Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 8 June 10 >

June 9[edit]

Category:Guggenheim Museum[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current main article is simply a disambiguation page for various uses of this term. Suggest we rename to match actual main article and category scope (may have been a speediable C2D but taking it here, in case not). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support This category isn't about the museum, it's really about all Guggenheim related stuff, which includes museums in several places now, so a rename here is good (esp given the article is ambiguous).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:01, 9 June 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:Zionist terrorism[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:Zionist political violence. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as per WP:OR. I don't think any of the articles in this category include a reliable source defining the given happenstance as "Zionist terrorism." Also delete per WP:OC#NARROW and the obvious WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Zionism is a political movement and there is NO other category with a political + terrorism intersection. There is no parent category:Political terrorism. Lest editors worry that Jews/Israelis aren't getting their proper share of blame, rest assured we already have Category:Massacres committed by Israel and Category:Jewish religious terrorism. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:Terrorism in Northern Ireland and its parent categories, Category:The Troubles (Northern Ireland) and Category:Nationalist terrorism. The many articles cover the ethnic, religious, and political aspects of terrorism in Northern Ireland. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep rename to Zionist political violence - when I think of Category:Islamic terrorism, I think of that as a terrorism based on a religous/political ideology of Islam. I don't think this is any more subjective than other Terrorism-by-group categories. I'm not sure if the scope of Jewish religious terrorism overlaps with this one, I don't think it does that much. (added) Actually rename to match the article. We shouldn't be using terrorism in category names if the article space has decided not to. This is a very contentious area, but we at CFD don't need to throw our hats into the ring - just follow the article names.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but article space does use the word "terrorism" throughout the article, Zionist political violence. Maybe Zionist political violence can be a parent category. And there is terrorism in support of Israel that is not Zionist based. Some is only nationalist based. As with many other forms of terrorism. And I don't see how one makes the statement, "I'm not sure if the scope of Jewish religious terrorism overlaps with this one, I don't think it does that much." --Timeshifter (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or change to "Terrorism in support of Israel or its creation". See Zionist terrorism. It redirects to Zionist political violence. Many examples of terrorism are given. I don't know what else to call this category that has a short name. That leaves: "Terrorism in support of Israel or its creation". I would go for that. We have Category:Nationalist terrorism and Category:Palestinian terrorism. Lots of terrorism in support of Palestinians has been done by people who aren't Palestinian. So there should also be a category "Terrorism in support of Palestine or its creation". --Timeshifter (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but re-name Not sure what the new name should be. "Terrorism in support of Zionist cause" ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator's rationale; or, in the alternative, Rename (per C2D) to match the article named Zionist political violence, as suggested by comments above. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find Obi-Wan Kenobi's reasoning fully persuasive. Rename to match article space, and let contentious arguments take place there, not here. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but re-name into Jewish terrorism:
  1. 'Zionist' is a debatable term in this context. I noticed that there's a subcategory 'Palestinian terrorism' (which refers to terrorism by some Palestinians, not all), likewise I would propose to use the adjective 'Jewish' instead of 'Zionist' (which refers to acts by some Jewish, not all).
  2. 'Terrorism' is a debatable term. However I noticed that there are dozens of articles with 'terrorism' in the article title and I imagine that in hardly any of these articles the term 'terrorism' is being used with the agreement of the party that committed the violence. The term will be debatable in every specific case. If we'd be consistent we should check all those articles in order to determine really precisely what kind of terrorism it involves and if it complies with the definition in Terrorism. For now I'd say keep terrorism in the category name. Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As mentioned by the original proposer, Category:Jewish religious terrorism already exists — and Marcocapelle, your reasoning would seem to support a merger into that existing category, rather than renaming. If your preference would be to keep "religious terrorism" separate from other terrorism (i.e., terrorism that cannot be primarily attributed to religious motivations), then the non-religious terrorism seems essentially equal to the previously suggested phrase "political terrorism." Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, the use of the word "terrorism" is always subject to dispute. Categories usually follow article titles; in this case, consensus has led to the article title being at Zionist political violence as well as Palestinian political violence - I have just requested that the palestinian category be renamed according to the title, which is the same thing we should do here. It is not our place, in the CFD world, to make weighty decisions around use of the term terrorism or political violence, if such discussions are being handled in article space - category space is usually subordinate, so we shouldn't deviate from the article titles esp for a sensitive subject such as this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But there is the broad category, Category:Jewish religious terrorism. And there are many pages categorized in it. Terrorism is used in both category names and article names. And most importantly, throughout many articles. If you read Zionist political violence it looks like it is a broad topic that also specifically covers the subtopic of terrorism. It specifically uses the word "terrorism" many times with many specific examples, fully referenced. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, terrorism is used - but for some reason, the editors at those articles have used "political violence", and there is little difference between "political violence" and "terrorism" in that part of the world, it all depends on whose side you're standing on. The good guys do political violence, the bad guys do terrorism. No point in trying to sort that out here - we should just follow the article. I think the religious terrorism stuff is different.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article title is an elegant way to fold in terrorism into a more comprehensive article. Political violence is not necessarily terrorism. Many political demonstrations can become very violent. But they are not terrorism usually. Riots maybe, but not terrorism. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it should be renamed regardless - since we generally prefer a broader scope. If the head article is broad, the category should be accordingly broad.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then create a broad parent category, "Zionist political violence". With subcategories of "Zionist terrorism before the creation of Israel" and maybe Zionist insurgency to cover non-terrorist armed struggle. Category:Nationalist terrorism and Category:Jewish religious terrorism are intersecting parent categories of some of the subcategories. It is a blend of overlapping causes and types of violence depending on the year and the groups involved. Zionist political violence article mainly only covers terrorism and armed struggle up to 1948. But there has been terrorism by people claiming Zionist ideology in support of Israel after the creation of Israel. Some terrorism is nationalist without claim of Zionism. So there also needs to be a category of "Terrorism in support of Israel". --Timeshifter (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(to Lwarrenwiki): Fair point you made to me! Yes that would indeed suggest that a merger is a better solution. I suppose it would be too hard to distinct religious motivation from political motivation, so I would rather rename such a merged category into 'Jewish terrorism' without religious. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(to Obi-Wan Kenobi): I understand what you're saying about the lead article. Why do you think that religious terrorism can be regarded as different? It seems difficult to distinguish especially in this case with a people with an ethnic religion involved. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(general) There was also a discussion about the use of 'Zionist', since 'Zionist' in the category name suggests that terrorism has been supported by the Zionist movement specifically. With 'Jewish' in the category name you would avoid that problem. Frankly, I find that a stronger reason for a name change. Besides it would well fit with the existing categorization by countries and peoples. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lwarrenwiki:, I don't think we need to create too many subcategories, I don't think there is enough content to attempt to divide the Zionist "terrorist" incidents from the "political violence that would never be called terrorism" incidents. As for the religion one, editors here have decided in their wisdom that Jewish religious terrorism is a separate topic from Zionist political violence - see: "As good examples of Jewish terrorism based on ethnic, not religious grounds, or Zionist political violence, the author cites Jewish underground groups Irgun and Lehi, which operated against British law during the British Mandate of Palestine before the Israeli declaration of independence in 1948." The religious Jewish terrorists have persued all sorts of goals, including attacking other jews to fight against secularization, thus they had nothing to do with zionism, which is a specific movement with specific goals and a specific set of incidents that basically ended long ago. Anyway, this is such an amazingly contentious area that we are REALLY better off just cribbing off article space and let those people sort that out. There have been literally years of dispute and questions around even whether to call it zionist terrorism or zionist political violence. It is not our place to re-engage with all that in the name of more precise categorization - better just copy what the articles say.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Obiwankenobi:, I entirely agree with you that following the article space is the best policy here. I also agree that having fewer categories/subcategories in contentious areas would be much better than subdividing to create more of them. And to clarify: my endorsement of your proposal (at 02:17, 10 June) overrides my previous comment to Marcocapelle (21:00, 9 June), a can of worms which I regret opening. (My unenforceable personal preference would be to replace the word "terrorism" with "violence" in most article names and in all category names, for the sake of WP:NPOV, leaving "terrorism" to be used within articles when attributed to a source.) Going forward, I think I'll simply steer clear of emotionally-charged disputes, because just as you say, "we are REALLY better off." Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a good idea - we've been able to remove Category:Terrorists, but we do have Category:Organizations_designated_as_terrorist as a workaround, so at least that way you're identifying who is naming and shaming. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but I doubt we'll never be able to rename Islamic terrorism--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Zionist political violence. The category covers non-terrorist acts (e.g. Jewish insurgency in Palestine). I think the same applies to many of the related categories and "political violence" may actually be a better way of defining most of this tree. Personally, terrorism for me must include a performance element within the violence (to promote terror as a tool for change). Given the problems detailed in definitions of terrorism, we should start to question how useful this term is in definitively categorising content. SFB 15:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is by definition an attack category pushing a specific agenda.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 2 July 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:Battles involving Independent State of Croatia[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) 22:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was apparently created in error, the correct target is the grammatically correct Category:Battles involving the Independent State of Croatia. I moved the only article in this category to the correctly worded category before nominating it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 9 June 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:Game Theory albums[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 (opposition withdrawn). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename per many precedents, matching the article name for the band. There was an objection to this at the Speedy page as shown below, hence a full discussion is required. – Fayenatic London 10:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion on Speedy page
  • Oppose (withdrawn, see below): This seems to be primarily a good faith difference in style, between editors like me who strongly prioritize minimizing dabs (a policy supported by WP:BANDNAME's call for "further disambiguation only when needed"), and editors who strongly prioritize matching category names to article names (a policy supported by WP:C2D). There have been previous discussions at Retention of (disambiguator) in cats, and at Speedy criterion C2D and primary topics.
C2D states, "If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply." In this instance, the proposal to rename Category:Game Theory albums by adding a disambiguator would seem to logically imply that the page is currently ambiguous. I don't believe Category:Game Theory albums requires dab, because I believe it is not ambiguous as it stands. But if it is ambiguous enough to require the dab, then none of the proposer's numerous pending C2D proposals (for "album by artist" categories) can rely on C2D because they fall within its exception.
That said, I'm still a novice in dealing with categories (though no longer a new editor). Tassedethe clearly has a great deal of experience, and because I'm no expert in categories, my "oppose" is balanced by my goodwill and respect for Tassedethe's efforts. I'll readily go along with any consensus. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lwarrenwiki for your comments. Your reasoning is perfectly valid - why disambiguate if there is nothing to be ambiguous with - but the consensus in previous discussions is that because some (many?) categories *do* need disambiguation then all categories should follow the same pattern. This avoids situations where one category may definitely need disambiguating (usually the top level category if it exists i.e Category:Foo to Category:Foo (band)) but not perhaps a subcategory. Or where Category:Foo albums isn't ambiguous but Category:Foo members is. It also follows the standard that in Category space there should be consistency in naming. In articles that's isn't as important, but they're not trying to create the 'tree' or 'network' that categories are.
Your objection has been voiced before and at that time I and Good Olfactory collected together multiple discussions that we could find in the history of CfD. This version contains the full discussion (search for "Oppose all these songs and albums"). We found no discussion where renames of this type were not moved to the disambiguated form. Tassedethe (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your reading of the C2D criteria, I think the reference to 'ambiguity' is in reference to the Article name not the Category name. The sentence beginning "If the page names are controversial or ambiguous..." follows on from the previous sentence "This applies only if the related article's current name ... is unambiguous, and uncontroversial". This is meant to disallow speedy renaming to a possibly ambiguous Category name. For instance in this case if the band article was actually at Game Theory, and there was a category Category:Game Theory (band), then it couldn't be speedied as C2D to Category:Game Theory. It would need full discussion because of the ambiguity with game theory/Category:game theory.
I hope I've explained this OK, with some of the background. Your links to the archived Talk pages were pertinent, I clearly voiced my desire that we should have this information in the guidelines here Retention of (disambiguator) in cats. Nothing ever came of it but perhaps this time. Tassedethe (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Tassedethe, for the kind explanation and the supporting details that you provided. I withdraw my opposition. From reading your compilation, I do see that there's actual consensus. Not among all editors, because most wouldn't care. But the "oppose" votes come from people like me who get notified and jump in because they contributed to one category that they're attached to. Now I recognize the consensus among the group of editors who spend time and effort on cleaning up categories and dabs, just for the satisfaction of making it better. (I've dabbled in improving a few dab pages and such, so I understand the motivation, but lack the time!) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:03, 10 June 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.

Psychedelic research[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename as first suggested at Speedy page. Parent is Category:Psychedelic drugs. – Fayenatic London 10:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: Support the original proposer's reasons. "Psychedelic" is more commonly used as an adjective than a noun. The rename avoids ambiguity. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:19, 9 June 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_June_9&oldid=1074813380"