Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 19 September 21 >

September 20[edit]

Category:Disco groups[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disco groups to Category:Disco musical groups
Nominator's rationale: To follow the musical groups by genre category format, and since this is a subcategory of the musical groups category, it should follow the same format. Sdornan 16:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose: Category:Musical groups by genre deliberately doesn't have a convention, and I believe that the current name is common, unambiguous (unlike "psychedelic groups" above) and perfectly adequate. Xtifr tälk 08:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But perhaps it should have a convention? >Radiant< 14:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See my comments above at Psychedelic groups for why I don't really think we should. Xtifr tälk 05:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (note Xtifr is referring to his comments here) the wub "?!" 19:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 19:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Xtifr about the convention, but found this a tad ambiguous - companies owning chains etc - so in this case Rename per nom. Johnbod 01:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If there should be a convention, that is a separate discussion. For now, it is fine. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 03:56 Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Flamenco bands[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 14:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Flamenco bands to Category:Flamenco musical groups
Nominator's rationale: To follow the musical groups by genre category format, and since this is a subcategory of the musical groups category, it should follow the same format. Sdornan 16:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would have said "flamenco groups" is more common, or that seems to be what I've always heard. From my brief googling though it looks like they're about equally used. the wub "?!" 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So would I actually, but all the articles seem to use "band". No convention per Xtifr - we went through all this with Jazz combos or whatever it was, didn't we? Johnbod 01:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it The simpler name sounds slightly less awkward. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 03:58 Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters by disease[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 14:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary middle layer, small and no significant growth potential. Suggest merging with Category:Fictional characters by situation. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Johnbod 01:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly has growth potential--only 4 groups now, but there are many more possibilities. DGG (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Fictional characters by situation. No need to subcat the parent. Vegaswikian 00:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, in response to DGG, I think that many of the potential growth were actually pruned back (deleted) awhile ago, but I could be wrong on that score. Carlossuarez46 06:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional adoptees[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 14:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exceedingly common trope in fiction, for instance used to put children with misplaced parents for soap-style humor. This category is a group of people that have absolutely nothing in common other than an over-used plot device. Suggest deletion. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Absolutely nothing in common except being fictional characters in the same defining situation. Johnbod 02:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is what plots are about; useful for browsing.DGG (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and because in many if not most cases being an adoptee is not a defining characteristic. Otto4711 13:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful for browsing and finding commonalities. —Quasirandom 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment' out of the first few listed in the category, its a major defining plot element for most of them. The obvious complications makes it a very frequent device in fiction in general, but soap opera in particular. Might even make sense to have subcategories by genre. DGG (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure who would want to browse for fictional stories with similar plot elements, but hey, this is about as useful as categories get. It is, at least, a defining characteristic for most of the listed articles. — xDanielx T/C 03:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it is not a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian 04:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the case of soaps being an adoptee is a major defining characterist. IrishLass0128 17:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no defining - and adoption in fiction is more ambiguous than in reality (Snow White? taken in by 7 guys in an adoptive sort of setting; C3PO? taken in by the Skywalkers. and numerous other ones where it's hard to say whether there is an adoption in any realistic sense or whether the defining characteristic of being an adoptee was really being an orphan instead. Carlossuarez46 06:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional manslaughterers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Fictional killers. That solves the problem of "was the character convicted or not", "was there intent or not". It answers a simple question: Did the character kill some one else? Not subjective. I would recommend another CFD to merge Category:Fictional murderers into the killers cat, for the same reason as this rename. Kbdank71 14:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While there is a legalistic difference between murder and manslaughter, this depends rather heavily on culture and circumstances, and on perception of the motives of the character. First, fiction doesn't (generally) write from a legal point of view, and second, judging whether a character had the intent to kill (i.e. murder) or not (i.e. manslaughter) is original research. Note the non-existence of the real-life counterpart Category:Manslaughterers. Suggest merging to Category:Fictional murderers. >Radiant< 16:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Legally the distinction between murder and manslaughter can be blurry at the edges, and and boundary varies heavily between different countries. Very difficult to have any definitive category relating to manslaughter. --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "manslaughter" is a legal distinction based on the jurisdiction in which the death takes place. Trying to maintain a category on the basis of the distinction is untenable. I'm skeptical of the Fictional murderers category as well so oppose a merge. Otto4711 18:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination is flawed - all these (TV soap) characters have I think been convicted of manslaughter in common-law jurisdictions (I couldn't risk brain damage by confirming this fully from the articles). The differences between definitions of manslaughter are I believe smaller than for most major crimes. The worries in the nomination are therefore irrelevant. Let the fictional jury decide - well they have! Certainly the category should be restricted to convicted fictional felons. Johnbod 02:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the cat as currently constituted (and it would be interesting to know if there have been any characters that have been removed...) it looks like a "Soap opera characters that have..." cat. There are also a few points brought up here so far that should be addressed:
    • Cat, at least to my understanding, are an attempt to group like with like, either for ease of navigation or comparison. In that sense, the cat is implying that "manslaughter" within the American, Australian, and British legal systems are the same thing. Unless that is the case, the implication shouldn't be made.
    • Otto's point is well taken, "murder" can be a subjective view, even if the work of fiction includes the statement that the character was convicted. In that light, moving the entire kit and caboodle to Category:Fictional killers may be in order.
At the very least, the articles should be Merged into the murder cat. - J Greb 02:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can't merge into ...murderers--the point of it is that they are not murderers.DGG (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as over cat. If kept, a better name is needed this one simply reads poorly. Vegaswikian 00:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Fictional killers is it really important in the scheme of things to define the degree of their crimes? Carlossuarez46 06:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. We populate categories by consensus, not using lawyers. Feel free to create Category:Fictional killers. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 04:03 Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional vampire hunters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was a) I can't believe you all spent actual time debating whether this means "vampires that hunt" or "that which hunts vampires". b) it's obvious from the discussion that there is confusion as to which it's supposed to be, but what the hey, keep it is.. Kbdank71 14:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While "vampire hunter" sounds cool, (a) this category contains both "people that hunt vampires" and "vampires that are hunters of something", and (b) most of these characters also hunt a wide variety of other monsters. Suggest merging to Category:Fictional hunters. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I note that this is an unusually well populated category for a CfD (says something about Wikipedians?). I wonder if Category:Fictional hunters would be too broad - a middle ground might be a subcategory that reflects the supernatural element (possibly Category:Fictional hunters of the supernatural or something similar but more eloquent)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legis (talk • contribs) 18:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The suggested upmerge is much too broad. This is a well defined category with much content. DGG (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and purge. No vampires should be in this category unless they are also vampire hunters (e.g., Blade (comics)). I added a header and connected it to the article vampire hunter.--Mike Selinker 16:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two questions with that:
      1. Shouldn't the cat then be retitled "Fictional hunters of vampires"; and
      2. Is the implication that the character's primary profession is to eliminate vampires?
The second has some weight because the remainder of the "hunters of..." could, and likely should, be upmerged onto a "Fictional hunters of the supernatural" parent cat. - J Greb 17:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Lists of characters on The Simpsons and Category:Lists of characters from The Sopranos[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per standard of parent cat, rename to "lists of <foo> characters". >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support rename per nom. — xDanielx T/C 03:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Lists of fictional characters in comedy[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Lists of characters by setting already exist. Classifying each individual setting as "comedy" or "not comedy" is original research, as the borderline isn't clearly defined. This is both unclear and redundant. Suggest deletion. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A totally chaotic unnecessary intermediate category.DGG (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like a category with a utility of zero. — xDanielx T/C 03:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 06:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 06:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Films by topic[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was take up elsewhere. Kbdank71 15:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listed here for discussion. The cat contains a plethora of subcats named "<foo> films", "films about <foo>" and "<foo>-themed films". Would standardizing be a good idea, and if so, on what? If yes, I'll nominate the misnamed cats accordingly. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This really needs to be flagged up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films in the first instance. Lugnuts 18:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let a thousand flowers bloom What on earth is the point in tying us up in long discussions trying to find phrases that fit some arbitary convention? There are times when conventions are useful, and times when they are not, of which this is one. Johnbod 02:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the project should discuss this first, and work a out a proposal DGG (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Footballers by club and subcategories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was relisted on the 27th. Kbdank71 13:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the category tree uses the term "Football (soccer) players", not "footballers". Suggest renaming for standardization. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename this category only per nom, keep subcategories unchanged. The categories for individual clubs should, I believe, use national conventions ("Soccer players" for places like the US that prefer that term, "Footballers" for the rest of the world). However, for supra-national categories (which "by club" is), it makes sense to use "Football (soccer) players". At least, that's my understanding of how this is supposed to work. We should probably check with the appropriate Wikiproject to confirm, so feel free to ignore me if I'm wrong. Xtifr tälk 09:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Indoor soccer players in the United States by club[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was relisted on the 27th. Kbdank71 13:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the category tree uses the term "Football (soccer) players", not "soccer players". Suggest renaming for standardization. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment what about Futsal and corresponding cats like Category:American futsal players ? Neier 01:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Strike as irrelevant. I had forgotten about the professional indoor soccer leagues, which are not futsal. Neier 10:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose: I think the convention is to use "soccer player" for footballer cats in countries like the US where that's the standard term, "footballer" for most of the rest of the world, and "football (soccer)" for categories above the national level. See (for example) Category:Football (soccer) players by country. There's probably some Wikiproject which could offer a more definitive opinion. If it turns out I'm wrong, then ignore this comment. :) Xtifr tälk 09:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Footballers that died on the pitch[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Footballers who died on the pitch. Kbdank71 13:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear cat name. Suggest renaming to "died on the field", or listify / delete as an arbitrary intersection. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Certainly not rename to "field". Why isn't this excellent category linked into the Deaths by cause tree? Actually shouldn't it be "who" died? Johnbod 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seem pretty clear to me and fits in with the Category:Deaths in sport category. Lugnuts 18:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename either to Category:Footballers who died on the pitch or Category:Footballers who died during matches. It should be "who" and not "that." "During matches" is a little more clear than "on the pitch" for those non-English English speakers amongst us but "on the pitch" isn't so completely alien as to not be understandable. Otto4711 18:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • add to my keep above and Rename per Otto. I would prefer the pitch one as more dramatic. Johnbod 19:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: on the pitch should be changed per Otto. I, however, wonder why such a classification is deemed important. Pavel Vozenilek 04:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep; neutral on naming/listifying. Category appropriately abstracts a very significant common attribute among the members. — xDanielx T/C 03:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up grammar per Johnbod - "on the pitch" has the subtle beauty of distinguishing the UK football (soccer) sorts but not including players of American football unless the latter have stumbled into their stadium during baseball season and been beaned by a fast ball. Carlossuarez46 06:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for Category:Footballers that died on the pitch. Why do you want this to be deleted :O Should add Antonio Puerta's name in it though. This is a very helpful category. we must do some more research on it and update all instances of footballer's death in pitches. this is no laughing matter.. fishfingers15 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC) — fishfingers15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Indoor soccer players in the United States by competition[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 15:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient size for subcategorizing this by country. Suggest merging to Category:Indoor football (soccer) players by competition. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom, but without prejudice against recreation if the category grows unexpectedly. Spot-checking the merge target, it seems that most of what it contains is also US, so I get the feeling that this is something not very known or notable outside the US. Which makes this appear to be about as useful a cat as "Australian Rules Football players in Australia" would be. :) Xtifr tälk 00:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Asian footballers with foreign heritage[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with List of Asian footballers with foreign heritage, which (unlike this category) can explain what that heritage actually is. Suggest deletion. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Johnbod 02:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and OCAT, triple intersection even if we could determine what the 3rd part was seems a Venn diagram too far. Carlossuarez46 06:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Wells–Bennett–Grant family, Category:Bennion–Eyring family, Category:Hinckley–Bitner family and Category:Pratt–Romney family[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All these cat names include endashes or emdashes rather than hyphens. This makes adding articles to the cat needlessly impractical, and to my knowledge we don't use such characters in article or cat names if we can avoid it. Rename all. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all to hyphenated versions. Johnbod 16:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all - eponymous overcategorization by family. Articles are superior to categories for families because articles for the families can include text that explains the interrelationships between the familiy members, something that categories can't do. Articles on individual family members are easily interlinked to other family members through text. These sorts of family fusion categories are especially problematic. Go back far enough and every family is related to every other family. Otto4711 18:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per nom. At least Wells/Bennett/Grant and Pratt/Romney are probably worth keeping because they are relatively prominent political families—Mormon Kennedys, if you will. There is no article for the other two families, so I don't think deletion would be appropriate for them until an article can be written. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prominence of the family is not IMHO a valid reason for keeping the categories, as it requires value judgments on the relative prominence of families in relation to each other and there is no possible objective standard for it. Listification before deleting the categories that don't have family categories is acceptable. Otto4711 19:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if numerous members of the family have been elected members of legislatures and etc. that is an entirely valid "value judgment" in determining that that family is more "prominent" than the Jones family who live down the street from me. I would argue that the American Kennedy family are also more "prominent" a family than my neighbors the Browns—same basic principle. That being said, since these families already have articles, I'm not strongly opposed to deletion in these instances. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per nom. The prominence is reflected by the number of articles, and that is a reason why categories for some are appropriate.this isnt value judgment--except in the sense it reflect WP:N for the articles. DGG (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per nom. Families are a valid form of categorization, and a proposal for simple renaming should not be used as a springboard to push for deletion. Cgingold 13:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once a category is nominated for any reason it's fair game for any option. This should be readily apparent from even cursory participation in this process. Otto4711 14:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be strictly disallowed. Why would anybody run the risk of deletion just to take care of a tiny name-change like this one? Cgingold 05:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Slovenian people by city[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slovenian people by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:People by city in Slovenia, convention of Category:People by city. -- Prove It (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. LeSnail 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Contents of the parent category shows consensus already. Just do it. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 04:11 Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Constantine[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Constantine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:People from Constantine, Algeria, to match Constantine, Algeria. -- Prove It (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. LeSnail 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Makes sense. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 04:12 Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:American disc golfers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was relisted on the 26th. Kbdank71 15:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American disc golfers to Category:Flying disc players
Nominator's rationale: With only two known flying disc player articles in all of Wikipedia, there is clearly no justification for game-specific much less country-specific subcategorization of a non-existent category. New name is consistent with parallel category names (Category:Flying disc tournaments, Category:Flying disc games) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion is directly related the one immediately below. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "American" part, no opinion on the rest. The sportspeople-by-country system is completely established, and should not be broken here. Personally, I think "Disc golf" is the name of the sport, but others may disagree.--Mike Selinker 04:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Frisbee[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was relisted on the 26th. Kbdank71 15:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Frisbee to Category:Flying disc
Nominator's rationale: There is no Frisbee article (it is a redirect to Flying disc), and contents of category is flying disc material in general, not Frisbee™-specific for the most part (to the extent any of it is, it still fits in the new category name). New name is treating "flying disc" as the name of a discipline (not unlike "equestrian", "creative" as used in the design industry, "chiropractic", etc.; this "nouning" of adjectives (cf. "plastic") is not tremendously common, but clearly acceptable in unusual cases. Before anyone says "no, it should be Category:Flying disc games, that more adjectival category already exists as a subcat for specific-game articles like Guts (game). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everyone has heard of a frisbee, but "flying disc" was new to me & would have conveyed nothing out of context. Surely they have lost their TM exclusive rights, as Hoover and Biro have (in the UK anyway)? I forget the name of the process once everyone uses the term, some rights cannot be protected. Johnbod 15:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: The process you are thining of is trademark genericization, and no it has not happened to Frisbee, which remains a US registered trademark. Furthermore, the governing bodies of flying disc, both in the US and internationally, all use the term "flying disc". WP:IDONTKNOWIT does not militate against this rename. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, but keep the old name as a cat redirect to help reduce confusion. The term "Frisbee" may still be a valid trademark, but if so, it's holding on by the skin of its teeth. I don't think any of the frisbees in my house are actually FrisbeeTMs. Maybe one. Who checks?  :) Xtifr tälk 10:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep let's keep things where people expect them rather than use purple prose, so frisbee redirects but Hula hoop (also trademarked) doesn't. I would more recommend a move from flying disk to frisbee than this proposed rename. Genericization of trademarks - like trademark rights in any event - is jurisdictionally dependent: in the USA, aspirin is generic but not in Germany. I have heard that Hoover is generic in the UK but couldn't find a reliable cite to it, but I've heard it used generically for "vacuum cleaner" or as a verb "to vacuum" from my UK friends, so it's practically impossible to have perfect non-trademarking of articles, categories that complies worldwide so let's leave well enough alone. Carlossuarez46 06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carlossuarez46. What is wrong with using the name that is still in common use to describe all of these flying objects? Vegaswikian 21:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to generic name per nom. Are category redirects necessary? Do enough people type: Category:xyzlkadf into the search window to justify that? Neier 23:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not really about searching (though I do search for categories pretty regularly). It's for editors. If there's a cat redir, then there won't be redlinks when people try to use the category, and people won't be tempted to recreate the duplicate category. A bot cleans up cat redirs by moving articles to the target cat. Xtifr tälk 12:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Disk flicking games[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Doesn't sound ridiculous to me, and the case wasn't made that the category shouldn't exist.--Mike Selinker 14:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disk flicking games to Category:Disk-flicking games
Nominator's rationale: This probably qualifies for speedy, but I'm not certain that an overwhelming majority agrees with consistently hyphenating compound adjectives (I think they should, but... :-) Feel free to speedy it if no one objects. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "disk flicking"? Really? Is that the technical term? Everything in the category is already categorized in a games category that doesn't sound ridiculous. Delete this. Otto4711 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: This is a rename nomination, but if you really want to have a deletion discussion, okay. The rationale against deletion is strong; all of the games are historically related and of-a-kind, and there is no other category for them, collectively. While some of them may individually be in other more generic categories (often peripherally; for example, Crokinole is in Category:Tabletop cue games because a variant of the game uses a cue stick; the category does not apply to everything in the article, which is mostly about games in which the disks are finger-flicked, not cued), there is no category other than this one for collecting together and exploring the related set of articles (which is what categories are for.) There is no "official" name for this class of games (the only international governing body in the field covers only carrom, with no involvement in the games as a family, leaving it up to us to categorize them by logic, in the absence of an official term). The flicking (rather than cueing, throwing, kicking, shooting at, shooting from a gun, etc., of small disks (as opposed to round balls, oblong balls, large pucks, javelins, arrows, bullets, or other objects), is the clearest, and most easily described aspect that they have in common. So, there is nothing wrong with the category name from a naming conventions perspective. "Sounds ridiculous to me" is not a deletion rationale. Furthermore, your assertion that all of the games in that category are otherwise categorized in other sports categories is completely was partially false; I think you must have looked at one or two examples. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, I checked all of the articles in the category, including checking the subcat, before making my comment. All of the games except Chapayev are categorized in Category:Board games of physical skill (and I added the cat to Chapayev for the sake of consistency). Otto4711 13:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redundant categorization in all cases (since removed); the category in question here is a subcat of that one. :-) More substantially, do you still have an issue with this category name, or with a category of this sort existing? (Those strike me as two independent questions.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you've removed the board games of physical skill category then I now support a merge to that category. Otto4711 13:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Disc-flicking games—None of these originate in the U.S., and in most of the English-speaking world a "disk" is computer media. The hyphen belongs, because disc is not obviously an adverb. Flicking games would be acceptable too, because the game pieces can be coins, draughts, checkers, biscuits, or pucks. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 05:11 Z
  • Reply added after closure: Do another rename nom. if you like, but it is trivial to make the opposing argument that "disc" to almost everyone means "compact disc or DVD". I'm less certain of this next bit, but I think it is even probable that "disc" in English is a comparative neologism, a truncation of discus, and that "disk" (possibly also derived from, and if not certainly cognate with, the same foreign term, of course) predates "disc" in English; would take more etymological research than one character difference in a category name is probably worth. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Newbridge[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Newbridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:People from Newbridge, Caerphilly, to match Newbridge, Caerphilly. -- Prove It (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. LeSnail 18:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Walt Disney Studios Park[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 15:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hollywood Boulevard (Walt Disney Studios Park) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Production Courtyard (Walt Disney Studios Park) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge both into Category:Walt Disney Studios Park, overcategorization. -- Prove It (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Companies operating from offshore shell corporations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was relisting on the 26th. Kbdank71 15:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies operating from offshore shell corporations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I have slightly mixed views about this category; on the one hand it is arguably a useful collaborative grouping, but on the other it is clearly a controversial statement that (if it was made in the text of the article) should properly be supported by a cited authority. Pushing it down into a category allows the allegation to be made without supporting authority, and that strikes me as an uncomfortable position. It would be a bit like (although much les extreme than) having a category called "suspected tax cheats" or "unethical corporations". I am by no means 100% sure it should be deleted, but I think a discussion needs to be had. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Haliburton and General Electric still have the main company registered in the US, although like every other multinational we can be sure there are many offshore shell companies in the group (I know for a fact in the case of one of the two). The others have the "Ultimate Holding Company" to use the technical term, registered in Bermuda, etc. Really the category ought to be renamed and restricted to these, as say Category:Multinationals with offshore holding companies or similar. Johnbod 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Agree that fuzzy issues also arise on when one looks at different parts of the corporate tree. Most large companies (which might be in Wikipedia) will tend to be publicly listed, which means that the top company will more normally (although not always - Hutchison Whampoa is incorporated in Bermuda, TNK-BP in the British Virgin Islands) be located onshore. On the other hand, if one goes too far down the tree (speaking as an offshore lawyer), almost every major multinational utilises offshore companies at some point in its structure as part of either its tax or liability structuring. --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Box Office Gross of Sinatra Pictures[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Box Office Gross of Sinatra Pictures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, not a category. However the text should be merged into Frank Sinatra filmography. -- Prove It (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:War crimes by country[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 15:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War crimes by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:War crimes in Afghanistan
Category:War crimes in Algeria
Category:War crimes in Azerbaijan
Category:War crimes in Bangladesh
Category:War crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Category:War crimes in Cambodia
Category:War crimes in China
Category:War crimes in the former Czechoslovakia
Category:War crimes in France
Category:War crimes in Georgia (country)
Category:War crimes in India
Category:War crimes in Indonesia
Category:War crimes in Iraq
Category:Iraq war crimes
Category:War crimes in Ireland
Category:War crimes in Israel
Category:War crimes in Lebanon
Category:War crimes in Myanmar
Category:War crimes in the Philippines
Category:War crimes in Poland
Category:War crimes in Russia
Category:War crimes of the Second Chechen War
Category:War crimes in Rwanda
Category:War crimes in Serbia
Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka
Category:War crimes in the United States
Category:War crimes in Vietnam
Category:War crimes in former Yugoslavia
Nominator's rationale: "War crime" is a legal term, and is generally understood to be such. While the idea of this category and its subs may be good in theory, the manner in which they have been applied appears to be largely ad hoc and not subject to any sort of standard in determining whether or not something is a "war crime". What determines what is included? It appears to be left to the whim of editors. This runs the obvious risk of encouraging POV-pushing through categorization. Just one example: at the time of this nomination, a subcategory of Category:War crimes in the United States is Category:Massacres of Native Americans. However, Category:Massacres by Native Americans is not included as a subcategory. There have never been war crimes trials in the United States for any massacres committed against or by Native Americans. From what I've been able to tell, the vast majority of incidents described in the articles included in the subcategories have never been the subject of war crimes trials, let alone convictions that would affirmatively determine that a legal "war crime" has taken place. In other words, a more accurate category name for all would be "Alleged war crimes in ...", but I don't think such a rename would create a useful category. I suggest that events that legitimately qualify are so few and far between that they may be included in Category:War crimes and there is no need to subdivide them by country. If subdivision is found to be appropriate—as it may be for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, for example, where trials and convictions for war crimes have actually occurred—they can be re-created as needed. Most of these articles could be (and are!) included in more nebulous categories such as Category:Human rights abuses, rather than this one, which carries a distinctly legal connotation. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See War crimes article. I have no problem with adding "Alleged" to the category titles. I suggest putting it in parentheses at the end of the category names. As in Category:War crimes (alleged). This way we keep the category alphabetization intact. It is common to have clarifying info in parentheses at the end of article names. I am reading a library book now called "A Savage War of Peace. Algeria 1954-1962." By Alistair Horne. It is a famous book. Copyright 1977, 1987, 1996, 2006. It is chock full of barbaric war crimes from all sides. There is a blurb on the cover: "On the reading list of President Bush and the US military." There are rarely trials for war crimes, torture, massacres, terrorism, etc.. Yet we have categories for them all. It is up to history in the end and public consciousness what is determined in the long run to be war crimes, massacres, torture, terrorism, etc.. In the meantime WP:NPOV is used to categorize according to all significant viewpoints. --Timeshifter 10:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they are to be kept, using the "alleged" would be necessary for accurate categorization. But having a category for "alleged" war crimes is not terribly useful. The articles may as well just be categorized in Category:Human rights abuses. Specifying that the incident is an alleged war crime adds little or nothing. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem with "alleged" categories is the POV one: alleged by who? How do we define which allegations to include? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and that's the exact problem with these categories—they are war crimes according to who? How do we define which alleged war crimes to include? My suggestion is that only where war crimes are proven to have taken place legally should they be included. That eliminates the need for these sub-categories, because 90% of the articles in them won't qualify. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • BrownHairedGirl. You have reached the nub of the problem. I suggest WP:NPOV: "This page in a nutshell: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." We have to make this determination of what to include in all articles. The same is true for categories. At least if we include "(alleged)" less people will get bent out of shape. :) --Timeshifter 10:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I can here "allege" that the creation of the Internet was a war crime, and maybe I can get 500 of my friends to agree with me and allege the same thing. Now, if true NPOV is used, you will include Internet in the category Category:Alleged war crimes, because it has been alleged. Problematic, no? Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • From WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." Do you have a reliable source? Also from WP:NPOV: "Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability." --Timeshifter 11:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • BrownHairedGirl and Rich Uncle Skeleton. I have struck out my initial agreement with putting "alleged" in the titles of categories. It is ugly. I think it makes more sense to create an "alleged" template to put at the top of controversial categories. It would explain that WP:NPOV was used to incorporate all significant viewpoints concerning articles and subcategories. That means some articles and subcategories inclusion may only have a significant minority viewpoint that they should be included in the category. The template would further explain that inclusion in a category is not endorsement of the claims of war crimes (or whatever the category name; torture, massacres, etc.). The template would say that the category is an aid to readers of wikipedia. Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories do not form a tree states that "A person browsing through a hierarchy should find every article that belongs in that hierarchy." So in the hierarchy of human rights abuses the average reader deserves a breakdown by subcategory too. Such as war crimes, and war crimes by country. --Timeshifter 13:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem with arguing NPOV can solve a categorization problem is that categorization is all or none. There's no way of presenting "both sides", because it's either included or it isn't. And yes, I guarantee I can provide reliable sources for allegations of war crimes that 99.9% of us would probably consider crazy. Weirdos publish things too, you know. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, restrict, clear out The article War crimes rightly starts with the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) and the categories should only include events after that for which trials, charges, or perhaps formal investigations of some sorts have been done/made by an international body or Court (UN, league of Nations etc). Many of these categories are ok: France, Czech, Poland, China (?), Former Yugoslavia (?) and so on. Many are not: Ireland, India, Sri Lanka, Algeria, US, Israel, Rwanda, Afghanistan - for various reasons, whether date, type of event (not being a war as such) or lack of international process. Some are more complicated: Bangladesh, Russia. That's not to deny the many atrocities that don't fit the criteria, but it's the only way to go. Johnbod 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not ready to make any recommendations yet, but I believe Johnbod is pretty much on the right track (although he's got Rwanda in the wrong group). He posted his remarks while I was looking through the relevant categories in order to formulate some preliminary thoughts -- and I was pleased to see that he used a very important word which had been missing from the discussion: "atrocities". (Oddly, that article had been missing from several obvious categories, until I added it myself, just now.)
  • A big part of the problem we're dealing with is that, although the term "War crime" has a legal definition, it's widely used in common parlance as a synonym for "atrocity". As a result, all sorts of things have been dumped into Category:War crimes and its subcats which may or may not belong there. I'm not sure how to keep that from happening altogether, but I'm pondering the possibility that it might be useful to have a high-level parent Category:Atrocities, with Category:War crimes as one of its subcats. However, we also need to take into consideration all of the other related categories: Category:Human rights abuses (which is something of a mess right now, IMO); Category:Crimes against humanity, Category:Massacres, and Category:Genocide. (Have I missed one?) Well, that's about as far as I've gotten -- I just wanted to put all of this into the mix for everybody else to factor into their thinking. I'll come by later and see how things have progressed. Cgingold 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right about Rwanda - excluded as not a "war" as such - it's hard to tell from International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Johnbod 15:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the War crimes article deals only with the legal aspects of the term, and not the common parlance. This may be helpful: Template:International Criminal Law. If we decide to use only the legal meaning of the term as our guide to categorization, then I don't think we have to categorize only by trial results. Allegations count too. If the allegations meet some legal definition of war crimes. List of war crimes, as mentioned previously, is good too. The many subcategories of Category:Human rights abuses can be used to place everything else. I just looked up "war crime" in a couple places:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war%20crime
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Awar+crime
It looks like all the definitions pulled up from the above 2 searches are legal ones. --Timeshifter 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless we use a finding in court as the standard, we will repeatedly run into definitional challenges. E.g., was there a even a war (if not, there can be no "war" crime)?; does this instance qualify as a war crime? what if the allegation would have qualified but what was actually proven falls short?; allegations that clearly don't qualify (the kook factor); etc. It seems the safest and simplest route to take is reserve this category for proved incidents of war crimes, and use another category like "Atrocities" or "Bad Stuff" to categorize stuff that happened that was clearly bad but was never shown in a court or tribunal to be a "war crime". Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Timeshifter is right that we have to take the legal route it's totally subjective otherwise. As RUS says, there are other categories for events not caught by the legal definition. I said above "events after that (1899) for which trials, charges, or perhaps formal investigations of some sorts have been done/made by an international body or Court (UN, league of Nations etc)" - a "finding in court" will only happen if one or more individuals are prosecuted, but a war crime has taken place even if no perpetrator is caught & convicted. I think a wording along my lines can be made workable and nonsubjective. Johnbod 01:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I think Johnbod and timeshifter have provided a way to deal with the problems of definition. DGG (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #1) I'm trying to understand how the proposal that seems to be taking shape would work in practice. I think it would be very helpful to see how it would be applied to some concrete examples of cases that may not unambiguously clear. I would like to know, for instance, how Category:War crimes in Bangladesh and its contents would be handled. Some of the articles make reference to "war crimes", but most do not. However, there haven't been any legal proceedings, although a lawsuit is pending. How would these determinations re categorization be arrived at procedurally in terms of the quasi-proposal we're talking about? Cgingold 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #2) Returning to my suggestion about creating a Category:Atrocities: after giving this further thought, I'm starting to feel more strongly that this is very important. First, because everything that gets cleaned out of these War Crimes categories will need to go somewhere else. And secondly, because, if it's not available, a lot of people will undoubtedly ignore any restrictions that are spelled out on the War Crimes categories and use them anyway because they need to find a category that conveys the fact that something really terrible took place. Cgingold 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: These are clerical categories created to unclog the main category on war crimes. All the arguments and the need to restrict really apply at the main war crimes category. I understand that a war crime is a legal term and may or may not be applied restrictively. If an act is called a war crime by notable X, Y & Z and is published by RS source, I think there is room to debate whether that belongs in a category called war crimes or not but essentially such an argument belongs at the war crimes category. Once that is decided all what war crimes by country does is distribute them amongst the countries that such an act happened. The best place to discuss this is at here not in an AFD. Thanks Taprobanus 21:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taprobanus's remarks have merit in terms of how these items will be handled after we've finished our work here. But in light of the suggestions that have been made in the course of this discussion, I would like to see us agree on some general guidance as to the nature of the restrictions that will be articulated for these categories.
In addition, I'm not prepared to sign off on all of the existing subcategories, because there are a number that don't appear to have a legitimate basis in terms of the kinds of restrictions that we're talking about. Judging by the contents of the articles in them, the sub-cats for India, Ireland, Myanmar, and the United States (and possibly some others that I haven't looked into yet) should probably be deleted. (Plus, Indonesia is currently empty -- was there something there at some point?) As I explained above, articles like these should be transferred to categories for Atrocities -- since they presumably won't fit the criteria for War Crimes. Cgingold 15:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other question: if there's only one article pertaining to a particular country, is that enough to merit a category? I have mixed feelings about that. Generally speaking, it doesn't make sense to create or maintain categories for single articles -- but I am open to persuasion. Cgingold 15:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all except empty categories and any that do not have war times articles in them. O worked on the US category. War crimes occur 'in' countries so the in country categories are appropriate. Moving some to the parent category War crimes would not be helpful as that category contains theory articles about war crimes, not war crime events. Hmains 05:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you specifically referred to the US category, could you please explain how the contents there would qualify as War Crimes under the sorts of restrictions that have been discussed here? The events those articles deal with were unquestionably atrocities -- but only retrospectively would they (presumably) be categorized as "War Crimes".
That's the nub of the problem (well, one of the nubs): we need to make a clear decision whether a "War Crime" is to be defined (for WP Categories) in relation to international law on the subject -- or as simply a synonym for "atrocity", which is basically how it's currently being used. And that's what brought us to this discussion in the first place. Cgingold 12:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these events need a category. Do you really want parallel War Crimes and War Atrocity categories? Perhaps relying on the 'law' is too technical for the average reader who might not care anyway: a crime is a crime regardless of the state of the law. Hmains 03:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, my suggestion/proposal would make Category:War crimes a sub-category of Category:Atrocities, reserved for those events that meet the stricter definition we've been discussing. Everything else would go into Category:Atrocities and/or its subcats-by-country.
It would be a relief not to have to concern ourselves with this vexing issue. And in the end, we may all agree simply to erase all distinctions between War Crimes and Atrocities, and just call everything War Crimes -- purely because we've decided that it's just too much bother to separate them. But I don't think we've arrived at that point yet. Cgingold 06:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Ethnic groups in Puerto Rico[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Much of this is ported directly from the sell text of the book Cubans in Puerto Rico.--Mike Selinker 14:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethnic groups in Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Convert into Ethnic groups in Puerto Rico, not a category. -- Prove It (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Disneyland Resort Paris 15th Anniversary[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disneyland Resort Paris 15th Anniversary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Disneyland Resort Paris ... enough is enough. -- Prove It (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Disneyland Paris[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 14:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disneyland Paris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Disneyland Park (Paris), to match Disneyland Park (Paris). -- Prove It (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2007_September_20&oldid=1078526795"