Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 5 March 7 >

March 6[edit]

Category:U.S. State Department designated terrorist organizations[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, or listify, unfortunately. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:U.S. State Department designated terrorist organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I see this category as highly problematic, not for its contents (the working definition is clear and un-contestable, though subject to change) but for its nature. The U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations is fine but tagging all these organizations with only a category featuring one country's POV is biased. To keep it and maintain NPOV would necessitate similar categories for organizations designated as terrorist by the United Kingdom, Russia, France, Iran, etc. The only way to maintain NPOV without a massive number of overlapping categories is to delete this one.TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could explain what you mean by 'biased' please? The selection criterion is that the US State Dept. has designated an organisation with this status. I'm not sure where you are coming from here? Kernel Saunters (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:One might be forgiven for innocently wondering if the US State Dept. is entirely, um, impartial in such matters. Cgingold (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The status applied by the state dept applies legal constraints upon the organization and US citizens in their dealings with said organization. The status is applied not as merely a label but as a legal status. Also, different countries apply constraints upon different organizations, the IRA is legal in the US but illegal in the UK Kernel Saunters (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't see how any of this addresses the issue of bias/impartiality on the part of the US State Dept. in terms of who gets designated and who doesn't. Cgingold (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By extension the whole category Category:Organizations designated as terrorist should be listed then. This category is just more specific about who is doing the designation, which is the approach wiki should be taking IMHO Kernel Saunters (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased because it's clearly a single point of view... that of the State Department of one country. Any country has specific national interests in defining terrorism in certain ways, and designating certain groups terrorist and not others. In order to keep Wikipedia NPOV, we'd be justified in creating categories for every other country. I'm not suggesting that we should to that, but it would be legitimate. If someone want to create a list of organizations considered terrorists by Iran or Russia, that's fine too, but this category creates a precedent for creating an enormous amount of overlapping categories, which are really unnecessary. My personal feelings about basis the US State Department's list is irrelevant. I guess if you wanted to create a category of organizations considered terrorists ONLY by the US State Department, that would be a different issue. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep The category is very clear as to what it is to contain. In contemporary national and international affairs, the State Department list is used for various purposes. If there were (and there may be) other lists that are regarded in the same way, then they could be in WP also. Each list/category is only as it claims to be: no NPOV is claimed, not should it be assumed, list makers being what they are: WP readers are not babies. The arguments to delete have no particular merit. They are just a recitation of fear of the future direction of WP (crystal balling). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs) 04:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not simply crystal balling, I'm saying it is POV to only have a category one country's POV, but to keep it and maintain NPOV would lead to ridiculousness. The only way to maintain NPOV without a massive number of overlapping categories is to delete this one. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might help if the deletionists would read the category tree and find Category:Organizations designated as terrorist and see what they deny exists--multiple categories of such designations by various governments. Hmains (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Heheh... Those were all made by me, after I proposed the deletion. (see comments below). This has effectually made this category (for deletion) less POV, though the bulk of these categories share a similar POV. However, some of these "designated terrorist" articles have now been tagged with 4+ "designated by" categories, which seems ridiculous to me, especially when NPOV hasn't even really been achieved. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category contains an arbitrary list of organisations, some of whom are political parties on the list solely because the US or its allies dislike them. Would support deletion of the supercategory also due to POV nature of it.GiollaUidir (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being on the list has real-world consequences. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Organizations are added and removed from the State Department list, and removals are a problem for this sort of category. A list is better and can be annotated with the appropriate dates. Quale (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Category:Terrorist organizations designated by U.S. State Department or something similar. "Terrorist" categories (and lists) have been a continual problem, because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Adopting the designation by the US State Department provides a robust definition without POV in the WP sense. I accept that maintenance may cause a problem, but far less than the warring over what should (or should not) be included in a more general category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Carlossuarez46, the category denotes a legal contraint on the organisation applied by the US Govt, thus the real-world consequences. In addition, there are actually similar categories for the UK and Ireland, Category:Proscribed paramilitary organizations in Northern Ireland for example, that describe the legal situation of organisations within the juristications of those countries, so this is another category of that type. In terms of maintainance, the list seldom changes so this category can be removed as and when. Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To those proposing a keep, are you OK with me setting up identical categories for other countries in order to maintain NPOV? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes - bearing in mind that many countries do not use this terminology and thus don't have this type of designation, the Republic of Ireland for instance. For a country to designate an organisation as terrorist it needs to incorporate the word or refer to associated legal designations that use this terminology Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Yes, absolutely - though I dispute that this category is PoV ;-) . BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keepers. I'm not sure how many countries keep their own actual formal lists; if we ever got many categories like this it might be time to listify some or all of them, but for now we don't. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That category is underused because it was created on March 11th so that someone could categorize the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front as officially designated terrorists. Upmerging the category under discussion into that category doesn't solve the POV problem for which the deletion was requested. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Media in Miami, Florida[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 Category:Media in Miami, Florida to Category:South Florida metropolitan area media. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Media in Miami, Florida to Category:South Florida metropolitan area media
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These two appear to overlap so a merge would be reasonable. While an option would be to make this a subcategory instead, I'm not sure that there are enough articles at this time to justify that. However that option could be discussed as a part of this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Radio stations in Tampa/St. Petersburg[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 Category:Radio stations in Tampa/St. Petersburg to Category:Radio stations in the Tampa Bay Area. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Tampa/St. Petersburg to Category:Radio stations in the Tampa Bay Area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the description of the coverage area in the category lead and the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television stations in Tampa / St. Petersburg[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 Category:Television stations in Tampa / St. Petersburg to Category:Television stations in the Tampa Bay Area. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Tampa / St. Petersburg to Category:Television stations in the Tampa Bay Area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the description of the coverage area in the category lead and the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tampa Bay media[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 19:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tampa Bay media to Category:Media in the Tampa Bay Area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main category used in the category introduction and for the similar children in Category:Florida media. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As a side note here, Category:American media by market needs to be looked at and a single form should be established for the entries there. This nomination should be taken as a litmus test of what direction we should take in dealing with this broader category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bionicle objects[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bionicle objects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Has one article and one article to be transwikied and deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I added appropriate additional categories to the article (Cat:Bionicle and Cat:Fictional objects) so no merger is needed. 00:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bionicle places[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bionicle places (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Has one article in the category. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Colour schemes[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: a little voice said "but Wikipedia is not consistent". Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Colour schemes to Category:Color schemes
Nominator's rationale: Moving this discussion from Speedy. I support this change not because it's the American spelling, but because Category:Color and all but one other of its subcategories uses the American spelling. (Only Category:National colours, a subcategory of Category:Colors, uses the British spelling.) Sometimes the British spelling is fine, but not when the balance of the categories are so overwhelmingly in favor of the US spelling.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria; in fact, criteria one seems to suggest that this type is not speediable. For a rename based on the "consistency" reasoning it would have to go through a full discussion, wouldn't it? Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, these American vs. British spelling changes need to go to full CFD (a very similar thing came up here a few weeks back). Cgingold (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Changed, see below. ENGVAR consistency is fine within articles; extending it needlessly beyond that will cause endless trouble. Glad to hear Mike feels "Sometimes the British spelling is fine.." Gee thanks! Johnbod (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, that's not fair. What I meant was that sometimes variation is fine within a category, but not when it's overwhelmingly in favor of one spelling. The "organizations"/"organisations" tree is an example where I think it's fine. I think you know that I meant that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to prevent trans-Atlantic friction, and as part of WP's quirky nature... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would having a category whose spelling differs from the parent article "prevent trans-Atlantic [or any other kind of] friction"? — CharlotteWebb 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom in the strongest possible language. There is no logic offered to support having the main article, Color scheme and the category use different names! This is not a US/UK issue, it is one of constant usage and common sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Rename per Vegas; the nomination did not mention the main article! Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - another case of American orthographic imperialism. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - keep it as is, and speedily close this, why bother changing it? It doesn't need changing. 70.55.84.89 (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - this is not an issue of US vs UK spelling. This is an issue of the overwhelming majority of subcats use a particular spelling and the category should match the existing categories. Otto4711 (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously rename per Vegas. All categories should match the naming convention used in the parent article unless there is a damn good reason not to. If the article is renamed to the "British" spelling, the category can be renamed back to it. — CharlotteWebb 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Russian people 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: delete. Kbdank71 13:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Russian people in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete is my nomination. Nominator's rationale: this cat page combines Russian expatriates, Americans of Russian descent, any expat or American who speaks Russian (presumably as a first language), regardless of nationality/citizenship, and possibly anyone who has been in U.S. and had a Russian-speaking ancestor/"foreparent". A rename would tricky because of the added linguistic element - Category:Russian-speaking diaspora in the United States and there is no cat page schema (precedent) in place for having such a cat page. Mayumashu (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC) }[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Characters in Paradise Lost[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Characters in Paradise Lost (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete - non-defining for the majority of its constituency. Few if any are going to think of, for instance, Cain and Abel or Noah and think "oh yes, Paradise Lost characters!" Otto4711 (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This category is a sub-cat of what appears to be a well-established parent cat, Category:Characters in epics. Is there something about this particular category that you feel sets it apart from the other sub-cats? Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the characters in this sub-cat are not defined by having been included in Paradise Lost. The fictional characters of, for instance, Beowulf, are primarily and definingly Beowulf characters. Adam and Eve are not primarily or definingly Paradise Lost characters. Otto4711 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Category & sub-cat: is logical. It follows the the logic, Characters in epics> Characters in Paradise Lost. There are Characters in Paradise Lost (at least Satan , Adam and the Eve :) )Pratheepps (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not defining for these characters.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and because none of the included articles are actually about the characters; the articles are about the pre-existing mythological subjects utilized by Milton in Paradise Lost (Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve (Paradise Lost characters)). This type of category should only be used for articles on characters that originated in the particular work. A list of characters in Paradise Lost, either separate or in the main article, is the best way to handle this. Postdlf (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Postdif. At least God was not included. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suburbs of Hastings[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 Category:Suburbs of Hastings to Category:Hastings. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Suburbs of Hastings to Category:Hastings
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are a mixed bunch, some of them are recognised areas or localities, some of them are effectively nothing but local government wards with no real existence otherwise, several of them in fact probably don't merit their own articles. It's dubious whether any of them really classify as "suburbs" in the normal sense of the word. rossb (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge In addition, I am dubious about the use of the word "suburb" when talking about a relatively small town anyway since it conjures up visions of Brixton to London, Sutton Coldfield to Birmingham - surely these wards are just part of the town - or if needed, an estate? The Wiki article certainly gives that impression. The problem here is that they were all added by an editor incognito who has produced a great many other such unnecessary articles Peter Shearan (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tampa news personalities[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tampa news personalities to Category:Tampa, Florida television anchors
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the name used in the parent Category:American television anchors by city and in the other parent of Category:Tampa, Florida. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert[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 quorum no rationale offered. I don't see any benefit to this given that it is not something that out CfD bots will do. How does this help? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert to Category:Template:Convert subtemplates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There's a colon missing here, but is the string of words and colons in "Category:Template:Convert subtemplates" acceptable? If not, resort to "Subtemplates of Template:Convert"? Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Members and associates of the United States National Academy of Engineering[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Members and associates of the United States National Academy of Engineering to Category:Members of the United States National Academy of Engineering
Nominator's rationale: Rename More concise name and follows similar renaming nomination for the Category:Members and associates of the United States National Academy of Sciences. Dr.K. (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: absolutely, unequivocally win nom. --emerson7 20:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you very much emerson7 for the enthusiastic support. I take this opportunity to further request any participants to vote as well in a similar nomination by emerson7 here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasoskessaris (talk • contribs) 02:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_6&oldid=1074800954"