Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 21 June 23 >

June 22[edit]

WikiProject Skepticism[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: completed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request for assistance moving the assessment categories for recently renamed WikiProject Skepticism. Greg Bard (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this has the support of the particular project, then go to WP:Bot requests. You will need to point to the rename discussion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:CFD/W is all that is needed, there are bots that patrol that. Werieth (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CFD/W appears to be a protected page that I cannot edit. So I am officially getting the run around now. I'm pretty sure there is a bot that specializes in moving categories (Clydebot) and that this page is where requests are made that the bot handles. Greg Bard (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Magioladitis (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment we should distinguish what WPSkepticism considers of articles from what we are implying that the topic of "skepticism" considers of articles, so these should all be prepended with "WikiProject" -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, common practice is what I've done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:10, 25 June 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:XXL freshmen[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT violation, not a major award nor characteristic of the subject in question Secret account 18:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Thousands of magazines and websites have similar "awards". Very few of them are notable. (When Time names their "Person of the Year", major media outlets move most other stories down to announce it and discuss their selection.) This, however, is not one of those cases. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really worth a category. Koala15 (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—The category inclusion note says: "The XXL freshman class is an annual selection of not well known rappers chosen by XXL who believe they will have a bright future." (a) If they're "not well known", then they won't have articles on WP; (b) is it the rapper or the XXL entity who believes in a bright future; (c) I read XXL as a clothing size and wondered why we would need such a category for XXL first year college students (I know, I'm showing my age, but I won't be the only one who would read it that way); (d) a bright future = WP:CRYSTAL. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- There is a list in XXL (magazine). Most of nthe subjects DO have articles, but we do not normally allow award categories: see WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is possibly worse than the dancers to watch category. We do not want to categorize people for having been noticed early in their career. Whether all the people so designated are notable is another issue, but it is not worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OVERCAT pretty much sums it up, and as much as I like the magazine, this isn't actually an award. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 02:49, 4 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:Fictional survivors[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too vague as to what constitutes as a survivor. JDDJS (talk) 15:08, 22 June 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:Spencer Airways[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category containing only one subcategory for accidents, there is no article Spencer Airways. Tim! (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion - as per nominator, not much else to say. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retention - The reasoning behind this category existing is as follows: 1) Each airline that has had an accident gets an accident category, making navigation among airline accidents easier. This is the case for major airlines with lost of accidents and, to keep navigation easy, should follow the same pattern for smaller and newer airlines with fewer accidents. 2) Each airline accident category goes under a category for that airline. Again, this follows the general pattern for airline category navugation. If and when additional articles related to that airline someday, thay can be added to that category, without having to wait until then to create the category. 3) Not doing this creates a two-tiered system in which some airline accidents can be found under a general category for that airline and others cannot and have to be found via other means. It is hard to see any advantage to this two-tiered system, and it is hard to see what harm having this category as-is does. Misleading, redundant, and confusing categories should be deleted or merged, but there is nothing gained by deleting little-used categories that don't otherwise need to be deleted just because there isn't much in them. Mdnavman (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]
  • Delete -- This is all about the categorisation of a 1947 accident at Croydon in England. We do not have an article on the airline. I therefore do not see how we can have a category for its crashes. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if we had an article on the airline (which I strongly suspect we should), it would not be enough to justify the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From reading the article 1947 Croydon Dakota accident, my opinion is that "Spencer Airways" was not a real airline. It is notable only for short life. So there really isn't anything to tell about the "airline" that could not be part of the accident article itself. If Spencer Airways were a real airline, then Mdnavman's rationale for an orthogonal approach to airlines should be given much greater consideration. An airline's mere existence is sufficient justification for its own category. 75.208.246.33 (talk) 17:28, 1 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:Race Results on Tracks[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:Race results by motorsport venue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To fix capitalisation, clarify what type of races/tracks (i.e. motor races rather than, for example, horse races) and for consistency with existing Category:Motorsport venues. DH85868993 (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just placed both pages in that category for AFD for rather obvious reasons. Secret account 22:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to either of the names suggested above. Oculi (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (from nominator): I'd also be happy with Spyder Monkey's alternative. DH85868993 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per SpyderMonkey. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:15, 23 June 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 torturers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've looked at almost all of the bios in this category - almost all of them have been convicted of murder/torture/rape/etc. Its not very fun to go through these bios. In any case, I don't think we need two categories - one should suffice: people who have been convicted. I know there are other cats we should deal with, but this one we can do first. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- We do not allow categorisation of unconvicted people, becasue it is potentially libellous. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed]
  • The issue of libel/liability is a silly argument. A category tag does not somehow skirt Wikipedia policies. All the policies including BLP remain in full force and effect. But conviction of torture is rare. Think this through. We have a List of rampage killers: School massacres. How many people on that list do you suppose were convicted of rampage killing at a school? Requiring a conviction would gut the list. Having the list does not create some potential liability not found in every article that is not fully protected. 75.210.30.167 (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not change This change would have the net effect of removing most of these people from a torture category. There are few convictions for 'torture' as such as laws are not written against torture and prosecutors generally charge for the highest crime, which is usually murder--an often end result of torture. Other libel does not affect dead people. And the references we use (generally from court testimony) protect WP against libel. Hmains (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Just because we can not be sued for liable by the dead does not mean we should smear their reputations by shoddy categorization. Categorize like this should be clearly defined, and "torture" is a term with meanings specific to time and place and too open to use by presentists to smear past people unless we tightly define it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. You could delete from this category those who were convicted and make this list exclusive of those who were convicted. But where would you list accused torturers (e.g., Albert Fish) who were convicted instead of murder, rape, or kidnapping, who copped a plea, or who died before conviction? 75.247.9.214 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting question - it is true that several of these guys had pretty clear evidence that they tortured and killed their victims; but they were prosecuted for the stronger crime. So, perhaps this category does have a chance to remain on those marks - where submitted evidence was for torture but conviction was for murder.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even a conviction or a confession does not meet the standard of "irrefutable". Those things are refuted daily. But I think this is reductio ad absurdam for your pov. However, I invite you to bring up your pov on the talk page for one of these lists where you would propose gutting it. Perhaps others can help you to see the error in your rationale. 75.210.30.167 (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge current version is not sustainable, next someone will be adding anyone associated with Abu Graib or Guantanamo with all the BLP problems inherent in people not convicted of anything. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] Where did you get that rule?
  • "Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources." There is no mention about BLP applying to people who died within the past 115 years. BLP stresses that it applies only to living persons (or persons who might reasonably be expected still to be alive). 75.208.176.27 (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should not make a badly named category because it can tag someone who most find reprehensible, when it could also be used to attack living people. We need convictions, not just accusations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is not badly named. Define criteria to be on the list and enforce those. If an entry would violate BLP, then obviously it should not be listed. BLP applies regardless of how overly broad and inviting you think the category name is. But BLP cannot be applied to people who are dead. Albert Fish must remain in the category. If the criteria exclude him, the criteria are wrong. 75.210.30.167 (talk) 04:45, 29 June 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_June_22&oldid=1089914508"