Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 30
April 1 >

March 31[edit]

Category:Michelin Guide[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Michelin Guide to Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants and chefs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Michelin Guide to Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants and chefs
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Listing award winners in the category for the travel guide is misleading. From the category introduction, the suggested rename covers the intended topic. I'm really torn between renaming and deleting so I look forward to what others think about this category. Vegaswikian 23:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Restaurants and (particularly) chefs who win Michelin stars probably also win many other awards (possibly from Zagat or, in the United Kingdom, Time Out). As stated before, categorization by award leads to long lists of categories that will be difficult to read in some articles. Listifying the award winners and adding notes on the awards in the various articles would be more appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 11:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This is the leading award in its field. Wimstead 11:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, could not have said it better than Wimstead. Rgds, - Trident13 12:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and Rename per nom and per Wimstead. This is one of the awards which really is a defining attribute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The starred, as opposed to merely listed, restaurants, are not all that many. The American section in particular will be very short. Johnbod 17:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
additional comment - if length really is a concern, restriction to 2&3 stars would really cut down the numbers. Johnbod 14:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Restaurants by owner[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Restaurants by owner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only had one entry that was moved into two categories that better matched the company. So the category is now empty. As named, the purpose of this category is unclear. Vegaswikian 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Peace activists[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. >Radiant< 11:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Peace activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This brand-new category is redundant: there is already a Category:Anti-war activists, as well as a Category:Pacifists. The articles currently listed in the new category are already listed under one or another subcat of either or both of those categories. Any distinctions between "Peace activist" and "Anti-war activist" are too subtle to be useful in terms of Wikipedia categories. In short, this new category is overkill (sorry, couldn't resist!). Cgingold 23:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,I created the category, I dont have anything against deleting this category, I just thought we needed one, but I do see the resemblance to Category:Anti-war activists category (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - These are good questions, here are my thoughts:
  • Okay, the easiest to define is "anti-war activist" — the term pretty much defines itself: anybody who actively works against warfare in general, or against specific wars. Whether they are using violence is immaterial in terms of falling into the category.
  • Next is "pacifist": there isn't really a universally agreed definition, but in general it denotes someone who holds a personal belief that violence — and especially large-scale violence, as in warfare — is both highly undesirable and morally objectionable, and therefore non-violent means are always preferable. Some (probably most) hold this as an absolute imperative, others may not. Note that this is about belief, so it doesn't require or imply activism (though, of course, many are).
  • Lastly, "peace activist" — This is nearly synonymous with "anti-war activist", but certainly seems to imply the exclusion of violent tactics. It might also refer to somebody who works actively for peace and against war, even when there is no war being fought by their country (or nearby), whereas "anti-war activist" suggests a focus on halting actual wars that are already in progress or about to be launched.
My concern is that the distinctions between the two "types" of activists are too subtle and complex for the average person to grasp. If there were two nearly synonymous categories, there is no realistic prospect that articles would be assigned to one or the other with any consistency. More importantly, even if that could somehow be accomplished, it really would not serve the larger purpose of making Wikipedia truly useful to its readers to have two large but separate groupings of people, when the distinctions between the two groups are so slight. So, either delete "peace activist" entirely (merging the contents as needed into the other categories), or possibly, consider re-naming "anti-war activist" — perhaps "anti-war and peace activists" would get the job done. Cgingold 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We already have a strong categorization system going on under anti-war activists, and we don't need to duplicate it here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You can sort out the categories as you wish, but speaking as someone who has been heavily involved in peace movement and anti-war activities, there actually are differences in some contexts between "peace activist" and "anti-war activist" as used inside the movement. I agree with Cgingold on that "pacifist" is quite distinct and I agree entirely with his definition. But I don't agree on the rest. While the dichotomy is not strict, and I do agree that "peace activist" carries more of a connotation of rejecting violent tactics, in some contexts "peace activist" is broader, and often refers to people who frame the matter in "peace and justice" terms and in terms of building lasting structures that would promote peace.
    For example, with reference to the Middle East, the Geneva Accord people would be called "peace activists" rather than "anti-war activists". Similarly, in the same context one almost always refers "Israeli peace camp" or "Israeli peace movement" (or, internationally, "Jewish peace movement"), not "anti-war" camp/movement.
    Similar distinctions have existed in the U.S. and UK, though I think the vocabulary is less consistent. For example, the peace conversion people would usually be called "peace activists", but could be called "anti-war activists". Also, in some contexts, the "anti-war" movement over a particular war has included active supporters of "the other side": an American who was chanting "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh / NLF is gonna win" during the Vietnam War may have been "anti-war" but was not a "peace activist". Similarly, the wackos of the Workers World Party, who have steadfastly opposed "imperial" wars by the U.S., UK, etc, while often supporting abhorrent regimes such as those of Saddam Hussein or even Kim Jong Il, may be "anti-war activists"—they basically founded ANSWER—but they are not "peace activists". - Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - We are actually very much in agreement in terms of the distinctions you've elaborated, Jmabel. I was aiming for succinctness, so I didn't go into that kind of detail. I think the only workable solution in terms of categories is to merge Category:Peace activists into Category:Anti-war activists, creating a single all-encompassing category as I suggested above, and allow the distinctions to be spelled out in the individual articles. Cgingold 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Peace activists into Category:Anti-war activists - After all of this discussion, I have come to the conclusion that peace activists are a vaguely defined subset of anti-war activists. Since it is difficult to separate the two types of activists, merging them all into one category is appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 11:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for removal or serious pruning of these categories, when you've got pro-violence cadres like George Galloway's supporters or the "Stop the War but allow other killings to go on Coalition" classed as "anti-war" I despair! Greenpeas 11:40, 3 April 2007 (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.

Subcategories of Category:Ski areas and resorts in Australia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ski resorts in New South Wales to Category:Ski areas and resorts in New South Wales
Propose renaming Category:Ski resorts in Tasmania to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Tasmania
Propose renaming Category:Ski resorts in Victoria to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Victoria
Nominator's Rationale: Rename all, to be consistent with the parent category and all other categories in Category:Ski areas and resorts. Seattle Skier (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Subcategories of Category:Ski areas and resorts in the United States[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Alaska to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Alaska
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Arizona to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Arizona
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of California to Category:Ski areas and resorts in California
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Colorado to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Colorado
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Connecticut to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Connecticut
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Idaho to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Idaho
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Maine to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Maine
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Massachusetts to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Massachusetts
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Michigan to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Michigan
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Minnesota to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Minnesota
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Montana to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Montana
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Nevada to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Nevada
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of New Hampshire to Category:Ski areas and resorts in New Hampshire
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of New Mexico to Category:Ski areas and resorts in New Mexico
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of New York to Category:Ski areas and resorts in New York
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of North Dakota to Category:Ski areas and resorts in North Dakota
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Oregon to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Oregon
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Pennsylvania to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Pennsylvania
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Utah to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Utah
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Vermont to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Vermont
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Washington to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Washington
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of West Virginia to Category:Ski areas and resorts in West Virginia
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Wisconsin to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Wisconsin
Propose renaming Category:Ski areas of Wyoming to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Wyoming
Nominator's Rationale: Rename all 24, to be consistent with the parent category and all other categories in Category:Ski areas and resorts. Seattle Skier (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose/Comment Rename (Parent category issues trump my following point). Resorts are not strictly linked to skiing, and this Category name will likely cause confusion in future categorization of things like Category:Seaside resorts in the United States and even fishing lodges, which are sometimes considered resorts. I think that the Category name should read something like "Ski areas and ski resorts" to avoid any such mis-categorization/search confusion on the matter. Although, ultimately that has to do with the parent category which needs re-branding. --Keefer4 | Talk 21:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do see your point. But I think that reading the name as "(Ski areas) and (resorts) in ..." is somewhat unlikely, it seems reasonably clear that the categories refer to "Ski (areas and resorts) in ...". I certainly hope that no one mistakenly tries to put non-skiing resorts into these categories in the future. Perhaps "Ski areas and ski resorts ..." would be better, but then we'd have to go through CfD again for all 100+ categories in this tree. --Seattle Skier (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Upcoming cellphones[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Upcoming cellphones to Category:Future mobile phones. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Upcoming cellphones to Category:Upcoming mobile phones or Category:Future mobile phones
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, the article for mobile phones is at mobile phone, not cell phone, and it makes sense to use a similar name for categories. J Di 18:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ghost sighting locations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ghost sighting locations to Category:Purported ghost sighting locations
Nominator's Rationale: Unverifiable. Rename or delete for adding an unwelcome streak of tabloid sensationalism to the bottom of articles. Olborne 17:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - People claim to see ghosts in their homes all the time. Because ghost sighting are so widespread, this category is not a defining characteristic of any specific location. Dr. Submillimeter 17:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It covers the entire planet. Doczilla 18:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The doctors of deletion have this one. There's no upper limit on this category. — coelacan — 18:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but keep this title otherwise. The name "purpoted ghost sighting" is an overkill and almost condescending to the reader. Pascal.Tesson 19:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - complete trvia which is hard to define what is included and why. Rgds, - Trident13 12:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and oppose rename. "weak keep" because there are some places best known for their ghost sightings, and that seems worthy of a category, although it should be more tightly defined than this one. "Oppose rename" because the term "purported" carries negative connotations and is unnecessary; let's leave it to the reader to decide for themselves how they wish to assess the truth of the claimed appearances. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm starting to get very concerned by the rush from some editors to apply the term "purported" to categories which don't fit their notions of scientific verifiablity. Science is a very important tool in human knowledge, but there are large swathes of humanity who do not believe that it is the only tool in their search for truth: for example, the billions of followers of the major religions of the world accept lots of things on the basis of faith or revealed truth, and people who believe in ghosts etc may take a similar view that there are some questiosn which science cannot answer at this point. Wikipedia's categories should not be used to push a particular POV on how these things should be verified; discussion of their "truth" belong in articles, not in category titles. I have been tempted to try a few nominations to insert the word "purported" into the titles of religious categories as a test case for this form of POV-naming, and may do so if this continues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with the revolt against "purpoted" (although perhaps not 100% with the above agrument). It is silly to add it in the cat names because it makes the category names less intuitive, more bulky and it presumes that our readers are too dumb to realize that a ghost sighting, a UFO sighting or a Sasquatch sighting are always purpoted. I think it's condescending and indeed POV-ish. Pascal.Tesson 23:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re BrownHairedGirl: you're right that we're not dealing with questions of truth here; we never are on wikipedia. What we can actually verify is that these are locations where ghost sightings were purported to take place. What is also verified is that the only testable means of knowledge do not substantiate these claims. If you know of another reliable means of knowledge besides science, then you've got a breakthrough in epistemology waiting to be unleashed. In the meantime, I believe that "ghost sighting locations" carries with it a strong tone of implicit truth, which is not our currency here, while "purported" puts the topic well within the realm of verifiability. Of course, in this case I believe that whole notion is non-defining, but feel free to apply my argument to the other analogous categories. — coelacan — 16:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. Otto4711 23:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Italian American actors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Italian-American actors as duplicate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Italian-American actors, duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chalcidice[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: not renamed (lack of consensus). >Radiant< 11:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Chalcidice to Category:Chalkidiki
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as per Talk:Chalkidiki#Proposed move. Kimontalk 14:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. The move was improper, being contrary to what discussion there was. Chalcidiki is not English; it is a (singularly uninformative and inept) transliteration of Modern Greek. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus on the main article was to rename to Chalkidiki, though you may disagree with the result. Calling it improper though is a grave misstatement of the facts. --Kimontalk 22:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. --Stemonitis 14:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on procedural grounds. The move proposal only ended up with three votes, but there are many more comments on the talk page, plus another move proposal on another page. The page move proposal should be relisted & publicised for wider exposure, then the result should be reflected here. This should still be done if this is renamed in the mean-time. Johnbod 14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency per the initial move proposal.--Yannismarou 13:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, echoing Johnbod. — coelacan — 16:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the move debate is being held again, for what it's worth. The nominator here has also failed to justify his claim that the move was improper. Move requests are not votes, so the raw counts are not informative. In this case, it developed into a three-way debate, rendering the simplistic support–oppose metric flawed. The relevant guidelines, WP:NC(CN) and WP:GREEK both support Chalkidiki or Halkidiki but not Chalcidice. The claim that Chalkidiki "is not English" holds no water, because it clearly is used very extensively in English-language publications. Will those who have voted to oppose here concede to renaming the category, if the most recent move debate at Talk:Chalkidiki results in a page name of "Chalkidiki"? (I don't wish to read too much into their statements, but that seems to be the case.) --Stemonitis 11:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Yes - the new move request has been commented on by many editors. I support the category name reflecting whatever the result is there. Johnbod 12:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has just been closed, and there was no consensus to move the article, which therefore will remain at Chalkidiki. --Stemonitis 08:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GREEK says: "If the article concerns a concept that is significant in the Hellenistic period or before (i.e. would merit its own article even if the modern concept did not), use the archaic spelling." and particularly applies this to place names. The move discussion was filled with opinions, like this one, so ignorant of English as to see no reason why e might used for η. I regret seeing editors I respect associated with this nationalist folly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 12 April 2007 (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:Strategy Games[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Strategy Games to Category:WikiProject Strategy games articles and merge Category:WikiProject Strategy Games into Category:WikiProject Strategy games. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:WikiProject Strategy Games articles, per convention of WikiProjects. -- Prove It (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Australian Baseball venues[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Australian Baseball venues to Category:Baseball venues in Australia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian Baseball venues to Category:Australian baseball venues
Nominator's Rationale: Capitalisation fix: "baseball" should be all lowercase. talk 11:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian resumes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was { speedy delete by VegaDark as WP:CSD#G7, author requested deletion. — coelacan — 02:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian resumes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We don't really need a category for resumes. Do we? PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 11:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is for resumes not Wikipedians. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 12:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's thoroughly within userspace, and the purpose of UCFD is to handle userspace categories. — coelacan — 16:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may say "Wikipedian" but its not for Wikipedians, it is for resumes. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 13:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ahmadiyya Persecution[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Harryboyles as recreation of deleted content. — coelacan — 18:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ahmadiyya Persecution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

POV category indiscriminately added to various persons. A similar category, Category:Anti-Ahmadiyya was also created by the same user and applied to these articles before it was deleted. Right after the deletion of that Cat, the user created this duplicate one. Ragib 09:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, WP:CSD#G4, so tagged. Radiant closed the previous CFD as delete at 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC), this category was created at 11:32, 21 March 2007, so it's a recreation. — coelacan — 11:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alberta Junior Hockey League players[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. >Radiant< 11:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Alberta Junior Hockey League players to Category:Alberta Junior Hockey League alumni
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, junior hockey grads are more properly known as alumni rather than players. Rename for consistancy with other junior hockey categories, ie: Category:Western Hockey League alumni. Resolute 06:17, 31 March 2007 (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:Kitsch[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. >Radiant< 11:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kitsch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As desirable as this category might be, as described it is totally POV. I don't see any easy way to fix the issues, so deleting appears to be the only option. Vegaswikian 05:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vague POV cat. Doczilla 06:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not think that kitch can be objectively defined. We cannot use something like this for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 06:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kitsch is an unavoidably subjective concept. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify or rename Find some way to keep as category creator....I did have a small hunch that this category would wind up here, not that I was trying for that, you cordially understand :) BUT, I do feel that there are a lot of artistic, architectural, and other works out there, as well as articles on those who profess to study/write about kitsch, which are "pretty unambiguously about kitsch." Even Vegaswikian seems to think so, with all that neon in Vegas to add validity to my hypothesis! :) I did try my best to add rigor to a definition of kitsch, in order to avoid the category becoming "too loose." If someone has good ideas on how to find a feasible way to hang on to this category, or at least rename or maybe even listify it, that would be cool!! —Catdude 10:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All of the objections raised apply equally well to terms such as Renaissance, Baroque, Gothic, Rococo, Medieval, Impressionist, Modernist, Neo-classical etc, which all have articles & categories aplenty, as well as an inevitable & permanent scholarly debate about their boundaries. None of the articles now in the category seem likely to be disputed as Kitsch. To assert that only category titles with no element of subjectivity can be allowed is ridiculous, especially where art history & similar subjects are concerned. The test should be whether the use of the term agrees with its general use. Kitsch has no trouble meeting this test; the term now has plenty of academic references. Johnbod 11:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would you apply that logic to categories like fine dining or Category:Casual dining restaurants? Vegaswikian 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that's an excellent question, Vegaswikian. Category:Casual dining restaurants seems to be "holding its own" pretty well, with few catfights as to what is or isn't a casual-dining restaurant. I believe this is because there is a "largely-agreed-upon idea" of what is (as opposed to what isn't) a casual-dining restaurant. "Fine dining" could probably hold its own as a category almost as well as casual dining as a category, IMHO, for the same reason. Also, IMHO (and getting back to, yes, kitsch), I feel that there is a dual "academic largely-agreed-upon idea"/"layperson largely-agreed-upon idea" definition dichotomy as to what kitsch is. The former is more tightly bound, and could arguably hold its own as a category (which is what I attempted and am still kinda hopin' for [blush], but that's maybe my POV :)) Again, many heads put together should figure this retention/deletion debate out, and I do appreicate your own Vegas-based noggin in its contrubution to this debate. —Catdude 08:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The objections do not apply "equally well to terms such as Renaissance, Baroque, Gothic, Rococo, Medieval, Impressionist, Modernist, Neo-classical etc." Those are all positive terms (even though one or two of them didn't start out that way), and they all relate to specific movements and periods with very extensive literatures, while "Kitsch" is pejorative and does not relate to a particular period. Haddiscoe 14:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you, Haddiscoe, for weighing in on, um, the great kitsch debate! I appreciate your arguments and logic. I do want to mention, however, that "kitsch," based upon the common beliefs of most expert writers about it, is largely a by-product or outgrowth of the Industrial Revolution and its mass-production techniques, and the concomitant changes resulting in society from this industrial change. This, by the way, is not to "slam" modernism or the modern world we live in — it just states that items such as plastic flamingos are largely made possible by mass production, and that the consumer demand for these kitschy birds (according to the same writers) stems from a desire for having "nature in one's palms" by those who have heavily been removed from it in modern society. I also realize that the word "kitsch" is frequently used pejoratively, but it also is used frequently by writers to define a modern art/architectural/creative style that is seen as mass-produced and overly iconic, garish, and/or flashy, which also bends the rules of what is seen as "correct" fine art, and furthermore, is oriented towards a very "pop-consumer" crowd. It is, in the minds of many experts, a kind of definable lowbrow art. Yet, I do acknowledge that fine-lining what is kitsch and what isn't can be a challenge at times. I'll let the Wikipedia community sort this one out, and it is my hope that the subject of kitsch on Wikipedia can be enhanced in some meaningful way via this healthy debate. —Catdude 23:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find some way to keep I understand the concern of vagueness but kitsch is certainly a well-studied concept with extensive literature and, as pointed out, will never be more precise than any other term in the history of art. The term is only slightly pejorative and meaningful. I believe it's a good thing to regroup articles about kitsch and kitsch objects. Now the cat could be renamed appropriately or its definition tweaked to something more precise (all suggestions are welcome) but it should be kept in some form. Pascal.Tesson 07:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Kitsch is now often used positively, by Jeff Koons & others, just as 100 years ago Baroque and Rococo were used largely pejoratively. Johnbod 11:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subjective and pejorative. The concept can be covered in an article. Wimstead 11:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further courtesy comment: To respectfully address issues that have been raised by others in this category debate, I have added verbiage to the Kitsch category to strengthen the boundaries of what belongs there and what doesn’t. Thanks, all, for helping to clarify and motivate in regards to this issue. As I have previously kindly stated in response to a Wikipedian above, Kitsch can probably be defined both in a “looser, layperson’s way,” and in a “more-tightly-bound academician’s way.” There is certainly significant commonality between the layperson’s and academician’s definitions of Kitsch, but again, the academician’s is more tightly bound, and I have done my best to make this the yardstick (a credible one, I kindly feel; more to follow) by which any category inclusions to the Kitsch category are measured by. To turn to a related topic, many of us have heard the famous quote by a former US Supreme Court Justice regarding his definition of pornography: while he couldn’t define exactly what it was, he knew what it was when he saw it. I do feel that Kitsch, as defined by academicians, is somewhat analogous to the porn definition from that Supreme Court Justice: hard to define to the “nth degree,” but definable enough by experts. Using the variables of visual (or maybe audiovisual) images and surrounding contexts, most art historians/critics would come to a high level of agreement — not perfect agreement, but a high level — if confronted with sexually-explicit images or artifacts and asked to say if they were “smut” or “arty erotica.” There would undoubtedly be those “borderline cases,” but those same historians/critics would likewise be in high agreement with what those borderline cases are. Getting back to the Kitsch category, I feel that it is now defined tightly enough such that most art/architectural/creative-arts historians/critics would feel comfortable with saying, “Yes, that definitely and significantly relates to Kitsch as a key defining genre” in regards to all of the items in there at the time I type and post this. Also, to kindly address concerns of “the use of a potentially pejorative term,” one can look at terms currently used for Wikipedia categorization schemes such as “criminal” and “mobster.” Yet, these terms have stood the test of time as category words within Wikipedia. (In fact, I’d even respectfully argue that using a term such as “Kitsch” is “kinder-sounding and much more professional” than many other “valid and rigorous” appellations that could be used for categorizing kitschy artifacts!) Also further, getting back to the excessive-subjectivity argument, categories such as “Category:American criminals” have been “fine-lined” enough so that they haven’t become non-beneficial catch-alls for “anything and everything” — therefore, for example, not unwisely including all of us who have, at one time or another, “criminally” taken home a pencil or pen from work without permission! Analogously, I feel that the Kitsch category can likewise be (and has been) “tightened up” in a way such that it doesn’t become a non-properly-encyclopedic, non-beneficial catch-all category. (Now, I do know that there’s likely more congruence between a layperson’s and criminologist’s definitions of “criminal” and “mobster” as opposed to the congruence between a layperson’s and creative-arts critic/historian’s definition of Kitsch. I likewise realize that, say, the fairly unambiguous variable of conviction in a State or Federal US court can be used to largely define [yet not entirely define!] the “American criminals” category. Yet, via my producing the “tightening up” I did with the Kitsch category, I feel that I have decently, and even effectively, managed the “excessive-subjectivity” concern with the Kitsch category.) To address one more thing related to what Vegaswikian asked me about the recent debate surrounding the Casual Dining category, Vegaswikian felt that a good case would have been made to keep the category if the main “Casual Dining” article had been improved, including via adding some references (please see the March 29, 2007 CfD page). The present Kitsch main article does have many good references (listed in a References section), and in fact, this article was even a former Featured Article. I respectfully feel that this relatively strong main Kitsch article makes an even more well-grounded case for the intelligent grouping of Kitsch-related subjects/writers/producers/artifacts via a category. Okay, there’s my academic manifesto on the keeping of a Kitsch category (seriously!), but I do respectfully feel that I’ve done a credible job of creating a “keepable category” and have adequately addressed my colleague’s intelligent concerns :-) (And indeed, I do feel — very convincingly — that the term Kitsch is highly valuable, if not essential, to how art/architectural/creative-arts historians/critics would academically discuss artifacts such as plastic flamingos, garden gnomes, the Las Vegas Strip, and Carhenge! :) ) Thanks, everyone, for your input into the debate; again, it has been most appreciated! —Catdude 05:33, 5 April 2007 (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 by firearm in 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: no consensus to delete. >Radiant< 11:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deaths by firearm in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kind of stupid. Un/underpopulated. Only "by country" listing in mother "deaths by firearm" category. And it's in my U.S. history category. We have scads of American violence here if we need it: Category:Violent incidents in the United States. And it's kind of stupid. jengod 03:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as category creator. I created this one to subdivide the overpopulated Category:Deaths by firearm, and since a large number of the biographical articles categorised as deaths by firearm are in the United States, that seemed to be the most effective sub-categorisation. It was unhelpful to remove the parent Category:History of the United States without parent this in another US category, so I have now parented it in Category:Violent incidents in the United States. By the way, jengod, please read WP:OWN: no category belongs to anyone. "Kind of stupid" is not a resaon to delete, so please explain why you think this is not a useful sub-category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. Also, considering Gun politics in the United States is such a big issue, it would seem fitting that if there is only one "by country" subcat that it be for the US. According to WP:OCAT, underpopulated is only a problem if there's no room for growth. Perhaps a {{popcat}} tag would be a better way to go. I'd also suggest adding WP:EQ to jengod's reading list. Someone put in volunteer time and energy to create the category, like everything else on here. Calling people's contributions stupid isn't constructive and will only discourage editors, even if you think their contribution is inappropriate and should be deleted. Bobanny 07:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. being shot rather unlikely defining characteristics of someone article on WP. A few high profile perons can be listed in a short list. If this is allowed we will have cats of stabbed/hanged/drown/suffocated/... people in no time (if not already). Pavel Vozenilek 11:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have those categories already. If you think it's a bad idea, please do a group nomination for people by cause of death, but that's not a reason to delete this particular category; I think that since death by firearm is almost always a notable event, Category:Deaths by firearm is a useful way of navigating between related articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Delete. Does not seem very encyclopedic, also if the mode of someone's death is important it would be in the article, otherwise its not needed. Monty845 12:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only articles that I have found in this category are those where mode of death is in the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepper those above. Is sub-cat of violent incidents. what's the problem?Johnbod 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless and non defining. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unsure what I think of this cat but leaning delete. I really feel that a list or a few lists would be more meaningful in this case. This cat contains everything from murdered mafia bosses to school shooting victims to Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK and Billy the Kid. In my mind that's a clear indication that the cat creates category clutter without adding much value to the encyclopedia as a whole. Lists could be created to sort these according to period, context of the shooting, accidental\non-accidental, etc.Pascal.Tesson 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given that we have Category:Deaths by firearm this is a logical way of splitting it. Underpopulation is not a valid reason for deleting a category - it is a valid reason for populating it. And what do you mean "your U.S. history category"? Grutness...wha? 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Precisely per above point.--Keefer4 | Talk 23:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for reason reasons above and further subdivide Category:Deaths by firearm into subcategories by country, making the whole structure more useful. Hmains 05:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless the parent category is first deleted. -Sean Curtin 05:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based upon precedent and Wikipedia guidelines, does seem encyclopedic enough to warrant its retention. It also acts as a valuable subcategory, IMHO. —Catdude 06:03, 4 April 2007 (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:Jewish Holocaust survivors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish Holocaust survivors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, As per talk page: ill-defined, unmaintainable Stlemur 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I respect the intentions of the category creator, but it would need to be more tightly bound to be useful. "Survivors of Nazi concentration camps" would be clear, and that coukd be sub-catted with "Jewish" etc; but this category appears likely to include any Jewish person who was in a Nazi-occupied country, which I fear may be too broad. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-defining characteristics. The special cases it could be mentioned in articles. Pavel Vozenilek 11:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can surviving a Nazi death camp not be a defining event in a person's life??? I agree that the category name is worded awkwardly and vaguely enough that it's too broad, but non-defining? No way. Doczilla 18:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did a Danish refugee who made it to Sweden survive the holocaust? What about a Jewish person living in Ukraine who was never caught by the SS? --Stlemur 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and perhaps rename - IMO, we are clearly talking here about survivors, not people that escaped the persecution for one reason or another. It makes little difference if someone survived the Litzmannstadt Ghetto or Birkenau, their survival is, for many, a defining characteristic. Rename not really necessary, criteria can be established in the category introduction. --Justanother 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In line with my thoughts and those of BHG, I would definitely rename to remove "Jewish", making it all-inclusive, and perhaps tighten it as "Nazi death camp and ghetto survivors" or somesuch. --Justanother 03:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Redundant category. Category:Nazi_concentration_camp_survivors does the same thing. .V. [Talk|Email] 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors. Hmm, sure seems that way. Good catch. Works for me. Delete, then --Justanother 03:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete redundant category then. Doczilla 05:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been invited to continue discussion on this page. I think this should be deleted, and I'm indifferent as to which route should be taken. This category is ill defined, and thus adding anyone to the category will inevitably lead to controversy. As has been said above, how do you define who is a survivor? Does someone only become a survivor if he or she was released from the camps by the allies, or does it include those who survived in Nazi occupied countries avoiding capture, or even those who escaped to Sweden, or survived through the Kindertransports? Any of these 'survived' and the thing they survived was the Holocaust. By this logic, any emigre from Germany in the 1930s could be classed as a Holocaust survivor; the logic tends to eat itself. Any category that has the potential to descend to this level of farce does not add value to the encyclopedia. Even by a ridiculously narrow definition, hundreds of thousands of survivors could be listed - is it the intention to record all of these, or only those whom someone has decided are sufficiently famous? By the way, we've also got List of Holocaust survivors which surely should get the same treatment. Baggie 21:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_31&oldid=1139933438"