Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 26 April 28 >

April 27[edit]

Category:Major British cities[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. Kbdank71 13:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Major British cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Barring some sort of legal or official classification as a "Major City", which I am not aware of, this means of classification can only be done in a POV way or by using arbitrary inclusionary criteria, which if there are any are not defined. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doubt if this can be made NPOV (even Exeter and Plymouth are there - these are surely middling cities at most). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as undefined and probable NPOV.--Lenticel (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: entirely arbitrary classification, and impossible to keep NPOV. --RFBailey (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Grounds for inclusion are far too vague. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 07:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sound logical basis given for inclusion in this group, can't be kept NPOV. On the same basis, I think another category - Category:Landmarks in Wales should be deleted too. Avebury (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without an 'official' list of major cities in the UK, a few random journalistic opinions (often in a completely different context) do not constitute sufficiently strong or objective sources. Pondle (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom --T-rex 21:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Japanese expatriate footballers[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 both. Kbdank71 15:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Japanese footballers in Europe, Category:Japanese footballers in South America to Category:Japanese expatriate footballers
Nominator's rationale: convention (as it stands) does not have it to categorize people by occupation by continent; suggested merger would fit the largely established rubric Category:Expatriate footballers by nationality Mayumashu (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Arab Air Carriers Organization[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. Kbdank71 13:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Arab Air Carriers Organization to Category:Arab Air Carriers Organization members
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Clarify what the contents of the category are. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bands with female lead singers[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. Kbdank71 13:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bands with female lead singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no specific notability for a band that has a female lead singer; thousands of mixed-gender groups exist (keep in mind that Category:Mixed-gender musical groups was deleted). We already have Category:All-women bands for the rare cases of all-women bands, which are possibly notable given their relative rarity. As the size of this category indicates, this is indiscriminate overcategorization; there's no Category:Bands with male lead singers is there? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, this can be especially a case of dispute in groups where there is no set lead singer, such as Little Big Town -- that group is composed of two women and two men, all of whom rotate lead vocals (sometimes within the same song). And why does it have to be "half" the contributions? Do Lady Antebellum, for example, split the lead vocals 50/50 between their two lead vocalists (one male, one female)? Et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable, well-sourced, and valuable for our users interested in music-related subjects. Regarding bands with more than one lead singer, please actually read the text at the category itself, which states: "These are bands who have or have had a female member who contributes at least half of the vocals." There are many fewer bands with female lead singers, thus the need for this category. We have Category:African-American singers but no Category:European-American singers for this reason. Badagnani (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I doubt this is half the notable bands, but it sure is a whole lot of them nonetheless.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorization based on sex. Otto4711 (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overcategorization. Lugnuts (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OCAT based on sex. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per precident with Category:Mixed-gender musical groups --T-rex 21:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:G-Unit Records articles with comments[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. Kbdank71 13:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:G-Unit Records articles with comments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - whether an article has comments on its talk page is a trivial basis for categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Joint venture G-Unit Records artists[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: upmerge. Kbdank71 13:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Joint venture G-Unit Records artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing artists by the method through which they are signed to a particular record label is overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:G'$ Up[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. Kbdank71 13:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:G'$ Up (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization for a record label's sub-label. Otto4711 (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Crime Mob[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. Kbdank71 13:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Crime Mob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:M.O.P.[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. Kbdank71 13:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:M.O.P. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - completely unnecessary eponymous overcategorization. Part of a walled garden for G-Unit that was previously dismantled but is now back under construction. Otto4711 (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Crime by city in the US[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 all. Kbdank71 13:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By prior precedent, most city articles and categories for US cities include the ", state" after the name of the city.

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.

Sports teams by city in the US[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 all. Kbdank71 13:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By prior precedent, most city articles and categories for US cities include the ", state" after the name of the city. All of these categories' parents are of that form (links provided, because I'm such a nice guy). Only the categories relating to cities have been nominated. Categories such as Category:Sports in the Dallas-Fort Worth area or Category:Sports in the Quad Cities which sometimes cloud the issue have been left off my list. Neier (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all. Neier (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - As with the above CfD, it will aid in understanding and comprehension. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. As above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless the categorization guidelines clearly state that the target categories are not restricted to the city proper. Otherwise a large number of articles will need to be edited to manually remove them. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's safe to say that the Pistons belong in the Detroit category despite playing in Auburn Hills. They're definitely part of the city.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As much a part of the city as the Colts were in Baltimore, the football Cardinals were in St. Louis, and the Raiders were in LA no doubt. It's a business, businesses move to greener pastures, and moving to the 'burbs is moving out of the city - and out of its categories... Just like we don't put the mayors of Auburn Hills in Category:Mayors of Detroit. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mayors in Auburn Hills have no effect on Detroit. The Pistons do. They belong in a category about Detroit. And besides, how is the category as currently named not about Detroit? It isn't "Sports within 30 miles of Detroit, give or take." Adding the state affects this perception in no way at all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - per nom by city with state. Steam5 (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. As for Vegaswikian's comment, I think it's safe to say that most editors put all teams or venues in the metropolitan area within each city's category. That's what I've been doing all along. — Dale Arnett (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. I've made a couple of very similar mass-nominations, so I definitely support this one. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if these are renamed, they need to be manually pruned per Vegaswikian. Accuracy, verifiability over subjective POV inclusion by how far from town something gets and still is in the category: Golden State Warriors in San Francisco, any one? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That presumes that the presence or absence of the state in the category name makes any difference to the scope of the category. I didn't see that it made any difference the first time Vegaswikian raised the complaint, and I still do not. And if it makes no difference to the scope of the category, then there is no need to for any effort to clean up the scope of the categories as part of the rename effort. That's not to say that any such clean-up should or should not happen, but I just don't see such a scope cleanup as having anything to do with this rename, as IMHO the rename has nothing to do with the scope of the categories. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've never understood how Detroit, Michigan is somehow less accurate or more restrictive than Detroit either. If The Golden State Warriors are located in San Francisco, California is incorrect, then what makes The Golden State Warriors are located in San Francisco acceptable? Neier (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's why we need to clarify how the category name affects the contents. There have been comments about a rename to include the state saying to remove everything not in the city limits. Without the state, there was consensus to include the surrounding areas. I thing I once suggested that these be renamed to metropolitan area to eliminate any confusion but that did not gain support. The comments above about pruning clearly indicate that after a rename like this, there is by clearly confusion as to what the category contains. Personally a rename to metropolitan area would be the least confusing and is probably the best approach. That allows someone to add city specific tags if they desire. If you complete a rename like this, and I wanted to list the articles about sports that are actually in the city of Las Vegas what category name would I use? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Massacres by Americans[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. Kbdank71 13:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Massacres by Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: mostly redundant to Category:Massacres in the United States, overcategorizing HokieRNB (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a different category. It includes massacres done by the Americans around the world. Massacres inside the US are just a part of it.--Mani1 (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overcategorization. Nearly every entry in Category:Massacres in the United States would overlap with category. Provides no value.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Mani1 above; things done by Americans are different from things done in America. Massacres by Americans are notable enough to necessitate a cat. • Freechild'sup? 13:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Current category reflects articles on an international scale, and I'd bet that there are articles in the Massacres in the United States article that aren't of Massacres by Americans. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, over categorization and ambiguous scope and membership. Is this just for "massacres" perpetrated by the United States or is this for every nation in the Americas, a region encompassing the continents of North and South America in the Western hemisphere? Would we need to add a Category:Massacres by Europeans or Category:Massacres by Asians? Would Category:Massacres in the United States be a subcategory of this one? The Virginia Tech massacre was perpetrated by Seung-Hui Cho which wikipedia lists was "a South Korean national." How does this fit into this category? The creator of this category must think it fits somehow, but I don't see how. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On the whole I'm afraid this is a poorly conceived category. I have very mixed feelings about it, but I'm leaning towards delete. To begin with, as ably laid out by Dual Freq, the name is just plain wrong. Presumably what the creator really had in mind was Category:Massacres committed by the United States. But even if it were properly named, there are serious issues that would need to be addressed. First of all, as has been pointed out, it's largely redundant of the existing Category:Massacres in the United States. Now I would agree that in principle there could well be a valid category of this sort to cover massacres committed outside of US territory, but that raises additional questions.
  • Regarding the current contents of the category, Waco Siege is dubious at best, and would certainly be disputed by many editors as to being labeled a "massacre". (It's not even included in Category:Massacres in the United States.) Virginia Tech has already been addressed, and in any event all of the school massacre articles are already in appropriate categories.
  • Of the remaining 3 articles, for events outside of the US, only the My Lai Massacre clearly & unequivocally belongs in this category. While it's true that a large number of civilians were killed during the First Battle of Fallujah, the word massacre is not used anywhere in the article. The appalling fact is that, historically, great numbers of civilians have been killed in many hundreds of battles that took place in urban areas, but these events are not generally designated as "massacres". I personally would support inclusion of the Haditha killings, but I'm sure that would be hotly contested. (The article's name was already changed from "Haditha massacre".)
  • That brings us to the Iran Air Flight 655 article, which I suspect is what prompted the creation of this category. As horrible as that event was, it isn't properly designated as a "massacre". As the explanatory info for Category:Airliner shootdowns states, it was "attacked due to misidentification as enemy warplane". (I would argue that it was the result of a reckless policy/posture on the part of the US Navy, but that's another whole issue.)
  • So we are left with the question, "Is there a good rationale for a Category:Massacres committed by the United States?" Again, I'm not against this in principle, but given that there is currently only one article about a massacre that took place outside of US territory, I think it's a dubious proposition. In my judgement, we should proceed carefully here. Since there are, at present, no other categories for "Massacres committed by Country Xyz", it would be implicitly very POV to have such a category only for the United States. We could certainly establish an entire category tree along these lines, but I think it would be best to have a full-blown discussion on that issue before proceeding. Cgingold (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the broad scope of this discussion I have posted notice of this CFD at the talk pages for WikiProject Human rights and WikiProject Military history. Cgingold (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question (to be answered by "Delete" voters) - what substitute category would My Lai massacre fall under, to illustrate that that massacre was perpetrated by United States individuals? I see none. Badagnani (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its already in a massacre category. What category should Nanking Massacre be in to indicate it was perpetrated by Asians? Category:Massacres by Asians? Category:Massacres by the Empire of Japan? What about My Trach Massacre? Category:Massacres by Europeans? Category:Massacres by the French? The Virginia Tech massacre, which is supposedly part of this category, was perpetrated by Seung-Hui Cho (which wikipedia lists was "a South Korean national") Which category should be used to indicate that it was perpetrated by South Korean Nationals living in the USA with green cards? Category:Massacres by South Korean Nationals living in the Commonwealth of Virginia? The answer is that they are already in a Massacre category and additional categorization is not needed. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have just added another valid massacre committed by the United States to this category: the No Gun Ri massacre during the Korean War. There are probably others that can be added, as well. Cgingold (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well, there were many massacres by U.S. forces within the U.S., as seen in the cats Category:Massacres of Native Americans and Category:Indian massacres. The key is that U.S. forces actually perpetrated the Indian massacres and the Vietnamese massacres; as it stands such massacres perpetrated by states are not categorized as such, but simply by the nation in which they occurred. Thus, someone looking for massacres perpetrated by U.S. forces would need to look through all 100+ "massacres in X country" categories, and read all the articles, in order to find them. That seems a problem. The Virginia Tech massacre was not perpetrated by United States forces, so it's not relevant here. Badagnani (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of this category added the Virginia Tech Massacre to this category. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - first, "massacre" is ill-defined. Is it a certain number of individual deaths? Must the killers see the victims, or would air or missile attacks be massacres? Further, I see no NPOV reason to categorize atrocities by nations. If there is a need for understanding a policy for killing, that deserves the level of detail of an article, not merely a category stamp. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This unfortunate posting shows the typical lack of prior reading typical of many "delete page regular" voters. If the term "massacre" were so poorly understood or defined, we wouldn't have an article for it, nor any categories with this term. This is not the issue or question at hand. Badagnani (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: This opens categories such as "Massacres by Germans" as opposed to "Massacres by Nazi Germany". I have no issue with recording where a massacre occurred or under whose purported authority. When we get to nationalities or ethnicities of alleged participants, that is a completely different category which presents an invitation for endless recriminations and abuse. We have enough of that without creating new venues for nurturing bad faith among editors. —PētersV (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you have "no issue with recording where a massacre occurred or under whose purported authority," it's best to simply suggest a different name for the category than simply vote "Strong delete." Badagnani (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - Categories by nationality (and America being a case which is less strongly aligned with ethnicity, but ethnicity plays here as well) are open to abuse by those having an axe to grind. Perhaps "Bank robberies by Poles"? I find the whole notion of categories of "BAD THING X done by nationality/ethnicity Y" to be intellectually repugnant, not just editorially divisive. Finding a different name for a thing doesn't change the thing itself. And, upon further consideration, I (partially, stricken) withdraw my "I have no issue with" as, in the end, by country/authority is open to the same abuse. If the editorial community has come to a consensus that "Massacre X took place at location Y," that is all we should categorize by. —PētersV (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: Ambiguous, redundant, and disruptive. As already demonstrated by the responses here, it is unclear whether it broadly applies to massacres committed by U.S. nationals, by any member of any state in the Americas, or narrowly to those by “Native Americans”. Such a category has all-but-total overlap with the existing “Massacres in …” categories, and this category naming approach also conflicts with Category:Massacres by country, which is the parent category of all of the “Massacres in …” categories. (If normal naming practices are followed, its expansion would require a parent category with the dubious and awkward name of Category:Massacres by country by country.) The minimal thought given to these complications strongly suggests that “Category:Massacres by Americans” is nothing more than an attempt to game the system to make a POV point. This surmise is reinforced by the fact that a simple search for further such categories formulated as “Massacres by [name your least favorite nationality or ethnic group]” turns up no results among twenty of the “usual suspects” (Germans/Nazis, Russians/Soviets, Turks, Iranians, Iraqis, Japanese, etc.) – something I have little doubt will be remedied due to my having spilled the beans for which I apologize beforehand. (There is a Category:Massacres by Native Americans and it was clearly designed to be complementary to Category:Massacres of Native Americans – i.e., to avoid duplication.) Since, contra editor Badagnani, there is no widely accepted definition of what quantity of people or percentage of a group of persons killed constitutes a “massacre”, it’s about as useful – and neutral – a term as “terrorist” for categorization or other encyclopedic use. And never mind the traditional usage of the term to reflect an incident involving the near-total or total killing of a sizable group poorly able or unable to defend itself from such slaughter. Any incident any referable source chooses to describe as a “massacre” can be used to freely load up a category such as this with all the negative propaganda and opprobrium that anyone with an animosity toward that group cares to add. In a word, that is disruptive. Let's not get started down this path. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not taking a position, but I did point out above that were we to create such a category tree, the sub-cats would be called "Category:Massacres committed by country Xyz". Cgingold (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Comment doesn't make sense at all; indeed, we have articles with "massacre" in the title and those articles refer, by editor consensus, to massacres. It's quite clear. Despite my very clear comment above, the editor just above neglects to point out how an editor looking for massacres committed by agents of the United States may find such, without looking through every subcategory of "massacres committed in X country," and reading every article, to determine which were committed by agents of the United States. Please actually address the comments and questions raise without needlessly introducing confusion where there is none (specifically by presenting hypotheticals about the supposed lack of knowledge on the part of our editors of what the word "massacre" means). We shouldn't be in the business of minimizing or maximizing actual events, simply properly documenting and categorizing all of them. I ask again, if a researcher is using Wikipedia to look for actual massacres, comprising WP articles that have "massacre" in the title of the article by WP consensus, perpetrated by agents of the United States, how would they find those without closely inspecting every such article? As mentioned above, there is no such difficulty in locating massacres of American Indians and massacres by American Indians, so our predecessors designed those categories well. Badagnani (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I just moved the remarks by PētersV & Vecrumba from where they had been inserted smack in the middle of my lengthy comment to the proper chronological location. Please people, be more careful where you add your comments (and, oh yes -- sign them, too). Cgingold (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, over categorization and ambiguous scope and membership, is this applicable to native Americans, South Americans or North Americans? Martintg (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We have lots of categories here in which American just means individuals from the United States. American movies can not mean movies from Paraguay. In my opinion the title of this category is clear. The opinions of the delete-voters here can relate to choosing a better title for this category or ommiting or adding one article to it but it does not challenge the existence of the category itself at all.--Mani1 (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why you added the Virginia Tech Massacre to this category? A massacre that appears to have been committed by a South Korean National? You created the category and from the items you added to it, it's not clear what items you think should be added to the category. I don't see any reason that Massacres need to be sub-categorized by nationality, continent, race, religion, ethnicity, or sex. Massacres in country is adequate for sub-categorization. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename to Category:Massacres committed by the United States - "Delete" votes manifest flawed reasoning and none answers the question asked above, how our users may find articles about massacres perpetrated by Americans without actually reading through every article about a massacre (instead, they say they don't really know what "massacre" means, or simply state that they don't like the category without answering this question). Badagnani (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator, I really didn't think this would generate much discussion, as I thought it was a pretty simple case of overcategorization, and was actually looking for a potential "speedy". Clearly I was wrong. However, I would like to more strongly state my case, in agreement with several others, to state that this category has been rather arbitrarily (and I believe wrongfully) assigned to several articles which are not referred to as "massacres", that it is ambiguously named (thus if consensus is to keep, it should be renamed to Category:Massacres committed by the United States), and that if properly named, it would be nearly impossible to find consensus on populating it. Moreover, per WP:OCAT, this category seems to violate multiple principles, such as "Intersection by location", "Non-notable intersections by ethnicity" and "Narrow intersection". HokieRNB (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to per HokieRNB and exclude the article Columbine High School massacre (and similar) from this category. This is a nonsense category in which should be categorized all massacres made by inhabitants of Americas. However, I think that it would be good to have massacres categorized by forces which did that. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 18:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this cat would need to be pruned to make it of any value and it would end up identical to the other one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ambiguous, over-categorised and redundant. To Howard C. Berkowitz: A massacre is defined under international human rights law as the the intentional killing of four or more individuals unable to defend themselves at one time and place/during one event. If I recall correctly, the time limit is 24 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilaffairs (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per most of the above. No clear inclusion criteria, scope too large, and large overlap with existing category. I have no comment against creating Category:Massacres committed by the United States though.-Andrew c [talk] 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while "massacres in the United States" is acceptable, and "massacres committed by the US government" would be acceptable, the odd intersection of this catagory is not --T-rex 21:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Massacres committed by Japan and Category:Massacres committed by the United States have been created since the opening of this CfD. How can a country commit a massacre? Were the massacres officially sanctioned by the government of the countries involved. People commit massacres, and this is another reason that there is not point to create this type of subdivision of the the massacres category. Additionally, I suspect these massacres were related to the Empire of Japan vice Japan. the Nanking Massacre article attributes the massacre to the military of Japan. We don't need to create these "committed by country XYZ" sub-categories. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Badly named and poorly conceived. Categorizing massacres where the only connection is the nationality of the perpetrator is a road we don't want to go down. (Where this eventually leads: Crimes in the United States committed by Arabs, Murders in Europe committed by Africans, etc.) And Category:Massacres committed by the United States is an even worse title than this category. In US history, massacres were usually committed by people acting without governmental authority, and usually (always?) in defiance of US law. If such a category is needed, the correct name would be Category:Massacres committed by United States military personnel. —Kevin Myers 13:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Mani above --Rohan (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United Nations Intelligence Taskforce[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. Kbdank71 13:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:United Nations Intelligence Taskforce to Category:UNIT
Nominator's rationale: Merge, This a is follow-up to the page rename of United Nations Intelligence Taskforce to UNIT. Although acoronyms are usually avoided in categories, an exception should be made in this case to match the article, and due to the dispute over whether the old or new name of the organisation should be used. See Talk:UNIT#Requested move for more details. Tim! (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose UNIT is a horrible and ambiguous name. Categories should not be named ambiguously regardless of however ambiguously the parent article is named, otherwise it would require excessive patrolling to keep correct. Any unit might be categorized under UNIT otherwise. Category:UNIT (Whoniverse) or Category:UNIT (Doctor Who) would work. 70.55.84.13 (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neither the article nor the category should be named this way per WP:ACRONYM--Rtphokie (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — actually, for the article at least the use of "UNIT" as title is consistent with WP:ACRONYM. It's like NASA — the name "UNIT" is used much more frequently than "United Nations Intelligence Taskforce" or the renaming it got last week as "UNified Intelligence Taskforce". Unless there's something else which uses the acronym UNIT, this is appropriate. And WP:ACRONYM doesn't say anything definitive about the use of acronyms in categories. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Much too ambiguous, both in the category and the article. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all.Civilaffairs (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]
  • Support - believe it or not, the abbreviation is the less contentious one. Sceptre (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Sceptre. Neither "United Nations Intelligence Taskforce" nor "Unified Intelligence Taskforce" are uncontroversial names. We don't want to put UNIT in a battlefield :-) Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Sceptre and Percy. As far as I can tell from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)/Archive 7#Abbreviations: to expand or not to expand? and further discussion on that page, there's no consensus about using acronyms in categories. However, if a local consensus opposing Category:UNIT emerges here, I'd support Category:UNIT (Doctor Who) as a second choice. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for forty years UNIT stood for United Nations Intelligence Taskforce. As of this year it's Unified Intelligence Taskforce. The only compromise option is to give primacy to the UNIT name which is also more commonly used than either. Type 40 (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I would support Category:UNIT (Doctor Who) as suggested above, but given the current option, I'd be willing to support just Category:UNIT. That's the name it's best known by anyway, like NASA and laser. DonQuixote (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the recent decision to retitle the main article. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per others, equally Category:UNIT (Doctor Who) would work as well.Number36 (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Mission[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. Kbdank71 13:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Mission to Category:People from Mission, British Columbia
Nominator's rationale: This category is propose for renaming, I type the search "Mission", a lot of specific names is named "Mission", then I type the search "Mission, British Columbia" This is the only search to match with the renamed article. This category must be renamed. Steam5 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Also makes the category more specific. Martarius (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Neier (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Sounding like a broken record here, but yes, per nom. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_27&oldid=1138389561"