Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< April 26 April 28 >

April 27

Category:Major British cities

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. Kbdank71 13:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Major British cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Barring some sort of legal or official classification as a "Major City", which I am not aware of, this means of classification can only be done in a POV way or by using arbitrary inclusionary criteria, which if there are any are not defined. Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Japanese expatriate footballers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both. Kbdank71 15:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Japanese footballers in Europe, Category:Japanese footballers in South America to Category:Japanese expatriate footballers
Nominator's rationale: convention (as it stands) does not have it to categorize people by occupation by continent; suggested merger would fit the largely established rubric Category:Expatriate footballers by nationality Mayumashu (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Arab Air Carriers Organization

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Arab Air Carriers Organization to Category:Arab Air Carriers Organization members
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Clarify what the contents of the category are. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bands with female lead singers

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. Kbdank71 13:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bands with female lead singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no specific notability for a band that has a female lead singer; thousands of mixed-gender groups exist (keep in mind that Category:Mixed-gender musical groups was deleted). We already have Category:All-women bands for the rare cases of all-women bands, which are possibly notable given their relative rarity. As the size of this category indicates, this is indiscriminate overcategorization; there's no Category:Bands with male lead singers is there? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:G-Unit Records articles with comments

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. Kbdank71 13:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:G-Unit Records articles with comments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - whether an article has comments on its talk page is a trivial basis for categorization.
talk) 14:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Joint venture G-Unit Records artists

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: upmerge. Kbdank71 13:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Joint venture G-Unit Records artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing artists by the method through which they are signed to a particular record label is overcategorization.
talk) 14:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:G'$ Up

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. Kbdank71 13:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:G'$ Up (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization for a record label's sub-label.
talk) 14:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Crime Mob

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. Kbdank71 13:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Crime Mob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization.
talk) 14:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:M.O.P.

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. Kbdank71 13:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:M.O.P. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - completely unnecessary eponymous overcategorization. Part of a walled garden for G-Unit that was previously dismantled but is now back under construction.
talk) 14:09, 27 April 2008 (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.

Crime by city in the US

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 13:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By prior precedent, most city articles and categories for US cities include the ", state" after the name of the city.

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.

Sports teams by city in the US

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 13:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By prior precedent, most city articles and categories for US cities include the ", state" after the name of the city. All of these categories' parents are of that form (links provided, because I'm such a nice guy). Only the categories relating to cities have been nominated. Categories such as Category:Sports in the Dallas-Fort Worth area or Category:Sports in the Quad Cities which sometimes cloud the issue have been left off my list. Neier (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all. Neier (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - As with the above CfD, it will aid in understanding and comprehension. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. As above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless the categorization guidelines clearly state that the target categories are not restricted to the city proper. Otherwise a large number of articles will need to be edited to manually remove them. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's safe to say that the Pistons belong in the Detroit category despite playing in Auburn Hills. They're definitely part of the city.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As much a part of the city as the Colts were in Baltimore, the football Cardinals were in St. Louis, and the Raiders were in LA no doubt. It's a business, businesses move to greener pastures, and moving to the 'burbs is moving out of the city - and out of its categories... Just like we don't put the mayors of Auburn Hills in Category:Mayors of Detroit. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mayors in Auburn Hills have no effect on Detroit. The Pistons do. They belong in a category about Detroit. And besides, how is the category as currently named not about Detroit? It isn't "Sports within 30 miles of Detroit, give or take." Adding the state affects this perception in no way at all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - per nom by city with state. Steam5 (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. As for Vegaswikian's comment, I think it's safe to say that most editors put all teams or venues in the metropolitan area within each city's category. That's what I've been doing all along. — Dale Arnett (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. I've made a couple of very similar mass-nominations, so I definitely support this one. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if these are renamed, they need to be manually pruned per Vegaswikian. Accuracy, verifiability over subjective POV inclusion by how far from town something gets and still is in the category: Golden State Warriors in San Francisco, any one? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That presumes that the presence or absence of the state in the category name makes any difference to the scope of the category. I didn't see that it made any difference the first time Vegaswikian raised the complaint, and I still do not. And if it makes no difference to the scope of the category, then there is no need to for any effort to clean up the scope of the categories as part of the rename effort. That's not to say that any such clean-up should or should not happen, but I just don't see such a scope cleanup as having anything to do with this rename, as IMHO the rename has nothing to do with the scope of the categories. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've never understood how Detroit, Michigan is somehow less accurate or more restrictive than Detroit either. If The Golden State Warriors are located in San Francisco, California is incorrect, then what makes The Golden State Warriors are located in San Francisco acceptable? Neier (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's why we need to clarify how the category name affects the contents. There have been comments about a rename to include the state saying to remove everything not in the city limits. Without the state, there was consensus to include the surrounding areas. I thing I once suggested that these be renamed to metropolitan area to eliminate any confusion but that did not gain support. The comments above about pruning clearly indicate that after a rename like this, there is by clearly confusion as to what the category contains. Personally a rename to metropolitan area would be the least confusing and is probably the best approach. That allows someone to add city specific tags if they desire. If you complete a rename like this, and I wanted to list the articles about sports that are actually in the city of Las Vegas what category name would I use? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Massacres by Americans

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. Kbdank71 13:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Massacres by Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: mostly redundant to Category:Massacres in the United States, overcategorizing HokieRNB (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the remaining 3 articles, for events outside of the US, only the
    Haditha killings
    , but I'm sure that would be hotly contested. (The article's name was already changed from "Haditha massacre".)
  • That brings us to the Iran Air Flight 655 article, which I suspect is what prompted the creation of this category. As horrible as that event was, it isn't properly designated as a "massacre". As the explanatory info for Category:Airliner shootdowns states, it was "attacked due to misidentification as enemy warplane". (I would argue that it was the result of a reckless policy/posture on the part of the US Navy, but that's another whole issue.)
  • So we are left with the question, "Is there a good rationale for a Category:Massacres committed by the United States?" Again, I'm not against this in principle, but given that there is currently only one article about a massacre that took place outside of US territory, I think it's a dubious proposition. In my judgement, we should proceed carefully here. Since there are, at present, no other categories for "Massacres committed by Country Xyz", it would be implicitly very POV to have such a category only for the United States. We could certainly establish an entire category tree along these lines, but I think it would be best to have a full-blown discussion on that issue before proceeding. Cgingold (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the broad scope of this discussion I have posted notice of this CFD at the talk pages for WikiProject Human rights and WikiProject Military history. Cgingold (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question (to be answered by "Delete" voters) - what substitute category would My Lai massacre fall under, to illustrate that that massacre was perpetrated by United States individuals? I see none. Badagnani (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its already in a massacre category. What category should
Virginia Tech massacre, which is supposedly part of this category, was perpetrated by Seung-Hui Cho (which wikipedia lists was "a South Korean national") Which category should be used to indicate that it was perpetrated by South Korean Nationals living in the USA with green cards? Category:Massacres by South Korean Nationals living in the Commonwealth of Virginia? The answer is that they are already in a Massacre category and additional categorization is not needed. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment - Well, there were many massacres by U.S. forces within the U.S., as seen in the cats Category:Massacres of Native Americans and Category:Indian massacres. The key is that U.S. forces actually perpetrated the Indian massacres and the Vietnamese massacres; as it stands such massacres perpetrated by states are not categorized as such, but simply by the nation in which they occurred. Thus, someone looking for massacres perpetrated by U.S. forces would need to look through all 100+ "massacres in X country" categories, and read all the articles, in order to find them. That seems a problem. The Virginia Tech massacre was not perpetrated by United States forces, so it's not relevant here. Badagnani (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of this category added the Virginia Tech Massacre to this category. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - first, "massacre" is ill-defined. Is it a certain number of individual deaths? Must the killers see the victims, or would air or missile attacks be massacres? Further, I see no NPOV reason to categorize atrocities by nations. If there is a need for understanding a policy for killing, that deserves the level of detail of an article, not merely a category stamp. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This unfortunate posting shows the typical lack of prior reading typical of many "delete page regular" voters. If the term "massacre" were so poorly understood or defined, we wouldn't have an article for it, nor any categories with this term. This is not the issue or question at hand. Badagnani (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: This opens categories such as "Massacres by Germans" as opposed to "Massacres by Nazi Germany". I have no issue with recording where a massacre occurred or under whose purported authority. When we get to nationalities or ethnicities of alleged participants, that is a completely different category which presents an invitation for endless recriminations and abuse. We have enough of that without creating new venues for nurturing bad faith among editors. —PētersV (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you have "no issue with recording where a massacre occurred or under whose purported authority," it's best to simply suggest a different name for the category than simply vote "Strong delete." Badagnani (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - Categories by nationality (and America being a case which is less strongly aligned with ethnicity, but ethnicity plays here as well) are open to abuse by those having an axe to grind. Perhaps "Bank robberies by Poles"? I find the whole notion of categories of "BAD THING X done by nationality/ethnicity Y" to be intellectually repugnant, not just editorially divisive. Finding a different name for a thing doesn't change the thing itself. And, upon further consideration, I (partially, stricken) withdraw my "I have no issue with" as, in the end, by country/authority is open to the same abuse. If the editorial community has come to a consensus that "Massacre X took place at location Y," that is all we should categorize by. —PētersV (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: Ambiguous, redundant, and disruptive. As already demonstrated by the responses here, it is unclear whether it broadly applies to massacres committed by U.S. nationals, by any member of any state in the Americas, or narrowly to those by “Native Americans”. Such a category has all-but-total overlap with the existing “Massacres in …” categories, and this category naming approach also conflicts with
    spilled the beans for which I apologize beforehand. (There is a Category:Massacres by Native Americans and it was clearly designed to be complementary to Category:Massacres of Native Americans – i.e., to avoid duplication.) Since, contra editor Badagnani, there is no widely accepted definition of what quantity of people or percentage of a group of persons killed constitutes a “massacre”, it’s about as useful – and neutral – a term as “terrorist” for categorization or other encyclopedic use. And never mind the traditional usage of the term to reflect an incident involving the near-total or total killing of a sizable group poorly able or unable to defend itself from such slaughter. Any incident any referable source chooses to describe as a “massacre” can be used to freely load up a category such as this with all the negative propaganda and opprobrium that anyone with an animosity toward that group cares to add. In a word, that is disruptive. Let's not get started down this path. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - Comment doesn't make sense at all; indeed, we have articles with "massacre" in the title and those articles refer, by editor consensus, to massacres. It's quite clear. Despite my very clear comment above, the editor just above neglects to point out how an editor looking for massacres committed by agents of the United States may find such, without looking through every subcategory of "massacres committed in X country," and reading every article, to determine which were committed by agents of the United States. Please actually address the comments and questions raise without needlessly introducing confusion where there is none (specifically by presenting hypotheticals about the supposed lack of knowledge on the part of our editors of what the word "massacre" means). We shouldn't be in the business of minimizing or maximizing actual events, simply properly documenting and categorizing all of them. I ask again, if a researcher is using Wikipedia to look for actual massacres, comprising WP articles that have "massacre" in the title of the article by WP consensus, perpetrated by agents of the United States, how would they find those without closely inspecting every such article? As mentioned above, there is no such difficulty in locating massacres of American Indians and massacres by American Indians, so our predecessors designed those categories well. Badagnani (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I just moved the remarks by PētersV & Vecrumba from where they had been inserted smack in the middle of my lengthy comment to the proper chronological location. Please people, be more careful where you add your comments (and, oh yes -- sign them, too). Cgingold (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, over categorization and ambiguous scope and membership, is this applicable to native Americans, South Americans or North Americans?
    talk) 07:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Could you explain why you added the
Virginia Tech Massacre to this category? A massacre that appears to have been committed by a South Korean National? You created the category and from the items you added to it, it's not clear what items you think should be added to the category. I don't see any reason that Massacres need to be sub-categorized by nationality, continent, race, religion, ethnicity, or sex. Massacres in country is adequate for sub-categorization. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United Nations Intelligence Taskforce

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:United Nations Intelligence Taskforce to Category:UNIT
Nominator's rationale: Merge, This a is follow-up to the page rename of
United Nations Intelligence Taskforce to UNIT. Although acoronyms are usually avoided in categories, an exception should be made in this case to match the article, and due to the dispute over whether the old or new name of the organisation should be used. See Talk:UNIT#Requested move for more details. Tim! (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Mission

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Mission to Category:People from Mission, British Columbia
Nominator's rationale: This category is propose for renaming, I type the search "Mission", a lot of specific names is named "Mission", then I type the search "Mission, British Columbia" This is the only search to match with the renamed article. This category must be renamed. Steam5 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Also makes the category more specific. Martarius (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Neier (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Sounding like a broken record here, but yes, per nom. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and per
    -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment there are hundreds/thousands of similar categories for/about Canadian cities, towns, etc. Can't they all be done quickly instead of this tiresome one at a time thing? Hmains (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_27&oldid=1138389561"