Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/unresolved

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✘ This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of the village pump.

These issues were not quite resolved in Categories for Deletion. Summary at top of each discussion and on the main page.


Contents

[edit] Ongoing

  • See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/unresolved/Ongoing

[edit] Untidy dump

[edit] Transfered in October 2005

  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_1
    • Category:Chinese universities → Universities and colleges in China (Note: This category includes universities in both the PRC and the Republic of China and it includes some institutions named "colleges".)
      • Hold pending resolution of naming question regarding China.

[edit] Transfered in May 2005

[edit] Category:Foreign banks in Canada

I do not agree with deleting this category, but it is more or less the same problem as category:Foreign banks in Hong Kong listed below. The two categories should be dealt with in the same manner. — Instantnood 10:47, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. — Instantnood 10:47, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment This is the first time I see anyone nominating in this page a category to be kept! ;) --Huaiwei 11:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same reason as category:Foreign banks in Hong Kong. -Kbdank71 14:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly fine category. The difference with the Hong Kong category is that this category includes the specific Canadian branches of the banks. Eugene van der Pijll 15:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain Instantnood, the first point of understanding in the article Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is that Wikipedia is inconsistent. "Wikipedia tolerates inconsistency except where it creates some sort of practical problem." So, please to be pointing out the practical problem? Or are you spitefully disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? SchmuckyTheCat 15:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename - as Eugene van der Pijll points out, this is a category containing articles on foreign owned Canadian banks, which is a reasonable category and in no way similar to the Foreign banks in Hong Kong category. I'd suggest renaming to Foreign owned banks in Canada -- Chris j wood 16:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. So why is a category needed? Shouldn't the article state that there are branches in countries x? As for being similar, no, it's exactly the same. "Banks that have branches in country x but are based in a different country." x could be Hong Kong, Canada, whatever. -Kbdank71 16:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe have a list article of "Foreign owned companies in Canada", but I can't see the value of having this as a category. If kept, rename to "Foreign owned banks in Canada." Postdlf 16:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am beginning to have a change of heart, especially when I notice we are dealing with articles on subsidiaries of a main company. As I mentioned before, I do not encourage the listing of main bank articles within these pages if they are going to end up having more than one cagegory, but when talking about a local subsidiary, which can sometimes be a locally-incorporated company, they dont seem to fit well being called a company of its parent's location of incorporation, and yet might not be entirely "accurate" to be called a company of the location where it operates or is incorporated in either (although standard practise in the corporate world is to simply classify them according to location of incorporation. Based on this, "Citibank (Singapore)" is a Singaporean bank for example, although the monetary authority of Singapore still classifies it as "foreign", and most laypeople will find it being called a Singaporean bank odd!).--Huaiwei 23:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same reasoning as the Hong Kong one (see above) - the definition of "foreign" is unclear. JuntungWu 15:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please also refer to the poll below regarding category:Foreign banks in Hong Kong. — Instantnood 17:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- a bit long-winded here but hear me out.
Hi there! I'm a bit surprised to find this category on the chopping block. I took a bit of a break last month, I guess. I wish someone had thought to message me. Anyways...
I created this category, along with Category:Defunct banks of Canada to help organize what was at the time a very big mess of past, present, domestic, and foreign banks that operated in Canada. Before that, they were all dumped in Category:Banks of Canada, and many also in Category:Companies of Canada. I spent one night doing a lot of this repetitive cleanup work.
Foreign banks in Canada stick out like a sore thumb to any decent internet researcher because Canadian law requires foreign-controlled banks to file separate paperwork than Canadian-owned banks. There's really nothing vague to the category's parameters at all.
As it turns out, most of the foreign banks are only present in Canada as commercial lenders. This very much distinguishes institutions like AMEX Bank of Canada and Sears Canada Bank from a retail bank like Scotiabank or CIBC.
When I created this category as a sub-category of Category:Banks of Canada, I realized there would be some potential for overlap. To address this, I created a rule to follow to minimize that overlap. My methodology for allowing articles to be in both Category:Banks of Canada and Category:Foreign banks in Canada was this:
Does the bank offer full personal banking services at a permanent location in Canada?
Essentially, that the bank have an actual bank an actual person can walk into and open an account. Bank of China Canada Limited, CTC Bank of Canada, and HSBC (Canada) meet these requirements.
ING Direct Canada and Citibank Canada offer telephone/online banking, but I felt these should be excluded as it is not a true physical presence. I would also prefer to keep the categories as separate as possible.
This category does no go out and seek to include the main articles of multinational banks with any kind of office in Canada; the point is to cover separate articles about the Canadian operations themselves. I can see the problem that some folks are getting at, and I assure you there will be no over-application of the Foreign banks in Canada category if I have anything to do with it.
As for the other category still in question... Well, I'm not terribly interested in Hong Kong banking, but the philosophy of the category (as it's standing now) seems to be about the same as I thought of for this one (though "foreign" is a bit more vague from the perspective of the relationships between Hong Kong, China, and Taiwan). It seems that my category was dragged into here for precedent. I'd like to think it's a pretty decent one.
I would appreciate it if we were to keep this category and close this unresolved debate. --Alexwcovington (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transfered in April 2005

[edit] Category:Foreign banks in Hong Kong

This category appears to be created to display all foreign banks with operations in Hong Kong. Not exactly an issue with that, but imagine what happens when other cities, territories, and countries follow suit. Are we going to have our pages on banks filled up with a gigantic list of categories listing all the geographic entities they operate in, considering many of our banks worth to be mentioned here are usually major TNCs? Rather unneccesary, in my opinion, considering that detailed listings on areas of operation can be in the text, and listings detailing the banks which operate in territories such as in List of banks in Hong Kong can be created too.--Huaiwei 05:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose. This is a category for licensed banks not incorporated in Hong Kong, or subsidiaries of foreign-owned banks in Hong Kong. — Instantnood 14:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please consider nominating Category:Foreign banks in Canada as well. — Instantnood 10:17, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) See update below. — Instantnood 14:21, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree, it's not necessary. This is similar to "Banks not in Hong Kong". -Kbdank71 14:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: (Update) Though I do not agree with the deletion, I have nominated category:Foreign banks in Canada above. The two cases should be dealt with in more or less the same way. — Instantnood 14:21, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems to be a list of banks from all over the world, that just happen to have a Hong Kong branch. If all general articles are removed, and only the articles on the specific HK branches are kept, only one article remains (Citibank (Hong Kong) Limited); and a 1-article category is not yet useful. (but see Canada above) - Eugene van der Pijll 15:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) -- Update: Keep. This category now also mainly contains articles on Hong Kong branches. The other (general) articles should also be removed or replaced. (Good work, Instantnood!) Eugene van der Pijll 17:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. But that's the whole point of the category. You could, in theory, add articles from every bank that isn't based in HK but has a branch there. Ditto for Category:Foreign banks in Canada, ditto for Category:Foreign banks in every country on earth. You'll wind up with a category for every country, and most banks will be in every category but one. That makes no sense. Why not just have Category:Banks in wherever? Some categories just aren't good ideas, and add nothing to Wikipedia. This is one of them. -Kbdank71 16:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Have you looked at Category:Foreign banks in Canada? It only contains articles like Bank of China Canada Limited, a Canadian branch of a Chinese bank. That article only fits in that single category. All of the articles in the Canadian category are specific Canadian branches, which is good. The HK category contains contained almost exclusively general articles, which is bad for the reason you mention. Eugene van der Pijll 17:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • That's fine, but there is nothing stopping anyone from adding every bank's main article to Category:Foreign banks in Canada simply because that bank has a branch there. After all, that's the name of the category. Are you going to clean it up every few months if that happens? If so, I'll change my vote. -Kbdank71 18:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I see that the category has been shifted in scope, and I would think my nomination can be retracted now. But I have a question...do Bank of China (Hong Kong) qualify as a local or foreign bank now?--Huaiwei 17:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I have got to double check its ownership structure. The Bank of China remains the largest shareholder, but I am not sure the percentage of stock it holds. — Instantnood 18:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • (response to Eugene van der Pijll's comment at 17:12, 29 Mar 2005) Thanks. :-) — Instantnood 18:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I think this is a very messy category because the definition of "foreign" is tricky - being incorporated in a particular territory is sometimes considered "domestic" enough, while sometimes you need to look at ownership - 51%? 100%? 18% (in the case of Shenzhen Development Bank, which is controlled by a foreign entity)? You can't draw a line. JuntungWu 06:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please also refer to the poll above regarding category:Foreign banks in Canada. — Instantnood 17:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Political_parties_in_Palestine

No good. This needs to be moved either back to the original title, or to Category:Political_parties_in_the Palestinian National Authority. "Palestine" (unlike other entries on this list) is not a country. -- uriber 21:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Palestinian National Authority is not a country either, it's a government. There are several non-country categories in the by-country categories; I certainly wouldn't recommend re-classifying all "Palestine" categories under "Israel". We've decided on the "Foo of Bar" form in general for this type of category, so this should either be "Political parties of the Paestinian people" or "Political parties of (some term referring to the geographic area in question)", or whatever is appropriate for what the category is for. The general issue of what to call the land in question was left unresolved the last time we attempted to answer it. Settling this question is part of that. Prior discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Palestine. -- Beland 06:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • No such country as Palestine. Delete Category:Political_parties_in_Palestine. Any of Category:Palestinian_political_parties, Category:Political_parties_in the Palestinian Authority or Category:Political_parties_in_the Palestinian National Authority are fine. Whatever fits the accepted convention. Rhobite 06:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
The accepted convention for by-country articles is to go by the name of the main country or territory article to which the category refers, and/or coordinate with the list of sovereign states or the list of dependent territories. "Palestinian National Authority" is neither a country nor a territory - again, it's a government. It doesn't seem appropriate any more than "Political parties of the government of the United States" would be.
Though neither Åland nor Palestine are listed in either of those articles, but West Bank and Gaza Strip are in the list of disputed or occupied territories and Åland is in Special member state territories and their relations with the EU. As you can see at Palestine, the term is ambiguous and can be used to refer to the territory of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. -- Beland 07:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand what you're suggesting. I'm fine with any solution, EXCEPT a category which implies that there is a country named Palestine. In other words, as I said above, I am voting delete. OK? Rhobite 02:00, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but what should the replacement category be called? You said "whatever fits the accepted convention", but by rights that should be "Political parties in the West Bank and Gaza Strip". Would that be acceptable? -- Beland 03:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As I said above, I am fine with Category:Palestinian_political_parties, Category:Political_parties_in the Palestinian Authority or Category:Political_parties_in_the Palestinian National Authority. I know that the PNA is a government, not a country. It's an exceptional situation and it requires special treatment in our category scheme. Rhobite 04:16, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Del. Agree with Uriber. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please also see [1] for a previous discussion on the same topic, which was removed without taking any action, in spite of consensus being reached on most issues. -- uriber 12:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Unless someone can explain why Category:Political_parties_in_Palestine is no good because it's not a country, and yet Category:Political_parties_in_the Palestinian National Authority, which also isn't a country, is ok, I'm going to move this to unresolved. And no, I'm not buying Category:Palestinian_political_parties is ok either, unless a different parent category is found instead of Category:Political parties by country. If it's "by country", one can assume that "Palestinian" refers to a country, and as it's been pointed out here, it's not. -Kbdank71 18:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll rephrase: Category:Political_parties_in_Palestine is no good not because Palestine is not a country, but because Palestine is something else, namely, a historical geographical region, currently containing the state of Israel, as well as the territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (and perhaps parts of neighboring countries). So Category:Political parties in Palestine should, in principal, include political parties in Israel, such as the Likud. However, categorizing modern-day political parties by historical geographical regions is silly. It makes much more sense to categorize them by the political frameworks in which they operate. The relevant modern political framework in this case is the Palestinian National Authority.
If one assumes that "Palestinian" refers to a country, then one is wrong. "Palestinian" does not refer to a (hypothetical) country named "Palestine" any more than "Jew" refers to a country named "Judea". Category:Jewish political parties makes sense (there were such parties in some countries at some point in history), but it is certainly not the same as Category:Political parties in Judea. -- uriber 20:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reasons Kbdank71 gives. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, move was made against consensus. There is no country of Palestine, and Palestinian political parties does not need to be part of the larger category "Political parties by country", since there is no country of Palestine. Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A country is not necessarily a sovereign State. There are many entities in the world that are not sovereign States. — Instantnood 16:54, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agreed with Instantnood. Also, Palestine is nowadays commonly used to refer to Gaza and Left Bank regions only. No other names necessary/practical.--Jyril 21:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Elections_in_Palestine

This is the exact same problem, and already has a CfD notice on it. -- uriber 22:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • See my comments above. -Kbdank71 18:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reasons Kbdank71 gives. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for same reasons as above. Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reason I suggested for political parties. — Instantnood 16:54, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - the category is absolutely needed, but the term "Palestine" is ambigious and misleading. Perhaps "Political parties among Palestinians" might do it. --Leifern 21:05, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
    • Comment: What about "Political parties (competing) for the Palestinian Authority" or "Political parties in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip"? — Instantnood 21:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, see above.--Jyril 21:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep helohe 15:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transfered in March 2005

[edit] Category:Sailboat Names

The name of this category is incorrect, since the articles contained within are about the sailboats in general rather than specifically focused on their names. IMO the articles in this category should go to Category:Sailboats and the category should be deleted (admission: I already moved the subcategories from here to Sailboats, hope that isn't a major transgression of the process :) Bryan 05:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't Category:Sailing boats be better? I for one have never heard the term "sailboat", jguk 07:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You ought to get out more. Gene Nygaard 19:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
'Sailboat', which is certainly in common usage, seems to be an American usage. Certainly much less common in British English -- I've never heard it from a British speaker. 'Sailship' appears to be in usage too, although rather less common that 'sailboat'. Despite it being a damn silly word. :) --Ngb 09:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and move to Category:Sailboats. Gene Nygaard 19:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The relationship to Category:Sailing ships needs to be looked into as well. It seems upside down to me. "Sailboats" should be a subcategory of "sailing ships", not the other way around. Gene Nygaard 19:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Sailing boats and sailing ships are certainly entirely different things. Technically, a sailing ship is square-rigged and has three or more masts, and a boat isn't/doesn't. Making a 'sailing boats' or 'sailboats' category a subcategory of Category:Sailing ships would be inaccurate. --Ngb 09:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I only suggested "sailboats" because that category already existed, I'm no expert on nautical terms. Whatever proposals the more-knowledgeable come up with for where to put these articles is fine by me, as long as the category doesn't have "names" in the title. :) Bryan 18:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but do not merge into Sailboats without reviewing entries. Somebody got the bright idea that "sailboat" would be a good word for a supercategory including sailing ships and whatnot else, wheher commercial or navy or whatever, see the introductory material in Category:Sailboat Names. However, the term "sailboat" is generally applied to relatively small vessels used in sport and personal use, see List of sailboat types to get an idea. Gene Nygaard 08:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The "somebody" you're referring to is probably me, I don't know a lot about nautical terms and based my assumptions off of what was already in the category structure. Rather than removing the category from the "sailing" heirarchy entirely, I think a better approach would be to pick or create a better supercategory for these things. How about Category:Sailing vessels? Bryan 22:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ref categories Category:Sailboat Names, Category:Sailboat Racers and Category:Sailboat types.
    • Gene's comment above is absolutely correct ie the intention is to have a super category 'Sailboat'. Currently the Category:Sailboat Names contains the names of Warships, Yachts (ie Alinghi), Exploration Ships, Merchant Ships (ie Cutty Sark). The Category:Sailboat Racers contains the names of Olympic sailors, solo sailers (ie Ellen MacArthur), captains of merchant sailing ships engage in the Tea Clipper races etc.
    • The super category must incorporate the word 'Sail' because this is generic across any size of boat/vessel/ship/yacht/clipper/dinghy etc etc propelled by sail. The word boat implies a size and the word ship implies a larger size. Vessel has a wider size implication but maybe does not cover/imply small boats.
    • We do need a super category so that readers can quickly get to their interest areas. Any thoughts re a super category name including the word 'sail' and has the widest possible size coverage? Boatman 09:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Just something to keep in mind—submarines are boats, and many of them have "sails" (a figurative usage, not a wind-catching device). But I don't think we intend to include them. Gene Nygaard 04:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Another issue: According to Wikipedia conventions, the category should be "Sailboat names". That said, the articles listed are about the sailboats themselves, and very little about their names in particular, so "Sailboat names" is not good anyway. Why not "Sailboats" -- Egil 00:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Sub Pop

Only one article seems to belong here (grunge speak), and even that's iffy. The rest are musicians added just for having been on Sub Pop, despite many of them also having been on other labels. The subcategory is fine, but doesn't need the parent category. -- LGagnon 07:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • So what? That's a silly argument. Jon Brion isn't exclusive to record producing... Articles don't have to fit into categories exclusively to qualify to be categorised. I think a category that links all articles related to Sub Pop, all people involved in the label, is a good idea. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm with Blankfaze on this. Articles only have to be related to the category to belong; we don't need to be stingy with categories - they don't cost money to have. - Mark 07:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The bands in Sub Pop are there by chance, not because of some unique quality they all share. This fails one of Wikipedia's tests for cats: "If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there?" Extra cats add work for us to maintain, and cheapen the value of all cats. When we have more categories that articles, all of them will be useless. --A D Monroe III 13:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Sub Pop was an extremely notable label and as such this deserves to remain. It shows the potential relations between bands such as Nirvana and The Postal Service who would potentially have no other obvious relationship.  ALKIVAR™ 17:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sub Pop is fine as an article, and can be linked to. The "no other obvious relationship" comment says it shouldn't be a category. --A D Monroe III 15:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with LGagnon. The inclusion of the bands would only be appropriate under Category:Sub Pop recording artists. Maybe it's a good idea to categorize musicians by their label, but if so it needs to be done explicitly. Without that qualifier, the articles do appear to be mere subtopics of Sub Pop. Categories may be "cheap", but they express relationships. Postdlf 04:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the record, this vote currently stands at 3 votes delete (LGagnon, A.D. Monroe, Postdlf), 3 votes keep (Blankfaze, Mark, Alkivar). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Unique scripts

Discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Unique scripts

[edit] Summarized

[edit] Education

[edit] Colleges and universities

  • Colleges and universites in Canada: discussion
  • January 16, 2005: Category:Universities and colleges by nationality See discussion.

[edit] Entertainment

[edit] Sports


[edit] Military

[edit] Politics and government

[edit] People

[edit] Religion


[edit] Science and technology

[edit] Terrorism

Please note that this list is not complete and many other "Terrorist ..." Categories should be listed here as well. helohe (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • October 24, 2004: Category: Terrorist organizations: discussion
  • October 25, 2004: Category:Terrorist organizations in Northern Ireland: discussion
  • October 25, 2004: Category:Leftist terrorist organizations: discussion
  • October 25, 2004: Category:Islamic terrorist organizations: discussion
  • October 25, 2004: Category:Jewish terrorist organizations: discussion
  • October 25, 2004: Category:Palestinian terrorist organizations: discussion
  • October 25, 2004: Category:Terrorist organizations based in the United States: discussion

[edit] Non-wikipedia classification systems

See Wikipedia talk:Category schemes.


Wikipedia talk:Category schemes has been de-thinkthanked and de-RfC'd today, because no further talk on the topic evolved there. So probably you'd be better off following the links to individual category talk pages listed above, if interested in the topic --Francis Schonken 22:24, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uncategorized, sorted by Date