Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 26: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:03, 31 January 2013

< January 25	January 27 >

January 26

Category:Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards

Propose deleting Category:Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Isn't this WP:OCAT by, well, a perverse kind of "award"? If kept, it should be Category:People depicted on the Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards as these are people, not articles on playing cards. Courcelles 21:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listify. This belongs in a list, not a category. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards. Courcelles 06:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Obviously not defining; since a list already exists, the category can be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an award category (well maybe more an anti-award, but that is a type of award) and as such should be delted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airliner accidents and incidents involving runway overruns

~~:* Propose renaming Category:Airliner accidents and incidents involving runway overruns to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents involving runway overruns~~

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by type, not only airliners happen to overrun the runways. Brandmeister^talk 20:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The proposed category name would be a seperate category from the Airliners category; it has not been created only because there are no notable non-airliner overrun accidents with articles yet. If it is needed it should be created on its own; moving the accidents here from 'Airliners...' to 'Aviation...' will take them out of the Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I've gone ahead and created the proposed category as a container cat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I pulled the nomination, although such categorizing would look more appropriate when non-airliner overruns appear as well IMO. Brandmeister^talk 13:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Quite true, but it'll clear up the issue until notable such accidents are found. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Track and field athletes by event, nationality and gender

I believe these categories should be re-upmerged to the "female eventers" and "fooian female athletes" parent categories. These categories, dividing track and field athletes by their gender, event and nationality are overwhelmingly a narrow intersection. We currently have seventeen different event categories for track and field athletes and 225 nationality track and field categories. Without even considering gender, things like Category:New Zealand discus throwers and Category:New Zealand female athletes are already pretty narrow.

The expansion of this type of category will force the track and field category structure into very narrow definitions. I even think that "fooian eventer" categories have done much damage in this respect: in Category:Hammer throwers, around 50 of the 70 subcategories contain a negligible number of articles. There are of course examples where these semantic divisions would make sense (Category:American sprinters, Category:Kenyan long-distance runners) but beyond this the vast majority of categories will be ill-served by this division.

There tend to be a few hundred athlete articles per event, not thousands. The end-game of an event/gender/country category structure would produce over 7500 categories. There comes a point where we have to ask ourselves: do we really need 200 different categories for long jumpers? SFB 19:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they are. Gender is important here because in all sport events listed here men and women compete separately. Nationality also has an encyclopedic value here as nearly all sports people compete for their country of origin and/or citizenship (also some folks may be interested in female sprinters from a particular country for example). Brandmeister^talk 20:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Men and women compete separately here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In every article for every competition from the Olympics on down, men and women are described in reliable and verifiable sources as competing separately, with competitors representing their country and participating in a specific sport. The International Olympic Committee seems to have no difficulty dealing with thousands of these individuals as people across their different combinations of sex, sport and country in events staged at a cost of billions of dollars, why should we have any more difficulty in allocating the few additional bytes needed to mirror this real-world distinction? Alansohn (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Alansohn. AFAICS, men and women compete separately in all these sports, so they should be categorised separately.
It is a pity that nominator appears not to have read WP:Cat gender, which says As most notable organized sporting activities are segregated by gender, sportsperson categories constitute a case where "gender has a specific relation to the topic". As such, sportsperson categories should be split by gender, except in such cases where men and women participate primarily in mixed-gender competition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No we do not need 200+ ill-populated categories for each track-and-field event, further subdivided by gender against WP:CATGRS, which discourages doing so except where genuinely useful. Having thousands upon thousands of pointless microcategories like this is not useful at all. No amount of politically correct testiness is going to change that. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Claims of "political correctness" are irrelevant here. We categorise by defining characteristic, and gender is a defining characteristic of competitors in sports which are segregated by gender, just as nationality is a defining characteristic of sportspeople who seek to compete as representatives of their nation. Whether is "politically correct" to do so or not to do so, we should categorise attributes which are defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What's bizarre is that the delete is predicated on a reference to WP:CATGRS, but ignores BHG's direct quote from that editing guideline, which states (again) that "As most notable organized sporting activities are segregated by gender, sportsperson categories constitute a case where "gender has a specific relation to the topic". As such, sportsperson categories should be split by gender, except in such cases where men and women participate primarily in mixed-gender competition." This is not a situation where categories could be split by sex; these are categories that should be split. Every aspect of this structure -- sex, sport and country -- is extremely well defined, and the ability to navigate through related articles in this structure by sex, by nation, by sport or by any combination thereof is a rather clear aid to navigation of an exceedingly strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it would be misleading to not divide people in these sports by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry but I think my nomination has been completely misread by the majority of the people above. At no point am I saying we should do away with the female athlete categories like Category:Female hammer throwers or Category:Canadian female track and field athletes. My first line explicitly says these categories should be retained as important categories in the structure.

I am advocating that a triple category intersection comprising nationality, gender, AND event is generally unviable, hence my point about this intersection having a possible 450 categories for long jumpers. Could those above please revise their statements to reflect the nature of the nomination? SFB 18:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland Hurlers by "GAA county"

Propose re-naming the following hurling categories that cross-sect by GAA county.

Category: Antrim hurlers to Category:Antrim GAA hurlers

Category: Derry hurlers to Category:Derry GAA hurlers

Category: Down hurlers to Category:Down GAA hurlers

Category: Ulster hurlers to Category:Ulster GAA hurlers

Category: Leinster hurlers to Category:Leinster GAA hurlers

Category: Munster hurlers to Category:Munster GAA hurlers

Category: Connacht hurlers to Category:Connacht GAA hurlers

Nominator's rationale per the precedent of Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers held at here. The "counties" are governing bodies, not administrative counties and so need to be disambiguated. This tidies up the situation in all of Ireland (assuming that the proposal of January 17 is also carried). Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for all the reasons set out in many comments opposing the parallel proposal from this editor, here, affecting another 22 categories. This editor changed one category that didn't need changed, and is now trying to cite that as a rationale for changing dozens of others that don't need changed. Brocach (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's what's called a Precedent - "a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.". Hence the citation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not operate as a court. The fact that a bad idea got pushed through in one category does not require changes to dozens of other categories. It requires the first category to be restored to its correct place. Brocach (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is somewhere between those two views. Wikipedia discussions are not legal judgments, and LL is wrong to view one CFD as being like a supreme court decision. However, the category system does work best if categories are consistent, so there is a strong case for consistency, and consistency with an existing convention is one of the criteria for speedy renaming. But in this case, the existing convention is not to use "GAA" in these categories, and the previous decision was flawed because it sought to change a convention without nominating all the affected categories. Since no reason was offered to make Tipperary an exception, it should not have been renamed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Firstly, this discussion should either wait until the closure of the Jan 17 discussion on other similar categories, or be merged with that one. There appear to be no separate issues raised by this set of categories (other than he addition of provinces, which the nominator lumps in as if they were counties), so there is no reason to discuss them separately to the others. If the others are renamed, this this can be speedied; if they are not renamed, then this proposal is pointless.
Substantively, this is a pointless disambiguation which simply adds verbosity without clarifying anything. "Antrim GAA hurlers" can be read either as "(Antrim GAA) hurlers" which does slightly emphasise that we refer to hurlers who played for Antrim GAA ... but it can equally well be read as "Antrim (GAA hurlers)", which is tautologous and adds no clarity.
The nominator's attempt to raise the distinction between a GAA county and an adminstrative county is a red herring; in most cases the two have identical boundaries, and in cases where they diverge the differences are small and variable.
The "precedent" cited by the nominator is a bad decision, arising out of the nomination of only one county, which led to inadequate scrutiny. The same arguments have achieved much less support when discussed at Jan 17 in relation to a wider set, and it is an abuse of process to repeatedly discuss the same issue in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BHG. It is pointless and an abuse of process to propose further moves while the earlier proposal is still under discussion. There is no confusion in the present titles and therefore no need for disambiguation. Scolaire (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Per the resoning that the templates refer to the GAA counties not the geographical counties. The current ones are misleading as those who don't know about GAA could be misled into thinking that derry was the name of the administrative county rather than only being the GAA county name. It should be changed so all can be clear without fear of confusion. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since the current name is sufficiently clear and there is no good reason to chance it to a longer form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI You may wish to consider the proposal for a topic ban on Laurel Lodged here. Brocach (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't see any ambiguity so no need to disambiguate. Mo ainm~Talk 10:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes sense to include the association name and sporting title in team names especially for a minority sport. The Article looses nothing by name change but gains by making it easier to find via search engines.Factocop (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BHG and Scolaire. Snappy (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Governors of the vilayet of Crete

Propose renaming Category:Governors of the vilayet of Crete to Category:Ottoman governors of Crete

Nominator's rationale: per all other "X-nationality governors of Y-place" categories, plus the fact that such a category would be more inclusive, as "Ottoman Crete" covers the period 1646-1898, but Crete was a vilayet only in 1864-1898 Constantine ✍ 17:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to more inclusive name. No reason to limit the category only to the last 34 years of Ottoman Crete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from brain cancer

Propose renaming Category:Deaths from brain cancer to Category:Deaths from brain tumor

Nominator's rationale: There is no brain "cancer". Malignant brain tumours are usually gliomas, blastomas etc. Jarash (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The effect of this change would be to move from a title meaning malignant tumours only to one that covers benign and uncertain behaviour as well. I can't tell from the category notes what the intention of the category as it stands currently is. I also note that the category is not tagged. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The reliable facts should matter even if the change will bring something. Also added a tag to category. --Jarash (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Deaths from brain tumor (or Category:Deaths from brain tumors to match US ENGVAR title of parent article brain tumor. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept. Jarash (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian sex gang

Propose deleting Category:Asian sex gang - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: The is a tabloid headline, not a category. The term 'sex gang' is slang and vague, and the use of 'Asian' is problematic - does it mean based in Asia, or made of up Asians (the latter, it seems), and how many of the 'gang' must be Asian to categorise an article here? Not all the perpetrators in the Derby sex gang were South Asian, and whether the ethnicity is a defining factor of these groups is disputed. Because "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial", this category should be deleted. Fences&Windows 11:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Sex Gang" to remove any racist connotations.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete "Sex Gang" is just a sensationalist tabloid label, it is not something for which there are any workable inclusion criteria.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't call BBC a tabloid [1]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's beside the point - it is clearly sensationalist tabloid-style language regardless of where it is found. What would be your inclusion criteria? Any gang having been described as a "sex gang" in news media? What makes a gang a sex gang? Probably most criminal organizations traffick in prostitution as well as other nastiness. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wе should go according to WP:RS say.If WP:RS describe certain organisation as sex gang then it probably should be part of the category.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a part of the "Muslims are on global raping rampages" agenda that some in the Israel-Palestine topic area have been pushing over the last few weeks/months. The creator of this particular category had to be banned from the topic area entirely, give his atrocious behavior. There is no rational call or reason to categorize people in this manner in an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly this is exceedingly ambiguous. And "sex gang" is even worse. If this needs to be kept, it needs a much more restricted title, otherwise, all gang rape cases in Asia articles would be categorized into this. -- 70.24.246.233 (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as racist tabloid garbage. Truly repulsive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks clear inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Asian sex gangs in United Kingdom - Yes it is repulsive, but unfortuantely it has an element of truth to it. In England, we have had a significant problem of gangs of men grooming and then prostituting young English women, often those who have been in the "care" of local authorities. Unfortunately, when the girls went to the police, they were not believed. A case in Rochdale led to a gang of men of Pakistani descent being imprisoned. Another case is being tried at Oxford. The gangs doing this seem to be disproportionately to be of Pakistani and Muslim descent, but not necessarily all are. Deleting this should not be an option. Unfortunately there is a racial element in this. In a similar way, some years ago, many of the robbers in London were of West Indian descent. The English criminals of the same age group were engaging in burglary. I would ask others commenting on this to consider these facts (and perhaps the articles categorised) before voting. We may need a similar category for the Delhi gang rape and murder case. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually at least some of the articles here involve groups in Australia so the proposed rename would not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sex gangs generally are not notable enough to warrant standalone articles, so there is no need in creating more narrow categories by continent like Asia. Category:Forced prostitution and Category:Human trafficking can be used instead. Brandmeister^talk 21:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encylopediac category name. If it were renamed, we already have these categories, so this is not needed. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above. The rename is stupid. I don't see White sex gangs in United Kingdom or similar getting created anytime soon. 188.26.163.111 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant POV-pushing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the other "delete" comments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP nightmare, created with an obvious agenda. Giant Snowman 17:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hotels on the National Register of Historic Places

Propose renaming Category:Hotels on the National Register of Historic Places to Category:Hotel buildings on the National Register of Historic Places

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Based on the parent category, this is about the buildings and not the establishments even though both can be covered in the actual article. This is a follow on to this discussion. Like that one, this would better match the naming established for Category:Bank buildings on the National Register of Historic Places, Category:Industrial buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places, Category:Government buildings on the National Register of Historic Places and Category:Post office buildings on the National Register of Historic Places along with others. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REname -- Obvious. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename per the usual reason that it is the building which is the subject of registration. Mangoe (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Amarna letters authors

Propose renaming Category:Amarna letters authors to Category:Amarna letters writers

Nominator's rationale: Or something else. I suggested on Speedy that we rename this to the target category, because we've transferred nearly all other "author" categories to "writer" categories. But there was an objection that the "writers" in question were the scribes of the monarchs who dictated them. This is way outside my knowledge base, so maybe a solution can be found here.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Speedy discussion

Category:Amarna letters authors to Category:Amarna letters writers – C2C: Per Category:Writers and all recent changes from "Authors" to "Writers".-- Mike Selinker (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Major Comment-(by Category creator). The writer upon these clay tablets is the scribe, (where some kings may have been a scribe). The author, is assuredly, the King, or Queen, (or town, 2 examples), who were the Authors of the letters. ...--Excepting in some cases, where the scribe, may have actually "authored" the letter. The King (or Queen), (or His/Her Scribe) may have authered, (with the King's approval, i.e. editing) after writing. (The Category:Amarna letters authors, in this sense is quite specific...(not the writer of the letter.)--Mmcannis (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Object, I just read the 48-hr specification). As discussed above: the authors are King (Pharaoh), Queen, Governor, or Town (2 examples). The scribes are the writers on the clay tablets.Mmcannis (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly Rename but to Category:Amarna letters senders. The person who physically wrote the letter may well have been an anonymous scribe, but if I dictate a letter to a secretary who types it, did she write the letter or did I? I would sign it and some one would put it in the post. The recipient would regard it as a letter from me. Authors categories tend to be about writign books or articles, not letters. This is a case of trying to fit a pattern to the facts, rather than the reverse. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. PKI spells it out well; "senders" might be more precise, but overly so, and confusing (to continue his anology, if the secretary then hands the letter to an intern who carries it to the mailbox and drops it in, does that make him the "sender"?). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Perisan loanwords

Delete Category:Persian loanwords
Nominator's rationale per precedent to delete the parent category here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_17#Category:Loanwords. We categorize things by what they are, not what they are named. Articles are on things, not on the words that describe them. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. This particular category has a combination of things that have been in English so long their connection to Perisan is loose at best (the fact a map showing Scythia is attached to the category shows how long ago we are dealing with), while on the other hand others things in the category have names that it is hard to say are English at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly ambiguous, could be words borrowed form Persian into any other language, words in Persian borrowed from other languages, or very biased words in Persian borrowed from English, or very biased words in English borrowed from Persian. It is the very biased "words in English borrowed from Persian" and there is absolutely no indication of this restriction in the category name. WP:Systematic bias should be avoided. Categories should never be so ambiguously named. -- 70.24.246.233 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close to match pending discussion on Category:Hindi loanwords. My vote on that was to keep. If kept the category needs to be purged of (1) places (2) words of Turkish or Arabic origin.
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 **What's bizarre is that the delete is predicated on a reference to [[WP:CATGRS]], but ignores BHG's direct quote from that editing guideline, which states (again) that '''"As most notable organized sporting activities are segregated by gender, sportsperson categories constitute a case where "gender has a specific relation to the topic". As such, sportsperson categories should be split by gender, except in such cases where men and women participate primarily in mixed-gender competition."''' This is not a situation where categories ''could be split'' by sex; these are categories that ''should be split''. Every aspect of this structure -- sex, sport and country -- is extremely well defined, and the ability to navigate through related articles in this structure by sex, by nation, by sport or by any combination thereof is a rather clear aid to navigation of an exceedingly strong defining characteristic. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 17:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' it would be misleading to not divide people in these sports by gender.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 22:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' Sorry but I think my nomination has been completely misread by the majority of the people above. At no point am I saying we should do away with the female athlete categories like [[:Category:Female hammer throwers]] or [[:Category:Canadian female track and field athletes]]. My first line explicitly says these categories should be retained as important categories in the structure.
+:I am advocating that a triple category intersection comprising nationality, gender, AND event is generally unviable, hence my point about this intersection having a possible 450 categories for long jumpers. Could those above please revise their statements to reflect the nature of the nomination? [[User talk:Sillyfolkboy|SFB]] 18:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 ==== Northern Ireland Hurlers by "GAA county" ====