Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 6

October 6

Category:Native American

Category:Native American → Category:Native Americans

Change from singular to plural. The singular form "Native American" refers either to one individual or is an adjective encompassing all things related to Native Americans. Either meaning is poorly defined. — CharlotteWebb 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Definitely not [eligible for Speedy renaming] -- there's a reason the target name already has a category redirect. (Check out the CFD that yielded the current set-up for more info on this.) Cgingold (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Cgingold - is a Rename to :Category:Native American topics "peoples" or "subjects" out of the question? Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I was about to suggest merging this and Category:Native American people into one at Category:Native Americans, but "Native American topics" would certainly be better as a container category for all things Native American, if one is needed, — CharlotteWebb 01:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Native American topics per Johnbod. I had been struggling between Category:Native American and Category:Native Americans, and Johnbod's suggestion is better than either of those two. Alansohn (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Native American topics because the existing term is a bit ambiguous. __meco (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Looks to be a recreation of the previously deleted category Companies in Chapter 11, Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Having reviewed the previous CfD, I find it hard to understand how the conclusion was that consensus was for deletion. "I can't figure out what the name should be, so delete" is a rather poor way to make policy. As with every single category in Wikipedia, this category should be backed by reliable sources supporting the claim that the company has sought protection under Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code, or as it's most commonly referenced, under Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Seeking bankruptcy protection may be bad for stockholders, but it is certainly not defamatory, and is a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep In what struck me as a very odd close last time, Kdbank said "The temporary situation/difficult to maintain argument is also very strong" - this version of the name avoids that issue at any rate, and is therefore not a straight recreation. It can hardly be said not to be defining. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Alansohn and Johnbod. Cgingold (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Alansohn and Johnbod. __meco (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Sony Pictures

Propose renaming Category:Sony Pictures to Category:Sony Pictures Entertainment

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article Sony Pictures Entertainment. -choster (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support rename to match corresponding main article. Alansohn (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Military occupations

Category:Military occupations rename to Category:Military service occupations

Nominator's rationale: Requested to avoid further confusion with Category:Military occupation--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I definitely support this in principle -- it's long overdue. Unless somebody comes up with a better word than "service", I will support this proposal. And of course, the other category should be pluralized to "occupations", so this name will actually be reincarnated instead of going out of existence completely. Cgingold (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Military and naval occupations - since navies come under this cat (see the US sub-cat),and the ambiguity is I think avoided by this. Otherwise Category:Occupations in the military and navyJohnbod (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Navies are generally regarded as part of (a branch of) the military, so this would be redundant. Cgingold (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Only in the US I think - in the the UK "military" does not cover naval in most contexts. Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm -- I think perhaps the UK is an exception in that regard? But, in any event, they're all categorized under Category:Military branches -- including the UK. Cgingold (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it! In the UK, and I expect Australia etc, "armed forces" is the umbrella term. If that is comprehensible to americans, it would be preferable here. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "armed forces" is a widely used term -- are you suggesting Category:Armed forces occupations? (Let me give that some thought.) Cgingold (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No doubt you remember that the use of "armed forces" vs "military" for use in categories has been considered before and in wider contexts and applications. It seems to me that having Category:Naval occupations as a sub-category in the Military organisations would solve all that since the category would be clearly visible and distinguished from the civilian Maritime category--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. Do you have a link? Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look through the Military History Project Archived talk--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod, I suggest you withdraw your rename proposal unless you want to experience a sampling of aerial precision guidance weapons deliver occupation ;). Seriously though, I would suggest that within the Military service occupations there needs to be sub-categories for the Services specific occupations as their specific categories. I have just added Marine occupations, and that includes sailor. I have just added the maritime and underwater occupations, and created military aviation occupations--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Marine occupations obviously includes civilian ones - why on earth avoid the obvious term "naval"?? Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I added it as an expedient. In reality you are right, and the "marine" needs to be replaced with Naval occupations that would include the "underwater" as Submarine occupations. Its a start though since sailor was not even an article linked to military occupations!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Latin miles, militis means soldier and does not include sailor, but the marines belong half way. I would support "armed services" as an appropriate umbrella. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me this is an unwarranted approach for the purpose of categorising naval subjects that have military relationships regardless of the combat service it relates to. Quite obviously Romans had no ability to include the Air Force into their vocabulary, and yet strike aircraft are accepted as being "military" aircraft--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Rename to "foo careers". Since the nomination was to remove confusion with Category:Military occupation, calling these "careers" should do nicely. As for the "foo", no opinion on "Military", "Military and naval", "Armed Forces", "We'll pay you to kill people", whatever you decide, I'm good with. --Kbdank71 16:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Military careers. Following above military seems inclusinve enought and careers will serve the purpose of eliminating future invasions of the USA from this category. --Salix (talk): 18:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  Argh: Category:Military careers is already taken for the careers of specific people.

  Well, then perhaps "military careers" should be renamed? (It's obviously not clear in its inclusion criteria if several people in this discussion presumed that it meant something else.) I'f it's renamed to something like: "military careers of individuals" or some such, that frees the cat under discussion to be renamed to Military careers. - jc37 09:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  I agree that Category:Military careers should be renamed as suggested -- but that doesn't solve our problem, because a career is NOT the same thing as an occupation. Cgingold (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Military professions.--Salix (talk): 18:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, but unfortunately professions are for professionals and the military also has a lot of trades. In any case, when does one become a professional infantryman?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not positive, but I believe that that (or something similar) is a profession, and is listed as such in the military. I'd welcome clarification on this. - jc37 09:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Only officers and possibly career NCOs are considered military professionals--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- only certain occupations are properly referred to as "professions", so that's a non-starter. Cgingold (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've been racking my brain over this for days, googling all sorts of word combinations, and I finally hit upon something that might be the answer: "Military occupational specialties". Not only does that term get quite a few g-hits, it also happens to be the exact term that is used by two branches of the US military (army & marine corps) -- and whaddayaknow, there's even an article under that title, Military Occupational Specialty. Obviously, we wouldn't want to use it as a proper name with capitalized words, but the term does encapsulate what we're looking for rather nicely, and applies generically to all militaries, not just the US. So, how about Category:Military occupational specialties? Cgingold (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that would mean expanding an article that is subject specific or renaming the current article Military Occupational Specialty (USA)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see why either would be necessary, especially since that article would not be called upon to serve as the "main article" for the category, given that it IS specific to the US. Cgingold (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be incline to rename the otehr cat Category:Military occupation -> Category:Ocupations by the military --Salix (talk): 06:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment/suggestion - I think I may have been trying to"kill two birds with one stone" in this proposal. Reviewing the discussion, it occurred to me that armed forces are divided between those who are professionals, and those who are temporarily employed in the military services. Career NCOs are so called because they are in general professionals by the time they achieve their rank (6 years at lest), so the category can be split into Category:Military professions and Category:Military jobs. Thoughts? The first category will have an article Military officer that can be expanded to include non-commissioned and warrant officers in addition to field grade and staff grades, while the Military jobs can be covered by the three articles on soldier, sailor and airman as these are the "grunt"-level jobs in the three services--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Military jobs would be a bad idea, as it could be construed as military missions 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note to admin: Please relist for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  You could have done this yourself. — CharlotteWebb 21:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

South Africa Prisoners

Suggest merging Category:Prisoners and detainees of South Africa and Category:South African prisoners and detainees

Nominator's rationale: Having two different categories and subcategories, one for people from South Africa and one more general seems cross over categorization. I suggest they be merged. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep; first category is a child of Category:Prisoners and detainees by nationality (for people of the Republic of South African who are prisoners or detainees of any country) and second is a child of Category:Prisoners and detainees by country (for people of any nationality who are prisoners or detainees of the Republic of South Africa). If the distinction is not useful, the entire branch needs to be addressed, not simply this one case.-choster (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Choster. I developed the distinction across all countries and nationalities, because there were many people of nationality A who were imprisoned in country B. In other words, nationality and country of imprisonment do not always match. For a good example of the differences that can exist, look at the tiny Category:Prisoners and detainees of Bosnia and Herzegovina and compare it with the large Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina prisoners and detainees. The differences between the two parallel categories may be less depending on the country/nationality, but it's kind of unhelpful to analyse one in isolation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Non-violent first-person shooters

Category:Non-violent first-person shooters - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Nominating this category based upon its ambiguity and the fact that whether a video game is violent is subjective, and because it was previously deleted per this CFD less than 3 months ago and doesn't appear to have gone through DRV prior to being recreated. See also Talk:Portal_(video_game)#Non-violent. –xeno (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: The argument from the prior CFD that it was a trivial category is simple opinion and I disagree with it. There was no debate about the issue last time and I think the prior nom was in error. This is a category is of interest for historical reasons and it is bound to grow in size as Christian video game makes enter the field with titles like Catechumen, etc. This category also contains the entirety of first person sandbox games. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability," so ambiguity is resolved by reliable sourcing. -Thibbs (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you clarify your comment about sandbox games? Many are not first-person shooters at all, so I'm not sure which you are referring to as being relevant to this category. Additionally, keep in mind that predictions about future Christian video games may constitute crystal ball-ism. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I don't suggest that the keep be based on the probability of future articles on current games. It is something to consider, though, as this is a growing field. By "first person sandbox games" I mean sandbox games where the player takes the first person perspective. Of course not all sandbox games are first person, however it is also true that all first person sandbox games are non-violent first person shooters. -Thibbs (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: As was the case last time, I don't have a strong preference as to whether the category remains or not. I was the one who created it, and I added in a few games but didn't add in the Nerf games because I didn't think they really qualified as first person shooters. But it would seem that someone else believes that they do, and that's good enough for me. As to the idea that nonviolence is a subjective judgement: maybe so, but every one of the games that I added in was one which specifically used nonviolence as a major part of its promotion campaign; in other words, the programmers were selling it as a nonviolent alternative to mainstream FPS's. I'm not familiar with some of the newer additions to the category, but I would say as a subjective judgment that an emulation of anything you can do in the real world without hurting yourself (paintball, NERF, laser tag) should count as a nonviolent game by definition.

I created this category to give substance to the HURL article, which is almost entirely my work (one person whom I dont know came and changed "Adventure Game Construction Kit" into ACK3D). I was afraid of the article getting deleted. Now, I'm not really afraid of that, because as I understand it now, all that I need to do to prove a video game's notability is to provide a link to a site where it can be downloaded such that that site is neither mine nor the programmers'. And I have done that. That isn't to say that I no longer about this category, but only that I won't be terribly upset if it does get deleted. That, and the fact that I'm not sure I'm eligible to vote on this anyway, is why I am putting in "Comment" for my vote. If I had to take a side, though, I would favor keeping it. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to split hairs, one of the games that I put in this category the first time wouldn't make it as nonviolent. Super Noah's Ark 3D has animals that can kill you; in fact, if I'm not mistaken, all of them can. Your job is to pacify them by throwing food at them (this is why it qualifies as an FPS) before they tear you apart. I've heard that if you run out of food the game allows you to fight back (rather ineffectively, since you dont get any weapons) but haven't had a chance to play the game recently to verify this. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as recreated content, otherwise delete as non-defining and subjective. Otto4711 (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• With the proper refinement I could see a need for this category, however there needs to be a firm standard from which a game is judged "non-violent". I would agree with using the ESRB's designation. –xeno (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Stub-Class Indian music articles of unknown-importance

Category:Stub-Class Indian music articles of unknown-importance - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Capital U in Unknown created (instead of speedy rename). This is related to the Wikipedia India project template, where all articles with Stub class and Unknown importance are already tagged to the category with capital U in the name. VasuVR (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jewish organizations based in Israel

Category:Jewish organizations based in Israel - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category is currently empty, having been a parent category to Category:Organizations based in Israel until today. In fact, since Category:Jewish organizations is used for organizations of ethnic Jews, both religious and not, this category would contain virtually all of Category:Organizations based in Israel if used properly. Therefore this would not seem to be a useful distinction. Eliyak T·C 13:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Populate & keep I see what you mean but, of the ones in the Israel category, the Jewish Agency for Israel and the Jewish National Council are surely "Jewish organizations" in a way the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies is not? It would be better to move over the more obvious cases, leaving a note pointing to the Israel category for less clear-cut ones. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A meaningful distinction within the Category:Organizations based in Israel structure. Alansohn (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And Category:Jewish organizations too. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep because: (1) this is a sub-category, with great potential, of a number of other parent-categories, as correctly pointed out by User:Johnbod above. (2) This category is also part of a series of exactly similar sub-categories, such as: Category:Jewish organizations based in Russia; Category:Jewish organisations based in the United Kingdom; Category:Jewish organizations based in the United States; Category:Argentine Jewish organizations created so far, with more no doubt to come, that are all sub-categories of Category:Jewish organizations by country, and (3) to destroy this category would create a puzzling gap and a gaping wound in the series of categories about Jewish organizations by country, so that (4) it is both illogical and counter-productive that other countries should have such categeries for them but not Israel, home to half the world's Jews, and which is the center for a huge number and range of uniquely Jewish organizations -- and (5) it should be noted that not all organizations in Israel are Jewish or Jewishly-connected such as those connected to Islamic, Christian, international and Arab citizens of Israel. IZAK (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:National/Local Campsites of The Scout Association

Propose renaming Category:National/Local Campsites of The Scout Association to Category:National and local campsites of The Scout Association

Nominator's rationale: Rename. capitalization. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know much about The Scout Association, and this category structure seems a bit underpopulated, but why not go with Category:Campsites of The Scout Association and avoid the whole national / local issue? Is there any reason to keep this all-inclusive pair in the category title? Alansohn (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Campsites of The Scout Association per Alansohn. There might be a case in future for national and local subcats, but not yet. Occuli (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Are we likely to get more articles on these camps? If not, it might make sense to just upmerge to the parent. One article, a redirect and a subcategory seems to so we can remove one level in the tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Psychological anime and manga

Category:Psychological anime and manga - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: I feel this categorization is based on personal feelings and original research. A query to the creator as to what the criteria might be was ignored. Almost all anime and manga has some psychological aspects to it, by very little of it has psychology as its defining aspect, and deciding for ourselves which qualify and which don't does not seem appropriate.

Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Creator's rationale: First off, the page was created to pick anime/manga that are separate from others of it's kind. Yes, almost all anime have some kind of "psychological" aspect to it, but what I intended was for certain ones to reflect hugely based upon the morals of the theme, characters' point-of-view, and goals. The ones I specifically picked, have a twist, or notion that creates non-stereotypical advancement in them. While certain series are indeed psychological, that only refers to the protagonists mind alone, and never really consider any outside influence. To summarize: My category associates with all characters' psyches, adding up to the big climax(literally being the case, EX:Neon Genesis Evangelion), in contrast to Beeblebrox's assumption that by simply picking a few that have no particular reason to call it "psychological", I have deemed all other anime/manga "un-psychological". To remedy this predicament, I will modify the page to explain what I meant. Thank you.Otaking07(talk) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems awfully subjective. Genres, I think, should be clear-cut and not open to interpretation.--Nohansen (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know what to make of this category. Having it inside Category:Horror anime and manga implies that it is meant for psychological horror anime and manga, but the creator's choice examples don't scream "psychological horror". The category needs to be defined before deciding between keeping or deleting.--Nohansen (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There are a few anime that come to mind that would be "psychological" but not "horror", so this would possibly be a useful category after it has been defined properly. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've just read the expanded rationale that has been added to the category, and I have to say it did not assuage my concerns at all. In fact, it seems to be attempting to define a new genre without having any sources other than user's own observations to warrant inclusion in this genre, or indeed the existence of such a genre. Without a clear definition based on some sort of verifiable information, inclusion or exclusion from this category will be far too subjective. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. We really shouldn't have genre categories for genres without articles. Psychological fiction currently comes up red, so I'd normally be inclined to delete. But then I tried google, and discovered google scholar gives results for the term (in quotes) going back about 40 years, so it's clearly a notable (if somewhat ill-defined) genre. So the category's clearly valid in theory, we just don't have an article defining the term it's attempting to classify by. --erachima talk 05:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete based on erachima's comments. Go write the article first, let's not put the cart before the horse. Hiding T 08:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)