Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 20 November 22 >

November 21[edit]

Category:Fictional timelines[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:Timelines of fictional events. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A cleanup is necessary here, especially since the title of this page duplicates the title of another page, namely List of timelines in fiction. Fictional timelines should go to List of timelines in fiction, whereas this page should be renamed "Chronology of Fictional Works", and should contain chronologies related to the publication of works of fiction only. Joe Gatt (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SEE ALSO Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_25#Category:Chronology_of_Fictional_Works -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt proposal to rename Category:Timelines of fictional events to denote that this category is meant to discuss in-world fictional timelines, not timelines related to fictional works (which appears to be an entirely new direction that Joe is pushing it in with Timeline of fictional stories about the Mona Lisa and Timeline of fictional stories set in Vatican City). A lot of the content should be stripped out as it relates to lists of fictional works. I would prefer to rename the new articles to normal "list of" types of article, as there doesn't seem to be a profound or continual timeline element to the content. SFB 23:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those Mona Lisa and Vatican articles should be removed. And all the other real timelines that are not in-universe that Joe added. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My alternate suggestion instead: This is not for chronologies of fictional works, this is for fictional chronologies from work of fiction . A real chronology of works of fiction can be a publication history. The works themselves are not fictional, unlike works within fiction such as The Grasshopper Lies Heavy ( a fictional work of fiction ) or Chuck Shurley's Supernatural ( a fictional historical work in a work of fiction ), it is for works of fiction that exist in reality like Star Trek; Category:Fictional chronologies for works of fiction should solve the problems. OR the alternate suggestion above Category:Timelines of fictional events is also acceptable to me. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of having two pages for the same thing, namely Category:Fictional timelines and List of timelines in fiction ? What is the difference between the two ? I am not trying to destroy the "in-world fictional timelines" ! But why have two duplicate pages for it, and NONE for the non-fictional evolution of fictional lore ? In my opinion the evolution of fictional lore deserves a place on Wikipedia too.
In my opinion, fictional chronologies from work of fiction should indeed have their own category page, of course. List of timelines in fiction should be a category page in its own right. And the evolution of fictional lore likewise also deserves its own category page, in my opinion. The academic study of literature and art is based on its chronological development and evolution, after all.
Or perhaps, one could maybe even consider starting a wikiproject in respect to the development and evolution of fictional lore. Why not? Joe Gatt (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Gatt: The duplication of list content in categories is intentional. Please read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates for more info. I don't think anyone is advocating not having a category to cover Category:Timelines of publications, but I do think it's a good idea to make it absolutely clear if the timeline we are covering is fictional or if it is a timeline of artistic works. SFB 02:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: Thank you for your kind reply. I agree that clarification is in order in respect to whether the timeline is fictional or not. I would like to point out, when I first came across Category:Fictional timelines, it already had non-fictional timelines related to artistic works in it, such as Conan chronologies and List of films based on Marvel Comics. Maybe the best thing that I could do then is to go ahead and create a new category to cover the non-fictional timeline of publications. I shall name it Category:Chronology of Fictional Works, and move the non-fictional timelines into it right away. Joe Gatt (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried out the above stated exercise successfully, regarding the creation of a new category for artistic works chronologies, and accordingly I would like to respectfully withdraw my original request to rename Category:Fictional timelines. Best regards to all participants of this interesting discussion. Joe Gatt (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Gatt: I think the newly titled category it problematic too on several fronts. First, there is no Category:Chronologies category – it's useful to tie a category into a descending tree; Category:Timelines is more usefulinstead. Second, non-proper nouns aren't capitalised in categories (neither in article headings). Third and most importantly, I don't think it successfully distinguishes the two – I think a "chronology of a fictional work" could be interpreted as the chronology in a fictional work. It was on this basis that I proposed Category:Timelines of publications. Or maybe we could use the more inclusive Category:Timelines of literary works? I think these would clarify the intended purpose better. SFB 00:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy:Thank you for your feedback. As per your suggestion, the category's parent is Category:Timelines. The semantical difference between timeline and chronology is that a timeline typically denotes "key events" only, whilst the term "chronology" is more inclusive and expansive. Accordingly I am now preferring the more inclusive latter term. In respect to capitalisation, I had been unaware that Wikipedia had rules about this. In respect to your third and most important objection, I have already in fact submitted a proposal to rename the new category to Chronologies of Works of Fiction. I prefer "works of fiction", because this is more inclusive than "publications" or "literary works", principally because it includes film material as well. Joe Gatt (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Gatt: That's all cool with me. I think you may be on to something with chronology being different from a timeline. There may be some value in something between a full history and a bare timeline, though I'm not entirely sure what form such chronologies would take. Just to add to the conversation, Category:Chronological summaries of the Olympics is in existence already. SFB 18:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Like 67.70.35.44 above, Category:Timelines of fictional events is acceptable to me too. Perhaps name of the main article should likewise be changed so as to match the name of the category. Joe Gatt (talk) 15:03, 29 November 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:Association football outfield players who have played as goalkeeper[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. If anyone would like to create a stand-alone list, I have saved (diff) the category contents to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Outfield players who have played as goalkeeper. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've added this category to a few articles myself, but on reflection I now believe that this category is trivial, non-defining and unwarranted. It should be deleted in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a defining characteristic, topic has not been covered in depth by reliable sources (unlike Category:Association football goalkeepers who have scored which has). GiantSnowman 20:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete especially because it's including outfield players put in net for technical reasons, rather than them being true goalkeepers. These one-off emergency decisions are hardly defining of a player. Often an entirely different player could easily have been put in net were the scenario slightly different. SFB 23:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Is it defining? - no. Is it interesting? - yes. Guess defining wins.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per the one-offs, this is better accommodated as a list, which can specify the circumstances in which they qualify. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not opposed to this option – @Egghead06: do you think it's interesting enough to warrant it? SFB 10:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sillyfolkboy: - Yes I do. The circumstances behind a player playing in goal are often far more interesting than a goalkeeper scoring and as well documented.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as impossible to precisely state the inclusion criteria for this category inherently. One minute in a training game when they were 9 years old? Going in goal in the World Cup final? Both would seem to be sufficient to justify this category but one is clearly notable, the other inherently trivial. Fenix down (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Definitely a topic of interest to people. Kebabpizza (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the fact that an outfield player had to go in goal for potentially just a few minutes after a keeper was injured/sent off is completely trivial and in no way a defining characteristic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 26 November 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:Kraft Nabisco Championship[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/rename. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The main article in this category, Kraft Nabisco Championship, has, appropriately, been moved to ANA Inspiration. User:Johnsmith2116, instead of nominating this category for renaming (WP:C2D), created Category:ANA Inspiration and populated it. So there are now two duplicate categories. Either this category should be deleted or Category:ANA Inspiration should be deleted and this category renamed per C2D, I'm not sure which is appropriate. Tewapack (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although this does mess with the history. I would prefer to avoid the cyclical sponsor title name by using Dinah Shore Tournament or similar, but I'm unsure if the usage is prevalent enough to justify it. Another sports history destroyed by commercial concerns. SFB 23:28, 21 November 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 Oakes, North Dakota[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one county community with just 1 entry. ...William 16:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Very unlikely this town of 1,856 people will gather enough articles to merit its own category. SFB 23:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 15:23, 22 November 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-governmental execution type killing[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 nominator both created the category and then mid-discussion emptied it and moved everything to Category:Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This made the discussion quite difficult to understand as it was ongoing and difficult for me as a closer to trace everything that happened. It would be much better if once a category is nominated for deletion, the discussion be allowed to proceed without emptying it or renaming it or recategorizing all of the content within it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Regulars here will know that I have raised a few ISIL related discussions. This one again brings two previous topics - Jihadi John and The Beatles (terrorist cell) to one thread. The problem is that they were previously categorised in Category:Executioners but, as previously mentioned, we maintain that execution implies legality while words like murder imply illegality. I am happy for the title to remain as it is but, having seen previous ideas, thought to raise this in case of positive developments. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – when I last looked Category:Non-governmental execution type killing was listed here. Further the nominator is supposed to tag the category for discussion as well as listing it here. (Nothing is tagged. Twinkle does everything automatically.) Oculi (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and rework as Category:ISIL beheadings so we can group in the related material, such as 2014 ISIL beheading incidents and Alan Henning. I don't think classifying this small group of people in the executioners tree is that important. See how we avoid this categorisation for people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The poorness of the current category title illustrates the fact we're trying to shoe-horn these people into the execution tree. The actions of ISIL Beatles/Jihadi John are not profoundly different from other terrorists carrying out similar violence in the region, albeit not against Westerners. The terrorist category is distinction enough – the video beheadings are very obvious examples of terrorism in its purest form. SFB 23:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • SFB they also shoot people and, not to the extent of beheading, cut throats. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Gregkaye: Not sure if we have content for that but perhaps we could expand to Category:ISIL executions? SFB 22:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • SFB the option on the other side of this might be Category:ISIL murders but this would use Wikipedia's voice to indicate illegality in the same way as executions indicates legality.
The ISIL killings cannot be directly described as executions. Another option would be to delete the category and to add a comment on Category:Executions That the category such as that it "only applies to governmentally sanctioned executions". That is just a preliminary idea of wording Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ISIL Beatles and Jihadi John are already categorized as ISIL members, and there is no need for a separate category containing just them. The current title is extremely misguided, since it ignores the fact that virtually every major violent conflict involving a non-State party has seen execution-type killings... it just so happens that it's not usually videotaped and posted to social media. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Killings while in the captivity of rebel groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregkaye (talk • contribs) 05:21, 29 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not empty or rename a category (diff1 1, diff 2) while a discussion is ongoing. It undermines the discussion and makes it very difficult for any uninvolved editor to make sense of the arguments. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:01, 29 November 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:Jihadist organizations[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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Jihadist as in Jihadism is a Value Laden Label. In English various extremist groups seek recognition as being labeled as Jihadist in the same way as in Arabic the same organisations seek to be called Mujahideen. These two concepts are basically the same and, while extremist organizations seek this designation, Western governments have policies not to use these terms.

There is also confusion in regards to readers potentially conceived ideas that jihadism is necessarily associated to jihad. Please see:

I am most familiar with the situation of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant where, in similarity to al-Quaeda following 9/11, many Muslims regard the group as nothing to do with Islam let alone jihad. (The scriptural concept of jihad is defence). The news group Al-Jazeera regularly describe ISIL/ISIS/Daesh as a self declared or self-described jihadist group.

In summary, extremist groups describe themselves as jihadist. Governments typically refuse to use this terminology. The media use a variety or words such as extremist and other value-laden labels like terrorist. Large contingents of Islam say extremism is nothing to do with jihad.

I don't think we should use Wikipedia's voice to describe all categorised groups as jihadist and think an NPOV view would be to describe organizations or groups described as jihadist.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Gregkaye: I don't really see how the proposed name solves the issue you raise – essentially dividing jihad from jihadism like we do for Category:Islamist groups and Category:Islamic organizations (if I've read this correctly?). Ultimately the new names would still describe the groups as jihadist, albeit with the difference of saying "these groups are described as jihadist" rather than "these groups are jihadist". I don't think that's a useful distinction here. I also don't think it useful to dismiss such groups as not Jihad-based just because of the Islamic Supreme Council of America's scriptural reading is different. The groups usually self-identify as jihad advocates, so it makes sense to categorise them as so as an extreme interpretation of jihad is still jihad in a sense. I'm struggling for a better approach though. I don't think the solution found for Category:Organizations designated as terrorist is actually a good one as it means we cannot easily distinguish groups that use terrorism as a primary tactic from groups designated as terrorist but who largely do not rely on terrorist tactics (e.g. Kurdistan Workers' Party which has mostly violently targeted opposing figures of power). SFB 23:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SFB the difference is that it doesn't use Wikipedia's voice to describe the groups as "jihadist". The parallel category that you mention is relevant and jihadism should be handled with equal care. Only when Wikipedia decides to describe a category as Terrorist organizations should it have a category on Jihadist organizations. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I acknowledge the current category has issues, but "organizations described as jihadist" immediately raises the questions: "described by whom"? -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Falcon This is not an issue. "Jihadist" is an adjective, and yet in this case it is also a value laden label. To answer your question, everyone. Everyone who describes a group as jihadist, describes that group as jihadist. It is a description and a value laden lable which, if we can help it, we should not use in Wikipedia's voice. Please reconsider your opposition. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A category of that type lacks meaning, since name-calling is all too common in politics and we would end up grouping unrelated organizations based on a common description from random people or groups. In the context of American politics, for example, it would lead to the Democratic Party being placed in Category:Organizations described as communist and the Republican Party being placed in Category:Organizations described as fascist. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as set out so well by BlackFalcon. However, I would support a category for organisations who self-describe as jihadist (or perhaps, define the current category so that it only includes organisations that self-describe as jihadist. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Falcon AndrewRT, agreed. However, as mujahideen is the parallel term used in Arabic which is most commonly used in the self description of the groups concerned I'd suggest "organizations self-described as mujahideen or similar". In the first case a note might be added to extend meanings to cover a wider range of jihad based terminologies and this kind of note might similarly be attached to "organisations that self-describe as jihadist". Alternatively a simple use might be made of "organizations self-described with jihad based terminologies" or "organizations self-described by use of jihad based terminologies". Any of these will get past the problem of Wikipedia's direct application of a value laden label. Some change is needed. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:38, 1 December 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_November_21&oldid=1074813805"