Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 9 October 11 >

October 10[edit]

Category:Dark Funeral discography[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 (was empty at close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dark Funeral discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization. This will basically only ever have these two subcategories and one article (Dark Funeral discography.) Alternatively, someone can create Category:Dark Funeral and upmerge these two (along with Category:Dark Funeral songs, Category:Dark Funeral members, Category:Dark Funeral media, etc.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge: Dark Prime (talk) 08:15, 11 October 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:New England Marching Bands[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) 01:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New England Marching Bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as an arbitrary and unnecessary grouping: arbitrary because marching bands are neither a distinctive characteristic of New England culture nor generally differentiable by any geographic region in the U.S.; unnecessary as all articles are already tagged in Category:University marching bands and other useful categories. If retained, "Marching Bands" should be in lowercase.- choster (talk) 17:26, 10 October 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:Country songs by songwriter[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Country songs by songwriter to Category:Songs by songwriter
Nominator's rationale: The kernal of my argument is that the difference in genre is about arrangement, not songwriting. Many songs have been recorded with different arrangements in more than one genre, and therefore this category is purely a subjective criteria and not objective. Therefore fails WP:NPOV. A number of supportive points are raised below.
  1. Songwriter reads "A songwriter is someone who writes the lyrics, as well as the musical composition or melody to songs." This means that a songwriter does not necessarily write the arrangement.
  2. Country music includes the following, "Country music has produced two of the top selling solo artists of all time. Elvis Presley, ..." this suggests that major songwriter contributors to Presley's career should be included as "country music songwriters" such as Aaron Schroeder and Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller.
  3. The country music article also goes on to say " ...and "The Rolling Stones also got into the act with songs like "Honky Tonk Women" and "Dead Flowers". Jagger/Richards are country writers?
  4. Then we have "In 1997 (Roger Cook became the first (and so far only) British songwriter ever to enter the Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame." Cook who started as a British pop songwriter became an award-winning country writer, so should he be included in Category:Country songs by songwriter? Not at present.
  5. And here's my favourite, which perfectly illustrates my argument. The category I created Category:Songs written by John D. Loudermilk was originally place by me in the Country song by songwriter category and removed by another editor. The John D. Loudermilk article describes him as country, he is a member of Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame, but his most famous songs crossed over to pop with recordings by Don Fardon, Nashville Teens, and Norah Jones.
  6. About 10 years ago there was a promo CD being passed round Nashville of Cole Porter songs recorded in a "country-style." If a noteable hit had come from it, would Cole Porter have to be re-classified as a "country songwriter?"
  7. There are a still a bunch of songwriters who could be subjectively included in "Country songs by songwriter" i.e. Johnny Cash, Travis Tritt, the aforesaid John D. Loudermilk and many others.
Richhoncho (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. There doesn't appear to be an article to support this category. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. This appears to be the only genre subcategory for Category:Songs by songwriter. There aren't others such as "Pop songs by songwriter" or "Folk songs by songwriter", and if there were, it would quickly show the difficulties pointed out in the nomination. --RL0919 (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I thought that splitting Category:Songs by songwriter by genre was a good idea, but Richhoncho makes a convincing argument. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:39, 13 October 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:Alleged holocaust perpetrators[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.
A long line of past decisions mean that there is generally limited sympathy for 'alleged' categorisations, for a variety of good and policy-based reasons. Any issues raised here are basically a disagreement between those who wish to delete as per general consensus and those who believe that this category, by virtue of its subject matter, is a special case.
Unlike 'murderer', 'rapist', or 'thief', the description 'holocaust perpetrator' does not have any formal legal basis. This at once complicates matters and, at the same time, affords editors a degree of flexibility. Unlike any of the above crimes, the label of 'holocaust perpetrator' can be applied outwith any judicial process; it may be applied to those convicted of holocaust-related murders, administrators who organised the forced expulsions and transportation, or simply to those who gave the instructions for all this to be accomplished.
Categorisations deal with defining characteristics, things which should be as objective and factual as possible. Given the wide embrace of Category:Holocaust perpetrators I am not persuaded that there is any need for an exception to the general avoidance of 'alleged' categorisations. Whether by virtue of Nuremberg tribunal (or similar), criminal conviction, or simply by widespread notoriety and repute (eg Hitler, Himmler, Mengele) - any of these could justify inclusion within Category:Holocaust perpetrators. If the evidence is so slight or unproven that an individual cannot meet this standard then, according to general principles, such information is outwith the limited ambit of categorisation and more properly belongs in the article itself, not within an 'alleged' category.
--Xdamrtalk 15:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alleged holocaust perpetrators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Using "alleged" in a category name is almost never a good idea, because it automatically introduces a host of definitional problems. Who has to do the "alleging"? Does there have to be a criminal indictment, or is a criminal investigation enough? What if it is "alleged" and then the person is found not guilty in a law court? Are they still "alleged"? We have Category:Holocaust perpetrators for those who are proven to have been so; this is enough, in my opinion. Many similar categories have been deleted in the past, including Alleged U.S. war criminals; Alleged war crimes; Crime suspects; Persons accused of filicide; People accused of crimes against humanity; Documentaries about alleged war criminals; and others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that 'Holocaust' should be capitalized and the category should be renamed. HarryZilber (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the nom, alleged in category names is not a good thing, otherwise we could have categories such as "Alleged paedophiles", "Alleged rapists", "Alleged horse masturbators" (OK, not long ago finished watching Freddy Got Fingered). Whilst some of the people within the current category have received a large proportion of their notability as a result of being accused of killing Jews during WWII, a category for them is not warranted under WP:BLP as do no harm. However, I do wonder out aloud why Category:Nazi collaborators couldn't be used if this is an established fact, rather than an allegation? --Russavia Dialogue 16:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the claim is alleged but unmistakably high-profile and key to some living person's notability, then BLP shouldn't be a concern, since we're prefacing the category title by "Alleged." (The reader is being explicitly informed of the dispute.) People do become notable simply for being alleged Holocaust perpetrators – they do not become notable by being "alleged pedophiles"/"alleged rapists"/"alleged horse masturbators" as in your counteraxample. Of course, Category:Nazi collaborators should be used where it's established fact, as you correctly note. But not all collaborators were Holocaust perpetrators. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You are missing the point of the objection. If it is "alleged" then it is not proven, if it is not proven, then it is not fact, if it is not fact then it has no place in an encyclopedia. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if the allegation is made by high-quality sources (like international isntitutions), the claim is notable. The concern above (very fairly raised) was WP:BLP, and I don't believe that a category that describes certain people as "alleged Holocaust perpetrators" is a BLP violation, if notable, high-quality sources like judgments of the United States Department of State or the Israel-based Simon Wiesenthal Center are available to support the allegation. As the category's title is "Alleged Holocaust perpetrators," it reports such claims, rather than endorsing them. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AN, as you are aware, I am not able to discuss particular articles, so I will speak generally. Whilst the allegations may have been made by high-profile organisations, one would need more. You mention the US DoS, but I don't think even this is enough, as organisations such as DoS can stop anyone from entering a country for any reason at all. Whilst Richhoncho is off-base on the assertion that if it is not fact it has no place in an encyclopaedia -- remember verifiability not truth -- we shouldn't have categories such as this because it is still only alleged. I would really suggest simply using the "Nazi collaborator" categories, and leave it at that. It is the same reason that I would suggest that you look at Category:People indicted for genocide and nominate that for deletion, for it is precisely the same as this, in that they are only alleged categories, just without the word alleged. --Russavia Dialogue 20:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with Russavia: the two categories are not mutually inclusive and therefore both are valid, although there will be overlap for some individuals (some people have or can be indicted on charges for both). HarryZilber (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Staberinde (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: here's the backstory to the Alleged holocaust perpetrators category which was initially created several days ago. Synopsis:
1) IP 67.149.150.252 from Michigan, who has previously taunted other editors critical of Nazi figures as shown here, noted on this Charles Zentai discussion topic that Zentai, who had been arrested in Australia in 2005, had not been convicted of any war crimes;
2) with that rational, the same IP 67.149.150.252 removed the Holocaust perpetrators Cat from the Zentai article.
That was seemingly appropriate, since according to the tenets of law in most western countries its improper to address a rapist or murderer as such unless they've actually been convicted of the appellation. Until such time they're normally referred to as: John Doe, the alleged rapist/murderer.... etc....
3) At this point, we now had the Charles Zentai article now with no connection to the Holocaust war crimes alleged of him and for which reason he was arrested in Australia and is currently undergoing extradition proceedings back to Hungary, which has all been amply documented and reported in reliable Australian news sources. Hence, several days ago I created the new category: Alleged holocaust perpetrators, and
4) then tagged the Charles Zentai webpage with the new Cat, followed by:
5) an admin speedy deleting the above work without discussion or precedence (note that Alleged war criminal, a previous deleted category, is not in the same class as an Alleged holocaust perpetrator, which relates to genocide, not capital crimes –hence the lack of precedence).
Rational for the category and its use: as shown above the category is appropriate for articles concerning those who have been charged with holocaust related crimes but not yet been convicted of them. Owing to the seriousness of the crimes, which amount to participation in genocide, those undergoing extradition or trial for those crimes can, and have, stalled their proceedings many times with numerous appeals to many levels of the judiciary and even to ministers of the government, as happened in Canada, and also with John Demjanjuk. While a person arrested for other serious crimes is likely to go to trial and be cleared or convicted in a matter of a few months or a few years at most, that is definitely not the case with Holocaust perpetrators, some of whom have died before they could be extradited to the jurisdiction of their crimes.
Where such charges have been filed, they have almost always been investigated extensively, not only be several government agencies, but also by more than one government. In that circumstance the alleged Holocaust perpetrator is highly notable for having reached that status, but can probably not legitimately be categorized as a (convicted) Holocaust perpetrator. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that those charged are eventually tried and either convicted or acquitted, this category is somewhat transient and thus it is of limited utility. --Martintg (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale doesn't cut it, because people can be called Alleged holocaust perpetrators also then they were cleared by court or were never actually charged due lack of evidence. Making allegations about someone's participation in war crimes does not require any reliable evidence.--Staberinde (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has many lightly populated categories –no one to my knowledge has seriously suggested they be eliminated. If the category is valid and serves a purpose of assisting readers in identifying their research targets then it has a valid purpose in Wikipedia. Additionally there are a number of people who died before they could be legally convicted of Holocaust related crimes, and who would therefore be more properly categorized as alleged Holocaust perpetrators rather than Holocaust perpetrators. HarryZilber (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no NPOV criteria for deciding inclusion of people in this category making it inherently POV.--Staberinde (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that numerous Nazi war criminals were never prosecuted for their crimes creates the need for the category of "Alleged Holocaust Perpetrators," which brings to light the allegations against such persons and can offer information to explain why they have not been brought to justice. Thus for example it would be unthinkable for a source like Wikipedia not to be able to provide a list/category of such persons like Gestapo chief Heinrich Mueller or Auschwitz doctor Josef Mengele or Mauthausen doctor Aribert Heim, none of whom was ever physically put on trial. (Mengele was "tried" in a symbolic trial at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and research center in Israel.) Dr. Efraim Zuroff Director, Simon Wiesenthal Center-Israel Office Coordinator, SWC Nazi war crimes research worldwide www.operationlastchance.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.202.96 (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC) — 93.173.202.96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Are you seriously proposing categorizing Mengele as "Alleged Holocaust Perpetrator"? I am absolutely confident that Mengele's participation in Holocaust is confirmed by numerous reliable sources and no serious historian (not counting holocaust deniers pushing fringe theories) would dispute this. Same would apply for any other person who died before being properly investigated by law enforcement authorities, if there is consensus among reputable historians, then they can be categorized as "Holocaust perpetrators", with no "alleged" which would be just ridiculous (Adolf Hitler as "alleged holocaust perpetrator" for example?).--Staberinde (talk) 10:04, 19 October 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.

Regions in Denmark[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per change of main article names to the official English names, which were not known at the time of creation of articles and categories. Law Lord (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 16:13, 12 October 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:Hardline politicians[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hardline politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No inclusion criteria, no definition of "hardline" - way too open for misuse. Skier Dude (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Would fail WP:NPOV. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; entirely subjective; could be used as an attack category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Debresser (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV concerns as stated above. Also seems to assume a singular attitude on the part of the article subjects, whereas in reality the same person could be "hardline" at one point in their career and more flexible at another point, or hardline about one issue and not about another. --RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; entirely subjective; could be used as an attack category. --Salimi (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subjective; potential for attack. And the grouping that was chosen to launch the category strikes me as particularly hilarious. Bearcat (talk) 06:36, 15 October 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:Anti-Armenian Wikipedians[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anti-Armenian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Surely this is not an appropriate user category per WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strange that CSD:G10 only applies to pages. NVO (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    G10 definitely does apply to categories if their only purpose is to disparage or threaten someone. Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strange that the creator and only entry are one and the same. Not sure I'd wish to be indentified by what I was against rather than what I was for. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly not meant for collaboration, but the exact opposite. — ξxplicit 17:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily delete as disrupting. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious, possibly speedy delete - Anti-anything user categories are not appropriate (as they don't support collaboration), let alone a hate category such as this. VegaDark (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hopelessly POV. Alansohn (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alansohn. --Law Lord (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have listed a corresponding userbox for speedy deletion. --Law Lord (talk) 10:55, 13 October 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:Malta's Leader of the Opposition[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:Malta's Leader of the Opposition to Category:Leaders of the Opposition (Malta). --Xdamrtalk 14:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Malta's Leader of the Opposition to Category:Leaders of the Opposition (Malta)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Pluralise and rename to naming format agreed to in 2009 JUN 12 CfD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator and precedent. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match precedent. Alansohn (talk) 16:14, 12 October 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 Associated with James Joyce[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. --Xdamrtalk 11:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People Associated with James Joyce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We usually don't categorize people by their connection to another person. See here. These articles can be categorized in Category:James Joyce if categorization in a Joyce-related category is crucial. (Category:James Joyce contains a number of other dubious subcategories, like Category:Music relating to James Joyce.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an upmerge nom, then? If not, why not? Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If doing so would be appropriate, they should be upmerged. How's that for a non-answer? Frankly, I don't feel that I know enough about all the article subjects in question to decide if they all need to be included in Category:James Joyce. If the consensus is that they all (or some) should be upmerged, that is consistent with my nomination to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that the nom is not really set up to encourage that discussion; as we know it is often hard to get editors to engage with the detailed contents of a category. With the exception noted below, all are close family or friends mainly or entirely notable in that capacity (ok not Becket). But I see all are in the head-cat already in fact. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the nom needs to be set up to do so. Anyone can bring it up if it's thought to be relevant. I didn't think it was at the time; thus, I had no reason to try to encourage it. I can't remember if at the time I had noticed that they were all in the parent category or not. That could have happened. I drank some motor oil that day so my recollections about such details are a bit fuzzy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom apart from Jean Erdman who never met the guy, & merely did a ballet based (?!) on his work. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a reasonable exception, considering their importance in both his life and his work. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 16 October 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_October_10&oldid=1144514636"