Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 31 June 2 >

June 1[edit]

Category:If albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article: If (band). Also, the current title is confusing: the primary use of "If" is, of course, as a conjunction, not as a proper noun. In addition, the disambiguation page 'If' lists ten songs and two albums titled "If" (or similar), including the album If by If, as well as the record label IF?. It may not be ambiguous per se due to differences in punctuation – e.g., If albums versus If (album) versus IF? albums and so on – but it does discombobulate the reader. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Let us not discombobulate readers. Oculi (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2012 (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:IBS Member Stations[edit]

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) 03:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category groups television stations whose websites were designed by Internet Broadcasting. I believe that this characteristic is not defining for any station and, furthermore, the information is not even mentioned in any of the ~15 articles that I checked. Nowadays, virtually all notable (and many non-notable) companies and organizations have websites; the characteristics of the websites, and especially 'background' detail such as who designed them, is generally trivial. If there is a desire to preserve the information, I think that the only suitable place would be in a section of the article Internet Broadcasting. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:International Broadcasting clients and populate using this list. I think it's fair to indicate the designer of a company's web site. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The vendors an organization patronizes for business services is no basis for categorization. The manufacturer of steel used for building the Golden Gate Bridge, the financiers behind the Netscape IPO, the beef distributors for McDonald's— the list would be endless.- choster (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2012 (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:Male video game characters[edit]

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 without prejudice to a future nomination that proposes deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: First, because the new names eliminate ambiguity. As User:Black Falcon points out below (with a different example), "(Fe)male video game characters" could mean "(Fe)male characters in video games" or "Characters in fe(male) video games". For example, Anya Kovaleva is a female character in what might be called a "male" video game (Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3). I'm not saying this is a huge area for confusion, but category names should be as clear as reasonably possible.
Second, for consistency. Category:Video game characters already includes sub-categories Category:Child characters in video games and Category:LGBT characters in video games. Those sub-categories use the names they do to avoid confusion over "child video games" such as Madagascar (video game) or "LGBT video games" such as Bully (video game). CaseyPenk (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, mainly for the second reason, though the first raises a good point also. I hadn't considered, for example, that Female video game characters could be understood as "characters in video games intended for females", but it is a fact that certain video games are marketed primarily to male or female markets. I think that, of all the examples provided, the issue of clarity is most apparent when considering the titles Category:Child video game characters and Category:LGBT video game characters, which could be misunderstood as "characters in children's video games" and "characters in LGBT-themed video games", respectively. The potential for confusion is less with the 'Male' and 'Female' categories, but consistency and greater clarity are desirable. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge both to Category:Video game characters. There's nothing defining about this. The other subcategories of Category:Fictional females are about roles fictional girls and women fill, such as Category:Fictional princesses. This is just splitting the universe of video game characters in half just because we can.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, but Category:Video game characters is currently void of direct member pages (aka, very clean and organized). Upmerging the (very large) male and female categories would throw 300 articles into that category. Regardless of your philosophy on the issue, I think categorization by gender works for the purposes of organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaseyPenk (talk • contribs)
  • Rename. --Niemti (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. -Sean Curtin (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge both per Mike Selinker - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I asked on another CfR, would you consider voting on the renaming proposal before we consider deletion? I believe it would speed up the process - we can get this renamed first, and then we'll be ready to handle the upmerge question. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to rename then upmerge. Just cut out the middleman and do it all at once. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 17:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that, if we insist on getting everything done right now, we very well might get nothing done. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2012 (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:Dragon albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the key article: Dragon (band). Also, the title Dragon albums is ambiguous, since it could refer to albums about dragons, released by Dragon, or composed by Dragon or Dragon, not to mention that there are the Dragons and The Dragons, as well as Dragon and Dragon. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2012 (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:LGBT characters in video games[edit]

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: withdrawn. The Bushranger One ping only 22:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose renaming Category:LGBT characters in video games to Category:LGBT video game characters

Nominator's rationale: Category:Video game characters includes Category:Female video game characters and Category:Male video game characters. The proposed name is also as simple as possible without losing any meaning. The "of" is unnecessary and generally out of line with category naming conventions at Category:Video games. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn -- instead supporting renaming of Category:Male video game characters to Category:Male characters in video games and Category:Female video game characters to Category:Female characters in video games (I suppose if anyone really strongly supports the original proposal they can argue for it, but it doesn't seem to have wide support.)
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:Video game creation software[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tools such as Autodesk Maya and Blender are not just used to create software -- the development process includes creation (modeling, rigging, animation, game engine development), testing, distribution, maintenance (patches, technical support) -- a process lasting long beyond the day the game was "created." Calling it creation software suggests there are separate tools used at different phases of the video game development lifecycle, when in fact there is continuity throughout. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Do we need to wait for another !VOTE to move this forward? I don't see this is as a terribly controversial move, especially with Falcon's research above. If anyone is reading this and has a second to !VOTE, I would really appreciate it. Thanks! CaseyPenk (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2012 (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:Joliet Jackhammers players[edit]

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 - non-controversial merger for two categories, same team. The Bushranger One ping only 22:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell, these two categories are for the same team. I have encountered several category pairs within Category:Minor league baseball players by team with almost identical team names, but in most cases they seem to refer to different teams or, at least, different incarnations of the same team. In this case, however, sources cited in both member articles refer to 'Joliet JackHammers' (see here for Castillo and here for Wilkins, and click on the 'Joliet' link in the first table). I would have merged the categories myself, except for the fact that Baseball-Reference.com indicates that Wilkins played for 'Joliet Jackhammers'. Then again, Baseball-Reference.com also lists Trey Beamon (in the target category) as having played for 'Joliet Jackhammers'. I have notified WikiProject Baseball. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baseball Reference shows the team name having changed at one point [1]. It's possible that Baseball Cube doesn't reflect that. The issue is that most of these people in the category were entered in by using the baseball reference pages and if it is merged someone who wasnt aware of the merge might recreate the other category. Spanneraol (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly. It could also be an error in the source, since there are news reports using 'JackHammers' as far back as 2002. To be safe, we could retain the old name as a category redirect so that anyone who wishes to create it will be directed to the new name. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the redirect is included then i have no objection to the name change. Spanneraol (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: It sounds like it was renamed in 07-08 per Spanneraol's link. Honestly, most smaller organizations like these are pretty lax about they use their own "trademarks." They don't see the need for a full PR guide, and they probably write it both ways. But the most official / current name seems to use camel case, so we should use that one. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    CamelCase! Thank you, I had been trying (unsuccessfully) to remember what it is called. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome! CamelCase is a beautiful thing. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2012 (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:Wikipedians by alma mater: Kerala[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent category is not yet so populated as to require splitting by state or territory city. Even if it reaches that point in the future, it would be more efficient to split first by state or territory instead of city. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. Note that Kerala is in fact a state, but the point is still valid.- choster (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (hangs head in shame, reaches for katana ... nah, it's too far) Thank you for pointing that out and my apologies for my ignorance. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- The Indian category is not so over-populated that it needs splitting by state. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2012 (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.

Elections in Germany by state[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The proposed names better reflect the nature of these set-and-topic categories that can contain articles about individual elections and election-related topics, such as state-specific electoral law or reform. The change also establishes consistency with Category:Elections in Berlin and Category:Elections in Bremen (state) (and, of course, Category:Elections in Germany) as well as mainspace titles such as Elections in Baden-Württemberg, Elections in Berlin and Elections in Hamburg. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree "X's of foo" is better than "fooian X's" in most cases I am aware of due to avoidance of awkward adjectives. This is no exception.Oranjblud (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Ignoring the precedent component of your rationale for the moment and talking just on the merits, how is "LOCATION elections" defined any differently than "Elections in LOCATION"? They seem to refer to quite the same thing. We're just talking about elections that take place in LOCATION. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, at least, Category:Rhineland-Palatinate elections reads as a set category that contains only articles about individual state-level elections in Rhineland-Palatinate. Category:Elections in Rhineland-Palatinate, on the other hand, reads as a more inclusive set-and-topic category that contains the aforementioned articles, as well as general articles about election-related topics in Rhineland-Palatinate and even articles about local elections within Rhineland-Palatinate (for example, the Mainz mayoral election). -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Good explanation. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, glad to be of help. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to make it clear these are not exclusively set categories. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but to Category:State elections in Baden-Württemberg, etc. Having investigated that one it turns out that the category is entirely about elections to the Landtag (state assembly), not elections in the state to the national assembly the Reichstag. The existing name reflects this, but not clearly. The target certainly does not Black Falcon has found this for another state. I have not checked them all, but I expect this is general. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's true, I would support the naming scheme you propose. I had wondered previously if these articles were actually about state-level "gubernatorial" elections rather than elections conducted in a certain state. Elections held for the state assembly should be labelled as such, unambiguously. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. There's no reason these categories have to be limited to state-level elections. In the future, they could include articles about mayoralty elections, for instance. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated, per Good Ol’factory. There is no need to restrict the scope of these categories to state-level elections, and all-inclusive categs with a geographical scope will better organise the elections in these states. If those cats become overpopulated, then subcats for state elections can be created later ... but right now, the biggest of these categs is Category:Rhineland-Palatinate elections, with only 16 articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 8 June 2012 (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.

Senior league members[edit]

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 to rename. There is consensus to want to categorise the head articles in some way, at least. So creating Category:Leinster Senior League (cricket) and Category:North West Senior League as parents. - jc37 23:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Leinster Senior League members[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the head article Leinster Senior League (cricket) and to remove the word "members" in order to allow inclusion of the head article Leinster Senior League (cricket) (a cricket competition in Ireland). If a significant number of other articles relating to the league (e.g. on matches or grounds) are created in future, then it may be appropriate to create a subcat for members, but at this stage the category is better kept at the more inclusive title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:North West Senior League members[edit]
Nominator's rationale: To allow inclusion of head article North West Senior League (a cricket competition in Ireland). If a significant number of other articles relating to the league (e.g. on matches or grounds) are created in future, then it may be appropriate to create a subcat for members, but at this stage the category is better kept at the more inclusive title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Don't understand the rationale. What's wrong with having a category for members of his senior cricket league? Mooretwin (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing wrong with it, except that when there are so few members there is no pint in having a category which is only for members. The rename will allow the categ to include the head article, and any other articles associated with the league. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep category as is and create parent Category:North West Senior League. See Category:Leinster Senior League (association football), which is the overarching category and includes a sub-category called Category:Leinster Senior League (association football) clubs. The parent category only has a few members, but I still think it's useful to create a distinction between parent and members. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why create a category just to hold one article+subcat, when it would all fit neatly in one category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, thereby converting this from a set category to a more inclusive set-and-topic category, for two reasons. First, while creating Category:North West Senior League as a parent possibly is a sound organizational step in the long term, at this time there is not enough separate material to properly populate such a category. Its only contents would be the main article and the 'members' subcategory. Second, there does not appear to exist an established super-structure of cricket league members, sorted by league, nor does there seem to be a need for one at this time. Therefore, a dedicated 'members' category does not fill any gap that could not be filled just as well by the proposed category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2012 (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:Wikipedia sockpuppets of BuickCenturyDriver[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 22:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The editor has honourably tried to disclose the use of multiple accounts, but in good faith has done so in the wrong way. These accounts are legitimate doppelgangers, but this category gives the unintended impression that they are sockpuppets, created to abuse Wikipedia. The category should be deleted, and the alternative accounts should be tagged with {{doppelganger|BuickCenturyDriver}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 1 June 2012 (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:Fruits used for decoration[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Decorative fruits and seeds. The Bushranger One ping only 21:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic. Any fruit can be used for decoration, according to taste. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the same way you could say that you would consider any piece of music opera, according to your taste (for example, because all sounds resemble sounds of singing to your ears). This makes little sense. There are fruits with established traditional use in decoration (just like there is established tradition of what is called opera). Visit markets in South-East Asia if you have not done so yet. Additionally, it is WRONG that any fruit can be used for decoration: for example, fruits that decay fast are not easily adapted for such use. The question is not what CAN be used for decoration, but what IS used for decoration within established cultural contexts. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Put in other words, the criticism would only have concerned a category called "Fruits useable for decoration", it has nothing to do with the present category.InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Appears to be very subtle joke, shame the parent article Decorative fruits has not bee written though.Oranjblud (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Surely there's some literature on using fruits as decoration, in which case a different name such as Category:Fruits commonly used for decoration would be in order. Someone should get on that. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Such information would serve as a good basis for an article about decorative fruit, but it would be problematic as a category. A category's inclusion standards should be objective and non-arbitrary, which raises the question: "What constitutes 'commonly'?" -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The characteristic is not defining, as the nominator notes. A category for fruits used exclusively for decoration might be workable, assuming there were many such fruits, but even then it seems likely that the information would be more suited to an article than a category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A very strange position! Would you also suggest that wikipedia category "Rock musicians" should be removed according to the same reasoning (many of them played classical music as well). Should you look for defining categories like "musicians who played exclusively rock music"? InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While it is true that some musicians are fruity, standards for humans do not apply quite as well as to fruit, and vice versa. A musician should be categorized according to the style for which he or she is known and recognized. Thus, a rock musician who happens to play "Für Elise" in his spare time should be in Category:Rock musicians but not in Category:Classical musicians.
    A better comparison in this case would be to Category:Weapons. A pencil could be used as a weapon and there have been recorded cases of people using pencils as weapons, but the article Pencil should not be in Category:Weapons because the ability to be used as a weapon is not a defining feature of a pencil. Likewise, many fruits could be used as decoration and sometimes have been used as decoration, but the ability to be used as decoration is not a defining feature of any fruit, with the possible exception of fruits that are used exclusively for decoration. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not create this category to list apples and pears in a bowl that look neat in a room. There is a large category of fruits (in the botanical sense, including pods, etc) used predominantly for decoration (usually in dried form). Example: there are large sections in the renowned Chatuchak market in Bangkok (and many other places in the tropics) selling such fruits. I am reluctant to say "exclusively" because some of these fruits are eaten when not fully ripe, and some are edible, though not commonly eaten. I don't know why standards for people and fruits are different when it comes to such an abstract thing as categorization. By "rock musicians" you clearly mean musicians playing predominantly rock music, but you avoid including "predominantly" in the category title, because it's difficult to define (and this appears to be a very common practice on wikipedia, because few features are truly "exclusive"). However, for the category in question, you're not permitting me to do the same thing! InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I totally agree with your argument about pencils. However, what your argument proves is merely that pencil should not be included in Category:Weapons, and NOT that Category:Weapons should be deleted (because "anything can be used as a weapon, according to circumstances"). Similarly, apple should not be included in Category:Fruits used for decoration (though it may be used in this function occasionally), and there is absolutely no reason to remove Category:Fruits used for decoration based on the provided arguments. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the two perspectives are reconcilable, because in theory decorative fruits is a valid category. It's just that in practice, we need to find reliable sources to find out just exactly which fruits are considered predominantly decorative. I believe the category creator's argument that some fruits are widely considered decorative and are hardly considered edible at all. It's just that, the current categorization scheme is based on original research. I see every reason to retain the category so long as we pull in some scholarship on fruits being used for decoration. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your detailed and well-reasoned reply. I see your point: if a particular fruit is considered by reliable sources to be a 'decorative fruit', the fact that it can or sometimes is eaten should not prevent it from appearing in this category, just like the fact that a pencil can and sometimes is used as a weapon should not prevent it from being labeled a writing tool. However, I think that the title must be defined more clearly: not just 'fruits (that are) used as decoration' but specifically Category:Decorative fruit or Category:Decorative fruits, if that is a classification supported by reliable sources.
    I'm curious about how the category would work. For instance, the article about Coco de Mer seems to indicate that it is the tree itself, and not its fruit, that has a decorative use. Should it be in this category? -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For Coco de Mer, both the tree and the fruit are decorative. The article reads, among other things: "European nobles in the sixteenth century would often have the shells of these nuts polished and decorated with valuable jewels as collectibles for their private galleries." I have no objections to renaming "Fruits used for decoration" to "Decorative fruits"... or maybe "Decorative fruits and seeds"... or maybe "Decorative fruits, pods and seeds"... it's difficult to anticipate in advance which category will work better... InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the condition that someone finds reliable sources indicating which fruits are widely considered decorative (exclusively or overwhelmingly decorative, that is). CaseyPenk (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot provide scholarly references immediately (though if the issue becomes crucial, I will find them). However, for example, in the present article on Coco de Mer, you can find a number of comments on decorative uses of the giant nut, together with some references. My impression is that all this discussion comes from the fact that most editors here do not reside in the tropics. In many parts of the tropics, the existence of such fruits is as obvious as the fact that the sky is blue (does the statement that the sky is blue need scholarly references to support it?). InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how many people how often have to use a fruit to decorate for it to be so categorzied?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Travel to Thailand, for example, and you will know the answer to your question: a substantial part of a population over 60 million people (and this is only one country that could be brought up). I accept your question about "how many people", but why are you drawing the conclusion "delete" out of being poorly informed about the subject?!!! Wikipedia is not here to serve exclusively your personal interests and cultural bias. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The original nominator's rationale had nothing to do with notability and was raising concerns about whether being decorative can be a defining characteristic. A consensus has been reached among the active members of this discussion that it can be for fruits used predominantly for decoration. If you want to raise the question of notability, you should probably open another thread. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just in case your bias does not permit you to look for evidence outside the English-speaking world, check out these official pages of auctions of Coco-de-Mer nuts: [2] (Note that, if prices are as high as given, there must be some demand!) InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conclusion? There hasn't been any meaningful input into this discussion for a while. Can we settle on a resolution? My best preference would be to rename the category to "Decorative fruits and seeds", in line with suggestions by Black Falcon. I don't think I am authorized to close this dispute, so someone else should do it. Thank you! InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a rename of that sort, either to Category:Decorative fruits (singular or plural?) or Category:Decorative fruits and seeds. The discussion will be closed, eventually, by an uninvolved editor; unfortunately, WP:CFD is a bit backlogged at the moment, so it's taking longer than usual. I'm trying to help to clear the backlog but am constrained by the fact that I'm a participant in many of the discussions that are overdue. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation! InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2012 (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:D. Woods[edit]

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 C2C. The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename and repurpose. Per convention, albums by artist are categorised under Category:Albums by artist as "Foo albums", so a rename is needed to accommodate the 2 album articles in this category.
The head article should be removed from the topic, because per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS this artist should not have an eponymous category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 1 June 2012 (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:Wikipedians who like The Killing[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who like The Killing (U.S. TV series) without prejudice to a future nomination to discuss deletion of this and similar categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per numerous precedents, "liking" a topic is not relevant to encyclopedic collaboration, which is the only legitimate purpose for user categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like The Killing (U.S. TV series), per The Killing (U.S. TV series). Though I mostly agree with the rationale – most of the cutesy userboxes that populate these types of categories provide no indication that a user has any interest in a TV series beyond watching it – this category is part of Category:Wikipedians by interest in a TV series. I'm undecided on whether it should remain as is, be streamlined or be deleted, but I am hesitant to support a piecemeal approach. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like The Killing (U.S. TV series). I am the creator of the category. There are countless other categories of these types that should be included if "relevance" is the case. As for for the "cutesy userboxes", yes, perhaps I went overboard on them, but I am more than "a user [who] has any interest in a TV series beyond watching it." I've created EVERY episode article for the series and monitor the main page as well as the seasonal pages. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment about the userboxes was not directed at you or even the userboxes in this case, and I meant no offense. I had in mind many other userboxes that I've encountered which, unlike yours, fail even to link to an article about the intended series, leaving others to guess about the source of a particular film or TV reference. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand now. While I should have been more proper with the cat title, I did my research with the UB's when creating them. No offense was taken, at least upon review of your comments. - WylieCoyote (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's easy enough to rename a category, and I do commend your clean work on the userboxes (I'm referring to the userbox code). As for creating the category... well, you had every reason to, given the healthy state of Category:Wikipedians by interest in a TV series. :)
    Your comment also reinforces my hesitation to suggest a wholesale reducation or removal of the category tree as a whole. While it seems, in many cases, that the categories have no connection to any collaborative activity, a case like yours is a clear counter-example: someone who created and is a member of the category, and is a significant contributor to our coverage of the topic. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What's the difference between this category and every single other similar category of "Wikipedians who like [TV series]"? Why is this one being targeted for deletion, and not any others? It should just be renamed. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Because BrownHairedGirl WP:IDON'TLIKEIT? Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    More likely this just happened to be the one she encountered, or it's a test nomination. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I encountered it in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories when I was doing some housekeeping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Wikipedians who like the Killing (US TV series) Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like The Killing (U.S. TV series): "The Killing" by itself is ambiguous, given the film and other TV series that also bear that name. If there's concern over the underlying notability of these categories as a group, that's a larger issue. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Totally agree with Drovethrughosts. Why is this the only one being picked on? There's got to be dozens, if not hundreds, of userboxes/catagories like this. The rename seems appropriate, but keep the cat. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This nomination concerns only the category, not the userboxes (userboxes are outside the scope of WP:CFD). To answer your question: I counted approximately 180 similar categories, but I sincerely doubt that this one was selectively targeted ... almost certainly, it just happened to be the first one that was encountered. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2012 (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:University of San Francisco Law School alumni[edit]

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 non-controversially as duplicate categories. The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There have been duplicate categories created here - the target of the merge is based on the article name. I wanted to call it a speedy merge, but for some reason Template:Cfm-speedy redirects to Template:Cfr-speedy. StAnselm (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2012 (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.

Police brutality[edit]

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 Category:Police brutality and Category:Victims of police brutality, listify and delete categories for cases by country. Many solid points have been made against retention of the existing categories, and there is no consensus on a better name or group of related category names. Lists by country such as List of cases of police brutality in the United States (which was recently moved by a single editor to Cases of police brutality in the United States (alleged and proven)) give opportunity to briefly document the nature and evidence of each case. Smaller numbers may initially be listed by continent; the head category contains more individual cases which can be removed once they are added to a list. Once new lists have been created, "see also" links to the relevant list should be added to most member articles. The editor(s) implementing this should also look for cases where it will be appropriate to upmerge some or all members to one or more parent categories. – Fayenatic London 12:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Categories#Articles unambiguously condemns the use of NPOV or potentially controversial category names. Per that page, "Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate."
I find Category:Police brutality (and its child categories) to be vague and non-neutral. The category provides no parameters for inclusion; the articles are not there for any clear reason. If I feel that XYZ is a case of police brutality, I am free to include it under the category without rationale. Since there is no enforcement mechanism to weed out questionable use of the category, its use can go unabated.
As the nominator on a closely related CfD pointed out, you should take a look at the individual articles to understand the problem. These individual articles may contain factual descriptions or assertions (e.g., John Doe claimed to have been choked by the Anytown Police Department), but assertions / evidence / testimony / hearsay are quite different from a ruling handed down by a court. As the nominator just mentioned pointed out, some of the suspects of police brutality were acquitted. For example, Death of Christopher Alder reads clearly: "Following the acquittal, an internal police disciplinary inquiry cleared the officers of any wrongdoing." The police officers were acquitted and cleared of wrongdoing; it is thus unfair and misleading to group them in the same category as confirmed / acknowledged cases. The wide variety of articles are included because the category is so open-ended and has very few barriers to entry; anything generally related to police brutality (confirmed, alleged, confirmed but overturned, speculative, historical, etc.) are welcome to join the category. This is sloppy and problematic.
There is no universal consensus as to what constitutes police brutality; the definition depends upon location, culture, morality, political affiliation, law, race relations, etc. Thus, we should avoid making judgment calls as to what is or is not police brutality. Alleged is an acceptable term in this situation per WP:WEASEL, which states that "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes." Police brutality is not a clearly-defined crime like manslaughter, and thus instances of police brutality are almost always asserted but undetermined.
I suggest we rename this category to make it clear that few cases are confirmed or certain; the vast majority are open to interpretation and reinterpretation. I would be open to a split, into something along the lines of "alleged cases" and "confirmed cases" or "alleged cases" and "cases widely believed," but the more important first step in my view is to reduce the unexplained groupings and get back to an NPOV baseline. Thanks for reading, and please share your thoughts. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move - the rationale makes much better sense and at least is consistent across the board, and thus easier to agree to, as opposed to singling out one or two of the specific subcats for moving. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Explanation: I was alerted to this originally by a note placed at Talk:Battle of the Beanfield. The subject, Battle of the Beanfield (1985) has long been widely considered to be the quintessential epitome or poster child for examples of egregious and brutal Police brutality. For example many witnesses say pregnant women were beat with truncheons as the article explains, and I even personally spoke with some of the victims present around a year later who told me the same, not that that means anything. The victims eventually won a court case many years later. But the nominator did not like the category title "Police brutality in England" and specifically mentioned regarding this case that he feels is a matter of POV whether these actions constitute "brutality". Without getting all legalistic, even though it may seem hard to see how one might disagree that this meets the definition of brutality, still conceding that other POVs might exist, it seemed fair enough to categorize it as "alleged police brutality", since as several have pointed out on yesterday's cfd, there will probably always be some disagreement from a few as to what level of action meets the definition of "actual" police brutality. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, hard and fast definitions are hard to come by. "no reliable measure of its incidence exists" ... "Excessive force is not subject to a precise definition". CaseyPenk (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting discussion overall! Both of those links do seem to equate it with the phrase 'excessive force' however; hmmm, d'ya think Category:Cases of excessive police force (in x) (alleged / confirmed) etc. would be more neutral? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There isn't any "Alleged" police brutality that is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. If it has made it to the point of being an article, it's police brutality, not alleged police brutality. There is no reason to move these. Greg Bard (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. Several of the articles discuss cases that were originally considered police brutality, but in which the police were acquitted of any wrongdoing. You seem to be suggesting that any article involving the police is a case of police brutality, but there are many other reasons why a police incident would be included on Wikipedia. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That sure does not justify moving the whole category. It only justifies the creation of a category to deal with the small number of cases like you describe. I tell you what, just make sure that no guilty people end up in any "alleged" category. If you were raped, you would be pissed off if your notable rapist was listed in WP as an "alleged" rapist.Greg Bard (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned in my rationale, I'm open to a split instead of / in addition to a renaming. I'm not intending to downplay the seriousness of any crimes; I'm merely intending to take a cautious approach and avoid making accusations where they may not necessarily be warranted. In my view, I'd rather err on the side of caution than be too accusative. If you're more interested in being direct about the nature of the crimes (understandable), I would definitely support a split that distinguishes between "unconditional" or "nearly certain" cases and more ambiguous ones. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should take as your cue the rapist categories. There are categories: "People convicted of rape," "People wrongly convicted of rape," and "People acquitted of rape." Greg Bard (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much like that proposal. We'll see what other people think, but I'm actually liking this more than a simple renaming. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See here for the (low participation) previous discussion where the "alleged police brutality" categories were merged to the "police brutality" categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge, but favour deleting the "alleged" categories. If there is enough dispute over whether something is police brutality to tack on the word "alleged", then it should not be in a "police brutality" category in the first place. (Yes, I realize that some degree of category clean-up would be necessary to make the categories reflect that.) We almost always delete categories that contain the words "alleged" or "suspected", etc. Categorization is too blunt a tool to be dealing with these subtle and nuanced issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am certainly in favor of reviewing the articles in the category, but we would have to do so on a regular basis. Categories are meant to be self-sustaining; we shouldn't have to establish a patrol force just to make sure articles are using the categories correctly. In other words, the categories should speak for themselves - since they are such "blunt" tools as you say, there can be no room for misinterpretation. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "patrolling" of sorts can be necessary. It's a common problem with certain types of category trees, such as the Category:War crimes tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the analogy. War crimes are clearly and unambiguously defined by international agreements and organizations; an individual can be sentenced for a specific crime known as "war crimes." Police brutality is loosely defined and rarely if ever have I heard of someone convicted of the crime known as "police brutality." In other words, there are at least objective criteria for patrolling Category:War crimes. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not drawing an analogy between the standards for the two things; I'm pointing out that the need for patrolling categories is not unique to this situation. Even though there are objective standards for war crimes you would be surprised how often there are disputes about what is included in that tree. (But the only possible objective standard that I am aware of for these categories would be incidents that are consistently referred to as "police brutality" in neutral, reliable sources.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the wide range of "police brutality" cases (acquitted, convicted, wrongly convicted, etc.) as you mention, would you support splitting into those sub-categories? We would keep the overarching police brutality category and within it we would nest the different outcomes by degree of "guiltiness" if you will. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not clear on how it would work, really, and I think that's too much to bite off in this discussion without a solid proposal. As pointed out above, there is rarely a crime called "police brutality" and what a brutal police officer would be charged with or convicted of varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thus... why are you defending this category? CaseyPenk (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not—I'm opposing the rename/merge that was proposed. I don't much like the nominated categories, but renaming/merging them into "alleged" categories is an even worse idea than keeping them "as is", in my opinion. If someone wants to propose that the categories be deleted outright, it might potentially gain my support, but I didn't want to propose that here and sidetrack the proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Neither CfD seems particularly likely to end in consensus, so this category tree could see a few more rounds of discussion.. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Category:Police brutality in England has its own discussion here. At close, the two discussions should be considered together. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. This is a response to the narrow scope of that discussion. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it would have be wiser to wait for that other discussion to close before nominating more categories or to add to that nomination if they all should have been discussed now. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would prefer to see them grouped together, please feel free to merge the two. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I would like to apologise for not initiating this discussion in the most appropriate way. Lack of forethought meant that I proposed the category with which I was most familiar and failed to consider the wider tree of such categories.
    In the other discussion I have proposed a rename that avoids the weasel word "alleged". As Robofish mentions, we already have a Category:Deaths in police custody in the United Kingdom. I actually created that category and took care to define "in police custody" so that it covered as wide a variety of situations as possible. The definition of "police custody" I chose covers people who work in police stations as well as people at political demonstrations, witnesses being interviewed in the street and lots more. Basically, if the answer to the question, "was the person owed a duty of care by the police" is yes, then they are in police custody. But it covers deaths only, not injuries. I therefore suggest that we rename the category, "Police brutality..." to, "Injuries in police custody...". This allows us to categorise the phenomenon, group similar articles together, and yet remain neutral as to attribution of cause.
    Some articles will not neatly fit. Kevin Gately, for example, died from a blow to the head but there is no evidence that at the time the injury occurred he was, "in police custody" as defined above. I think the solution to this might be to widen the definition of "police custody" so that it includes persons at events being policed, even if it is not possible to show that the specific individual was, strictly speaking, owed a duty of care by the police. Cottonshirtτ 07:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for adding this in here. I don't blame you at all for not anticipating the larger issue, because it only became apparent after we discussed it a bit. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I apologize for making duplicate nominations. I would recommend anyone considering commenting to look first at Cottonshirt's CfD. There are some interesting proposals going on there, especially Cottonshirt's latest, and we should consider those before we move on to this larger topic. I would like to keep the focus on that original CfD so we can centralize discussion in one place. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename Maybe we need to make an exception and have a split between alleged and proven incidents. But the fact is, we DO have legally proven incidents (e.g Rodney King, which ultimately led to convictions for some of the police participants), and tagging those as merely "alleged" is unacceptably inaccurate. Perhaps the categories could be hat-noted to make clear that in most cases the allegations could not be proven. I would also insist that Category:Victims of alleged police brutality is awkward; if we have to have this it should be Category:Alleged victims of police brutality since their victimization is being questioned. Mangoe (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, courts really do not hand down convictions of police brutality; the jury might indicate "we find the defendant guilty of manslaughter" but not "we find the defendant guilty of police brutality"; police brutality is not a hard and fast legal concept, and thus cannot be applied consistently or definitively. Also, thank you for the suggestion -- I made a hat-note on the top of the main category. No matter what happens with this CfD, it's important to make clear what the category is, and what it is not. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename, surely there must be cases of "Police Brutality" where the brutality has been proven - to rename in these cases would be a wrong, and contrary to wp:verify in cases where a criminal case has been proved. (perhaps there is no such thing?). No opinion on whether subcat containing alleged brutality should be kept or upmergedOranjblud (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As you correctly wonder, "perhaps there is no such thing?" Courts simply do not make findings of "police brutality." They make findings of murder, assault, and other felonies. "Police brutality" is an entirely subjective label applies by commentators at their will. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also disagree the part of the rational - them category name "Police Brutality" is (subjectively) broad and not judjemental - eg - it is reasonable to expect subcats of type "dis-proven cases of police brutality" to also appear in this category alongside "criminal convictions for ...." if needed. etc etcOranjblud (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You would thus support a sub-categorization scheme that breaks down "police brutality" by outcome? That is, "confirmed" / "acquitted" / "mistakenly convicted" or something to that effect? It's clearly valuable to make fine distinctions as much as possible when it comes to alleged crimes. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends, not necessarily - sensible sub-categories might include "... victims", "... cases" etc. It impossible for me to really say what would or wouldn't be suitable without looking much more closely. These might be more useful/productive subcategorisations than attempting to distinguish "alleged" from "proven" etc. I would be usually unwilling to support a categorisation scheme I would be unwilling to implement. As you note the lack of a clear cut criminal offence makes such categorisations problematic.Oranjblud (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the key point is that using super-parent cat of "alleged" is wrong - if it contains cases where a policeman has been convicted of say GBH, attempted manslaughter, assault etc - it is incorrect to be labelling such examples as "alleged"..Oranjblud (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    True. The "confirmed" offenders are appropriately categorized right now. I'm more concerned about giving the wrong impression about police that were acquitted and/or wrongly "confirmed." Does anyone, perhaps Oranjblud, have an idea of how to solicit input on potential sub-categorization schemes for police brutality? This discussion is playing out rather differently and none of us has proposed an agreeable sub-categorization scheme. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but not to alleged - rather instead to Police conflicts in X. Brutality is POV, and subjective. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See the discussion a few paragraphs above -- "As Robofish mentions, we already have a Category:Deaths in police custody in the United Kingdom." CaseyPenk (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Allegations of police brutality are sometimes deployed (without adequate evidence) as part of a criminal's defence strategy. On the other hand, there are cases where police brutality is proved and damages are paid or a conviction quashed as a result. I would suggest that we (1) rename all categories as nom (2) re-create all categories as containere categories (3) in each case create a new category for cases of proven police brutality. Editors can then move appropriate cases from the "alleged" category to the "proven" one. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the subjectivity assertion - It seems to me that the supposed subjectivity of the identification is erroneous. There may not be a specific court finding of police brutality, but that's not our only source. If sources we deem reliable identify incidents as being such brutality, then we can and ought to identify it so. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, reliable sources may indicate that a given case is police brutality. But the category groups "widely considered" police brutality in the same category as "erroneously assumed" police brutality. If you look through the articles, several of them are about cases where the police were acquitted and cleared of wrongdoing. "The New York Times considers the shooting of XYZ a clear case of police brutality" is definitely a very different kind of statement than "The Supreme Court has cleared the ABC Police Department of all wrongdoing." These statements are incompatible and don't belong together. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think perhaps what Mangoe is saying is that the application of the category doesn't necessarily have to be subjective, even though it may not be applied in that way right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    True. I return, though, to my concern that there's no enforcement mechanism unless we develop rigid criteria; even in that case, it seems to make more sense to make the distinctions (e.g. alleged vs. confirmed) inherent to the name of the category. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Alleged" hardly helps the situation and creates greater problems: anyone can allege anything about anything. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "alleged police brutality" is too vague? What about our current scheme! If 20 articles can be grouped as "alleged police brutality," at least 50 can be grouped as "police brutality." The general term "police brutality" is so indiscriminate that it includes just about anything the police do; it's even less selective than "alleged." The differenced between Category:Police brutality and the theoretical Category:Confirmed cases of police brutality is very much like the difference between Category:Video games and Category:Farming video games. The more specific categories are most definitely more useful and descriptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaseyPenk (talk • contribs)
    Yes, the current scheme is problematic too. But I don't see adding "alleged" as an improvement. Renaming to an "alleged" scheme has been proposed here, not outright deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the most part. If there are specific regions/countries which have a large number of alleged incidents which were never proven, then we should have the alleged category as a subset of pb there. for the most part, the names as we have them are good enough. it should not be applied to articles where there are no sourced mentions of accusations of police brutality. adding "alleged" is much more pov, wildly so if its applied to articles where police brutality is either proven, or is generally considered to have happened by most observers.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Police conflicts in X. "Policy Brutality" is an unacceptable Point of View pushing term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Police brutality" is a well known and accepted term in the law and among criminal justice ethicists. There is nothing "pov" about it. Think about it from the perspective of a victim of police abuse. "Police conflict" seems like a hopelessly pov euphemism, in that regard.Greg Bard (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never heard of a court handing down a finding of police brutality. The media may report it as such, but police brutality is certainly not a well-defined crime. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Category:Police misconduct already exists. So I suppose such a tree could be built, though I don't know if that's a good idea. - jc37 16:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except "victims of..." - I took a look at the categories and they're filled with BLPs, and riot events, and the like. A person is not "police brutality". A riot is not "police brutality". And so on. That means that, in application, these categories are (mis-)applied very broadly. As an alternative this tree could be split to Category:Victims of policy brutality by country and Category:Events with instances of police brutality, but really, I think WP:TNT applies here. For one thing, "by country" could be confusing due to questions of whether it meant the victim's home country or the location of the event. - jc37 16:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename. Categories for alleged police brutality should appear as subsets of the police brutality categories where needed. Any articles that are in the wrong category should be moved. As for a possible rename based on finding a less inflammatory term than police brutality that should be another discussion initiated on that ground. __meco (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the mess! Having looked at the articles in one subcategory, we don't need these. None of these are really about police brutality. The topic is horribly WP:POV and rather subjective since what goes as brutality in one country may well be established practices in another. As currently structured, we have lawyers and activists against brutality in these along with victims and incidents which may or may not have been actual cases of brutality. If someone wishes to keep the victim one, I'm not sure. I would not object to a decision on all but the victim one which could be discussed on its own merits in a new nomination if anyone wants. While there may be some way to structure this without the POV issues, what we have now is not the best starting place. The alleged categories probably need a separate nomination as the title alone reeks of POV issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vegaswikian clear shows that this category is not well organizaed or focused enough to count as a unified subject. Recreating in an organized way is probably worthwhile but we need to come up with more neutral as to point of view name and rebuild with a clearer connection to the subject. Deleting and starting over with a better name is the best option.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_1&oldid=1138396566"