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:Free Your Mind is one of several awards presented by MTV. I don't think it's significant enough to be a basis for categorisation. Previous categories for winners of MTV awards have been deleted here and here. Robofish (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Note, by the way, that the winners are already listed on the Free Your Mind page, so we're not losing any information by deleting this one. Robofish (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete we generally avoid categorization by awards won. This would seem very likely to apply when the award is just one of several awarded by a TV channel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 21 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: Per WP:EGRS#Gender, "a gender-specific category [is appropriate] where gender has a specific relation to the topic". The topic of women in Nazi Germany undoubtedly is one of academic and popular interest—see e.g., Women in Nazi Germany (Stephenson, 2001) and "Nazi women exposed as every bit as bad as Hitler's deranged male followers"—beyond the disturbingly odd realm of 'sexy female Nazi interrogator' fantasies. (Somehow, I doubt that 'sexy' was a consideration during torture sessions.) However, the intersection of gender and membership in the Nazi Party specifically does not receive the same coverage in reliable sources, nor is it particularly 'special'. Although women were, particularly in the beginning, a minority within the NSDAP, by 1945 the Party's membership included about three million women (see Nazi Party#General membership).
The scope that the category's current title and description imply is quite inclusive and undefining. Fortunately, the category has been applied discriminately: 46 of the 60 biographies are of female personnel at concentration camps—guards, primarily, but also 'medical' personnel such as Oberheuser and Marschall. The rest are: Hitler's secretaries and attendants (Christian, Manziarly and Schroeder); prominent Nazi activists or officials (Mohr, Ney, Rüdiger and Scholtz-Klink); aristocrats (von Harbou and Mitford); wives of high-ranking Nazi officials (Marie Adelheid, Magda Goebbels and Lina Heydrich); a Gestapo agent (Kitty Grande); a Luftwaffe aviator (Hanna Reitsch); and two—Förster-Nietzsche and Bruckmann—whom I could not classify.
Note: This category was nominated for deletion in June 2005, with a different rationale, and the discussion closed without reaching consensus. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Nazis. (I think Category:Women in Nazi Germany is best left as a category for general articles rather than individual women.) I don't think we need to subdivide by gender in this case. I wouldn't object to turning the contents into a list, however. Robofish (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as proposed. Setting aside Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS, I don't think there's any evidence of a link between sex and participation in Naziism. Mangoe (talk) 12:40, 17 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 result of the discussion was:rename. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Hillclimbs" is the WP:COMMONNAME of this sort of event; "hillclimbing races" is never used anywhere outside of Wikipedia, AFAIK. The BushrangerOne ping only 03:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It seems that the proposed name is more common indeed. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support it seems the goal is the preferred form to describe the events.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 21 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 result of the discussion was:delete. This is far better as a list, which can track the changes in speed records much better than a category can.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the results of this CfD for the equivalent car category, and for much the same reasons. Based on the list, which is sufficent here; being "fastest" (usually by manufacturer's claim) isn't sufficently defining to merit categorisation. The BushrangerOne ping only 03:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article List of fastest production motorcycles, which lists the motorcycles in the category, is a well-sourced article that does not rely in any way on manufacturer's figures for inclusion. The list is sound and categorising its constituents is a reasonable thing to do. --Biker Biker (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yes, lists and categories can coexist. But in ths case: why? What about being the 'fastest production motorcycle for period X' is defining in a way to require categorisation? - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the sources in List of fastest production motorcycles are manufacturer claims, with the exception of the notation of the latecomer MV Agusta F4 R 312, and only the third party, reliably-sourced, tested, value is accepted for purposes of the list. The list is not subjective: unmodified, street legal motorcycles are well-defined, and there can be only one bike that has the highest top speed on the market in a given model year, unless there's a tie. Only a finite number may tie. The definition is discrete, and set that belongs on the list may only be made larger or smaller if a modified definition gains consensus, or a new model achieves the distinction. The list alone is not sufficient; the categories are a useful navigation tool for the same set of notable motorcycles, and per WP:NOTDUP, the list's existence is not a valid reason to delete the category. The list in fact is the tool used to manage and limit the contents of the category, and explain the criteria in detail. The category may then be used to display the bike's status on the bottom of the article, or to view the complete list in a hierarchical way -- you browse down from Category:World records through Category:Land speed records to the sub-categories with collections of models. Forcing users to jump from categories into a list means they lose the hierarchical navigation as they drill down and up. All these features of categories and lists have been discussed before by the community. It's why WP:NOTDUP is a community guideline Yet apparently Category:Fastest production cars was deleted mostly because the list was "better"? In spite of WP:NOTDUP? Go figure. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL. I don't believe that the category merits use, particularly as the category for cars was, as mentioned, deleted. WP:NOTDUP, yes, but that doesn't mean 'the category must be kept because WP:NOTDUP'. - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"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 on topics that are defined by those characteristics." is what the guideline WP:CAT says. Category:Fastest production motorcycles does the very thing which is the "central goal" of categories, yet saying so gets dismissed as merely WP:ITSUSEFUL? Being the "fastest production motorcycle" is the defining characteristic of the Suzuki Hayabusa; the whole reason that bike mattered, and why it influenced the direction of motorcycling since then. In an earlier era, the Kawasaki GPZ900R was the "it" bike because it was the title holder, hence its appearance in Top Gun. Defining characteristic. Used for hierarchical navigation. Simple. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is not an objection to the existence of the subject but to the title. It might be saved by a renmae, but I am not sure what to. A category for the "fastest" is liable to collect a lot of fast items, but how fast does it have to be to qualify? The category appears to have no limit. Not being a closed set, it is difficult to see how a satsifactory category can be constructed. Where is hte boundary? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, as stated above, the boundaries of this category are well-defined. The limits are explained a the top of the category. "This category contains production motorcycles which had a higher tested top speed than any prior models". It doesn't help any reader to have a category title like Category:Street legal production motorcycles with the fastest tested top speed for a given model year. You could find any category and say, "What do you mean by people?" "Are corporations people?" or "What do you mean by ...French?" Born in France? French residency? French citizenship? Invented in France? No category name alone is going to satisfy every imaginable objection, and the name shouldn't have to. That's why it is often necessary to have a definition written out a the top of the category, and a list article that goes into even further detail as to the definition. This category has all that. Any editor who finds a flaw in the definition can either discuss it on the talk page or boldly fix it. Same as anything else on Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron. The list is ample in this case. In fact what could be the best solution could be to have a template to list the fastest in order. But I fail to be convinced that this is defining, so no need for the category. While the guidelines allow a mix of templates, categories and lists, nothing says we always need 2 or 3 of these. Sourcing is only apparent in lists, it is not apparent when looking at categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, elserename to Category:Top speed record production motorcycles. – If I've understood correctly, this category is intended for motorcycles which, over time and in succession, achieved all-time top speed records. Thus, a motorcycle with a top speed of 40 kph that was at one time the fastest in the world would be included, but one with a top speed of 140 kph produced after a record of 150 kph was set would not be included even if the motorcycle that set the 150 kph record was no longer in production. Is this correct? If so, then I think that this characteristic, despite being defining, is too nuanced to be suitable for the "binary switch", to borrow a phrase recently used by User:BrownHairedGirl, of categorization. If the category is not deleted, then Category:Top speed record production motorcycles might be a more informative, albeit grammatically mangled, title. Also, I think that it ought to be removed from Category:Land speed records, which is about an entirely separate topic: absolute speed records, not speed records set by production models. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:09, 26 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 result of the discussion was:keep, except change "[[:Category:Terrorist attacks against embassies" to "Category:Terrorist attacks on embassies." We have multiple "Attacks on" categories, but no other "Attacks against" categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TERRORIST, value-laden labels like "terrorist" should generally be avoided. My proposed re-namings are more neutral, the wording is more consistent, and they allow other attacks (such as attacks by militaries or organized crime gangs) to be included. ~Asarlaí 03:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. From a technical perspective, these categories are part of Category:Terrorist incidents, which should be renamed or kept as a whole and not changed piecemeal. From a categorization perspective, I do not think that we should group together military and non-military attacks on transport. A suicide bombing on a bus in Israel shares little in common to an aerial attack on a railway station during World War II. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Black Falcon, if you want to get rid of the use of the word 'terrorist' in categories, you should nominate the supercategory. Personally, I think it's acceptable, providing it isn't used on BLPs. Robofish (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning this way since terrorist and terrorism are somewhat subjective. If there was a better name, I would clearly support keeping. On the other hand, these are clearly worth categorizing. So unless there is a better name offered, I am likely to opine keep despite my reservations. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As these are almost universally referred to as "terrorst attacks" in the sources, they should be categorised as such. Wikipeida is supposed to be neutral, but we do not "neutralise" what'sin the sources. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and supercategorize, since there are many attacks that are not "terrorism" or "criminal" related, such as when the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Serbia. Or when the NVA invaded the US embassy. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename Looking at the contents of Category:Attacks on places of worship it becomes clear that when something is perpetrated by "terrorists" and when it is done by a "mob" is going to be a very subjective issue that it is not worth categorizing on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is Given the parent category structure and their content, these categories are entirely appropriate. There is no reason at all to expand the contents by renaming. Hmains (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep places of worship. Rename the others to match (and purge if necessary). Yes I know that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, but none of these are legitimate military targets. If we need another category for riotous attacks, we can create it. I continually read of attacks on churches in northern Nigeria by Boko Haram. I am not clear if the Christians are retaliating against Mosques, but shooting or blowing up worshippers is clearly a terorist incident. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment they are legitimate military targets. Transport is a key aim of military attacks. And so are the embassies of allies of the opponent, whom you are also at war with, or who are providing aid to your opponent. Religious insurrection makes places of worship legitimate military targets to suppress the rebellions. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:39, 23 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.
