Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 5 March 7 >

March 6[edit]

Traffic accident categories[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 " incidents". – Fayenatic London 22:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to rename all these categories from "traffic" to "collision". Assuming these incidents are all accidents is a WP:POV, and some of them are definitively not (such as Philip Taylor Kramer or Solomon Mikhoels) or highly questionable (such as Karen Silkwood). The categories listed here are all direct or indirect subcategories of Category:Traffic collisions. Vectro (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

list of categories
  • Support - I see no reason that these categories should be defined in such a way to exclude the infrequent, but clearly existant, intentional crashes - either as suicide or as terrorism. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. They're probably not all accidents, but I don't think they're all collisions either. IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give an example of one which isn't? Even describe a real case which, if it were notable, would belong in these categories even though it isn't a collision? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry I didn't see this sooner, @Od Mishehu. Examples would include a vehicle veering off a road into a body of water, or off a cliff, or just simply rolling over. None of those would be called collisions (in the normal sense of the word). IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The UK usage used to be RTA (Road Traffic Accidents) but is now moving toward RTI (Road Traffic Incidents). Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support en masse - "accident" is politically loaded, "collision" is a statement of fact. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – many of these are people, not accidents or collisions (eg Category:1903 road accidents, which should be renamed per Category:Road accident deaths). Others are incidents, neither accidents nor collisions. (One is an explosion. Neomugicha incident is another.) Oculi (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge/Unsure on Rename to remove biography articles. I share the nominator's concern that "accident" can be a euphemism but I'm not sure the target name works. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Similar to what Twiceuponatime says above, the Western Australian police renamed their "Major Accident Squad" to the "Major Crash Squad" a few years ago because, as one detective told me, it is almost never an "accident" and someone is at fault. But as for trying to move all of these articles en masse, I think it is a bad idea and they should be divided up into more distinct groups to allow a more precise discussion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate keep for X1: I don't understand what category X1 has to do with this. It's for internal use by Wikipedia editors doing tests. The proposal is apparently to rename it from its present name to its present name. I have no opinion regarding traffic accidents (perhaps subcategorizing some categories would help but it's not a subject I follow or research), but, regardless, I have no idea what that has to do with X1, which is useful as it is. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just hazarding a guess here, but perhaps Vectro was testing the addition of the CFD template? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, note that Category:X1 is not in the list above of categories proposed to be renamed. Vectro (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved by nominator Vectro. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a change, but not to the suggested target: From the perspective of external cause of injury classification, the World Health Organization definition of a traffic accident is: "any vehicle accident occurring on the public highway [ie originating on, terminating on, or involving a vehicle partially on the highway]. A vehicle accident is assumed to have occurred on the public highway unless another place is specified, except in the case of accidents involving only off-road motor vehicles, which are classified as nontraffic accidents unless the contrary is stated." The public highway is defined as: "A public highway [trafficway] or street is the entire width between property lines (or other boundary lines) of land open to the public as a matter of right or custom for purposes of moving persons or property from one place to another. A roadway is that part of the public highway designed, improved and customarily used for vehicular traffic." There are specific exclusions for assaults and deliberate self-harm incidents. We need to allow for non-traffic incidents as well as traffic and non-accidental as well as accidental.

    There are non-collision transport incidents that result in significant injury or death. These include falls from motorcycles and overturning cars. I have also seen major injury as a result of spinouts but the vehicle did not collide with anything. A complete set of sister categories for non-collision incidents seems redundant and as a result I cannot support a change to making all these categories collisions. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well... many are commenting on how should the different kinds of incidents should be renamed. Why not... incidents? - Nabla (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a change -- I confirm UK usage "incidents". "accident" implies that it happened at random, but the majority are due to someone's fault. There will however be some incidents that are not really anyone's fault, such as a vehicle being swept off a road by an avalanche. If this goes ahead, a small non-collision incidents will need splitting out (though a massive purge exercise). Is the nom willing to do that? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm not willing to review every article in every category to decide if it was a collision or not. However, I would support a rename to "Incidents", which seems to cover this concern. Vectro (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a change -- perhaps to "Incidents" as used for "Aviation accidents and incidents", and for "Maritime incidents", see e.g. Category:Transport disasters in 2000. Should it be Category:Road incidents in 2000 or Category:Road accidents and incidents in 2000? The term "Incidents" includes deliberate acts like suicide or terrorism as well as accidents, while the term "Collision" may exclude some single-vehicle accidents or incidents. Hugo999 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a change to "accidents and incidents", oppose "collisions" as not all the articles are collisions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a change to "accidents and incidents" per Hugo999, which has the added benefit of standardising across transport categories. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to collisions. If you veer off a cliff, intentionally or unintentionally, it only becomes problematic when you collide with the ground. It is colliding with something, be it a tree, the ground at 180 degrees, the water or something else. The only actual non-collusions I can think of are cases where the car is destroyed by a bomb. I can see why not to include them here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change to incidents. Oppose change to collisions as not all accidents are collisions. Nthep (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already !voted, but this is a good point in reverse. Not all collisions are accidents. And not all incidents are collisions. But probably everything listed in any of these categories (excepting the biographies as noted) could be rightly called an "incident". So probably "incidents" is best. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 cents - a "collision" is a physical action, there can be accidents or incidents where a vehicle glides off a road into a river or sea without colliding on/with anything and still there can be victims. Traffic accident or incident seems most to-the-point to me. Tisquesusa (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2016 (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:Human blood[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 Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_27#Category:Human_blood. – Fayenatic London 22:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Of course there is a distinction that could be made, but I don't think that the two categories are doing a very good job of making it, and I hardly think it's necessary, since almost everything that is currently in Category:Blood could also go in Category:Human blood. We don't bother in article space, the article for all types of animal blood is just Blood. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose non-humans also have blood, and blood donation is not something for non-humans (blood extraction would be, since non-human animals cannot give consent to donate) We don't have cord blood repositories for non-humans either, etc. We should keep human topics separate from general and non-human topics, since there are many articles here. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • So where do articles go that are both about human blood and other animals' blood? The vast majority are about blood in general (ie, both) and are not limited to subtype. If we say they go in Category:Human blood, it doesn't really make intuitive sense because the topics are also about animal blood and the category will be over-limiting. If we say they go in Category:Blood, then it makes Category:Human blood unnecessary, because we will be excluding most articles that relate to human blood from the category called "Human blood". If we say they go in both, we are going to double categorize many articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • They would go in the parent category since they don't pertain to human blood specifically. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which renders the category kind of pointless—if the majority of the articles that deal with human blood are not in the category, why bother? It's not helpful to readers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, in practice these topics overlap too much. I would rather favor a category specifically about animal blood, if sufficient content available. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Conceptually I was nodding with the nomination but, after going through the categories, there do seem to be a lot of articles specific to human blood. My only concern is the lack of a main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: Too much overlap. Perhaps a category for specifically human issues, such as voluntary donation and such would be useful, but I see too many articles that would have to be non-disseminating if both cats are kept. (And, they DO have blood transfusions for animals, just not the consent issue) Montanabw(talk) 07:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nominator). I kind of keep referring to the concept implicitly, but the relevant guideline is WP:OVERLAPCAT: "If two or more categories have a large overlap ... it is generally better to merge the subjects to a single category". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2016 (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.

Template:Bistrița-Năsăud-geo-stub[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) 03:33, 17 March 2016 (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:Leaders of the opposition (Syria)[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. – Fayenatic London 23:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to disambiguate, the content of the category is clearly related to the Syrian Civil War, but that's not so clear from the name of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2016 (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:Syrian Opposition[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 23:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as the two categories have the same purpose, while "Syrian Opposition" is too vague for a category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Syrian Opposition is a distinct umbrella of groups identified with Syrian National Coalition and Syrian National Council (which is semi-member of Coalition) - they include secular, Islamist moderate and Islamic Bortherhood-linked groups, but not Salafists and radicals. Many other Anti-government factions in Syria, such as Army of Conquest, al-Nusra Front are not Opposition groups. Syrian Kurds are not considered Syrian Opposition as well, since they rather ask for autonomy (federalism) and not regime change.GreyShark (dibra) 17:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a long time since Syrian Opposition has become the umbrella term for Syrian National Coalition, Syrian National Council and few less prominent political structures (the union of Coalition and Council failed). It is not only referring to the Council alone, as for instance recent Geneva talks were branded as "Assad-led government talks with Syrian opposition", but we can see specific organizations represented there. See Saudi hails Syrian opposition meet ‘breakthrough’ concerning what is "Syrian opposition". Good question is whether it should be upper case or lower case, but it is certainly a defined political structure (including 34 military and political groups in Syria) - a quasi-state system if you like trying to be an alternative to the Ba'athist Syrian Arab Republic political structure.GreyShark (dibra) 11:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons explained by Greyshark09. The term seems to be used exclusively by a political alliance connected to the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian Revolutionary Command Council. Despite their ambitions, they have (or have had) a military presence in 9 or 10 of the 14 governorates of Syria. They seem to have no ties to the rest of the anti-government factions. Dimadick (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll happily withdraw the merge proposal, but I still think that the category name is too vague and the category should at least be renamed. As noted, there is an article about Syrian opposition with lowercase, but in two years time everyone will have forgotten that this is a term that was once used in a very specific way during the Syrian Civil War. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already considered to rename "Syrian opposition" to "Syrian Arab Republic (opposition)", but i'm not sure it is the best solution. Meanwhile every one utilizes "Syrian opposition" or "Syrian Opposition". If Syria completely disintegrates, then something should be done with the name.GreyShark (dibra) 14:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, because Syrian opposition is made of 33 groups. It is true that Syrian National Coalition is the main opposition group and may serve as parliament in case opposition takes power, but it is not same as the whole Syrian opposition. Read this.GreyShark (dibra) 19:58, 16 March 2016 (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:The Sun Conference football[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep for now. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the sun conference football schools have now joined the mid-south conference, leaving zero schools in this category Jacona (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now Typically, changes such as these are made on the effective date of the change (which will be July 1, 2017). While it was announced on February 25, the change is not effective until the 2017 season, leaving one more year with the Sun Conference sponsoring football in its own name. Billcasey905 (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wp:recentism useful for historical record, although it may need to be renamed to something like "former sunbelt football members" or something--Prisencolin (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2016 (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/2016_March_6&oldid=1091456411"