Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 13

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:

• Category:Conservative organisations
• Category:Conservative organizations, and
• Merge Category:Conservative organizations in the United States to Category:Political organizations in the United States

The latest in a line of WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE nominations for organisations-by-politics categorisations. For earlier debates, cf:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_1#Category:American_liberal_organizations
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_22#Category:American_progressive_organizations

In this case, as with the two discussions above, the terms differ, but the arguments are essentially the same. The question is, is 'conservative' any more definite and objective a term than 'liberal' or 'progressive'? None of the arguments presented here have convinced me that this is the case. Use of this term as a criterion for inclusion is a vague and uncertain process. People and organisations can manifest their 'conservatism' in so many different ways, over so many different fields, to such varying extents that this categorisation is imprecise and without any real utility.

Xdamr^talk 09:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

• Category:Conservative organisations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Conservative organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Tagged and added at this timestamp. The creator recently emptied the first category and created the second—I don't think anything nefarious is going on; presumably they just wanted to change the spelling that was originally selected. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)) — Thanks, and yeah, that's correct: no intention here to circumvent this discussion. Anyway, this is about the general concept, not just a specific category. PanchoS (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  

Propose merging

• Category:Conservative organizations in the United States to Category:Political organizations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Delete per the long-standing consensus expressed in WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE: "Adjectives which imply a subjective inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category".
This category was created on 5 February 2010, but the analogous category for people, Category:Conservatives, was deleted at CFD 2008 December 30. There may be a bit less of a BLP hazard when categorising organisations, but otherwise the subjectivity issues raised by these categories are very similar to those raised at the Category:Conservatives CFD, including

1. The definition of "Conservative" has changed over time. On economic policy, many of those who currently categorise themselves as "Conservative" would have been labelled in the 19th-century as "Liberals"
2. Definitions of "Conservative" depend on the political perspective of the commentator. An organisation which appears "Conservative" from a left-wing perspective may be decidedly-non-conservative from a far right perspective.
3. The common use of the word in one country may be very different from that in another: for example, the notion of a tax-funded free-at-point-of-use healthcare system for all citizens is strongly defended by the Conservative Party (UK), but even a small step in that direction is vociferously opposed by even by the center-ground in United States politics. Wikipedia is a global project with a global readership, so the use of a term whose meaning varies so widely between different countries misleads readers and creates disputes between editors
4. Conservatism in one sphere in may not extend to conservatism in another. For example, a person may be "socially conservative" but "economically liberal", or vice versa. Even concepts such as "economically conservative" need further qualification, because it is not uncommon to advocate economic redistribution (a non-conservative idea) whilst at the same time being a "fiscal conservative" (i.e. opposed to deficits).

For other related discussions, see

• CfD 2010 February 1 American liberal organizations (still open) (closed as delete)
• CfD 2010 January 22 American progressive organizations (closed as delete)

Note that I have not included in this nomination the sub-category Category:Conservative think tanks based in the United States. I think that the issues raised there are similar, but in case there are some subtle differences, it seems better to leave them aside until the completion of this discussion. If these categories are deleted, I will nominate the think-tank category for deletion.

Finally, for the record, I also support deleting Category:Socialists and similar categories, which are also too vague and subjective to provide stable and objective categorisation. In general political ideologies are too amorphous and changeable to make for NPOV categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the reasons being discussed concurrently, and at remarkable length, in the context of liberal organizations.[1] In brief, conservative means "in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change;"[2] liberal means "favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual."[3] There are plenty of examples of conservative organizations where there is no dispute that they are conservative, i.e. they self-identify and WP:RS agree. Reportedly, the bases for these differences (including the definition of conservative) are genetic,[4] and so presumably global. However, as pointed out by Pcap, there are two different categories under discussion here, “Conservative Organizations” and “Conservative organizations in the United States,” so you might want to consider both separately.TVC 15 (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard cases make bad law, and plenty of subjective terms can be applied without dispute to some things. "Tall" is a relative concept, so even though it refers to one objectively measurable criterion (unlike political ideologies), the lack of a boundary means that it is one of the terms specifically listed in WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. That subjectivity doesn't stop us agreeing that Robert Wadlow and Sultan Kosen are both tall, but it does mean that we don't have a Category:Tall people, which would provoke endless arguments over exactly who was to be included. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This category is neither a hard case nor a bad law. Hundreds of millions of people recognize the left/right spectrum of American political organizations, and large numbers of organizations can be sorted without dispute into either the conservative or liberal categories. Your "tall people" example is inapposite because such a category would not be objective enough to be useful; left/right groupings are objective enough that their utility is recognized nationwide and in many other countries.TVC 15 (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no dispute here that using a left-right axis is one possible way of labelling political organisations. The problem is that large numbers of organisations do not lend them to neat categorisation in one of the two broad and vague labels you propose, because there is no objective means of assessing which group they belong in. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The labels "conservative organizations in the United States" and "liberal organizations in the United States" are not nearly as vague as poststructuralism and not nearly as broad as health promotion (a subject as to which people have different ideas), yet both of those are categories. You cited WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves" That policy says:

          By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."...

          By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute."

        There are plenty of organizations as to which there is no serious dispute, so those qualify as facts and are not subjective. The fact that some borderline cases may involve disagreement does not make these categories subjective; to the contrary, many categories have fuzzy borders, e.g. planets, and controversies e.g. health promotion. I can understand how it might all seem arbitrary to you, for example Gore Vidal once said there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties because they get their funding from the same sources. However, the empirical data show very clear differences: as I'm typing this, I happen also to be listening to a Goldman School of Public Policy forum in which the dean presented survey data going back to the 1970s showing increasing regional and party polarization; specific regions and parties are steadily becoming increasingly liberal (Democrats, cities) or increasingly conservative (Republicans, rural areas). Both self-identification and mutual recognition show the same pattern. You referred earlier to a "battleground" and claimed that results from the categories having no definition, but in fact they are clearly defined and the metaphorical battleground results from actual polarization. You wrote that the dictionary definitions sounded to you like 'feel-good' terms but in reality the whole field of personality type[5] (which goes back to the ancient Four Temperaments and humorism) is largely based on the fact that people's choices between seemingly equally balanced answers can predict their responses to a wide variety of questions. Deleting the categories would simply diminish WP by making it more difficult to see the primary alliances, i.e. the organizations that consensus can reliably place in one camp or the other. That process of consensus based on reliable sources is how all facts are vetted for publication on WP, and these categories are really no different.TVC 15 (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Politically orientated organisations are divided into conservative, democratic, progressive, etc. Based on their names and/or reliable sources, inclusion in an appropriate Wikipedia category does not imply any POV, while not categorising these as such is withholding information. It is about time we stop being afraid of calling things by their names on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply. The articles on organisations in this list are indeed called by their names (e.g. the American Center for Law & Justice has a wikipedia article named American Center for Law & Justice), and this nomination does not seek to change that. The issue here is a different one, viz. whether it is appropriate to use vague and subjective terminology to categorise them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) That may be the case, but adjectives such as "conservative", "democratic", and "progressive" do not have the same meaning in all contexts. The values of an organization that is considered to be conservative in the United States could be ultra-liberal in a Saudi Arabian context, just as the values of an organization that is "liberal" in a Saudi Arabian could be considered ultra-conservative in an American context.

  The problem is even more severe with "progressive": every politician and political party claims to be progressive when people are unhappy with the status quo. "Democratic", a term whose meaning has been expanded to the extent that it has lost almost all value except in propaganda (where it is essentially used as a synonym of "good") and narrowly-defined academic discussion, is perhaps the worst of all: the term is applied generously to multiple forms of government, various sets of social and political values, schemes of social organization and interaction, and so on. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course they don't have the same meaning in each context that's why it's American conservative organizations. Additionally you will find that in the American context progressive is on the left. While all parties like and talk about "progress" you will never find libertarians, Republicans or conservatives defining themselves as "progressive."--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but Wikipedia is a global project and should reflect a global perspective, not an American one (and I say this as an American editor). As for the point about self-identification as "progressive", you're right, of course, but "if there is no agreement on a definition of 'progressive', then self-identification does not lead to an objective fact". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, some studies suggest liberal vs. conservative affiliations are determined genetically.[18] The linear spectrum shown in that research supports Sparrowhawk64's suggestion to merge liberal and progressive, since they are both on the left, as opposed to conservative on the right. The Saudi conservatives and American conservatives may have some specific policy differences (fewer than you might imagine), but they place similar emphasis on the same core values, i.e. tradition, loyalty, etc.TVC 15 (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue is not whether liberal and conservative affiliations or attitudes exist (they do), nor whether certain individuals are inclined to one or the other (they are). The issue is that the affiliation is so broadly-defined that it does not necessarily translate to a defineable and comparable ideology, political affiliation, or policy stance. Also, unless I have severely underestimated the conservatism of the average American conservative, I doubt that he or she has only a few policy differences with the average Saudi conservative, the average Pashtun (I only mention them because Pashtun culture places a high emphasis on tradition, loyalty, etc.), or even the average European conservative. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Delete and merge per BrownHairedGirl's well-reasoned nomination. Conservatism, like liberalism, is not defined by even a vaguely-formed set of ideological principles; it is a "political attitude" (see Conservatism) that can be shared by individuals and organizations of a thousand different beliefs and ideologies, and which can and does have a different meaning for each one. If any editor can offer a definition of conservatism that is objective, non-original, and valid across time and space, then I would gladly change my mind. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Per MS Encarta, conservative means "in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change;"[19] liberal means "favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual."[20] As noted by Sparrowhawk64, we are talking about conservative organizations in the United States, so we don't need to concern ourselves with Chinese Confucians of the Ming Dynasty.TVC 15 (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and those are extremely broadly-defined attitudes that "can be shared by individuals and organizations of a thousand different beliefs and ideologies, and which can and do have a different meaning for each one". And as noted by BHG, Wikipedia is a global project and must concern itself with a global perspective, not just the American one. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The argument that because Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia does not mean that there should not be categories of national subjects such as American Actors or British politicians. Putting the merits of the main argument aside, the fact that there might be a category of Turkish pages or Chinese pages does not mean that Wikipedia still can't be from a global perspective. The point of these kinds of categories is to facilitate navigation among pages dealing with similar topics.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course that is true, but that's not what I was arguing. Creating Category:Actors and Category:American actors as a subcategory, or Category:Politicians and Category:British politicians, is not akin to creating Category:Conservative organisations and Category:Conservative organizations in the United States. "Actor" and "politician" have essentially the same meaning in the United States, Turkey, China, and everywhere else; "conservative" does not. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Debresser and TVC 15. Your rationale for deleting is sketchy at best. First of all I agree that the definition of conservatives changes but if you follow that logic you should remove conservative from all pages. If you truly want to solve the problem you could rename the category modern conservative organizations. Just because a word changes its meaning over time (as a huge amount of English words do) does not mean the word becomes useless. On your second point, that may be true but that's why we use reliable and/or academic sources and not original research. On your next point, while conservatism varies from country to country and indeed Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, that is why this organization is named "American conservative organizations." As for your claim that it will confuse readers, if the reader has common sense they might read the pages in the category to realize American conservatism may be different from other strains or they might possibly read the page Conservatism in the United States to learn the difference. Additionally your claim that even the center-ground in American politics is against even a slight move in that direction is odd seeing as how earlier you claimed that the center ground is relative and fairly indefinable but not that only but it's also original research. As for your last point, American conservatism is conservative on all fronts. If you're economically liberal and socially conservative you may be a Southern Democrat or more authoritarian, if the opposite is true then that is American libertarianism. It is understood that these organizations espouse conservatism in most of its forms: economically, fiscally, socially, and culturally. While each organizations ideas and policies will vary slightly (otherwise if they all agreed there would be little point in having multiple identical organizations), that does not mean we need to drop this category completely.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply. Please read WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves". Labelling a organisation or person as "conservative" or "liberal" or "progressive" is an opinion, and it's perfectly fine to include in the article a referenced assertion that the organisation was described as "conservative" (or whatever). However, a category is an unqualified, unattributed and uncontextualised editorial statement, which is why there is a long-standing consensus not to use the subjective and inconsistent terms as the basis for categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comment reminds me of this: "Categories are important because they function to classify the subjects of articles—they appear with an even greater claim of factuality and objectivity than the content of articles." -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That one paragraph is the single best reasoning I have yet heard for deleting articles of this type. It makes incredibly good and well reasoned points. However, two things prevent me from agreeing to deletion of this and similar types of categories: if an organization says it promotes conservative values or claims to be conservative and reliable sources agree, and the fact that users should be able to navigate among similar organizations because Wikipedia is dedicated to the spreading of knowledge and information.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That argument applies to American users browsing this particular category, but Wikipedia does not exist solely or primarily for American users or to cover American topics. The fact is that "conservative" has radically different meanings in different countries, and even within countries in different contexts. As for the point about self-identification, I will again point to the portion of the closing rationale for Cat:American progressive organizations: if there is no agreement on a definition of 'conservative', then self-identification does not lead to an objective fact. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So since Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia then by your logic we should get rid of every category of American things, actors, politicians, writers, etc. "Conservative" may have radically different in different countries but there is something called the International Democratic Union that brings together conservative parties from all over the world. If, in the American context, the organization and reliable sources identify an organization as such then it should be included in this category. We all know Wikipedia does not exist solely for American users and simply repeating that is an American category over and over does not provide rationale for deleting this category. Please read my note above on the issue.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be an effective reductio ad absurdum if the comparison was valid. However, it is not, because "actor", "politician", and "writer" (unlike "conservative") have the same meaning in an American context as they do in any other context. By the way, I just realized that I had neglected to make clear one point: I am not suggesting that Wikipedia should not identify an organization as "liberal" or "conservative" if that assertion is supported by reliable sources. My suggestion is only that a category is not the proper mechanism for doing that. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Seeing such high praise, I had to read the subject paragraph, but my reaction differs a bit. A preliminary observation: it was written as part of the "categorization philosophy/obsession" of one editor, User:Postdlf, includes the related belief that the category must be vital to the subject, and does not appear to be followed generally or even widely on WP. My observation is, to the contrary, category tags are often applied without much relevance or even sourcing; for example, Anderson Cooper is categorized among "Spanish Americans," which may be slightly interesting but hardly relevant and is totally unsourced. Different people might look differently at category tags, and I think some are like the 'customers who viewed this product also viewed...' on retail sites. In any event, many conservative and liberal organizations both seem to meet User:Postdlf's standard.TVC 15 (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I linked to postdlf's comment in reply to BrownHairedGirl, not to Sparrowhawk64. The quote is indeed the opinion of one editor, but Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A simple formulation is not. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That link says:

  By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."...

  By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute."

  So, that supports keeping the category, since there are plenty of organizations as to which there is no dispute.TVC 15 (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Conservative organisations. It contains only two US-only subcats and no articles. "Conservative" means something else in most of Europe, so adding more subcats here would be semantically meaningless. No opinion on the merger of the other two US-only cats. Also WP:TROUT to the nominator for proposing something as complex as this in a single discussion. I predict headaches for whoever closes this discussion. Pcap ping 01:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the politics of these organizations is their defining characteristic, more so than anything else. Lumping these all together with other identified political organizations only harms navigation. Alansohn (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting that a political organisation is defined by its politics is about as tautological as observing that black things being defined by having a dark colour; the centrality of their politics is not in dispute here. What is at issue is whether a term used to describe "a variety of politicians with a wide range of views" makes for a category which is not WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can see this getting incredibly messy. As already noted, "conservative" does not have a clear, objective definition in which an organization could be categorized. It's general meaning is so broad that I don't think categorizing this will be helpful. It's general meaning also changes depending on what part of the world you're in. So we would be relying on either only categorizing organizations that self identify as conservative, or else make subjective judgement calls on who is and isn't included. At best this category would only serve to be inaccurate and cause headaches. BeardedScholar (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Per MS Encarta, conservative means "in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change;"[21] liberal means "favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual."[22] There are plenty of examples of conservative organizations where there is no dispute that they are conservative, i.e. they self-identify and WP:RS agree. Reportedly, the bases for these differences (including the definition of conservative) are genetic,[23] and so presumably global. However, as pointed out by Pcap, there are two different categories under discussion here, “Conservative Organizations” and “Conservative organizations in the United States,” so you might want to consider both separately.TVC 15 (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What is conservative is highly subjective, and even in the US, many "conservatives" are not conservative, they are traditionalist, they favor change to a older tradition than current practice. If they were truly conservative they would favor the status-quo. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds more like an argument to rename the category rather than deleting it. For example, "conservative or regressive" or "conservative or traditionalist," etc. However, the fact that some specific organizations may reasonably be disputed does not mean the entire category is subjective, for example planets is a category even though Pluto is disputed. Rather, the presence of constituents as to which there is no serious dispute establishes them as facts, and thus the basis for a category.TVC 15 (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You trotted out that Pluto argument elsewhere, and still apparently miss the difference. There has long been a clear, objective definition of what is a planet, one which could be be applied objectively and produce consistent results in the hands of different observers. What has happened is that the definition has recently been slightly refined, in a way which paced some smaller planets such as Pluto outside the definition. No subjectivity is involved, because either test is objective. The same does not apply to "Conservative", because there is not and never has been an objective test of Conservatism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That description makes it sound as if the process were neat and automatic, as if someone widened or narrowed the lanes on a road and everyone simply followed them. In fact there was a lot of debate about Pluto, and divided voting. Likewise the isolated examples of a single party in Australia, and one in Ireland, and one in Japan, amount really to a few comets or rocks or planets in space; their existence does not undermine the validity of the category with regard to its defining elements (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, etc.), and has no effect on the American category. You write as if words start out with official meanings that can only be changed by official action; that might be a valid argument in France (where the Academie Francaise has authority over the French language), but the argument simply doesn't apply to the English language, which evolves all the time; in the English-speaking world, definitions evolve to follow usage, not the other way around.TVC 15 (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the supposedly worldwide category, no opinion on the US one. This is one of very many cases where a title that may make sense, when restricted to one country/region, becomes meaningless when we attempt to apply it in a geo-neutral way. Conservative organisations in the United Kingdom would be taken as meaning 'those within or related to the Conservative Party', therefore groups that claim to be unaffiliated would not fit there. Liberal means the reverse in much of Europe from the US meaning. A Democrat outside the US is a supporter of democracy but not of a given party, and so on. The only non-POV way I can see to make a worldwide list of conservative organizations would be either by self-description (Organizations claiming conservative values or something), or by membership of an international alliance if such exists. Sussexonian (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Affiliation to an organisation is an objective fact capable of verification, and makes for stable NPOV categories. One such example is the Socialist societies affiliated to the British Labour Party, categorised in Category:Labour Party (UK) socialist societies.
  However, while Organizations claiming conservative values might make a viable list, I don't think it works as a category, because it still has the problem that "Conservative values" is too subjective a concept. Category:Organizations claiming conservative values would effectively be categorisation by shared name, grouping together organisations of widely differing policies and values.
  I understand the distinction which you make between the American-only category and the global one, but we still have nothing resembling an objective NPOV definition of what belong in the American category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. These types of categories that are used to group various organisations from a variety of countries or contexts as simply "conservative" are very problematic. In a nutshell, it promotes a subjective point of view with respect to the organisations. Vote stacking is bad and I think it's happened here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • objective definitions have been provided, and your stated concern about "a variety of countries" does not apply to the United States category. If you want to participate in the discussion of possible canvassing or forum shopping, please move your comment to the collapsed section of this page, above; I will move this sentence also and respond there; otherwise, replying here would produce the kind of digression and diversion Black Falcon sought to avoid by creating the collapsed section.TVC 15 (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced by the so-called objective definitions. No need to move things to the box; I explicitly didn't join in there because I didn't want to get involved in the pointless back and forth debate going on there. My view is that it happened, and that it shouldn't have, and I have nothing else to add about it, really. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sadly that reaction (calling debate "pointless") seems rather typical here. Hardly anyone changes their initial 'votes' regardless of the growing number and quality of arguments on each side. Some of us do try to research further, and to listen to each other, but your response is at least candid. Since you're 'locking in' your view about vote-stacking (total two people notified, including at least one already planning to participate and one admin), what is your view on forum shopping?TVC 15 (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said—not interested. Please restrain your self-righteousness just as I am restraining telling you everything about what I really think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • While it's thoughtful of you not to want to hurt my feelings with what you really think, it also prevents me from having a chance to address the specifics, which is worse. The reason why the liberal and conservative categories are useful is because they are objective, despite a few editors' circular insistence to the contrary. Deleting them does not appear to enhance WP in any way.TVC 15 (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Simply repeating that "these categories are objective" does not make them so. You have not demonstrated how the Encarta definition you favour can be applied objectively, nor why that definition should be preferred over others, and you have not addressed any of the specific problems set out in the nomination (such as the mnay different types of conservatism). You appear oblivious to the distinctions and contradictions between cultural conservatism, social conservatism, religious conservatism, fiscal conservatism, libertarian conservatism, and liberal conservatism; the existence of liberal conservatism rather undermines your simple polarisation of politics as either liberal or conservative.
              You also appear to have missed the referenced quote from R. J. White in the lead section of the article Conservatism, which address this issue directly: "To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquify the atmosphere ... The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing. For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living." This category is just such a futile attempt to bottle the un-bottleable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • So, even though hundreds of millions of Americans have essentially the same picture of where "conservative organizations in the United States" are on the political landscape, nevertheless the phrase is meaningless because of a quotation from R.J. White? Evidently (s)he edited a book that was published in London in 1950, but did (s)he even run (or stand) for office in the United States? The article on liberal conservatism says, "Liberal conservatism is a variant of political conservatism which incorporates liberal elements." That sentence would be unintelligible if the terms had no objective meaning. It doesn't undermine my argument, any more than the existence of Pluto and similar objects in space (with mixed characteristics of planets and comets) undermines the definition of planets. For centuries and around the world humans have relied upon evidence to form judgments applying terms like "reasonable," which is a ubiquitous objective standard, to specific cases; similarly, Wikipedia builds on consensus based on reliable sources. We are not machines following a computer program, yet somehow we manage to find our way through. Navigation aids help, for example categories.TVC 15 (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ah, you seem to be getting it. We work by consensus. And consensus has consistently been against using categories to categorize by "liberal"/"conservative" statuses. Progress! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • We must have different definitions of WP:Consensus, and besides "consensus can change." There does not appear to be consensus in this discussion; opinion seems somewhat in favor of deleting the global category and somewhat in favor of keeping the American one. Most participants (and in my opinion the better arguments) in the liberal CFD favored keeping it. The progressive CFD, which you don't mention, was also divided. There are specific examples as to which there might not be a consensus categorization, e.g. three political parties (in three different countries outside the United States) have recently been presented as examples to confound categorization. These examples are like Pluto, which is now excluded from the category planets, even though some people think it should remain, because the consensus is that it should be excluded. (And, in the case of the American category, these examples are almost equally remote. Nevertheless, even if they were in New York, which is also sometimes called a state of mind, they would still be exceptions as to which there is no consensus, thus they could be excluded from the category without deleting the whole category.)TVC 15 (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I wish you luck with concerns about the fate of Pluto, but you are still evading the central problems with the word "conservative", which were all set out in the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep the politics of these organizations is their defining characteristic; this is why they exist. Adding these hundreds of organizations together into the parent Category:Political organizations in the United States serves no navigation purpose whatsoever and is unhelpful to WP readers on its face. Hmains (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As there is not, and will never be, a single, authoritative and objective definition of "conservative" that can be broadly applied to articles, this category fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Further, per Wikipedia:Overcategorisation: "Adjectives which imply a subjective inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category." --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It is already quite hard to follow this long discussion, still I try to collect the most important aspects from my perspective:

1. While I see BrownHairedGirl's point that these categories lack a set of decisive inclusion criteria that are needed to avoid POV. However, conservatism may certainly be defined enough precisely to allow the creation of inclusion criteria. These criteria might be enforced in a way that in case of doubt, an organization is not tagged with this category. So there is no reason to remove a whole category tree just because we've not yet done the work creating these criteria.
2. I agree with SparrowHawk64 that "just because a word changes its meaning over time (as a huge amount of English words do) does not mean the word becomes useless". While definitions change, we can and need to refer to a contemporary definition. After all, it shouldn't be oversestimated how fast things change. A party that used to be conservative around 1900 does have similar policies to a conservative party today. Rather a specific party might have become less conservative, according to the zeitgeist. Moreover, some political organizations even have changed their ideology over time. IMHO we should only refer to its current set of policies, for defunct organizations to the policies of the last significant period of the organization.
3. Also, conservatism may not be broken down to "conserve whatever is". Conservatism refers to a specific world view and a therefrom derived, quite specific set of policies. Obviously there's not just black and white. Rather an organization to be defined as conservatism, needs to support these policies for the most part. I'm avoiding to dig into the discussion on what these constituent policies actually are, cause that would go beyond the scope of this discussion. However, this means that for example the North Korean communist party is not politically conservative just because they try to conserve their power and their set of rules. On the other side, a traditionalist organization in a quite liberal country would indeed be conservative even though they want to turn back the clock. It is this why we can speak of conservatism in general and not just relative to the specific conditions in a country.
4. The category only collects organizations that are described as conservative within the article itself (possibly with the exception of some miscategorized cases which is to be avoided). So even if describing an organization as conservative in one or the other case were POV, the POV is not constituted by the category tag. So we don't have to talk about whether some border cases are to be included or not, the question is just about whether it is possible to correctly use this category.
5. The potential POV problem does not apply to conservative organizations in any way more than to conservative parties, And it does not apply to the United States more than to any other state, so this is to be seen as a precedence for all these categories. To set a precedent, we should however discuss the deletion of more central categories such as Category:Conservative parties and Category:Liberal parties (both dating from 2004) instead. These are the hard cases we need in order to come up with a decision that can be consistently enforced. Nominating a rather weak case such as does not help us a lot, as we're having arguments against this and that stirred up. Some refer to the spelling issue (which can be fixed), others to the necessity to have a separate category for organizations
6. If we removed all of these categories, we'd create excessively crowded catch-all categories of "political parties in x", "political organizations in x" or "Think tanks in x", especially when it comes to the US, the UK or some other English-speaking countries. This would seriously endanger the value of the categorization in the political sphere. This is something we need to keep in sight, even though systematical clarity should not come at the cost of contentual accuracy.

For all of these arguments, I suggest to keep this category and instead focus on a concise definition of "conservative" on a scientific basis, and then set up some useful inclusion (and potentially exclusion) criteria. PanchoS (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It sounds commendably positive to say focus on a concise definition of "conservative" on a scientific basis, but that amounts to original research in the face of the article Conservatism which cites numerous sources to stress the inapplicability of that sort of scientific precision to something as fluid and multi-faceted as conservatism. As with other similar categories, the defence that the "category only collects organizations that are described as conservative within the article itself" doesn't solve the subjectivity problem, because the lack of an objective test for conservatism means that all those referenced judgements are subjective, and the commentators may well be using the words to refer not only to different interpretations of the the term, but to Conservatism within different spheres. For example, Bill Clinton, who balanced the US budget, was a fiscal conservative; by contrast George W. Bush was a fiscal liberal, and British Conservative Party leader David Cameron asserts that he is a liberal conservative.
  Deleting the misleading and subjective ideological categories for political organisation does not mean abandoning all categorisation of them; they can and should be categorised by the sphere in which they operate, whether that's family policy, the environment, education, or whatever. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  And don't forget about the "Liberal" Party of Australia, which is the dominant "conservative" party in Australian politics! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  And the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan, which is the dominant "conservative" party in Japan, but is actually more "liberal conservative" than "conservative", espouses economic liberalism and social conservatism, and ultimately (like most parties) seems to base policy decisions more on political expediency than abstract commitment to a clearly-defined ideology or even to an extremely broadly-defined political 'state-of-mind'. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 09:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't forget the Progressive Democrats, an Irish political party which combined social liberalism with economic classical liberalism, but whose position in the Irish political spectrum led them to being seen as "conservative". The wikipedia article calls them "conservative liberal" (with a supporting ref), so there we have it all in one: a single organisation which is progressive, liberal and conservative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While I agree we shouldn't categorise people as conservatives, I don't have a problem with categorising organisations as such, providing they self-identify as conservatives. True, the meaning of 'conservatism' has changed over time, and there are some groups whose inclusion in this category could be questioned; but there are many others that are indisputably conservative, and it doesn't seem POV or original research to categorise them so. Robofish (talk) 20:28, 23 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.

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 all. — ξ^xplicit 07:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: For consistency within the category tree (see Category:Association football by year and Category:Association football) and with mainspace article titles (e.g., 2010 in association football). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nominator, and congrats on completing the the huge nomination. We probably still have thousands more categories to do, including the sub-categories of Category:Football (soccer) templates; the template category was included in the group nomination on Feb 5, but the sub-categories were not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. To be honest, I don't even have an estimate of how many other non-national categories use "football (soccer)"; a search for the phrase in the category namespace yields ~5,700 results, but many of those are nation- or region-specific categories that probably should not be included in this type of group nomination. I plan to make a few more group noms in the coming days, but I want to first take care of any necessary cleanup associated with changes that have already been performed. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 09:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renames. I took the decision to only do one layer at a time. Partly because tagging was a huge job, partly because I'm acutely aware that even the bot would take a while to get through that first nomination, and finally because some individual categories should use "football" or "soccer", depending on the context. WFCforLife (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The two groups I've nominated (this one and the one below) seem to be the only large category trees that contain no nation- or region-specific categories. You're right, of course, that the rest require a more deliberate approach. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Renames. Not only is it more precise, it would also bring Wikipedia's category tree in line with its counterpart on Commons. I fully support this proposal. TFCforever (talk) 19:12, 19 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.

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 all. — ξ^xplicit 07:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: For consistency within the category tree (see Category:Association football clubs and Category:Association football) and with mainspace article titles (see Association football and List of association football clubs). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nominator and for consistency with the outcome of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 5#Category:Association_football. Congrats on completing this big nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 13 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename. Jafeluv (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Moldovan football competitions to Category:Football competitions in Moldova

Category:Cape Verdean football competitions to Category:Football competitions in Cape Verde

Category:Nicaraguan football competitions to Category:Football competitions in Nicaragua

Nominator's rationale: These three are the "Brad is an idiot" completion of the umbrella nomination of 29 January. For some reason, these three fell through the cracks. Propose rename to match the parent cat's system, and to complete the decision of 29 January. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Seems non-controversial. Pcap ping 15:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per outcome of that discussion. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per outcome of previous discussion, but not per nominator. Bradjamesbrown did a brilliant job of the huge task of nominating and tagging about seventeen squillion football competition categories for the previous group nomination, and I completely reject his clam that he is an idiot. Missing three categories out of that long list is just evidence that he is a human with an impressively-low error rate, rather than a bot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames to match standard used in parent Category:Football (soccer) competitions by country. Alansohn (talk) 02:04, 14 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.

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films with a pedophile theme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The list serving as article for this category has been deleted: List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. It's unclear if the category is any different. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 13#Category:Pederastic films, where Category:Pederastic films was speedily deleted because its own list, List of films depicting pederasty, had been first turned into a redirect to the paedophilia list and then speedily deleted when the AfD closed. Pcap ping 13:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This category groups articles by a strong defining characteristic as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One major concern with the list was that it was extensively based on original research. This category probably suffers from the same problem, and should be deleted for consistency. For many of the films, it couldn't be said that pedophilia is the "theme" of the film; for many there is a scene of pedophilia or a suggestion that it has taken place. I don't think that justifies categorization on this feature. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How do we manage to know the "theme" for all the films in Category:Films about sexuality or the far larger Category:Films by topic? How about if we use reliable and verifiable sources as a standard, rather than arbitrarily tossing out this one category. Alansohn (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  As a brief response only—I take the view that if it is not prima facie obvious that an article belongs in a category, it should not go in the category. This generally prevents overcategorization based on facts that are verifiable through sources but not defining. As discussed at everybody's favorite guideline, WP:CLN: "A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is 'no': ... If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?" I haven't taken the time to evaluate all the categories in Category:Films by topic and because of that I don't want to pre-judge them, but I imagine I might be able to support deletion of some of them for similar reasons. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete many of the films in the category are not about pedophilia, even if the film itself calls it pedophilia. For instance, "Hard Candy" is about ephebophilia, and the crime in the film isn't even a crime in many parts of Europe and some parts of the US. 70.29.210.242 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• If there is no consensus to delete the category, then I think it should be renamed to Category:Films about pedophilia and pruned as the current title encompasses any film in which pedophilia is present as an element of the plot. Another option might be to create a topic category, Category:Pedophilia in popular culture or Category:Pedophilia in fiction, and to selectively populate it only with those articles that have a significant connection to the topic. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:24, 21 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.

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 all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Deportivo Morón to Category:Club Deportivo Morón
• Category:CD Morón footballers to Category:Club Deportivo Morón footballers
• Category:AC Sarmiento players to Category:Club Atlético Sarmiento footballers

Discussion from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy

• Category:CD Morón footballers to Category:Deportivo Morón footballers, categories for footballers should use the common name for the club rather than an unusual abbreviation. King of the North East 20:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:AC Sarmiento players to Category:Club Atlético Sarmiento footballers, to avoid using an irregular ind incorrect abbreviation of the club name and to match the contents of the parent category King of the North East 19:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid these two don't exactly fit any speedy criterion, so they'll need to be nominated at a full CfD. Jafeluv (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Listing from WP:CFD/S, with some modifications, including an added category. For consistency with the main articles (Club Deportivo Morón and Club Atlético Sarmiento) and per the convention of Category:Footballers in Argentina by club. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. It only serves to confuse the reader if the team name is written differently in the category title than the article title. Also, the term used in this category tree is "footballers", not "players". Jafeluv (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the categories should use the common or full name of the club, not unusual abbreviations of the club names. The categories should use the word footballers as most Argentine football teams also have other affiliated sports clubs such as Deportivo Morón's basketball and gymnastics clubs and Sarmiento's basketball team. King of the North East 14:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renames to match titles of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 02:06, 14 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) with the summary "was created by a banned user". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pederastic films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete for same reasons here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonalone (talk • contribs) 06:36, 13 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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 07:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:QI panellists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of a type of "performer by performance". Appearing as a guest panellist on a TV programme is not a defining feature of the individual. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Although putting all that info into a table (number of apperences, wins, high/low score) could be Quite Interesting... Lugnuts (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom as overcategorization. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 20 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.

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. This action does not prevent a reorganization of the articles that were included here into new categories that address the problems raised in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT producers to Category:LGBT record producers

Nominator's rationale: To clarify that the category is about record producers, as it might cause confusion with film producers, radio producers, video game producers and so on. — ξ^xplicit 06:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Actually, I just realized this includes all types of producers... Would anyone be against a split? Having these all jumbled up into one category confused the hell out of me. — ξ^xplicit 20:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not convinced that we need this at all; unlike some of the other LGBT-occupation intersections, I'm not aware of any sourced or documented evidence that there's a notable phenomenon of "LGBT producers" who do their job in any notably different way than the straight kind. And breaking it up even further would run even more afoul of WP:CATGRS, as there's even less basis for, say, Category:LGBT record producers or Category:LGBT television producers than there is for this. And I'm a gay man, so this isn't coming from a place of homophobia — it's coming from the fact that this type of grouping is explicitly discouraged by policy as it doesn't actually represent a documentable cultural phenomenon.

That said, I should note that Category:Producers itself is ridden with the very same problem of people failing to distinguish what kind of producer any individual is. That needs cleanup. This needs deletion. Bearcat (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat's argumentation sounds pretty reasonable. Lesbian, gay, or "straight" producers do their job equally. A few of them might be LGBT rights activists, something we have a category for as well. Also "producers" without any specification makes no sense at all. We are all producers of something, be it films, apples, Wikipedia articles or just carbon dioxide. Reason enough to ask for deletion of this category. PanchoS (talk) 10:21, 21 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.

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 all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:American alt-country groups to Category:American alternative country groups
• Category:Finnish alt-country groups to Category:Finnish alternative country groups

Nominator's rationale. To expand abbreviation and match parent article, alternative country. See similar nomination from November 2009. — ξ^xplicit 03:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to match naming conventions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to match parent. Eric444 (talk) 14:23, 14 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.

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: Already deleted per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_30#College_men.27s_basketball_head_coaches_by_team_in_the_United_States. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball head coaches to Category:North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball coaches

Nominator's rationale: Two overlapping categories, a couple of pages in both. Mm40 (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, conditionally. I agree that the "head coaches" distinction is unnecessary; I think grouping everyone who coached at a school is fine. But while I would like to see this occur, Category:College men's basketball coaches in the United States has 99 subcategories. This nomination is probably not broad enough to attract everyone who would have an opinion on the entire scheme.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Being a head coach is rather defining at a team like UNC and this is part of a robust parent structure as an aid to navigation. Lumping all coaches together loses an important distinction. Alansohn (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Twelve of the twenty-one persons currently categorized in Category:North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball coaches are included in the list of North Carolina Tar Heels men's head basketball coaches, which probably should be renamed to List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball head coaches. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 09:41, 14 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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 07:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jewish Community Center to Category:Jewish community centers

Nominator's rationale: Rename per naming conventions. Gilliam (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The category was probably meant to be for articles about various Jewish Community Centers. JCC is an organization. Mm40 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to correct capitalization and better reflect content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename. Have any of the commenters noticed User:Mm40's comment above or examined the category contents? This category is about the organization Jewish Community Center, not about generic "Jewish community centers". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have both noticed and examined, and still think the rename is a good idea. If that would imply a generalisation in this category's scope, then that surely is for the better. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it were renamed, are there non-JCC "Jewish community centers" that would be added to the category? If yes, I could support a rename. If no, what's the point of doing so? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found Jewish Young Men's and Women's Association and Chabad house, the articles of which both describe them as "community centers". However, I wonder if making this a generic category for Jewish community centers would not just make the category redundant to Category:Jewish communal organizations. I guess there could be a slight difference; if renamed, I suppose there are some articles in Category:Jewish communal organizations that should be moved to the "community centers" category. I can support a rename if that is done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming it does appear that this is a category for orgs part of the JCC formal organization, thus all caps is appropriate. the 92nd st Y is not a JCC, but is apparently under the umbrella of JCC according to the JCC article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:15, 15 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.