Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 14 April 16 >

April 15[edit]

Category:United States Department of Energy National Laboratories[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:United States Department of Energy National Laboratories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be redundant categorisation: both categories have the same main article, and largely the same contents. The Bushranger One ping only 22:46, 15 April 2014 (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:Comprehensive schools in Greater Manchester[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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. After looking at the link provided, it does appear one particular editor was emptying these categories out of process. In light of that, further proceedings under CfD are inappropriate at this time. As there are no valid delete comments present, I will just withdraw this. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am nominating not only this category, but the eleven subcategories contained within this category which are all currently empty. I am not familiar with who emptied them or why they were emptied, so going to CfD. Safiel (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional nominations
Category:Comprehensive schools in Knowsley
Category:Comprehensive schools in Liverpool
Category:Comprehensive schools in Sefton all three of which were in a different, but non empty parent category. Safiel (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As discussed at WT:CFD (there is an explanation and link on the nominated categories' talk pages), this needs to be considered along with the whole of Category:Comprehensive schools in England. Please nominate and tag the whole tree, or withdraw this until someone else is prepared to do so. – Fayenatic London 21:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem is that the entire Category tree is not empty. Let's leave this open for a little while and see what comes of it. Based on the results, I would be willing to nominate the entire tree. Safiel (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repopulate. It is user:Bleaney who is emptying these categories although most schools in the UK remain comprehensive: "In England and Wales, a comprehensive school is a type of secondary school that does not select its intake on the basis of academic achievement or aptitude". 92.16.67.33 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caution (edit conflict) I advise extreme caution as any deletion in this area can be seen as a political act. The fact that Trafford failed to implement government directive 11/66 and 10/68 which made it a duty to scrap selection by ability at eleven- maintaining Secondary modern schools and grammar schools make this a political act. Deleting either of these cats is a political judgement which breaks WP:NPOV. To keep these cats in Trafford- while deleting the comprehensives in Stockport cat- is a nonsense and again breaches WP:NPOV.
Looking at the cat Secondary schools in Stockport - I see Stockport Grammar School has not been listed- but it is a private secondary school- though selective, and thus not a comprehensive. Again WP:NPOV. The list in the secondary schools cat, is actually the list that should be in the comprehensive school cat. Unless there is another factor- I see reversion is the correct thing to do, making secondary schools in a parent cat. In other parts of England things are not so sensitive- in Kent, Buckinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Essex they are! Agree Keep and repopulate-- Clem Rutter (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2014 (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:Kazakhstani nuclear test sites[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:Nuclear test sites in Kazakhstan. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no "Kazakhstani nuclear test sites". The weapons that were tested at these sites in Kazakhstan were Soviet, when it was part of the Soviet Union. These are already properly categorised in Category:Russian nuclear test sites accordingly; the category as it stands is misleading and should be upmerged. The Bushranger One ping only 20:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But does the nationality of “nuclear test sites” depend on the locality of the site or the nationality of the weapons being tested? Similar to the difference between “Military of” and “Military in” or “Military sites of” and “Military sites in” And the similar merging of Category:Australian nuclear test sites should not be a speedy renaming. Hugo999 (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose they are nuclear test sites, so a useful category. Category:Nuclear test sites of the Soviet Union in Kazakhstan or Category:Nuclear test sites in Kazakhstan of the Soviet Union would address your concerns. The current name works as it is, as Kazakhstani indicates locality of the site, not ownership. Is a factory in Kazakhstan owned by the British a British factory or a Kazakstani factory? It would be both. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those suggested titles would work, except the rest of the tree uses "Y X" naming format. So either we're stuck with this, or not. It's worth noting that Kazakhstan was not an independent nation at the time the tests at these sites took place... - The Bushranger One ping only 21:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sites still are there, and still have nuclear fallout on them. WP:BURO, Y X naming format does not work in these cases, and forcing its use makes the categories' naming poor, so just go with a better name for the few exceptional cases. You wouldn't say "Nuclear test sites in the United States of the United States" / "Nuclear test sites of the United States in the United States" just to force consistency would you? Though I suggest moving away from demonyms in all category names, as they just cause needless confusion in many different category trees. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Merge - Instead Rename to Category:Nuclear test sites in Kazakhstan. I have just added another parent, Category:Soviet nuclear weapons testing -- which is probably sufficient to indicate whose weapons were being tested at the sites in Kazakhstan (though we could, I suppose, consider creating two complete sets of categories to denote both the locations and the countries that used the test sites). However, another parent, Category:Russian nuclear test sites (which I've left for now), needs to be removed, as it is absolutely erroneous and should also be renamed in similar fashion, since the nation of Russia has never carried out any nuclear tests. All of the nuclear tests in both Kazakhstan and Russia were carried out by the Soviet Union, and as far as I am aware, Russia has not resumed any other sort of operations at those Kazakhstan test sites since the signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996. Cgingold (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above seems OK for Kazakhstan & Australia Hugo999 (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2014 (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:Initiatives and referendums in the United States[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 to Category:Ballot measures in the United States. – Fayenatic London 17:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no special reason why "referendums" should be paired with "initiatives" and that fact that it is being done only leads to confusion. If this was particularly useful, we would be better off to team up into one category "Initiatives, referendums and recalls in the United States" and I do not recommend that. These three types of democratic reforms were established in the early 20th-century during what is called the "Progressive Era." The three are almost always mentioned together. Greg Bard (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment we have an article, and an institute that pair the two. Why is that not sufficient? it's certainly not arbitrary.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to you that the article is equally inappropriate. It should either be renamed, and expanded to include recall, or perhaps simply merged into the article Progressive Era. Perhaps it should be moved to an article name like "Progressive Era reforms" or something like that. However, it absolutely is my claim that pairing only initiatives with referendums is arbitrary, and makes as much sense as pairing Initiatives and recalls in the United States or Referendums and recalls in the United States. Greg Bard (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not add recalls as well here? Again, article space > category space, so if the article is there, AND there is an Initiative & Referendum Institute and a court case on same, I fail to see how this category doesn't serve a useful purpose.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further, we have this, which is a database of... initiatives and referendums.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at that website, and it is too bad they don't also list recalls as something on which they keep data. The fact is that recalls are less frequent. However, the fact is that the scholarly and academic material always talks about initiatives, referendums and recalls together. At least they did when I did graduate level studies in state government and in the political history of the United States. I just don't see the use in merging into a long-named category "Initiatives, referendums and recalls in the United States," but rather see more use in just listing them separately under the ballot measures category as I have proposed here. Also, I wouldn't rely on the current form of a Wikipedia article as justification for the category. The article should be moved to be consistent with the scholarly treatment of the subject matter. I also would not be too impressed by the fact that one organization takes its title as "referendum and initiative institute." Perhaps there are reasons they chose not to include recalls, but I don't see that as relevant to our purpose here at Wikipedia. Greg Bard (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most people don't distinguish between initiatives and referrenda, what tends to be more distinguishing is whether what's being voted upon is a (state) constitutional amendment or a (state) statute. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, we do distinguish between initiatives, which are proposals for laws made by citizens, requiring signatures, and a referendum which is a proposal made by citizens to overturn a law passed by a legislature. This category proposal solely deals with the United States. Whether or not the law in question is a constitutional amendment or a state statute makes no difference to either of these. Greg Bard (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that if deleted, we are not loosing a lot since most of the content is already categorized in subcategories. So this category, seems to exist to simply combine the content of those. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as container per main article Initiatives and referendums in the United States. This is part of the overall structure of Category:Referendums by country that categorises all public votes on matters regardless of the mechanism by which they're generated and namechecks both because the term "referendum" apparently has a narrower use within the United States. Whatever the local terminology these are all referendums and should not be split out of the tree. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Upmerge to Category:Ballot measures in the United States - The day before this CFD was opened I spent about 25 minutes working my way through the entire array of inter-related categories for the various types of ballot measures in order to reassign parent categories in such a way as to end up with a coherent category structure. (At one point I even had to double back and revert one of my own edits...) It was an appalling mess when I started, and I ultimately determined that the primary reason for that mess was the existence of this particular, misbegotten category (which was created back in 2007 as a result of this CFD.) As Gregbard has stated, there really is no compelling reason to pair these two types of ballot measures in an umbrella category. It doesn't matter in the least that there happens to be an article that discusses them together. We already have separate subcategories for the different kinds of ballot measures that are voted on in the United States, and they should simply be grouped together directly in Category:Ballot measures in the United States. That is the key to the whole thing. Voila - problem solved! Cgingold (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gregbard, Vegaswikian, Obiwankenobi, and Carlossuarez46: Cgingold (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (upmerge to make sure that nothing is missed?). Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We have enough stuff that clearly goes under both to justify the joint category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed the whole point. "Enough stuff" to fill a category is not a justification for having a category. We have "enough stuff" to fill a category named "Presidents of, governors in, and mayors of places in the United States." That doesn't mean that such a category should exist.Greg Bard (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly which ones are classified as both? If one or the other, they can be correctly categorized. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There does not exist an example that is a member of more than one of these categories. A ballot measure is either an initiative, a referendum, or a recall. That's why we are having a big problem. Some people are using the term "referendum" as synonymous with "ballot measure." That's a problem. We need to face this problem appropriately, and the first step is recognizing the problem. that is what this proposed deletion with help do. Greg Bard (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could we please upmerge this at this point? There really is no point in separating these two out. It really screws up the organization. Greg Bard (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2014 (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 who had their work censored[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) 03:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not at all DEFINING of artists. Many artists, writers, poets, film-makers, journalists, and so on have had their work censored by various bodies, but I don't think it's defining and I don't think we should start building up a category of them. delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How long has this existed? There is almost no content in here. It could be interesting, but would result in an entire series of categories and sub-categories, so it's best to decide now whether it not it should stay Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since feb 2014 I think. You can check history at the cat. There is a big tree at Category:Censorship but I think it's a bad category for the creators of works themselves - especially since their work may have been censored in different lands, and even after their death.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point actually, I can think of lots of works that were involved with notable censorship cases. When you compare that to works that are censored in countries like North Korea, you end up having to include almost every writer in the Wiki --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Convinced by below comments, although would need to be writers who are notable for being censored or it could be easily abused --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a defining category for many individuals, and a valid member of Category:Victims of human rights abuses. It is a defining to many individuals as being categorized as Category:Victims of police brutality‎ or such. That such a category would be large is not a problem per WP:NOTPAPER, it is just a start of a major container category where individuals would be further categorized due to who and why censored their work. The encyclopedic value of such a category can be seen from the fact that such lists exist in academic literature, ex. Stuart Macintyre; Daniel R. Woolf; Andrew Feldherr (27 October 2011). The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume 4: 1800-1945. Oxford University Press. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-19-953309-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), Axel Schneider; Daniel Woolf (5 May 2011). The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume 5: Historical Writing Since 1945. OUP Oxford. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-19-103677-4., Clare Hutton; Patrick Walsh (23 June 2011). The Oxford History of the Irish Book, Volume V: The Irish Book in English, 1891-2000. Oxford University Press. pp. 644–. ISBN 978-0-19-924911-4. just for a short sample . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a list exists is the start, but not the end, for a category. WP:DEFINING is key, and I would argue for the vast majority of writers, this is not a DEFINING fact that someone, somewhere, at one point in time, censored one of their works. For certain works, themselves, it could possibly be defining, but that's also debatable, and I think a list is ultimately the best solution. Lists could capture the context - who was censored, by whom, when, what impact did it have, was the censorship lifted, etc. Oscar_Wilde was added to this category recently, but the word "censored" doesn't appear anywhere in his biography. The problem with this category is it is massively indiscriminate - any Soviet-era writer would be put within, it's hard to find one who wasn't censored, and most Hollywood producers and directors of the MacCarthy era would be in here too, as well as writers under censor-happy regimes the world over. Does posthumous censorship count? What about censorship in a county which is not your own? What if the censorship is trivial - removal of a few offensive words or phrases, vs censorship that guts the very essence? What about censorship by the MPAA to move from an NC-17 to R rating? And for a film, who is censored - the producer? the actor? The director? The gaffer? The editor? All of them? [1] Anyone whose film has been "edited for content" for display on TV or an airplane was technically censored in one sense of the word, shall we add them too? A list would allow for much better context, sourcing, and discussion of the impact the censorship, in a way that a category cannot.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a pretty large category, and we should consider dividing it into subcategories. )For example it includes every writer on the Index, of forbidden books, most of the notable novelists and film-makers of the 20th century, most writers involved in a political movement) All these would be valid subcategories. As Piotrus sys, there are multiple books on the subject. I'd encourage someone to make the subcategories and organize the material, but there is no reason to throw away what we do have. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There would have to be some pretty strict guidelines, or this is going to be unworkable. As noted above, there have been certain states and regimes that have censored -- or do censor -- a vast cross-section of work, at some point, for some reason. Communist regimes. Right-wing regimes. Religious fundamentalist states. Racist societies, including the Old South/Confederacy. Conservative counties and school districts. Bans on homosexual literature and art, right up to the present day. The list goes on and on. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see your point. We are fine with having a container category for writers or artists, divided into many subcategories, but we cannot have a category for a smaller population of artists who had their work censored? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Small," are you kidding? You've cited some examples of from Oxford texts of works banned. The Beatles were banned in the Soviet Union and god knows how many other countries, along with literally countless rock and rap artists who've had works banned somewhere. So they all get categorized, too? I'm sorry, but I'm baffled by the support this is getting from some experienced editors. You're not going to change my mind. It's nuts, I tells ya. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most encyclopedic and highly educational. Quite useful for researchers, editors, and readers, alike. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even DGG's keep !vote suggests, to me, an enormous amount of category clutter, as so many works have been censored, somewhere, sometime. Delete If it's useful for researchers, editors, and readers, then lists, I believe, would be better suited to the task. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (without prejudice to recreation if we later find a significant number of articles about people who are notable for being a victim of censorship as a form of human rights abuse). Henry Miller, for example, does not belong in Category:Victims of human rights abuses (he is well categorized by Category:American erotica writers etc). I find Obi's and Shawn's argument more persuasive than Piotrus's. The whole of Category:Victims of human rights abuses should have strict/clear inclusion criteria. DexDor (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Listify if wanted.) - Why? It fails the following: Censored by who and by how?. Not obvious? needs explanation? needs references? Then shouldn't be a category per WP:CAT. This should be a list, if anything. - jc37 21:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per jc37. Clearly this is ambiguous. In addition to the above comment, how much censorship is needed to qualify? If a piece of paper is taped over a stature, it is censorship, but not permanent. So is that defining? While the options to keep may recommend tighter inclusion criteria, that does not work in the long term since there is no one in place to police adds. So while well intentioned, the only way we can really deal with those suggestions is to listify with sourcing. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- to "writers ..." or "authors ..." All seem to be authors of one kind or another. I would suggest that the category should be limited to state censorship (including the courts), not merely those who were refused by publishers or required to bowdlerize their work. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the modern market place of ideas, the fact that someone's work is censored somewhere often has no effect on the person. Also, is this category limited to censoring during th subjects life time? This is not defining to the people involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-defining. You could make a case for just about anybody who has "published" to the Internet falling under this category due to the various great-firewalls and such. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:37, 24 April 2014 (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:Unarmed people shot by police[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) 03:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not convinced this category is worth it. I think a selective upmerge to people shot dead by police officers and victims of police brutality as warranted is a better fix. There are many reasons that police may shoot someone, even if unarmed - for example, if they feel threatened or the person takes a swing at them, or in completely different cases, police officers may do an extrajudicial execution of someone who is unarmed, as happened frequently during the war in Bosnia. Those two examples are completely different but they would be grouped together here under the same category. We also have people who were participating in riots or demonstrations and were killed by snipers, or who were killed accidentally with crowd control rounds that were intended to be non-lethal. This category seems to be trying to push a POV but the result is a mishmash and I think we'd be better off without it, as there are far too many and too diverse set of circumstances which would lead an officer to shoot someone who, it turns out, wasn't carrying an arm, so I find this isn't a notable intersection of circumstances. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2014 (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:Sex discrimination[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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't have a separate article on sex discrimination, and the sexism article covers all of the elements listed here. I don't think this is a useful division, so we should just merge up to parent. The difference between the two is too fine, and even if sex discrimination is one aspect of sexism, that doesn't necessarily make it a valid subcategory, and the evidence of people categorizing shows that the contents are haphazard and all would fit in sexism (likewise, most sexism contents would fit here as well). No need to merge to Category:Discrimination since Category:Sexism is already in that category. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I agree, the category sexism covers all of those articles. If you look up the dictionary definitions of sex discrimination and then sexism, you will find that the term describes just one aspect of sexism, but not in such a way that sexism is not specific enough (i.e. if something is sex discrimination, then it is also sexism, but if something is sexism, it isn't necessarily sex discrimination) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The differences are too fine to be useful to categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2014 (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:Drafthouse Films films[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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Drafthouse Films (a redirect to Alamo Drafthouse Cinema) appears to be an indie film distributor, not a production company (or "studio," as in the parent Category:Films by studio). At the present time, we have no category structure for Category:Films by distributor, nor do I expect one to be created, as films often have different distributors in different territories, and this would therefore not be seen as WP:DEFINING. The article does feature a list of these films. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2014 (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:Mayors of Kingwood, West Virginia[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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Kingwood is a small community. Mayors of such places are rarely notable. So expansion isn't likely to happen. ...William 12:14, 15 April 2014 (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 Albright, West Virginia[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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 1 entry. ...William 12:10, 15 April 2014 (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:Mass/spree shootings in the United States[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. Editors were unable agree whether to retain the FBI's distinction between spree and mass shootings. No attempt was made the justify the proposed merger of the categories for the United States alone, when there are many other categories by country under Category:Mass shootings and Category:Spree shootings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rational; These two categories are about exactly the same thing! Charles Essie (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is. They are not the same at all. The inclusion criteria in each category shows how they are different. Mass shootings: "Shootings that murder and injure multiple people in one place and time" Spree shootings: "Spree shootings have two or more victims in a short time in multiple locations" There is also the spree shooting article which defines both terms using FBI references. Hmains (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like a pretty negligible difference, is it really worth having separate categories? Charles Essie (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep If the FBI distinguishes them, we should probably keep them separate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment if they are distinguishable, and Virginia Tech massacre is in both, would someone kindly remove it from the one in which it does not belong. If that cannot be satisfactorily and objectively done, I submit that the distinction is too minor or subjective to categorize upon. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
then we need a different nom of all the cats - there are whole trees developed for spree and mass shootings. Also, a given incident can be both - a mass shooting at once place, followed by a few shootings elsewhere.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"place" is undefined; is shooting in two buildings on the same campus the same "place"? is the library of a school the same place as the parking lot, a hallway, a classroom? I think we are applying a level of technicality/particularizing in our categorizing that the facts and objective reasoning doesn't justify. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the FBI has formal definitions of spree killer we can follow those sources. If most call it a spree killing, it is. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We are not slaves of FBI definitions, and the distinctions here are too fine to be useful for categorization. Categories should help people find things, and when people have to look through two categories to find things because they might no remember all the details, it is less than helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2014 (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/2014_April_15&oldid=1075704482"