Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 12 September 14 >

September 13[edit]

Category:Censorship in Islam[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 with leave to renominate the entire Category:Censorship by religion tree for discussion. The Bushranger One ping only 20:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the contents have nothing to do with censorship, as opposed simply to controversy and opposition to certain content; some articles don't even mention controversy at at all! Delete without prejudice to re-creation if, at some hypothetical point in the future, there will actually be content sufficient to sustain a category, rather than a repository for any time Muslims disagreed with something and users wanted to inflate this into the big bad Muslim machine censoring everyone. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of Category:Censorship by religion. It is a substantial enough subject. The nominator notes that articles are to do with "opposition to certain content" and that is a close match to "censorship" in my book, especially when followed up with any kind of enforcement. – Fayenatic London 17:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, I'm also strongly considering nominating Category:Censorship in Judaism. More articles in it are actually relevant to the supposed topic, but it is still a small category whose content is better handled in prose, which it already is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's supposed to be about works that have been censored by Islamic autorities. It is actual censorship is when a work is banned by the religious authorities in theocratic countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia where the state and the religious hierarchy are mixed, much like it used to be in the case of Papal States' index librorum prohibitorum. This is the case of works such as The Satanic Verses which has been banned through a fatwa which has a legal value in those countries. bogdan (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if that's the only instance you can pull out, it doesn't need a category. Pretty much everything else in the category is reactions ranging from protests to violence, but not censorship by authorities. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's only because your definition of "censorship" is way too narrow. Not all censorship with be from a governmental agency. GregJackP Boomer! 01:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments above. There are many books specifically about Islamic censorship (i.e. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). These subjects and the category should be developed per sources, not deleted. In addition, I found arguments by the nominator very unconvincing . "...users wanted to inflate this into the big bad Muslim machine censoring everyone".Comment on content, not the contributors, please. My very best wishes (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Filtering out the rubbish sources, I'm finding some instances of laws in a country being the product of Muslim legislators, but I don't think this reflects "Islamic censorship" any more than the widespread attempts by American Christians to ban books are "Christian censorship." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be better to rename to Category:Islamic censorship. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the problems with the censorship categories as a whole, is that they are sometimes used by editors who do not distinguish properly between censorship (suppression by authority) and public opposition to a publication. That seems to be particularly the case with matters relating go Islam, where there has been significant popular objection to some publications.
    Until there are clearer guidelines on the use of this category, it will remain a POV battleground. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of mob action or individual killings were incited or ordered by Islamic authorities (not necessarily by the State), which is why such cases are regarded as examples of censorship in some sources. In addition, the official censorship organizations like Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance (Iran) belong to this category. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And a lot of mob action or individual killings are shoved into categories where they don't belong because users want to make sure unfavorable information about Muslims is in as many places as possible, never mind relevance. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and add a photo of the sign 'Slay those who insult Islam' at the top. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing admin, please ignore this POV-motivated rubbish. Benkenobi18, you should really be ashamed of yourself for so blatantly pushing your agenda through Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject that holds these articles most together is blasphemy, not censorship. Beyond this, to put actions of the government of Iran here is to conflate political and religious acitons in a way that is questionable. The government of IRan may call itself "Islamic", but it is a political regime and should be put in categories based on this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a viable category. Plus, I think the idea of a sign is a good idea, if just to irritate.... (jk) GregJackP Boomer! 01:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying your POV intent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone on Wiki have a sense of humor? (jk), above = "just kidding." You have no idea what my thoughts or point of view actually is. GregJackP Boomer! 10:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "jk" is not a smiley I am familiar with, and that sort of "joke" does not help a discussion like this.
    In any case, you neglected to explain why you think that this categ is "clearly viable". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep, pending wider discussion. Per the discussion above, several of the "keep" voters have expressed a clear desire to use this as an attack category. If kept, it will remain as a POV magnet.
    There is no agreement amongst keep !voters in this discussion about the scope of this category. Some want it used narrowly for the actions of religious authorities who have civil powers of suppression; others want to use it for instances where religious authorities encourage social pressure on those expressing views they disapprove of; and others want it simply as a device for negatively labelling.
    I think that JPL prompts a useful direction for looking at the classification of censorship, by tieing it to the actions of civil authorities (mostly states) who have the power of enforcement rather than just exhortation. It seems to me that the problems with this category apply to the whole of Category:Censorship by religion, and that the nominator was wrong to single one sub-category. I now favour deleting all categories which attempt to ascribe a motivation to censorship, because motivation is too complex an issue to be accommodated in the category system. Multi-facted and highly-controversial topics like this cannot be distilled to a binary choice between inclusion or exclusion from a category. I hope that the nominator will withdraw this proposal, and open a wider discussion which considers all the related categories together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:11, 20 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.

Radio personnel[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:Classical music radio people and Category:Jazz radio people to cover actual contents. Subcategorization may be desirable.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The first category's explanation says "This category includes people heard on-air on classical music radio, including hosts, presenters, announcers, commentators, personalities, narrators, disc jockeys, and on-air classical music critics." All of those roles could be covered by the word "presenters". The current name "personnel" is ambiguous as it might be understood as "radio people" including founders, patrons, executives, composers & performers. – Fayenatic London 17:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The two are not necessarily quite the same: the radio stations will have executives solely involved in management, and producers who are also not presenters. "Personnel" really ought to be a parent to the presenters. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The overarching categories for such roles are called Category:Radio people. The category explanation says it is for, in effect, presenters. I'm happy to check whether there are any non-presenters, and if so to create radio people catefories for these radio genres. "Personnel" is non-standard, and should at least be renamed as "people" if we think the contents do not match the description quoted above. – Fayenatic London 20:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator, and purge of those who are not presenters (most of them will be). Peterkingiron is right that there are also plenty of people who are notable for non-presenting roles in Wikipedia, such as Jenny Abramsky. She is currently miscategorised under Category:British radio personalities, whereas she should be in a new Category:BBC radio personnel, which itself should be a subcat of a generic Category:Radio people (or Category:Radio personnel) to match Category:Newspaper people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current category is slightly broader and works. There is no reason to make the category narrower.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the wider name is desired, then use standard naming and rename as "People" rather than leave them as "personnel". A "keep" outcome would be wrong. – Fayenatic London 19:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These broader cats cover people not possible in the latter. MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 18:27, 11 October 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:Radio personalities[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: do not merge/rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The very short article radio personality says that it means the same thing as radio presenter, as does the slightly longer main page Presenter, so there is an unnecessary level in the category tree at present. I looked through many of the articles in Category:Pirate radio personalities and they introduced the person as "presenter", "broadcaster" or "radio DJ" rather than "personality". The many sub-cats of Category:Radio personalities from the Republic of Ireland are all called "presenters". – Fayenatic London 16:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1: If this is approved then I intend to nominate all the remaining national categories in Category:Radio personalities by nationality for speedy renaming as presenters, except for the United States and Canada where the term "radio personality" appears to predominate.
  • Note 2: I realise there are also Category:Television personalities by nationality and Category:Television presenters by nationality. These can follow at a separate full CFD. – Fayenatic London 21:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- they are not quite the same thing. Having looked briefly at the two English categories, "personalities" includes people who are notable for their regular appearances on radio, but may be merely appearing in programmes, not necessarily "presenting" them. BUT tidy up The categories probably all need a lot of tidying up. Personalities ought not to include people who are primarily presenters, and DJs should be a subcategory of presenters. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but restructure. It seems to me that Peterkingiron is right to say that they are not the same thing, and to note that some people have a notable role in radio broadcasts without ever being a presenter.
    However, I fear that keeping two parallel sets of categories will lead to a lot of articles appearing both groups. However the stub article radio personality provides a bit helpful direction, by suggesting that the term includes all those with an on-air position. If that approach can be agreed, then a radio presenter is just one type of radio personality ... so Category:Radio personalities should be a parent category containing the existing sub-cats for presenters, DJs, sports commentators, etc.
    Those who become radio personalities without having a presenter's role (such as regular guests on a programme) can remain categorised simply as personalities, with the others diffused to subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but restructure To me (IMHO), a radio personality has some fame or kudos, a presenter could be the station manager's unintelligible nephew DJ'ing at 03:00. Someone who comes onto a programme irregularly is a Guest and in these instances is neither the personality nor presenter.
    It's obviously semantics however, as I note WP Radio Personality includes pretty much anybody with a microphone in front of their face, while WP Presenter goes as far as to say it's essentially a synonym to Personality and further, is tagged for merging with radio personality. So, I revert to my own understanding of the difference between the two titles. Like all continuum, the Personality vs Presenter is one where there are grey areas and areas of contention which will require sorting. That's bound to be a whole new bag of arguments. L-Bit (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Category names are supposed to be informative. Someone looking at the category should have a good idea as what is contained in the category. Merging these two synonyms, even if they do not mean the same thing isn't going to make the information more difficult to find. Ergo - Merge. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh?? If the words do not mean the same thing, they are not synonyms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Peterkingiron. I'll also add that using presenters add a UK English term that we should really try to avoid since it is not used in US English. Vegaswikian (talk)
  • Oppose merging - I fully support BrownHairedGirl's analysis of the issue. Cgingold (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

  • Comments: There seem to be two different rationales put forward for keeping these cateories.
(i) "Radio personality" covers regular guests as well as presenters. BrownHairedGirl refers to the stub article Radio personality as indicating a wider meaning, but all the actions described in it are done by presenters, not guests. DJs and sports commentators are also presenters; they can be sub-cats of presenters or personalities, but they don't point to any need to keep categories for both presenters and personalities. As for the guests, there is a problem with categorising people as "guest personalities"; how frequent or well-loved a guest do you have to be to be categorised as a "radio/TV personality" alongside actual presenters? If there are independent media reports using that term about an individual, then it's sourced; but otherwise such categorisation is WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE/ WP:POV / WP:OR. If my argument here doesn't hold water, it might be better to set up new sub-categories of "radio people" for "radio performers", holding the existing "radio actors", to cover people who are regularly heard on radio (i.e. "have a notable role in broadcasts") but not as presenters.
(ii) They mean substantially the same thing but "Radio personality" is an international term whereas "Radio presenter" is not. In that case, the outcome should be Reverse merge at the top level and perhaps all the others apart from British & Irish, which should merge to Presenters. Or just reverse merge the lot. That would be acceptable to me. Position (ii) is not an argument for keeping two tiers meaning the same thing.
I don't see how the "restructure" suggestion is going to work for the American and other "radio personalities" that don't have a sub-cat for presenters, nor a whole set for DJs/ sports radio personalities/ talk radio hosts. – Fayenatic London 20:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I'm likely to be offline for the next few days and miss the end of this, so I hope I've been as clear as I could be! – Fayenatic London 20:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Second vote folloing above comment): Restructure personalities, probably by renaming that to "radio people" (which would also cover executives and producers). Keep "Presenters". The present content of "personalities" needs to be redistributed so that those who are presenters/hosts go into "presenters". We then need to see what we are left with. Sports commentary sometiems involves summarisers, such as retired sports stars. They do not "present" but are there to respond to events. Talk show hosts are clearly a subcat of presenters, but those who regalarly appear on talk shows as guests are not, but may nevertheless be radio personalities; similar regular contestants on quiz shows. If the US subcat does not exist, it may nbeed to be created. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructure with "radio people" as the parent for "radio personalities" (all kinds of talent as subcat for personalities). However, this has problems. The category Category:Radio personalities by nationality is well accepted based upon past use, whereas use of Category:Radio people by nationality is scattered and small. Would a bot handle all of the renaming? I'm opposed to the term "presenter" because it is not commonly used everywhere. We should go with a term that almost everyone would feel comfortable with and is neutral. Crtew (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "radio personalities" is not the same as "radio people". "Personalities" is for regular on-air people. In some countries, "presenters" is used with a very similar meaning. I could set up more head categories for "radio people" but that would not deal with the substantial or complete overlap of "personalities" and "presenters" for some countries. My proposal was to merge "personalities" into "presenters" in countries where that was acceptable, and to leave the other countries to use the word "personalities". If the nominated merges do not go ahead then I will do some sub-catting, but I think I would end up coming back with a new CfD for the reverse merge/rename, i.e. for all countries' presenters categories into personalities. – Fayenatic London 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not all personalities are necessarily presenters.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 18:28, 11 October 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:Mediation Committee[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Actually, this would be more of a move back since the category Category:Wikipedia Mediation Committee‎ was emptied in favor of Category:Mediation Committee through a change in the template Template:Medcom category. I suggest undoing this change as it goes against the current (and sound) practice of adding "Wikipedia" to the name of maintenance categories whose name could otherwise be mistaken for that of a content category. Pichpich (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pray tell, what reader would possibly be searching for a "Mediation Committee", and what are the odds that they will both stumble on this administration category and misunderstand the explanatory text? Frankly, this is nitpicking of the highest order. AGK [•] 21:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, it was called Category:Wikipedia Mediation Committee for the last six years so there are probably a few people that would expect it to still be there. Pichpich (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that this category has always been named A, therefore it must always be called A? How absurd. AGK [•] 21:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm saying that if you want to call it B, then perhaps you should go through the normal process for changing a category's name from A to B. You make it sound as if my nomination of this category is a direct insult to you. It's not. I disagree with the move (and not just with the out-of-process nature of it), I bring it to the proper forum. That's it. Pichpich (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how this was out-of-process. The Mediation Committee controls its category pages, and I am a member of that committee. I do not actually feel very strongly, one way or the other, about this issue. However, I am miffed that I was not simply asked to move the category back (if I have time, I intend to do so, therefore pre-empting this entirely ridiculous discussion), and I am rather more than miffed that you seem to think I am some sort of bumbling idiot who acted rashly and needs a firm trouting. Officious discussions like this make me wonder why on earth I, or anybody, continue to participate in this project. We are talking about the word "Wikipedia" before a never-used category's name, for heaven's sake. AGK [•] 21:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mediation committee should not confuse itself with the main purpose of the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, AGK, the trouting was probably excessive in this case. I have struck that proposal, and suggest a {{minnow}} instead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is a technical WP administration category and should have WP in its name. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I assume that all the subcategories of this category are also going to be re-named? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also hope so. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 23 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:Businesspeople in the brewing industry[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. The Bushranger One ping only 22:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to remove two superfluous words which are un-needed and redundant. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 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:Swedish sports bettors[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 to Category:Swedish gamblers. The Bushranger One ping only 20:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is, as best I can tell, the only category we have for people who bet on sports. There's not one for another nationality, or, again, best I can find, even a general one for sports bettors. Category:Sports betting is about the concept, but not the people who practice it. My sense is we either need to delete this one, or create a parent category to hold it and others like it (If we want this, the Swedes are not the only country that has sports bettors!), and I lean slightly towards deletion on non-defining and BLP grounds. Courcelles 01:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_13&oldid=1138397357"