Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 10 May 12 >

May 11[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:People from jodhpur[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: speedy delete WP:C1. – Fayenatic London 20:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page, which is a user's sandbox. Uncompleted user profile template as text. Is sub-category of Category:Living People which has the explicit text: This category should not be sub-categorized. Also a sub-category of self.
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:Massacres in Alaska[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) 04:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A bit too refined. The only extant article is already in the parent - I don't think we have too many articles here that we need to start dividing by state/region - and no reason that Alaska is singled out. Delete is sufficient here. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Several massacres in Alaska: 1. The Awa'uq Massacre 1784 in Sitkalidak Island, Alaska; 2. The Nulato Massacre 1851 in Nulato, Alaska (< Archives, University of Alaska, Fairbanks : Nulato massacre site; Frederica de Laguna (2000), Travels among the Dena: Exploring Alaska's Yukon Valley. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 2000. ISBN 978-0-295-97902-1; Ivan Konny-Gen, Ivan Petrov & Hubert Howe Bancroft, The Nulato Massacre : San Quentin Prison, California, 1879; ANKN.UAF Cassette Tapes : Tanana: Massacre at Nulato (Koyukon and English); William C. Sturtevant, Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 6: Subarctic); 3. 1764 Massacre of Russians on Umnak Island by Aleuts. --Kmoksy (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that such massacres existed, nor that there are many more that haven't ever made the history books. However, we have a parent category that covers massacres across the United States, so I'm not sure why Alaska should be singled out - the category isn't big enough to divide by state at this point IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But, these (1764, 1784, 1851) massacres were the Russian Alaska (The Alaska of United States 1867: Alaska Purchase). --Kmoksy (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... there are problems of scope and scale here then. For one thing, these are all under things like Category:Racially_motivated_violence_in_the_United_States - so the location is about modern day boundaries (an anachronism which is common practice). In addition, the massacre categories are, for some reason, divided into massacres by and massacres of, so if you are creating an alaska tree, it would probably be best to follow that order. And the parenting would need to be sorted out appropriately as well - it doesn't make sense that some native alaskans killing some russian settlers would be placed under Category:White supremacy in the United States but I don't have great ideas on how to fix it yet. Perhaps it should not be a subcat, but rather referenced as a see also in this tree, to avoid such oddities? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as the Category:Indian massacres is massacres by and massacres of. I understood. As you say, can be deleted. --Kmoksy (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge contents to Category:Russian America. We should not place things that happened outside of what was then the United States into United States categories, and that is what this category is currently doing. We should apply the boundaries of the United States at the time, and in 1784 they did not include Alaska according to any definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 11 May 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:Sport in Pörtschach[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) 04:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. There are less than 3000 people in Pörtschach and there is little chance for growth. In fact, it's a little awkward to even include this in the subtree Category:Sport in Austria by city since Pörtschach doesn't really qualify as a city. Pichpich (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We do not even have an article on Pörtschach. Deletion will leave the subcat without adequate parents. I would suggest adding Category:Sport in Austria to that, as I cannot see any lower level category that seems appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 18 May 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:People from Hookerton, North Carolina[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: merged. The Bushranger One ping only 19:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with just one entry ...William 16:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Tiny category about a village with less than 500 residents. I don't really see it having scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge too narrow to be useful. Pichpich (talk) 15:23, 15 May 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:Oil companies of Tunisia[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 as C1. The Bushranger One ping only 15:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicated category. Beagel (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The need for a merger has been resolved by the emptying of one of the categories. I removed the only page from the category Category:Oil companies of Tunisia -- because I couldn't find any evidence that it was an oil company in Tunisia. There is, however, a naming issue that affects the entire hierarchies for Category:Oil companies by country and Category:Natural gas companies by country. Some countries have both "Oil companies of" categories and "Natural gas companies of" categories, while other countries have "Oil and gas companies of" categories. That's probably a subject for a separate discussion. --Orlady (talk) 15:15, 15 May 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:Sacred mountains[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) 04:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a mountain has at some point been considered by some people to be sacred isn't a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a geographical feature that has in most, if not all, cases existed for millions of years before humans. There are a few articles in the category (e.g. Sacred mountains and Sacred Mountains of China) which should be upmerged. If this category isn't deleted then it should be purged. For information: There is a list, but I haven't checked how many of the articles currently in the category are in the list. Note: There is also Category:Hebrew Bible mountains. DexDor (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I created this, though I don't remember why anymore. I acknowledge that designation of something as sacred can be slippery (i.e. sacred to whom? when? how?--a category obviously overlooks important nuances in these matters, and perhaps most mountains are sacred to somebody). However, I did a random search of about ten pages in the category and every one of them did mention the sacredness of the mountain in the lede, which suggests it may be defining. I disagree that cultural interpretations can never be defining of preexisting physical objects, as DexDor seems to argue; however, I remain neutral here because I am unsure in this particular case. The logic here would also apply to the other members of Category:Sacred sites, wouldn't it? Should those be added to the discussion? The list appears to be much shorter than the category, so that should perhaps be updated to reflect these contents, especially if the category is deleted. You may want to consider the rather lively deletion discussion of the corresponding category in the German Wikipedia, which in the end was deleted. Rigadoun (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Comment - Maybe we need to delete all the relevant categories. This is categorizing something by its attribute to only some people, at some point. I think that's not just inherently fuzzy, and POV, it's also overcategorization. IMO, to be a "defining" attribute, recognition of the significance of the attribute has to be nearly universal. This may be true of a small number of places, but I think it's going to be much, much better to put them in a list, where exactly what "sacred" means, and to whom, can be laid out and verified. --Lquilter (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep for now - the arguments are not strong enough to delete. Sacred is most certainly defining for many of the locations on this list - for example, Mount Kailash in Tibet cannot really be said to be anything but sacred. I would also oppose moves to delete the rest of the tree. There are many places in this world, and not many can have multiple verifiable sources that state that they are sacred - so as long as such sources exist, we should follow sources. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mountains are big, impressive landforms that are certain to have been "sacred" to traditional peoples pretty much everywhere, especially since aboriginal peoples have a laudable belief that the very land (or water) is sacred. So it's all sacred, to someone, at some time. The main article with its list would be a better way to group and describe this. If kept, it should be pruned, I should think. For example, Mount McKinley doesn't offer any indication of its sacredness, one assumes to the Denali people, other than its name means "the great one". Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking delete. I'm neutral on this, since efforts are underway to set some reasonable parameters for usage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The cultural significance of a landmark seems pretty defining to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimadick (talk • contribs) 12 May 2013‎
  • Keep Sacredness absolutely is a defining characteristic of at least some mountains, so there should be a category. For an example try this startlingly specific search on google news for "sacred mountain"+"san francisco peaks"+flagstaff. The adjective+noun phrase "sacred mountain" is used over and over again about these mountains, not just because both the Navajo and the Hopi consider them sacred, but because the issue is at the heart of ongoing legal battles involving conflicts between property rights, native rights, rights of eminent domain, and so on. That's one sacred mountain (OK, really five of them) whose sacredness is discussed continually and explicitly in exactly the terms required by WP:DEFINING. It is not possible to understand these mountains without knowing that they're sacred. I don't know about the other mountains in the category, but if the category didn't exist, it would have to be created for the San Francisco Peaks.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Defining" if it means anything should be intrinsic to the subject, and not extrinsic. For a mountain I would think, Geological characteristics, location, height, age; environmental & ecological perhaps .... Otherwise, it's inherently WP:POV, temporal, and so on. --Lquilter (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might think that but the guideline doesn't: a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. (WP:DEFINING). — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Alf.lylah.wa.laylah has it right here - defining characteristics are based on sources, not based on "intrinsic" or "extrinsic". While it's true that many mountains may have been sacred, there aren't that many which are regularly called sacred in our sources. That's what this cat should contain.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should the category then be named "Category:Currently sacred mountains"? and perhaps we should have Category:Previously sacred mountains? And you know we'll need to actually categorize sacred things by those to whom they are actually sacred. Let's think about the implications of defining things by subjective treatments of them. --Lquilter (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if we have multiple sources that call it sacred, that's good enough for me. I don't see these cats mushrooming further. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a difference between saying "Mount X is sacred" and saying "Religion Y considers Mount X to be sacred". Do reliable secondary sources really say the former ? As for most Google hits about a particular mountain being about a religious controversy - that could be just temporary; next year the mountain might be in the news because of a mineral discovery, a disaster or whatever. DexDor (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My argument has nothing to do with the number of google hits. That was a google news search that shows that the phrase "sacred mountain" is widely applied to the San Francisco Peaks by newspapers. The newspapers use the phrase "sacred mountain" when they are referring to the San Francisco Peaks. They really do say the former, even in headlines. What part of WP:DEFINING do you think is not satisfied here? (Is that search working for other people? When I just hit it it didn't go into the archives, so only gave the WP article as a result. It's necessary to look in the archives to see the hits). Here are examples: sacred mountain, sacred peaks, sacred mountain, sacred mountain, sacred mountain, and so on. You've got the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, others, there are hundreds of them. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to Dexdor: actually, no, I don't think there is a difference between the two. The definition of the category is places which religions or groups ascribe special spiritual qualities to. We aren't commenting on whether those qualities are real, but rather whether there are significant sources that confirm that this place (cave, mountain, whatever) has spiritual qualities ascribed to it such that is has earned the moniker sacred. It would be no different than lists of pilgrimage sites, etc - in fact, many of these sacred places are pilgrimage sites. If you'd like to propose a rename, I'd be open to hearing a better idea. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does "places which religions or groups ascribe special spiritual qualities to" mean "places that one or more religions ascribe special spiritual qualities to (but the rest of humanity does not)" ? There isn't a "pilgrimage sites" category; there are lists and categories like Category:Pilgrimage routes (for most/all of the articles in that category religion is a defining characteristic - the route wouldn't exist without religion) - both of which are OK. Renaming this category (e.g. to "Mountains that some people have considered to be sacred") doesn't make it a defining characteristic; mountain articles belong in geography categories, but not under religion, sport, tourism etc. DexDor (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sacred is subjective and not universally accepted. Some no doubt view all mountains as sacred and others view none as sacred. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Yes it does involve the subjective views of the worshippers. However, if any of the major religions considers a mountain to be sacred, I see no reason for it not being included. I would prefer the category to be split by religion, particularly as the view of each religion on the nature of their sanctity will vary, but that need not be an objection. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it have to be just one of the major religions? --Lquilter (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or replace with general Category:Sacred natural sites which includes all natural places considered sacred by a religion, spirituality or people, and excludes man-made shrines (there are other categories for those). Which in turn doesn't mean that there couldn't be a built shrine also in a natural sacred place, but it is not its defining feature - the place itself is. -- Kirilind (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That article says "it would not be unrealistic to estimate that sacred natural sites must exist in the hundreds of thousands". DexDor (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that in some religions, e.g., Wicca, all of the earth, and all of its individual little subparts, are considered sacred. Can we just put category:Places in category:Sacred natural sites and be done with it? (Note: I'm just kidding.) --Lquilter (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have been convinced that the only non-POV pushing way to apply this category is to apply it to every article we have on a mountain, and that would make it meaningless, so there is no point in having it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 28 May 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:Dirty Pair[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. The Bushranger One ping only 15:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#SMALL, only five entries, not likely to expand. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:54, 11 May 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_May_11&oldid=1138398376"