Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 5

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< November 4 November 6 >

November 5

Category:Pre-1910 film stubs

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. – Fayenatic London 15:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since 1910 is such an arbitrary place to cut off Category:Film stubs by decade, I created Category:1900s film stubs, and moved the appropriate templates to have enough articles to meet the threshold. This category should therefore be renamed, as it no longer contains templates for films from 2 different centuries. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems like a reasonable adjustment given the changes. Agreed that current demarcation is arbitrary anyway. SFB 17:48, 7 November 2014 (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:Autism Rights Movement

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 18:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Term is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized (other than the first word). —C.Fred (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2014 (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 killed by the Israel Defense Forces

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly broad category should be deleted consistent with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 21#Category:People killed by the United States Armed Forces brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons of the US one; no NPOV reason to single out one country's armed forces. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But most of the "same reasons" can not be applied to this category and there is no singling out of any one country's armed forces, so what reason is there for deleting this? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no singling out? Are you kidding? Whose armed forces besides Israel's have categories? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If "people killed by Namibia's armed forces" or "people killed by Paraguay's armed forces" would include a number of people known only for having been killed by these armed forces than the categories would exist. A vote to delete this also counts as a vote to never create these other categories even if they become as filled with notable killed people as this one is. There are categories for those killed by Turkey, Taliban, Sri Lanka, Pirates, and more. But those comparisons are not of high importance, what is important is the usefulness of the category. Does it hurt for it to stay, no, does it help to stay after people used for many years, yes. PS, some IPs coming out of Israel are vandalizing my user page and many articles, are you allowed, would you, stop them? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very useful, it helped me to find notable cases and people worthy of articles. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LIKE
    are not valid reasons to keep non-encyclopedic content.
  • Stop making a mockery of wikipedia, stop lying about the rules and stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never said I liked it and at your link it states that for categories "usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument." Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected regarding
    WP:USEFUL, it indeed does not apply to categories. “WarKosign” 21:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The vast majority of those killed by the IDF will never have an article, the sheer numbers will still be 10000x smaller than other categories. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't understand per nom please see
    WP:GLOSSARY. DexDor (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note. There is a related discussion here. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like with the US category, this seems too broad to be defining. It covers both combatants, civilians and people whose status is dispuuted; those killed on purpose in targeted raids, those killed inadvertently as collateral damage, and those killed in traditional combats; those killed in Israel proper, those killed Occupied Territories, those killed in other countries; and those killed in 50+ years of different wars and conflicts that have different historical contexts. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does wikipedia have an article on Iman Darweesh Al Hams? There are many people who are notable for nothing more than being killed by the IDF. What category do you suggest we put her and others like her in? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Wikipedia have an article on Iman Darweesh Al Hams? There's a lot there, some of it from generally reliable sources, but most is unreliable commentary. I'm not sure that a reasonable trimming would leave enough for an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a strong culture of hatred for Palestinian people on wikipedia. If you think an article about the murder of a Palestinian child on their way to school and Israel's support for the murder is not worthy of an article...I can't wait to see you delete the thousands of much less notable articles where Israelis are the victims, though I won't hold me breath to see you do that. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's notable about her (unfortunate) death is the tribunal and the media coverage. If not for that, she would be yet another child sent to a certain death by the "freedom fighters" to a "prove" the brutality of the evil IDF.
What the fuck is wrong with you? A child is murdered in cold blood by the IDF on her way to school and you try to spin the blame for her death on the resistance movement? Why is racism so prevalent on wikipedia? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a strong culture of hatred against Israel on Wikipedia, as there is in the real world. In almost all cases, hatred of Palestinians is merely hatred of terrorists. You, Dr. R.R. Pickles, have provided an excellent argument that the category and any related articles should be deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You, Arthur Rubin, have just shown you have an interest in treating Israel and Palestine articles differently from each other and the rest of wikipedia. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll gladly withdraw my vote, if it will bring all these replies to an end. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be rewarding personal attacks and therefore wrong. Meanwhile Dr. R. R. Pickles was blocked for another personal attack, hopefully once they return they will try to be more civil. It is perfectly within their right to disagree, even strongly, but it is not within their right to use vulgar language and personal attacks to intimidate editors into "correct" opinions. “WarKosign” 05:08, 12 November 2014 (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/2014_November_5&oldid=1138399877"