Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 18 March 20 >

March 19[edit]

Madman Entertainment subcats[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 13:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming the following
Nominator's rationale: The current category reads as a little vague to me, it reads as if Madman Entertainment produce the media in question rather than distribute them. The rename is to give more clarity on what the cats intend to categorise, in this case the relation Madman have to the media. treelo radda 22:19, 19 March 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.

Centro Atlético Fénix[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 per nom Erik9 (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renamingCategory:C.A. Fenix players to Category:Centro Atlético Fénix players
Propose renamingCategory:C.A. Fenix managers to Category:Centro Atlético Fénix managers
Propose renamingCategory:C.A. Fenix to Category:Centro Atlético Fénix
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is Club Atlético Fénix, there a need to Disambiguate. Matthew_hk tc 15:47, 19 March 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:Science in Pittsburgh[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: upmerge/delete upmerge Category:Scientists from Pittsburgh and delete Category:Science in Pittsburgh. Kbdank71 13:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Science in Pittsburgh
Propose renaming Category:Scientists from Pittsburgh to Category:Scientists from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Nominator's rationale: It's the only one of its kind. We have no "science in (X)" categories from anywhere else in the world.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's really not a good idea to mix disparate proposals in a mass nom like this - I suggest separating the two that are up for deletion into a separate CFD section. Cgingold (talk) 10:45, 19 March 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.

People[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 and delete the brownsville one. Kbdank71 13:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Fort Walton Beach to Category:People from Fort Walton Beach, Florida
Propose renaming Category:People from Kansas City to Category:People from the Kansas City metropolitan area
Propose renaming Category:People from Philadelphia to Category:People from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Propose renaming Category:People from Pittsburgh to Category:People from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Propose renaming Category:People from Poughkeepsie to Category:People from Poughkeepsie, New York
Propose renaming Category:People from the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex area to Category:People from the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex
Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters from Chicago to Category:Fictional characters from Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters from Las Vegas to Category:Fictional characters from Las Vegas, Nevada
Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters from New Orleans to Category:Fictional characters from New Orleans, Louisiana
Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters from Philadelphia to Category:Fictional characters from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters from Pittsburgh to Category:Fictional characters from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Propose upmerging Category:People from the Brownsville-Harlingen, Texas, area to Category:People by metropolitan area in the United States, Category:People from Cameron County, Texas, and Category:People by city in Texas
Nominator's rationale: More "City, State" nominations. I'm proposing deleting the Brownsville one because it contains only the two obvious subcategories. I could argue for deleting all the metro-area People categories, since people (unlike, say, lakes) are usually from somewhere specific.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's really not a good idea to mix disparate proposals in a mass nom like this - I suggest separating the two that are up for deletion into a separate CFD section. Cgingold (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I moved the science one out to its own nomination, above. The Brownsville one seems germane to this nomination, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the renamers per nom and much recent precedent in cfds. The deletes should (at least) be upmerges into various parent cats. (The 'Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex area' has a host of people not more specifically located.) Occuli (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I changed the Brownsville one to an upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename those which refer to cities that are located at "City". This would apply to Las Vegas, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Chicago. Rename those which refer to cities that are located at "City, State".--ABIJXY (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all There is no reason for readers of WP to have to guess what U.S. state the city is located in. There is no reason for exceptions to this no matter how it is argued by certain city supporters who try to say their cities are so important that no state identifiication is needed. This is just special pleading. Hmains (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename only to match title of parent articles, which means keeping those categories without a state in the title (e.g., Philadelphia) and renaming those that don't (e.g., Poughkeepsie, New York and Fort Walton Beach, Florida). Few non-editors will ever have a reason to directly type the name of a category. Those editors adding categories to articles should be well familiar with the naming standard for articles, and the naming standard for categories should conform with the article standard, not vice versa. Those who oppose this standard convention for article names should direct their pleas by first reading Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States and then making their case on the corresponding talk page. There's no reason for the tail of categories to be waving the dog here. It's well past time that the CfD world started respecting precedents set at a far more global level in the far more real world of article space. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose of Category:People from Poughkeepsie to Category:People from Poughkeepsie, New York. The later is ambiguous. Read the articles if you need to see why. Poughkeepsie is used locally to describe both the town and city in local usage so it is probably best left alone. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, for the love of... Can't town founders in 1780 foresee the obvious categorization needs of Wikipedia a mere 229 years later? OK, if Poughkeepsie is going to stubbornly be two places in the same state, then "Poughkeepsie, New York" describes both of them. So I would still make the "New York" change, but I would be explicit in the setup that it defines the city and not the town, or that it allows for both (whichever we think it is--I think it's the former).--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just wait until someone creates Category:People from Wappingers Falls, New York and gives it a parent of this category! Wappingers Falls happens to be in the Town of Poughkeepsie and the Town of Wappinger. Blindly changing these category names without understanding local usage can create problems. Consensus will be what it is, but renaming to match the name of the city article is not logical, especially when the city is smaller then the town. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, noted, but this category can then be for people from the city of Poughkeepsie, New York, and someone else can get about categorizing articles about Wappingerites some other time.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States, which specifically names most of the cities listed here as ones that should NOT be renamed, because they do not require the state modifier to be recognized. --M@rēino 15:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've been adding a state or metro area indicator to every US city category. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, for some recently closed discussions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those conventions apply to articles. Categories have other conventions and different issues. So the basic logic of this proposal is consistent with the category guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The CfD world routinely ignores the conventions and guidelines established in the article world, where there is far greater participation and judgment used in making decisions. It's about time that the world of CfD started respecting precedents and policies that actually have some value. Alansohn (talk) 23:39, 22 March 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:Academic Journals articles with comments[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 13:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Academic Journals articles with comments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overly narrow working category MBisanz talk 03:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created this category and readily admit not knowing much, as I usually only edit in the main name space. I regularly edit articles on academic journals and routinely tag them for the corresponding Wikiproject. As far as I recall, at some point I got an error message saying that a needed category did not exist, therefore I created it. I agree with the nominator that this doesn't seems like a category that anyone would use and I have no objection to its deletion. However, if deleted, could someone who understands these things have a look at Template:WPJournals to see why I got that message and correct this, so that this template does not want this category any more? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and comment above. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, with a caveat. {{WPJournals}} transcludes {{WPBannerMeta}}, and the code that automatically creates the category is located in the latter template, which I think we should be cautious to change. In this instance, the simplest solution may be to delete Talk:American Journal of Mathematics/Comments, which does not (yet) contain any really useful suggestions; virtually every article could and should be expanded, and there's no need to state that on a separate subpage. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:41, 25 March 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:Southey, Sk.[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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Southey, Sk. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Improper category to categorize images, should be on commons or merged to a broader category. MBisanz talk 03:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't feel it appropriate to remove the category under discussion until there's a CFD consensus (although I could probably get away with it under the WP:SNOW clause), but I've gone ahead and added Category:Images of Saskatchewan to all three images. Accordingly, delete as not needed; it's a town of 700 people with few to no articles about other aspects of the town besides the main article itself, so renaming and repurposing it as an articlespace category instead wouldn't be necessary or justified at this time. Bearcat (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. Occuli (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or if kept at least rename to indicate that it's not in Slovakia. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 21 March 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:People shot dead by police 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: rename to Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States. Kbdank71 13:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People shot dead by police in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category, besides using poor grammar in the name, is a further cross categorization using other categories, including Category: People shot dead by police and Category:Deaths by firearm in the United States. If consensus is to keep, then perhaps it should be moved to Category:Deaths by firearms by police in the United States. Reading the category name makes me wince, and not based on the event covered. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am really baffled by this nomination. To begin with, there are 7 sub-cats of Category: People shot dead by police, so why single out just this one? More importantly, the rationale offered for deletion is an objection to "further cross categorization using other categories", which seems to translate to "it's a sub-category with parent categories" -- of which there are, of course, hundreds of thousands. Simply put, this is merely one of 7 sub-cats by country of Category: People shot dead by police, which I am certain other editors will agree is a perfectly sensible -- in fact, necessary -- way of organizing the contents of the parent cat. (We actually need a lot more such sub-cats to deal with the other 87 articles.)
The only thing that really needs to be done here is to properly rename the category. The current name makes me wince too -- but the proposed name makes my eyes twitch! :) Not to worry, there's a simple & elegant solution: Rename to Category:People shot dead by police officers in the United States Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States [per my comment below on this point]. And while we're at it, we may as well rename the rest of them too. (I'll add the others shortly.) Cgingold (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I noted below, my main issue with renaming is around the use of "shot dead" in a renamed category. It's very poor wording and as some have noted here and the nomination below, it's essentially cringe-worthy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Putting aside whether or not we should upmerge the categories (haven't decided yet), to me it seems like there should be a more elegant way to say this than using "shot dead". But I don't know what it is. I don't think it's the option proposed by the nominator. But "shot dead" just seems a bit "off", for some reason. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I know what you mean, but I'm not sure there's a better option. I suppose we could go with "shot to death", but I don't think it would be that much of an improvement, and it adds another word to an already long-ish name. On the issue of sub-cats by country, I regard these as in every respect fully comparable to executions by country (which you did the work on, as I recall, G/O). Cgingold (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, subcategories by country are not really a problem to me in this case now that I consider this (it took me some effort to get beyond the "shot dead" part). I can't think of anything better for the name so I think you may be right. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but rename per Cgingold. This is indeed an intersection of other categories, but I'm afraid it is very logical to have "by-country" subdivisions, since police are very different depending on the country in question. And being "shot dead" by police is an entirely different matter than otherwise dying by firearm—I've no problem having this particular topic as separate categories within the firearm deaths by country structure. (If someone figures out something better than "shot dead", my mind may change on the best name.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually the category needs some cleanup since not everyone included was shot by a police officer. I think the term you are looking for may be 'law enforcement'. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how about Category:Homicides by law enforcement officials in the United States? Matches the main article (homicide) on the action and includes the broader category. I'm not sure all of these are officers, but I'm not sure that officials works either. The correct usage may be 'sworn law enforcement personnel'. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this category should keep its focus on shootings, rather than broadening to homicides. For one thing, we already have a sibling category, Category:People who died in police custody, which should, I think, cover the other sorts of cases where people have died at the hands of police officers. I also think the suggested alternative would be more likely to be inadvertently misused to include all homicides committed by individuals who happened to be in law enforcement (i.e. killings of family members, etc.). Cgingold (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename per the version of Cgingold or that of Hmains. Occuli (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hazarding another formulation: Category:Deaths by police officer shootings in the United States you get the police officers (not police) and the shootings, (not "shot dead"). The other term of art in the news is "officer-involved shootings" so with an additional word another possible formulation is Category:Deaths by police officer-involved shootings in the United States. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment "shot dead" is perfectly good clear English; no weasel words, no beating around the bush or otherwise trying to hide the facts; no comment on whether it was justified or not; and it fits in the 'deaths by firearms' parent category where it should certainly be in order to complete that category. Hmains (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I actually prefer Carlos's suggestion. "Shot dead" sounds about as good as "perfectly good clear English". It's not ambiguous, but it does sound ragged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:People shot dead by police officers in the United States (or some variation thereof) to match the global CfD below. That this phenomenon occurs is undeniable and the fact is that the death by police shooting for the individuals included is the primary feature of what makes almost all of these people notable, which makes this a rather storng defining characteristic applied on a rather coherent basis to group articles for navigation purposes. As is usual and customary, all you have to do to justify your deletion vote is to insist that there is some borderline case that might not fit in or might not fit perfectly together. The solution in such cases is to ignore these delete votes and apply a small dab of common sense to consider exclusion of certain cases or consider splitting a category into subcategories. Alansohn (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have decided to support use of the term "law enforcement officers" instead of "police officers". Cgingold (talk) 19:26, 23 March 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:People shot dead by police[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 all to shot dead by law enforcement officers. Kbdank71 14:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People shot dead by police (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The rationale I gave for renaming Category:People shot dead by police in the United States (above) applies to all of these categories as well. Cgingold (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that it might be thought preferable to use the term "law enforcement officers" instead of "police officers", although I think the two terms would probably be generally understood as equivalent in this context. Cgingold (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename all when changed to 'law enforcement officers'. Police are specific to cities while we have county sheriff deputies or whatever and a slew of federal/national enforcement officers. Hmains (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Cgingold. Or use something broader than "police officers"—either is fine with me. But the current names are not good enough. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Cgingold. 'Shot dead' has the great virtues of clarity and brevity. 'Police officers' sounds just fine for the UK. I defer to others on the optimal wording for the constabulary of other countries. Occuli (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UK category captures 3 people who were indeed shot dead by the police; it is the single incident in their lives for which they are known. 'Shot dead' is a common and perfectly acceptable phrase in the UK; see eg BBC news, with 47,000 instances of the phrase. Occuli (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - captures too many disparate circumstances to make for a coherent category. It captures perps who were "righteous shoots", perps who were shot under non-"righteous" circumstances, people caught in cross-fires or otherwise shot accidentally and people who were murdered by police officers acting independent of their roles as police. A list, which can explain the circumstances behind the various shootings with reliable sourcing would be the better way to go here, but listification should not be required before deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but My main issue with renaming is around the use of "shot dead" in a renamed category. It's very poor wording and as some have noted here and the nomination above, it's essentially cringe-worthy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hazarding another formulation: Category:Deaths by police officer shootings in ... you get the police officers (not police) and the shootings, (not "shot dead"). The other term of art in the news is "officer-involved shootings" so with an additional word another possible formulation is Category:Deaths by police officer-involved shootings in ... per my comments in the CFD above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment "shot dead" is perfectly good clear English; no weasel words, no beating around the bush or otherwise trying to hide the facts; no comment on whether it was justified or not; and it fits in the 'deaths by firearms' parent category where it should certainly be in order to complete that category. Hmains (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename as proposed, or some variant thereof. Alansohn (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have decided to support use of the term "law enforcement officers" instead of "police officers". Cgingold (talk) 19:26, 23 March 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_March_19&oldid=1138392725"