Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 6

< October 5	October 7 >

October 6[edit]

Category:Films without IMDB profile[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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not useful to Wikipedia and difficult to maintain. IMDb is the Internet Movie Database in case anybody doesn't know. Creator has stated [1]: "The use of this category is to encourage users to create IMDB profiles for the films". The category is currently hidden although the creator wanted it to be displayed. All 13 current articles are Malayalam language Indian films, a topic the creator User:Sreejithk2000 is interested in. This is not the place to recruit contributors to an external site. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If I am interpreting this correctly, the idea is to encourage people to create IMDB profiles on IMDB? Absolutely no value to Wikipedia. Reso lute 23:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (hidden or on talkpage). Encouraging completeness of the external database is a good thing. Encouraging that "every film listed on Wikipedia has a corresponding listing at IMDB" is a good thing. We are not here to complete with parallel projects, but to advance a repository of all human knowledge collaboratively. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this can be a useful tracking category, and should either be hidden or moved to the talkpage. Lugnuts (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categorisation based on non-inclusion in any external resource, however useful, is a minefield ("Films not available on Blu-ray", "People and places not in Gazetteer for Scotland", etc, etc.). AllyD (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the explosive potential hazard? "Blu-ray" and "Gazetteer for Scotland" are not reputed databases of information linked extensively from Wikipedia mainspace. There are few external editable databases comparable, and where there are, we would work harmoniously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the Indian film industry does not and will not have IMDb entries. They will be "stuck" eternally in this category effectively splitting the focus of the cat: articles that 1) have an IMDb entry but it isn't linked, 2) don't have an IMDb entry yet, but potentially will have one and 3) don't and will not have an IMDb entry. I don't think the purpose of this category is to glue all of these articles together. BOVINEBOY2008 07:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounded an interesting comment, but why do you think that Indian films are, or should be, stuck outside, never to be included in the IMDB? I think both (1) and (2) should be small categories that editors will work to remove members, and that membership of (3) will be a flag for a non-notable film. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-defining, and has nothing to do with us. PC78 (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I stated The use of this category is to encourage users to create IMDB profiles for the films in the edit summary, the purpose could be more than this stated reason.

Some of the articles included in this category could have matching IMDB profiles but no one actually bothered to find it.
The article name, characters, year of release or even the plot itself is misspelt or incorrect and when users find the correct article in IMDB, they could fix the wikipedia article.
Many articles about movies before 2000 has hardly any references and for Indian films its very difficult to find them as well. This category could encourage users to find one important reference for the artice, viz IMDB.

I feel that this category should be kept as it encourages users to do some sort of improvement to the existing articles in Wikipedia. --Sreejith K (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete serves no purpose to Wikipedia, only promotes another website (even if it is extremely useful that is irrelevant). Royal broil 02:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this meant “articles which lack a link to the corresponding film/actor/director/producer/etc. page on IMDb, but for which one is presumed (by default) to exist” it would be somewhat useful (and also could be populated through infobox-template magic or by a well-written bot). For the opposite purpose expressed above, collecting and maintaining this data as a “missing pages” list somewhere on IMDb itself would be more productive. ―cobaltcigs 16:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB is not a Wikimedia project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I never did understand why WP would bother tracking this, let alone have a category for it. We generally don't categorize things by what they do not have anyway. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:18, 13 October 2010 (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:Internet in the Middle East[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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is not a country, so it should not be in Category:Internet by country and one of the three articles is only secondarily Internet-related. Recategorize individual articles to Internet by country categories and delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I already see Category:Internet in Saudi Arabia, Category:Internet in Iran, Category:Internet in Iraq, so this is redundant. Shiva (Visnu) 23:25, 6 October 2010 (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:Honda video games[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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Questionable usefulness of this category, many of these cars featured in this game are not licensed by Honda, therefore they shouldn't be there at all; only one of these is generally dedicated to the Honda brand itself, therefore making it more like another driving games. In my opinion, more like another pointless category dedicated to videogames featuring a single marque, licensed or unlicensed, regardless if it is amongst a multiple of brands featured. Donnie Park (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar CfD required - for Category:Chevrolet video games. --Falcadore (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If I had to pick a favourite reason, it would be Overcategorisation, but I also have a real problem just with accuracy. Honda's role in these games is limited, if any at all. This category could quickly grow into uselessness. Do you include games with a strong Honda theme, or just Honda cars? Do we then include Honda motorycles? Honda racing motorcycles? Honda racing cars? Open wheel racing cars not built by Honda but with Honda engines like was feautured for about 20 years worth of Formula One? Honda owns Suzuka racetrack, do we then include every racing game that has ever included a version of Suzuka? The end result would indicate nothing like the title of the category and the collated result would be little more than trivia. Plus it opens the gates for games like the GT series which contain hundreds of different models of cars, to gain 30-40 new categories, none of which would add any information of significance to the originating articles. Delete with fire. --Falcadore (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete severe overcategorization. I don't see a much of games that I have and don't see why this category should exist. Royal broil 02:48, 8 October 2010 (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:Plastic arts[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. Dana boomer (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Plastic arts to Category:Visual arts

Nominator's rationale: The main article for this cat is plastic arts, which redirects to visual art. In that article it states that "plastic art" is just another name for "visual art", therefore the two should be merged under the article name to remove this redundancy. Wizard191 (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that claim in that article sourced? Hyacinth (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; make Category:Plastic arts a subcategory of Category:Visual arts, the opposite of the current situation. "Plastic arts" are 3-D things, excluding 2-D thinks like pictures. Note: Visual_art#The_Plastic_arts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote from visual art: "Plastic arts is a term, now largely redundant within english usage, specifically encompassing art forms which involve physical manipulation of a plastic medium by moulding or modeling such as sculpture or ceramics. The term has also been ambiguously applied to all the visual (non-literary, non-musical) arts". (bold mine) This has two references on it. I don't know anything about this topic, but either the article needs correcting or the cats need correction, because right now its a mess. Wizard191 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read the link I gave, and wasn't quite sure what to make of it. "Largely redundant" means "not redundant", and is not a useful description. The second sentence reads to me as saying that the term is widely misused. A google image search [2] yields a lot of pictures that seem characteristic of mouldable and collage compositions, and that do not seem representative of the whole of "visual arts". Although it says it includes sculpture, marble sculptures don't seem to be included. The m-w.com [3] gives two definitions. The first seems well defined and useful, the second seems a gross generalisation on the first. The oed.com has nothing. It is a mess, but a glean that it is a valid term, albeit sometimes misused, for a subset of the visual arts, and so I'll stand by by initial !vote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hyacinth (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2010 (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:Development projects[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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 18. Dana boomer (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Development projects to Category:Planned developments

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The development projects here are really planned developments which is one of the parent categories. There is no need for this extra level of navigation. Also we don't have an article on development projects so what should be included here is open to discussion and thus subjective. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no article for Category:Planned developments and many other categories in this particular category tree. Hmains (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2010 (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:Hindu terrorism[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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 18. Dana boomer (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hindu terrorism to Category:Hindutva terrorism

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is already some discussion of this on the category's talk page. However, "hindutva" seems to be the more specific and thus better word for the material being considered for inclusion in the category. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Please see discussion here to better understand the points for each side. Silverseren^C 18:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Shiva has convinced me quite eloquently that the title should remain as it is. Silver seren^C 17:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename suggestion of Hindutva terrorism, suggest rename to an alternative like Category:Hindu-related terrorism (I know it sounds weird and may be mincing words, but its one suggestion anyway). (1) I notice in the afore-mentioned discussion that Hindutva is identified as a political/nationalist and not really religious ideology. This is a subjective interpretation - there are cases of attacks on Christian and Muslim missionaries, which have more of a "protect-the-religion" motivation than a nationalist one. There are episodes of attacks on Dalits that are about the caste conflict. In these cases, the motivations of the perpetrators may be a more religious Hindutva or nothing to do with Hindutva at all and just caste prejudice. (2) It is also short-sighted, because you may end up needing this very category in the near future if things happen in other countries with Hindu populations - for example with the Bangabhumi movement in Bangladesh. (3) I would also cite example of Category:Islamic terrorism - this encompasses all the possible Islam-related motivations of terrorist groups, from those seeking to revive the caliphate, get rid of all non-Muslim military forces in the Middle East, exterminate non-Muslims and Islamic sects like Shiaism and Ahmadiyyas, etc. in dozens of countries across the world. The various ideologies of terrorist groups cannot be easily categorized, so they are linked by the common element, Islam, to simplify matters. (4) The groups you may include in this category may claim to follow Hindutva, but they may be condemned by mainstream Hindutva organizations who will say they are not following Hindutva, that there is nothing in Hindutva that calls for terrorism and so these groups should not be associated with Hindutva - if you do so through such a category, you are basically accepting one POV over another. Shiva (Visnu) 23:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say that it should, instead of being renamed to something akin to "Hindu-related terrorism", keeping it as Hindu Terrorism is better because of the related Categories being named Christian Terrorism and Islamic Terrorism? Silver seren^C 17:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice (first choice) or Rename to "Saffron terror" - There is no use for the category in the status quo because no investigations have been concluded that have named any "Hindu" group responsible for any terrorist attack. Shiva raises a good point about the untenability of "Hindutva terror", since the groups allegedly named in terrorist attacks like Abhinav Bharat are extremely shadowy, with no real glimpses of their ideology save a rabid anti-Muslim bent. A delete is preferable to a rename, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for speculation, but if that is not palatable, with Saffron terror at least we have a name for the attacks perpetrated by right wing groups like Abhinav Bharat. I voted delete in the Saffron terror AFD, but that was because of the logic of the first sentence of this paragraph; if any investigations are concluded showing a Saffron hand behind the attacks, then this category deserves the rename, if not delete without prejudice.Pectore^talk 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I think Saffron terror is not a good idea at all - for one, Saffron is a color of great religious significance, not only to Hindus but also Sikhs and Buddhists; its very vague/general because its application and notability is far greater in many aspects of these religions, color and in food than politics/violence. For most non-Indians and non-South Asians, Saffron doesn't mean anything more than the spice or flower at the very least - they will actually have to go through several articles on Hinduism and Hindu nationalism itself to understand what that's about. It would be akin to calling Communist terrorism "Hammer and sickle terrorism," or "Crucifix terrorism" for Christian terrorism - actually, those are far easier to identify than "Saffron". Shiva (Visnu) 08:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Red terror already exists. Its a phrase used to specifically categorize a string of executions that occurred under the Bolsheviks. Under the same vein, Saffron terror (if anyone is actually convicted, which still no one has) would be the recent string of anti-Muslim attacks. "Saffron brigade" is a fairly well known term used by the Indian media to describe those that advocate for "Hindu nationalism". The media already uses "Saffron terror" to refer to the hypothesis that Abhinav Bharat and related groups (whose ideologies, apart from Islamophobia are nearly impossible to discern) and related groups were behind recent anti-Muslim bombings in India. Also, Red is a sacred color in China. Any nomenclature is going to be offensive to someone, but Saffron terror is the most accurate because it refers to specific string of anti-Muslim attacks allegedly perpetrated by right-wing groups, whose allegiance to Hindu nationalism, let alone Hinduism is entirely suspect. However in the status quo, this discussion is moot because there is literally no article (apart from the main Saffron terror) that can be placed in the article due to the total lack of evidence and convictions. That's why I'd suggest a rename only if someone actually gets convicted, otherwise this category should be deleted without prejudice.Pectore^talk 15:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Terror and Saffron Terror are both legit names - for articles, not categories. A category will contain a wide-range of articles of multiple facts and interpretations. When you write an article, you can balance POVs and facts, you can argue about the term's usage - you can't do that with categories because it is classification, not a source of data by itself. My point about usage of "Saffron" is not about whether it is offensive or not - it is about what someone identifies with that, what different topics, separate from the category in question, are associated with that term. I also don't agree about your point on convictions - judicial decisions almost always disputed; for every conviction, there is some govt. or agency saying the trial wasn't fair, etc. There are an endless series of appeals that carry on for years. A group's allegiance may be suspect, then why connote Saffron, a term that anyway means far more and wide than an association with Hinduism-related terrorism, to identify it? The only reason anybody connects "Saffron" with these terror groups is because it has some meaning in Hinduism. All your points are quite credible, but they are more suited for a case about an article than a category, which has to be very general, simple and NPOV. Shiva (Visnu) 15:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then the obvious choice of recourse for this category is delete, because Saffron terror is inherently political, and non-religious. Even if you do not find it legitimate, the media (which uses the term widely) finds it acceptable as nomenclature to describe possible related acts of rightwing terror (assuming any rightwing groups have been found guilty of the attacks, which they have not). Hindu terror is an unacceptable term for groups whose ideologies lack any connection to Hinduism the religion. Saffron terror (assuming that some rightwing group is found responsible) can be easily filed under categories like Category:Far right politics in India, Category:Nationalist terrorism, and Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. Nobody again has been found guilty of any crimes, and impugning them of Wikipedia is an absolutely unacceptable form of recourse for the mere spurious benefit of "categorization". NPOV does not cease to exist when you leave the articlespace. The classification in this case is entirely problematic, because it is based completely on speculation. Even if the judicial process is disputed, the results of such a judicial process are the only tangible evidence that can be used to discern who the conclusive perpetrators are. As such, in the status quo the category is going to remain empty because a) the alleged attacks were not done in the name of "Hinduism" b) there is no evidence Abhinav Bharat or any rightwing groups were responsible and c) because speculation is not an acceptable basis for categorization.Pectore^talk 16:20, 11 October 2010 (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:City in Bihar[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: Split and delete. Dana boomer (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category:Cities and towns in Bihar is an app. category and the style cities and towns in is used for several other categories. WorLD8115 (TalK) 07:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Cities in Bihar since it is for cities. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge cities/districts into respective districts and delete. Some appear to be the actual articles for the districts and can go in their respective category. Side note: I checked one city under the category, Godda, and it is in Category:Cities and towns in Godda district which falls under Category:Cities and towns in Jharkhand not Category:Cities and towns in Bihar which is another state. So I am confused as to why it is in there anyway.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually the state Bihar was divided to form Jharkhand and thus the article Godda was present in both the categories. Can I start merging the articles in the category into the respective district categories or I have to wait till the decision to delete/merge is made? --WorLD8115 (TalK) 14:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Place each article into the correct district subcat of Category:Cities and towns in Bihar and delete. Occuli (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after placing the articles in Category:Cities and towns in Bihar . Shyamsunder (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2010 (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:Lopez Filipino family[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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lopez Filipino family to Category:López family of Iloilo

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article López family of Iloilo. As currently worded, it sounds like the family name is "Lopez Filipino", but it is the Lopez family from the Philippines. Another alternative is Category:López family (Philippines). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main article, as per nomination. - Dravecky (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:49, 8 October 2010 (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:Communist Party of the Philippines – 1930 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: Closing as moot - the category has been deleted. Dana boomer (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas-1930 ‎politicians. I moved back the main article to Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas-1930. The name PKP-1930 is not translated into English, as a means to distinguish it from the far more known Communist Party of the Philippines. Soman (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created this but then deleted it shortly thereafter as being unneeded. I guess this discussion is therefore moot, though I have no objection to anyone creating the category under either name if they want it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:22, 11 October 2010 (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.

South-West Indian Ocean[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Im requesting that these categories are moved to their official name (South-West Indian ocean} so that we can have some consistency with all of the season articles and the WMO and RSMC La Reunion] who is the official warning center for the basin. They both call it the South-West Indian Ocean and i see no reason to deviate from that. [4].Jason Rees (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sounds reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See previous related discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:49, 6 October 2010 (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.