Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 20 May 22 >

May 21

[edit]

Category:Dreamgirls

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. There was little support for keeping the category, and some support for creating a Category:Dreamgirls songs as a sub-category of Category:Songs from musicals, where there are a dozen or so similar sings-by-musical categories). If that category is to be created, it does not need CfD approval, and is better created from scaratch rather tan as renaming of this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Delete per convention that we should not have performer by performance categories as they create an unaccepable level of category clutter. All necessary links can be provided by an article. Honbicot 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anime-related websites to Category:Anime and manga websites
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This category includes websites for both anime and manga, and the new name fits the naming convention used by similar categories such as Category:Anime and manga terminology, Category:Anime and manga webcomics, Category:Anime and manga characters, etc. I would not be opposed to Category:Anime and manga-related websites either, but I believe the -related is unnecessary to the meaning of the title and simply makes it unnecessarily long. --tjstrf talk 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Anime fandom

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anime fandom to Category:Anime and manga fandom
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This category covers fandom for both anime and manga, and the proposed new name fits the naming convention used by similar categories such as Category:Anime and manga terminology, Category:Anime and manga webcomics, Category:Anime and manga characters, etc. --tjstrf talk 22:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Italian dukes

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dukes of Italy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

None of these men were Duke of Italy. Honbicot 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per bhg. i would be likely to oppose the whole lot, following her last argument above. Johnbod 03:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. BrownHairedGirl is mistaken to think that citizenship of a modern unified state determines whether people may be classified under nationalities like Italian and German. There are thousands of people from pre-unification who are classified under those headings. And even a non-Italian who holds an Italian dukedom is an Italian duke. Greg Grahame 11:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply That's an argument worth exploring, but it should be made in a group nomination for all the Duke by nation categories. I see no argument advanced here for making Italy an exception to the existing convention; if the convention is to be changed, let's consider it for the other affected categories as well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't accept that there is a convention of "Dukes of". The most important English-speaking country with dukes uses "Fooian dukes" as does the most populous country in the world. Honbicot 01:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you look at the sub-categories of Category:British dukes. I'm not sure some Chinese Dukes of 1600 years ago should decide this argument. Johnbod 02:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Recipients of the Pacem in Terris Peace and Freedom Award

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete, as overcategorisation.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Pacem in Terris Peace and Freedom Award (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - This is a category for people who won an award created by a Catholic diocese in Iowa and which is now presented by a slightly larger coalition in Iowa. This is not defining for its recipients and is overcategorization by award or honor. An appropriate list exists in Pacem in Terris Award. This should be deleted. Otto4711 22:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Armigers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armigers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

delete This category covers pretty much the whole of the European aristocracy, and goodness knows how many other people. But there is a much better system for categorizing nobility in place already, and this certainly isn't a defining characteristic of the likes of JFK, on whose article this is one of a seething mass of categories that desperately needs to be reduced. Honbicot 22:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Jaina mathematics

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jaina mathematics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This nomination is really with the aim of producing discussion on a category whose existence seems inconsistent with previous decisions, rather than because I have a vengeance to see this category deleted. It is clearly, effectively, being used as a "Jaina mathematicians" category and this would be inconsistent with the decision not to categorize mathematicians (or other kinds of scientist) by religious affiliation. It is not obvious how the category can be used to describe "mathematics as performed by Jains" other than serving as a repository of Jain mathematicians. This category is a subcategory of Category:Indian mathematics which is itself being misused in a similar way (holding many biographies which are also sorted under Category:Indian mathematicians - an unusual structure that could be simplified significantly by making the biographical category a subcategory of the main one, and classifying the biographical articles only by the biographical category). However, the "Indian mathematics" category would retain some non-biographical articles (for instance, Chakravala method) while the Jain category would be left empty if stripped of its biographies, suggesting that it should be treated as a "Jain mathematicians" category in disguise, and presumably, for consistency, treated as a deletable orthogonal intersection? Purgatorio 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Female superheroes

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Yes, they are often designed with sex appeal in mind (but then, so are some of the male superheroes), but that doesn't mean this is useful categorization. Roughly half of superheroes these days are female, and it's simply false to consider "male" and "female" two different species. In most cases we don't subcategorize people by gender. Instead, I would suggest writing an article depicting the female role in fiction, from damsel-in-distress Dale Arden to hapless teammate Invisible Girl (as first written) to powerful protagonist Buffy Summers. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female superheroes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete Inappropriate separation by gender. J Greb 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentI think that given both recent and long-standing controversy regarding how female superheroes/comic book characters are treated (e.g. the new Mary Jane statue, the lack of memorial for Stephanie Brown in the Batcave, the whole "Women in Refrigerators" phenomenon), female superheroes qualify as a "unique cultural topic" as required by the Gender, race, and sexuality standard. Its cultural significance as a category can be seen on sites like Girl-Wonder.org, as well as the number of scholarly and fan-produced articles.Lexid523 03:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suggestions: for ambiguous genders, don't add them to the category. For ambiguous codenames, either add the category to the character's main article only (e.g., Carmilla Black a.k.a. "Scorpion") or, if there is no separate article, go ahead and add the category anyway. People will probably be smart enough to figure it out. --GentlemanGhost 15:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose With reservations. My concern is that this is a large category. Even though superheroines are fewer in number than male superheroes, this will still be a long list. For such a big category, I'm not sure that we get a significant payoff in terms of differentiation. Are female superheroes that demonstrably different from their male counterparts? Conversely, are all female superheroes that similar that they should be grouped together? I suspect lack of utility may be the reason that there are not categories for, say, "Female characters in written fiction" or "Female characters in television". (I realize that this category is not "Female characters in comics", which would be an even larger category, but more comparable in scope.) That said, I think this is a more encyclopedic category than, for example, Category:Fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability. As mentioned above, there are certainly verifiable sources, both scholarly and casual, which discuss the differences between male and female within the superhero genre. In fact, Wikipedia has articles on the portrayal of women in comics and the Women in Refrigerators website. As Lexid523 points out, this indicates that this a "unique cultural topic", which is the relevant standard from the "non-notable intersections" section that Doczilla quotes above. Also, this category is no less legitimate than Category:LGBT characters in comics, a category which has existed, apparently without controversy, since June 2006. I, too, am opposed to excessive overcategorization within the comics articles, but this seems to me to be a very basic category which does not parse the contents too thin. --GentlemanGhost 15:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment General on the size and splitting of Category:Superheroes. Right now, without this cat, Superheroes has 19 sub cats, of which 3 are umbrellas (nationality, publisher, and race) with 30 subs between them. The parent has 159 entries while Female has 143. At this point I don't know how many of those intersect and are included in other viable subs (Golden age, DC, Asian, Canadian, etc). What is showing though is that prior to this cat there was a possibility of an article having 4 distinct Superhero tags. This either adds a fifth, or argues for those 4 sets to get another level added: <foo> <gender> superhero, with about a dozen of those becoming an intersection of gender and race or nationality.
Also, I find it hard to equate gender to sexual orientation, especially since the LGBT cat is not LGBT superheroes. Or, put another way, would a cat Female characters in comics be supported? - J Greb 17:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do see where you're coming from, but the fact is the Female superheroes category isn't nearly complete yet, but already has more entries than the comprehensive LGBT characters in comics category. Somebody searching for LGBT superheroes would figure out pretty quickly that Apollo and Midnighter are, and Francine and Katchoo are not, because the category is a manageable size. However, the full list of superheroes, or an alternative "Female characters in comics" category would be far too unwieldy for an individual to sort out.Lexid523 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's highly unlikely. I mean, Luke Skywalker, The Terminator, and Neo haven't been labeled "superheroes". I think it's fairly understood that except in specific circumstances (e.g. The Incredibles) a character needs to have originated in comics in order to be considered a superhero. By the same token, I also think most people are smart enough not to label a non-super a superhero just because they happen to be a well-developed character in comics. Lexid523 23:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously you haven't seen what most of the people on here are like. Ha! That was a joke not an attack. Anyways, what I was getting at is that now with the term "superhero", it tends to no longer emcompass just comic characters. I do see comic characters as superheroes, but some will see video game characters, TV show characters (Buffy, Lara Croft and the cast of Heroes can be perceived as superheroes by non-comic book readers - although all three do have comics and Lara is a non-powered adventurer). I know the difference between hero, superhero, protagonist and anti-hero but many wouldn't.

How I mentioned non-powers getting confused and added to "female superheroes"... well some people with still add them if say for the sake of argument Aunt May in mainstream continuity gets the Power Cosmic and fights for a couple of issues as a hero before losing the powers and returning to normalcy. Therefore someone will add the category which will in turn get deleted and thus ensues an edit war. The same thing happens with the LGBT characters, some character are seen as ambiguous or are attracted to a character who then in turn is the same sex as they are or they gender swap for a few issues and they are then slapped with the LGBT category. Anyway, I just said it's too broad even for comic characters because of the anti-heroes, the former villains, the former good guys and the cast of Buffy, Angel and Heroes. RIANZ 00:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand your argument, but I think that getting rid of a category which has at least 200 legitimate entries because there may be the occasional disagreement about who qualifies is playing it a bit too safe. Lexid523 01:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not a good idea, or action since you've already changed the parent cat. That flat out guarantees that the articles will be viewed as belonging both this and the Superhero cat. Having made the move you make the statement that this is unrelated to and separate from Superhero. Not a good solution. - J Greb 06:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per GentlemanGhost -- Lancini87 04:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The super hero genre tends to have character that change too much for this to be viable. Lana Lang, a long standing supporting character had super powers at one time and the same could be stated about many other long standing supporting characters. As has already been mentioned there are characters who have jumped back and forth between hero and villian. You just have to see that characters like Paula Pophouse and Judy of the Jungle have already been added as proof that this category will give out of control too quickly. Stephen Day 23:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's got nothing to do with gender. The same could be said about a number of male characters (e.g. Patriot from Young Avengers--he pretended to have legit super-powers but was really just taking MGH). I don't understand your objection to Paula Pophouse, because she is a powered character on a superhero team (I've only read the first volume of Freshmen, but she certainly seemed like a superhero to me). And as I said to RIANZ, just because there may be occasional disagreements about who belongs is no reason to ignore the majority of clear-cut, legitimate entries. Lexid523 15:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Vox Humana 8'/Photos

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Can't userfy a category. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vox Humana 8'/Photos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete. I doubt that there are categories of Images by User XXX. And rightly so, in my opinion - Nabla 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Ex-Islamists

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge to "Islamists", as Otto says we don't generally categorize people by current/former status, as everyone becomes a "former <whatever>" upon death. No objection to creating a category for "islamists who have renounced islamism and started counteracting it" or something better titled than that, but said cat has a narrower scope than this one. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ex-Islamists to Category:Former Islamist and/or Arab terrorists
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, this category is specifically about former terrorists (and appears to include former members of secular Arab nationalist groups, as well as former Islamist terrorists). GCarty 16:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Islamists as we generally do not classify membership in groups by past or present status. Similar to how we handled former KKK members by merging to the KKK member category and specifiying in the description that it can include current and former members both. Otto4711 16:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject - Obviously, not all Islamists are terrorists, and obviously not all the people on the group are Arabs.. Ed Husain, is a prime example of a british Ex-Islamist (recruiter for an Islamist group) who does not have Arab origins. also, Walid Shoebat was a mamber of a terror group, highly connected with Islam, there's many examples (written, speechs, videos, documentries) of him talking about his religious related studies... the PLO might be secular in comparisment to the Hamas movement, but they are by no means a true secular movement... i'm guessing we could rename the category into "reformed Islamists and/or Islam affiliated terrorists" but i think that making the category dissappear by merging these people with "Islamists" is a gross mistake/suggestion .. it would be like merging anti-zionsts into the category zionists. and btw, it's allready a subcategory on "islamists". Jaakobou 04:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename to Category:Former Islamists. Some of these people, like Walid Shoebat, are more well-known for their anti-Islamist work than for the former Islamism. I think it's important to highlight that, rather than mislead the reader into thinking they are still Islamists. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • note the current category is: "ex-islamists" - Category intended to include all known reformed Islamists or Islam-affiliated reformed Terrorists. shoebat is an 'Islam affiliated' reformed terrorist. Jaakobou 08:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename per Ynhockey, as not all Islamists are terrorists. The current scoping seems to fit the Category:People by former religion hierarchy just fine, though I wouldn't oppose a more encyclopaedic name like Category:Former Islamists; the same would be true of Category:Ex-atheists/agnostics. TewfikTalk 06:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Former Islamists. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What would differentiate Category:Former Islamists from Category:Former Muslims ? Tarc 21:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - huge difference, Muslims in general don't promote suicide civillian assasiantions as valid tactic and they don't hold an ideaology of Jihad against the world, dar al-harb/dar al-Islam type of modus operandi... Ex-Islamists are people who come from this violent Islmaist political ideaology background and are criticizing it (the ideaology, not neccesarily Islam) publicly. Jaakobou 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Jaakobou said, and as I too see it, "Islamists" describes a political position - Former Islamists are those who have turned away from terrorist activities, membership in related associated organizations, or advocacy of certain political views. Former Muslims are those who, regardless of their political views or associations, have formally converted to another religion or otherwise abandoned their Muslim identity. LordAmeth 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:First Bundesliga footballers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:First Bundesliga footballers to Category:Bundesliga footballers
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The name 'First Bundesliga' is not widely used, particularly in English. Bundesliga, without qualification, is usually taken to refer to his league, particularly on the subject of football. Other Bundesligen, such as the Zweite or Austrian Bundesliga, disambiguate themselves ArtVandelay13 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Conscious 10:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Free University of Brussels

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Delete, CSD G7 by creator request. -- Prove It (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free University of Brussels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category misses suffix, appropriate category is already in use. Pvosta 09:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:FC Spartak Vladikavkaz players

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename x2. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FC Spartak Vladikavkaz players to Category:FC Alania Vladikavkaz players
Nominator's Rationale: The club has been renamed... yet again. We have to follow the change. Conscious 08:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Indigenous Australian sports people

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indigenous Australian sports people to Category:Indigenous Australian sportspeople
Nominator's Rationale: Rename for consistency, all sportspeople cats on wikipedia use the term sportspeople. Peta 06:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:International days

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:International days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete the international holidays categories were discussed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays talk page and generally agreed as superfluous.Some thing 04:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Executions by country

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename all to "X" executions. This was a mightily confusing nomination, and I do think there were some procedural errors made in how information was presented, both in the nominations and the debate. But it is all capable of being sorted out, and when it is, the tide is clearly in favor (12 to 3) of the shortened format, which avoids the problem of whether a state or nation committed the execution. This should not have been taken to DRV, as there was no impropriety in the closing rationale per se. It is simply a change of group will. (Side note: There were several errors in the wordings of the nominations. "Romanian" was misspelled, "Russia" should have been "Russian," "Italian" and "Irish" were conflated, and "in Germany," while mentioned above, was not on the list below. As they would clearly have been supported by the consensus, I have smoothed out these problems on the Working page. I also added Category:People executed by Mexico, which was not in any form of this nomination, but is clearly in line with this conclusion.)--Mike Selinker 14:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Polish executions to Category:Executions by Poland
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, standard format for executions by a nation. Peta 04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following further categories were added by another editor three days' after the CfD opened, and proposed for an inverse renaming. The terms "support", "oppose", "rename" etc used by participants in in this Cfd therefore have no consistent meaning or extent --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are only four comments which present any difficulties of interpretation, and I think that an intelligent admin could work out what even those meant. However I will add clarificatory comments after them. Alex Middleton 22:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Polish executions to Category:Executions by Poland or retain
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Australia to Category:Australian executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Austria to Category:Austrian executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Britain to Category:British executions (note that this one was misnamed in any case. There is no succinct and accurate "by" form, it would have to be something like "People executed by governments based in Great Britain or Northern Ireland or by British controlled governments ruling All-Ireland")
Propose renaming Category:People executed by the People's Republic of China to Category:Chinese executions (this one would then need some subcategories for different entities, but that is a separate issue)
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Denmark to Category:Danish executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by England to Category:English executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by France to Category:French executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Germany to Category:German executions Closer: added "in Germany" as noted above
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Hungary to Category:Hungarian executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Indonesia to Category:Indonesian executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Iran to Category:Iranian executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Iraq to Category:Iraqi executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Ireland to Category:Italy executions Closer: changed to Irish, added Italy to Italian change
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Japan to Category:Japanese executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Korea to Category:Korean executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by the Netherlands to Category:Dutch executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by New Zealand to Category:New Zealand executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Nigeria to Category:Nigerian executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Norway to Category:Norwegian executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by the Ottoman Empire to Category:Ottoman executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Romania to Category:Rormania executions Closer: changed to Romanian
Propose renaming Category:Executed Romans to Category:Ancient Roman executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Russia to Category:Russia executions Closer: changed to Russian
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Scotland to Category:Scottish executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed in Singapore to Category:Singaporean executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by the Soviet Union to Category:Soviet executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Spain to Category:Spanish executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Sudan to Category:Sudanese executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Sweden to Category:Swedish executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Switzerland to Category:Swiss executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed by Taiwan to Category:Taiwanese executions
Propose renaming Category:People executed in the United States to Category:American executions
  • Comment - group nomination This has been extended into a group nomination, as first suggested on 22 May. Please leave open until at least 27 May. Please note that there was never a consensus to change to the current prevalent form. The original form "Fooian executions", which was changed without consensus, allows all the related executions to be grouped together without creating multiple confusing and cluttersome categories for each country. Alex Middleton 12:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • STRONG PROCEDURAL OBJECTION to addition of extra categories, which I have struck out above. This nomination had been open for three days when the nomination was extended in this edit by Alex Middleton. The addition of the extra categories after three days (with a proposal which inverts the nomination) completely changes the nature of the discussion, more than half way through its allotted time, and is likely to be missed by interested editors who will already have made their contributions.
      If editors are concerned that a previous CfD was improperly closed, the issue should be raised at WP:DRV, for a possible new CfD, but the worst possible way to address these issues issues is by tacking onto an existing CfD a new proposal.
      I hope that the closing admin will discount the late addition of the extra categories as a mistaken attempt to use CfD as a substitute for DRV; any other solution risks confusing the "support" or "rename" !votes for the initial proposal with the "support" or "rename" !votes for the new proposal, which in fact mean exactly the opposite. If there is a case for re-opening the previous CfD, this is the worst possible way to do it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong (but not shouted) objection to procedural objection . It is fine to expand a discussion to cover related issues, that is the way to achieve consistency. Alex properly asked for this to be kept open for five days from the time of the additional nominations. The tagging of the extra categories will have encouraged more users to participate, rather than less. It is not appropriate for a particpant in the discussion to edit another user's contributions. Decisions on how to deal with this discussion should be made by the closing nominator, not by a participant. The closing admin may chose to leave this open for yet another five days if he or she wishes. Honbicot 01:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply This was not the extension of a nomination, it was the extension and inversion of a nomination.
          For the first three days of this CfD, the proposal was to "rename to Category:Executions by Poland", and many participants !voted to support or oppose on that basis. The tacking on of a whole load of unrelated categories to be renamed in the opposite direction means that the !votes which have already been made to "suppport" or "oppose" or "rename" have two completely opposite meanings.
          The way in which the extra categories were added also made it unclear what the original nomination had been, and appeared to cast the original nominator as a supporter of the inverted nomination. I have tried to clarify the situation above; please do not remove the clarification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, to convention agreed in group CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 27#Category:X_executions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Given the many different regimes that have ruled various parts of Poland, this is not a good idea. Mowsbury 10:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply "Polish executions" is ambiguous, because it is unclear whether it applies to executions under the authority of a Polish state, executions on de facto Polish territory, executions on de jure Polish territory, or executions of Polish people by whatever state. Poland is an unusual country, which has moved around and at times disappeared entirely, so a category name such as "Polish executions" (or the alternative "Executions in Poland") raises big historical problems. The clearest way of defining this category is to restrict it to executions carried out under the authority of the Polish state. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • History is ambiguous. "Polish executions" can cope with that ambiguity, but "Executions by Poland" is an obstacle to grouping related articles. Alex Middleton 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the history of Poland covers a lot of different phases, but it is not particularly ambiguous, and does not require an ambiguous category which could include a Polish person executed in Argentina or even a Fijian person executed in Spain by a Polish executioner. A solution has already been implemented for Germany, by creating Category:People executed in Germany; for Poland, which had unstable borders and twice disappeared as a nation, it would be better to create Category:Executions of Polish people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no need to be patronising. You don't seem to get the point that the ambiguity of the category is its merit, because it covers all the related executions, which should be the point of the category. The number of death related categories on articles is already ridiculous, so the last thing we need is several sets of country or nationality related execution categories to cover each possible variation. Alex Middleton 11:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • So what exactly are the inclusion criteria you would advocate for a category called "Polish executions"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • All that is needed is a note on each category along the lines of "This category contains articles about Fooian people who were executed, executions in Foo, and executions carried out on behalf of Foo (adding "and its predecessor states" if appropriate). Alex Middleton 09:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • How do you define Poland's predecessor states? Does that include Germany?
                  Categories are supposed to group related items, and your proposal would group together a French person executed in the United States, a Japanese person executed in France and an execution by French authorities in a colony such as Chad. There is very little commonality between those people, which I find "Fooish executions" hopelessly vague. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarificatory comment This user was objecting to the "By" form. Alex Middleton 22:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The discussion of 27 March had not reached a consensus so it should have been kept open for longer. This case shows just what an ill-advised system this hasty renaming created. Why would one want to have half the Polish people that have been executed in categories for Tsarist Russia, Nazi Germany etc? It just doesn't fit into the overall scheme of Category:History by country, but "Fooian executions" does. Call it ambiguous if you must, but wouldn't "flexible" be more appropriate? Honbicot 22:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reversion to use of "Fooian executions" in all cases. There are too many countries such as Poland. Everything possible should be done to keep the number of categories related to execution on each article to two (one would be even better, but an attempt to get the execution by method categories deleted failed). Honbicot 01:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As stated above Poland has been ruled over by numerous nations, therefore many executions of Poles in Poland were not ordered by Poland or a Polish state or kingdom. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Category:People executed by Germany now has a parent category Category:People executed in Germany to allow for a very similar problem. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which I created as a work around for a problem that shouldn't have existed in the first place, so would not like to see it quoted as a reason to spread the problem, especially as it has been correctly pointed out that there was no consensus for the global change. Alex Middleton 14:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There are a great many people in history who were executed but not by a national or federal government. In many lands, a given government or a given state under the name currently used did not even exist X years ago. I shall take some examples from the Japanese case, but the same concept truly applies across the board. (1) It is quite arguable that "Japan" did not exist as a unified nation-state entity until 1868, which means anyone executed before then was not "executed by Japan". (2) Many were killed in the course of war upon the orders of enemy warlords, or in peacetime at the orders of a local or regional authority such as a feudal lord, and again not by any State or Republic or Empire of Japan. Of the eight entries currently listed in the category, several were killed upon the orders of Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and the remainder as a result of the policies of the Tokugawa shogunate; none were formally convicted and executed by the modern state of Japan post-1868. My point is not to nitpick about which rulers or regimes do or do not count as "Japan", as this is an issue hotly debated in scholarship as well and remains unresolved, but rather simply to intimate that situations across history can be quite complicated, and a category like "Japanese executions" is a loose enough term to cover them all quite nicely. Japanese people executed in Japan by one form of Japanese authority or another, but not by "Japan" per se, will still fit, and that idea, that logic, surely applies across the board to the cases of many of the other countries listed. LordAmeth 21:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarificatory comment This comment was added after the group nomination was made, and is clearly in favour of it. Alex Middleton 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • LordAmeth makes some good points about the limitations of the "by" format, but the alternative does not seem to have been fully thought through. Note that LordAmeth's suggested definition of "Japanese executions" is much narrower than that offered by Alex Middleton for "Polish executions".
        LordAmeth suggests "Japanese people executed in Japan by one form of Japanese authority or another", and translating that to "Polish people executed in Poland by one form of Polish authority or another" would not include e.g. Polish people executed in Poland under German authority or executions under Soviet authority in the Polish Autonomous Districts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My intention was never to create a narrower definition, but rather a freer more open one which could be flexible and adaptable to the needs of the complex histories of different countries. If a Pole was executed within the borders of what was then Germany (or Prussia, or some other German state), it seems fine to me to label that as either a "Polish execution" or a "German execution" or both. The point of my argument was simply to say that, if a Pole were killed by Prussian authorities, that would be neither an "execution by Poland" nor an "execution by Germany", and this is why looser terms need to be used. LordAmeth 21:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming all to "Fooian executions", as any other form will fail to encompass various relevant examples for some countries, eg as outlined by LordAmeth. Indeed there cannot be many countries that are not complex, as these categories actually or potentially cover people who lived before the rise of the modern nation state. Ravenhurst 01:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Fooian executions, as this is the least problematic of the various forms the names could take. --tjstrf talk 09:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (preference) or use "Executions by X" - As I stated in the last debate, an endless number of categories can be created describing people's deaths, and many of them are not necessary. These categories have difficult interpretation problems; some people want them to indicate the location of the execution, while other people want to use them to indicate the governing authority, while other people may want to use them to indicate the nationalities of the executed people. This is complicated by the fact that political borders have shifted over the centuries and that people may have been executed by governments that were operating outside their borders. Moreover, it is difficult to contend that executions by the government entities that existed a few centuries ago is comparable to executions by their modern counterparts. For example, executions by the pre-20th century Austro-Hungarian Empire probably are not comparable to executions in post-WWII Austria and Hungary. Ultimately, these categories become too difficult to deal with. I suggest deleting them all and possibly using lists to explain who was executed by which regime in which location. Dr. Submillimeter 09:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Fooian executions, as that is the most useful, all-encompassing option. "Executions by" sounds rather accusatory, so it could be taken to imply disapproval of capital punishment. Postlebury 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Fooian executions per arguments by LordAmeth, tjstrf et al. RegRCN 01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (or keep as) all to Fooian executions per Lord Ameth. Johnbod 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Category:Fooian executions Most all of the categories of people are at "Fooian ...." so there needs to be a good reason to deviate from that. I don't see the reason here as there are at least as many problems with other options, probably more. Jamie Mercer 23:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Fooian vegetables

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Suggest adding information on particular specific veggies to the articles about Fooian Cuisine for comprehensiveness. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fooian vegetables (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Categorization of vegetables based on the cuisines that they are used in is not useful for the readers of an encyclopedia; especially for common fruits and vegetables; like those included in the Mexican category. They might be useful as a list. This deletion request applies to the following categories:

Category:Japanese sea vegetables
Category:Fruits and vegetables of Mexico
Category:Korean vegetables
Category:Japanese vegetables
Category:Indian vegetables
Category:Chinese vegetables. Peta 03:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a difficult one, because it seems to me that the vegetables categorised here fall into different groups. At one end we have the likes of the welsh onion, which is widely used the cuisine of lots of different countries, and it's hardly a distinguishing characteristic of it that it's used in a particular country. However, I think that its use in Japanese cuisine is a distinguishing characteristic of wakame, and similarly fat choy is very much a Chinese vegetable.
    I'm inclined to suggest that these categories should be retained, but redefined to exclude common fruits and vegetables, and to include only those vegetables which are known primarily for their use a particular national cuisine. Any other ideas? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Beans

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Beans to Category:Edible legumes
Nominator's Rationale: Merge and rename, Category:Beans and Category:Peas to Category:Edible legumes. There is no botanical definition that separates peas and beans; I suggest merging these and making a more useful category for the categorization of edible legume species, they already overlap eg. Black-eyed pea is in category beans. Peta 03:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Wilt Chamberlain

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loaded with improperly categorized finals series, schools, and movies. Only three articles in this set belong here: Career achievements of Wilt Chamberlain, Wilt Chamberlain, and Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game. I doubt that's worth it.--Mike Selinker 03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, everything but those three articles should be removed. If these career achievement type articles are going to proliferate and they're seen as encyclopedic then yes, they should be categorized. If such a category is established and the Chamberlain article is placed in it, then I support deleting the eponymous category. Otto4711 00:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See Category:Career achievements of sportspeople. (By the way, I don't support the deletion of category:Michael Jordan, who has a ton of articles that are about him.)--Mike Selinker 04:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Obsolete groups of creatures

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename, to alternative and clearer title Category:Obsolete taxonomic groups. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Obsolete groups of creatures to Category:Obsolete taxa
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "Groups of creatures" is too vague, as the wording does not necessarily relate to alpha taxonomy. +A.0u 00:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Taxa" strikes me as a little jargonistic. Is there another way of phrasing it that's a little more accessible? Also, the category needs a description. Otto4711 01:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Taxa" is the scientific term. Some alternatives: "Obsolete taxonomic groups", "Obsolete classifications of organisms", "Obsolete groups of organisms". I'm open to suggestions. +A.0u 01:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! - If they don't know what the article title is about, at least the category should give them a pointer. Johnbod 18:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By my count: 1) everyone favours a change. 2) For Category:Obsolete taxonomic groups: Johnbod, Doczilla, Bhg, GCarty, Xtifr = 5. 3) For Category:Obsolete taxa: Hesperian, Visvisa, Quux, Carlos = 4. 4) Willing to go to either with consensus: Aou, Mangoe, Postlebury =3. 5) No name mentioned favourably: Peta, Otto =2. Maybe relist; I think I'll ask Otto to revisit. Johnbod 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to "taxonomic groups" and my only concern with "taxa" was that it may not be the most accessible or recognizable descriptor. I don't feel strongly enough about it one way or the other to raise a great stink to whatever gets selected. Otto4711 22:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2007_May_21&oldid=1138388701"