be very strongly supported and that would include removing Fred Phelps from the category. Would you support removing Fred Phelps from the category?
Dmcq (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
That simply does not wash. That's like saying a person is a paedophile but that simply means he likes children. Have a look at
Dmcq (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No, it's not "part of the definition"; it's part of some definitions (and only part). And here we go again. How many times must it be stated that the word homophobia is not analogous to pedophile or any other word (pathological or otherwise) used to label human beings? Placing individuals or organizations in Category:Homophobia is not labeling them as homophobes. As is stated in plain English on the category page, the category is intended for articles that "refer to the topic of homophobia". That explains why non-homophobic individuals like researcher Gisela Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg and non-homophobic groups like GLAAD fall within the category. I'd also point out again that no word is the sum of all its definitions. I don't know what "some selected dictionaries" means to you, but neither Random House nor American Heritage mentions the word irrational in its definition, nor does Cambridge Dictionaries Online. (Merriam-Webster is a little ambiguous; it uses the word but doesn't make clear whether it is intended to modify all three parts of the definition or only the first part.) In any case, this isn't Wiktionary and the category doesn't exist to define the word; rather, it provides connections between a diverse and growing set of articles which intersect in various ways with the different definitions of homophobia. That is the point of this and many other categories. Rivertorch (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just note that per previous discussions any inclusion in this cateogry must be based upon good sources. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does you agree with BrownHairedGirl that practically all the people entries should be removed then which which just leave the self identified ones like researchers and people acting against it. Should Fred Phelps be removed even if some citation is found saying he is homophobic? I wasn't trying for thsat but if the category is kept rather than changed to something like anti-gay -LGBT or -homosexuality I think I'd have to agree with that.
Dmcq (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Fred Phelps belonged in Category:homophobes, but that category has been deleted. Category:Homophobia should not be misused as a replacement for it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adamant Keep "Homosexuality" is the general topic, and does not necessarily imply stigma. "Homophobia" does. Also, all "anti-homosexuality" is homophobia—no exceptions. True, I can't exactly be entirely detached from this, but one might as well ask me not to be homo sapiens. This is my vote. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Anti-homosexuality" sounds stupid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-gay? Anti-LGBT? The current name is too inaccurate for people acting according to their religious beliefs.
Dmcq (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Still, in the absence of an impeccably reliable source stating clearly that the term homophobia is inaccurate when applied to people acting according to their religious beliefs, it's original research and shouldn't form the foundation for defining the name or the parameters of this category. In any case, as has been stated nearly ad infinitum at this point, this category isn't about "applying" terms to anyone; it isn't now, and has never been, Category:Homophobes or Category:Homophobic People and Organizations. Homophobia is analogous to other prejudices, such as racism and xenophobia, and I'm not aware that religious beliefs exempt anyone from being associated (in whatever way) with those terms. Can you offer a reliable source to refute that? Rivertorch (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcq (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
"Stigma" might be putting it a bit strongly, but I don't disagree with the general idea that homophobia is a negative attribute. I also fully support taking extra care in finding reliable sources for BLP articles. What I cannot support is any attempt to sanitize articles by avoiding common and relevant descriptive terms in favor of euphemisms or jargon, and I reiterate now for the umpteenth time that we're not "putting the Homophobia tag on a person"; we're putting it on the person's article, which, as stated on the category page, is not tantamount to calling the person homophobic. Is this distinction so difficult to grasp? And what consensus are you referring to? Rivertorch (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stigma is exactly what they wanted. By consensus I mean that
Dmcq (talk
)
  • Keep "Homophobia", which is defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary as fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. Please note the word "or" in there - it can be defined by just one of these elements, it doesn't have to be all three. We should not be renaming a category just because a few 'phobes themselves have a problem with it - and at the end of the day, that is what is going on here. Homophobia is still homophobia, whatever rationale people try to use to condone it. Furthermore, articles that are related to t andicle as long as it is adequately sourced. MassassiUK 09:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster online [2] says "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". Note the word 'irrational' that you left out.
Dmcq (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I think it goes without saying that being afraid of homosexuality is pretty irrational.MassassiUK 03:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty certain the irrational applies to all three. That can't be verified easily. That's against
Dmcq (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It's only your opinion that the "irrational" part applies to all three. Taking the wording at face value, I believe that the "irrational" part of the dictionary definition is decribing only an "irrational fear" otherwise it would say "irrational aversion to", "irrational discrimination", etc. Respected dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster are in the business of being precise as we as Wikipedians should not even be attempting to second guess their definitions. The problem is a lot of people only accept "irrational fear" as the sole meaning of homophobia, when it means more than that. "Aversion to" and particularly "discrimination against" makes this a far more neutral word as it does not pre-suppose any kind of mental health issue like "irrational fear" does. I do not see the problem with adding articles about people to this category as long as it is well sourced and as long as the category description makes it clear what the word means. To exclude people from the category when they are so clearly linked to the subject (Fred Phelps being a prime example) could be described as homophobic itself. MassassiUK 21:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Labeling is usually
    WP:POV category. These categories should not be available for people to employ as, essentially, graffiti, or (ironically), hate labels of their own. A "nazi" is someone who has joined that party at one time, but there is no "Homophobic Party". (Should have read "A member of the Nazi Party") Student7 (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Reply. The last two comments from Student7 miss the point that this is not Category:Homophobes; that category was deleted at CfD 2006 May 24, partly because of the concerns set out by Student7. This is a category about the topic of homophobia, and its sue should be restricted to that purpose rather than being misused as a substitute for Category:Homophobes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the deletion log of that category and it mentioned a Category:LGBT rights opposition, but that has been deleted too and I can't find the reasons for the deletion of that second category. I put this category up for rename as it seemed mainly to have names of people and so most certainly wasn't being used for the supposed purpose but I wouldn't be against a sub-category with a more verifiable name like anti-gay advocacy or activists, is there yet another category that Category:LGBT rights opposition was turned into which is for people or should there just not be a people category?
Dmcq (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I appreciate the improvement over "Category:homophobe." However, it is still being used for labeling people.
Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_label suggest that "Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral." ie {{WP:POV]]. Homophobia, however reworded just doesn't quite fit. Another measure of pov is this: is the editor who originated gleeful and appears to be spiritually arrogant over labeling an article or person. "Feeling good" about hanging a label about some ones (or event or article) neck, is suspicious IMO. A longer, accurate construction is no fun for the editor, but that isn't what encyclopedic editing should be about anyway. People seeking to score points off other people will hopefully move to blogs or somewhere else entirely.Student7 (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Student7, the solution is not to delete a category relating to the notable and well-referenced topic of homophobia, but to ensure that it ceases to be misused as a category for individual people. This solution is already working well wrt another highly contentious term at
Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist.2C_or_freedom_fighter.3F. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
But terrorist is analogous to homophobe, not homophobia. Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. This category is being misused to label people, even though the category which would be appropriate for that (Category:homophobes) was deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see your point now. But if this category is being misused in any way, surely that can and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The intended function of the category is not to label people (or groups) but to cross-reference a diverse set of articles, many of which are only minimally related. Removing articles on individuals en masse from the category would go a long way toward defeating that function. Rivertorch (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, some of the category's defenders seem to advocate continuing to use it as a substitute for Category:Homophobes, and the current text in the category which explicity allows it to be used for "individuals that are particularly noted for expressions of homophobia" is an end-run around the consensus not to label people in this way. Categorising people by attaching a contentious adjective to their opinions goes against a long-standing consensus not against categorisation-by-opinion or by pejorative adjective. There may be a case for including people notable for their contributions to the debate on the concept of homophobia (whatever their perspective) ... but the likes of the God-hates-fags people don't fall into that group. It seems to me that a significant part of the opposition to retaining his category arises from its misuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. If the sourcing is solid, the inclusion you describe may not necessarily be inappropriate. I think we might entertain the notion that homophobia (like racism and sexism) isn't necessarily pejorative; it can be simply descriptive, and arguably no one is entirely free of it. In any case, we're ostensibly attaching a noun, not an adjective, and "end-runs" can be dealt with individually. In the absence of compelling evidence that there's a widespread problem, I think they should be dealt with individually. Rivertorch (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not advocating deletion or renaming of the category; but the argument that a noun rather than adjective makes categorisation-by-opinion more acceptable seems to me to be rather
jesuitical. I am very disappointed to see so many editors ignoring the fact that the categorising people by their views in this area has already been rejected, and still arguing that sourcing makes it acceptable (labelling of people is always going to be contested: I can't think of anyone saying "I am a homophobe" or "I support homophobia"). If the category continues to be misused in this way, I may switch my view to deletion ... and I'd greatly reject that, because homophobia is an important concept. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

(unindent) Re I can't think of anyone saying "I am a homophobe" or "I support homophobia": There are plenty of people who openly embrace their disdain for LGBT persons; that many (or even nearly all) reject the term most widely used to describe their disdain is something else again. (In some cases, the rejection probably comes from their having difficulties accepting that the "-phobia" component of the word doesn't make it akin to actual phobias. In others, it may be that they refuse to ackowledge that prejudice stemming from religious or other cultural attitudes is actually prejudice. I'm speculating a bit here.) We probably should be a little cautious about completely avoiding certain terms simply because people linked to the terms (by reliable sources) don't like them.

The repeatedly linking of people's names (in books, journal articles, or news stories) to the topic of homophobia is not the same as their being called homophobes or supportive of homophobia. Including certain individuals in Category:Homophobia isn't suggesting it's the same, only noting that the links are there and letting readers draw their own conclusions. So it seems to me, anyway. I agree with you that homophobia is an important concept. Besides being a concept, it's also part of everyday life in much of society and a verifiable reality in the world. It would be really strange if Wikipedia were to downplay it in any way. Rivertorch (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete (changing my !vote). I believe that homophobia is a very important concept, politically, culturally, and in the lives of many LGB people. However, it is clear from both the category text and the repeated comments of a significant number of editors in this discussion that the category will continue to be systematically misused to label people by opinion, despite such labelling having been rejected when Category:Homophobes was deleted. I had hoped that just as Category:terrorism is for articles about the concept of terrorism, but not to label individuals, Category:homophobia could be used in the same way; but evidently it cannot. I think that this is a great pity, but the navigational utility of Category:homophobia is not important enough to allow the continued existence of what has become a de facto attack category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sympathise, But, homophobia is an established academic subject that serves well as a category. Instead, let us declare that no biographies belong in this category. Where a strong case may be made for such, such as with a national president, I think it that either the homophobic action/decree should be worthy of being spun out to another article on the action/decree, or it is not worthy enough to define the person by this category. Treat Category:Homophobia as a collection of articles about the subject, but not a collection of homophobes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But "a collection of articles about the subject" is exactly what it is now. Yes, there are some homophobes in there, but that's my opinion; their inclusion in the category does not de facto label them as such. Is there not something profoundly bizarre about a Category:Homophobia that is allowed to contain articles on anyone except those who have been reported in reliable sources as being homophobic? And why cannot any misuses or abuses be dealt with on a case-by-case basis as they arise, rather than by setting precedent here? Rivertorch (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing against me? I mean to argue Keep. Yes, I see the membership as mostly proper. No, I do not think that the few homophobes should be there, unless they are themselves a study of homophobia, which is such an extreme that that element of them can be spun out. Yahya Jammeh is not "homophobia", but his decisions may have been, but these decisions would be better covered elsewhere than his biography. Which homophobes do you think should be kept in the category? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't arguing either with or against you. I was (1) noting that a strange and ironic effect would result if your "no biographies" proposal gained consensus and (2) asking your opinion on the necessity of creating a sweeping new standard for the category rather than simply fixing any problem inclusions one by one. Regarding your question, I hesitate to name any particular articles here for fear of pushing this discussion way off on a tangent. I do think there are several, though, and would be happy to discuss their continued inclusion either at their respective talk pages or at Category_talk:Homophobia. Rivertorch (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the entries are names and even the inclusion of Fred Phelps which was given as a good example doesm't seem to be properly justified. I would be happy to keep the category if all the names except for self identified researchers or suchlike were removed. I believe a category like "anti-gay activist" could be used in a verifiable way and wouldn't violate any policies and it would stop the Homophobia category being misused to label people. I'd still like to know what happened to Category:LGBT rights opposition which was given as a substitute when Category:Homophobes was deleted. Anybody know why it was deleted or did something else substitute for it?
Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. "Homophobia" is all too often used as an inaccurate, informal verbal shortcut for the host of negative realties that LGBT people face. Simply calling anti-LGBT violence, hate speech, hate-crimes, etc. "homophobia" obscures these realities.
  2. As part of the LGBT series, the category must include other forms of discrimination and bias against LGBT people, LGBT movements, and non-heterosexual sexual orientations. Category:Anti-homosexuality is inaccurate and misrepresentative.
  3. "Homophobia" and "anti-homosexuality" are not umbrella terms since they are only one of several forms of anti-LGBT discrimination and bias. For example, heterosexism is another anti-LGBT reality that does not fall under the category of homophobia. Therefore, it is crucial to use a true umbrella term.
  4. Homophobia and Category:Anti-homosexuality as categories in themselves do not include anti-trans discrimination and bias. In other words, transphobia is not subsumed by either.
  5. Biphobia, in addition to including homophobia, includes discrimination and bias toward bisexuals in their opposite-sex attractions and relationships. In this regard, it is incomplete to use the categories "homophobia" and "anti-homosexuality".
  6. It may be argued that using "homophobia" as an umbrella term to lesbophobia does the latter a disservice as lesbophobia is an intersection of homophobia and sexism.
  7. Accepted definitions of homophobia vary greatly. Those for discrimination and bias do not. The only thing debatable is what constitutes them, depending on which side of the political debate one is on.
  8. "Discrimination" and "bias" are neutral terms that do not lend themselves to becoming labels as does "homophobia" --> "homophobes".
  9. Homophobia as feelings and attitudes cannot be outlawed. Anti-LGBT discrimination and bias (and violence) can; as such, they are verifiable as per Wikipedia's standards.
  10. There is no article on "anti-homosexuality" or anything that explains what(?) it is, yet there are articles on discrimination and bias. Besides, the currently used terms are "anti-gay" and "anti-LGBT".
  11. Lastly, the current term "anti-homosexuality" specifically refers to bills and laws that ban or penalize homosexuality such as the measures under debate in Uganda right now. Therefore, simply using it as a comprehensive category label is entirely uncalled for in this naming discussion.

As for the separate homophobe-labeling debate, I have one unequivocable response: when a reliable or verifiable source labels someone notable as a "homophobe", the articles on those people should link to the homophobia article, not to the category, regardless of what name we decide on for it. What's more, compiling a list of such people may constitute original research on the phenomenon. --CJ Withers (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restructure; I've never particularly liked this category as currently constituted. For one thing, it's far too broad, as evidenced by the fact that it's currently a weird and selective mix of individual people who've made homophobic statements intermingled with organizations of both "pro-homophobic" and "anti-homophobic" orientation, and both pro-LGBT and anti-LGBT legislation — any category that can simultaneously contain
    T.R. Knight incident or anything, but is Category:Homophobia really a definitively important aspect of a figure who made one ill-advised comment in his life, when we don't really know his views on the topic otherwise? We really need to rethink what articles should and shouldn't be filed here — and even the ones that do legitimately belong should be subcatted more specifically. Bearcat (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - The category, as it is, is being severely misused. The category page unequivocally states:

This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of homophobia.

Yet articles about people and organizations that make no mention of homophobia have the category included because one or more editors have themselves deemed the subjects of the articles to be "homophobic" and are ignoring the category's description. I support a rename, but not to something like "Anti-homosexuality" that's only going to cause even more problems. Rename it according to what the category is described as. Seregain (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2010 (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.

Colleges, schools, and departments by university

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus, closed "to allow further discussion of a complex subject", as someone said. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Colleges and schools by university to Category:Colleges, schools, and departments by university
Suggest merging most of Category:University and college departments to Category:Colleges, schools, and departments by university
Nominator's rationale: Merge I created the former category without realizing there was a category for the latter. I think the new category combining the two should be under the new name Category:Colleges, schools, and departments by university. (More general categories should be left in "University and college departments" though.) Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 03:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry! I think this is mostly good, but not quite right. I have just been looking through these categories, and I find at least four types of academic entity in these categories: 1) Colleges, 2) Schools or faculties, 2a) Departments, 3) Laboratories, 3a) Research Institutes and Centres. I think a lot more consideration is needed of how to organise these. Here's my preliminary suggestions:
  1. Colleges should be categorised separately to the rest, because colleges usually have non-academic functions (such as accommodation) in addition to their academic facilities
  2. Schools, fcaulties and departments should be grouped together. Different universities take different approaches to structures, but in general the approach I am most familiar with is that a "department" is the lowest-level grouping of academics (e.g. "history", "medieval history", "archaeology" etc), whereas a "school" or "faculty" is a grouping of departments (my former university used to have departments of modern history, medieval history, and archaeology within a "school of history", which in turn was part of a "faculty of humanities" comprising history, social sciences etc). However, some universities seem to favour larger departments, which are more akin to the "schools" or faculties of other universities, and may only have a two-level structure. In other cases, most subjects may have a department while a few have a specialist school (possibly in a special building, maybe with special funding). Because of all these differences in structural design, it seems to me to be a bad idea to separate them
  3. Research institutes and centres are specialist units within a university, or in some sort of semi-detached relationship to it. Few of them have any role in teaching undergraduates, but their status varies from research complete separation from the undergrad teaching to hybrid structures involving some staff also engaged elsewhere in undergrad teaching. I don't know structures in science so well, but it seems to me that laboratories are usually a similar entity to research institutes or centres in the humanities.
Anyway, that's just my first thoughts ... but I really think that this needs a lot of input from
WikiProject Universities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:44, 18 January 2010 (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.

BYU Cougars standardization

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Follow up nomination to this CFD. Although there are a number of variations, the team name is most commonly reported as "BYU Cougars", including on the official website. Suggest standardizing these subcategories to match parent Category:BYU Cougars. Some subcategories are already in this format; they are not listed here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. Seems like the more common name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renames to standardize on a single name. Alansohn (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed The parent should be renamed to get rid of the acronym, not the acronym introduced into more categories. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to standardize team name.- choster (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Bradjamesbrown. We usually try to expand abbreviations rather than introduce them, and if the parent category has been renamed to use an abbreviation, that should be reversed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish the opposers would have spoken up when the parent category name was discussed, because both were considered (and the abbreviated version was chosen simply because it seems to be more commonly used). It looks like we should rename these for consistency' sake and then renominate them if someone wants them expanded. There's little sense keeping the "Brigham Young Cougars" ones since that is neither "BYU Cougars" nor the complete expanded abbreviation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Brigham Young Cougars" is the "complete expanded" version; we never use "University" except when the school itself puts it into its team's common name (e.g., "Boston University Terriers" to avoid confusion with Boston College). Our choice is between "BYU Cougars" and "Brigham Young Cougars," either of which is acceptable.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for that good clarification. I'm fine with either, we just need to settle on one for all the categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:37, 18 January 2010 (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:Muhajir and Category:Muhajir (Pakistan)

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: merge Category:Muhajir and Category:Muhajir (Pakistan) to Category:Muhajir people. — ξxplicit 01:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merge of Category:Muhajir and Category:Muhajir (Pakistan), and rename the resultant merged cat. to "Muhajir people."
Nominator's rationale: Similiarly to the one above, both these cat. list people that belong to the Muhajir (Pakistan) ethnic group. The second category Category:Muhajir (Pakistan) has the same purpose to that of Category:Muhajir, therefore having two is useless. I propose a merge and rename to the proposed title. Acejet (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2010 (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:Gurjar

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: do not rename. As for using "Gurjar" vs. "Gujjar", there seems to be no consensus here to make the change, but perhaps a dedicated nomination to rename to Category:Gujjar to match the article would clarify this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gurjar to Category:Gujjar people
Nominator's rationale: First of all, the very name of this category "Gurjar" is an alternative name for its main article
Gujjar, which is an ethnic group (Gurjar is a redirect). Also, because the category intends to list people pertaining to the ethnic group, this category should be renamed "Gujjar people." Acejet (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I think "Gurjar" is the most suitable title for the category because it has all the articles pertaining to Gurjars including Gurjar rulers, places ruled by Gurjar rulers etc.We can make a subcategory named "Gujjar people" in this main category which would be having only Gurjar/gujjar personalities.

About we should use "Gurjar" or "Gujjar":Gujjar is alternative form of Gurjar.Gurjar rulers were known by Gurjar title(

Chapa (Gurjara) Dynasty
etc) only.Gujjar is the variation of "Gurjar".As the category contains Gurjar rulers, their kingdoms etc so it should be named "Gurjar" .As Gurjar and Gujjar are used equally nowadays so we can make "Gujjar people " subcategory in category "Gurjar". Regards Chhora (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • What a mess. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per previous discussions on not categorizing people by caste. The category is meant for topics related to Gujjars/Gurjars, not people. Category:Nair people, Category:Goud people are recent discussions that resulted in deletion. -SpacemanSpiff 07:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with SpacemanSpiff.The name Gurjar is most suitable for the category.regards Chhora (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This is a clan, formerly a ruling clan. Gurjar is a redirect to Gujjar. The category should conform to the main article (Note see also discussion below on places named after ... Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, that the proposal is not just to rename from Gujjar to Gurjar, but to add a "people" qualifier to it. I'm neutral on the spelling, both variations are equally used by scholarly sources. -SpacemanSpiff 18:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Gurjar and Gujjar are same.Both are used equally.Article name can't be Gujjar and Gurjar simultaneously so it is kept as Gujjar.Read the article, it gives same weight age to Gurjar and Gurjar.As the category contain all information pertaining to Gurjar/Gujjar including rulers etc so i would say to use "Gurjar" as it is used to describe their rulers as well as them . Regards Chhora (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's fine as "Gurjar" only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iitkgpatiitk (talk • contribs) 16:54, 25 January 2010 (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:Siraiki people, Category:Saraikistan

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose rename of
Seraiki people. Also rename cat. Category:Saraikistan to Category:Seraikistan for similar reason. Acejet (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2010 (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:Places named after Gujjars

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. — ξxplicit 01:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Places named after Gujjars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Similar to other "places named after" categories; it is overcategorization of place
by shared naming feature. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
yes i created it but it seems unnecessary, my bad.I have no problem with the deletion of it.Regards Chhora (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- According to the article, the Gujjars were formerly a ruling clan. Places named after them are thus likely to be within their former realm. This is a shared characteristic, and non-trivial. In the same way in Britian names ending in -chester or -cester (from castra - roman fort) are only found in places they ruled and not north Scotland (where they did not); place-names with thorp or -by are only found in the Danelaw. I regret that I cannot provide other Indian examples or ones directly related to personal names. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources for claims. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • reliable sources are there--There are sources for the claims in concerned articles.If you want me to put more claims i can surely do that.Regards Chhora (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with peterkingiron.Gurjars were former ruling clans, they have numerous places named after them.Iitkgpatiitk (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated subjects with shared names. I'm pretty sure a "places named -chester or -chester" category would not survive CfD either. Jafeluv (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2010 (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:Official journals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Government gazettes per discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Official journals to Category:Gazettes
Nominator's rationale: This new category appears to serve the same purpose as Category:Gazettes: the official publications of governments, as explained in Gazette. Since the difference is solely in name, it seems to me that they should merged, but I have no preference which one to keep. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Yup, these are the same things. "Gazettes" is clearer, since any organization could have an "official journal". If the word "journal" is used, it's probably more accurate to say "public journal". Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge to use term that better describes the category and its contents. Alansohn (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Merge I created the new category and understand the points raised. However I'd like to point out that (at least in some jurisdictions such as the EU and Turkey) the term "official journal" refers to the main national/regional publication that includes legislation and some other items. There might be several more "gazettes" in the same jurisdiction. For example, in the EU there is the Official Journal of the European Union as well as an official gazette of the plant variety office. In Turkey there is an Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey as well as official bulletin of the Turkish patent office (and many other such bulletins) etc. Therefore I suggest creating a sub-category within gazettes titled something like "legislative gazettes". So this is a conditional support. Best. Evren Güldoğan 20:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Univer (talk • contribs)
    • I understand your concern, but "legislative gazettes" is too narrow a term. In the Westminster system, the gazettes are used to announce order-in-council, honours, and lots of other things. Your explanation of the term "official journal" sounds just like "gazette". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge probably to "gazettes" but with consensus. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Government gazettes is better. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2010 (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:Localities in New South Wales

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. I've put the former contents back into this category (
Springrange, New South Wales), but obviously some more work will be required by someone who knows their way around the current category structure to work it into what currently exists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Category:Localities in New South Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete.Emptied and now obsolete Crusoe8181 (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion, many articles should be in this category, but have been changed to towns. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural listing. I found this in the list of uncategorised categories, with the above discussion taking place on the category page, so I moved it here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed substitute was Category:Towns in New South Wales, however I would claim that this is for towns and not for Villages, hamlets, or named places. It is better to have a category for smaller human settlements rather than a town. The category was only empty because the person who wanted to delete it changed the category of the articles to "towns". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per Mattinbgn below, I think one category for any bounded locality (as per http://ga.gov.au place name search) is more appropriate because it's unclear where the line is between town and something smaller. Donama (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brindabella, New South Wales, created yesterday, is currently listed as a town. I have driven through it many times, but it has never had a store.--Grahame (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I created this because so many articles have been created in New South Wales and other Australian states for places that could not possibly be described as towns although they are categorised as towns in the absence of any other category. The term village is not used in Australia except for touristic purposes, but the term locality is used for quite large rural areas where there is no centre of settlement except perhaps for a rural hall or a tennis court. I think that many articles should be categorised as locality not town.--Grahame (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Who gets to decide what is a town, what is a village, what is a locality etc? There is no formal basis for determining what would belong in what category and therefore splitting will lead to endless disputes about whether
    WP:AWNB. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
GNBNSW says a locality is "A bounded area within the landscape that has a ‘Rural’ Character" and so defines Brindabella, New South Wales--Grahame (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support given that there is no clear line between town and something smaller, but happy to modify vote if different consensus reached. Donama (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - locality is a far more suitable and easier term than town - VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE - villages and settlement - no such things exist legally in Australia and never have entered into legislative language - we do not need to re-invent things for convenience of category trees
    Suro 01:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose - Neither "settlements" nor "villages" are used in Australian English, either legally or colloquially. Settlement here refers to something which happened in the late 18th-19th century. Brownhairedgirl is correct that there are no others at present; this simply reflects a lack of certainty within the WikiProject as to what to do with entities like Wilbinga or Congelin or Peppermint Grove Beach (all Western Australian examples) which are not and never were "towns" in a legal or populated sense but nevertheless have boundaries on a map. It's particularly an issue in NSW and QLD where due to lifestyle land promotions, there are areas one would normally call "suburbs" but are clearly not attached to an identifiable urban area. The word "locality" is used extensively in both Australian English and in our official publications (i.e. Gazetteer of Australia) and I think it is useful to have as a catchall for things which do not fit in "Towns in (state)" or "Suburbs of (city)". In the absence of a consensus, however, my views are otherwise closest to Mattinbgn's above. Orderinchaos 01:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably New South Wales is not the only part of Australia to have a similarly-dispersed settlement pattern, and categories work best when they are consistent. Shouldn't there be a discussion at one of Australia WikiProjects to seek a wider consensus on what to name categories for this type of place? I have no preferences for the outcome of this discussion, other that the solution should be one which there is a consensus to apply across Australia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed - as my three examples show, Western Australia has some too (there's two more connected to Peppermint Grove Beach too); some of the coastal areas in Queensland are clearly localities which are not suburbs as well. I'd like to see the Australian project discussing what should be done about these, although the status quo has worked well until now. Orderinchaos 06:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per Orderinchaos. Let one of the Australia Wikiprojects come to a consensus, but don't delete this in the mean time. DigitalC (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOCALITY A bounded area within the landscape that has a ‘Rural’ Character
SUBURB A bounded area within the landscape that has an ‘Urban’ Character
TOWN A commercial nucleus offering a wide range of services and a large number of shops, often several of the same type. Depending on size, the residential area can be relatively compact or (in addition) dispersed in clusters on the periphery.
VILLAGE A cohesive populated place in a rural landscape, which may provide a limited range of services to the local area. Residential subdivisions are in urban lot sizes.
From this it would seem clear that a locality is the rural equivalent of a suburb, not a town. The only real difference between a locality and a suburb is that the houses are a lot further apart. Brindabella, New South Wales is officially designated as both a locality[3] and a rural place.[4] Note though, the desription of the rural place ends with "Now an address locality". A "rural place is defined as "a place, site or precinct in a rural landscape, generally of small extent, the name of which is in current use". --AussieLegend (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Orderinchaos and AussieLegend have stated. The search in the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales shows that 2956 locations have been designated as a Locality[5], this doesn't include the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland. Bidgee (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further searching also shows that the Northern Territory also uses Locality. Take Noonamah as an example. Bidgee (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of thoughts on the ensuing discussion, however;

the NSW Geographic Naming Board distinguishes btwn types of bounded localities (see contrib. by AussieLegend above) so it would be possible to have two categories - Towns and Other (Localities?)
Not so for the other states (as far as I am aware)- Victoria has LOCB (bounded areas whether suburb, towns, townships, or what the Melbourne tabloid describes as tiny hamlets) or LOCU (unbounded neighbourhoods)
South Australia -similar?
Tasmania - all locs would seem to be called suburbs
I can't see any reason why an exception could not be made for NSW, which leaves only the vexed question of the use of the word Towns for entities which clearly don't qualify in the other states (bounded localities, perhaps?)
These categories may appear to be crying out for diffusion, but it is not necessary if diffusion creates more problems than it fixes. NSW could do with navigation templates (Towns &c in LGA) as has been implemented for Queensland and Victoria. (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Problem is keeping both Towns and localities in one category makes it rather large, infact too large. Bidgee (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Crusoe - I beg to differ - where in the nomenclature board website is there anything about suburbs? - http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/JGAY-53N59M?open#GenericTerms it actually outlines its usage of the term and definition of localitiesthe way i read it
Suro 15:47, 21 January 2010 (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:Chilean presidential candidates

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Chilean presidential candidates to Category:Chilean politicians
Nominator's rationale: Merge Simply running for an office is not in itself notable.
TM 00:24, 18 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_18&oldid=1138393905"