Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 7 April 9 >

April 8[edit]

Category:Female lawyers[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, also noting that the other subcategories use "FOOian women lawyers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Female is an adjective, women is a noun. An adjective should be used to modify the noun lawyers. Female is the proper word choice.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both the legal profession need not be divided along sex lines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I looked in the dictionaries (so many!) and they all say "women" is also an adjective. "Women voters", "Women jurists" etc. This isn't the best construction for all categories, but it's fine here. (Also, there should probably be non-diffusing banners in these categories, to avoid unintended ghettoization.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right about that. While in theory Category:American lawyers can be subdivided to Category:Michigan lawyers, and due to the nature of the American legal system, with each state having its set of laws, and need for admission to the bar, what state you practice in is important. However, lots of people have not been diffused to the by-state categories (there are over 3,000 articles in Category:American lawyers directly), so there is a need to watch for ghettoizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The use of the word "female" in this context is considered offensive by many (see comments posted in many previous discussions). The Wikipedia guideline says the following:
Derogatory terms are not to be tolerated in a category name under any circumstances,…When in doubt, err on the side of respect. XOttawahitech (talk) 11:49, 16 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:12th century 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: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 22:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Same reasons as the 11th century nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The United States was formed in the 1770s, use before that time is anachronistic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "North America" is an anachronism as well, America wasn't named until after Vespucci walked the earth a little while later.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is "Europe" for periods before the Greek mythology that gave is "Europa", etc., but there's no alternate name known for the continent in use prior thereto. If the colonel knows what the Americas were called by the original peoples there, by all means propose it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 9 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:Pop culture words of Bantu origin[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) 00:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are mostly articles about things (types of musical instrument, a song, an animal etc), not articles about words. The Hakuna matata article is about a phrase, but is already in a more appropriate category. This is the only "words of ... origin" category in enwiki (excluding categories for lists). DexDor (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides the listed problems, this also has the added oddity of treating a language family as if it is a language. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the name we chose for an article on a thing should not effect its categorization. Banjos are not words, but things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:59, 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:Non-native fauna of the British Isles[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 22:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Articles that are about a species (e.g. Mandarin Duck), rather than about the introduction of a species, have been removed from this category (per the 2007 CFD and more recent CFDs) leaving just the (sort of) eponymous/list article. This category is the only "Non-native fauna of ..." category in enwiki. DexDor (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- This is about categorizing one article Introduced species of the British Isles. If we were dealing with a category containing articles on specific species, I would object as some of the content would be about species indigenous to the continent but not Britain. Britain is of course an island, so that rabbits cannot merely have walked from Europe, as they might from (say) Italy to Jutland. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Although I am les than convinced the introduced target category is needed, but that is an issue for another discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 22 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:Piano rock songs[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: relisted at CFD 2014 April 24. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of category deleted once before see CfD here. I can see a reason for keep, and I can see good reasons to delete, Is any song with a piano on it to be categorized? and most importantly, song articles are just that, about songs, not about specific recordings of songs. So is arrangement of a song defining? Twinkle says I have to decide to delete to nominate, but I am happier with a consensus - either way. Richhoncho (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question is piano rock recognized as a genre separate from other rock genres? It seems most of these could be just rock or rock ballads. Genre categorization is always a bit tricky. I have no strong opinions yet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. I would say no, a look at Category:Rock songs by genre makes me think a pruning of these categories is necessary. Reggae rock songs? --Richhoncho (talk) 06:46, 9 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:1917 in the Palestinian territories[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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: anachronistic categories, which are a WP:FORK of category:1917 in British-administered Palestine. We have already disposed most Turkish and Syrian categories, which predate Republic of Turkey and Syrian Arab Republic accordingly; same case is here - Palestinian territories unit obviously didn't exist in 1917-18, as the term was coined by PLO, later in 1993 applied to Palestinian-controlled autonomy areas and was officially adopted by UN only in 1998 to refer to Palestinian Authority.GreyShark (dibra) 17:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per nom. To me, the most compelling case is that we have the article 1918 in British-administered Palestine. Category names follow article names. There is no reason to not do so here. Whatever we call it, we need one name, and a name that avoids any attempt to connect to modern polities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per "Palestinian territories unit obviously didn't exist in 1917-18, as the term was coined by PLO, later in 1993 applied to Palestinian-controlled autonomy areas and was officially adopted by UN only in 1998". Debresser (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, and agree with nominator in this case because the name Palestine is still retained in any case. In fact in those days a "Palestinian" referred to Jews living in Palestine. The modern notion of the Arabs being called "Palestinians" only started once the so-called PLO got going in the mid-1960s. Also Palestine was not and still is not the official name for any official state neither then nor now, and the phrase "Palestinian territories" is highly POV and subjective and implies Arab "ownership" of lands they never had but that were officially originally ceded by the British to the Jews by the Balfour Declaration of 1917! Before that, the areas of Palestine and surroundings belonged to the Ottoman Turks for 500 years since the early 1400s. The Ottomans openly supported and welcomed Jews into Palestine. So the current name is POV and gets murky, therefore merge is a good idea. IZAK (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per GreyShark. There were no Palestinian territories in 1917 or 1918. Both these are forks of the ones he suggests. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per nomination, rationale seems to make sense to me (pretty sure I was the one who created the category in the first place and probably just used that name because I couldn't think of anything better at the time). Anotherclown (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per Greyshark. A no-brainer.Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 11 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:Polish victims of Stalinist repression‎[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) 02:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Polish victims of Stalinist repression: for same reason that all the other "repression"-related categories were deleted in two prior CFD actions (see below), based on long, extensive, open discussion, including, among many other points, the fact that the term "Repression" is subjective in the context of categorizations. As BrownHairedGirl pointed out, back in the 13 December 2010 CFD, terms such as "murder" (or "assassination" or "execution"), "deportation" and "imprisonment" are definable and objective terms, except if radically misused. Obviously, no one is questioning or doubting or denying that Stalinism, like many regimes of the past and present, was brutal and repressive.

SEE FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS IN WHICH SIMILAR CATEGORIES WERE DELETED AND RATIONALES:

To allow this category to remain is to essentially nullify the results of the two above previous CFDs, both reached on similar grounds after long, conscientious debates. Quis separabit? 19:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • disperse and delete to cats which describe in More detail - where they political prisoners? Executed? You could have something like 'Polish people executed by the Societ Union' for example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of the articles included need to be dispersed as they've simply been collected for this category. They're all already in specific, pre-existing categories. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are those categories? Looking at various articles, I don't see any such. It seems that new and specific categories must be created here first. Hmains (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as these articles are currently in no other categories that would appropriately group these articles for WP navigation purposes. Having looked at the articles, I see there are 3 separate phases here: when USSR invaded Poland at the start of World War II; when the USSR drove out Nazi Germany at the end of World War II; when the Polish Communist government was in power. Hmains (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So how to distinguish this category from those other similar categories ([1], [2]) deleted under the rationales adopted in the respective CFDS? Quis separabit? 11:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC) (NOTE: forgot to sign; signed at this time and date but posted days earlier)[reply]
  • Delete These people are not (AFAICS) notable for being victims of oppression - they are notable as democracy activists, generals, philosophers etc. DexDor (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is something of a hotch-potch, mostly of Polish anti-communists of the 1940s and 1950s. One was an opponent in 1940, but cooperated with the Russians post-1945. If this is to be deleted, someone needs to ensure that there are appropriate alternative categories. Possibly close as no consensus. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully and strongly disagree with closing as no consensus. A majority of the opinions here,albeit worded differently, oppose keeping the category as is, and support deletion (one suggests "disperse and delete"). More importantly, if this category remains then the previous above-referenced CFDs ([3], [4]) are essentially vitiated as pointed out in my still unanswered question above, which begins, "So, how to distinguish..." and new categories will crop up and need to be dealt with. Quis separabit? 01:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also: If this is to be deleted, someone needs to ensure that there are appropriate alternative categories. I do not know upon whom that responsibility would fall, but there are obviously editors sufficiently interested in the topic, who merely need to know how to appropriately name a category they choose to create. In any event, I believe such categories already exist, at least in large part:, i.e. Category:Assassinated Polish people, Category:Polish people executed abroad, and Category:Polish people who died in Soviet detention. Others can be created, but we should close out this discussion as deletion. Respectfully submitted, Quis separabit? 01:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are only six names in the category so a colorable claim to underpopulation can be made -- just noticed. Quis separabit? 02:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As discussed in detail in the previous CFDs, the term "repression" is vague and fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. It also fails WP:NPOV.
Per Obiwankenobi above, more specific categories of people "ppl executed", "ppl imprisoned" would objectively defineable and viable.
I have reproduced below my comment in the 2010 CFD. --02:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem here is common to all these categories, and it is a flaw of concept rather than of application: what exactly is a "victim of political repression"?
I'm sure that most of, or maybe all, the editors who could agree on some individual cases which amount to "political repression", but there would be many more where we disagree, and those disagreements will happen repeatedly because there is no prospect of achieving a stable and neutral definition which is not original research. Some of the issues which arise which divide editors along political lines, but necessarily in ways with which they will be comfortable if the definition is applied consistently
  1. The right to vote. Is being deprived of the vote a form of political repression? If so, then we add every woman in most countries before the 20th century, felons in the USA, and prisoners in the United Kingdom. If not, then we exclude the racially-excluded majority in apartheid South Africa.
  2. The right to hold a job despite having unpopular political views. If that's included, we bring in victims of McCarthyism in the US, and of the berufsverbot in Germany. If it's not included, then a lot of Soviet dissidents fall off the list.
  3. People who engage in any degree of violent resistance to the state. If they are included, then most people who are labelled as "terrorist" get included; if not, then we exclude the Irish leaders imprisoned by the British, as well as subsequently-sanctified rebels like Nelson Mandela. Don't forget those involved in demonstrations where the police use force: that's a large numjber in the UK alone, where we could include the poll tax riots and the 2010 UK student protests. Exclude them, and there will be objections from those who point to people engaged in political protest who ended up beaten or imprisoned; include them and there will be objections from those who hold to the government's view that the people charged were criminals.
  4. People who have been prosecuted for expressing unacceptable opinions. Where does the line get drawn here? DIf we count any restraint on free speech as "political repression", then we apply the label to those in the UK who have been prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred: Nick Griffin is one example.
If these categories are going to stay, we need a stable, neutral, and objective definition of "political repression" which is applied consistently to all the countries on this list. Anything less breaches our core policy of a Neutral point of view, and that's why I oppose any selectivity in approaching this list. Either we have a stable, neutral, and objective definition of "political repression", in which case we restore the deleted national categories such as the Category:Victims of American political repression ... or we 'don't have that neutral definition, in which case we delete the lot. The only grounds for selectively keeping some of these categories is that we are applying different standards in difft cases ... and because I have never seen anything remotely approaching a stable, neutral, and objective definition of "political repression", I see no alternative to deleting them all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many people have been deprived of jobs because of unpopular political views. It is happening today in the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 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:Historic bars of New York City[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; if needed, users can move contents to Category:Drinking establishments on the National Register of Historic Places in New York City and/or any other appropriate subcategory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The term 'historic' is too subjective for a category name in this context. What differentiates a historic bar from a regular bar? These historic bars should either belong to Cat:Drinking establishments in New York City or to Cat:Category:Defunct drinking establishments in New York City, etc. Gilliam (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Grateful for the suggestion below, I change my view to Merge. Category:Drinking establishments on the National Register of Historic Places in New York City and Category:Defunct drinking establishments in Manhattan serve the encyclopedia's needs better than the more ambiguous "Historic bars" which does have a whiff of travel guide to it. Thanks, SteveStrummer (talk) 02:40, 16 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:Hydrogen rocket engines[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: relisted at CFD 2014 April 24. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: These are rocket engines that use the named propellent for fuel. They aren't rockets for it, or rockets used by it - "Foo-fuelled" should be the standard for this sort of thing. The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—on all three proposals. The new names would be more clear, as bipropellant rocket engines—of which H2, RP-1, and methane engines all are—all have an oxidizer as well. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support for these.
What's to happen with cats such as Category:Hydrogen peroxide (cold cycle) rocket engines and Category:Hydrogen peroxide (hot cycle) rocket engines, or other monopropellants? Are we going to create oxidiser categories in similar fashion?
While I've got your attention, can we also please avoid some recent rocket motor renames, such as Waxwing (Rocket motor) to Waxwing (rocket engine). There is a strong convention that solid fuels are motors, not engines. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realised afterwards that that last one was a mis-step for exactly that reason, thanks for fixing it because I did. I believe a Category:Hydrogen peroxide-fueled rocket engines would be appropriate, but not by-cycle. Not sure about oxidisers. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 8 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_8&oldid=1083983657"