Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 11

< September 10	September 12 >

September 11

Category:80s metal musical groups

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 as re-created material that is simply spelled differently; as pointed out, Category:80's Metal muiscal groups (note the spelling/punctuation) was deleted in 2008 SEP 4 CfD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category overlap. Second time this user has created a superfluous category just to list personal fan favourites.(first user made category already speedy deleted) Multiple heavy metal categories covering this topic. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added note: Here is link to user's first version of category already deleted. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – it's empty anyway (in the usual sense). Occuli (talk) 23:44, 11 September 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 mentioned by Eric Burdon

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) 02:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Non-notable, useless category. Serves no encyclopedic purpose. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Certainly useless and non-notable. Probably a joke. Ward3001 (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sorry, but I really don't see how this is any less encyclopedic than any of the other sub-cats of Category:People mentioned by artist. Oh, I see.. Never mind! :) Cgingold (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it's empty anyway (in the usual sense), and the articles it lists are redlinks - indeed it is perhaps the least competent category I have yet seen. Occuli (talk) 08:49, 12 September 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:Doug episodes

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 19:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This hasn't had any episode articles in it for a long time, and there likely will never be any to occupy it. TTN (talk) 20:32, 11 September 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:Doug episode 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: Move to correct process page, as per instructions at the top of the page.Grutness...wha? 00:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There are zero articles in the main category, so one for stubs is obviously unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a CFD candidate - this is a stub category, so should be at WP:SFD. Moving it there. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 12 September 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:Pibo Manitoba (SSR)

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 Non-admin close. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: was created by someone solely for the purpose of including a nonsense page at Pibo Manitoba (SSR). Largo Plazo (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete- Pure vandalism, has been created and deleted many times before. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:39, 11 September 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:Brat Pack

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 19:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - arbitrary and subjective inclusion criteria. With so many young actors in the 1980s being tagged more or less frequently as Brat Packers, this is unsuitable for a category as there need to be reliable sources explaining why an actor of the era should or shouldn't be considered a member. The article does an admirable job indexing and cross-referencing the various actors and their films in common, and the actors are linked through the film articles, other articles and Brat Pack. Otto4711 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per persuasive nom. The characteristic is neither defined nor defining. Occuli (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bulldog123 (talk) 22:35, 12 September 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:Ambassadors of China to Russia

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 19:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of China to Russia to Category:Ambassadors of the People's Republic of China to Russia

Nominator's rationale: The creator of the category put the category as a subcategory of Category:Ambassadors of the People's Republic of China. As a subcategory of that category, the the category should be renamed because otherwise it can (eventually; right now there're no such articles) erroneously include ambassadors of the Qing Dynasty (prior to 1911) and the Republic of China (1911 to 1917, in this particular case, since after 1917 it would be to the Soviet Union) to Russia. --Nlu (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:32, 12 September 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:Rat Pack

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 19:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category (five articles minus the improperly categorized films) with no growth potential. All the members are extensively interlinked through any number of articles, including Rat Pack, and a complete list is already in that article. Otto4711 (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think this would be much better served by converting the list to a navbox/template. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such a navbox already exists. Otto4711 (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However the navbox did not include the movies. This has been fixed, so Delete. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per persuasive nom. Occuli (talk) 23:46, 11 September 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:Chinese clothing companies

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 19:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chinese clothing companies to Category:Clothing companies of China

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the other Clothing companies of Foo categories. Otto4711 (talk) 17:11, 11 September 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.

Clothing and textile companies

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 and recategorize per nom~~ ok, on second thought, I'll do the first half of this using the bot. I'll rename everything to Category:Clothing companies, Category:Clothing companies by country, etc. Someone else can create the Textile categories and recategorize as appropriate. Kbdank71 13:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - these two industries seem arbitrarily lumped together, presumably because they both deal with cloth. However, one industry deals with it as a finished product and the other as its raw material. The majority of the categories contain nothing but subcats for clothing companies and textile companies, with a few stray articles in some of them. I propose creating Category:Clothing companies, Category:Clothing companies by country, Category:Textile companies and Category:Textile companies by country. Delete these combined container cats, relocate the subcats into the new appropriate parents and sort out the few loose articles into the right subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sort out per nom though may be there is just a case for keeping the single head cat as a container for sub-cats. I think this is still a category found in some business & economics contexts. This one has lots of articles to sort btw. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what you mean by "a container for sub-cats"? Which sub-cats are you referring to? Cgingold (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Clothing companies", "textile companies" & similar summary categories. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal - I had questioned the existence of these categories some weeks back, but it wasn't on my high priority to-do list, so I commend Otto for putting in the effort to deal with them. Cgingold (talk) 12:08, 16 September 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:School massacres in Canada

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 19:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:School massacres in Canada to Category:School killings in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Parallel with Category:School killings in the United States, and some entries include the deaths of only one or two, which stretches the definition of "massacre." All massacres are killings but not all killings are massacres, which makes my suggestion more inclusive. Besides, "killing" is more NPOV anyway. TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 19:32, 12 September 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:Fictional phocomelic characters

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 19:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category holding nothing but two redirects, one of which is likely to be deleted as the article section to which it points has been removed from the target article. There is little likelihood that an article will ever be written about the character Flipper and phocomilia doesn't seem to figure much in fiction. Otto4711 (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- As an alternative, a WikiProject could tag the redirect talk page with their banner to categorize the redirect pages in their project sub categories. However, there seems to be no reason for the project itself to categorize two redirects. -- Suntag (talk) 16:43, 12 September 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:Russian political prisoners

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 per POV and OR concerns. No problems with recategorization if a NPOV title can be agreed upon that isn't OR. Kbdank71 19:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category:Political prisoners was deleted after this discussion in November 2006 and this category was created a month afterwards. The same arguments apply in this instance as they did then; there is no neutral way to define a political prisoner, it is POV. It would appear that political prisoners in this category are defined by editors own POVs rather than an actual definition, which is always going to be inherently POV and contentious. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently a mistake. Category:Political prisoners was not deleted. It was renamed to Category:Political prisoners and victims that includes several "Political prisoners" (by country) sub-categories. I have no objections to rename Category:Russian political prisoners to Category:Russian political prisoners and victims accordingly.Biophys (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename to Category:Russian political prisoners and victims. There is no valid reason to consider deletion, an act which would be inherently POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs)

Delete – Category:Political prisoners was clearly deleted in this cfd in November 2006, as the nom states (although the page history suggests that the cfd decision was not implemented). Category:Political prisoners and victims appears to be a recreation of a deleted cat under a slightly different (and less satisfactory) name. Occuli (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the POV concerns as expressed in the original nomination for the parent cat. The history appears to be that the parent was deleted per the original CFD in 2006. In 2007 an editor created the prisoners and victims category and at some point political prisoners was created as a redirect. Earlier this year a history undelete was done on political prisoners. Otto4711 (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well-spotted. Occuli (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Otto, such a category was already deleted as people have pointed out, but was recreated by some fool.--Miyokan (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Category:Political prisoners and victims currently includes eight sub-categories (by countries) and around 20 articles. Political prisoner is an official term recognized by international human rights organizations. It is also widely applied in literature. There is nothing wrong with it.Biophys (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political prisoner offers the following definitions of the term:

someone held in prison or otherwise detained, perhaps under house arrest, for his or her involvement in political activity.
Prisoner of conscience.
persons imprisoned because they await trial for, or have been convicted of, actions usually qualified as terrorism.
All convicted for treason and espionage.

and goes on to note that "...whether an individual is regarded as a political prisoner may depend upon subjective political perspective or interpretation of the evidence" and then lists people who describe themselves as political prisoners whether anyone else does or not. Which of these definitions shall we use to decide who goes into the categories and how do we overcome the subjective interpretation of the evidence and political perspective without resorting to original research? Otto4711 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this article provides only one definition in the first paragraph: someone held in prison or otherwise detained for his or her involvement in political activity. This is very simple. This is a correct, widely-accepted definition and it can be easily sourced. Prisoner of conscience is something different and more narrowly defined (but also defined). All social sciences is imprecise area of knowledge, but there are certain definition of terms. As long as we have article Political prisoners, we need the corresponding Category:Political prisoners. Would you also argue that we do not need Category:Proteins because Proteins are difficult to distinguish from Peptides?Biophys (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Biophys. Petr Kopač (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto: POV and OR problems will be inherent in this kind of classification. The argument that a category must exist as long as the article political prisoners exists is not a great one and one that won't gain much traction in CfD—there are probably thousands of categories that have been deleted (for various reasons) for which there were and still are relevant articles. Incidentally, there are also categories for other nationalities (Belarusian, Czech, Syrian, etc.) which also should be nominated and deleted if this one is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange logic. There is such thing as political prisoners, but there are no people who are actually (per sources) political prisoners. This is unbelievable.Biophys (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Fine. Since you suggested also to delete categories from other countries, I informed users who created these categories.Biophys (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Do you suggest that Nelson Mandela and others like him were not political prisoners?Biophys (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - POV is a problem already. I have already placed some of those articles in Category:Russian criminals due to their criminal convictions, which Biophys has removed claiming that if they are political prisoners, they can't be criminals. He's going to pursue to remove them under WP:BLP, but as I told him on my talk page, if Russian courts convicted them of criminal offences, then they are criminals. Just because a human rights organisation claims they are political prisoners, this does not change the fact that they were convicted on criminal charges in Russian courts, thereby making them criminals. You can't have one POV without the other I am afraid. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, I think that ~~replacing~~ labeling political prisoners by "criminals" in a number of articles represents an obvious Wikipedia:POINT on your part.Biophys (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't replaced anything. I have added to the categories. It's your POV that you removed the criminal category. Text clearly state they were convicted under Russian criminal code, thereby making them criminals. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have stricken your remarks, I feel that your labelling criminals as political prisoners is nothing more than POV on your part. And herein, lies the absolute POV problems with such categories. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, you may want to review Wikipedia:Categorization. I think that would be more helpful than other editors trying to address your concerns one-by-one and in detail. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? It tells: "Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists and navigation boxes) help readers find articles". Right. That is exactly what this category does. I edited those articles, and this cat helped me a lot to navigate.Biophys (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reading. (Specifically: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.") Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of people from all countries who are described as "political prisoners" in sources would be too long. The term "political prisoner" is not controversial. If someone (e.g. Nelson Mandela) qualifies as a "political prisoner" should be decided on the case to case basis - per sources - just as in any other classification system, including biological and chemical ones.Biophys (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be "too long", because it would be incomplete. It would actually be quite simple to create a list that includes the few articles that are now in the categories in question. The term "political prisoner" is controversial, as this very conversation should point out. One man's political prisoner is another man's terrorist or common thug. Mandela is an extreme example; most are not as clear-cut or uncontroversial as he. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the term "political prisoner" is rather well-defined and it is completely non-surprizing that from the point of view of government they are criminals. The POV with respect to inclusion of any person into this category must be resolved in the corresponding wikibio, and if the person described as such in their article (with references to reputable sources which describe them ad PolPris), only then it must be included into the category. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to "People believed to be political prisoners" or sth like that. The term is widely used and recognised, and there are people who actually are or have been political prisoners. At least for historical persons this should apply definitely.--Czalex 05:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too subjective of a category, particulalry for living people. Will always raise pov concerns.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any reason, why we should delete above mentioned categories just because it could (or it has yet) raise some POV concerns. The question is, how to define people (and eliminate POV problems), who will be in the category, not if it's reasonable category. Someone held in prison or otherwise detained for his or her involvement in political activity seems like quite good definition. Petr Kopač (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly feel this category should be kept. If reliable sources deem a person to be a political prisoner, then I don't see any reason why not to call a person a political prisoner and categorize the person as such. Serouj (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see a reason to delete just Category:Russian political prisoners. But as said it can be renamed to Category:Russian political prisoners and victims to fit under Category:Russian political prisoners and victims. Närking (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Biophys.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - assuming arguendo that only the first definition of "political prisoner" from the article is accepted as the definition, disregarding the other three proffered definitions from the article and the notation in the article that whether someone is considered a political prisoner is likely to be subjective based on political considerations and the interpretation of the evidence, what the hell is a "political victim"? If consensus is to ignore the vageries of this categorization scheme, at the very least it should not include "political victims" in the name because of the complete lack of any sort of definition. Otto4711 (talk) 14:09, 15 September 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.