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. People are free to create a list with this topic of course. Fram (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a poorly defined criterion for inclusion. There are trucking songs such as Convoy or East Bound and Down, but is that enough to build a whole category on? Should the category include songs about pickup trucks (Somethin' 'Bout a Truck)? This just seems like a flawed category. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I used to have an album of trucking songs like Wolf Creek Pass - good stuff. Anyway, the genre is notable, e.g. Trucking Country. Warden (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as creator. I don't think it's poorly defined. Is it about a truck? Then in it goes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and hopefully one day the whole songs by theme will follow suit. Papa Loved Mama is not about trucks but adultery, Girl on the Billboard is about the girl, as it says, as viewed by a trucker, not about trucks at all. These two examples actually give details about the storyline of the lyrics yet still get included this category.
At what point does using a single word in a song or a song title be considered defining? Unless it is set out in the lead of the article with WP:V, it is NOT defining. WP:OR applies when a song is added to a category without supporting text and reference.The idea of categorization is to unite articles with a defining categoristic - see Wikipedia:Overcategorization and specifically, WP:DEFINING.
Songs, and song titles, use Simile, Metaphor, Analogy, Allegory, Parable, Figure of Speech and every other linquistic known, but this category (and all others by theme) denies lyricists and songwriters the ability to use linguistics when writing lyrics.
It should also be noted that fiction/novels are not categorised by this sort of category. However, there are a few lists by theme at Category:Lists of novels. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact that people have come to assume that any mention of a trucker makes the song "about trucks" just shows this category is not working. This category is being grossely misapplied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The underlying problem is that songs by theme attracts categorization by a single word (as you have said yourself), so Category:Songs about trucking would soon have an entry, Keep on Truckin' (song), where the singer might have his mind on a pair of headlights, but not on an 18-wheeler rig! Songs by genre is something else again. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify then Delete - While "trucking" may be considered defining for the song, if any song happens to mention a "truck", it is included in the category? That sounds like overcat. But it sounds like an interesting list, where inclusion for each entry can be clearly explained. All this aside, aren't there WP:ENGVAR issues with using the word "truck"? - jc37 02:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete per jc37. Brad7777 (talk) 17:41, 1 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:Supervillains first appearing in novels[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.
Nominator's rationale: Almost none of the characters in this category qualify as "supervillans". It should either be deleted or renamed to "Villains first appearing in novels" JDDJS (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whether a character is or is not a villain can be specific to a work. This seems to be far too specific an intersection to be worth categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 18 July 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. C2C (matching the parent article), interpersonal chemistry is rather a colloquial name. Brandmeistertalk 12:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support there are other types of interpersonal chemistry besides attraction, such as mutual irritation. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 21:14, 15 July 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.
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 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:Formula One drivers and team owners[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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure that being a driver-owner, even at the F1 level, is sufficently defining in and of itself to merit categorisation. All contents of the category should already be appropriately categorised in the approprate by-country subcat of Category:Formula One drivers, so only the one upmerge to the two parents is necessary. The BushrangerOne ping only 00:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This intersection seems to be sufficiently populated to be worth keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator...William 14:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the fact that they will be listed under their nationality's F1 driver category and under Category:Formula One team owners will tell the same thing as before, that they are a driver and team owner. —Gyaro-Maguus— 19:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge we generally discorage overlap of two totally different positions categories. There are a few established overlap categories, but this one does not really fit the general profile of requiring the people to be clearly notable for both characteristics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 18 July 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:Islam-inspired destruction of cultural heritage[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. While one or more categories for religion-inspired destruction of religion-inspired artifacts may be wanted, the consensus here is that this category isn't the right way to approach this. Fram (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not only because the title can easily be interpreted as making a political statement but also because the terms "cultural heritage" and "destruction" can be rather loosely and flexibly defined and depend mostly on individual POV for their justification. I doubt that "Islam-inspired destruction of cultural heritage" would be considered neutral for the purposes of naming an article on Wikipedia; a category that is so-named seems to me to be far too polemical, subjective and potentially divisive. SuperMarioMan 00:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while "cultural heritage" might need changing, the fact is that many items of - for want of a better term - cultural heritage have in fact been destroyed under the veneer - whether directly of or claimed to be of as a fig leaf for other reasons - of Islam. Wikipedia is required to be neutral, but that doesn't mean non-neutral facts are excluded. If X did Y, categorizing "Y by X" does not violate WP:NPOV. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as to reflect the neutral historic record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zumwalte (talk • contribs)
You failed to reflect that many of the sites destroyed are Islamic in nature. You've also failed to compile a list of heritage sites destroyed by Christians. Why is that? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- It may be Category:Islam-inspired destruction of material heritage. What appears to have happened is that the radicals have in the name of the prevention of idolatry undertaken campaigns of destruction in Afghanistan and at Timbuktoo. This may be compared to the Maoist destruction of Chinese heritage during the Cultural Revolution; also iconoclasm in the Byzantine church; and the removal of Catholic artefacts and images from Protestant churches at or following the Reformation. Whether right or wrong, it happened; so WP should have articles on it; and should categorise them accordingly. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Islamist destruction of cultural heritage The name could be more precise, referring to Islamism. As far as I know Islam itself does not favour obliteration of foreign cultural heritage. Islamism does. Brandmeistertalk 12:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What does "Islam-inspired" mean? In what way is this potentially horribly divisive category that will invite someone to write christian and hindu equivalents of any use to the encyclopedia? Britmax (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the Cultural Heritage sites being destroyed are Islamic in nature, and the people most affected by the destruction of those artifacts are local Muslims. The destruction is by extremist and fringe groups who do not represent mainstream Islam. Considering that and how the category's creator engaged in this dishonest edit and included a picture of a Tusken Raider from Star Wars as "A nomadic islamist fighter," I'm can only call this category's creation POV at best. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as the most easiest OR and POV inspired category. Also note the new editor may need to be noified/clarified of WP issues.Lihaas (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename - it is a useful category for study, even if it offends some people. Perspixx (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. As it stands, this category is an appalling breach of WP:NPOV. There is no broader Category:Destruction of cultural heritage, and the categ under discussion is parented only in Islamic categories ... so this category singles out Islam for negative categorisation. Some of the articles categorised clearly fit the category's title (e.g. Buddhas of Bamiyan), but others less so. For example, the Great Sphinx of Giza was defaced rather than destroyed, and there have been several theories about what happened to it. That sort of example illustrates the problem with this type of category, whatever religion or belief it applies to: it contain several levels of subjectivity. The first question of subjectivity is what degree of damage counts as "destruction", but the second area of subjectivity is the much more complex attribution of motivation. Most religions assert various truths, and some of their followers may be tempted to act in what they see as pursuit of truths. For example, homophobic hate crime in a christian country could be attributed to the homophobia emanating from christianity, and some homophobic assailants may explicitly claim that justification. However, many other christians would respond that since their religion deplores violence and commands people to love their neighbours, the homophobic assailants were clearly not inspired by christiantity. That sort of difficulty in attributing motivation is shown by several articles in this category. Nalanda is included in this category, because it was ransacked and destroyed by "Turkic Muslim invaders" in 1193 ... but ransacking and destruction was routine behaviour for invaders in those days, and religious institutions were frequently included in the destruction, even in the intra-christian wards in Europe. If we tried balancing this category with similar categories for Judaism-inspired destruction of cultural heritage, or Christian-inspired destruction of cultural heritage, we could have another huge area of contention. This sort of topic is best covered in an article which can discuss the nuances involved, rather than by the binary switch of categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this is a very clear example of POV-pushing in a title name. It also becomes difficult in some cases to determine if a destruction was inspired by Islam or inspired by an Islamic leaders desire to undermine the power of a non-Islamic religious tradition in their realm. That is to say, an Islamic leader may care little for Islam, and may not see any teachings in Islam that require them to destroy the local Chreistian Cathedral or Hindu Temple, but they may do so to undermine the local Hindu or Christian religious hierachies power to fight their rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're rather missing the point. Most of the articles here (now) cover Islamist destruction of historic Islamic structures they regard as "idolatrous" within Islam, as in Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites, which I've now added. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not missing the point. If people want to limit this category to actions by Islamists, they need to rename it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although the phenomena exists, this is clearly intended to push a POV. Even if you create relevant categories for other religions, that won't add up to neutrality. It will just turn into the "state terrorism by x" or the old "allegation of apartheid in x" series, a platform for partisans to take potshots at each other. 169.231.53.116 (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered how when the allegation of censorship would be raised. As in many other such cases, it is a red herring; the question we should be asking is what is the most neutral way to present and organise this information. Categories offer a binary switch -- either a page is in the category or it isn't -- and binary switches are a very misleading way to groups acts by motivation. In many of these cases there are several different accounts of the motivation, and exactly the same sort of dispute applies when other religions are involved. In an article or a list, the nuances can be discussed and referenced; but none of that is possible with a category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – As a category that attempts to group actions, carried out over the centuries by different individuals and groups in different societies, by a specific motivation, this is hopelessly subjective. BrownHairedGirl and others have already touched on this point, so I will not delve into it further. I do, however, wish to address the suggestion of Category:Islamist destruction of cultural heritage, which at least has the advantage of focusing on the identity of the perpetrators rather than their personal motivations or inspirations. Unfortunately, even that title is problematic. First, what constitutes destruction? Must a structure be completely destroyed or is it sufficient merely for it to be damaged? If the latter, then how much damage is needed to pass the threshold for categorization: a collapsed wall, a broken window, a burn mark or bullet hole? Second, does the destruction, however it is defined, need to be deliberate? There is no question that Timbuktu belongs in the category, but what about structures 'destroyed' by, say, a bomb exploded by Islamists, where the target is not the structure itself? Third, to what extent do/can we observe the distinction between destruction by Islamists (e.g., Ansar Dine) and religiously motivated destruction by non-Islamist Muslims (e.g., a Muslim mob that burns a church)? -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a problem. The global default position is that significant cultural heritage is not deliberately destroyed for religious/ideological reasons, but in parts of the Islamic world early Islamic heritage sites such as tombs and even plain houses once lived in by historic figures are indeed destroyed out of fear they promote "idolatry". This is a very notable modern phenomenon which should certainly be categorized. This category does not clearly address the correct phenomenon, and is evidently not going to be allowed to redefined to do so, but a more precisely defined category should be created. There is a strong whiff of well-meaning PC censorship in the refusal of many here to address this question. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A veritable minefield, although Muslims undoubtedly have carried out cultural destruction at times, they are far from being the only people to do so e.g. the Protestant Reformation in Scotland involved large-scale destruction of saints' statutes, when Kiev was converted to Christianity the pagan gods' statues were thrown in the river. In some cases it is disputed who did it e.g. damage to the Sphinx. Should this be confined to recent Islamist destruction, or all destruction by Muslims in history? PatGallacher (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (1) NPOV problems in the category as previously articulated -- both in the category itself and in the use of the category to classify any individual article. Clearly a sub-rosa attempt to make a political point. (2) As a matter of classification, we don't have an article on the supposed subject of categorization, so it fails one of the basic tenets of categorization. If this is an appropriate topic for WP, and documented by third-party sources, then start the fight there where we can reasonably investigate reliable sourcing, neutral point of view, and so forth. (3) I would likely view this as an example of over-classification: (1) destruction of historical sites are often inspired by one ideology or another; are we going to start classifying and cross-classifying all the kinds of things destroyed and all the reasons they are destroyed? What a nightmare category tree that would be. --Lquilter (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per several above but listify; but rather than focus on islamist destruction, create a more general list of destruction of cultural heritage by non-state actors (or something similar - basically, some way to distinguish destruction of the buddhas from the bombing of Dresden). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Iconoclasm is properly the religiously inspired destruction of items used for religious purposes, most particularly icons. To use it to mean any destruction of "cultural heritage" seems to be far too broad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it wouldn't really get at the destruction of other people's cultures, since it's more of a "destroy-your-own" kind of thing. --Lquilter (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it's root is "images" & I don't think it stretches to ordinary residential buildings with religious associations, or plain headstones in a graveyard, which are included here. But my suggestion (or part of it) was Category:Destruction of cultural heritage as a head cat, which avoids these objections. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 15 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.
- The Bushranger One ping only 17:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)