Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 29 March 31 >

March 30[edit]

US constitutional law[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States Constitution Commerce Clause case law to Category:Commerce Clause case law
Propose renaming Category:United States Constitution Dormant Commerce Clause case law to Category:Dormant Commerce Clause case law
Propose renaming Category:United States Constitution Treaty Clause case law to Category:Treaty Clause case law
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These category names are unnecessarily long and bulky. They disambiguate where no disambiguation is required, as evidenced, for example, by article titles like Commerce Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, and Treaty Clause. By contrast, many jurisdictions have a "First Amendment," etc. Savidan 22:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "treaty clause", since lots of things have treaty clauses, such as treaties. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Commerce Clause". A search of WP turns of Australia also having a "Commerce Clause". The current names are clear and unambiguous; no reason to change them just to make them shorter. Hmains (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Mirrors our article titles in the main namespace. Neutralitytalk 04:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quite agree with this rationale. Hmains should propose a move of the Commerce Clause article rather than attempting to pursue this through categories. Savidan 04:55, 4 April 2011 (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:Haunted houses[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete; rename to Category:Reportedly haunted locations. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Haunted houses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no proof that any house is haunted. The category is unencyclopedic and open to abuse and stupidity. Giacomo Returned 18:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We're not responsible for people stupid enough to believe that these houses are actually haunted. However, these houses do share a common lore. If we're really worried about misunderstandings, we can add an introductory sentence that says that the category is for "houses notable for their legendary haunting" or some equivalent sentence (since my attempt kind of sucks) stressing the fact that this is not to be taken too literally. We could also rename the category along those lines but I think that's a complete overkill. Pichpich (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the category's existance if concrete references of the haunting are provided, but I don't see any. We can have many books written reporting "sightings" at such places as Hampton Court Palace, but where will that stop? - a book published locally stating that Signora Barbagelata whilst cycling home from the village bar saw a hazy aparition at the ruined castello en route - No, it is ridiculous and unencyclopedic. Giacomo Returned 18:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's clean it up before considering deletion. For one thing, it is pretty ridiculous to include in the Disneyworld sense of the word. Just spot-checking the first entries, 50 Berkeley Square is legitimate. Ackergill Tower is semi-legitimate as the references are poor but there's evidence that this was discussed in the journal of the Society for Psychical Research. This is of course a horrible source for determining that there is a ghost in the castle but it is solid evidence that paranormal enthusiasts consider the castle as haunted and this is what we're looking for. Note also that the castle advertises itself as haunted [1]. Borley Rectory is clearly legitimate. Borthwick Castle doesn't look too good since the article makes no mention of this. On the other hand this is a reliable source discussing the claim. The point is not whether we think the house is haunted. We all agree it's not. But if folklore says it's haunted, then it's a defining characteristic and should be preserved in the category. Pichpich (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Giano that most of it is bullshit, and is stretching our definitions of WP:NPOV and WP:V. It's exactly for objective reasons that I included the Disney Haunted Houses – they are at least so named, and by that token alone warrant inclusion into the category, if it is allowed to remain. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That argument makes no sense (and I suspect you know it). Whether one likes the category or not, nobody in their right mind would suggest that houses that are the subject of well-known haunting tales should be grouped with amusement park rides based on such legends. This would be akin to placing Pirate ship (ride) in Category:Pirate ships. Pichpich (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A characterization as a "haunted house" is not generally based on scientific determination and verification to establish the "truth" of the claim, but on descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources. This is an appropriate defining characteristic of the articles included in the category. Alansohn (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there should be some limit to the silliness of this encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    It's silly to believe in ghosts. It's not silly to try and group articles that share a common theme of ghost legends. This is why we have the parent category:Paranormal places and the corresponding list of reportedly haunted locations. Ghost legends are sometimes the most notable aspect of a house that has a wiki article (e.g. Raynham Hall or Kinder House and Ewelme Cottage). How do we propose we categorize these articles? As simply "houses"? Pichpich (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is just the daft way that Raynham Hall has been written, givig emphasis to the ghost story that makes it seem that it's the only notable thing about the house; there's a clue in the phrase "Raynham Hall is one of the most splendid of the great houses of Norfolk." - which is unreferenced and POV, but just shappens to be true. Raynham hall could be in any number of categories for being notable, and the New Zealand page likewise. Giacomo Returned 08:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is fairly well established we cover this field of silliness when it's notable, and thus a category is appropriate. WP NOT CENSORED with respect to idiocy as well as the usual problems of sex and politics.
  • Delete I do not believe that miscategorisations necessarily warrant deletion of a category, but this one is probably more prone to abuse than others. There is obsession from some quarters or some cultures but no objective proof that anything or any place is capable of being haunted, just like nobody can prove Elvis Presley is not dead – we don't have a category for Elvis sightings. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We all know that the mother of Jesus is dead. Yet Category:Marian apparitions. True, the category is prone to abuse and deleting it on these grounds is like keeping matches away from your kids. But our readers and editors are not kids and we should trust their judgment. Pichpich (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[/me rubs eyes. ] Did you just say "our readers and editors are not kids"? Bishonen | talk 13:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
They're not and it's a really bad idea to construct the project around the idea that our readers are irresponsible dimwits. (also sometimes known as kids) Pichpich (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, you misunderstand me. Not dimwits. A lot of our readers and contributors are kids. Bishonen | talk 19:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I know that's not what you meant but I wasn't speaking literally either. We shouldn't structure categories based on preventing incorrect usage and we have to assume that readers and editors are smart enough to keep this in check. And the cleanup is never urgent: there's no lasting harm if a house is incorrectly categorized as "haunted" for a few weeks. Pichpich (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's overkill but it sounds like a good compromise. Pichpich (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this proposal seems pedantic and editors can just monitor what is placed in the category. I think "haunted house" is a fairly common assertion for a house that is deemed haunted. I may not believe in hauntings but I know what the category is referring to.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after some more research, I support Choster's renaming rather than deletion.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh! Ooh! What about Stambovsky v. Ackley, where the court ruled that a house was legally considered to be haunted? DS (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2011 (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:Canadian sportspeople of Ukrainian descent[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 & upmerge to the respective Category:Canadian people of fooian descent just in case. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Canadian sportspeople of Ukrainian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian sportspeople of English descent
Category:Canadian sportspeople of Irish descent
Category:Canadian sportspeople of Welsh descent
Category:Canadian sportspeople of Scottish descent
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT. Ukrainian-Canadian sports, Irish-Canadian sports and English-Canadian sports could never be legitimate articles. Bulldog123 14:10, 30 March 2011 (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:Former Revlon Brands[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:Revlon brands. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Former Revlon Brands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete (if kept, remove the capital B) This would make more sense if there was a "Revlon brands" or a "Revlon" category. I don't know if other articles qualify for this category but the link between them would be tenuous at best: it's not clear that being owned by Revlon for 12 years made a lasting difference on the company. Unless I'm misreading the article, Esquire Shoe Polish was never marketed as part of the Revlon empire. Pichpich (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh: I think it could help show how diverse Revlon's involvement has been, as well as the waxing and waning of the Revlon empire. If there were a "Revlon Brands" I'd think it should merged somehow. I really set it up with the intent to better populate it later, and in hopes I would be adding organization which other editors could use. Obviously, this has not been the case. FWIW, I'm sure Esquire Shoe Polish was owned by Revlon in the 60's, but that's not a saving grace for a category, it's a line of text in the articles. Dsmouse (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If the intent is to show how diverse the Revlon empire is or was, a list would be much more effective. It might not be that easy to construct an exhaustive one but it could include all sorts of pertinent information that the category itself cannot provide: date of acquisition/sale, price paid/sold, seller/buyer, main product, etc. Pichpich (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2011 (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.

2011 Libyan uprising[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: Administrative speedy close as provisional rename. The previous CFD had consensus to follow the main article title with only a provisional location at "uprising" until the RMs conclude; the situation is mixed because every time one RM closes on that article another seems to open. However it is preferable to avoid having the same discussion in too many places so rename now to catch up. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale:

Rename. The main article was renamed to 2011 Libyan civil war. ---- 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this, except for one thing. I'm willing to bet that the article name will change again, so I'd wait for a little while. of course, then this could be forgotten about, so... *shrug*
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should create a bot that detects any move of the main article and instantly moves all the categories accordingly. :-) Pichpich (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ohm's law that the article has even odds of bearing a different name within a week. (The current move proposal has attracted near unanimous support for another rename.) Wareh (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2011 (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/2011_March_30&oldid=1074807871"