Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 11

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

January 11[edit]

Category:Argentina–Brazil War[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Argentina–Brazil War to Category:Cisplatine War
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Main article was moved to Cisplatine War following a long discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2011 (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:Rest of the World cricket tours abroad[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rest of the World cricket tours abroad to Category:Rest of the World cricket tours
Nominator's rationale: Rename. By definition all Rest of the World tours are abroad. New name is simpler. Tassedethe (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Agree with nomination and to add to it, "tours" provides a second tautology. --Dweller (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I created the category but the proposed name is better than my original.  :-) ----Jack | talk page 17:59, 13 January 2011 (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 Australian leaders by year[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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of Australian leaders by year to Category:Lists of Australian incumbents by year
Nominator's rationale: Rename.

The titles of these categories should reflect the titles of the articles they contain; the term "incumbents" is used in the article titles, therefore it should also be used in the category titles. Neelix (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Incumbents" is much, much too vague. I would leave the categories alone and rename the lists. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – these are nationality subcats of Category:Lists of leaders by year, itself a subcat scheme not for the obvious Category:Lists of leaders but (oddly) for Category:Lists of office-holders. It's easy enough to think of modern incumbents (or indeed office-holders) who are hardly leaders, eg the Poet Laureate. Anyway, I don't think throwing incumbents into this confusion is a good idea. Occuli (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mattinbgn. Incumbents is too vague, and leaders is better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- In England an incumbent is an Anglican clergyman holding a benefice. Instead rename the "incumbent" subcategories to "leaders" or "office holders". However, I am far from clear as to the merit if the underlying articles, which appear to show who held what office in each year, except that the English ones appear only exist for 1510-1519. For later English periods, there is a well-developed scheme categorising ministries by name (usually based on that of the Prime Minister). This is a much more satisfactory list tool than the present tree. In my opinion we might conveniently fell the whole tree, articles and all. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2011 (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:Organizations designated as hate groups[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 both. The arguments for deletion made here can be summarized as per WP:OC#OPINION. Ruslik_Zero 19:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the Anti-Defamation League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CAT, "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." By all means, list such organizations in the SPLC article, but do not add this categorization reflecting PoV of one particular non-profit organization to all these articles. Imagine what the articles will look like if every John Doe, who maintains some list, will add categorization based on that list to each listed article. --Vicky Ng (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the ADL category since it was also created today by the same user. Surely the same arguments will apply in either case. Mangoe (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, thank you! --Vicky Ng (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that List of hate groups in the United States which resulted from the discussion above was deleted in June. Mangoe (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I have the beginnings of a list on one of my subpages - anyone's welcome to contribute. In particular, can anyone suggest more groups whose designations we can use? Because SPLC is really the only one that does a comprehensive list, but more can't hurt. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol "demanded." Because God forbid I even suggest that people have an internally consistent theory of editing, instead of just taking the opportunity to snipe at a group that has labeled people they like as hate groups. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both I believe the nominator is in error in applying the "categorizations should generally be uncontroversial," as the Wikipedia is not the entity designating category members as hate groups. While the SPLC's and ADL's designations might be controversial, listing the groups that have been so designated is not. Further, I believe the SPLC and ADL to be sufficiently notable in their own rights that their lists of designated hate groups are also sufficiently notable for entry in the Wikipedia. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Notability is not discussed here. It may or may not be appropriate to include a sourced and attributed reference to the designation in each article currently in this category. The objection discussed here is only to the categorization. My position regarding ADL's designations is the same; I just haven't come across the category. --Vicky Ng (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the information is included in the Wikipedia in some other way -- such as creating List of organizations designated as hate groups by ... pages -- I would have no objections to deleting the category. Would that be a reasonable compromise? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Certainly - at least, as far as SPLC and ADL are concerned. Organizations providing such designations must posses notability in the field. --Vicky Ng (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is shaky ground and we shouldn't lend the SPLC this sort of distinction, they are merely one organization among many. - Haymaker (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you name some more (besides the ADL, we have that) among this "many"? Whatever happens to the category, that would be useful to know - for example, if a list is ever put in article namespace. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete both. This form of categorisation gives WP:UNDUE weight to the perspective of particular organisations. In cases such as this, where a contested value judgement is being applied, WP:WEIGHT requires that we give prominence to each POV in proportion to its presence in the sources; but a category cannot do this because it is incapable of any use other than presence or absence. If we tried to balance this sort of category with a Category:Organizations not designated as hate groups by foo, we'd still be giving the same weight to a variety of assessments who reliability may be different, and whose assessments may be differently weighted. I know that the organisations here have a fair degree of support, but in both cases their viewpoints are widely contested. This sort of labelling should be discussed in the text of an article, and we should not use the categorise system to privilege the assessment of particular named groups. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are also similar categories such as Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government. These are still from notable mainstream sources, and few things are more controversial than the United States government, but there the categories remain. Rather than a simple "hate groups" category, this is a category based on the preeminent hate groups watchlist that documents them, and is a resource regularly sourced by the FBI. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Terrorist designation, unlike these private designations, has legal significance, at least within US jurisdiction. The similarity is only superficial. --Vicky Ng (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify There is considerable debate about the inclusion of some hate groups that the SPLC designates. The journalist Ken Silverstein has remarked that the SPLC "has a habit of casually labeling organizations as 'hate groups.'" Drrll (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact is that the SPLC's classification of hate groups is widely used by news organizations, governmental organizations such as the FBI, and academic researchers. Far from being some "John Doe, who maintains some list", the SPLC list is the single most significant and comprehensive list. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, it's a couple of John Doe's, not one? The fact is, this categorization gives undue weight to a private designation (see discussion of WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT above). Widespread use of SPLC's classifications implies their notability, which is neither questioned nor discussed. They can exist as a list and, with proper wording, may be referenced from the articles about organizations classified as hate groups by SPLC or ADL. There are plenty RS showing that SPLC ratings are controversial, and as such, in the form of a category they violate the part of WP:CAT quoted in the nomination. --Vicky Ng (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually there are very few Reliable Sources suggesting that the SPLC ratings are *controversial. What you do have is a lot of activity on political blogs (not reliable sources) attacking the SPLC, largely because groups they support disagree with their classification as a hate group. Once you look at the mainstream press you find over and over that the SPLC is listed as a source when these hate groups are discussed. The folks at the SPLC wikipedia article have been debating reliable sources for years and the reliable sources challenging the SPLC are very few, not "plenty" as you allege. Even the few criticism from reliable sources are generally related to fund raising -- not the classification of hate groups. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS And despite your denial, your comments about the "John Does' do very much raise the issue of notability and do require others to comment on and rebut. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please do not take my nomination comment out of context. "John Doe", used as a placeholder for the categorization provider, appears in conjunction with "some list" that he maintains, which could be any generic list. For example, there are many sources for movie reviews, but you do not see articles about individual movies in categories like "Movies with Five Star rating according to X", no matter how notable and reliable X is - and that's for a far less controversial categorization! Neither are sites categorized as one of Lonely Planet's top 25, etc. --Vicky Ng (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SPLC. Neutral ADL. The SPLC listing seems to be commonly referenced in the press as distinguishing and non-controversial. I haven't seen common media references to the ADL list but that may be a bias of reading more Southern US publications.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BrownHairedGirl. This is information that should be included in (1) a list article, and (2) each individual article. I object to its inclusion in a category because, although it can be applied objectively—organisations either are or aren't classified in this way—it gives undue weight to the views of one particular organization, and their conclusions are often disputed by others (most notably the organizations in question). The SPLC also only assesses what they consider to be "right-wing" groups, which does give the list a politically biased flavor. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Despite the existence of a Wikipedia "Hate group" article, the entire concept is fraught with subjectivity, and the denotation "hate group" is automatically pejorative and thus biased. One might as well refer to such organizations as "evil groups." Even were one to assume that all such groups were prejudiced against certain "inherent attributes" of others, prejudice and hate are not, properly understood, synonymous. The more significant "hate" involved in such a listing, I think, is probably the hatred felt by those who would designate such groups as outcasts from polite society. Neither the ADL or the SPLC should be given the satisfaction. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, what? I'd always thought of the designation hate group as cut and dry. If an organization primarily hates and libels a category of people, then they're a hate group. What you said sounds disturbingly like some old relatives I remember who passed away of old age decades ago, who rationalized their old-timey hatred as somehow a greater traditional right than to be called on it. They demonized people who wanted to end segregation, discrimination, hate crimes, etc., by treating them as social villains. I am disturbed when someone assumes good faith of blatant hate movements while assuming very bad faith of people who promote equality and dignity. For years I'd never heard of the SPLC as being anything but a reliable and reputable source of solid information. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2011 (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:New York City mayoral candidates[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:New York City mayoral candidates to Category:New York City politicians
Nominator's rationale: Merge I have seen the argument elsewhere that candidates for the Presidency of a country are inherently notable and that creating a category to sort candidates is important, but I don't see the Mayorship of New York City being equivalent to the presidency of a nation. TM 20:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (without keeping any redirect). It is well-established that political candidates are NN, unless notable for other reasons. Adopted candidates for NY City mayor are in fact likely already to be notable politicians, but a category like this will attract articles on NN politicians who just might stand. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a major office, and candidacy for the office will usually be a defining characteristic of the candidate. The question of whether an article should exist on an individual candidate is a separate one which should be addressed at AFD; this discussion is about categorising articles which do exist, not about the merits of the articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I agree that NYC mayor is no more or less important than any other big city mayor. As far as I can tell, we only have counterpart categories at Category:Toronto mayoral candidates and Category:Zagreb mayor candidates. So I'd be more inclined to see those deleted than lots of categories for mayoral candidates.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2011 (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:Deaths from motor neurone disease[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: administrative close: this category is currently being discussed at 2011 JAN 1 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Deaths from motor neurone disease to Category:Deaths from motor neuron disease
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. Wiki monde (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki monde (talk • contribs) 17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose First off, the nom doesn't give any rationale as to why the rename should happen, and second, the main article is at Motor neurone disease (IE neurone, not neuron). Lugnuts (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – second off, there is an open cfd on this very category. Occuli (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close as moot, based on existence of duplicate discussion at January 1 as noted by Occuli. Alansohn (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2011 (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:Ice Age[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 both. As of now, there are nine films in the films category, so I think we should keep that for now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ice Age to Category:Ice Age (film series)
Propose renaming Category:Ice Age films to Category:Ice Age (film series) films
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Title is ambiguous. Note that the page Ice Age redirects to Ice age, which is about a generic geological period of temperature reduction. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:31, 11 January 2011 (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:Wikimedia Nepal[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikimedia Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary cat. for one userspace article. This belongs on Meta. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:23, 11 January 2011 (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:Seraskier[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:Seraskers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Seraskier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I have no idea what this category is. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- According to the one article, it appears to be a rank of statesman in the Ottoman Empire. Can we notify the appropriate project (Turkey?)? If correct, it should be possible to populate it, but the single article is little more than a stub, with two red-link categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Turkish wiki has a few in the category tr:Kategori:Seraskerler. Should it be Category:Seraskiers? NB There are both Seraskier and Serasker, so some merging might well be required. Occuli (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment –- It is akin to Field Marshall, the title was afforded to the military leaders of the day. Seraskier is the english spelling, whereas in turkish Serasker is the more generally accepted usage. I was attempting to bring information over from turkish wiki into english and was bogged down in the translation. CKemahli (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 12 January 2011 (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:Indigenous languages of the North American Northwest Coast[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Indigenous languages of the North American Northwest Coast to Category:Indigenous languages of the Pacific Northwest Coast
Nominator's rationale: "North American Northwest Coast" is not most common usage; the norm is "Pacific Northwest Coast" as per both ethnographic terminology and also as per the related ethnography article Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast.Skookum1 (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Common usage (and the top article title) is "Pacific Northwest." This should be reflected in both the category and the list. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Rename, but retain "North American" with Category:Indigenous languages of the North American Pacific Northwest Coast. All the other categories for indigenous languages of N. Am. in Category:Indigenous languages of the Americas and Category:Languages of North America use it for quick series finding and accurate use. The linguistic category precedent 'rules' over the 'geographic-cultural abbreviation without continent' I think. The other cat. titles are long in this series, so this could fit right in there.—Look2See1 t a l k → 06:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Pacific Northwest" has global recognition as a term, so the suggestion that it has to include teh continent is spurious; "American West of North America", "Atlantic Seaboard of North America" etc would be pointless. "Pacific Northwest Coast" was chosen for the ethnography article expressly because the region in question is only the coast, not the Interior; the ethnographic term, originally, was "Northwest Coast" i.e. "peoples of the Northwest Coast", for example, vs "people of the Northwest Plateau" (cf. Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Plateau, which is the corresponding inland article. The title Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast has stood for a very long time, and unchallenged in {{NorthAmNative}}, which is teh "core" wikiproject relating to native culture and languages. there is no reason at all to come up with a cumbersome, and much less common usage, title than the currently already-cumbersome and not-most-common usage title, simply because some "rule" (wikipedia guidelines are only guidelines, not "rules" and are easily overridden by "most common usage" on the one hand and WP:IAR on the other.Skookum1 (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Rename, as per my post above. The "ethnographic term Northwest Coast" alone has no clarity, is it of Africa, California, New Zealand ? Meanwhile "Pacific Northwest" does not have specific "global recognition as a term" - it is used variously for 2 U.S. states only; or 2 states and B.C.; or those 3 and some portion of Alaska's panhandle - no consensus. That is why Category:Indigenous languages of the North American Pacific Northwest Coast has continent clarity for non-locals, non-professionals, and international readers. Examples such as Category:Indigenous languages of the North American eastern woodlands, Category:Indigenous languages of the North American Southeast, and Category:Indigenous languages of the North American Southwest located in Category:Indigenous languages of the Americas demonstrate the "non-regional and non-vernacular" precedent already in use for indigenous languages.—Look2See1 t a l k → 08:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I totally, totally disagree; "Pacific Northwest Coast" is a unique indentifier and unmistakeable for anywhere else on the planet; I looked at he category contents and there is no "Indigenous languages of the South American Central Amazonia", there is only "Indigenous languages of Central Amazonia". You'll tell me that's because "Central Amazonia" is a unique identifier, unmistakeable for anywhere else; I'm telling you the same for "Pacific Northwest Coast". You'll tell me "Indigenous languages of Mexico" is acceptable over "indigenous languages of North American Mexico", because "Mexico" is a unique identifier, ditto with "California" etc. - but "Pacific Northwest" and "Pacific Northwest Coast" are equally unique identifiers, and cannnot be mistaken for anywhere else in Europe, Australia or Africa any other continent; only one continent has a Pacific Northwest, and this is a proper name of a region as well as a locational description. Only when there is a RISK of confusion with another continent is there any reason to add "North American" - I can see it with "eastern woodlands" (sic, as in ethnographic literature that's typically capitazlied, but "Wikipedia knows better" ho-hum) and "North American Plains" (which should jsut be "Great Plains", though granted in Russian that may have a confusing translation to some expanse of Eurasia and the failure of the RM at Talk:Plains Indians is a reminder of how specific to the US that term is. Great Basin and Great Plains are landforms, potentially ocnfusing if translated to other languages "Pacific Northwest" is as unmistakeable as saying "North Atlantic" or "South Pacific".Skookum1 (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per parent article Pacific Northwest. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom In the absence of evidence otherwise "Pacific Northwest" is unambiguous. The term is also in common use, consistent with the name of the article used for the region and more concise. The argument showing the parallel with "Central Amazonia" is very persuasive. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2011 (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 whose family was killed in The Holocaust[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People whose family was killed in The Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category regarding trivia. As tragic as it may be, losing your family in the Holocaust is no different than losing your family in any other way.TM 03:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not at all for the nominator's reasons. How would we define "family"? Immediate family? Some members of immediate family? Entire extended family but not immediate family? Grandparents and great-aunts/uncles? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Much too vague. Almost any European Jew whose family came from Nazi-occupied countries would qualify. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with Category:Holocaust survivors where it is not present. --Vicky Ng (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Roscelese. Far too vague to provide a stable method of categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peterkingiron and Roscelese, given the scope of the Holocaust and the breadth of what "family" can mean. Narrower categories are possible, such as children of Holocaust victims, that would cure the vagueness problem though perhaps be subject to other deletion arguments. The nom's comment is a bit off the mark, and it's probably best to remember that this is still a very emotional subject for many people so be careful how you phrase things. postdlf (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too vague. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, as this category takes things a bit too far. IZAK (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2011 (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:Online companies[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. Some reorganization of articles may be necessary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Online companies to Category:Internet based companies
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I believe that this rename makes the purpose of the category clearer. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would favour anything which distinguishes between companies which sell goods and services on the internet and companies which support the delivery of the internet (although such companies invariably also sell their services on the internet). The present name at least categorizes the former without catching the latter. The problem is more in Category:Internet companies, which is a mix of both. I'm not sure that the proposed change would reduce the confusion here. --Mhockey (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See, I wonder why we need Category:Online companies to wrap around Category:Online retailers since everything in the larger category is retailing a service or product. (Arguably, the only exception is Category:Online dating which could be moved under Category:Social network services.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the online retailers sell goods to consumers. That does not apply to Category:Online brokerages or Category:Online insurance companies - it would be a stretch to call them online retailers. And Online dating (which makes its money from selling its dating services) is different from social network services, which make their money from advertising. --Mhockey (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is needed as a parent for various other categories, but purge by transferring articles into appropriate sub-categories. For instance Amazon.com is a retailer, though it also hosts a marketplace. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2011 (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:Articles on deletion review[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Articles on deletion review to Category:Wikipedia pages that are the subjects of deletion reviews
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is populated by a template that serves all namespaces, not just articles, and the category should be renamed to reflect its actual scope. Bsherr (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be inaccurate. It's the deletion process decision, not the page, that's under discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could add the implied "that are", if that addresses your concern. Either is grammatically correct. --Bsherr (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia pages that are the subjects of deletion reviews reads better to me. I assume present tense is intended (at the DRV close, the page is removed from the category?). Why "deletion reviews" plural? If it is only for current discussions, it should usually, if not always, be singular? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, present only; the category is populated by Template:Delrev. My take is that plural is correct to distinguish that the contents of the category are each the subject of a deletion review, as opposed to the contents of the category being the subject of a single deletion review. --Bsherr (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If name length is a problem, why not Category:Wikipedia pages currently undergoing deletion review? Or even simply Category:Wikipedia pages currently in deletion review? Grutness...wha? 00:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because, again, that would be inaccurate. It's the deletion process discussion for the page that's under review, not the page itself. Saying "subjects of" doesn't fully communicate this, but it's better than further omission. --Bsherr (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting note: There seems to be agreement that a rename is a good idea, but there has been difficulty in agreeing to the new name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Category:Pages subject to Deletion Review. The category name should be short. We do not like "current" categories, but since this is populated by the template, it presumably only has current entries. The closing reviewer will presumably remove or replace the category on closing the Delrev, if the removal of the template dies not depopulate it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Subject to" is also problematic, because, while it can be used to connotate "subject of", it is far more often used to connotate subjectability. Also, while we don't like "current" categories for content categories, we do like tracking categories for project categories, an that's what this is. Also again, we don't capitalize the names of processes on Wikipedia, so deletion review should be lower case. And lastly, Wikipedia should probably precede the category name to designate the category a project category. --Bsherr (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2011 (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/2011_January_11&oldid=1138395062"