Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 16 August 18 >

August 17[edit]

Category:Counter-terrorism in Libya[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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A single article category whose sole member is on a civil war. While there were terrorism allegations and the like involved, a civil war is not terrorism per se. Mangoe (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2012 (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:Counter-terrorism in Syria[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: procedural close. Category already under discussion here. The Bushranger One ping only 21:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Was nominated for speedy, and was opposed, so I am nominating for deletion so a discussion can occur. Basic points were, the category in and of itself is biased towards the regime, as pretty much every Syrian civil war article has been added to it. Opposers said that it would be biased against the regime to delete it. I personally say to delete it, because it contains pretty much the same articles as Battles of the Syrian Civil War and Timelines of the Syrian Civil War categories combined. Jeancey (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close this useless discussion as another one is already in process. --DanielUmel (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category furthermore assumes that those battles and sieges were "counter-terroism" operations, ie biasly taking on the government's propaganda which claims that protesters and the Free Syrian army are "terrorists". Sopher99 (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not realize someone did the exact same thing as me already. This one can be closed, use the other one located on 16 August. Jeancey (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2012 (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:Gary Johnson[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 4. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only four articles (one about his political positions could be added as well), but easily navigable through a footer. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Discouraged doesn't mean forbidden. The argument about navigating via a footer fails WP:CLN which supports navigation via multiple methods. Lugnuts And the horse 18:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OC - this category is not needed at this time. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there are three articles primarily about this person, and the other two currently in the category have a strong enough connection to stay. – Fayenatic London 08:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There is just enough to warrant having a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough subarticles to warrant an eponymous category. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. There are enough articles for this category.--TM 16:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to small to justify an eponymous category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2012 (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:Jill Stein[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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are pretty well interlinked (really a footer can navigate these all easily) and some of these are a little tenuous. Also, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one per nom, even though I support some eponymous categories. – Fayenatic London 22:15, 18 August 2012 (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.

English and Scottish Olympic competitors[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Olympic competitors are categorised by the team for which they compete, not by their own nationality, for example Mo Farah is not categorised as a Somali Olympic competitor, but in Category:Olympic athletes of Great Britain. Tim! (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Last time I checked, England and Scotland have never competed at the Olympics. Maybe Scotland will one day if they gain independence and caber tossing becomes an event, but not today. Lugnuts (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all There is already the category 'Olympic competitors by country' which doesn't include Scotland or England and addresses the nominator's point. However, both Scotland and England are countries so the above categories are significant and relevant. Also, let's avoid the stereotyping. Dalliance (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – certainly there is no need to split British Olympic athletes into subcats by sub-nationality. I'm a bit surprised that it is Category:Olympic athletes of Great Britain rather than Category:Olympic athletes of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (I am assuming that there is no need to upmerge.) Oculi (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all It's common practice on Wikipedia to designate individual athletes as Scottish, English, etc., so it's hardly illogical to have categories of Scottish and English athletes who have won Olympic medals. As Fayenatic points out, there are also the special cases in individual sports where there have been out-and-out Scottish and English teams at the Olympics - not just hockey in 1908, but also the England amateur football team competing in 1908 and 1912. The point about Mo Farah is a red herring - by competing for Great Britain he is expressly turning his back on Somalia, a country which has its own representation at the Olympics. By contrast, in competing for Great Britain, Scottish and English athletes are not setting aside their Scottishness and Englishness in the same way. And references to 'caber-tossing' by the nominator do not engender confidence that the proposal to delete is based on a serious rationale. Sofia9 (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note this editor's Scottish "pro-independence" blog [1] . Also for the record it was not the nominator who mentioned caber-tossing, so your final ad hominem comment ought to be retracted. Tim! (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference being of course that I did not invoke my own political views/prejudices in the reasons for my vote, as Lugnuts did. I have always edited Wikipedia in good faith, and there is no reason to doubt my good faith here (in spite of the fact that you clearly went out of your way to 'find' such a reason). I apologise for mixing up the identity of the person who made the 'caber-tossing' remark, but there is no need to fully "retract" the observation I made - it was simply directed at the wrong person. Sofia9 (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Ah the old Wiki where was he born, who does he compete for question!! See nothing wrong with this cat. An Olympian born in England can be an English Competitor (but might also represent a team from another nation or group thereof). The real issues start when people do decribe, for example, Mo Farah, as a Somali Olympian!--Egghead06 (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The Olympics should be categorised by the country competitors represent, not internal subdivisions. Per cases such as Category:Olympic competitors for Canada with no breakout for Quebec or Category:Olympic competitors for Spain with no break out for Catalonia or the Basque Country. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - with caveat to follow. The last time I looked, the "central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential - defining - characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages...", and making political points isn't mentioned as far as I can see. If it is convenient for readers I can see no reason not to include further sub-categories such as by county or council area. This step probably isn't necessary, but anyone with an interest in the topic will be aware of media coverage of Yorkshire's theoretical place in a medal table, never mind Scotland's. (See e.g.Yorkshire finishes twelfth in medals table at Olympics, Aberdeenshire in Scotland has more gold medals than Australia, Scotland's Greatest Olympian, Scots gold medallist, Scottish Olympians published by "The official Scottish genealogy resource", political opinion about Scots Olympians Olympic Map of Honour published by 'The Official Gateway to Scotland" etc., etc., etc.) It is therefore of marginal relevance at best as to whether England and Scotland have ever competed, or the situation in Canada, Spain etc. and ad hominem comments about editors and/or their political persuasions and devotions to pro or anti-British causes are similarly irrelevant. The central question is simply - would this category help our readers navigate? In the case of Scottish athletes I do not doubt for a moment that it would do. (There are about 150 athletes in these categories for goodness sake.) The asymmetrical nature of the UK, makes it harder for me to be sure that many care about the English athletes/categories as so many people conflate England and GB anyway, so I would not oppose a deletion of the categories for English competitors and medalists if it was felt they had little value. Ben MacDui 11:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked in the Category:Olympic competitors for the United States to see if there were any state divisions of Olympians and found no categories. I did however find List of Olympic medalists from Michigan which I think would be a better way of presenting the information as there could be any number of lists List of Olympic medalists from England, from Yorkshire, or elsewhere. Tim! (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scottish Olympic medallists is a useful list I agree. However, analogies with US states are not especially accurate. Michigan does not compete as a country at events such as the Commonwealth Games nor act as the "host nation" for the same, for example. (See e.g. 2014 Commonwealth Games#Overview.) The subject is complex but it is clear the topic of Scottish Olympians is notable and widely discussed, that the existing category is a useful navigation tool, and nowhere above do I see any credible reasoning for its deletion beyond frankly rather unsatisfactory jibes about cabers, personal remarks and references to quite different situations. Please see also WP:NOTDUP - "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided". Ben MacDui 08:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, Scotland and England are countries. Michigan is not. Eg. in many sports (eg. badminton, field hockey, boxing, football, curling) Scotland and England compete in their own right, with the exception of the Olympics every 4 years. So Anthony Joshua is undoubtedly an English boxer, first and foremost, who is re-labelled as "Great Britain" for a single event every 4 years. His main category tree is the English one.
One does not suddenly stop being English or Scottish just because you pull on a different t-shirt that morning.
I am so shocked by the provocative Mo Farah "Somali Olympic competitor" gaffe, that I am quite literally speechless. Probably best to put it down to Wikipedia's equivalent of a bad hair day and resist the urge to consult the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
It is duly noted that, contrary to good practice, the creator of the categories was not courteously informed of this CFD discussion, which (surely only a coincidence) was nominated in the middle of a long Wikibreak by said creator. One must assume WP:AGF, even in the most trying and counter-evidential circumstances. N'est ce pas? Mais oui! (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 13#Category:English Tour de France stage winners and Category:Scottish Tour de France stage winners where similar WP:VERIFY arguments were dismissed. The remainder of the comments do not even merit consideration. Tim! (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- British categories are frequently split by the four home countries, and there is no reason why this one should not be. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2012 (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:Sportspeople convicted of crimes[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 as an irrelevant intersection. The crucial point is that being convicted of a crime is not a defining characteristic of a sportsperson, because it does not end a career (unlike politics or a police force). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure this is an intersection that needs a category. Among other things it seems to have been populated without concern for whether or not conviction is cited in the article [2] which raises a large red BLP flag for me. The Bushranger One ping only 02:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I quickly found four unsourced BLP violations; I will keep looking but have no doubt there are others. There's just too much potential for serious BLP issues with this category. It would be a nightmare to monitor this category and clean it up. Cresix (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possible BLP nightmare; not a notable intersection. (At least, not notable enough to outweigh BLP concerns.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What about the other categories under Category:Criminals by occupation ? Should those also be deleted on the same grounds? (Genuine Q; i'm not a regular at WP:CFD) Qwfp (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO, it should be judged on a case-by-case basis, but I'm not a CfD regular either. Jenks24 (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Problem is, who's going to do the heavy lifting of keeping this category cleaned up? As we can already see, it's very easy for someone to add numerous BLP violations with just a few clicks, but then either a few editors have to spend hours and hours culling through the entries, or glaring BLP violations stay in the category for weeks, months, or years. If this were a less BLP-volatile category, we could tolerate inaccuracies. I've tried to monitor another category that is much less contentious, and it could easily become a full-time job to remove the unsourced additions; they are added faster than I can remove them. As always with BLP issues on Wikipedia, we must err on the side of caution, which in this case must be prevention. Cresix (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree that it isn't a noteworthy intersection. Jenks24 (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: although not as important as the other sub-categories in Category:Criminals by occupation (clergy, police & politicians), this intersection is still of some relevance given the importance of sportspeople as role models. The category name is specific enough ("convicted") to be objective. The BLP angle should primarily be monitored by people watching the articles rather than the category; if anything, this category provides another way to find BLPs where other unsupported allegations might have been added. – Fayenatic London 08:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I agree with Fayenatic on both counts: 1. the category is at least as useful in helping one patrol and prune sports BLP article issues and 2. sports figures/heroes are still held up as role models, and their criminal convictions are often held up as defining (and in some extreme cases, career-ending) in a way they might not be for other occupations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Useful category and only a 'nightmare' if allowed to become one which it should not with monitoring.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will you do the monitoring? If your answer is "yes", some of us will hold you to that commitment. If your answer is "no", "somebody else's problem" is not a very effective argument. Cresix (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that is not my argument. Wiki, as you know, is a collaboration. No one 'owns' any article and that goes for categories.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you missed my point. If you can casually argue that the category will not be a BLP nightmare with monitoring, that leaves the question wide open as to whether, in fact, there will be monitoring. My point is that there probably will not be enough monitoring because it's much easier for someone to add BLP violations with a few clicks than it is to monitor the category. I found four glaring BLP violations in a matter of minutes. I monitor another category, and the errors are added faster than I can remove them. That's why Wikipedia has much stricter rules for BLP-related information; the risk of serious problems is much greater. For BLP issues, it's a cop-out to simply state that we can allow as long as it is monitored; there simply will not be enough monitoring. You have illustrated that by avoiding the answer to the question "Will you do the monitoring?" Cresix (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you missed my point. I cannot be, however much I would like, be 'responsible' for any specific article or category - it just don't work that way. Probably will not be monitored sounds like crystal ball gazing to me. How do you know? All I can say is that I would do my best to ensure no incorrect usage as I would with all BLPs as would others who have commented on its deletion. --Egghead06 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the category stays, we'll see how much is your "best". Cresix (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking forward to it. Not everyday someone of my age gets patronised.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to hear you're looking forward to it. Not every day that I need to remind experienced users how sensitive BLP information is and the importance of actually doing something about keeping BLP violations out of Wikipedia instead of just talking about it. Cresix (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Athletes are held up as role models. This measn that is is not a trivial intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I see no purpose in a category that can include a retired hockey player prosecuted for tax evasion, a sprinter arrested for burglary, a footballer in prison for rape etc. I mean how do these things relate to each other? They played a sport, any sport. They committed a crime, any crime. I do not see any purpose in the category. Politicians, police officers and members of the clergy are expected to be whiter than white, and any conviction would usually end their careers. Joey Barton, Steve Brooker, Scott Brown, Eric Cantona, Duncan Ferguson, Bradley Orr, David Partridge, Vinnie Jones, Tom Pope, and Micky Quinn all committed minor crimes and carried on with their careers following either a fine/warning/few days in prison. I don't see how they should be lumped in with the likes of Ched Evans, Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick; who were imprisoned for rape/causing death by dangerous driving. Btw Hughes and McCormick continued their careers after their release from jail, as will Evans, so even a serious conviction does not prevent a sportsperson from continuing to play their sport.--EchetusXe 09:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argh. "Sportsperson" is a particularly ephemeral career, and a non-trivial proportion of the proposed members of this category will not have simultaneously been sportspersons and criminals. Correcting that would require renaming of the category along with some significant policing that isn't going to magic itself out of thin air. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have used this Cat looking for someone who's name I could not recall. It is clearly useful and far more so than this, for example Category:Wikipedians_who_wish_Bish_and_Giano_would_come_back. BLP issues are a direct concern for the article in question, not a reason to delete a working category. Leaky Caldron 12:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cannot compare Wikipedian categories and categories used in articles. Wikipedian categories are bits of fun behind the scenes. Its like comparing someone's user page with an actual article.--EchetusXe 15:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: essentially per Egghead06 & Fayenatic. Plus a cat doesn't cause nor encourage BLP violations thats the editors.Blethering Scot 20:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the arguments about 1- most of these people were not criminals and sportspeople simultaneously, 2- this has major BLP issues and 3- this groups together lots of things with only very marginal connection are all good. I was unsure until I saw the Bish and Gano cat used to argue for this one. Keeping that category was the worst action in CfD ever. I told people it would create a horrible precedent, and now we see it has. We need to take action before categories become a random free-for-all without any logic. This category is inherently going to be too large to keep in check.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too loose of a grouping but my biggest concern is BLP. Royalbroil 03:07, 13 September 2012 (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:Wikipedia IPA[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:International Phonetic Alphabet help. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles in it are to help readers to pronounce words so it is not solely project (administration) related. If the category is moved I will have all the member pages moved from Wikipedia namespace to Help namespace. I have brought up the subject of moving the category at Wikipedia_talk:Help_Project#Category:Wikipedia_IPA but there is no reply to date. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the suggestion unless it is about brewing. That suggestion is ambiguous, but I'm not saying that the current name does not have the same problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
India Pale Ale does not have a monopoly on the IPA abbreviation! I wanted to avoid the longer and clunkier Category:International Phonetic Alphabet help. Cheers... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)
Correct and neither does International Phonetic Alphabet. So it is ambiguous and needs changing to something less ambiguous. Category:International Phonetic Alphabet help is for me clear and unambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is (another reason) why Wikipedia could/should be in the name. To add context and thus disambiguation for the abbreviation. - jc37 00:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If it isn't an administrative category, I don't see why "help" would be a proper descriptor to use. Since everything in the category are administrative or project pages, It should include "Wikipedia" in its name, or "Wikipedia help" if you want to restrict it to Help space project pages. It should not appear like a content-category which the suggested name looks like (it could easily be used to categorize articles on books for learning IPA) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support revised rename to Category:International Phonetic Alphabet help. – Fayenatic London 12:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have done a requested move of the pages in the category at Wikipedia talk:IPA#Requested move. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol I should have checked out that link before my comments below : ) - jc37 00:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm wondering why these aren't in the Help: namespace. That aside, I'm almost tempted to suggest transwiki to wiktionary. It's easy enough to link to such pages using the wikt: prefix. - jc37 00:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Wikipedia:IPA has been renamed to Help:IPA. Jenks24 (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2012 (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/2012_August_17&oldid=1138396027"