Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 2

< March 1	March 3 >

March 2[edit]

Category:Land Speed Record cars[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 15:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Land Speed Record cars to Category:Land speed record cars

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To fix caps and to conform with main article Land speed record and parent Category:Land speed records. Moved from speedy due to opposition. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied discussion from speedy rename section:

Category:Land Speed Record cars to Category:Land speed record cars — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - "LSR" is in common use with Title Case, and as an acronym. It's not the default case on wikipedia, but it's not against wikipedia conventions either, where the more common usage is Title Case. If anything, why not fix Category:Land speed records? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the main article is at Land speed record and common rules of English would suggest it's not a proper noun. This is the only instance on WP where I can see it being treated as such. See also, e.g., British land speed record. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy rename section at this point. Add new comments below this notice.

I really can't be bothered with another nit-picking over naming conventions around LSR articles 8-( However: Wikipedia can't be an authoritative reference for external sources, otherwise any error propagates. External sources favour "LSR", not "lsr". Rename it if you want, clearly obsessive implementation of editorial policies is more important than content these days. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection withdrawn to the rename. "lsr" is a better name than "LSR"- it's actually a different (broader) category and probably more useful anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 3 March 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:Stonewall Book Award winners[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 stonewall, no consensus on lambda (can't rename, as the category consists of people, not books). Kbdank71 15:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete I created these categories but now believe them to be overcategorisation by award per WP:OCAT. Beloved Freak 20:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and a big smile for demonstrating humility. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom, noting that both categories are already listified (at Stonewall Book Award and List of Lambda Literary Award winners). Congrats to the category creator for having the courage to change her (or his) mind. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 23:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and kudos to the nom for working with guidelines! (And as someone with a close association with the new-named Stonewall Book Award I'm happy to acknowledge that the list is the better way to handle this award.) --Lquilter (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lambda, unsure re Stonewall - the Lambda Literary Award is considered the leading honor for LGBT literature and as such is equivalent to other categories in Category:Novels by award and Category:Books by award (both of which need cleanup). If they aren't defining of the authors, they are likely defining of the books, so a rename to Category:Foo Award winning books may be in order. I know less about the Stonewall award but it is I believe also fairly prestigious. Otto4711 (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lambda Award category. This is a very prestigious award in LGBT literature and non-fiction. Queerudite (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I totally don't like WP:OCAT as it applies to awards. The current version isn't clear at all. A previous version (about two months ago) says:

In general, the winners of all but the most notable awards should be put in a list rather than a category.

By this description, Stonewall Book Awards and Lambda Literary Awards are definitely notable within the LGBT community, so the cats should be kept. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what about changing them to Category:Foo Award winning books (as one of Otto4711's possible suggestions above)? Although I agree that the awards themselves are notable, I think that they are more defining to the books themselves than to the authors. --Beloved Freak 14:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, there are no doubt gazillions of awards for every genre of book, play, movie, tv show, etc., winners ought go in articles not in cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Lambda Literary Award winners; not sure about Stonewall. On the suggested renaming -- I doubt that all of the books have articles here, so that would not be helpful. Cgingold (talk) 13:20, 8 March 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:Dewar Trophy[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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: An umbrella nomination of all the subsets of the Automobile awards category. As per WP:OCAT section 14, "recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category." All the categories already exist as lists. I hope I have done this nomination right since it is my first one. I tried to follow the instructions as best as I could. Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Overcategorization for the award-winner categories as nom points out. Category:Dewar Trophy is an unnecessary eponymous category since its only content is the Dewar Trophy engineers category. I also note that Green Car of the Year only has three entrants, and with such a short tenure is scarcely likely to be considered a "defining" award. --Lquilter (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorisation by award. --Beloved Freak 20:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. None are significant enough to be defining; lists are appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 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:Vocal Group Hall of Fame inductees[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 15:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization of people (musical groups) by awards or recognitions that have been given to them; also an unnecessary eponymous category for this award. Needless to say ABBA is not defined by having this award conferred on them in 2002. Currently articles about 27 groups are included in the category. These 27 groups, and many others that have received the award since it was invented in 1998 are all listed on the Vocal Group Hall of Fame article. Lquilter (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:OCAT as overcategorisation by award. --Beloved Freak 20:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 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:National Women's Hall of Fame inductees[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 15:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization of people by awards or recognitions that have been given to them; also an unnecessary eponymous category for this award. Currently articles about seven women are included in the category. These seven women, and scores of others as diverse as Hillary Clinton, Maya Lin, and Virginia Apgar, are all listed on the National Women's Hall of Fame article. Lquilter (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see category and list as mutually exclusive. National, as opposed to regional awards, are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcatergorisation by award per WP:OCAT. I agree that lists and categories shouldn't necessarily be mutually exclusive, but in this case although the award is notable in itself, I don't think that it is notable enough to be an exception to the WP:OCAT guideline. --Beloved Freak 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcatergorisation by award per WP:OCAT#Award_recipients. As with other halls of fame, the people categorised here are notable not for their inclusion in the National Women's Hall of Fame, but for their other achievements; inclusion in the hall of fame is not a "defing characteristic" per WP:CAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 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[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 17:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Massacres to Category:Mass killings

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a more neutral term. As discussed at great length in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination), the word massacre is highly emotive, and its definitions are so vague and inconsistent that it cannot be used neutrally (it usually applied by those sympathetic to the victims, and rejected by those sympathetic to the perpetrators). It is fine to use the term in an article where its usage is supported by reliable sources, but categories allow no such referencing, and the title of this category creates endless possibilities for the sort of POV-warring which scarred List of massacres until it was renamed and repurposed as List of events named massacres. "Mass killing" is not a perfect substitute, but it is a less emotive term, and less likely to be interpreted as a partisan comment on the events categorised. Alternatively, delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

CfD 2006 October_4#Category:Massacres (result: no consensus)
CfD 2005 August 25#Category:Massacres (result: listify)

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "rejected by those sympathetic to the perpetrators". This is the key, in my opinion. The victors write the history. It is an example of Western systemic bias in Wikipedia. Many of the articles about US and UK firebombing of cities in World War II are not listed in the massacre categories for this reason. See my other comments farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS The wikipedia article "massacre" is a disambiguation page, which links to things called "massacre" (rock bands etc), and to Mass murder. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason why this category, which seems to have worked effectively on Wikipedia for a long time now, should be deleted in favour of the far inferior and contentious List of events named massacres. The "mass killings" rename is not an option because the term could include anything, e.g. the Second World War. THe category is not free from problems, but neither are many others. --Folantin (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an empty header category that groups the other massacre categories together, and create a new subcategory called Category:Events named massacres or Category:Named massacres for the current entries in this category. This reflects the renaming of "list of massacres" to List of events named massacres. But do not rename to Category:Mass killings as almost any event that involves more than one person can be called a "mass killing" so the category under that name is not informative as it is too inclusive. It includes school shootings, genocide and combat deaths (eg the first morning of the Battle of the Somme). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to ~~Category:Mass killing of civilians or to Category:Civilian mass killings~~ Category:Multiple non-combatant killings (see relevant comments farther down) - There needs to be a category for deliberate mass killing of civilians, especially during war. For example; the relevant articles listed in Firebombing, Terror bombing, and Template:WWII city bombing. See Bombing of Hamburg in World War II, Bombing of Tokyo in World War II, etc.. It seems that only a few of the deliberate civilian bombings are categorized under "massacres." This seems like a Western systemic bias to me. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. It shouldn't have to reach the level of Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be categorized under Category:Massacres or Category:Civilian mass killings, or their subcategories. And there is a rational argument to be made that calling the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a "massacre" is too simplistic. Many American World War II veterans considered it a rational, though desperate, decision in order to avoid hundreds of thousands of American and civilian deaths in typical bloody ground war. This name change makes the category much more objective. See also: Mass murder#Mass murder by a state where it states: "Mass killing of civilians during total war, especially via strategic bombing, such as the Blitz, the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg, or the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." It goes on, and merits further reading.--Timeshifter (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. I like "Category:Civilian mass killings". A bot could go through all the relevant categories and images and replace Category:Massacres in... with Category:Civilian mass killings in... for all the country categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian and non-combatant are not the same thing. For example Mercenaries are civilians, and POWs are non-combatants. The laws of war differ at different times and it seems to me that you are trying to include lawful and unlawful killings in the same category. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. Maybe use Category:Non-combatant mass killings. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly this category shows some POV and poor definition. Although there a are a few massacres that can truly be called as such, many others are only opinions. A better name would be Category: Historical and alleged massacres, which would be NPOV since we only noting the opinion and not making it. Otherwise delete.Bless sins (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Category: Alleged massacres with subcategories for Massacres alleged by Western nations and Massacres alleged by non-Western nations. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. This is the correct name for the extensive contents of this cateogry and its many subcats. See Wiktionary:massacre. The presented alternatives are much, much worse. Hmains (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Wiktionary:massacre: "...contrary to the usages of civilized people." This is problematic because it is inherently political, and not objective. Firebombing was done by civilized nations such as the US and the UK. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really it is a International Humanitarian legal term and is used in the Martens Clause of the 1907 Hague Conventions --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read various articles on the various conventions, and the "laws of war," and it seems that they have gone through many changes, and many disagreements. There has rarely been unanimous agreement. I did not see the word "massacre" in the article you linked to, but I will take your word that it is in the actual text of the Martens Clause of the 1907 Hague Conventions. I have noted various changes in how the various conventions viewed the bombing of civilian areas of cities. At times a few gun emplacements in any part of a city was considered justification to obliterate any or all parts of a city. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Terror bombing#International law in 1945. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the word massacre but the phrase "usages of civilized people". Things done in war my be unpleasant but most are within the "usages established among civilized peoples". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is still subject to various interpretations over time. Just like the meaning of "massacre." --Timeshifter (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another solution. I now see that "massacre" in common usage is not always the same as the Wiktionary definition. See http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Amassacre and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/massacre

A common meaning is the killing of a lot of people. This includes massacres between combatants. Maybe we could pick the common meaning we prefer, and specify in Category:Massacres which meaning that wikipedia will use in categories. We have done similar things for other categories. It doesn't make sense in my opinion to clutter up the category with massacres of combatants. That would mean thousands of battles could be so categorized. I prefer the common meaning concerning the killing of non-combatants. This way we keep the common word "massacre" but we use it precisely. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination) and note the strong differences of opinion about the word massacre. See my comment "Like terrorism (see WP:TERRORIST) it is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to the actions one's enemies and opponents. For example it was Protestants and not Catholics that labelled the the killing of Huguenots the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre -- The first recorded usages of the word." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we have kept Category:Terrorism. So it seems we can keep Category:Massacres or Category:Mass killings of non-combatants or something similar. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something. Otherwise articles like Saturday Night Massacre could be mistakenly added merely because they have that word in the title. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Libcub (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright... per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Subjective inclusion criterion. Whether an event was a "massacre" or not is often subjective, it depends on one's political view point. Even renaming with a euphamism will not resolve the arguments and edit wars over whether to include or exclude an article. Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-combatant mass killing" is not a euphemism. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Folantin. Massacres are not all Civilian massacres. There are prisoner of war massacre, school massacres, historic massacres, massacres of a certain civil war. This is very important category to keep. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the massacres you mention are of non-combatants. POWs are non-combatants at the time they are massacred. See also Hors de combat. I quote it: Kurt Vonnegut describes himself as an 'hors de combat' on the title page of his famous anti-war novel, Slaughterhouse Five. "...who, as an American Infantry Scout hors de combat, as a prisoner of war, witnessed the fire bombing of Dresden, ..." --Timeshifter (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Folantin. This is a very important cat to keep Massacres are of different types .All of them should cat together .Hence should be kept.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "Massacre" is a neutrally-defined legal term that describes the indiscriminate killing of groups of people by other groups, whether civilian or military, typically using small-arms weaponry or the tools of infantry (i.e. -- tanks, automatic weapons flame-throwers, etc). It is distinct from "mass murder", which can involve such things as atomic weaponry, firebombing, poison gas, or other forms of industrialized slaughter, and also distinct from "Civilian Killings", which implies the murder of civilians by agents of the military or police. Massacres are generally specific incidents involving specific, local groups. "Civilian Killings", "Mass Murders", and so on all are not. The proposed changes all, therefore, imply a fundamental shift in the list content, while the nominations for deletion all clearly neglect the long-standing legal and ethical usage of this term. As yet, there are no substantive arguments for changing it. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one looks at Category:Massacres one sees that all the items listed are massacres of non-combatatants. At least all the ones I have checked so far. Large and small massacres are listed. Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is listed under Category:Massacres in Japan. The Category:Nanking Massacre is categorized under Category:Massacres in China. No fundamental shift is being asked for. Only clarity and objectivity in how the category is named and/or defined is being asked for, as far as I can see. There is no Category:Mass murder. There is Category:Mass murderers. Its introductory text defines it thusly: "The following lists individuals who have committed mass murder, defined as the killing of four or more people in a single incident. This category is not to be used for terrorists, or for those who carried out massacres in service of a state. For people who have committed multiple separate murders over a period of time see Category:Serial killers." We need some better introductory text for Category:Massacres. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In wikipedia we say what others say. This is the whole point. If an article is defined as Massacre, then it is a massacre. I do not see how "Massacre" is a POV word. A word such as Slaughter, which can be interchanged with massacre, is what can clearly be defined as a POV word. However, massacre is the more neutral word and that is why it is used in wikipedia. People believe that Human is a sexist word but we still use human to define ourselves. If there is concern, then we can ask to change the requirement to categorize something massacre but to delete the category which is well defined in English does not seem logical. Watchdogb (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and strong disagreement with the above comment: "wikipedia we say what others say". WRONG. Unless you want categories like Category:Great Satan for the US to be put in, or Category:Workers' paradises for North Korea and the USSR, or Category:Racial inferiors to echo whatever racists one thinks that WP should parrot. We are NPOV and massacre is POV. If we are just categorizing things called "massacres" by others, then its OCAT by coincidence of word choice. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre is not a POV term. It is neutral term that describes an event. A massacre is a massacre when an WP:RS sourc calls it as such in a Verifiable manner. May be per WP:REDFLAG we probably need more than one RS is source to term an event massacre. All this can be discussed in the category talk page and resolve it properly. No need to delete jsut because it does not appeal to someone sensibility. We are creating a politically not correct but neutral, reliable and verifiable encylopedia. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Stone put to sky, the term massacre, while overused, has the specific meaning he suggests, for which there should be a category. Articles which don't belong in that definition could populate a more general category. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could have an overall Category:Mass killing with the subcategories Category:War and Category:Massacres. Massacres category would use its common meaning of the mass killing of non-combatants. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would aid navigation. I do not think that wars are generally viewed as events of "mass killing", and not all wars result in large-scale casualties. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Renaming to Category:Mass killings would make the scope too inclusive, as has been noted. Renaming to Category:Non-combatant mass killings is somewhat better, but here I have a problem with the use "mass killing" to describe events in which, for instance, 4 people are killed (if I'm not mistaken, that's the minimum threshold for "massacre" in the United States). While the concerns regarding the use of the term "massacre" are legitimate, the proposed alternatives also are not without problems. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multiple non-combatant killings might work, but it is not a commonly-used expression. I don't think category names have to be special names, though. "Massacre" is such a controversial and flashy name that I think some people believe that a substitute for it must be equally notable. Most category names are fairly mundane, though. I would be happy though in punting on this one for now and continuing to use Category:Massacres, but defining it clearly in its introduction. I would be even more happy with something like "Category:Multiple non-combatant killings". It grows on you. :-) --Timeshifter (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of objective criteria for membership. "Mass killing" is no better. If somebody thinks of a concrete standard upon which to build a new category in the future, they can weigh the facts of each incident and manually determine whether or not the new category is appropriate for each. Starting from scratch would avoid (accidentally or deliberately) inappropriate re-categorization of the articles in the present category. — CharlotteWebb 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup is no excuse for Delete, jsut roll up your slevees :)) Taprobanus (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A category with an inherently POV title and no objective criteria for inclusion is unsalvageable. — CharlotteWebb 16:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Massacre is a not a POV term, it is a statement of fact describing an event, similar to murder victims, terrorism, arson ... Taprobanus (talk) 16:42, 13 March 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:Tampa Bay Devil Rays coaches[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 15:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tampa Bay Devil Rays coaches to Category:Tampa Bay Rays coaches

Nominator's rationale: I'm also nominating the following mergers:

And another rename:

Category:Tampa Bay Devil Rays seasons to Category:Tampa Bay Rays seasons

The team was renamed this summer, thus a rename of the categories is on order. I don't see any reason to leave the names as the old ones, unless I've missed something; and whilst we do have cats for things like Category:Montreal Expos players that was a relocation not simply a renaming like this. See here for info on the renaming. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 09:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fifth one: Category:Tampa Bay Devil Rays field personnel to Category:Tampa Bay Rays field personnel. ×Meegs 10:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. Nom is right that this situation should be treated distinctly from a franchise moving to another city. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Separate Most of the players that played for the Devil Rays never played for a team by the name of the Tampa Bay Rays. We have separate categories for each successive team name. Players for the Chicago Orphans are listed separately than those of the Chicago Cubs. This has been such for some time and should not be changed in this case. Spanneraol (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate. It is part of the historic record. Kingturtle (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate, as per Spanneraol, who used the same example I was going to use. In fact, the Chicago White Stockings, Colts, Orphans and Cubs are all the same team, but the player categories are different. The LA Dodgers are also the Brooklyn Dodgers, the Bridegrooms, the Grooms, the Robins, and the Superbas, all with different player categories. I could go on and on, the point being that the consensus on WP:Baseball is that a player for the Brooklyn Robins never wore a LA Dodgers uniform, and should not be in the LA Dodgers players category.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is standard protocol in amongst WikiProject Baseball editors. Kingturtle (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate. It's standard to keep them apart. Most players who played, coaches, managers and personnel who played for the Devil Rays have never played for the Rays, and visa versa. --Rabbethan 21:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seperate. Agree with above comments, there are players who have played for the Devil Rays, but never play for the 'Rays' and thus the category is irrelevent for them. --Borgarde^talk 12:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. "Rays" was a common, casual way to refer to the Devil Rays back when they were the Devil Rays. In fact, it was on their 2001-2007 uniforms. There need not be a distinction made between them, and to make such a distinction would be to add clutter and reduce the intuitiveness of the categories. —BorgHunter (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate per the established format by WP:WPBB. Caknuck (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate. No one should be listed as playing for a team he didn't play for.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate Else would have to combine others such as Houston Colt '45s and Houston Astros. Rays is a new name for the team with a new "mascot". No more Devil Ray; we've got sunshine (in a dome no less) :). --Wolfer68 (talk) 08:05, 10 March 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:Lists of films with features in common[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Lists of films by common content. Kbdank71 17:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Lists of films with features in common to Category:Lists of films

Nominator's rationale: The title is ambiguous, in that it is not clear whether the films that are listed or the lists themselves have features in common. I will assume that it is the former, since I can think of no reason for having a category that groups together "lists with features in common". Nonetheless, unless a list is completely indiscriminate and randomly generated, it will be a list of objects that have one or more features in common. Thus, this category does not provide any useful information and its scope encompasses virtually all lists of films. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rename - It's a nice attempt to gather these miscellaneous lists together but alas the miscellaneous nature of the collection of films isn't easily susceptible to "gathering". It's not inconceivable that a better name could be proposed, though. --Lquilter (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename - Nominator cites two concerns. The first is easily dealt with: entries in this category should be lists of films, not individual films. This seems clear enough since only lists currently appear in the category, but a note can be added to the top of the category to make this clearer. The second concern, that the category criterion is all encompassing, is only valid if one dismisses the possibility that editors exercise good judgement. Yes, List of films: A have the common feature that their title begins with A, but editors have not included it in this category. Again maybe we need to add something to the category text that says we are talking about significant thematic or content features, as opposed to credits, awards, etc. But the simple fact that this list does not appear to be abused and contains a sensible, interesting selection is a strong reason not to merge it into a much more dilute list.--agr (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The content distinction is important. Much of the parent Category:Lists of films contains lists of films with similar format, appearance, title, or some external characteristic, which are of a fundamentally different nature than what the films are about. Some of the lists currently in the category do not belong, but there should be enough left to warrant this subcat. –Pomte 18:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have deleted enough of these categories without chasing the lists we have often called for as well! There must be many more out there. Perhaps Rename - maybe Category:Lists of films with common subjects or content. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally like the proposed name, but I'd suggest Category:Lists of films by common subject or content, since Lists of films by... is the formula used in other lists of lists. Also I edited the category's description to reflect this formulation and removed one inappropriate category.--agr (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "common content" may be better than "common subject or content", since list of films with a common subject seems to be the scope of Category:Lists of films by topic. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete - by definition any film on a legitimate list has one or more "features" in common with the other films on the list so this is redundant. Otto4711 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge - either keep or rename or delete. The only reason this category was created was to clean up category Lists of Films, which was in a chaotic state before January 2007. So I did my best to create subcategories and for a while there had been some order. Now I am not active in Films any more, but for the shake of keeping things tidy I would say, please, don't merge all this cruft back under List of Films. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 18:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Hoverfish said. (Preferably keep or rename.) I remember this discussion among the films project people. I see the ambiguity of the grammar now and would agree to Category:Lists of films by common content or Category:Lists of films by common feature. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge there is nothing really logically connecting these. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge blindly per Hoverfish. There are currently 10 articles in the cat, including two which are not lists of films and should just be removed. That leaves 8 lists, only 7 of which need to be categorized (the list of puppet films is in the genre subcat). Let's just go through these 7 and find good options for each of them. Godzilla: don't categorize as a film list, May-December goes to "by topic", post-60's B&W makes sense in both "genre" and "technical issue", and so on. Upmerge what ever is left after we run out of good ideas. Pichpich (talk) 19:36, 10 March 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:Luther's works[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Luther's works to Category:Works by Martin Luther

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use full name and to conform with format of subcategories of Category:Works by author. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. (Terot (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Rename for consistency per nom. --Beloved Freak 20:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Libcub (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Mr. C.C. (talk) 21:33, 7 March 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.