Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:25, 1 May 2009

< April 30	May 2 >

May 1

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Film awards for Best Editing

Suggest merging Category:Film awards for Best Editing to Category:Film editing awards

Nominator's rationale: Merge per unnecessary duplication and WP:NCCAT naming conventions for regular nouns. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FAA images

Suggest merging Category:FAA images to Category:Federal Aviation Administration images

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Images with the FAA image template are automatically placed in Category:Federal Aviation Administration images thus rendering this category redundant. This should be merged by placing the correct license template on the images if they don't have it already. 71.66.241.245 (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foodservice navbox templates

Category:Foodservice navbox templates - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: I'm not super familiar with category policy, but aren't categories intended for articles? This seems like over-categorization to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No, they're not. I am realigning the various templates in the category Category:Food templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) so that they correspond with the projects that oversee these subjects, this is an unneeded action by the nominator and complicates my work. This template is replacing the Category:Restaurant navbox templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which is very specific with one that is less so in that this new cat is for all commercial food navboxes as opposed to those that are only for restaurants - the oposite of his reasoning for the TfD. The nominator should have inquired as to the purpose of this before nominating. --Jeremy (blah blah) 19:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Armenianism

Category:Anti-Armenianism - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category unlikely ever to be neutral. "Anti-Armenianism" implies racism against Armenian people, whereas this category has been used for any person or organisation which has had a disagreement with the Armenian genocide, Armenian organizations or the modern Republic of Armenian (e.g. even academicians seem to have been added to this category, because they may question the Armenian genocide). Great potential for violation of WP:BLP. Most notoriously, Bernard Shaw and Justin McCarthy prominent American historians who question the Armenian genocide, were tagged with this cat. The controversy lies that such people are automatically branded as anti-armenian. Academicians should not be automatically branded as such. Saguamundi

Delete Category is a creation of ethnic warriors, applied way too freely. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep The purpose of categories to help readers navigate to articles. The articles exist and document historical facts; this category serves its navigation purpose. Hmains (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2004 United States election voting controversies

Category:2004 United States election voting controversies - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Not used. Only one page exists that could reasonably fit the description. 2004 United States election voting controversies Bonewah (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Perhaps this nomination was meant for another category. Category:2004 United States election voting controversies contains 18 articles; there is no assertion made that these articles are inappropriately placed in this category. And given the facts regarding this election cycle, there certainly was controversy. Hmains (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New York Mets first round draft picks

Category:New York Mets first round draft picks - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete as a trivial intersection of draft selection and team. TM 17:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children's films

Propose renaming Category:Children's films to Category:Family films

Nominator's rationale: I find the idea of categorising these as children's films to be far too exclusive. Especially on Wikipedia! Although children watch these films, so do lots of adults. I feel renaming this category to Family films would better reflect this and would be far more neutral than saying these films are aimed solely at one age group. John Sloan (view / chat) 17:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category:Family films was deleted last year and this category suffers the same definitional issues as that one did. Otto4711 (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is defined at the main article (..."films that were made for, or primarily marketed to, children."). I wondered how long it would take for Otto to start picking off genres one-by-one, citing a rather weak previous CfD. Lugnuts (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That main article should be renamed to List of Family films. John Sloan (view / chat) 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Otto shows that there's precedence against renaming. However, I see that the deletion of the Family films cat was not matched by a renaming of Family film, which still exists as an alternate main article. It also makes what I think is a valid distinction between a family and true children's film, suggesting there might be a case for recreating Family films as a separate category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the book "Children's Film's" by Ian Wojcik-Andrews, he refers to them casually as both "family" and "children's" films. Allmovie also declares them to be one in the same with their genre of "Children's/Family" films.[1] If there is any change, we should also note that they can be referred to by both names, and both have the same meaning. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:El Salvador beach volleyball players

Propose renaming Category:El Salvador beach volleyball players to Category:Salvadoran beach volleyball players

Nominator's rationale: Change to nationality (adjective form) per WP:NCCAT. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 16:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Category:Salvadoran sportspeople etc. Occuli (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Daredevil

Propose renaming Category:Daredevil to Category:Daredevil (Marvel Comics)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main. Not only are there other things that can be titled "Daredevil," there are other Daredevils in comics. CfR to apply to the subcategories as well (they will be tagged.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note For Category:Covers from Daredevil related titles, I propose adding a hyphen as well as a dab. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small case of not quite paying attention when creating at least some of the cats... The parent images one should have gone in as Category:Daredevil (comics) images (precedent Category: Flash (comics) images). The point made about the over all parent is a good one, though I'm unsure if it needs to be dabbed as thoroughly as the articles. Yes, it is likely that Daredevil (the profession) would be reasonable (sufficient articles to justify a category) and a more likely search than the comics. However, it is unlikely there are, or will be, enough articles/files related to the Lev Gleason Publications character to justify categories. That makes it unreasonable to dab the cats on "(Marvel Comics)".
And there are a couple of specific problems with the rename for the cover images cat:
- Adding the dab becomes very, very awkward in a search. It's an unlikely search argument and it's unlikely that there will be a separate similar category for the other comic book character or one related to any of the "Daredevil" articles. (see Category:Covers from Flash related titles for a similar situation.
- Unless there is something that can be pointed to that changing "related to Foo" to "Foo related" needs a hyphen, saying it is needed comes across as personal preference. If there is, it may be better that the entire class of categories (currently 23) get moved to "Covers from comics related to Foo" for simplicity (no, I don't think that punctuation in a category title makes for simplicity).

- J Greb (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what are the guidelines on this? Should the category name mirror the article name? This might be unwise because the move of an article would result in the need to rename a whole set of categories (that said this article's name is stable and is unlikely to be moved at any time soon). If there isn't such a guideline then shouldn't we do this renaming if there is going to be another Daredevil category? I can't think, for example that we will need one for other Daredevil characters in comics, so that isn't a problem and there isn't much at Daredevil that shows there might need to be an eponymous category. So basically if there isn't a guideline for this, then shouldn't we do what we always do with disambiguation: wait until there is a sign there could be problem and then deal with it then? If there is such a guideline then this is pretty much cut and dried and it needs to be renamed. (Emperor (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom except for Category:Covers from Daredevil (Marvel Comics)-related titles where the dash is confusing (as it would be in say United States-related); I would suggest Category:Covers from titles related to Daredevil (Marvel Comics). Daredevils is a disamb page as is Daredevil (comics), and the general view of cfd is that category names should be at least as clear as article names. Occuli (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian Genocide deniers

Propose renaming Category:Armenian Genocide deniers to Category:Armenian Genocide skeptics

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is blatantly POV. It privileges one side of an active area of historical research by calling the other side "deniers" of what is assumed to be true. Even worse, it mimics the phrase "Holocaust denier" as if the scholars categorized here are somehow similar to the scum who deny the Holocaust. Over a year ago a proposal to delete the category failed. Many editors believed the category conveyed some information. Accepting that judgment, it seems that we should at least move to a more neutral name. Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But is it actually inaccurate? Don't these people deny that a genocide occurred? We have an article on this phenomenon, Denial of the Armenian Genocide that uses the term. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the article title is also a problem.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, I say Keep as it is an accurate description. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy is also served by the signifier skeptic. The problem with denier is that it is opprobrious. The relevant policy is here.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Factual articles get an appropriate cateogry name as the purpose of categories is to help navigaton them. There is no question of the historical facts nor the denial thereof. Not out of line from parent category Category:Denialism and article Denialism. Hmains (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no question of the historical facts..." If there is no question of the facts, then why are the most-respected scholars of Ottoman history (e.g., Bernard Lewis) "denying" those facts? Answer: there is a question of the facts because this is an active area of historical research. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "Category:Armenian Genocide deniers" implies racism against Armenian people, and this category has been used for any person or organisation which has had a disagreement with the Armenian genocide, Armenian organizations or the modern Republic of Armenian on this subject, whereas this nominated "Category:Armenian Genocide skeptics" states their disagreements on this subjet, and does not imply racist view towards Armenian people and Armenia. Saguamundi

Where is the implied racism? It's not called "Armenian hating genocidal racists"... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per master cat Category:Denialism and companion category Category:Holocaust deniers. Also, I fail to see how the failed CfD from last year bolsters your case. The "judgment," after all, was to keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"companion category Category:Holocaust deniers" --exactly! The association with Holocaust deniers is exactly what is wrong with this category. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category is subjective and very prone to abuses especially concerning prominent academicians and historians who do not agree. 81.214.147.154

Category:Music composers

Suggest merging Category:Music composers to Category:Composers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. New cat created today, redundant. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the 2 articles are aleady in nationality subcats of Category:Composers. (The main article is at Composer.) Occuli (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Composer" is a general word when "Music Composer" is quiet specific. So I think Category:Composer should be Category:Music composer, in my humble opinion.117.18.231.180 (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 *'''Keep''' per master cat [[:Category:Denialism]] and companion category [[:Category:Holocaust deniers]]. Also, I fail to see how the failed CfD from last year bolsters your case. The "judgment," after all, was to ''keep''. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 20:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 :* ''"companion category [[:Category:Holocaust deniers]]"'' --exactly! The association with Holocaust deniers is exactly what is wrong with this category. --[[User:Anthon.Eff|Anthon.Eff]] ([[User talk:Anthon.Eff|talk]]) 20:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' The category is subjective and very prone to abuses especially concerning prominent academicians and historians who do not agree. [[Special:Contributions/81.214.147.154|81.214.147.154]]
 ==== Category:Music composers ====