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.
Rename to Category:Eastern Orthodox congregations in Canada. Alas for the over-hasty, ill-considered, and half-conversion of "churches" to "church buildings." Some articles, like Church of Saint Bridget, Liverpool, are indeed almost entirely about the building, but others, like St. Clement of Ohrid Macedonian Orthodox Church, Toronto, are primarily about the local congregation, with little discussion of the building. The usual pattern is for the congregation to be established first, and once established they are able to raise funds to erect a structure; St. Adalbert's in Chicago was founded in 1874 but its building not consecrated until 1914. Many congregations have occupied multiple buildings, while many have never occupied any building permanently. No cleanup was undertaken after the mass renames, which have led to incorrect characterizations (like Congregation of Saint Michael the Archangel falling into Category:Church buildings established in the 20th century) and awkward workarounds (like Category:Protestant church buildings and congregations by century established). Consensus was that "churches" was unsuitable because it could be confused with the Church universal and or theological traditions and denominations identified as Churches, but let's not compound the mess. I propose two parallel branches: "congregations" for the religious organizations (parish being unsuitable to many denominations, and "congregations" being broad enough to include other kinds of religious communities such as monastic communities), and "church buildings" for the buildings. Thus, Shrine of the Sacred Heart would be in 19th-century congregations but 20th-century church buildings. What say ye? - choster (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that the concepts of a congregation and a church building have been sadly blurred on WP. However, in most cases there is much more imformation about buildings than there is about congregations. This is because churches are usually prominant pieces of architecture, and are often found on heritage registers and included in architectural history books and tourism guides. Therefore we should continue from the assumption that most articles on "churches" primarily deal with a building rather than a congregation, until proven otherwise. Therefore my proposal would stand. If we later create a parallel categorization branch for congragations I would support that. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Virginia Military Institute Keydets football coaches
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. By keeping with stylistic consistency, I created Category:VMI Keydets football coaches, which is both easier to type for future editors and consistent with all VMI Keydets sports-related categories. Please note: There are still pages in the nominated category, BUT Template:VMI Keydets football coach navbox has an includeonly that makes all head coaches go to Category:VMI Keydets football coaches. I recently edited it to make it that way but the Wikipedia server hasn't yet caught up to the changes. Deleting "Category:Virginia Military Institute Keydets football coaches" is not going to affect the placement of the contained pages!Jrcla2 (talk)23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one way or the other. This is another "could go either way" nomination, a la the BYU one. I have a slight preference for "VMI Keydets" (I'm more likely to say that than the longer version), but as long as we end up with one category, either choice is fine. Once again, I don't believe this will be much of a precedent either way.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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, without prejudice to re-creation if it ever becomes a category that holds subcategories for Directors General and other legitimate CERN officials. And yes, don't empty the category while discussion is ongoing unless doing so is for WP:BLP reasons.Good Ol’factory(talk)03:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - This was a list of random physicists who some have had varying levels of involvement with CERN. There is no such thing as a CERN official, there are Functionnaires (those employed by the member states) and Users, representatives of external research institutes who are using the CERN facilities. Most of the people in the list fell into the latter category, and in no way could be considered officials of CERN, and the only people who could be considered an official and representative of CERN would be the director general, elected by the CERN council, These people are already listed in the Category:CERN. There has been no response from the initial creator, though two IP's have continued adding the cat. Khukri (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – why is it empty? The usual set-up is to have Category:CERN with a 'people' subcat for people associated with CERN, which would be part of a 'people' tree. (Category:CERN officials has very odd parents.) It seems unsatisfactory to me to have people jostling with non-people in Category:CERN ... it sounds as if the nom could think of a suitable name for one or more 'people' categories. (Category:Directors General of CERN would be one. Being Director General of CERN is undoubtedly a defining characteristic.) Occuli (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all the 'inhabitants' as none of them could be called a CERN official, with maybe the exception of the DG's as I said previously which only accounted for a couple of the ~100, if you look through my contribs you'll see all those that were in the category. There's also a nav box and this list which covers that. Khukri21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there are CERN Officials. Directors General, for example, for which there is already a Wikipedia list for that. List_of_Directors_General_of_CERN The CERN Council, which appoints the Director-Generalm would qualify, but oddly doesn't even seem to be mentioned in the main article. But having a category which includes a CERN official everybody who ever washed a test-tube while a apprentice Junior Woodchuck after school is inaccurate and misleading.Fladrif (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:redirected to the existing category. Having expressed a previous preference in this discussion, I'd normally have left this one alone for someone else to close. But as it turns out, the one and only article that was in the disambiguated category, Ulf Ekberg, failed to even support the category being there in the first place — the category link itself was the only mention of either Marbella or Spain in the entire article. So it had to be removed as unsourced, leaving the category empty anyway. Further, the tally here was 3 to 1 — and even the one who preferred a reverse merge the other way said that the proposal as nominated was also acceptable to them. If somebody feels strongly enough that comma-Spain really needs to be present in the category name, however, then by all means renominate if you wish. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge Even though the article is at Marbella, we try to be precise when categorising, more even than artcle namespace. If people will not agree with me on this, at least merge as per nominator. Debresser (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. There's never any need for categories to be at a different level of disambiguation than their parent articles; if there were enough actual ambiguity that the category would actually require a comma-Spain in it, that very same ambiguity would mandate a comma-Spain in the article title too. Bearcat (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Eponymous category for Stan Walker, who already has song and album categories. I'm not sure what extra benefit having this parent category brings, unless someone has an idea about what to put there except the Stan Walker article. Jafeluv (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only even remotely compelling reason I can see for this existing is the long-deprecated notion that every musician is automatically entitled to an eponymous category, rather than only exceptionally notable ones with a lot of related articles. Bearcat (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Rename per nom, and per a fervent wish not to revisit the entire 'UK MPs xxxx-yyyy' tree (nearly every symbol of which has been fought over). [Although my wikipedia edit page has an en-dash in clear view as item 1 on the 'insert' option.] Occuli (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Working off a 200*800 pixel laptop, I can keep those links in view only by keeping the edit box unpleasantly small; otherwise I have to scroll down to use the insert list, and then scroll back again. That's a PITA. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK to rename as the nominator asked. And I don't understand the technical jargon (off Wikipedia for a long time) so won't comment on that! Wikibiohistory 04:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Propose making this into a "Works by ..." category since that's what it is holding and it is in the Category:Works by author category tree already. The category creator even wrote "Works by C. V. Raman Pillai" at the top of the category page, so I'm pretty sure this is what he intended on creating. Good Ol’factory(talk)08:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I do wonder whether it really makes sense to have single-article categories in the "creative works" tree, but sincere are so many of them, this one belongs there too. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge, though I have no preferences about which direction to merge. The head article of Category:Acquired citizenship is Naturalization, the lead of which says "Naturalization is the acquisition of citizenship or nationality by somebody who was not a citizen or national of that country when he or she was born." Since the two terms are broadly synonymous, I see no point is keeping both categories. Note that Category:People with acquired citizenship has 23 by-nation sub-categories, and its sub-cat Category:Naturalized citizens by nation has 50 sub-categories. I see no useful purpose in retaining this dual structure, so I have selected Belgium as a sample category to test the principle of merging the two sets of categories to whichever term is more inclusive. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think (though I wouldn't place any bets on it) that there may be an intention to distinguish between people who get citizenship through some sort of entitlement rule, such as on marriage or through having had a grandparent of that nationality, and those who apply without any entitlement. But is so, I'm not sure which is supposed to be which. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Are there means of acquiring citizenship other than naturalisation? Apart from citizenship acquired by conquest of a person's native country, I cannot see that there is a distinction. If there is none, then merge, preferably to "naturalised", rather than the reverse, but no stong views on which way. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 nomination cites WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE as the fundamental rationale for deletion. According to this view 'progressive' has no set definition; the use of the term is arbitrary and its meaning is subject to the whim, opinion, and outlook of the person using it.
On the 'keep' side significant weight is attached to self-identification and sourcing. Sourced descriptions of an organisation as being 'progressive' ought, according to this view, to be sufficient to justify inclusion.
In considering this debate I would first remind editors that this is not an exercise in vote-counting. It is rather an exercise in judging consensus. This determination weighs both consensus local to this debate, as well as wider community consensus as expressed though policy and guidelines.
"Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is likely to be more appropriate.
One of the main practical objections articulated towards this categorisation was well encapsulated by one contributor to the debate. The suggestion was that the category "...[has] been abused lately by editors adding [it] solely based on their own personal opinion". This does not suggest that the standard for a workable scheme of categorisation - that of uncontroversial, defining fact - is being met.
In considering the subjectivity argument, I note that during the course of the debate no authoritative definition of 'progressive' has been provided. The closest thing to a definition have been suggestions that the general understanding of the term is that of a broad 'left-of-centre' view. This leads me to conclude that there is no single, shared, objective definition of the term. Per Wikipedia:Overcategorisation:
"Adjectives which imply a subjective inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category."
The self-identification argument is an unpersuasive rebuttal. It fails to credibly address the important questions raised with respect to the alleged subjectivity. If there is no agreement on a definition of 'progressive' then self-identification does not lead to an objective fact. If there is no basis of objective and uncontroversial fact, then this particular attribute cannot be held to be a suitable basis for a scheme of categorisation.
Nominator's rationale:Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. One woman's "progressive" organisation is another person's evil-communist-conspiracy-to-destroy-the-American-way-of-life and somebody else's soggy centrist vehicle for perpetuating the status quo by diverting revolutionary energies into dead-end reformism ... and so on. -- BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems not to be the case anymore. This (and Liberal Organizations have been under attack by editors adding them based solely on personal opinion, not identification. If we are to keep these categories, it must be made crystal clear the standard for inclusion. There needs to be something to point to for current and future edit-wars if this category is to be at all useful and not counterproductive to Wikipedia.--Loonymonkey (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now some editors are claiming that self-identification is not necessary and adding these categories based on their own personal opinion. If the category is to be kept, clarification is absolutely essential. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that there is any difference and the newer label is purely a matter of focus-group testing that "liberal" is discredited in a way that "progressive" is not, but some progressives insist that they are not liberal; the major difference appears to be on free-speech issues. One reason to keep the category is because of organization self-identification. If the two categories are merged, then Wikipedia is taking a stance that liberal is indistinguishable from progressive, which may be true, but is not neutral. THF (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but when challenged to provide evidence of this self-identification you advocate, you suddenly did an about face and unilaterally declared that "self-identification isn't necessary." The rationale for this seems to be a moving target. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a movement among some in the U.S. center-left to popularize "progressive" as an alternative for "liberal," which is deemed by some to have been poisoned. Still, the postwar center-left is a modern movement distinct from that of Progressive Era; it lays claim to certain policies of that era (say, food safety laws, trust-busting, and the binding primary election) but conveniently ignoring others (say, eugenics, Prohibition, and the binding referendum). An analogous term in use by the New Right would be "constitutionalist," as if to say that their preferred set of interpretations of the Constitution is The Way The Founders Intended and by implication their opponents are anti-Constitution. In short, "progressive" is essentially "liberal" is essentially "center left," like "constitutionalist" is essentially "conservative" is "center right." The alternative terms do not resolve the problems of differing interpretation and application of terminology, they just make the category names more contentious.- choster (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Use it" != "categorise by it". If those sources are using the label to mean different things, then it's fine to include that labelling in the text of the article, but it a Humpty Dumpty term such as this makes a useless basis for a category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Progressive" is essentially a trendy synonym for "liberal" in the United States. Whether or not an organization is "progressive" or "liberal" depends on one's point of view. Many non-Americans would look at American "progressivism" or "liberalism" and die laughing at the appellation. Good Ol’factory(talk)07:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHowever, I believe that since liberal and progressive are nearly synonymous in this context, (even though I fervently believe there are differences) that the two categories should be merged into something along the lines of "liberal and progressive organizations in the United States." Having both of these categories is redundant but keeping one and deleting the other, no matter which it is, is not acceptable.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC) (In case it wasn't obvious enough already, it seems BrownHairedGirl is the only one heatedly supporting deletion. I just have to say: axe to grind. No offense)[reply]
Some editors see to think that deletion debates are a vote count, but they are not. I would be happy for the category to stay if someone can give me an objective definition of what "progressive" actually means. But without that objective definition, it doesn't matter how many editors pile in to say ILIKET: the category is so WP:OC#SUBJECTIVEsubjective that anyone can include pretty much whatever they want to put in it. As a such it's a delete, even if there are 50 ILIKETs. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that if no consensus was reached then nothing was done. I see no consensus when a majority of people oppose deletion. The fact is that many mainstream liberals label themselves as "progressive" in order to avoid the seemingly tainted word "liberal." However, it seems that in the United States those who are not simply relabeling themselves but are unabashedly on the left, even possibly to the left of mainstream American liberalism, seem to call themselves progressive and favor new reforms instead of old liberal ideas. In this context, modern progressivism seems to denote those more politically involved and dissatisfied with Democratic Party policies. Some progressives such as Ariana Huffington label themselves progressive in order to try to transcend the left-right divide in American politics. One of the basic premises of progressivism is that it is not a defined ideology and as such is a flexible belief system. See the differences between progressivism in the 1920's vs. modern progressivism. Once again I would urge everyone to consider merging "American progressive organizations" and "American liberal organizations" into, possibly, "American progressive and liberal organizations"--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of this edit, 6 support deletion, 6 oppose and 1 for "I insist on consistency". Still, I'm not sure we've reached consensus. You make a good point, the very definition of progressive is not written in stone and is not a concrete political ideology. That being said, I reiterate my opinion on merging which would seem to be a compromise solution, being divided as we are.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - There is no objective criteria for identifying if an organization is "progressive" so on its face it fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. If, as with the Liberal Organizations category we restrict it only to organizations that self-identify as such it might solve this, but that must be made very clear. Both categories have been abused lately by editors adding them solely based on their own personal opinion (or the opinion of a third-party). There must be an objective criteria for inclusion or the entire category is just opinion and should be deleted. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've changed to delete as the prior consensus that self-identification is required is being ignored by some editors (in fact at least one editor is adding the category to dozens of websites that don't self-identify claiming that self-identification is unnecessary). Without self-identification, this is arbitrary and subjective. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I insist on consistency. Somehow no one is going around Wikipedia and systematically deleting "conservative" from the pages of organizations in the center-right, but the adjectives are disappearing from left-wing organizations, even when they self-identify as liberal or progressive. If Wikipedia deletes the "conservative" category for the same reason, then there's no problem with the proposed deletion here; otherwise, it is entirely unacceptable POV-pushing by implying that left-wing organizations are somehow neutral while center-right organizations are not. Separately, I have no objection to Sparrowhawk's suggestion. THF (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion that the Conservative category does not serve much of function either and should be deleted, but we are not discussing that category here (also WP:OTHERCRAP, etc. etc.). The problem is that "liberal" (and to a lesser degree "progressive") rightly or wrongly get used as political epithets by a certain segment of the political spectrum in the United States. Thus, many are of the opinion that an organization may belong in the category when there really isn't any objective reason to include them. These categories are for organizational and navigational purposes, not to inform the reader where a particular group falls on the political spectrum. Not including an article here does not "imply that they are somewhat neutral" as no implications of any sort are to be made by categories. And because categories are unreferenced, they work differently than articles. Only objective unquestionable facts can be used, nothing subjective. If inclusion is based on a point of view (even a neutral point of view) then it is incorrect and should be removed. And subjective categories get deleted immediately which is why you'll find no categories called "Bad actors" or "Healthy restaurants" --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a WP:OTHERCRAP issue, it's a WP:NPOV issue, which is far more important. If there isn't consistency, there's an NPOV problem. The nomination should be withdrawn and resubmitted so that the community can discuss all of the political-spectrum categories at once. THF (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Use the organization's own description to determine whether or not to label the group progressive. As any political science professor will tell you, there are no hard and fast definitions of political ideology. For example, most libertarians consider themselves conservatives, but the premier libertarian think tank, Cato, says that is incorrect. Also, President Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive (and still is considered one by today's standards)[1][2] and ran for reelection as the candidate of the Progressive Party. Yet he is NOT considered a liberal. So like the libertarians, not all progressives are liberals. This does not mean that there are not qualities that identify an ideology, just that these qualities may vary somewhat. The term is useful, but to avoid original research, we should use the group's own description to determine whether to include them in the progressive category. Mountainscout (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, although I still favor deletion. I would ask the closing admin to specifically spell this out if the result is keep. In the future, we will need to have consensus on this point for other editors to see.--Loonymonkey (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion about categories, not article content--a point the deletionists seem to not know. WP categories are not based on references: they are based on article content and it is that content which is to have references. If an article's content says the organiation is liberal or progressive (rarely both), then that is the category the article goes into. Categories or lack of them are not for POV pushing; they are just for navigation to related groups of articles and the only criteria for having them or not having them is whether the categories help navigation. Hmains (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have nominated the Category: American Liberal Organizations for the same reasons listed here (the issues are basically identical with the addition of "liberal" being an epithet in certain political circles). My feeling is that whatever consensus is achieved here should be the same there (and there was talk of merging). You can find that discussion here.--Loonymonkey (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A substantial depopulation of the category has reduced it, perhaps excessively. Any close should ask that the category be reapplied. Collect (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no, this is not true. Dozens and dozens of articles were added to this (and the "Liberal" category) by a single editor. Many of these were incorrect and were reverted. That is hardly "depopulation." They've since been added back in without any justification so it seems to be in the midst of an edit-war. If anything, it's been overpopulated in the last few days. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Alright I think we may have found some common ground. I agree we need to limit what goes into the category based on the content of the article and I think we can all agree on that. For navigational purposes I say we keep the category; for instance, if someone is looking for progressive organizations then it stands to reason we provide them with a way to access more pages for progressive organizations. However, as some have noted, progressive and liberal can sometimes mean the same thing, in that case those looking for progressive organizations could likely be looking for liberal organizations as well, so why not merge the two into a single category with both descriptors so as to more easily facilitate navigation amongst similar topics. In doing we can still maintain that whatever goes into this category must be liberal and/or progressive based on the article content. Any thoughts on this idea? Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. There is no such common ground, and your proposal does not address the problem of subjectivity, which stems from the lack of a clear, consistent and NPOV definition of "liberal" or "progressive". Your proposal simply amounts to "let's have a category of organizations to which anyone has attached one of two vague but overlapping labels.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that anyone could attach the labels is a ridiculous argument. Anyone can attach anything to any page on Wikipedia. That's why we have editors who follow these pages to make sure that reputable sources are used in classifying pages as such. If an organization also describes themselves as such, they should also be placed in the category. Just because there is no ultimate definition of progressive that everyone will agree on does not mean that users on a progressive organizations page shouldn't be given the means to find other progressive or liberal organizations. Everyone will never agree on a single definition of anything.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me. I am not referring to wikipedia editors attaching the labels; I am referring to reliable sources attaching the labels, and that is an unacceptable basis for this category because of the lack of a shared definition of the term — the label means different things to different commentators in those reliable sources. Your claim that "everyone will never agree on a single definition of anything" is specious, because there is pretty clear agreement on most of the terms used in category names: "American" to refer to the United States, "physicist" to refer to a practitioner of the scientific discipline of "physics", and so on. However, "Liberal" is as fuzzy a term as "tasty", and you might as well argue that "users on a tasty food page should be given the means to find other tasty foods". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all "pretty clear" is not universal declaration of identical agreement on meanings or definitions. That however is besides the point and is only meant to distract from the discussion. Progressive may be fairly vague but in American politics it's a catchall phrase to describe those left of center on political issues. It's very commonly understood. Just because there is no universally accepted definition of American progressivism does not mean that this category should be deleted. Your food argument is reductum ad absurdum, progressive is nowhere near as subjective as "tasty", you're taking that line of thought and reducing it to its most extreme and unlikely ends. Reliable sources will always, in American politics, describe progressive as somewhere left of center, tasty on the other had is a commonplace adjective and is a terrible analogy. I see no reason to exclude reliable sources and those organizations that name themselves progressive and not having a category so users may more easily navigate to find other similar organizations. Your entire argument makes no sense. Progressivism is a well established American political ideology whereas tasty is food descriptor, there is no comparison. People understand generally what is meant by progressive, additionally people understand that tasty is personal opinion. There is absolutely no reason why an established political ideology should not have its own category for organizations that subscribe to it. Anyone can realize you don't go to an encyclopedia too look up "tasty" foods, although they make want to look up foods similar to those they like, which is all that this category does, letting those who want to find other progressive organizations, find them more easily.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man, Sparrowhawk. This is not a matter of "excluding reliable sources" as you clam, because nobody is objecting to inclusion of referenced descriptions of an organisation as "progressive" in the text of an article. The issue here is a narrower one, of whether a ill-defined and subjective term is a suitable basis for a category, where the term appears at the bottom of the article without attribution or qualification as an editorial labelling. The article Progressivism in the United States divides it into into four waves, with very different agendas at different times. The largely unreferenced section on the current wave says that it "exists as a cluster of political, activist, and media organizations ranging in outlook from centrism (eg. Reform Party of the United States of America) to left-liberalism to social democracy (like the Green Party) and sometimes even democratic socialism (like the Socialist Party USA)". So "progressivism" includes everything from the early-20th-century prohibitionists to Pat Buchanan through Ross Perot (both in the Reform Party) to Democratic socialists. That's a nonsense grouping, and while the connections may be worth discussing in an article, they are no basis for a category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the straw man, but that was not my argument. I very well realize no one is objecting to the inclusion of reliable sources. I agree the article on progressivism needs sourcing and a clearer definition but "progressive" in contemporary context when used always refers to those on the left of the American political spectrum and I'd like to see anyone find an article from a reliable source to call Ross Perot a progressive much less Pat Buchanan. It's true that more centrist elements such as the Democratic Leadership Council uses it but they're still pretty center-left. I'm fairly certain there aren't too many socialist organizations in the US either, at least not prominent ones. In any case there is simply no reason why someone searching for progressive organizations, those somewhere on the left, should not have a category so users can search for other progressive organizations. That's the true point that needs discussing. There are many progressive organizations and there may not be other websites that can reliably group them so people may find other similar ones. If the source is reliable to name an organization as progressive then it should have its own category.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sparrowhawk, your argument was indeed a straw man: you wrote that you "see no reason to exclude reliable sources", but nobody is arguing for the exclusion of reliable sources. You disagree with the description in Progressivism in the United States ... and you defend all this with an unreferenced assertion that ""progressive" in contemporary context when used always refers to those on the left" ... which contradicts your comment above that it is "a flexible belief system". You also wrote above "See the differences between progressivism in the 1920's vs. modern progressivism", yet this category is not for one or the other; it sets no time limits, so it can include 1920s prohibitionists alongside contemporary gay right campaigns. That sort of absurdity is the inevitable categorising on the basis of using a ill-defined label whose usage has changed massively over the last century. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Progressivism in a modern American context is always left of center but I'm not sure how you can say that it's not flexible. My statements are not mutually exclusive because social liberalism and communism are both on the left of the political spectrum and I think they're incredibly dissimilar. Thus progressivism, if always on the left in American politics, can carry a wide range of meaning from mildly left-leaning groups like the DLC all the way to very liberal groups. You do however make a good point about a prohibitionist group could be in this category along with gay rights groups. Since that's the case then we should rename the category Contemporary American progressive organizations. In the modern American context in which the word progressive is used, you will not find any reliable source calling a modern organization on the right "progressive" and nor will you find any organization on the left call conservative, but is conservative too fuzzy? Perhaps, but that label applies to all on the right, whether moderately conservative or hard-core conservative. Just because progressive is a malleable term there is no reason why users shouldn't be able to navigate easily to other progressive organizations. How else, if they want to search for other organizations without knowing their names, will users be able to find other similar organizations? The main reason to keep this category is to help users and make Wikipedia more connected and more accessible.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a WP:ITSUSEFUL argument which gain evades the subjectivity problem. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Connecting articles by the unqualified use of fuzzy and undefined tags is entirely acceptable on myveryownpoliticalblog.com, but not for a publication which sets out to uphold the rigorous standards of an encyclopedia. That's why the consistent response at CFD to subjective categories is to delete them, but to encourage interested editors to consider creating a list, in which the use of the subjective term can be discussed and attributed. --01:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
As we have discussed, progressive in the modern American context may be slightly vague but is generally understood to entail those on the left of the political spectrum. The entire point of Wikipedia is to share information easily and freely to users and this category facilitates navigation among similar organizations. Just because you and other editors bandy about the word "subjective" does not make it so. It seems curious that some think that any normally reliable source of information is suddenly ignorant as to what a political ideology is and what organizations promote it. Your use of that word does not negate any other argument or valid reference to be used as a source.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons being concurrently discussed at [3]. The label "progressive" does not fit within the definition or examples of WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Some organizations that identify themselves as "progressive" may be elsewhere described as "liberal," but saying "someone is wrong on the Internet" does not justify deleting whole categories. At most, confusion between two closely related categories may be an argument for merging them as Sparrowhawk64 suggested; however, there are also good arguments for keeping them separate, as Hmains has pointed out.[4] There was disagreement recently over whether to call Pluto a "planet" or not, but that disagreement is not enough reason to delete the category "Planets."[5]TVC 15 (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - frankly, 'progressive' is a weasel word. It simply means you are in favour of progress, which nearly everyone is; so virtually anyone could consider themselves 'progressive', though they might mean something very different by it. This category might be acceptable if it was limited to 'organisations that have been described as 'progressive' by reliable sources', but I think if anyone's allowed to add themselves to it, it's of no use. Robofish (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Progressive in modern American political contexts refer to those left of center. I doubt you'll find any Republicans or conservatives who define themselves as progressives. Liberals often call themselves progressive for instance. Also, we all agree that those in the category should be in the category because of reliable sources. Some however think "reliable sources" don't know what they're talking about and may not agree on exactly what progressive means.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, again, categories are not referenced, so it must be self-evident that an article belongs in the category. Since there is no objective criteria for this, you are proposing relying on subjective opinion which immediately fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. It doesn't matter if the subjective opinion is yours or if it comes from a third-party source, it is still subjective opinion. This category (and related categories) got around this for the last 18 months or so by limiting inclusion to organizations which self-identify (which is objective). But you and a couple other editors now oppose that for some reason which leaves the current situation where there is no objective criteria and the category violates WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I very well realize categories are not referenced. I was stating that this category should include those who self-identify as such and those labeled as such by reliable sources. You and the other editors who are opposing having categories for ideological organizations are intent on there being one singly and universally accepted definition for every political ideology there is and there never will be. Since that is the case you might as well rip every ideological label from every political party page in Wikipedia. I have heard the word "subjective" bandied about by those who seem to think that by merely stating something as such makes it so and who also think that any normally reliable source of information is suddenly ignorant as to what a political ideology is and what organizations promote it. The reason this category needs to be kept is so that users may find similar organizations and better navigate Wikipedia. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self identification as "X" (or labelling by others as "X") works when the term has a clear meaning. For example "socialist" has a clear meaning: one who seeks common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. There are arguments around the boundaries, but the concept is simple and clear ... but even so, those boundary issues are so problematic that it makes for a bad category. This one doesn't have such a meaning, and it's so vague that it has been self-applied (and applied by others) to organisations with wildly different values. You can have all the sources you like attaching the label to an organisation, but unless the term has a clear and shared meaning, then it makes a useless category ... and neither you nor any of the other "keep" !voters can identify any such shared meaning. You clearly haven't been following the discussion if you think that the word "subjective has just been "bandied about". A subjective category is one which lacks clear and objective tests for inclusion ... and this category just groups articles on the basis of a trendy and undefined waffle-term applied by writers with wildly varying intent, and serving that all up to readers who do not have a shared understanding of what the term means. You comment about editors who "think that any normally reliable source of information is suddenly ignorant as to what a political ideology is and what organizations promote it" might amount to something other that cheap name-callingif you yourself could offer a concise explanation of what on earth the "political ideology" actually is. But you haven't done so, and your best attempt so far is to define it as "left of center". That doesn't match the widely varying range of definitions in the article Progressivism in the United States, which divides it into into four waves, with very different agendas at different times ... and it doesn't even answer the question how exactly you propose to define the "center". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually socialism includes everything from center-left social democracy to communism so that analogy doesn't fit. I have yet to find any modern American organizations who identify as progressive that have wildly differing opinions. I don't care what other users say, progressive is often used as a substitute for liberal, as both in the modern American context mean somewhere on the left. If you propose on systematically deconstructing the American political spectrum by asking what centrist means then this is not the forum. Newspapers (not op-ed pieces) and academic sources should be sufficient as references. You yourself stated the page on American Progressivism was not referenced and as I have repeatedly stated that I stress the adjective modern in reference to the progressive which we are discussing and yet you keep on repeating "four waves". Your vociferous POV pushing has become tiresome and has failed to create consensus. Most people however seem to agree that this needs to be kept. Again my argument in keeping this is to continue Wikipedia's goal of allowing the easy access of information, in this case allowing users to navigate among modern American political organizations who are defined as progressive. I'm tired of this banter. I've got more than enough written on this category and don't feel I need to write anymore.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sparrowhawk, if all you can make a facile, malicious and unfounded allegation of POV-pushing, then it is indeed best that you don't write any more. I am not pushing any POV: on the contrary, I am arguing against using wikipedia to label people and organisations by fuzzy POV terms. I have consistently argued that subjective and vague terms do not make for good categories, per long-established guidelines, and all your ramblings here have failed to provide any evidence that this category is anything other than vague and subjective. You write of "organizations who are defined as progressive", but since that term does not have a stable, clear or reliable definition, its use is not a categorisation of classification, just a vague labelling. You even advocate the use of the term "modern progressive" without offering either a definition for that or any evidence that it isn't just a neologism. I'm glad to see, however, that we do agree that socialism also makes a bad category for labelling people or organisations ... but I'm still very amused that you that you seem to think that the concept of "centrist" is so clearly defined as not to need any discussion. It's an important concept in political science, but as a relativist one its position is too vague to be usable as for categorising anything other than those few political parties which explicitly define themselves as being positioned between two extremes. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 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.
Delete for the same reasons as below; another trivial intersection that, while they define the subjects individually, the intersection doesn't categorise the subjects. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The part where you assume that the two careers were unrelated. For one example of the relation, I refer you to Humphrey Bogart, Henry Fonda, Lee Marvin, Morgan Freeman, Elvis Presley, Rod Steiger, Lee Marvin, Toshiro Mifune. These are only a few of the actors who are so iconic to us in their military roles. Do you think their military experience bears no relation to this?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than fall into subjective or arbitrary categories, I think it best to stick with this one, as it's clear, objective, and only notable actors will have their own article anyway. Besides, a person's military experience is not likely to be something that doesn't affect a person. I move to Keep the category.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only notable actors will have their own article, but once again you miss the point that not all actors who served in the military will be notable for having served in the military. So either you populate this category with lots of actors for whom there is no evidence that military service is relevant to their acting criteria (which is a trivial intersection), or you make subjective judgements, or you you set an arbitrary threshold]]. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think military experience would be a notable experience in any person's life. And this category lists notable people (actors) who have served in the military. I don't understand your aversion to the grouping.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial intersection. There is presumption that military service somehow defines an actor's work, which is a fallacy. older ≠ wiser19:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we're using the "trivial" argument, which is a term that varies from person to person on what is trivial, then we have a lot of deleting to do. I see no good argument against it.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 05:44, 1 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.
General policy is clear, trivial intersections should be avoided. Strong arguments have been made to indicate that this is the case for this category. Those in favour of retention have largely argued that there may be a significant connection between a writer's work and their military service. While this may be true in certain instances, this does not make this attribute an appropriate vehicle for categorisation.
Nominator's rationale:Delete per WP:OCAT#Trivial_intersection: "Avoid intersections of two traits that are unrelated, even if some person can be found that has both traits". In this case, it is an intersection of people who happen to have held two unrelated occupations at different times in their lives. While there are undoubtedly some cases in which military service has been a notable influenced on a writer's career, the extent to which it is an influence varies greatly, and one of the problems with a category such as this is that it is unavoidably flawed in at least one of three ways:
Without any inclusion criteria beyond military service and published writings, it becomes a trivial intersection of coincidence, like red-haired kings
If the category is used only for writers whose career has been significantly influenced by military service, then it fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Just how significant is significant enough?
If any attempt is made to define some precise inclusion criteria, then it fails WP:OC#ARBITRARY
Strong keep The issue is relevant, and does not comfortably fit under any Overcategorization heading, since the comparison "redhaired kings" doesn't apply. Military service and writing are two conscious decisions, whereas the example given is coincidental. As can be seen on this 2010 January 13 discussion, there are many strong views about related categories. On top of this, the nominator seems to agree that it could be a notable intersection, yet nominated the category anyway to prevent future clutter. I recommend dealing with each category on a case by case basis. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all military service is a conscious decision. Spike Milligan, for example (who is not in ths category, but nevertheless might be included both in this and in Category:Musicians who have served in the military), consciously decided to be a musician, consciously decided to write, and also consciously decided to write about his military life; but his military service was not a conscious decision. Although he came from a military family, he did not volunteer: his service was forced upon him by the UK conscription laws which were in force for several years from 1939. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably bad wording on my part. To clarify, military careers are experiences, conscious experiences, whereas having red hair is often genetic and thus has less relevance on the person's life and decisions.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that something caused genetically is insignificant will be news to someone with cystic fibrosis or Huntington's disease. Are you really sure that teased throughout childhood for being red-haired is irrelevant to someone's view of the world? As to conscious experiences, growing up in poverty, losing a mother or having a miscarriage are all highly significant life events which may well influence an artist. If we categorise writers by military service, why not also clutter up their articles with categories for all these other things which might influence them? Everything from Category:Writers with a university degree in English literature has just as strong a claim to be a significant influence. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to make a case for why red-haired kings shouldn't be allowed as a category, I'm only trying to find the difference between the two categories. Why was Red-Haired Kings chosen as an example of Trivial intersection? The only thing I could come up with is that the color of a king's hair doesn't much affect anything notable. Sorry if I'm wrong, but that's all I could come up with for the category's triviality. I understand why celebrity gamers was chosen as an example of trivial intersection. It's because it's vague. As for all your other ideas for categories, I actually think some of them bear notability. Unfortunately, this is the discussion for writers who have served in the military, so we should stay focused. And so, I think it's pretty clear that writers who have served in the military is a notable category, since the military certainly affects a person's life, and writing is how we communicate en masse.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even saying that the writers had to have written about their experiences in the military. I think the category works just fine with its broad scope, because the two occupations become related and notable in the person. Let's not forget about the person. Whether the writer wrote first and then served in the military or served in the military and then wrote, I think it's still a valid and notable intersection of attributes and worth keeping. This is probably because I find writers so interesting, and I don't think there are too many categories I would object to for them. As far as your proposed categories, if you really find some use in them, I suggest you start one or some or all of them, and see how they do, and how well they become populated.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify or Keep This strikes me as an important intersection, the World War I poets, Kurt Vonnegut, Tolkein, Jaroslav Hašek and Joseph Heller all spring to mind profoundly experienced by their experience of war.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The writers you list didn't just join the armed forces, they fought in a war, which is a narrow subset of this category. It this category is kept as a category, there are no grounds to exclude a writer whose military service was a cushy job in the stores somewhere in their own country in peacetime and who never wrote about their military service. If a threshold is to be set, how can it avoid being either arbitrary or subjective? A list is a avoids those pitfalls, but it risks being original research. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that a rename on the list or category to narrow down the focus to wartime service might be appropriate. There should be plenty of sources on this subject. I cannot believe that there haven't been several PhDs on the subject and I could imagine a well-researched featured list being produced. Of course it then openbs up the question as to whether it should be confined to those who served or whether the likes of J. G. Ballard and hsi prison camp experiences would also be relevant.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC) (Ps. How could I not have mentioned Remarque above?)[reply]
Delete as an intersection that is trivial. We could hypothetically categorize writers by any other intersection that had an effect on their lives. If the info is wanted, a list would suffice. Good Ol’factory(talk)07:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, the category should only be applied in cases where military sevice was a notable chracteristic of a writing career. This should be reflected by a note on the category page. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But if it isn't reflected in the category name, that limitation is effectively non-existent. No one has to even look at the category page to add a category to an article. The category's name literally invites every writer throughout human history who ever served in any capacity in any military, regardless of the order that occurred within their life and regardless of whether any reliable source has ever commented on any relationship between their writing and their military service. postdlf (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate, or rename with a more tightly defined inclusion criteria. Category:writers strongly influenced by military service. I see that Tolkien is missing. I will become messy trying to decide whether this artist was influenced by that. I think writers will say that everything influences. On further though, delete as a trivial intersection, or overcategorisation. Every writer who served is influenced by their service. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this only reflects coincidence that one person happened to do two things during their life without regard to any other information. This category does not exclude writers who never wrote professionally after joining the military (either because they simply abandoned writing or because they died in combat), so it does not even target those whose writing could have been influenced by their military service. More important, basing this category on a likely influence of military service on writing papers over the fact that such an influence could manifest itself in completely different ways based on the individual, the time period, the kind and duration of service, etc. That just simplifies supposed causal relationships and equivocates unlike things, particularly without any kind of focus in this category on writers who actually wrote about the military or war generally. And as pointed out above, that rationale also begs the question of why we shouldn't also create categories for everything else any writer may have done in their life, as obviously those would be influences on their writing as well. Or we could just flesh out the biographies of each writer's article, rather than pretend that this kind of trivial cross-indexing is somehow substantively informative. postdlf (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To clarify the apparent focus of the categroy. Otherwise this and the parent, Category:Solar powered vehicles, would seem to be covering the same area. I'll leave it to others to decide on the need for a hyphen in the proposed name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 2. Jafeluv (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)