Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 4

< May 3	May 5 >

May 4

Category:Terrorism in Iceland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. The organization involved is listed in Category:Eco-terrorism so since this is a child of Category:Terrorism and there is a series of by county categories it only makes sense to keep this category with what appears to be a correctly classified article. If there are BLP issues with the article, they should be addressed there. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Terrorism in Iceland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There has never been terrorism in Iceland. The category is only being abused to put a single article into it, 1986 Hvalur sinkings. The article is about an act of "eco-terrorism" (a much more inclusive term) which did not harm or terrorise anybody and hence does not satisfy the normal standard for calling something terrorism. That the Icelandic government, which was targeted by the sinking, called this "terrorism" is hardly relevant since this wasn't reported as fact in the media but as a statement. This categorisation is a violation of WP:TERRORIST and WP:BLPCAT, because the people who did the sinkings are named in the article. After removing the BLP vio, an empty category remains. Hans Adler 23:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. If eco-terrorism is not terrorism, then why is is Category:Eco-terrorism a subcategory of Category:Terrorism? If they are not related, this would be inappropriate association of two terms by the mere fact that they have an English word in common. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• They are related, and most reliable sources claim that eco-terrorism is terrorism. Therefore it's OK for eco-terrorism to be categorised under terrorism. But if we just follow the WP:SYN logic "Source 1 says A is B and source 2 says B is C, so A is C", which most reliable sources do not follow, then we are playing the game of the politicians who have decided to use the most disparaging label possible to make one kind of political activism appear much worse than it is. That's hardly NPOV. If workers go on strike, then it's "industrial action" and under some circumstances criminal (e.g if they destroy factory property, as I heard they sometimes do in France), but it's not "industrial terrorism", "labour terrorism" or "work-related terrorism". Because the workers don't actually terrorise anybody. Even if the pickets use violence to stop other workers from entering the factory. But much milder actions somehow become "terrorism" just because there is an environmental ideology behind them? Please. That's like saying he who kills is a criminal, and a soldier kills, therefore a soldier is a criminal. It has a certain logic and it's OK to say this in political speech (I actually subscribe to this one), but it's hardly NPOV.
• I had to revert your restoration of the category to its one (previous) member page. As I made absolutely clear I removed the category for BLP reasons. It's totally incomprehensible for me how someone can think that the tradition that categories should not be emptied before a CfD is over is more important than a BLP concern. BLP clearly trumps it, and anyway, removing a category from a single page is hardly what this tradition is about. Do not restore, as I am prepared to edit war per WP:GRAPEVINE. Unfortunately this matter does not seem to be getting as much attention at the BLP noticeboard as I had hoped. But that doesn't mean you can simply ignore the BLP question. Hans Adler 07:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, and restore contents. I'm not convinced by the argument that if no one is "terrorized", it's not "terrorism". It was eco-terrorism, which seems to be a subtype of terrorism. If it's been called eco-terrorism and it happened in Icelandic territory, that's enough for me for it to be "Terrorism in Iceland". I don't think it's received much attention on the BLP notice page because the concern is a bit of a red herring, IMO. There's a well-established tree of Category:Terrorism by country, and until that goes wholesale, I don't agree with cherry picking cases out to eliminate based solely on WP:TERRORIST. (Incidentally, I've never before seen a self-respecting editor use the phrase, "I am prepared to edit war", so that was an interesting experience.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is absolutely ridiculous. Just look at the sources that we have for a connection of the incident with the word terrorism:

• "The action was described as an act of vandalism, an act of terrorism or the act of madmen, depending on the media." [1] Does this sound like a clear case of terrorism? Note this is an Icelandic site. [2]
• "Does terrorism pay off in Iceland?" as a rhetorical question in the title, no further mention of the word. The article describes how the instigator of the event came to Iceland to be prosecuted: [3]

The prosecutor then asked him, “Did you give the orders to sink the ships?” and the suspect confessed, “I did.” As if all this wasn’t enough, Watson claims to have threatened the prosecutor that “we intend to sink the two other ships at the first opportunity.” Yet nothing was done; the State’s major action against the leader of an organization that had declared itself at war with Iceland seems to have been trying to serve him whale meat in the cafeteria of a “most comfortable jail”, in which he was being held for questioning.
What’s more, once Mr. Ocean Warrior (starving for media attention) had verified that Iceland did not intend to prosecute him, he offered to call on the ones who did in fact do the dirty work and have them come over to face trial. Motion denied. The prosecutor’s attitude being something like, “No, Mr Watson, you don’t tell us what to do; just get the hell out of the country and don’t come back for at least five years, please.”

Does this sound like a terrorism case?

• "Iceland calls saboteurs terrorists – Iceland regards the environmental activists who sabotaged the country's whaling industry as terrorists and will try to extradite them for prosecution, the prime minister said yesterday in Reykjavik." [4]

Well, the above story tells us how credible the threat of extradition was. Why should the terrorism accusation, which the reporting paper merely reported, calling it instead sabotage, be any more credible?

• This page from a book is probably best, because it gives an overview over the reaction. It speaks of "intense criticism" and mentions the sabotage accusations as such, but never embraces the characterisation. If the reliable secondary sources don't call this terrorism (only a few primary ones did), how can we do this now? It might be different today because now that the term "eco-terrorism" has been coined and given a ridiculously broad definition it's easy to confuse people about what is and what isn't terrorism in this area. But this event happened before the confusion, and so the sources are clear. Hans Adler 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: The redirect from Terrorism in Iceland was already deleted after this discussion. Hans Adler 19:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, I've read your response to what I wrote, but I still stand by my initial opinion above; i.e., that the category should be kept; that it should be re-populated; and that it was inappropriate for you to empty the category prior to discussion, though it's excusable since you assumed it was a BLP violation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. It has zero members. I don't believe the one case that was in the category previously qualifies as "terrorism". And even if it did, what is the point of a category that has a single member? It seems just a way of adding a comment to the article that characterises the event in a way that is very much disputed. A "Category" should only be applied when it's very clear cut and undisputed. Barsoomian (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Extended discussion about removal of article from category and sources in the article

Comment: It "has zero members" because the person who objects to the category, Hans Adler, removed that cat from the article it belonged to, so that particular part is rather circular. It's a bit disingenous to empty a cat and then say "look, zero members!" Further, the category Category:Terrorism in Iceland was added not for POV reasons, but because I was, at the time, trying to broaden coverage of militant/paramilitary activity. Without that cat, there's no connection between the Iceland cat-tree and the destructive acts committed to further ideological goals (currently called "terrorism" for lack of better cat name) tree. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC) How about you read the entire comment I wrote before you start refuting it? Barsoomian (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC) It doesn't look as if the one sabotage article which I have removed from this terrorism category will be returned to the category. See WP:BLP/N#1986 Hvalur sinkings – categorising an event as terrorism. Cptnono claimed that there were "sources from Canada, Iceland, US, and who knows where else that say it is terrorism" and made several other, similar claims. When I challenged him to put these sources on the table he stopped responding to the thread, although he has edited elsewhere. Hans Adler 21:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC) That particular discussion and ones related to it haven't been the most civil in memory. Cptnono and Hans Adler have been trading barbs, and failure to continue the jousting may be that a user just got sick of being the target of incivility, or perhaps recognised that he himself needed to stop being uncivil so he walked away. I left active discussion on that page too because it was getting to point of being incivil. According to sources listed in the article, the government of Iceland called it "terrorism", and Greenpeace International and a newspaper in British Columbia compared the act to those of terrorists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC) One reliable source comparing it to terrorism is not much for such a widely reported event that is also analysed in books, is it? Hans Adler 08:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC) As far as I can see, it is not "one reliable source comparing it to terrorism". It's a source that mentions the following. At the time of the occurrence, at least three bodies—one governmental, one NGO, and one from the fourth estate—called it or compared it to terrorism. Due to the relatively minor nature of the incident—which took place in a bit of a backwater in the world media stage—in the grand scheme of things, I would say that's probably plenty. I just guessing, but I assume those three designations are what the user was referring to when he referred to Iceland (the govt), the US (the NGO), and Canada (the newspaper). But the NGO is actually based in the Netherlands, which he may not have realised. If you read the article in the 2009 Villanova Environmental Law Journal, it also discusses the issue in this context, so it's not exactly an isolated source. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Actors in a story are not sources. The victim of a crime is not a reliable source for characterising the perpetrator, and neither is the perpetrator's competition. If by "took place in a bit of a backwater in the world media stage" you mean it wasn't hyped as "terrorism" by the media then you are obviously right. Fortunately we have an analysis of the media reactions in a reliable source. [5] As details of the raid came to light, the Sea Shepherds came under intense criticism from all sides. Greenpeace International likened the act to a terrorist attack and predicted that it would set back international environmental efforts. A newspaper in British Columbia (the home ground of Watson and the Sea Shepherds) also made the comparison with terrorism, asking, "Is Vancouver to become a sanctuary for international terrorists?" Several other environmental leaders criticized the actions by claiming that sabotage was not an effective way to achieve a long-term halt to whaling. [...] Watson flew back to Iceland in 1988 to turn himself in to the authorities. Iceland held Watson for twenty-four hours without charge and then expelled him without cause. Watson never saw the inside of a courtroom in Iceland. (My italics.) No, that is not a description of an act that can be uncontroversially called terrorism. (Which would be required for categorisation.) Hans Adler 09:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Yeah, you've pretty much restated in longer form what I summarised above. Thanks. But you've conveniently igorned the other source mentioned; not to mention the fact that the newspaper article and the GI news release are also readily available (though not added to the WP article yet). Ultimately, they are not exactly "actors" in the proceedings unless you assume there is only one source. Anyway, as you hopefully will have recognised by now, it's possible for different users to look at the same information and come to different conclusions as to what to do with it in WP. An acknowledgement that your chosen interpretation is not necessarily the only possible correct one would be welcome. I certainly make that acknowledgement again. But in any case, I have no interest with continuing to spar with you over this issue in a CFD. It is an issue for the talk page of the article, if the recent incivility there can not be repeated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC) By now you should have noticed that when I mention sources I link to them so it's easily verifiable. Could you please do the same if you want your posts to have any weight. I have no idea what you mean by "GI news release". When I googled for "gi news hvalur" the first hit was to Gastroenterology & Endoscopy News. I guess that's not what you mean. Hans Adler 23:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC) GI=Greenpeace International. It's not available for free on the Internet (as far as I know, I haven't really scoured), but it is available through a paid database subscription. Ditto with the Villanova law journal—I have access through HeinOnline, which is a paid database. The BC newspaper article (The Province) is available through Factiva, which is a paid database. Hence my not linking to them. Sourcing doesn't have to be free to exist. Now, about that acknowledgement .... Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Aha. So two of your famous sources are actually the Greenpeace claim and the one newspaper already mentioned in the book excerpt above as something unusual. And there is something new, the "Villanova Law Journal". Very strange, with only 5 Google hits. I have never seen that before for a real scholarly journal. Are you sure anybody reads that? Also, why does one of the few hits read "Villanova Law Journal for Sports and Entertainment" and another "Villanova Law Journal of Investment Management"? Hans Adler 00:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, I assumed that was clear when in my initial post that refers to the sources. They are not "mine"—I was simply providing some speculation as to what the other user was likely referring to. I would appreciate it if we could eliminate sarcasm here ("'famous", etc.) What is being referred to by me when I say "Villanova law journal" is the "Villanova Environmental Law Journal" (17,000 hits, and yes, people read it, including me), as cited in the article footnotes. I didn't specify as I was assuming you were familiar with the current footnotes. Really, though—all of this has little to do with a CFD discussion and suggest that the issue be moved to the talk page if further discussion on it is warranted. For now, I'm collapsing the section. Also still awaiting an acknowledgement or anti-acknowledgement per comments above, which could be made here or on the talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) You can't expect me to guess what you really mean if you cite the journal incorrectly. The reference was added by you to the article only recently, and I note that you only used it to support the following: "an act of sabotage that many conservationists believe helped turn Icelandic public opinion against the cause of saving whales". I have no doubt about that at all. The issue is terrorism. And your tweaking (=> edit conflicts) is annoying as hell. Good night. Hans Adler 01:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC) I don't think I did expect you to guess, but apologies that my shorthand references caused confusion. Also sorry you find me or something I do annoying—I sometimes go back and tweak a comment for clarity's sake if a user has been confused about my style of expressing myself in other comments I have made. But as I said, these sourcing issues are probably best discussed elsewhere. I assume you have chosen to not make the acknowledgement, which I feel is unfortunate, since things usually work out best if all users can accept that they are not infallible. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2010 (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:Telindus Oostende players

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 13. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Telindus Oostende players to Category:Basketball Club Oostende players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is Basketball Club Oostende, Telindus Oostende is just a former sponsorship name. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2010 (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:Euphony Bree players

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 13. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Euphony Bree players to Category:Bree BBC players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is Bree BBC, Euphony Bree is just a sponsorship name. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2010 (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:Frankfurt Skyliners players

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 13. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Frankfurt Skyliners players to Category:Skyliners Frankfurt players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is Skyliners Frankfurt. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2010 (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:Skyliners basketball coaches

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 13. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Skyliners basketball coaches to Category:Skyliners Frankfurt coaches

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is Skyliners Frankfurt. The club also doesn't have any other departments, so the additional "basketball" in the category's name is not necessary. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2010 (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.

Atlético de Madrid

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. — ξ^xplicit 02:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Atlético de Madrid to Category:Atlético Madrid

Propose renaming Category:Atlético de Madrid managers to Category:Atlético Madrid managers

Propose renaming Category:Atlético de Madrid matches to Category:Atlético Madrid matches

Propose renaming Category:Atlético de Madrid footballers to Category:Atlético Madrid footballers

Propose renaming Category:Atlético de Madrid presidents to Category:Atlético Madrid presidents

Propose renaming Category:Atlético de Madrid templates to Category:Atlético Madrid templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All of the article titles that contain the club's name in this category refer to "Atlético Madrid", not "Atlético de Madrid". Sub-categories should also be renamed to match. – PeeJay 20:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – PeeJay 20:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Rename all - per nominator. Given that it is the title of the article about the club it only makes sense that the categories should be called Atlético Madrid as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Rename all to tie in with article name. Eldumpo (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Rename all per nom. -- doorautomatica (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2010 (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.

American rappers by location

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Category:American rappers by location
• Category:East Coast rappers
• Category:West Coast rappers
• Category:Midwest rappers
• Category:Southern rappers

Nominator's rationale: Delete all. I don't see the need to categorize rappers by what coastline they're from, especially when these categories contain refined subcategories to specify locations. For example, Category:Rappers from California is a subcategory Category:West Coast rappers, so any rapper from the West Coast would only get removed from the parent category and moved into the subcategory. When categorized by the genre West Coast hip hop, there's Category:Hip hop musicians by genre, which captures the defining characteristic of the style of hip hop they use. If needed, refine Rappers from Foo state, but this current categorization isn't very helpful. (Reworded for clarification) If needed, refine Rappers from Foo state and create subcategories for cities of these states as need, but the Category:American rappers by location categorization scheme isn't very helpful. I'll be the first to volunteer to create all the categories needed should consensus agree with this nomination. — ξ^xplicit 19:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete the general East Coast, West Coast, Midwest, and Southern categories, but keep "Rappers from ____" because often some geographical locations of the US tend to have a big hip hop scene (New York City, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Houston, and Atlanta generally). Think about the "Musicians from _____" categories on Wikipedia. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  I wasn't implying we delete the Rappers from Foo state categories; on the contrary, I was suggesting we improve those categories. Reading over my wording, it does seem to imply this, and I've reworded the nomination. — ξ^xplicit 23:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, in favor of doing it by states as discussed above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete using states removes convolution with style, which is already covered separately. Hekerui (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2010 (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:Documentaries about Madonna (entertainer)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ^xplicit 04:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:Documentaries about Madonna (entertainer) to parent categories.

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:OC#SMALL. For all her media appearances my Googling suggests that there is a rather small set of truly notable documentaries about her, and the category's three titles are about it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• upmerge per nom; may they always remain small in number. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 12 May 2010 (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:Settlements in Canada by province or territory

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 and merge as nominated. — ξ^xplicit 02:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Canada by province or territory to Category:Populated places in Canada by province or territory

13 Canada categories

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Alberta to Category:Populated places in Alberta (Note: Settlements subcategory has already been converted from "all populated places" to "those specifically designated as settlements" by User:117Avenue, which is why this one is named differently than the others. No further action required on the "settlements" subcategory after the parent moves. Bearcat (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)) Propose renaming Category:Settlements in British Columbia to Category:Populated places in British Columbia (no bots since the settlement category may need to remain if proposal passes) Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Manitoba to Category:Populated places in Manitoba Propose renaming Category:Settlements in New Brunswick to Category:Populated places in New Brunswick (no bots since the settlement category may need to remain if proposal passes) Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Newfoundland and Labrador to Category:Populated places in Newfoundland and Labrador Propose renaming Category:Settlements in the Northwest Territories to Category:Populated places in the Northwest Territories Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Nova Scotia to Category:Populated places in Nova Scotia (no bots since the settlement category may need to remain if proposal passes) Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Nunavut to Category:Populated places in Nunavut Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Ontario to Category:Populated places in Ontario Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Prince Edward Island to Category:Populated places in Prince Edward Island Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Quebec to Category:Populated places in Quebec Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Saskatchewan to Category:Populated places in Saskatchewan Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Yukon to Category:Populated places in Yukon (no bots since the settlement category will need to remain if proposal passes; manual directions have been posted to category's talk page.)

Propose merging Category:Settlements in the United States to Category:Populated places in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To continue the conversions for Canadian categories per several consensus discussions for this change. I'll add some more, but anyone is free to add additional categories to this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Rename Category:Arctic settlements of the United States to Category:Populated Arctic places of the United States or something else. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I have added the 58 United States categories of the same sort and rationale. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 19:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Rename all per previously-discussed consensus. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 21:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Rename all per previous discussion. --Polaron | Talk 22:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "Settlements" is a perfectly satsifactory term. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a problematic term; there are some jurisdictions where "settlement" is actually the legal name of a specific class of place separate from cities and towns and villages. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Rename all per consensus-building.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Rename all. I've actually favoured a rename of this tree for a while, for the reason I pointed out to Peterkingiron above, but didn't know what would be a viable alternative. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2010 (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:Category message boxes

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. — ξ^xplicit 02:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Category message boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No longer used within {{Cmbox}}, the one template in there should be recategorized. The Evil IP address (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2010 (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:Fictional dragons

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. — ξ^xplicit 04:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:Fictional dragons to Category:Dragons in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Merge: These names seem to describe the same category, but "Dragons in fiction" expresses more clearly that the category covers dragon characters from particular fictional works, as opposed to generic dragons, which are by definition fictional (see discussion page). Amccune (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment the two categories are not properly tagged. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It should merge the other way around, like other categories which are "fictional X". 70.29.208.247 (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The two categories do not describe the same thing. "Fictional dragons" ought to be oriented to individual examples or appearances of dragons, and is a natural subcategory for the broader "Dragons in fiction" which could include works or series, or analysis of the dragon as appears in fiction.- choster (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep both categories. Category:Dragons in fiction could perhaps be renamed if someone can produce a suitable phrase. Occuli (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2010 (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:Canada Public Safety designated terrorist entities

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. — ξ^xplicit 04:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Canada Public Safety designated terrorist entities to Category:Public Safety Canada designated terrorist entities

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Still awkward but it at least matches the ministry's actual name, Public Safety Canada. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh cripes. Do we really need this under any name whatsoever? Rename if necessary; delete if there's a shred of sanity left to be had on this planet. Bearcat (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Since the introduction itself points to the official list. I would say listify, but the the list already exists at List of designated terrorist organizations which can be sourced. Additionally this will lead to category clutter as more countries list these organizations. I accept the fact that there are already additional categories like this. If this is deleted, then those should also be listified or deleted as appropriate. This way we don't need to worry about the category name. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - rename is hardly better, try "terrorist entities designated by Public Safety Canada" if you really can't delete it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. I would support deletion of all of these "designated by such-and-such as a terrorist organisation" categories. Lists are way, way, way preferable for something like this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 12 May 2010 (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:People honored with bronze statues

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) 01:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:People honored with bronze statues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category; criteria is far too broad, and adding citations would be a nightmare. C1k3 (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete As non-defining. No-one thinks of Albert Einstein as "ooh, he's the guy with the bronze statue!". Lugnuts (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete I agree. This is an unnecessary category, that doesn't seem to serve any purpose or to help readers in any way. And there does not seem to be any reliable source for the entries. RolandR (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per all - and why just bronze? Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Having one's likeness cast in bronze is an honor accorded to a select number of people. The notion of bronze as a permanent material to commemorate one's achievements is a distinction that obviously goes back centuries, and has been identified as such by many noted art historians, such as Michael Cole (see, for example, his "The Medici Mercury and the Breath of Bronze," in Studies of the History of Art: Large Bronzes of the Renaissance, ed. Peta Motture [2003], among other publications). It is not unlike having one's likeness struck onto the surface of a coin for circulation, although a bronze statue usually is not subject to the same type of wear that a coin is, wear which, in time, might eradicate the image engraved upon it. This, of course, raises a separate discussion, too complex to explore here, about the relative meaning of casting images in different media (which gets also to the question of different materials, such as marble, which is arguably less permanent than bronze and thus possibly less honorific). The pages so far that have been included in this category include individuals whose effigy has been cast in bronze at least once, regardless of whether or not the statue still exists, and research was actually conducted that the statue was indeed bronze. I submit that identifying someone as worthy of a statue in bronze is a significant label, and genuinely encyclopedic, whether or not someone actually "searches" for them from the fact that they have had their image cast in bronze. Absecon 49 (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• — Note to closing admin: Absecon (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• — Absecon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note to admin: Absecon 49 is the same user as Absecon 59, with over 2,600 edits, as shown here [6]. Absecon 49 (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note to admin: The above status of Absecon 49 is confirmed by Absecon 59. Absecon 59 (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, historically the great majority of people "horored" with bronze statues just paid for them. Do the far cheaper & more numerous busts count? Probably beside the point given the way this is going. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Not encyclopedic, and quite probably more common than the article creator believes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete or Recategorize. This might make an interesting category of "Sports Figures honored with statues", as close to 90% of the list is made up of people associated with baseball. Rename it, remove the four non-sports figures (Eaton, Einstein, Lenin, and Marcus Aurelius), add other sports figures (including football, hockey, basketball, soccer, tennis, racing, track, golf, etc.) that have statues (bronze or otherwise), and it might be of greater interest and relevance. Unlike Clk3, I do not find the category too broad; I find it too narrow. I think we'd find many more sports figures verifiably honored with statues than we'll find people in general honored by a bronze statue. -- Couillaud (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OC#ARBITRARY and WP:OC#TRIVIAL. This is not a defining characteristic of the individuals so categorized. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. No reason whatsoever for this category to exist. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Arbitrary category. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 03:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OC#TRIVIAL. Couillaud makes an interesting argument as well though. -- doorautomatica (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2010 (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:Airline flights

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 as nominated. At this stage, I can see a unanimous consensus that this needs to be renamed, and with the exception of one participant, all those who commented said that the rename proposal would be an acceptable option. Crum375 did not agree and raised what were acknowledged by other users to be some valid points, so this close is without prejudice to a future nomination for a rename to an alternate name. If Crum375 wants to re-nominate the category for renaming, then this could be done and we will then see if there would be a consensus for that proposal. This re-nomination can be done immediately or any time later on. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Airline flights to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by airline

Nominator's rationale: These articles are not about airline flights; they are about specific incidents generally identified by flight number. Therefore the main category should be a parent under Category:Aviation accidents and incidents and the child categories should be renamed "Category:name of airline accidents and incidents".Mangoe (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion: Rename to Category:Aviation mishaps by airline

Rationale: Per discussion below, the title "incidents and accidents" doesn't cover hijacking, bombing, sabotage, etc. The official term is "occurrence" to cover all of these events, but it's a bit dry for casual readers. So perhaps "mishap" would be a more reader-friendly, well understood term, which will not conflict with the official terminology. Crum375 (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose (original suggestion, Support alternate) Accidents and incidents don't cover other events like hijackings and bombings. The official term for all these events is "occurrence", but since these are all airline flights, a clearer term is "flight", which happens to be the current name. Crum375 (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hijackings are incidents, and in fact articles on hijackings are listed by flight and are included in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents (see for instance Pan Am Flight 73, which is in Category:Airliner hijackings, Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1986, and Category:Pan American World Airways flights). Likewise Pan Am Flight 103 is similarly categorized (Category:Airliner bombings not being broken down by airline or anything else because it is so small, and Category:Pan Am Flight 103 being placed in the appropriate "incident" categories in lieu of the article). If you want to recategorize everything as "occurrence" instead of "accidents and incidents", be my guest; personally I think what we have now is sufficiently euphemistic. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Hijackings are incidents:" That's incorrect. If a hijacking ends up with a fatality or a serious injury, or significant damage, as it often does, it is not an "incident". A bombing is virtually always not an incident, unless the bomb is a dud, since there is bound to be serious injury or fatality. An aircraft occurrence is only classified as "incident" (by both ICAO and the U.S. NTSB) if there is no loss of life and no serious injury. Thus to limit the occurrence types to accidents and incidents only would be incorrect. And BTW, Pan Am 103 is absolutely not an "incident", since there was both loss of life and aircraft damage; it is normally classified as "occurrence" (see the occurrence_type parameter in the infobox). Crum375 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not persuaded that we need to participate in such a jargonized and meaningless-to-the-layperson categorization, but in any case the issue still remains: these are about accidents, incidents, occurrences, whatever, but they are not about flights per se. If it is necessary to make the kind of distinctions you are calling for, then that simply means more parent categories and a division of the articles according to the type of event. Mangoe (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not an issue of "jargon", it is the official terminology used by the official agencies and our most reliable sources, and WP's goal is to follow the sources, not to invent our own dumbed-down and possibly confusing terminology, which may end up conflicting with the official one. The point here is that these are airline operations, and as such, every airline operation which carries passengers and/or cargo for hire is officially a flight with a number, and referred to as "flight" in the occurrence reports and news coverage, as well as our own article title and text. If the category covers non-airline operations, such as general aviation or military flights, then there would not be a flight number, and "occurrence" would be the best name. But for occurrences involving airline flights, the short name "airline flights" is the most apt. Crum375 (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Rename to something, anything - present name is clearly misleading. "Incidents", "occurrences" whatever - (later) "mishaps" sounds pretty silly to me, I must say. That's when you lose someone's suitcase. (end) I'd point out that article titles just using a flight name and number are also somewhat misleading, if possibly justified by common usage. A scheduled FOOAIR Flight 1234 might have taken place thousands of times without any incidents or occurrences; such names should be further disamed, perhaps unless really well-known. We need to remember how high WP articles come in net searches - there must be many people who just want to know when the thing lands etc who find themselves reading these cheerful tales. Crum says "The official term for all these events is "occurrence", but since these are all airline flights, a clearer term is "flight", which happens to be the current name." What on earth does this mean??? It makes no sense at all. Johnbod (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• It means that if the category covers all generic occurrences, i.e. including general aviation and military, then "flight" would be too specific. But if this category includes only airline flights, then the term "airline flight" is the most appropriate, because every airline flight has a designated flight number and the occurrence name is commonly referred to as "flight X" by the reliable sources. Crum375 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, because "airline flights" are things that happen every day (or whatever) per the schedule, just like bus routes. This category is for articles about specific things that happened on specific days to particular instances of airline flights, not the flight in general. No one would know this from the current name. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Flights happen every day, but only mishaps are notable and make it to our pages, or relevant reliable sources. On Wikipedia, it was long decided to name all airline accident articles "<Airline> Flight <number>". This is because virtually all reliable sources, and specifically the investigation reports, refer to the "accident aircraft" as "Flight X". This is the common terminology in the area of accident reporting, and we should be following the terminology used by the most reliable sources. Crum375 (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I could argue that (for instance) Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 is a better title than just Pan Am Flight 103, and that the former title is how most major media referred to it. Likewise they were prone to refer to the Crash of Eastern Air Lines Flight 401. The NTSB usage of the flight alone is within the context of reporting about accidents; we do not have this context here. Mangoe (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not just the NTSB and ICAO. It's a variety of aviation safety related publications, as well as reputable news outlets such as The New York Times. But the most crucial point, besides following the most reliable sources, is our internal WP consistency. This is why we have "projects", such as WikiProject Aviation, and their current article naming convention is that airline mishaps or occurrences are called "<airline> Flight <number>." Category naming should also follow the best sources and be centralized at the relevant project. Crum375 (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact not all the articles have this format of title. But the articles are a separate issue from the category name (centralized here, please note) which badly fails policy by giving no indication of what the category is really about. The same is true of the "by airline" sub-cats, which should be renamed too. Sometimes projects just lose sight of the plot. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you name a relatively recent airline occurrence article on WP which is not of this format? And if there is disconnect between the project and CfD, it needs to be fixed. All I know is that in the area of aircraft occurrences, both in investigative agency reports and news coverage by the major media and safety publications, "flight X" is the standard designation of the "case file". Crum375 (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - follows naming format of parent category ("Aviation accidents and incidents") and shows how the child categories are grouped. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 18:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support renaming to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by airline. I was looking for this category there earlier today and was surprised to find it at Category:Airline flights which is not that descriptive. -Atmoz (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Have you read this discussion? Do you understand that there are problems with the proposed terminology (e.g. it does not include 9/11 attacks, hijackings, sabotage, bombings, suicides, etc.)? Crum375 (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I have read the discussion. All of the things you describe are incidents by any reasonable definition of the word incident. The airline industry does not get to redefine words. In fact, I would even say that all of these things are incidents even by the ICAO definition. "An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation." Hijackings, sabotage, bombings and suicides [by airplane] are all occurrences that affect the safety of operation. -Atmoz (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
      • "Hijackings, sabotage, bombings and suicides [by airplane] are all occurrences that affect the safety of operation": Once you have serious injury, a fatality, or serious damage, all these occurrences are no longer "incidents". Therefore, they would specifically not fit in an aviation incident category. On Wikipedia we follow reliable sources, and the term "incident" in aviation has a very specific meaning. If we were to define it differently than the standard aviation terminology, we'd be at odds with the most reliable sources used to support the articles. Crum375 (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
        • By what definition? The ICAO definition has 3 parts:
          1. "An occurrence, other than an accident"
          2. "associated with the operation of an aircraft"
          3. "which affects or could affect the safety of operation"
        • Where does serious injury, fatality or serious damage come into play? That's right. Then they're considered accidents. "An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which: a) a person is or seriously injured as a result of... being in the aircraft..." Hence, "incidents and accidents". -Atmoz (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
        • And to put an and to your nonsense about 9/11, Category:September 11 attacks is considered a Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States and quite rightly too. -Atmoz (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
          • By both ICAO and NTSB, which are the two most relevant sources for this, an aviation occurrence with a fatality is not an "incident", and is normally considered an "accident". But the 9/11 attacks or other "deliberate" occurrences, are not considered "accidents" by most sources. So most sources, and the respective Wikipedia articles, use plain "occurrence" as the generic term for them (see the occurrence_type parameter in the infobox template for such articles, e.g. Pan Am Flight 103). The bottom line is that "incidents" and "accidents" don't cover deliberate occurrences with fatalities, serious injuries or serious damage. Crum375 (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
            • By the ICAO definition, an occurence with a fatality is an accident. By the ICAO definition, 9/11 was an accident. The ICAO makes no distinction about if an occurrence was truly an accident or deliberate in their definition of accident. If you think they do, please quote it here. -Atmoz (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
            • And Pan Am 103 is in the category Category:Airliner bombings which is a subcat of Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners. Strike 2. Any other tries? -Atmoz (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
              • I already mentioned above that the official investigative agencies, ICAO and NTSB, consider the 9/11 attacks "accidents". But the vast majority of other sources, including all the major news media, don't call those attacks "the 9/11 accidents", or the Lockerbie crash "the Lockerbie accident". In fact, I don't think I have ever seen any news article call those occurrences "accidents" (but correct me if I am wrong). So it would be odd for Wikipedia to call Pan Am 103 an "accident", when there isn't a single news source calling it that, and similarly for all the other "deliberately caused occurrences" with fatalities, serious injuries and damage. As far as the parent cat using the improper terminology, we are aware of that, and it should also be addressed, but at the moment we are focusing on the airliner cats, which are generally most notable and visible. Once this cat naming is agreed on, we can try to improve the others. Crum375 (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
              • Both 9/11 and Lockerbie were "accidents or incidents involving airliners". Nobody with half a brain would argue otherwise. You are arguing otherwise. -Atmoz (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
                • Can you point me to a high quality reliable news source which calls the Lockerbie crash an "accident"? Our best general resource for Wikipedia aviation occurrence articles is ASN, and you'll notice that they call Lockerbie a "criminal occurrence". As I said above, with my "half brain", I am not aware of anyone calling these occurrences "accidents", but if you have reliable news media sources showing otherwise, please point them out and we can discuss them. Crum375 (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

In checking with the NTSB, FAA, and ICAO, I find that they all make a sharp distinction between "accidents" and various unlawful acts (to use the ICAO term). "Incident" seems to be an FAA term for accidents that were averted; they seem to be for the most part not notable. Neither are general aviation accidents, as we don't seem to have articles on but a very few (e.g. The Day the Music Died, but note that we do not have a separate article for the crash that killed Wiley Post and Will Rogers). All of this is hampered by the lack of any reference in the aviation accidents and incidents article to any definition of terms.

The consistent grouping of hijackings, bombings and other acts of malice as distinct from accidents perhaps ought to be honored. These are few enough in number to where the grouping by airline is probably superfluous. But also, and quite to the point, the FAA groups accidents by airline, but does not do so for illegal acts. Mangoe (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Incident" is not an accident that was averted, but an occurrence with relatively minor consequences, though potentially significant safety implications. Both ICAO and NTSB use "occurrence" as the generic term for all aviation mishaps. On Wikipedia we cover all notable aviation occurrences, and the aviation occurrence infobox has an occurrence_type parameter to identify the specific occurrence type, which then appears in the infobox's title. It would make sense to follow this logic, or even automate it, for categories. Crum375 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The exact meaning of "incident" versus "accident" is a bit beside the point if we aren't going to break them out into separate categories (and can we please get a citation for the definitions?). The more significant division seems to be between accidents/incidents and illegal/malicious acts. Mangoe (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are the U.S. NTSB's definitions, and the international ICAO's definitions. It seems that the current usage on WP, based on the occurrence_type parameter in the aviation occurrence infobox, is to classify "occurrences" into "Accident", "Incident", and plain "Occurrence" (the template's default) for bombing, hijacking, etc. Crum375 (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Though correct technically, "occurrence" may be a bit dry for a reader, and doesn't communicate directly that something went wrong; see my alternative suggestion for "mishap" above. A potential drawback of "mishap" is that it may connote a minimization of the event, so community input is needed. Crum375 (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Mishap" is so close to "accident" as to not make enough of a difference. It appears that the main point of my first remark in this section seems to have gotten lost in the discussion of particular words: that the "accidents and incidents" category, however it is named, doesn't contain what the ICAO refers to as "unlawful acts". I see this distinction maintained in the FAA reporting too: they report A&I by airline, but they do not so break out bombings, hijackings, etc.

This suggest to me what I proposed a bit earlier: establish the categories as I have proposed, but remove all the unlawful act occurrences from them. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that, like any original research, is that it could create more problems that it will solve. There is a growing trend to "criminalize" aviation accidents, see for example Gol 1907, where Brazilian prosecutors charged the pilots with "endangering an aircaft." There are other cases where the actions of the flight crew (or maintenance staff) were considered "criminal". So this would lead us down a slippery slope, of Wikipedians trying to judge the "criminality" of the parties. Crum375 (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And check out EgyptAir Flight 990 and SilkAir Flight 185 to give yourself more food for thought. Crum375 (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

These are already categorized in Category:Deliberate airliner crashes, so they could be taken out of the "A&I" categories. Mangoe (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That cat would be POV in many cases. For example, both EgyptAir Flight 990 and SilkAir Flight 185 are hotly disputed, with the U.S. NTSB concluding they were "deliberate" and the government of registry disagreeing, with various related litigations. Also, we need to categorize occurrences on the day they occur, while the "probable cause" statement, which may or may not indicate a cause, can take years, sometimes ending as "inconclusive" or "conflicting". The point is that using any kind of specific category which does not follow an official ruling could cause protracted edit wars among editors, sometimes along nationalistic lines. It's far better to just lump all aviation "occurrences" into one category, with a generic name, avoiding all these thorny issues. The only question is the name, and I can live with "Flight" (the current version), "Occurrence" (the official ICAO/NTSB terminology), or "Mishap" (a more reader-friendly synonym of "occurrence", which does not conflict with any official term). Crum375 (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, those are the only two in the category which are disputed, and we could move them into Category:Airliner crashes of disputed cause or something like that. I don't see any reason not to start them out in "A&I" unless there is obvious evidence from the start; we didn't need to wait for an NTSB finding to categorize the four September 11 flights. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Even calling it "disputed" has issues. First, it takes a long time, perhaps years, to get a probable cause, so the cat will remain hanging in the balance for years. (This is true for many other occurrences too, by the way, and a good reason not to have over-specific cats.) Second, even the fact that the cause is disputed, is itself disputed sometimes. See for example, Arrow Air Flight 1285, where there was a 4-5 split on the Canadian investigation board. The majority called it a normal accident, caused by icing, while the minority called it sabotage by unknown terrorists. So I can see edit wars over calling (or not calling) it "disputed". The thing is, we should try to avoid creating cats that are not trivial to assign, because it will lead to headaches at best, or protracted edit wars. And again, it may take years to be able to make any decision on the cat if it's too specific. Crum375 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You do have a point there. Maybe we do need just one big catch-all main category. Mangoe (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, although almost anything would be an improvement on the current name, I find "mishap" sounds silly and trivial. I doubt anyone surviving these er, whatevers went home & said there had been a "mishap" on their flight today. That would be if their luggage got lost or someone spilled a drink on them. If "incident" does not work, go for "occurrence", or "events". Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I noted above, "mishap" may possibly be seen by some as minimizing tragic events. I have seen it used by reliable sources as an umbrella term synonymous with the more official "occurrence", but perhaps for the general reader it may not be ideal. The problem I see with "occurrence" is that it's too dry, and for airlines (not general aviation and military operations) the term "flight" is available and is widely used to identify these occurrences in both the news media as well as technical publications. The generic term "event" has a problem in that it is too broad, and can cover "happy" occasions, such as rolling out of a new aircraft type, some aviation record being broken, a big party thrown to commemorate or celebrate something, etc. Crum375 (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

How about Category:Aviation disasters and mishaps? The problem with "incident" and "occurrence" is that they don't mean (in real life) what the aviation authorities are using them to mean. "Incident" at least carries the proper connotation of notability; "occurrence" really means no more than "something happened". We really need words that mean that something bad happened. Mangoe (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, in some cases nothing bad actually happens, but something bad almost happens. Take Northwest Airlines Flight 188 (defined as "incident" in this case), where not one person received a scratch, nor was there any damage except to the pilots' pride (and certificates). Your suggestion above seems to take two extremes: disasters and mishaps, but there are many occurrences which fall in-between, perhaps some injuries, some serious, perhaps some aircraft or property damage, but not a "disaster", and not a "mishap" if you define it as something "trivial". This is why it makes sense to rely on reliable sources, such as investigative agencies and aviation safety publications, which deal with the categorization issue daily, and which seem to use "occurrence" and "flight" (the latter for airline operations). Crum375 (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Airline flight events or similar is growing on me - I don't think they sound like parties. Whatever is used must first of all be meaningful and clear to non-specialists. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be clear and meaningful, but it can't conflict with the sources. After all, we base our article content on reliable sources, so it makes sense that categories be based on sources too. "Flight event" sounds odd, it's not something used in any professional publication — nor any other reliable source that I have seen — to refer to "occurrence". Also, consider that some occurrences take place on the ground, e.g. while taxiing or after touching down, but using this terminology could imply the aircraft was in the air. In addition, "event" could refer to a record breaking flight, or an inaugural flight, which clearly should not be in this category. Crum375 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, if need be category names prioritize clarity and meaning over fitting in with the article names; there are many precedents for this. They are not articles & don't have sources. I think your arguments here are verging on the desperate. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How about Category:Airline flight anomalies? These are flights that our not within the normal margins. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but most people would consider "anomaly" to be something very minor, like an overheating engine, or a clogged toilet. Calling a major aviation disaster an "anomaly" would be a serious stretch. Crum375 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I've gone to the NTSB site, and they definitely class EgyptAir 990 as an "accident": see for instance all over the published Aircraft Accident Brief. So I'm not sure that we need to worry about "occurrences" that are neither accidents nor incidents, because it looks as though even malicious acts count as "accidents" or "incidents"—even the 9/11 occurrences are classed as "accidents" (see here). Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The NSTB database is limited to "Accident" and "Incident" only. They thus consider the 9/11 attacks "Accidents", because there was loss of life and severe damage. Clearly you need to go beyond the restricted NTSB database. I doubt you'd find many reliable sources, not restricted to government computer-speak, labeling the 9/11 occurrences as "accidents". Crum375 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you can use the NTSB's classification as a source for things that aren't in it. As a corollary it seems to me that we let things that aren't in its database fall into other categories. Mangoe (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The NTSB generally only covers U.S. occurrences (with some exceptions), so we can't rely on the NTSB to classify occurrences for us world wide. As I noted above, the NTSB's database is restricted to only "accidents" and "incidents" so we can't rely on it to help classify other types. I think we are in agreement that we should be reader-friendly, not government-database-speak focused, so calling the 9/11 attacks "accidents" is out. Even ASN, our main source for aviation occurrences, calls the attacks "Hijackings" (I think they changed their software to allow that). So I am not suggesting we use the NTSB database terminology as source, but their prose text, e.g. here (bold added): "An accident is defined as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft...An incident is an occurrence other than an accident..."[7] And since NTSB is U.S.-centric, we have ICAO as the main international source, and they explain to us in detail how "occurrence" is the generic term which covers the various "occurrence classes", such as Accident, Incident, etc.[8] The point is that professional people have thought long and hard about this generic terminology issue, and both the U.S. NTSB and international ICAO came up with the same result: "occurrence". But as I noted above, I believe that for airliner occurrences, since there is a well defined flight number, and our wiki articles are already titled "<Airline> Flight <number>", the term "flight" is a reasonable reader-friendly choice. Crum375 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me add a suggestion. I agree with the nom that the current category page is confusing, since there is no mention of what the category is about. I think what's needed is to clarify in that category page's (currently-empty) lead that the category includes airline occurrences, identified by airline and flight number, ranging from minor incidents to major disasters. This would hopefully help reduce the concerns mentioned above. Crum375 (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It would, but a rename is still needed. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

But rename to what? Crum375 (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. Crum375 (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that - does this mean you are now happy with "occurrences" for the cat name? Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

My number one preference is for "flight", as I think it's the most reader-friendly, it corresponds to the article naming standard, and it's what readers would see in the news media ("Flight 800 black box recovered by divers this morning"). It is also now explained in the lead text of the cat page. But I would settle for "occurrence" as second best, because it's the "dry" official terminology. Crum375 (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Pause for refreshment

I don't see a lot of progress here, and it seems to me that the continuing focus on official usage is the reason why. We still have three cases to deal with: accidents, crimes, and cases where things went wrong but not enough to cause serious damage or injury. "Accident" is not a problem term because the agencies respected the normal usage of the term; "incident" is, because in English accidents are incidents, and for that matter, so are crimes.

I have decided that I don't think the controversy over a relatively few crashes is enough to justify disrupting a whole scheme that otherwise would be pretty simple. If we let each of the criminal act types stand as their own category, as they already do, then we can just stick with Category:Aviation accidents and incidents, place Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by airline underneath that, and work from there. Undisputed crimes can stay in the categories they already use. The disputed cases I think we should address separately, but I think we are going through an awful lot of contortions to deal with a very small subgroup (at present, only four articles as best I can determine). Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"only four articles as best I can determine": What category are you referring to? Crum375 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We were talking earlier about cases where there was a dispute as to whether a crash was accidental or deliberate, and thus far I have only found four instances, two of which were discussed above. Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There may be more such cases, but I don't see this group as important enough to warrant its own wiki-category so I don't think it matters much. But there are lots of deliberate occurrences, where there is no dispute they were deliberate. And although some agencies call them "accidents", the media and general public rarely if ever do. So for the big picture, we have the minor occurrences, where there is no fatality, serious damage or serious injury, which are officially labeled as "incidents"; the classical "accident", where there is at least one fatality, serious injury or serious damage; and the occurrences caused by a deliberate act. Of the latter, if there is no fatality, serious injury or damage, all would classify it as "incident". The classical accidents would also be classified as "accidents" with no problem. But the other occurrences, where there is a fatality, serious injury or damage, due to a deliberate act, would only fit into "occurrence", without contradicting either official-speak or the media and general public. The ones you mention, where the "deliberateness" is in question or dispute, like EgyptAir Flight 990, will still fit into the general "occurrence" category. So as bottom line, "occurrence" will cover everything, with no conflict. I still like "flight" better for airline occurrences, since it conforms to our naming convention and the typical media references ("Flight 800 black boxes recovered"), but can live with occurrence though it's not as reader-friendly. Crum375 (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that we keep the non-accident/incident events out of the category entirely and let them live solely within their own "type of violation" categories (hijackings, etc.). That's consonant with the way the NTSB, FAA, and ICAO group them (if you look on the FAA site in particular they group accidents and incidents by airline, but they don't include illegal acts in those groupings).

So far there's a consistent consensus against sticking with flight, so I don't think there's any point in continuing to pursue it as a possibility. Mangoe (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, the problem with keeping deliberate acts out of the main category is that we may not know for a fact whether they were deliberate or not for several years, and even then that classification may remain contentious. We need to be able to immediately classify aviation occurrences, as they happen, not wait for years for government agencies to issue their "probable cause" statements for us to be able to classify them. And even those "final" statements are not always conclusive or consensual. Crum375 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

In the short term, if there is doubt then we can classify them as "accidents/incidents"; if the analysis changes, we change the category to match. After all, we move species articles around based on taxonomic changes all the time. My impression again is that the number of genuinely problematic cases is too small to justify shaping the whole scheme around them. Mangoe (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There may not be that many deliberately caused occurrences, but the ones that take place are typically very high profile. To mis-classify these important articles from the outset, and possibly for years, is wrong, IMO. Also, the current category of "flights" for airline occurrences is very neutral: it simply implies that something occurred on an airline flight to make it notable. To change it to "occurrence" would make technical sense, but would be less reader-friendly. To change it to "accident" or "incident" (assuming there were fatalities, serious injuries or damage) would be plain wrong, and a step backwards. Crum375 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are trying to close the barn door after a very large herd of horses has run off. As it stands, all categories for things going wrong with airplanes, accidentally or on purpose, trace back to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents directly or through Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners. Mangoe (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This was raised above, so it's obviously a wider problem that just airliners. But Wikipedia is not a barn, and a wiki is designed for continuous improvement. As it happens, airline occurrences are usually the most prominent with the widest press coverage (and probably most reader hits), so we should make sure they are correct first. I agree that other categories need fixing, but two wrongs don't make a right. In any case, the current "flight" terminology is correct and logical, but if we need to change it, let's change it to something better, not worse. Crum375 (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Actually, upon reflection I think we need to ignore the FAA/ICAO/NTSB and use the words to mean what they normally mean, and explain the special terminological meanings in the parent categories. That way we can include all the dubious cases without having to commit to a subcategorization. Mangoe (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that we have to ensure the proper terminology inside the articles proper, as well as in lists of articles, because we rely on the ICAO and NTSB as our most authoritative sources. To have cat names conflicting with article content or the highest quality sources would be counterproductive. Crum375 (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

They are not authorities on English usage. Mangoe (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but they are authorities on content. So if there is a conflict, our goal should be to avoid it wherever possible, to prevent confusion. Crum375 (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2010 (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:Thee Silver Mt. Zion Memorial Orchestra & Tra-La-La Band 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Thee Silver Mt. Zion Memorial Orchestra & Tra-La-La Band albums to Category:Thee Silver Mt. Zion albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. The band's schtick is to subtly change their name roughly for each new album or tour, but this is the atomistic version of their name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support The band did use the full name when I saw them on tour last month, but it makes sense to have it as the "short" version. Lugnuts (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2010 (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.