Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 21

< March 20	March 22 >

March 21

Category:Honor killing in Pakistan

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. There's plenty of speedy precedent for renaming cats to match the local version of English used. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Honor killing in Pakistan to ~~Category:Honour killings in Pakistan~~ Category:Honour killing in Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In Pakistan, UK English is generally preferred. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Honor"->"Honour," oppose "killing"->"killings." Not all of the articles in the category are individual incidents; the parent category also doesn't have an "s." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for catching the pluralization issue—that was purely a typo on my part and I didn't intend to suggest that change. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[oppose removed, see below] it is never appropriate to move from UK to US spelling or vice versa. Yes it's stupid but it's the only way they finally brought an end to the massive wiki-wide edit and move war way back when. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
suppport We use national English for national topics. Pakistan apparently does use the UK spelling. What's never appropriate to change are non-national topics. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, support I misunderstood policy, and actually I support uniformity when possible, I think the consensus against deciding on one standard for the wiki was wishy-washy at best. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2011 (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:Christian terrorism

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: Keep for now without setting precedent for the Category:Religious terrorism tree. There's some clear support for ending this sort of category but also a feeling that individual categories should not be picked off inconsistently. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: *Delete. Move to other categories as appropriate. This category is WP:POV and often WP:OR. The organization may have labeled itself as "Christian" which is okay for categorizing. It may have been officially labeled as "terrorist" by the government or judicial authority. That is okay. Putting the two together is clearly WP:OR. Student7 (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the established Category:Religious terrorism system. If an entry does not belong, let it be addressed in articlespace, but reasoning given for deleting this single branch is spurious; if a group is labeled as both in separate places it should not be too difficult to find an RS that labels it as both in one place. - choster (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Can you give one example that is not WP:OR, i.e. that is WP:RELY cited? And not out of the media, which is quick to label everything and everybody. Student7 (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as part of the established Category:Religious terrorism system, which should be reviewed as a whole. I assume good faith in the nominator's intent, but the unintended effect of this nom is seriously POV: it singles out one category of religious terrorism rather than applying the same principle to all of them.
I have deep reservations about the whole of Category:Religious terrorism, because it is being used to apply the label "terrorism" to specific groups and incidents. WP:WTA warns about the dangers of doing so, which is why we have already deleted Category:Terrorists. In those discussions I supported keeping Category:Terrorism for articles about the concept of terrorism, but not to tag individuals, group, or events. I think that there may be scope for a category on articles relating to the concept of "religious" terrorism, but it is viable only if it can be policed to avoid its use as a means of applying POV tags to articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when Category:Terrorists and Category:Terrorist organizations were deleted (due to concerns about libel and POV), all of those people and organizations ended up being moved to Category:Terrorism in country X or Category:Type X of terrorism, which hardly solves the problem. I agree that these categories should not be applied to people or organizations, but I haven't had any luck in convincing the rest of wikipedia of that fact. That said, it doesn't make sense to delete this one category because of a fundamental problem with our categorization structure. If anyone would like to comment on the discussions I started recently at WP:Label or WP:BLP, I'd be happy to have your support. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. I think I understand what BrownHairedGirl is saying. But from past experience, we cannot eliminate all pov categories of this nature at once. We have to start somewhere. This was a random choice on my part, done, actually, as part of an investigation on a discussion going on in MOS:WTW. I was not "targeting" this category, particularly. Another editor had raised the issue. Ironically the one who created this category! A bit of irony there! Student7 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely ironic. I was totally confused when I saw the cfd from you. =) Anyway, I agree with your motivation, but disagree with your strategy. Trying to delete these categories one at a time won't work, since the large number of similar categories undermines your argument, regardless of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Moreover, it isn't fair to delete one but leave others around. It looks POV, even if that isn't your intention. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that it isn't fair to rm one pov category and leave the others. It is, however, a start. Trying to rm all of them at once, has, from my experience, resulted in failure. I thought I would start with the "easy" one first. You can see where that has led to! Glad I didn't submit them all. I just be fighting the same war on four or five fronts. A bit much for me, I am afraid. Student7 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's the choice. Either nominate them all so that we can have a discussion on the principle of labelling terrorism as religious ... or make what you acknowledge is an unfair singling-out of one category, and lose the support of editors who agree with you in principle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'd rather be on the right, if losing side of one pov argument, than kid myself into supporting a lot of other losing pov arguments. Editors tend to dislike pov in text, but tolerate or even like pov in categories. Can't fight this trend alone.Student7 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per accepted categorization scheme and per loads of sources on Christian terrorism. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Sorry. "Loads of sources?" Are these media or WP:RELY academic sources? Student7 (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2011 (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:Twin-spool turbojet engines

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Undesired category, overcategorisation. Aircraft gas turbine engines are categorised by type (turbofan, turboshaft etc) and decade of introduction with the exception of turbofan engines which are further sub-categorised into bypass ratio (high, medium and low). The categorization advice and trees can be viewed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Categories, this consensus system was arrived at after much discussion at WT:AETF that can be viewed in the archives of that page. The current discussion, where consensus has been gained to nominate this category for deletion, is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines#New category. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As described this category is not useful, is overly specific and collides with consensus categorization already in use. - Ahunt (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2011 (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:Lithuanian expatriate footballers in Israel

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/upmerge. Had these been in the previous nomination, I would have closed them the same way.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge to Expatriate footballers in X. Overcategorisation. Recently discussed on March 13 that these triple intersections would create thousands of lightly populated categories. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated

Upmerge each to the corresponding 'Cat:Expatriate footballers in Foo' per the decision of the identical cfd of March 12. (There is no objection to any of the top level categories in Category:Expatriate association football players, viz 'Cat:Expatriate footballers in Foo', or 'Cat:Booian expatriate footballers'. No-one has demonstrated any good reason to start forming their intersections.) Occuli (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Occuli (changing my !vote). I had missed the previous CFD, and since this is part of a wider 1-level upmerge, I'll support that. The nominator should have a) proposed upmerger rather than deletion, and b) linked to the previous CFD to provide context. --10:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Zips

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 to Category:American mobsters of Sicilian descent. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we have two redundant, somewhat ambiguous slang-based categories within Category:American mobsters of Sicilian descent:

I suppose it's possible someone could make a strict criteria for categorizing people in these, but even then they would probably still be challenged here. Recommending deletion. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge both to Category:American mobsters of Sicilian descent. These are slangy derogatory terms which should not be used for categorisation, but the articles do appear to belong within the parent category. We should upmerge rather than deleting, so avoid losing the articles from Category:American mobsters of Sicilian descent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about 'moustache pete' it is a term used in reliable sources to describe the "old school" sicilian mobster establishment, a very specific TYPE of mafiosi that adhered to certain principles and was overthrown when more 'modern' gangsters like Lucky Luciano came into power. Modern gangsters that were willing to work with other ethnicities (like the Jewish Kid Reles and the african-american gangs of Harlem) and willing to band together into the syndicate. It's definitely NOT a "slangy derogatory term" it's a specific lingo and is attributable to RSesHominidMachinae (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Enough notability for an article, certainly, but does it work as a category? As of now it's rather underpopulated. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the category, but I thought it should be pointed out that it was a 'term of art' in a fashion not a slur. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2011 (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:Greek expatriate footballers in Ukraine

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 delete. This clearly should have been in the nomination I just closed yesterday. I've also deleted the categories Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in Austria and Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in Greece, which contain only this footballer and one other.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This was tagged for CSD with no explanation. It does seem to be a rather unlikely to ever have very many members. I'm taking no position on whether it should be deleted and transferring it to CfD. Selket ^Talk 16:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we have just removed a slew of these triple intersections, and the only occupant Alexandre Silva Cleyton is already in quite enough expat categories. Occuli (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2011 (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:Fictional masters of disguise

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: POV, vague category. I see no good way to define this category or any particular usefulness for it. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is rather odd, even moreso when you examine the contents. Bugs Bunny? This is not what I would call a defining characteristic for that character. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:55, 24 March 2011 (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:Shaw albums

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 to Category:Leslie Shaw albums. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: One album isn't enough to merit a category. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One album is enough to merit a category, per Category:Albums by artist which states "Please note that all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded." However, this should be renamed to Category:Leslie Shaw albums to match the main article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Leslie Shaw albums per Leslie Shaw and Lugnuts. Occuli (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's now empty as Destrozado y sin control has been redirected. Destrozado y sin control was not really defensible IMO. Occuli (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many issues here. First, one album is enough to merit a category. Second: the category should be renamed Category:Leslie Shaw albums. Third, the category should be kept even if the album is redirected to the main article (and the redirect would be the lone cat entry). The other problem is that the redirection is a mistake to start with. My feeling is that Leslie Shaw herself has borderline notability and should perhaps be sent to AfD but if we decide to keep her article, it makes no sense to get rid of the bits of info that are on the album article. There's a big problem with sources but the claim is that two of the EPs songs charted in Peru. (for epic lolz, I recommend the YouTube videos) Pichpich (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2011 (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:The Adventures of Pete & Pete

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only three articles and a redirect. WP:OCAT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:07, 21 March 2011 (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:The Secret World of Alex Mack

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT. Only three pages, two of which are lists of books and episodes. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:06, 21 March 2011 (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:Washington, Maine

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category for a small (1,345 residents) town that is unlikely to ever grow to usefulness. TM 04:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The category only contains its article, and that article doesn't indicate that there are any other articles about features of Washington, Maine. postdlf (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Knox County, Maine. There are images.- choster (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images don't belong in an article category. These properly belong in Category:Images of Maine (or a county-level subcategory, if one is warranted), but not in an articlespace category of any name. Just delete; the article is still in Category:Towns in Knox County, Maine anyway, so it doesn't need the second category. Bearcat (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2011 (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.