Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 18 July 20 >

July 19[edit]

Category:American police officers executed for murder[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: Upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcat. Too specific an intersection - it's a crime by occupation and nationality category, and the individual categories (crime by nationality and crime by occupation) already exist. MSJapan (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2013 (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:Police misconduct in France[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Looks like this and the previous discussion need a longer discussion about what is best to do. Take that discussion to a talk page and if there is a consensus bring it back here. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect categorization, arbitrarily made on the opinion of the creator. Claims to be about "police misconduct in France" but is about Vichy French Gestapo officers, mainly tried for war crimes, which is not "police misconduct." Also includes Milice which is a police force created in 1943 by the Vichy regime, and again has nothing to do with the topic cat. MSJapan (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or alternatively Rename - I could see this being more viable if renamed to Category:Gestapo officers tried for war crimes. Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- This is a well-developed category tree. Possibly a more specific "War crimes by police in Vichy France" might do. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Could an article be written about the topic Police misconduct in France? Nomination claims the category only contains articles about the WW2 period. However it contains Reign of Terror -- describing arbitrary arrest and summary execution during the French Revolution. There were terrible atrocities during France's civil war in Algeria. I suggest this cold be a source of additional elements to this category. Several dozen other countries are listed in the parent cat. Is France somehow special -- a country with no Police misconduct?

    Further, could nominator please explain why they disclude war crimes from police misconduct? Nominator has stated this in several other discussions, as if this were an accepted fact. Maybe nominator can point at a previous central discussion, where a consensus was arrived at to this effect? Well, that could be great -- if a link to that earlier discussion was provided. But, if there was no central discussion that reached this conclusion I suggest treating this premise as an accepted fact is quite premature. Geo Swan (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2013 (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:Police misconduct in Germany[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Looks like this and the previous discussion need a longer discussion about what is best to do. Take that discussion to a talk page and if there is a consensus bring it back here. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an overly broad, miscategorized, and trivial cat. It purports to be about "police misconduct in Germany" but instead has articles related solely to the Gestapo during the Nazi period. Also, this seems to be arbitrary on the part of the creator- Arthur Nebe was never accused of police misconduct, and the Stalag Luft III murders were not considered such either. MSJapan (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There is no reason to single out Germany for deletion. As shown by the underlying articles, Germany police sometimes do bad things as do police in all the other countries in the series Category:Police misconduct by country Hmains (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or perhaps Rename as Category:Gestapo war crimes in Germany or something similar. Categorizing this as Police misconduct is not appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the "po" in gestapo is for "polizei", as the page properly explains is the German word for "police". To the extent that gestapo, and other German cops, commit misconduct. Categorizing them here seems appropriate. Needn't tar all German cops with the "Gestapo" label. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly keep but the whole point of this seems to be that everything the Gestapo did was ipso facto misconduct, which would make Category:Gestapo the only child of this category in that case because all the articles and categories here now are also categorized somewhere in the Gestapo subtree. Mangoe (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- What the Gestapo did was not a crime according to the Nazi regime: they were doing much what the Nazis wanted. That makes the Nazi era different from the typical case of the corrupt cop. I would therefore prefer to see all the Nazi era offenders (according to the post-WWII view) put into a single category. I am sure there will be offences by post-WWII police, for example in the former DDR. Accordingly, this should not ultimately be a parent with a single child. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep -- Individual elements may not belong, but I am sure an article could be written about Police misconduct in Germany. Geo Swan (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2013 (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:Police misconduct in Nazi-occupied Poland[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly broad category, and still only one page in it. Parent cat is also up for deletion. MSJapan (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Even if we keep this, I am concerned that the Jürgen Stroop article (currently the only article in the cat) is mis-categorized. The categorization seems to conflate the subjects role as a leader in the SS with his role as a policeman. I realize he was both at the same time... but it seems inappropriate to call what he did Police misconduct. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can be merged with the above. As for police misconduct; you'll find nearly all such episodes having the policeperson serving two masters in some way or another - even if one of them is him/her self. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Now empty; not needed as above. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2013 (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.

Section header on discussion page United States Navy Kentucky-related ships[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:United States Navy Kentucky-related ships already covers this topic. O484 (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2013 (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:Freemasons with criminal convictions[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While the consensus was to delete, this needs to be an upmerge to keep the articles in the Freemason tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: CSD declined. Attack cat and mis-cat with spurious sourcing that is painting with a broad brush. Many of the entries are either clearly not Freemasons (Hayes, because a freeman of a city is not a Freemason), their membership is claimed but not sourced (Armstrong, Vinciguera), the person quit Freemasonry prior to their crime (Seddon, Wilde, likely Pritchard as he left the country he was a member in in debt), or was expelled from Freemasonry because of it (Gelli, Noye, Breivik). Breivik is a special case, insofar as it was clearly and publicly indicated that he never did anything within the organization in four years of membership and was definitely expelled. That leaves George Seton, who was convicted of treason in the Jacobite Rebellion and Poulson, convicted of bribery in 1972. Seton's membership is certain at one point, but the source for Poulson's membership was an article written by a politician pushing a bill that failed. I'm not sure where the author got the information, because the source he claimed to use wouldn't list deceased members. Both Poulson and Seton may have been expelled as well, but it would need research. The point is that most of these cat members are people with criminal convictions of widely varying types, but are mainly not Freemasons with such, and even so, this cat simply disparages the topic by making a spurious connection. MSJapan (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is clearly a case of overcategorization. It is a manufactured narrow intersection of two categories ("Freemasons" and "People with criminal convictions") that have nothing to do with each other. Are there people who were convicted of crimes who happened to also be Freemasons... of course... the same will be true for any other large group of people. This does not mean we should have a cat for it. We could probably take any category of people and add "with criminal convictions" to it (the potential is endless... we could have: Category:Vietnam Veterans with criminal convictions, Category:Harvard Alumni with criminal convictions, or Category:Zoologists with criminal convictions... etc. etc.). I am also concerned that this category was created as an attack page, it strikes me that the sole purpose of the cat is to denigrate Freemasonry. Then there is the issue of what constitutes a "criminal conviction"... that's a very amorphous characteristic that includes everything from jay-walkers to mass murderers. Finally, since some of the people listed in the cat are still living, there are BLP issues to contend with. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ADDENDUM... We should probably add the tiny sub-cat Category:American Freemasons with criminal convictions (nominated for deletion below) to this discussion. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we did (some time ago; I'm not sure where the discussions are), and they were recreated bit by bit. MSJapan (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As convictions result in expulsion, this will turn out to be an empty category. Poulson caused a major shake up in Grand lodge attitudes, and would have been excluded according to the constitutions. Seton was a Jacobite - one man's traitor is another's patriot. It puts him in the same relationship to the law as the many Freemasons who fought in the Confederate army, which probably defies categorisation. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. "As convictions result in expulsion" - Non sequitor. If the criminal was a freemason when he convicted his crime there should be no problem with inclusion. JASpencer (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With the exception of John Pack Lambert all the named deletors are active Freemasons and active members of Wikipedia Project Freemasonry and this is a concerted attempt to feign a consensus. This needs a more balanced discussion.JASpencer (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting category, although there should be some care in who goes in there. For some of these people their Freemasonry was either the means for their crime (Paulson), a worry because it gave a hardened criminal access to police officers (Noye) or were part of their weird self identity that led to the crime (Breivik). For example Breivik was a Freemason in good standing when he committted his murder spree, and it was crucial to his self-identity as a defender of the West as seen by his pictures in Masonic regalia, even if Jahbulon didn't tell him to do it. Poulson's Freemasonry was crucial for the reach of his corruption in one of the defining political scandals in post war Britian. I do think that some of the inclusions are odd (Wilde for example) but a valid category. JASpencer (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are many narrow intersections that could be considered "Interesting"... it's still overcategorizaton. You are also stating speculation and accusation as if it were accepted fact and bordering on conspiracy theory. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all freemasons members cats are non-defining. Akin to what people do in their spare time or whether they sang in the choir in church or were in the chess club in high school. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fell the whole tree -- It seems to me that generally freemasonry and being a criminal are purely coincidental. This makes the intersection a pointless one. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2013 (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:Populated places in the Siyanda District Municipality[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This South African district has been renamed, see ZF Mgcawu District Municipality. eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2013 (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:American Freemasons with criminal convictions[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While the consensus was to delete, this needs to be an upmerge to keep the articles in the Freemason tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy declined as "not attack page", but it definitely seems that way, and is a trivial intersection of information. MSJapan (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The admin was right to decline the speedy, but we'd be right to delete it here. This category slanders any person in it, as well as Freemasons as a group. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I note that this is a sub-cat of Category:Freemasons with criminal convictions, which has also been nominated for deletion (see above). I would suggest that discussion on this sub-cat be merged into that of the broader cat. But if we are to discuss them separately, please consider my comments in that discussion repeated here. It's an over-categorization that definitely boarders on being an Attack page. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MSJapan, Ego White Tray, and Blueboar. Over-categorisation, comes across as an attack category. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't really need to be its own category but perhaps could be merged into another one O484 (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a classic example of an attack category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is also an oxymoron, as most Grand Lodges exclude masons who acquire criminal records. I suppose Ex-Freemasons with criminal convictions is too picky. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Freemasons with Criminal Convictions. Not an invalid category as such, but too small (currently). JASpencer (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on the parent cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to parent or delete if parent is deleted. Two people is not enough for a subcat, and it's highly doubtful in any case that the parent will ever grow enough to require division by country. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent or delete according to outcome for parent; ensure that an American people category is retained for both articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2013 (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:Catalan classical musicians by instrument[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. Subcategory already in upmerge target. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need for this as there is only one subcat, so it adds an unneccessary intermediate category level, which hinders navigation rather than helping. The subcat should be moved directly into the parent, Category:Catalan classical musicians. Cgingold (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gosh this takes me back - a category I created in 2007 when I spent lots of time categorising musicians according to the WP:MUSCAT guidelines. It's actually part of a much wider tree - see Category:Classical musicians by nationality and instrument (to which I have now added this sub-category; that parent didn't exist in 2007) - and it would probably make sense to be consistent with the other 64 sub-categories there. I've spent so little time in the field of musician categorisation in recent years that I have no real view on whether Category:Classical musicians by nationality and instrument and its subcategories are good ways of navigation, so I'm neutral on this nomination and on the wider question. BencherliteTalk 11:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing inherently wrong with the category -- but I did notice that no additional subcats had been added after 6 years, so I think it's time to dispense with it. Btw, Catalan doesn't really qualify as a "nationality", so it doesn't belong in that category tree. (That's the reason I created Category:Classical musicians by ethnicity.) Cgingold (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or upmerge -- The sub-cat is worth having as Catalan, as most of the life of Pablo Casals was spent in exile. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2013 (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.

First Nations reserves - Indian reserves[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is not a proper usage and has politically-correct roots, the legal term is "Indian Reserve" both words capitalized, though "Indian reserve" has resulted from application of the lower-case "rule". The main article and attendant articles already using "Indian reserve" are:

Note also:

Myself, I dislike the lower-case "rule" when applied here because, although "reserves" is common usage, "Indian Reserve" refers specifically to legally-designated titles/names for given patches of land, so, to me, "Indian reserve" is not appropriate although Category:Indian reserves is preferable to "First Nations reserves", which is a p.c. neologism, though often seen in the media (but so is Indian Reserve/reserve). These categories are not for reserve communities or governments, which have their own categories. NB I'm expecting the subcategories to be added to also show up in this once I add the CfR template to them, hope it works....well, it didn't, so manually adding the subcategories affected/included:

Note that Category:Communities on First Nation reserves in Alberta‎ refers to "on legally-designated Indian Reserve lands" and is not a "general" i.e. lower-case usage. There are a number of reasons these should be exempt from the lower-case, but that's one of them.Skookum1 (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't rename You can call it PC politics all you want, but First Nations is the standard term used in Canada. You'll notice the name of the article I'm linking to is First Nations, for example. Since we use common names rather than official ones, we should use first nations which is frequently used in Canada and not Indian, which is nearly nonexistent there. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this discussion is proposing two separate things concurrently:
Oppose uppercasing of "reserve" per longstanding WP consensus. Although "Indian" qualifies as a proper name "reserve" does not, whether on its own or when part of "Indian reserve" (unless part of the official name of a reserve, such as "Foo Indian Reserve No. X", which is not the case here). It is "reserve" (not "Reserve") and "Indian reserves" (not "Indian Reserves") according to the The Indian Act. The titles of all other Canadian Indian reserve list articles do not capitalize "reserve" (Canada, AB, NB, QC and SK). Same with "reservation" for American Indian reservation list articles (US, OR and WA). Hwy43 (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming "First Nations reserve" with "Indian reserve". Is "First Nation(s)" more common/standard than "Indian(s)"? Maybe. I can't be sure. However, "Indian reserve(s)" is more common than "First Nations reserve(s)" by a country mile due to official legal names of the reserves themselves as well as federal legislation (see The Indian Act linked above). "First Nations" may be the most common in general and therefore appropriate for use in general articles such as First Nations, but until legislation and official legal names of reserves are changed themselves, there is slim chance that "First Nations reserves" will ever emerge as being more common that "Indian reserves". Hwy43 (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Canadian Geographic Names Database, and BC Names all use "Indian Reserve" or "Indian reserve" as does StatsCan/ the census and innumerable government agencies and ministries both federal and provincial. NONE use "First Nations reserve". This would also be the case if your were go through all the various band and tribal council websites, they'll be using "Indian Reserve" or "Indian reserve".... And re proper names, I differ, but then I've viewing it from the perspective of a former land surveyor, an IR (as we always abbreviate them, and I don't mean surveyors but "we" as Canadians)- we don't abbreviate them "Ir". An Indian Reserve's name is not e.g. Slosh Indian reserve no. 7 but Slosh Indian Reserve No. 7. BE that as it may, the neologism "First Nations reserve" is awkward and not common usage...it's only common usage because of the influence of Wikipedia beyond itself IMO. Ego White Tray is not correct that it is now most common. It's not, and supplanting "First Nations" as an adjective to replace "Indian" is not relevant; this is a noun phrase and the phrase is "Indian R/reserve". Also, emergent usage of "First Nations" as an adjective is now lower case e.g. "first nations person".....I know I started List of Indian Reserves in British Columbia that way, I'm not sure when the main Canada and Alberta lists were changed. The legal name of these places is "FOO Indian Reserve [No. N]" and their legal classification, and as used by the bands, is "Indian Reserve" and/or "Indian reserve".Skookum1 (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't realize the Indian Act used the lower-case form; for "reserve" standalone I can see, I'm surprised by "Indian reserve" in the legislation...to me, when in capped form, it refers to the land allotment/land as surveyed, which is different from Crown Land or Government Reserve or Timber Berth, for example; in usages as is often the case when it refers to a community (and as you know not all IRs are communities) and not to the land per se, "I get it" about "Indian reserve". The reason the Category:Former Indian Reserves in British Columbia is titled that way is it is about the designated lands, not to reserves in the context of communities etc. To me it's a "proper noun phrase" and in my day, if not lately, the media and other sources would use the capitalized form. "He lived on the reserve" vs "He lived on the Indian Reserve" (meaning a specific one), say in a smalltown paper; it meant he was on that side of the boundary (in my area marked commonly with blue and white posts); "on the reserve" in the first context meant on the rancherie.Skookum1 (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Indian people relates to people from the nation of India. On multiple occasions we have tried to rename this as too ambiguous and been shot down. "Indian reserve" is a horribly ambiguous term, unless these are places where Cnada gathers together their immigrants from Mumbai and Chennai.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:COMMONNAME prevails. The common name for reserves of First Nations people is "Indian reserve", not "First Nations reserve". As mentioned above, "First Nations" may be the standard when referring to North American aboriginals in general on Wikipedia, but when appended to "reserve", it is "Indian reserve" that is more common. AFAIK, there is no such thing as a reserve for people of Indian descent, so the above comment is moot. If there was, a dab for the Indian reserve article would be in order, such as Indian reserve (Canada) rather than changing to the less common "First Nations reserve". Hwy43 (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You've just provided one of the other reasons I prefer the capital-R "Indian Reserve" to avoid that ambiguity, or imputations of that misunderstanding, which in Canadian English is not the primary usage. "Indian people" = "East Indian" in Canadian English, including at StatsCan, because we do have to make that distinction. It is not your objection to that usage that can override the Indian Act nor the national names databases nor sites made by these peoples and in the courts and so on and so on and so on. Insisting on "First Nations reserves" for your reason says that Wikipedia should mandate and perpetuate that term, even though there's no compelling case for it nor is it as widespread as you would obviously like to make it. Not for the usual reason, but because you claim that "Indian reserve" infers Indian people and, quite frankly, that's rubbish - nobody in Canada would make that mistake, not even someone from India, once they knew what an Indian Reserve is and how people who live around them call them, and what they are called in law and by themselves. Wikipedia's role is not to decide what people should use, but what is used..Skookum1 (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose I was ready to !vote for this, but a simple google search showed many many sources calling them "First Nations reserves". It may not be the *most* common, but it is certainly common enough, and cbc.ca has 3000 hits on this term. [1]. Thus, I say we should maintain First Nations reserve as an uambiguous, even if less common, name- it's quite common enough for our purposes. (changed !vote)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's still not as common as "Indian reserve", and is not the legal/official description. Of those "first nations reserves" cites you found, how many were government sites (including First Nations governments and tribal councils and native organizations), who many were Govt of Canada, or a provincial government, or a municipal government? How many were wiki-clones or sites that use Wikipedia as a reference? MOSTCOMMON is clearly on the side of "Indian reserve" especially when official usages, not just CGNDB and INAC and BC Names et al., are taken into account.Skookum1 (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, those are terribly useless searches; those numbers don't mean anything. The searches I linked to above were direct searches of cbc.ca, which is canada's national broadcaster. There are "3000" reported results for "First Nations reserve", vs 725 or so for "Indian reserve" - however, to get really real results, you need to click through to the end, which gives around 350 non-duplicate hits for "First Nations reserve" and around 250 non-duplicate hits for "Indian reserve". We don't give priority to "official" government sources or official government documents in determining commonname, so in this case the evidence I've found and the results presented by others have not convinced me that "First Nations reserve" is somehow a bad or uncommon name, and at least in the case of CBC, it is marginally MORE common. That, and the fact that there is possible ambiguity with the "Indian" name, suggests that we don't need to rename these cats.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obi-Wan, try executing the same two searches for "site:ca" for all ".ca" domains, click through to the ends and advise of the results please (not sure if there is a way to fast-track to the end of each of these lengthy search results, but you may). Anyways, this search comparison would be more appropriate because of its much larger sample size that includes countless different media, government and other websites. Hwy43 (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I can find, without a means to quickly get to the ends, is that the initial results are 119K for "First Nations reserve" and 694K for "Indian reserve". Hwy43 (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think you can win this argument on WP:COMMONNAME, at least with the sources you are providing. Those results across all canadian websites are meaningless, and the numbers returned are simply estimates that can be off by one, two, or even three orders of magnitude - thus the comparison is useless. As soon as there are more than 1000 results, google won't return them all anyway, so you *can't* click to the end. You need to search specifically against books, specific news sources, and scholarly journals, to start with. I'd suggest you look at the article/category titling guidelines and argue this case on different merits than commonname. I frankly don't care about whether news sources are PC or not - if the national broadcaster uses the term more frequently than "Indian reserves", that is a statement - I don't know what it is trying to say, but it is a statement. You've got to bring some more compelling evidence to the table - the early claims that "Nobody calls them first nations reserve" are weak and now disproven, so the ball's in your court...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For example, see [2] which searches an official Govt of Canada website for aboriginal affairs, the term "First Nations reserve" is used at least 60 times (vs around 300 for "Indian reserve") - thus these are within an order of magnitude of eachother, which is usually my proxy for "one is not overwhelmingly more common than the other". We may also be seeing a change in usage, with "First Nation X" replacing "Indian X" - perhaps it's PC, but if sources are trending that way, then we should follow. The fact that the redirect is at First Nations reserve and the article is at Indian reserve may be your strongest argument to rename, since cat names usually follow article titles.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further rationale to support renaming of "First Nations reserve" to "Indian reserve" in response to suggestion to look at article/category titling guidelines to bolster argument...

    WP:CATNAME#General conventions states “Standard article naming conventions apply”. So at WP:TITLE, within which WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME are nested, I believe that “Indian reserve” is more recognizable, more natural, more precise (because there are no other subjects at that title) and more concise than “First Nations reserve”, which is why First Nations reserve redirects to Indian reserve. As standard naming conventions apply to CAT names, therefore the fifth characteristic at NAMINGCRITERIA suggests that the CAT names should be consistent with the pattern of the main article on the topic and the pattern of other similar article titles, such as the numerous List of Indian reserves in Foo articles.

    Now, COMMONNAME at TITLE then leans on the five NAMINGCRITERIA, but when there is more than one frequently used alternative name, “it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals.” In this case, I doubt the latter two apply. Thus far, we’ve discussed major English-language media outlets and geographic name servers among others. On the latter, I’ve only seen “Indian reserve” used on geographic name servers. On the former, media outlets use both, which are within an order of magnitude of each other, so that may be inconclusive.

    However, COMMONNAME goes onto say that restricted search engine results may help to collect this data. Here are the results of the restricted searches:

  • general Google English search less Wikipedia (as suggested by COMMONNAME):
  • "First Nations reserve" -Wikipedia - 419K
  • "Indian reserve" -Wikipedia - 1,280K
  • general Google Books English search (which is suggested as a better default search by COMMONNAME to concentrate on reliable sources) less “Books, LLC” and less Wikipedia:
  • "First Nations reserve" -Wikipedia -inauthor:"Books, LLC" - 7,870
  • "Indian reserve" -Wikipedia -inauthor:"Books, LLC" - 145,000
  • for the heck of it, also did a general Google English search less Wikipedia and less sites with a “.ca” domain, which should keep most government websites out and most major English-language media outlets in:
  • "First Nations reserve" -Wikipedia -site:ca - 301K
  • "Indian reserve" -Wikipedia -site:ca - 557K
Further stated within COMMONNAME, WP:NOTCRYSTAL applies. We can’t speculate that “First Nations reserve will trend and overtake “Indian reserve”, particularly so long as “Indian reserve” remains the official name. If and when the official name changes from “Indian reserve” to “First Nations reserve”, then common sense could be applied; that the official name change will trigger a common usage change over time.

Based on the above arguments and the restricted general Google Books English search concentrating on reliable sources, I would conclude that the appropriate term for the category names is “Indian reserve” rather than “First Nations reserve”. Hwy43 (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think general google searches are useful at all, except as a starting place - but they cannot establish COMMONNAME. The book specific and scholarly sources specific searches are better, but I'd prefer to see specific searches across official government sources and specific major media outlets as well to bolster the case. Ngrams also illustrates a trend of increasing usage of "Indian Nations reserve" in books starting around 1990 coupled with a decrease in use of "Indian reserve" at the same time, but "Indian reserve" still dominates in books and even dates back to the 1700s: [3]. When I've done searches on Canadian media outlets, usage is within one order of magnitude, and sometimes First Nations is more prevalent. Across government sources, for example, statcan.gc.ca, usage of Indian reserve is more frequent. That said, the other arguments you made on cat names matching article titles are stronger, as well as the PRECISE and CONCISE criteria, so I'm changing my !vote based on that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment on that It is very unlikely, if not impossible, for an official name change to occur. That would require amendment of the Indian Act, and if anything that's not gonna happen anytime soon; and is a subject of hot and ongoing debate as to whether and how that may happen. Same with Treaties 6, 8 etc. The Nisga'a Treaty created "Nisga'a Lands" (I think the term is Nisga'a Lisims, though that's also the name of the Nisga'a government I think....the Sechelt Treaty converted IRs to SIGD's (Sechelt Indian Government Districts). Other terms may be come up with elsewhere, especially in BC where each group has a different set of land and constitutional/legal needs. Other than those observations, it's also necessary to understand that all usages of "First Nations reserve" in the media and academia are indeed making a statement, or advancing a new term, but that's not Wikipedia's place to do. Arguments against using "Indian reserve" all come out as synthesis, i.e. since "First Nation" replaces "Indian", then "Indian reserve" must be "First Nations reserve"....but that's an interpretation and a logical synthesis that still doesn't overcome the actual, legal and often treatied (i.e. constitutional) nature of these pieces of land. And, it's synthesis, pure and simple. Because of the politically-charged nature of the native and intergovernmental polities in Canada, choosing - demanding - something different from the main prevalent usage, and all legal-definition citations (not just mentions on govt websites but actual citations for each reserve) - is making a statement and "taking sides".....on issues that, frankly, most Wikipedians don't have a good grasp on and which remain testy within the native polity itself. In semi-related matters, it took until BC Names and CGNDB and, in one case, the USGS/US Naming Board (whatever it's called) made them official before the Haida Gwaii and Salish Sea article-names became cast in stone. Language is highly political in Canada, in many fields but especially in native affairs. The only NPOV path is to go with the legal, dominant name. Not one that's "trending" (as if it were).Skookum1 (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[post edit conflit] Media usage is deliberately p.c. to start with, and it's not just p.c.'isms, it's pushing terms like Metro Vancouver as part of rebranding vs Greater Vancouver, which (other than media) is still the most common usage. And again, have a look at FN government websites; I don't buy the "we don't do official names" argument, all our citations used to create these articles say "Indian reserve" (INAC, CGNDB, BC Names, StatsCan and more); why should Wikipedia ignore the widely used term - are we to ignore what the citations use, and just use whatever "we" ("Wikipedia") decide to use anyway? That argument fell flat on its face with the hyphenation of regional districts, where the official style guide of the government that created them (BC's) had to be dragged out to prove that their legal names are hyphenated, not en-dashed. I really don't understand the "ignore official usages" line of argument on matters like this. There is no First Nations Act, there's nothing on the map labelled "First Nations reserve".....what newspeople choose to use for politically sensitivity reasons isn't waht the people themselves even use. And if we took media usages into account then SunMedia's usage of "eco-terrorist" for David Suzuki and others would be acceptable, and it's not.Skookum1 (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Why categories whose contents all have "FOO Indian Reserve [No. N]" as titles should be titled anything else than "Indian reserve" completely escapes me. wiki-logic at its most absurd.Skookum1 (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post edit-conflict comment I'm not sure where this was supposed to go, so putting it here: ":::::::the national broadcaster, like any broadcaster including CTV and SunMedia and HuffPo, is inherently politicized. And when I say "no one calls them" I mean people who live next to them and people in them and around them. That's impossible to cite - unless you look up local smalltown papers and, once again, the websites of the actual peoples themselves. Discounting their usages and the plethora of cites used to make these pages and pretending there is an argument to use a WP:Neologism that happens to be fashionable in the media is a weak argument in and of itself. MOSFOLLOW the citations is pretty clear, and the citations used across the board overwhelmingly say e.g. "Seton Lake 7 (Indian reserve)" and though you can come up with citations e.g. "Standing Buffalo First Nations Reserve" in SunMedia, as in one of the googles provided by Hwy 43, there is a big difference between what a broadcaster uses and what is the legal name and also the more common parlance in Canadian English still, despite efforts to completely supplant "Indian" for "First Nations" in Canadian media and academia. There is no citation for "Seton Lake first nations reserve 7" (NB as far as media goes, more and more you'll see lower-case when in adjectival form like that), or "Seton Lake 7 First Nations reserve". BTW INAC just uses "Reserves" e.g. here, but the Canadian Geographic Names Database uses "Indian Reserve" (note caps).Skookum1 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • ancillary comment/reply Sources that are not "trending" are definitely the definitive/authoritative ones not so-called "reliable sources" (major media). Since when is "trending" a qualification for a citation?Skookum1 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Indian Reserve is the correct name. 117Avenue (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... of the municipalities. But just like how we have List of cities in Alberta and Category:People by city or town in Alberta, it should be lower case. 117Avenue (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2013 (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:Ships abandoned by their captain[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. Bottom line, this is about the captain and not the ship. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a ship. The name of the category means it could include ships where the captain left after the crew/passengers (which I don't think is the intention of the category). A category like "Incidents in which captain was not last to leave a ship in peril" might just work (note: that would be for articles about incidents such as this, not articles about the ships themselves), but really this would be better handled as a list (e.g. Captain_goes_down_with_the_ship#Counter-examples) where the circumstances could be briefly explained. For info: there is a slightly related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_1#Category:Ships_lost_with_all_hands. DexDor (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete may be defining for a ship, but usually only in connection with an accident which is the more defining... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename as creator. First of all, there is nothing wrong with having both a list and a category, and there are thousands of examples of this all over Wikipedia. Many of the nominator's concerns are answered by renaming the category to the nominator's suggested name or something similar. And if you actually read the articles contained in the category, you will see that it was indeed a defining characteristic for all four of the listed disasters. In all four cases, there was a major scandal regarding the captain's conduct, and in all four cases, the captain's abandonment is one of the main things the disaster is remembered for (even the recent Costa Concordia disaster), so the idea that it's not a defining characteristic is dead wrong. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify since "abandoned" could be nuanced -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This category is really derived from the romantic notion that the captain is supposed to go down with the ship. In truth this category could be extremely large, given the number of ships which sank but from which the crew was rescued. What seems to be the case instead is that we are talking about a very few incidents in which the captain was popularly accused of abandoning the ship prematurely, but that's a subjective notion for the most part unless a court convict for negligence. Maybe someone can come up with a better name, but I'm quite doubtful about that. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's meant to be about captains that abandoned a ship when its passengers were in peril. And this "romantic notion" as you call it has an article on Wikipedia (Captain goes down with the ship) and is actually codified as law in several countries. You say that this is about captains "popularly accused", but this is one of the charges pending against Schettini, and the captain of the Oceanos was found negligent for his actions, the Jeddah prompted an official investigation - so in three out of four of these disasters the local government officially stated that the captain abandoned ship and declared it as wrongful or negligent. So, your two primary notions against this category (that's it's a mere romantic notion and that they it's a subjective accusation) are both completely wrong. Ego White Tray (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that's not what the category name says: it says abandoned at all. If you want to set up a category where the abandonment was held to be out of line, you would need some different name for that, and it would need to be based upon official judgements, not merely the opinion of news pundits or popular sentiment. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - RECENTISM rears its ugly head once again. There is some need to be the person who did something new on WP that pretty much anything in the news ends up on here before it's even done happening. On another note, it is rather interesting that only four articles (out of hundreds of years of seafaring) are in this category. It indicates that either the category is never going to be decently populated enough to really be useful as a defining link, or that what it means is unclear. Neither position makes for a good category. MSJapan (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the four pages in the categories is recent. And is there anything inherently wrong with a category with four pages in it? Ego White Tray (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not WP:DEFINING. This might potentially be considered a defining characteristic of the captains; it is not a defining characteristic of the ships. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's defining of the disasters as well. Either way a simple rename as suggested by nominator would be better than deletion. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the articles are about ships, not disasters per se, and it's not a defining characteristic of the ships. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2013 (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.

Orange County Blue Star[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Same franchise. WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not merge - A merger isn't really appropriate, because looking at the cats, the players don't overlap 100%. Therefore, if player X didn't play for Blue Star, then we can't say he did, and even if Player Y played for all three, they're only the same now, not historically. The precedent seems to indicate that former franchise cats stay, but become subcats of the current franchise (see Category:Baltimore Colts, but that same cat indicates that the earlier team of that name has its own separate cat). On the player side, Babe Ruth is in a player cat for every team he played with, currently extant or not. Policy seems to be against this type of merger from either the team or player perspective. MSJapan (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - given that football works differently than other sports here on WP, and the merge is consistent with other similar articles. MSJapan (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, we're talking about association football/soccer categories here. It's the same franchise who changed their name a couple of times, which means they should be merged. See Category:New York Red Bulls players, Category:FC Dallas players and Category:Sporting Kansas City players. – Michael (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the only exception is if a team relocated like the original San Jose Earthquakes to the Houston Dynamo, then we don't merge. Otherwise.... well, you know. We've also done that with English football articles, merging players from Woolwich Arsenal to Category:Arsenal F.C. players, or players from Newton Heath to Category:Manchester United F.C. players, etc. – Michael (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - one team with three names? Still only needs one category, this is standard in categories for association football players. GiantSnowman 10:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The convention on alumni is that alumni of merged or renamed colleges are deemed to have attended the successor. I do not see why the principle should not apply to sports clubs. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2013 (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/2013_July_19&oldid=1074811053"