Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 10 October 12 >

October 11[edit]

Category:Organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric[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 to Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was included in the discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 11#Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights, but it was felt that the two categories should be considered separately. Indeed, there is a crucial difference - while the organizations in Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights may well consider themselves as such, that will not be the case with those in this category. It is purely negative and subjective. It currently contains one entry, and that is reliably sourced, but there is still a strong degree of subjectivity involved. StAnselm (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rename or upmergeNominator has engaged in efforts to depopulate these categories so their lack of use only represents those who wish to use the categories lack of interest in engaging this user. There are dozens of anti-gay hate groups that specifically employ well known anti-gay myths and lies (rhetoric) to foment violence against a historically oppressed minority. No reason this can't be well-documented and organized by Wikipedia NPOV standards. Insomesia (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By "efforts to depopulate", you mean, of course, removing categories unsupported in the text of the article. In only one article was it reliably sourced. StAnselm (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, of course, making no effort to verify if the category to which you apparently don't approve is accurate or sourcible, and instead just deleting content you don't seem to like. Insomesia (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subjective - and name-calling is no way to put the world to rights, even if that was what Wikipedia was for (it isn't). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it subjective if reliable sources assert exactly what the category is about? Insomesia (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, what might seem 'rhetoric' to some seems 'common sense', or 'the word of God' to others. Basing categories on opinions (even the opinions of reliable sources) is a poor idea. And you can more or less guarantee that someone will create 'Category:Organizations that engage in pro-LGBT rhetoric' at some point if it stands. Hard to argue against... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Insomesia (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the word "rhetoric" carries negative connotations. Gigs (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights. Is there any organization in the former that isn't in the latter, and is there any benefit to subcategorizing? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Roscelese. "Rhetoric" is also POV, fwiw. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. "Rhetoric" is POV unless the reliable sources in question use the term "rhetoric", which hasn't happened. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge I have my problems with the POV of the "oppose rights" category, but the fact that we don't have a "rhetoric" supercategory is telling. Indeed, a moment's thought about what such a category might be named suggests that this is just another way to tag these groups with a pejorative. Mangoe (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For a controversial category like this there really ought to be sources cited for each organization citing someone saying that it engaged in X. I appreciate the intent but verify with sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a reason to check sourcing, not to delete the category. Insomesia (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Again, we don't categorize things by what they oppose - we categorize them by what they support. Would the cat creator approve of a rename to "Organizations which support traditional marriage?" If not, why not? Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:16, 12 October 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.

Campaigns of the Lower Seaboard Theater and Gulf Approach of the American Civil War‎[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 as variously indicated below. There is evident consensus to rename these categories, and no individual differences identified in the separate discussions. Given the couple of objections to the original nomination proposal, the addition of (American Civil War) seems a good compromise, particularly when suggested by the nominator and also used on some previous occasions. Splash - tk 23:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow-up to the nominations of 30 May 2012 pertaining to the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War. As before, I am nominating each category separately in order to allow any relevant campaign-specific information to be noted and considered. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on all -- I would prefer to see "in American Civil War" in all titles, to make it clear what they are about. Otherwise, no objection. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The method of disambiguation that was chosen, for those cases in which disambiguation was deemed to be necessary, during the May discussion is "... (American Civil War)"; see e.g., Category:Operations Against Galveston (American Civil War)‎. That's not to say, of course, that this is necessarily the best method of disambiguation. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt what is the rule that says which categories get '(American Civil War)' and which not. I think they should all it or none have it unless there are actually two articles and thus two categories which would otherwise have the same name. Hmains (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on whether the title would be ambiguous without parenthetical disambiguation. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what is being proposed here? I see no actual nomination to consider.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no proposal in this section. I just thought it would be better to group all of these related nominations under one section. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battles of the Expedition to New Orleans of the American Civil War[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:Expedition to, and Capture of, New Orleans (American Civil War). See overall nom for rationale. -Splash - tk 23:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Set categories might be useful if there existed categories about other aspects of this campaign. There do not, however, and so these categories should be converted to topic categories. The proposed changes not only shorten their titles considerably, but also make them a more natural fit within the structure of Category:Campaigns of the American Civil War.
'Expedition to, and Capture of, New Orleans' is the name used in the list of American Civil War campaigns published by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:57, 11 October 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:Battles of the Operations against Baton Rouge of the American Civil War[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:Operations against Baton Rouge (American Civil War). See overall nom for overall rationale. -Splash - tk 23:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Set categories might be useful if there existed categories about other aspects of this campaign. There do not, however, and so these categories should be converted to topic categories. The proposed changes not only shorten their titles considerably, but also make them a more natural fit within the structure of Category:Campaigns of the American Civil War.
'Operations Against Baton Rouge' is the name used in the list of American Civil War campaigns published by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:57, 11 October 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:Battles of the Operations in West Louisiana of the American Civil War[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:Operations in West Louisiana (American Civil War). See overall nom for overall rationale. -Splash - tk 23:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Set categories might be useful if there existed categories about other aspects of this campaign. There do not, however, and so these categories should be converted to topic categories. The proposed changes not only shorten their titles considerably, but also make them a more natural fit within the structure of Category:Campaigns of the American Civil War.
'Operations in West Louisiana' is the name used in the list of American Civil War campaigns published by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:57, 11 October 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:Battles of Taylor's Operations in West Louisiana of the American Civil War[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:Taylor's Operations in West Louisiana (American Civil War). See overall nom for overall rationale. -Splash - tk 23:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Set categories might be useful if there existed categories about other aspects of this campaign. There do not, however, and so these categories should be converted to topic categories. The proposed changes not only shorten their titles considerably, but also make them a more natural fit within the structure of Category:Campaigns of the American Civil War.
'Taylor's Operations in West Louisiana' is the name used in the list of American Civil War campaigns published by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:57, 11 October 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:Battles of the Operations Against the Defenses of Charleston of the American Civil War[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:Operations against the Defenses of Charleston (American Civil War). See overall nom for overall rationale. -Splash - tk 23:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Set categories might be useful if there existed categories about other aspects of this campaign. There do not, however, and so these categories should be converted to topic categories. The proposed changes not only shorten their titles considerably, but also make them a more natural fit within the structure of Category:Campaigns of the American Civil War.
'Operations Against the Defenses of Charleston' is the name used in the list of American Civil War campaigns published by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:57, 11 October 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:Battles of the Operations in Charleston Harbor of the American Civil War[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Operations in Charleston Harbor campaign, as defined by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, took place in April 1861. Thus, both the attack on USS New Ironsides in 1863 and the sinking of USS Housatonic in 1864 are miscategorized. In fact, only the Battle of Fort Sumter belongs in this category, and there is no need for a 'campaign' category that contains only one battle. There is no need to upmerge, since all articles already appear in both Category:Battles of the Lower Seaboard Theater and Gulf Approach of the American Civil War‎ and Category:South Carolina in the American Civil War. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose leaving clear indication of dealing with the American Civil War in the category title is a good thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a nomination to delete, not rename. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Vote support per nom. Sorry about the confusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 19 October 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.
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:Crystal Fighters[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too few articles, eponymous categories are discourage —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the page creator, I agree with Justin - delete it per above! Nikthestunned 08:23, 12 October 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.

College golf container categories[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: manually upmerge all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are unnecessary container categories, containing a men's golfers and women's golfers sub-categories. Other college athletes (basketball players, volleyball players, ice hockey players, etc.) do not have similar container categories. Tewapack (talk) 18:39, 11 October 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:Aggrotech[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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 19#Category:Aggrotech. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Aggrotech is a redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the redirect; this could have been speedied. Mangoe (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Aggrotech" is a targetted redirect. It targets a section in the electro-industrial article, which if you had read it, would say that it is a subtype of electro-industrial, and not an alternate name for the whole of electro-industrial. Therefore this category is a valid grouping on its own. The nominator has not provided a rationale of why such a grouping is improper. There are enough entries in the category that it is not "small". Just because the main article redirects to a section does not mean that it is not a valid distinction. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge there is no reason to have a category for a music type before we have an article for the music type. Targeted redirects are not enough to justify the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would say that would only be valid if it were a small category, as it is, there are plenty of entries in the category, so making it a useful navigation distinction. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:20, 19 October 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:Petroleum production in Canada[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be in line with the parent category:Petroleum industry by country. Beagel (talk) 17:08, 11 October 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:Cacumen 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: merge and leave a category redirect. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same band, different name. Cacumen redirects to Bonfire (band) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:55, 11 October 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:Victoria Cross actions[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: listify and delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS Listified at List of military actions for which a Victoria Cross was awarded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing battles and campaigns by the military decorations which were awarded to one or more of their participants constitutes overcategorization on the basis of a non-defining characteristic. The fact that Victoria Crosses were awarded for battles such as Crete, El Alamein, Imphal and Jutland is not an essential feature of any of the battles, many of which resulted in tens of thousands of casualties and major geopolitical changes. This type of information is presented much better via a list, such as List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign or one of the other members of Category:Lists of recipients of the Victoria Cross by conflict, and I would not object to listifying this category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "List of conflicts with Victoria Cross recipients" should be the title. Benkenobi18 (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify -- Victoria Cross is a relatively rare award - for bravery in the face of the enemy (or to that effect). It is thus extremely notable, but the fact that some person was awarded a VC is not a defining characteristic of the engagement. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not categorize battles by what awards participants won.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 18 October 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:African-Americans in law[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.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is not part of any established scheme of American people in law and Category:African-American people by occupation, with only 40 members, is a long way from needing subdivision by occupational field. Note that both Category:American judges and Category:American lawyers appear directly in Category:American people by occupation.
In addition, the general nature of the category conflicts with existing guidelines pertaining to ethnicity–occupation intersections: "[d]edicated group-subject subcategories ... should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". Although currently it contains only two subcategories, this category invites categorization of African Americans in any law-related profession, regardless of whether the intersection is a topic of academic or popular interest. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. The category is poorly named, and redundant. Benkenobi18 (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African-American people by occupation. No need for this intermediate category Hmains (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as irregular type of category and unneeded level of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 18 October 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:Football (soccer) in Nauru[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the main article, Soccer in Nauru, which I moved to that title just recently (hence, speedy criterion C2.D does not apply); see Talk:Soccer in Nauru#Article title for my reasoning. If this nomination succeeds, I will nominate the subcategory at WP:CFD/S. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Soccer" is unambiguous, unlike "football" and WP:ENGVAR "soccer" is the term to use. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel (talk) 04:38, 13 October 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:Early Commercial architecture in the United States[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 on whether to keep or remove the word "early".<br /There are no objections to fixing the capitalisation, but no support for it either, so I will regard the outcome on that point as another "no consensus". Feel free to list it for speedy renaming, and see if anyone objects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Early is subjective. While this may be an NRHP classification, that does not mean it is well enough defined to function as a category. If kept, this needs renaming to Category:Early commercial architecture in the United States. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:01, 11 October 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_October_11&oldid=1138397239"