Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 31 June 2 >

June 1[edit]

Category:Politicians arrested and charges with corruption[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Politicians arrested and charges with corruption (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We usually don't categorize people by arrest or criminal charge unless they are convicted of an offence. (An exception to this is those who are acquitted of particularly serious charges, as in Category:People acquitted of murder.) This category allows politicians who were arrested and charged with corruption but subsequently acquitted to be categorized with those who were subsequently convicted, which is somewhat problematic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Rename I am not going to opine on the deletion, but if kept, the category needs to be renamed to Category:Politicians arrested and charged with corruption per grammer.Curb Chain (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need "arrested and"? Aren't all people who are charged arrested?Curb Chain (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Check the category talk page for discussion about the difference between "charged", "arrested", and "convicted". It is not certain which of these may be appropriate, if any. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I concur with Good Ol'factory; the overlap of two radically different groups of people is a problem in that it imputes improper behavior on some who don't deserve it. Furthermore, in general, "corruption" isn't actually a legal charge. The press tends to categorize a large variety of offenses as "corruption" (from fraud, to depriving the government of money, to theft, and sometimes even to things like murder if related to a larger scandal). That is, calling any given charge a "corruption charge" can be a POV matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominator said that is it atypical to categorize people by arrest or criminal charge without a conviction, but I would ask that people be sensitive to the peculiarities of Indian and Pakistani culture, which is the ultimate target for this list and all current members of this category. South Asia has a history of electing unconvicted people accused of being involved in corruption. Here is a recent article about this and there are many more.
I would like to suggest that it is not appropriate to wait for a conviction in India because people there need to know which politicians are being accused of crimes so that they can make voting and activism decisions. I know this would not be appropriate in a place like America, but for reasons I have trouble articulating, I think this is appropriate for India and I would like that people commenting on this show cultural consideration. Many major politicians in India have historically governed from jail and ultimately not been convicted despite being widely reported in the press to be crime lords with no opposing journalistic press ever defending them or denying the charges.
It is hard for me to explain this all concisely, but a gentleman named Anna Hazare proposed a Jan Lokpal Bill which would combat corruption in India. Some people are viewing this as the biggest political shift in Indian government possibly ever, and it is inciting a huge interest in politicians who have been involved with crime.
An interesting side note is that somehow immediately after this Wikipedia category appeared a major newspaper lifted the category from Wikipedia and put its contents on their website, grammatical problem and all. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, otherwise delete - categories based on arrests, unproven charges or allegations are WP:BLP minefields. With no means of documentation within the category structure it is far too easy to place people in this category as a libelous attack. The supposed need of the people of India to know whether a politician has been accused, charged or convicted of a crime is irrelevant in the face of the BLP issues. Further, Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Anyone in India seeking news on Wikipedia about whether a particular politician has been arrested, accused, charged or otherwise implicated in corruption would be likely to start with the politician's article, in which such charges, accusations, etc. would require reliable third-party sources for inclusion. It is highly unlikely that anyone looking for a particular politician is going to start with this category and even if they did the particular politician may indeed be accused or what-have-you but not yet placed in the category. Anyone seeking this information within Wikipedia has access to the Internet and thus has access to any number of search engines that are better suited to serve as news vehicles for matters of this type. That news outlets are relying on this category as a news source, potentially increasing any BLP violation exponentially, argues for the speedy deletion of this category under criterion G10 and I'm going to so tag it. If the speedy is declined then the category should still be deleted and I would suggest emptying it or making it hidden in the interim to limit BLP damage. Harley Hudson (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no BLP damage because no one disputes that these politicians have been charged with corruption and I think all of the politicians in that list have been arrested also. All of these people have been charged with multiple incidents of what many reliable sources call "corruption". BLP does not say avoid saying anything bad; it just says make sure negative information is well-sourced, and I do not think anyone is disputing that the info is well-sourced. "Corruption" is not a word generally used by Western media - it is heavily used in Indian media. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a list. It's a category. The two terms are not interchangeable on Wikipedia. Lists are a form of article and entries on lists can be sourced within the list article itself. Categories can't be sourced within the category. BLP applies to categories as much as it does to anything else in mainspace. Harley Hudson (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Speedy was declined with the comment decline speedy - The category itself does not violate WP:BLP, only if it's added to articles incorrectly. In those cases, it should be removed from the articles instead. See WP:BLPCAT). I still believe that this category should be emptied or hidden pending the outcome of this discussion, per WP:BLP. Harley Hudson (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As we have discussed at Category talk:Politicians arrested and charges with corruption, The main purpose for this category is to track politicians and kleptocrats around the world, who are charge sheeted for Political corruption and arrested for the same crime. Such category will also be helpful for readers around the world including from those counters who have not yet singed or ratified The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) such as India[1], Which is world’s largest democracy and most likely world’s largest Kleptocracy also.nytimes,[2] to sort out specific biographies on WP for research. We can make a strong guidelines for this category such as who should be included in and when ect.. but the purpose behind making such category should be taken into consideration while making any comments and judgment.-- . Shlok talk . 06:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not a news media, a knowledge hub. But, I don't think this page is any sort of "Breaking News" type, rather it is focused more on documentation. If Wikipedia can haz teh list of Comic-book super-villains & their "biographies", then what's wrong with enlisting the real-world super-villains, especially who makes the decisions about how we live (or die). Oh yeah, the WP:BLP - it's a bad joke. Perhaps, I do disagree having it as a Category page - it actually makes a good article containing tables with data regarding the nationality of the politicians, charges, arrested or not (if yes, then how many times), charges proved or not, et al. In that case this page has to be deleted (or redirected) and I propose the article title as List of Politicians with corruption charges. And I do believe, this page later is going to be sub-divided among many national pages (i.e. "List of Politicians with corruption charges in India") - which is good. – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 03:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When there can be categories relating to people who have taken part in certain events like say CWG 2010, why NOT for those who have been criminally charged? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say Delete partly because I don't understand the category - even after reading the talk page. Is it just for people who are in the process of being charged? (I can think of dozens of politicians who have been charged and later convicted or acquitted, who are not on the list.) If they later get convicted or acquitted, are they supposed to get moved to a different category? Also, does "politicians" include only people actively serving, or does it also allow for former office holders? (I note that Rod Blagojevich is there, so presumably retired politicians are included too?) Also, is it only for people against whom actual criminal charges have been filed, or does it also include people accused of corruption by the press or by other politicians? And as pointed out above, what is corruption? Is it just malfeasance in office, or does it also count people accused of campaign violations or vote fraud? How about assault or stalking or drunk driving? All in all I think it is impossible to get a tight definition of who does and does not belong in this category and for that reason alone it should be deleted. That's not even considering the BLP issue; I assume no one would be listed in this category without Reliable Source confirmation of the fact that they are charged. Even then, I doubt if Wiki's systems are strong enough to ensure that everyone eventually acquitted gets deleted from the category (if that's what is supposed to happen). One other question: was it the intent of the page creators to list only Indian or Pakistani politicians? --MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If someone commits a crime and a sufficient number of reliable sources describe the particular crime as "corruption," then the crime is "corruption." If a person commits a series of crimes which many people would call corruption, but which reliable sources are not calling corruption, then the crime is not corruption. This system will cause problems in some places but not in others; particularly in India, the media is quick to call a certain set of crimes as corruption. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- Comment - As I have said above that, the main purpose for this category is to track the politicians around the world who use legislated powers for illegitimate private gain, and who are charge sheeted in a court of law for such Political corruption and arrested for the same crime. Individuals who at list ones in his or her life charge sheeted and arrested for Political corruption. such as bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement etc.. I have halted (myself) to add names in since category under considered for deletion and the discussion is ongoing. This category will not include people accused of corruption by the press or by other politicians ect.. Individuals who are charge sheeted with actual criminal charges in a court of law and arrested will only be included. If some Individual eventually acquitted but the fact of the mater remains that he or she ones (or many times) in his or her life arrested and charge sheeted for corruption and for that reason no question arises of removing this category from the article.-- . Shlok talk . 06:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shlok, I understand your passion about this, but I am striking out your "Strong Keep" !vote above. You only get to !vote once. You can comment as much and as often as you like - just don't preface it with another !vote. In response to your comments, I can see that YOU have a clear understanding of what you want this category to be, but there are thousands of active editors here - and they may not all understand or follow your guidelines. I think this category could become a real mess. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Strong Keep- Do you want to make a point that all of these thousands of active editors here on WP do understands and always follow all WP guidelines? If that is true then making clear-cut, guidelines will be in enough for this category to go ahead. Regarding my voting (as you correctly pointed out ), I would like to clarify what it was not my intention to vote again.-- . Shlok talk . 15:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with nom's "We usually don't categorize people by arrest or criminal charge unless they are convicted of an offence". Additionally, a category like this strikes me as very vague and potentially susceptable to all sorts of WP:BLP concerns. As a sidenote, I don't know why, but I was invited to comment here. NickCT (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd have no issues with "convicted" or even "acquitted" as a category, but simply charged/arrested? It strikes me as too ripe for BLP issues. As a single example, consider the effect of putting people who were charged but later found demonstrably innocent in this category, the charge and arrest without any indication of the acquittal participates in harm to the subject. The nom has it right. I note further that I was also invited here. --joe deckertalk to me 17:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In my culture accusations, arrests, and/or charges of a crime do not equate guilt. I also don't understand the argument that a populace needs to know who has been accused of a crime before they can choose who to elect. The only thing that matters is who has been convicted of a crime. I have also come to this discussion at the invitation of User:Sachinvenga, whose signature is shown as . Shlok --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was invited to comment and I agree with nom, there is no reason for this category, an arrest is not as important as a conviction or acquittal. Soxwon (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say Delete because an arrest does not mean guilt. This category puts these individuals under the assumption that they are guilty before proven, which is unencyclopediac. SOXROX (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, innocent until proven guilty. A senior and experienced independent Wikipedian even removed the category of "fraudsters" from a convicted fraudster who requested this on the grounds that he had lodged an appeal (the appeal status from 2008 remains "pending"). If collating this info for India, Pakistan or others can be justified, then do it by making lists. - Fayenatic (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I see more arguments about saying, "We usually don't… “Seems to me that we as a Wiki’s we just don’t want to think or could not think or will not think beyond what we usually do or what we usually don't do. I would like to ask regarding WP:BLP , are these final guidelines and in no circumstances we can change it?

I think this is a cultural gap in a thought practice within wiki’s from those counters where the judiciary system is quick enough to give a verdict and wikis from those counters where verdict in a court of law takes many years. I think wiki policy of categorizing only those who convicted is more of western country focused and it is not suitable for global views.- . Shlok talk . 06:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There could be many reasons that we usually do what we usually do, but typically it's a direct result of following guidelines. As a side benefit, it almost always makes good sense to follow the guidelines in a given case. Guidelines don't have to be followed in every instance, and there will always be exceptions, but I think a key point is that there has to be really persuasive reasons to make an exception. It helps us know that there is a persuasive reason when there is a consensus that an exception to a guideline should be made. I don't really see any very good reasons for an exception in this case, especially given the sensitivity of BLP concerns. A further factor against making an exception is that BLP is a policy, not merely a guideline, so once BLP issues are involved it is much more difficult to justify an exception to what is usually done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – No violation of WP:BLP in this case as speedy was declined with the comment decline speedy - The category itself does not violate WP:BLP, only if it's added to articles incorrectly. In those cases, it should be removed from the articles instead. Regarding guidelines for this Category, I have already said that we can make clear-cut, guidelines ( see above ).-- . Shlok talk . 13:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not the category itself violates BLP (and I disagree with the declination of speedy) application of the category does raise BLP concerns. Saying that someone has been arrested or charged with a crime is extremely serious and if the category were applied to an innocent person it's actionable libel. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- When the category says “arrested and charges sheeted” why we are thinking that readers will assume that the person is guilty also?-- . Shlok talk . 06:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- If needed we can rename this to- “Politicians Indicted and arrested for corruption”.-- . Shlok talk . 07:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Regarding making this as a list then kindly let me know should we make a see also link in the article to the list and also enlighten me why only Politicians from India or Pakistan should be included in the list. Why not a global list.-- . Shlok talk . 13:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not advise adding a link from biographies to such a list, except for cases where the indictment was a defining characteristic of the individual's life. In a List, you can add details and citations for this. As for why only certain countries: refer to the arguments above from Blue Raspberry and Shlok (yourself) that South Asia is different from (say) America due to the slow process of justice. There may of course be further countries where this also applies. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main purpose for this category or list is to locate politicians and kleptocrats around the world who are Indicted and/or arrested or convicted for corruption. So that readers, researchers around the world can locate all such (notable) politicians easily, and can read, study theses unknown biographies around the globe including countries that have swifter justice. Regarding defining characteristic- If an individual indicted and/or arrested for corruption, it is always a defining characteristic of that individual's life especially for politicians as a low maker, who makes the decisions about how we live (or die). For this reason we need to add See also link to this list in all such biographies of corrupt politicians -- . Shlok talk . 15:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As previously advised, that's not going to happen on Wikipedia because of the BLP policy. Being arrested is not defining for those who were acquitted or for whom the charges were dropped. There are various magazines and blogs which would assist instead with such a line of research; Category:Government oversight and watchdog organizations may provide some useful suggestions. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if we make two list articles one for those who acquitted or charges are dropped. Second list article for those who indicted arrested convicted and sentenced. Both list articles with a clear lead section and table with data regarding the nationality of the politicians, charges, arrested or not (if yes, then how many times), charges proved or not or pending, if yes what punishment did they get etc... ( as suggested by user Deblopper above) Then we will add See also link in biographies to one of the two list articles (to which it belongs to), and See also in both list for each other. I think this will fulfill the purpose of this whole exercise.-- . Shlok talk . 18:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to a list for aquittals or dropped charges, for reasons already given. A list of those with pending charges might be possible. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both precedent and our BLP policy makes this a pretty straightforward example of a no-starter, imo. I can't think of a single instance where we've retained a category for people simply charged with an offence. Can anyone offer an example? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shlok, I'm not following you. On the one hand you are saying that it's culturally insensitive for us to insist on the "innocent until proven guilty" idea, that that is a Western idea and we should appreciate that other cultures have a different concept of justice. Then on the other hand, when we suggest a country-specific list to accommodate those cultural differences, you insist that you want this list/category to be worldwide. From the tendency of discussion here I don't think this category is going to survive, certainly not as a worldwide thing - but that lists would be possible, especially if they are specific to individual countries to allow for differences in culture. --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 9 June 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:Idiopathic diseases[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Idiopathic diseases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Impossible to maintain, as no consensus in a large proportion of cases (the creator included Stevens-Johnson syndrome, the cause is usually infections or drugs and therefore certainly not idiopathic). Not helpful for any reader. JFW | T@lk 21:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. All the listed articles say they are idiopathic, either in the name of the syndrome or disease, or in the article. If the article is wrong then fix the article. We do not delete the category "New Jersey people" when the article says he was born in New Jersey and raised in New York, we add that person to both categories. Since there is a finite number of diseases and a subset of those that are idiopathic, "impossible to maintain" just seems silly compared to say, Category:2011 deaths, with thousands of entries that need to verified. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're wrong. There are 100s of diseases that are regarded as idiopathic but don't have "idiopathic" in their name. I tried to explain that a lot of diseases are partially understood, and placing them in this category is probably wrong. This category really does not serve a purpose. JFW | T@lk 06:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously what is at one point unknown often eventually becomes known, but there needs to be a place to put diseases that are not known to be caused by any of the usual ascribable causes. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It's not just that some disease process aren't well understood; this isn't just a medical way of saying "GOK" (God only knows). In fact the term "idiopathic" is a part of the name of some diseases, such as idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), which I just added to the category. This is a useful and medically well grounded category. --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum I would also support a merger with the category "Ailments of unknown etiology" as suggested by JFWbelow - with the preferred name being "idiopathic conditions". --MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some diseases are fully idiopathic such as Bell's palsy and Idiopathic intracranial hypertension as the idiopathic component is part of the definition. Some diseases there is a tentative understanding of the cause like migraines. All diseases are sometimes idiopathic (ie this episode of the disease is off unknown cause). Therefore I agree with JFW this will not really be a useful category.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just noticed that there is already a category called "Category:Ailments of unknown etiology". Admittedly that is a mouthful (medical students used to satirize medical jargon by referring to a Fever of Unknown Origin (FUO) as "pyrexia of indeterminate etiology" or PIE). But it it is an existing and apparently stable/unchallenged category. It seems to me that these are overlapping or duplicative categories. Maybe the current category should be deleted, and the articles listed in it should instead be listed in the existing category? Pity there is no way to redirect a category, because I personally think this name is better. --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly oppose the use of the term "ailment", which is not value-neutral. If anything, the categories should be merged under the name "idiopathic diseases" or "idiopathic conditions". Looking at the multiple keep votes, I would support a merge as the closing decision. JFW | T@lk 09:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guess who created "Category:Ailments of unknown etiology? A certain user called Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). I see a pattern. It looks like many other language Wikipedias have a similar category. JFW | T@lk 10:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put a comment on Richard Arthur Norton's talk page suggesting he weigh in on this discussion since he created both categories. I would be interested in his input and I suggest this discussion not be closed until he has been given a reasonable time to comment. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining characteristic of the diseases and conditions included in the category that allows readers to effectively navigate through these articles. I agree that there should be pruning, as needed, to exclude articles that don't belong here, though the fact that there are questions about some articles has no relevance to the decision to retain the category. Alansohn (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename... - there seems to be movement towards a (partly grudging) consensus to merge, but reasons against both names. How about Category:Idiopathic diseases and disorders, or Category:Diseases and disorders of unknown etiology? (By the way, MelanieN, it is possible to redirect categories, but this is only used in limited situations.) - Fayenatic (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who argued against "idiopathic conditions"? That's the most value-neutral term. "Diseases and disorders" is similar to "ailments" (which JFW objected to as non-neutral). --MelanieN (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of Doc James' comments; but on reflection, those also apply to "...of unknown etiology". I suggested the longer "Diseases and disorders" rather than "conditions" to follow the head category Category:Diseases and disorders. However, if "Category:Idiopathic conditions" satisfies most of the medical professionals, it's certainly concise, which is also desirable. The head category name was settled at CFD in 2008, but to quote from this 2009 CFD, the word "condition" also has the added benefit of being inclusive of other nonpathologic conditions. Expert advice on whether that applies here would be welcome.
As for debatable cases, they could be listed in the article Idiopathic with additional information. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reaction to these categories is they are intended to re-create the lists that were deleted here and here, only without having to bother with all of the pesky sourcing that doomed the lists.
    I do not believe that this is really a useful category. Probably 95% of all mental illnesses could be legitimately described as "unknown etiology", and probably 80% of all cancers, could too. If you include things for which the cause is unknown in at least a minority of patients—and I fully expect someone to take this view—then every single mental illness, every single form of cancer, and the vast majority of non-infectious diseases should be listed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category is grouping things based on that they are unique and not understood. That does not make sense. These diseases have nothing that joins them other than our ignorance of them. What next, Category:countries with unknown populations. This type of category should not exist. WhatamIdoing is right that this category is potentially too large, yet not the defining characteristic of the presented conditions, for it to work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:54, 28 June 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:Science writing[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: Repurpose as proposed below. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Science writing to Category:Scientific literature
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with other sub-categories of Category:Academic literature and several of its own.
Note: I found Science writing as a head category of academic literature, but I have just reversed this relationship.
On reflection I realise that I have populated the category interpreting "science" as the physical sciences to the exclusion of social sciences, but I will stop changing things now pending discussion here.
On further investigation I find that category:Scientific literature was emptied and redirected to Academic literature in 2009, following discussions on a user talk page: User talk:Crusio/Archive 3#Journals/magazines categories followed by User talk:Crusio/Archive 3#Journal/magazine plan.
Back in 2007 there was a whole category structure under category:Scientific literature, mentioned at CFD here, but it's probably better just to consider it afresh rather than figure out all the history. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divide, into the two categories As I understand it, Scientific literature is the literature of science as written by professional scientists for other scientists: it comprises academic journals and the like. Science writing is writing about science, by scientists, science journalists, and popularizers; it comprises popular books, and newspaper and magazine articles. (It also means the technique of writing about science, either by amateurs or professionals) There is very little overlap in most fields now. The majority of the material in the present category belongs in Scientific literature. The earlier merge into academic literature was an error in my opinion. (Popularized non-science academic literature has no special name, except non-ficition. Academic writing is the technique of writing in an academic style or about academic subjects. Academic literature is the broadest category, and comprises a number of areas, science (the mathematical & natural sciences, which in turn includes the biological sciences and the physical sciences), social science, the humanities, engineering, agriculture, and medicine. Some subjects are indeterminate, and that was the basis for the lumping into "academic literature". Psychology can be regarded as either science or social science; history can be regarded as either a social science or one of the humanities. People have spent a great deal of time in various venues in the RW discussing this: imo, they usually have an agenda--for example, that psychology should become more like a natural science, or that history can be written without personal subjectivity. As far as practical matters in Wikipedia are concerned, I think what we must do in such circumstances is list the material twice, as we are not likely to be able to settle such issues. What the situation may be in any particular university or in a library classification is a matter of historical accident & should be no precedent here. --the organization of libraries and universities tends to be a few centuries behind, modified slightly by current fashion. (Use in other languages is different: the German Wissenschaft is a good example: it comprises the humanities as well as the sciences. Philosophy, for example, is one of the Wissenschaften; it is not one of the sciences.) When I first came to Wikipedia, I spent a good deal of time trying to get this section of things organized, but I stopped because of the growing feeling that even if I convinced everyone of my views, it would make very little difference. . As a librarian, I am supposed to understand classification, but I regard it as a convenient tool for arranging work, not a reflection of reality. Given a physical book, it must be put in one place or another, but this does not apply to electronic content. That's my opinion, but any other opinion is just as good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • I agree with DGG. The "Science writing" cat should contain articles about science writers associations and such and contain articles about writing about science, but not the writing of academic articles and books. So taking the entries under "A" as an example, "Astronomy data and publications" does not belong here, but "Science communication awards" does. As for "Scientific literature", for practical reasons, I would redirect that to "Academic literature". "Academic journals" are subdivided into 5 main categories (Humanities, Multidisciplinary, Public health, Scientific, and Social science journals), but I think it would make things too complicated to subdivide "academic literature" in a similar way. This way, our "academic writing" would come closest to the German concept of "Wissenschaft" (and our Dutch "Wetenschap"... :-) All the "Foo literature" cats should thus go into "Academic literature", all "Foo writers" cats should stay (or go) into the "Science writing" cat. I would also strongly suggest that "Foo writers" should only contain authors writing non-technical stuff (popularizing, as opposed to academic articles/books). All academics publish, so if we would include people that only write academic articles/books, then the writers cats would mostly parallel the cats of academics. (Of course, some people -like Stephen Hawking- would fall into both). --Crusio (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: so how about making Scientific literature hold the academic stuff, as a sub-category of both Science writing and of Academic literature? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if no further contributions are made, this CFD may as well be closed as "no consensus", and I'll repurpose both categories as indicated above. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:52, 6 June 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:Shopping malls established in 1999[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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1999 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1999
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1980 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1980
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1981 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1981
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1982 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1982
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1983 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1983
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1984 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1984
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1985 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1985
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1986 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1986
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1987 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1987
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1988 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1988
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1989 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1989
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1990 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1990
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1991 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1991
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1992 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1992
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1993 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1993
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1994 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1994
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1995 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1995
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1996 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1996
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1997 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1997
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 1998 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 1998
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 2000 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 2000
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 2001 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 2001
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 2002 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 2002
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 2003 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 2003
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 2004 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 2004
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 2005 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 2005
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 2006 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 2006
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 2007 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 2007
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 2008 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 2008
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 2009 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 2009
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 2010 to Category:Shopping malls completed in 2010
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm bring this here to see if there is some consensus before I list all of these. Malls are really buildings or structures and not establishments. So these need to be moved to the buildings and structures tree. If this is done, it would mean adding some new parent categories and changing the navigation template. Right now I don't see where these malls show up in the buildings and structures tree unless an editor has added a specific category to an article. Of the few I have looked at, they are lacking a category like that. While some malls are in repurposed building, I don't see that as a major problem since the building generally have a large remodel at this time, so saying the building was completed is not really incorrect. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Malls are quite clearly both buildings and establishments. They are usually owned, managed and designed by some central authority. Both categories would make sense but if we have to choose, I prefer the current one. Suppose for instance that the building was completed in November 2010 and that the mall opened in January 2011. I would find the latter date more significant for the mall's history. Pichpich (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Malls and other buildings are more notable for when they were first open to public then when they wer finally completed. SOXROX (talk) 19:12, 6 June 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:Medical-themed films[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 merge, clarify purposes. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Medical-themed films to Category:Films about health care
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Categories have the same scope, and the name of the target category is more consistent with others. Fayenatic (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the nominated cat was created by renaming after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 25#Category:Films with a medical theme. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: one has been categorised as a genre and one as a topic, but IMHO there is only a topic there, not a genre, so only one cat is needed. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment but medical torture or autopsy films are not about health care... 65.94.47.217 (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Probably not the best solution because as the IP said, not all medical movies are SPECIFICALLY about health care. SOXROX (talk) 19:14, 6 June 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:Submarines of the Reichsmarine[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Submarines of the Reichsmarine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The Reichsmarine was renamed Kriegsmarine on 21 May 1935, the first German post-WWI submarine U1 was launched on 15 June 1935. The category name does not make sense, as the Reichsmarine never had any submarines. FJS15 (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep" Using your example, according to the article U-1 (1935) "her keel [was] laid on 11 February 1935", so even though not yet launched, the U-boat was constructed during the Reichsmarine era. 72.181.4.105 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my ID it says "Date of Birth" not "Date of Conception". So its either the date of launching or the date of commissioning, that should apply, not the date of ordering. On neither day the "Reichsmarine" was around. --FJS15 (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside any political debates over life beginning at conception or at birth, I'm guessing that your parents didn't leave an extensive paper trail of designs, contracts, materials acquisitions, etc., in relation to your birth? Regardless, the submarine was designed, planned, and constRuction was begun—and let me emphasize it here in italics—while that German navy was still the Reichsmarine. 72.181.4.105 (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I got my birth certificate ... Anyhow, if we decide to argue along these lines, how come the "Reichsmarine" was constructing submarines when it was still legally bound by the Versailles Treaty. One might argue, that it was nothing else but the "Imperial Navy" of old. But I get carried away. Simply put, if we have categories for launching (XXXX ships) and lists of ships by commissioning, why don't we have anything according to ordering? If that would really mean anything, why is Category:VII U-boats not sorted in this category? The question I am asking is: What date is considered the "birthday" of a ship, i.e. the point of time it becomes a thing rather than a "project"? --FJS15 (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep In general we should consider things specific to given period by the name they had at the time in the organizational structure of the time DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point! In the description on the category page it says "This category is for submarines commissioned or otherwise operated by the Reichsmarine." These submarines were neither commissioned nor operated by the Reichsmarine, as it changed its name before any of these U-boats were operational or commissioned. --FJS15 (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC) P.S. Submarines designed or built in Germany are to be put in Category:Submarines of Germany.--FJS15 (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a tricky situation but I think it's misleading to have a category suggesting that the Reichsmarine ever "had" any submarines. For instance, Category:Type II U-boats is a subcategory but half of these subs were not even ordered by the Reichsmarine while the other half were ordered just a few weeks before the rename. I would also argue that the May 1935 date is somewhat artificial: despite the 1933-1935 period, most people (correctly) associate the Reichsmarine with the Weimar Republic and the Kriegsmarine with the Nazi era. The precise date of the rename is less meaningful than the change in leadership which, among other things, led to the decision to build submarines in violation of the Versailles Treaty. Technically speaking, this happened under the Reichsmarine era but that's just an accident of history. Had Hitler not renamed the German military, we'd probably have separate categories for the Weimar Republic Navy and the Nazi Era Navy and there would clearly be no submarines category for the former. Pichpich (talk) 13:16, 3 June 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:Serie A (basketball) by season[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Serie A (basketball) by season to Category:Lega Basket Serie A by season
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent (Category:Lega Basket Serie A) and main article (Lega Basket Serie A). Dale Arnett (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Definitely reasonable. SOXROX (talk) 19:16, 6 June 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:Wayward pinnipeds[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wayward pinnipeds to Category:Wayward seals and sea lions
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per a recent discussion that resulted in the rename of the parent category from "pinnipeds" to "seals and sea lions". Same reasoning applies. Harley Hudson (talk) 06:10, 1 June 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:Solicitors General of the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Solicitors General of the United States to Category:United States Solicitors General
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match United States Solicitor General. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 1 June 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.

DEA list of chemicals[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. postdlf (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:DEA List I chemicals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:DEA List II chemicals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories are applied to chemicals that are on the DEA lists of chemicals. This is an inappropriately U.S.-centric form of categorization. Many other jurisdictions may compile similar lists, but we don't categorize the chemicals by appearance on these drug lists. See a similar nomination here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Best served by the list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NPOV and not useful.Curb Chain (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make similar classifications for other countries. These are relevant groups for a large segment of the world. Similarly on the other example also. Just as we include the information, we can include the category. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this seems an example where a list is better way to identify these drugs as it is well defined and finite. Assuming a DAE list is significant, the individual pages should carry a x-ref to the list. In addition, the term DEA is ambiguous. Ephebi (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - presumably many countries that restrict drugs do so according to some sort of sorting or naming scheme. It is not helpful to have masses of categories on drug articles for which country restricts them according to what scheme and name. List the restrictions in a section on the drug articles and if desired make lists of drugs by country or agency and cross-link as needed. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need for every country to be added to controlled chemicals articles for whatever categorization they fall under in those jurisdictions. 184.144.168.112 (talk) 07:30, 5 June 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_June_1&oldid=1140255932"