Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 2 April 4 >

April 3[edit]

Category:Scottish air marshals[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 to Category:Royal Air Force air marshals. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Scottish air marshals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is redundant:
  • It is usual to categorise senior military officers by the service they fought for, such as Category:Royal Air Force air marshals, not by nationality. Most, if not all, people in this category will also appear in the RAF one.
  • Scottish isn't a nationality in that sense anyway: Scottish people are British by nationality and thus this category can only be populated by air marshals who were reported to have been born or lived in Scotland - this does not necessarily prove Scottish "citizenship" and in any case is not particularly relevant to their position as an air marshal.

Jackyd101 (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a lot better titled as something like "Air marshals from Scotland", used in addition to the 'service' category. Their activity as an air-marshal isn't in any significant way "Scottish", but they themselves are Scottish people - let's assume for the moment we can decide that easily! - so we should take the opportunity to distinguish the two meanings.
A useful way to compare the two meanings would be - well, imagine Scotland gains independence tomorrow, creates an airforce, appoints some of these people as Scottish Air Force air marshals. "Scottish air marshals" now has a very clear meaning, but it's not anything like the one we'd have used here; "Air marshals from Scotland", however, would keep exactly the same members, regardless of which service they went with (or if they had died decades before...)
The question then becomes "is categorizing military officers by where they came from, as well as by service, in any way useful". I suspect the existing consensus is "not really", but I'm fairly ambivalent - I can see a couple of ways it would be interesting, from a historical perspective, and we do already use English/Scottish/etc as subsets of British in some categories. Shimgray | talk | 23:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator's suggestion that "Scottish isn't a nationality" is bizarre, as well as being offensive to many Scottish people. Scotland is not at the moment an independent nation-state, so there is no specific legal form of Scottish citizenship, but citizenship and nationality are not interchangeable concepts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so so much for this comment! I have been threatened and had it explained over and over that Scottish is not a nationality. I know I amd correct on this point, and you have explained it very well. Wallie (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a Scot, I knew what he meant ;-) The problem is that whilst we can trivially define any individual as being Scottish or not-Scottish, & call that nationality or background or whichever term we choose, it's not a way of organising people that maps well to "union-level" concepts like this one, where the entity they're a member of doesn't have a geographical basis. Shimgray | talk | 09:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Shimray. You've got it! I should have said "Air marhals from Scotland". I think it important to note that Dowding is Scottish. Most people will not realize this. Did you know? Wallie (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no offense meant! I wasn't trying to deny the existence of the Scottish people, simply to point out that being Scottish as opposed to British has no bearing on this category - Scottish people are British citizens and I cannot see a benefit in seperating English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish air marshals that served in the RAF, even if it can be proven that they did consider themselves one of these nationalities as opposed to British.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I opened this category. I am quite happy to close it again, as I was unaware that the military ranks were being classified under service branches. I should have said Air marshals from Scotland. However, as the whole Scottish/British thing is so inflammatory, I will not progess with that either. (I am too afraid). Wallie (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Royal Air Force air marshals. Scottish people who held that rank should be in the appropriate Scottish categories, but I don't see any good reason for splitting a relatively small category like this one -- it's best kept together as one category for the service.
However, there does seem to me to be a good case for creating a "from Scotland" subcategory of either Category:Royal Air Force officers or Category:Royal Air Force personnel, to group together the Scottish people who have served in the RAF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This could lead to a good case for English, Welsh and Irish and loads of other Commonwealth countries that have citizens in the RAF as well, we shouldnt create one without the others under the NPOV guidance, better just leaving it as Royal Air Force officer/air marshals/personel in my opnion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Royal Air Force air marshals for prefernece -- Many British categories are split by the four constituent countries. Rename to Category:Royal Air Force air marshals from Scotland would be a possibility, but are there enough to warrant splitting the British category: I suspect not. If named, the RAF air marshalls category should be split entirely into the four home nations (but not Irish) which could refer to Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland. If there are citizens of other countries who have attained this rank in the RAF, we would need an expatriate category too. It will all get too complicated. There is the further problem that the RAF is one service and officers will have postings to stations all over the country (indeed world). If the son of an officer, this may make identifying ethnicity complcated. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about Air marshals from Scotland not in the RAF? Wallie (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If such people exist, what is the point of associating them with their birthplace rather than their branch of service (presumably they can also have a "People from XXXX" cat as well)--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Royal Air Force air marshals. I dont really see the point splitting the category down into the home nations of the Union (let alone all the other countries that had Air Marshals within the RAF), we are all technically British so what justification is there? I especially agree with the points made by Jackyd101 and MilborneOne. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2009 (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:Cannabis comedy albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cannabis comedy albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - category is based on the content of albums and categorizing albums on the basis of their material is untenable. The same album can cover any number of subjects. Otto4711 (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2009 (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.

Dallas-Fort Worth[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 for standardization purposes. Without prejudice to future nomination to change the phrasing of "Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Economy of Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex to Category:Economy of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex
Propose renaming Category:Media in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas to Category:Media in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex
Propose renaming Category:Newspapers published in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas to Category:Newspapers published in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex
Propose renaming Category:Defunct newspapers of Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas to Category:Defunct newspapers of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex
Propose renaming Category:Sports in the Dallas-Fort Worth area to Category:Sports in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex
Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in the Dallas-Fort Worth area to Category:Universities and colleges in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex
Propose merging Category:Magazines in Dallas-Fort Worth to Category:Media in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex
Nominator's rationale: Standardizing the format on categories in Category:Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. There's only one magazine (and no other magazines-by-city categories that I could find).--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see from the first line of the parent article that Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex is the colloquial term for the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. Why are we using such a colloquial name rather than the official one for the article and for all the categories - especially when similar articles and categories for other US conurbations use the term "metropolitan area" as standard (as in the nominations immediately below)? Grutness...wha? 22:02, 3 April 2009 (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.

More 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/merge/delete/split per revised nominations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Kansas City to Category:Radio stations in the Kansas City metropolitan area
Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in the Las Vegas Arbitron market to Category:Radio stations in the Las Vegas metropolitan area
Propose merging Category:Television stations in Sherman / Ada to Category:Television stations in Oklahoma
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Boise to Category:Television stations in Boise, Idaho
Propose merging Category:Television stations in Fort Smith/Fayetteville to Category:Television stations in Arkansas
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Las Vegas to Category:Television stations in the Las Vegas metropolitan area
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Madison to Category:Television stations in Madison, Wisconsin
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Marquette to Category:Television stations in Marquette, Michigan
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Memphis to Category:Television stations in Memphis, Tennessee
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Milwaukee to Category:Television stations in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Minneapolis-Saint Paul to Category:Television stations in Minneapolis, Minnesota
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Nashville to Category:Television stations in Nashville, Tennessee
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in New Orleans to Category:Television stations in New Orleans, Louisiana
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in North Platte to Category:Television stations in North Platte, Nebraska
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Parkersburg to Category:Television stations in Parkersburg, West Virginia
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Philadelphia to Category:Television stations in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Pittsburgh to Category:Television stations in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Reno to Category:Television stations in Reno, Nevada
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Richmond to Category:Television stations in Richmond, Virginia
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Rochester to Category:Television stations in Rochester, New York
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Shreveport to Category:Television stations in Shreveport, Louisiana
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in South Bend to Category:Television stations in South Bend, Indiana
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in St. Louis to Category:Television stations in St. Louis, Missouri
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Syracuse to Category:Television stations in Syracuse, New York
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Tallahassee to Category:Television stations in Tallahassee, Florida
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Terre Haute to Category:Television stations in Terre Haute, Indiana
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Topeka to Category:Television stations in Topeka, Kansas
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Tulsa to Category:Television stations in Tulsa, Oklahoma
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Twin Falls to Category:Television stations in Twin Falls, Idaho
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Wilmington to Category:Television stations in Wilmington, North Carolina
Propose deleting Category:Television stations in the Yakima/Tri-Cities region
Propose deleting Category:Television stations in Peoria-Bloomington
Manual splits:
Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Denver-Boulder to Category:Radio stations in Denver, Colorado and Category:Radio stations in Boulder, Colorado
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Chico / Redding to Category:Television stations in Chico, California and Category:Television stations in Redding, California
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in El Paso-Las Cruces-Ciudad Juárez to Category:Television stations in El Paso, Texas and Category:Television stations in Las Cruces, New Mexico and Category:Television stations in Ciudad Juárez
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Elmira / Corning to Category:Television stations in Elmira, New York and Category:Television stations in Corning, New York
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Grand Rapids-Battle Creek-Kalamazoo to Category:Television stations in Grand Rapids, Michigan and Category:Television stations in Kalamazoo, Michigan and Category:Television stations in Battle Creek, Michigan
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Monterey/Salinas/Santa Cruz to Category:Television stations in Monterey, California and Category:Television stations in Salinas, California and Category:Television stations in Ciudad Juárez
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in San Diego / Tijuana to Category:Television stations in San Diego, California and Category:Television stations in Tijuana
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Traverse City-Cadillac to Category:Television stations in Traverse City, Michigan and Category:Television stations in Cadillac, Michigan
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Tyler / Longview / Lufkin / Nacogdoches to Category:Television stations in Lufkin, Texas and Category:Television stations in Longview, Texas
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Myrtle Beach/Florence to Category:Television stations in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina and Category:Television stations in Florence, South Carolina
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Wilkes-Barre/Scranton to Category:Television stations in Scranton, Pennsylvania and Category:Television stations in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania
Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to this media nomination from March 18, which favored city identification rather than the vague "media market" designation. This follows the logic "Major city name, or if no major city, then where the station itself is located." There are a few such categories which are hard to split up, and I may be nominating them separately, or adding them as needed. Note that if I've condensed a category containing multiple city names into one city, it means that all the content for that category is located in or very near the city.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2009 (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:Companies bankrupted during the Late 2000s Recession[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: Listify then delete. Listed for listification at WP:CFDWM. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Companies bankrupted during the Late 2000s Recession (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Copied from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy:

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:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category not needed for the material. Otto4711 (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Tiny category, very little likelihood of expansion in the near future. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2009 (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:Oklahoma Sooners in the National Football League[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Oklahoma Sooners in the National Football League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Listify and Delete. Non-defining or trivial characteristic.TM 17:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not every intersection of two defining characteristics automatically yields a defining characteristic. I don't believe listifying is required for deletion (and wonder if the list might be too narrow in scope being restricted to a single college team) but don't object to someone's creating a list either before or after deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2009 (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:Psychics[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. Did a source call someone a psychic? That's all we need to know. We're not saying this person has actual psychic abilities, we're saying this is what someone else has said. We don't have categories named "purported policemen" or "people claimed to be astronauts". I think we're trying to make things more difficult that they should be. Kbdank71 14:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Psychics to Category:Psychic claimants
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think this is the type of thing that would really help the credibility of Wikipedia in general. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the existence of Category:Psychics involves a judgment as to truth value: it's just a trade like any other and some people might go along with it, most don't, as with Category:Faith healers, ad nausium. AllyD (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this was to be renamed, the proposed alternative would be grotesque, in my opinion: psychic appears to be qualifying claimant rather than vice versa, conjuring visions of a queue of Unemployment benefits recipients with special powers, legal Plaintiffs who can anticipate the opposing lawyer's argument, and so on. AllyD (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes "psychics" as a category does imply a judgment: a judgment that they exist. Whereas "psychic claimants" doesn't necessarily imply that they aren't psychics. People who make claims are often right. Making claims is all that we know for sure. That is what belongs on WP. The objection about legal claimants who are psychics is ridiculous. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we're all a little ridiculous, because I find the grammar ambiguous like AllyD, and would prefer a different rename (if there is to be a rename, which I haven't yet decided). "Purported psychics"? Postdlf (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purported is not better than claimant. To purport strictly speaking means to claim, however claim does not carry the same negative connotation. "Claim" is the term that the critical thinking community prefers in general for these sorts of things. People make claims --that's all we know for sure. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then "Claimed psychics." Postdlf (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly open to "Claimed psychics" however it is really not better than "Psychic claimant" because it is no longer clear who claims. "Psychic claimant" does not imply that there are other people who claim the same thing... and the whole legal claimant objection is not really worth responding to. I think we are smart enough to deal with that non-issue. The "legal claimants" who also claim to be psychic will belong in the "Psychic claimant" category as well won't they? BTW, Wikipedia will exist for many years and it will never be an issue, pretty much for sure.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For just those reasons I'd prefer "Claimed psychics" - not everyone who is purported to be a psychic is named as such by themself - sometimes it is others who make the claim. As such, "Claimed psychics" has a slightly wider scope. Grutness...wha? 22:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something - I suggested in a previous CFD "purported psychics" but supposedly that conflicts with some obscure aspect of neutrality (I didn't agree with that then and don't agree with it now). Categorizing people as psychic without a qualifier gives WP imprimatur to something which is without a basis in fact, that psychic powers exist, and is a worse violation of WP:NPOV than calling them purported or claimed or what-have-you could ever be. Otto4711 (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd been going to suggest that "People claiming to be psychics" might do the business by being less ambiguously worded. I also thought it could be said to avoid judgment, but that previous CFD mentioned by Otto4711 shows that one shouldn't go lightly into this swamp again: see especially WP:AVOID highlighted in the previous discussion. There are any number of trades on which I am sceptical (psychic, faith healer, psychotherapist) but I accept that they exist, that they have practitioners and clients, and Wikipedia is not the means to change that. So I'm wondering: is there strong reason to change the status quo? AllyD (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my !vote based on excellent arguments below for keeping the name as it is. E.g. Category:Gods. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Tautologically, the term is neutral. Either you believe psychics don't have psychic powers and thus the term can only be a job title, or you believe psychics do have psychic powers and thus the term is descriptive of their abilities. So either way, it's probably the right term.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative proposal: Rename to Category:People purported to have psychic abilities. Until I re-read the previous CFD just now I had forgotten about my own suggestion, which I was pleased to rediscover as I believe it deals nicely with two problematic issues: framing the name of the category in a truly NPOV fashion, and the meaning of the word "psychic" when used as a noun.
With respect to the word "purported", although I don't feel that it is, in itself, inherently objectionable, I would agree that it could be perceived as a subtle form of disparagement when it's used in a two-word pairing like "purported psychic". However, in the formulation I'm suggesting, I think it comes across as a strictly neutral term, with no implication of disparagement.
As for the word "psychic", when used as a noun its intended meaning is somewhat ambiguous as it covers a range of possible activities and/or abilities. Some readers will think it refers to people who can read your mind, while others will think it refers to people who can see the future, still others will think it refers to fortune-tellers, and of course many will mistakenly think it refers to mentalists. So it's much better to use the term "psychic abilities", which is more clearly understood and denotes a range of such abilities. Cgingold (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming is unnecessary here unless somebody is proposing that we set up a separate category for "confirmed psychics", and as such this inherently constitutes an WP:NPOV violation. Oppose. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you're basically responding to the nominator's proposal, but my alternative proposal is quite a different kettle of fish. (Is that expression used everywhere?) Nobody else has made any attempt to address the inherent ambiguity of the stand-alone noun "Psychic". Rather than speaking of a type or category of person -- which is often problematic -- I reframe it as people who are said (i.e. "purported") to have certain abilities. My wording takes a completely different approach to the topic, and I think presents it as clearly and neutrally as possible. Cgingold (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no difference between the two, and the renaming is derogatory. More precisely, it's derogatory if one thinks there are real psychics and entirely unnecessary if one thinks there aren't. "Psychic" and similar terms, like "alchemist" or "astrologer" have an interesting status: to someone who believes, it's a well-deserved compliment, to someone who doesn't, it's a well-deserved insult. And to someone who is a stage magician, and knows he is acting a role for public amusement, it's a statement of his professional persona as a performer. Perfect neutrality. DGG (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, DGG. Although I don't agree with what you wrote, you helped me to further clarify my thoughts. You've just demonstrated why it is necessary to adopt an entirely different approach to this category. Precisely because the current name promotes confusion as to what sort of people are meant to be included, it needs to be renamed along the lines I'm proposing -- first and foremost, in order to make it very clear that mentalists (i.e. stage magicians) are not to be included since they do not claim to have actual psychic abilities. No less important is the fact that labeling people as "psychics" carries its own subtle (or not-so subtle) POV. Not everyone who would properly be included in this category would be comfortable with being labelled as "a Psychic", and I'm sure some would reject that label outright -- whereas referring to them as "having psychic abilities" would not be considered objectionable. Of course, to be fully NPOV we would need to phrase it as I've suggested, "purported to have psychic abilities". Cgingold (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (i.e. oppose renaming), partly per DGG. This is essentially a POV proposal: that because some people don't agreed that all (or maybe even any) of these people do actually have psychic powers, the category system should problematise the term by labelling it as "purported" or "claimed" or whatever. If we start down that path, where do we stop? Do we rename Category:Bankers to Category:People who claim to be bankers because of the current widespread perception that they were actually gamblers or according to some economists, looters? What about Category:Sportspeople? A huge number of those categorised under that heading are not playing sport in the old sense of a recreational activity, they are people paid to perform as public entertainers, so shouldn't we rename that category to problematise the term "sport"?
Or take Category:Christians. There are no shortage of references to support the proposition that many of the people who claim to be followers of Christ ignore some of his most fundamental teachings, so shouldn't we rename that one to Category:People who claim to be Christians? (The same probably applies to just about any religion you can mention).
And let's get to work urgently on Category:Gods. Where's the scientific evidence that these Gods exist? Rename promptly to Category:Alleged Gods.
The result of all this would be mayhem, because if we applied this process consistently, we'd end up with nearly every category of human endeavour or belief qualified in some way ... so all we would do in effect is to lengthen category names.
Sure, plenty of people don't agree that psychic powers exist, and that the whole business is baloney. But similarly, plenty of people would pick apart the label "Christians" in exactly the same way. But with Christians, normal usage already accounts for that, because we accept that the label is use by people who claim to be followers of Christ, regardless of whether all of us agree with particular instances of that claim.
The head article psychic problematises the concept very clearly. There is no need to single out psychic abilities as a special case where wikipedia has to abandon its normal principle of following the commonly-used terminology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to BrownHairedGirl's argument might be added Category:Prophets where a moment's reflection maps the potential renaming minefield, as there are major world religions whose followers are very attached to the concept. AllyD (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Note: I solicited input from BrownHairedGirl] I was hoping that you would respond to my alternative proposal in addition to the "official" one, BHG. I really think the analogy to "Christians" is a faulty analogy in several respects. To begin with, it seems me that "Christians" is a better defined and far less ambiguous term than "Pyschics". There is no confusion as to what is meant. It can be applied very simply, to anybody who is a member of a Christian church or professes a belief in Christianity. Nothing comparable obtains with respect to the term "Psychics", as I have already pointed out in some detail. In addition, no particular claims are asserted with respect to the actions or abilities of Christians, whereas such actions or abilities are absolutely central in the case of "Psychics". Furthermore, there's no reason that a Christian would take issue with being called a "Christian", but as I've already pointed out, not everybody who has or claims to have psychic abilities would want to be labelled as a quote-unquote "Psychic". I have made a very serious and carefully considered alternative proposal, and I am dismayed that even thoughtful editors such as yourself & DGG have thus far ignored every issue I've raised. Cgingold (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Sorry to disagree, but I don't think that your proposal of Category:People purported to have psychic abilities does much other than make a longer version of the nominator's proposal, because it still problematises the concept of a "psychic" in a way that we don't do with other categories. As DGG succinctly noted, "to someone who believes, it's a well-deserved compliment, to someone who doesn't, it's a well-deserved insult". And you're quite wrong that Christians don't object to the label. There are plenty of followers of JC (including a friend of mine who is an ordained Methodist minster) who strongly resist the term because so far as they are concerned the term "christian" applies support for what they see as the history of institutionalised abuse of Christ's teachings. But the term still works as a shorthand, because anyone who wants to do the reading can find all the ways in which it is problematised.
    Don't forget that from a strict Presbyterian perspective, Roman Catholics are followers of the Antichrist, so they aren't Christians; and from a strict Roman Catholic perspective, non-Catholic ministers are not validly ordained. Despite these sort of disputes over the terminology, we still use the shorthand term, rather than attaching a problematising tag to it as you propose.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having (or claiming to have) psychic abilities is not even remotely comparable to having certain religious beliefs. It's about abilities (strictly speaking, purported abilities) -- not beliefs -- so there's no reason to pursue that particular line of discussion any further. I could not disagree more with your statement that my proposal to reframe this away from use of the word "psychic" as a noun "problematises the concept of a 'psychic'", BHG. Quite the opposite: it clarifies what we're talking about, using stricly neutral terms. We take no position with regard to those claimed abilities -- we simply take note of them. Cgingold (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, it's very similar. You are confusing some differences in the inherent nature of the subject with the huge similarities that arise in choosing a category label. In both cases, there is disagreement about whether the overall concept has any validity, and about whether the term can be validly applied to any individual who claims it. Sure, in one case we are talking about abilities, and in the other we talking about beliefs, but it's not only about beliefs: like other religions, christianity is also about how people live their lives ... and in both cases the applicability of the terms can be contested. People have been burnt at the stake for not espousing an approved form of christianity and thereby being deemed not be christians, and others are expelled from christian churches because their conduct doesn't meet the standards of those in control of those churches (look at the storms around people like Don Cupitt and John Shelby Spong for an example of what I mean). So with anyone who is labelled a christian, there is plenty of scope for disputing whether they truly believe what they claim to believe or whether they follow the instructions in Christ's teachings. You seem happy to allow the unqualified label of "Chistian" as a noun to be attached to them, but not to similarly allow a noun to be attached to psychics. And what about Category:Prophets?
    You claim to be trying to use neutral terms, but in fact what you doing is the same thing as the nominator: you are applying a double standard of qualifying psychics as "purported" but not qualifying as "purported" those who claimed to "christian" or who are claimed to be "prophets". Do you think that Buddhists or Hindus accept the notion that Isaiah is a prophet? By your logic, he should not be in Category:Prophets of the Hebrew Bible, but in some neutrally-worded category such as {{cl|Characters in the Hebrew Bible purported to be prophets]]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes, I'm on my way out the door & don't have time for a full response to your very lengthy reply. For the moment I will confine myself to my very particular use of the word "purported". As I have been at great pains to point out, one of the primary reasons for my reframing of the Category name is precisely that it severs the link between the adjective "purported" and the noun "Psychics" -- which (as I said) is, indeed, problematic for the very reason that you have described. We don't disagree on that point, BHG. In my formulation, the adjective "purported" is used in reference to the claimed abilities, and is in no way disparaging. The phrase "purported to have psychic abilities" is is nothing more than a strictly neutral description, since we certainly cannot say without qualification that they "have psychic abilities". If you can suggest a better word than "purported" please do, but in my considered opinion there isn't one. Gotta go now! Cgingold (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename - any other name for category would be over-complicated and in some cases potentially ambiguous ("Psychic claimants" sounds like a narrower category, perhaps claimants to thrones who believe they have psychic messages declaring their entitlement). BHG's arguments re Christians etc are impressive - the category does no harm and should be left as is. PamD (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm sensitive to the idea that calling them psychics gives the appearance of accepting their claim, but I don't really see an acceptable alternative that doesn't create as many issues as it solves. Seeing that category attached to an article, I don't find myself thinking 'WP thinks that person X has psychic powers', but rather as 'WP recognizes that person X is known to the public in the context of claiming to be psychic, or having that claim made on their behalf'. The analogy to various deities is a good one;Perun is listed as a Slavic God, not under 'Entities purportedly identified in Slavic mythological sources as gods'. There's a limit to how much context we can provide through a category name and have it still be useful; sometimes, making things more explicit isn't an improvement. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I do not believe their claims, considering them (sometimes) sincere but wrong. I thus agree with the view of the nom, but that is my POV. However, the nom seeks to impose a POV, with which others will not agree. That cannot be allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something - I'm not comfortable at all in leaving this as is. The best thing I can come up with is Category:Professional psychics (to better convey it is their profession, not that they actually are psychic. VegaDark (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Do you also support renaming Category:Gods to another name which conveys the message that some people attribute divine powers to these entities, rather than that they do objectively have those powers? And if not, why single out the psychics for problematisation in this way? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • I would support a different name for a that category in regards to any people who are in that category, but not for any pages on the concept of an individual god. VegaDark (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This suggested name hints at the general fuzziness/confusion on the subject and further illustrates the problem with using the noun "Psychic", as I endeavored (fruitlessly) to point out above. It simply is not the case that all, or even most, of these people make a living off of their claimed abilities and are thus properly termed "Professional psychics". (Is there some other meaning to the word "Professional"?) Again, I think it is much better to reframe this by looking at these individuals as "people with psychic abilities" -- but to recognize the fact that these abilities are not proven, therefore referring to them in neutral terms as "people purported to have psychic abilities". Cgingold (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, no -- I just spotted this reply, and as I just said above, "I'm on my way out the door". So this will have to be a real quickie. Very simply, it's a flawed analogy which conflates two very disparate kinds of terms. We use the term "Prophets" because that is literally what they are known as -- in essence, it's the standard historical term for a very particular group of historical figures. (I sincerely hope that category isn't being used for any contemporary figures.) In contrast, the noun "Psychics" gets applied to all sorts of contemporary figures (recent past & still living) with a very wide range of (claimed) abilities, not just to historical figures -- and as I've pointed out, not all of them are properly referred to as quote-unquote "Psychics". Lastly, I really must take issue, BHG, with your suggestion that my proposal is in any way about "singling out a marginalised group" in order to "problematise" them. I assure you, nothing could be further from the truth -- so please don't tar me with the same broad brush that may (perhaps) apply to certain other editors. I am sincerely looking for a formulation that is at once accurate and strictly neutral -- nothing more, nothing less. And now I really have to go! Cgingold (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2009 (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:Puerto Rican sausages[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. BTW, someone may want to check the other "FOOian Sausages" categories that Chorizo is in. Many of them have nothing other than Chorizo, and can probably be deleted as well. Kbdank71 13:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Puerto Rican sausages to parent categories.
Nominator's rationale: UpMerge to parents. Upmerge this single entry category that is not likely to be greatly expanded to whatever parents remain at that end of this discussion. I'm not convinced that all of the parents are correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The many forms of Chorizo are ubiquitous in the Spanish-speaking world, and beyond. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A delete would not be unreasonable. So if consensus is with a delete, fine. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2009 (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:Neo-Stalinist organisations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Neo-Stalinist organisations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category was created by User:Digwuren purely for the placement of Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee and Estonian Anti-Fascist Committee into, based upon a single source (and in the case of the Estonian Committee, NO sources). Obviously there are WP:BLP concerns with such categories, and given the POV-pushing on all sides at Johan Bäckman and Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee, BLP needs to take precedence over POV-advocacy. Also, note, that another editor has had the good sense to removed Johan Backman from the Neo-Stalinism category with BLP in mind. Russavia Dialogue 03:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I resent your display of assumption of bad faith. Every category is small in the beginning. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikipedia's article on Neo-Stalinism is a bit incomplete. It talks mostly about attempts to rehabilitate Stalin. However, Neo-Stalinism also refers to the belief that Stalin's policies should be reinstated. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is nothing special here. As long as sources identify something as a "neo-stalinist organization" (and there are plenty of such organizations), this is fine.Biophys (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neo-stalinists exist, therefore it only takes two neo-stalinists to form an organisation. If a reliable source refers to an organisation as "neo-stalinist", that is sufficient. Martintg (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2009 (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:Neo-Stalinism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Neo-Stalinism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category was created by User:Digwuren purely for the placement of Johan Bäckman into, based upon a single source. Obviously there are WP:BLP concerns with such categories, and given the POV-pushing on all sides at Johan Bäckman and Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee, BLP needs to take precedence over POV-advocacy. Also, note, that another editor has had the good sense to removed Johan Backman from the Neo-Stalinism category with BLP in mind. Russavia Dialogue 03:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I resent your display of assumption of bad faith. Every category is small in the beginning. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - I have no idea what Neo-Stalinism is, or if such a thing exists. The article "Neo-Stalinism" survived AfD (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Stalinism) based on the claim that "The definition is self-evident", without providing any references for usage of the term. What is self-evident is that the term is a usefull propaganda and attack tool. Its modern usage seems to be concentrated in Estonia; the reliable source I added to Talk:Neo-Stalinism shows that it has been used to attack members of the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee. This is however not enough for categorization. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I never heard of it" is a poor argument for deletion. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The number of neo-Stalinist organisations -- that is to say, organisations that justify Stalin regime's crimes against humanity -- yesterday condemned by the Europarliament -- or facilitate historical revisionism (negationism) has, sadly, been on the rise recently. Just as we've got Category:Neo-Nazism and Category:Neo-Nazi organizations, we need Category:Neo-Stalinism and Category:Neo-Stalinist organisations. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A few comments: 1) Digwuren, when you create a category, please place it in a proper category itself (don't disconnect the category graph). In fact, this goes to everbody who plans to create categories about anything. 2) Look into Category:Communism. That should be enough for a good faith editor to understand the need for this category. Most neo-Stalinists identify themselves as such. BTW, neo-Stalinism includes from 1970s onwards, not just modern times. 3) Help populate it properly. I understand that there are a couple editors here quite knowledgeable of the Marxist theory and practice. Please, do lend your hand and don't just stand and chriticize. 4) Do not spill the Estonian-Finish-Soviet-Russian "wikifriendly" relations over into categories, would you, please. Dc76\talk 13:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know where to put it. I'm not particularly familiar with the category system of Communism-related topics on Wikipedia.
Thanks for the constructive critique. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for your point (2), I have seen sources from 1950s that talked about neo-Stalinism already. I guess the nuances of the meaning have varied over decades, though. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:08, 3 April 2009 (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.

Family of Martin Luther King, Jr.[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Martin Luther King family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article, and grammar makes it slightly more intelligible. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you in fact proposing? If the proposal is to delete the category, I say Keep. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer It seems like families of persons are "Family of X" - it's an X of Y issue. Cf. with Category:Works by Martin Luther King, Jr., not Category:Martin Luther King, Jr. works. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry if I wasn't clear; I have no comment on or problem with the rename, I was just curious about the deletion rationale. Postdlf (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no need to rename unless to simplify it by renaming it to Category:King family. The obvious and strange POV bias shown by many of the frequent CfD commenters here against any and all categories dealing with families also needs to be examined. --Wassermann (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (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:Songs named after other artists[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. I agree that a list would be AFD'ed, as were many other categories-turned-lists-via-CFD. If anyone wants to create a list on their own, I will provide the articles that were in the category. Kbdank71 13:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'll get around to it when everything else on Wikipedia is done. Postdlf (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs named after other artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by shared name characteristic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a list would not survive AFD and in fact I believe that such a list (covering the broader concept of musicians referenced anywhere in the lyrics rather than just in the title) was deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2009 (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.

U.S. college basketball venues[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. Kbdank71 13:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. These are all categorizing venues by event, said in the guildines to have "no encyclopedic value". These are the remaining venues for various U.S. college basketball tournaments. I tested the water with a nomination prior to this one and found that the water was, well, dead. Anyway, the many articles that will be in Category:Basketball venues in the United States would be far better served to be divided by state than what currently exists. See also the following similar discussions on NCAA sports venues:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_26#Category:NCAA_Men's_Basketball_Final_Four_Venues
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_6#Category:Great_Midwest_Conference_men's_basketball_tournament_venues
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_8#Category:NCAA_Men's_Frozen_Four_venues — Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2009 (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/2009_April_3&oldid=1074801681"