Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 15

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log
< June 14 June 16 >

June 15

edit

Category:Emergency services in NSW

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Emergency services in NSW to Category:Emergency services in New South Wales
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Housekeeping expansion of state abbreviation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2008 (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:PDAs

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:PDAs to Category:Personal digital assistants
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Also: Category:PDA software by platform to Category:Personal digital assistant software by platform and Category:PDA software to Category:Personal digital assistant software —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:25, 15 June 2008 (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:Christian nazis

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Christian nazis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category has been added as a subcategory of Category:Christians by ideology, which includes Category:Christian pacifists, Category:Christian anarchists, Category:Christian socialists, etc. These are all distinctive ideologies that have adopted a specific name that includes the word "Christian" in it. This is not the case with Nazism — they didn't/don't call themselves "Christian Nazis" or "Christian National Socialists", as far as I am aware. As such, it i overcategorization by trivial intersection of religion and political ideology. (At the time of nomination Adolf Hitler is the only article in the category so I think it's safe to say I'm not missing the boat on the existence of some movement that does call themselves "Christian Nazis".) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2008 (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:Tony! Toni! Tone! songs

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tony! Toni! Tone! songs to Category:Tony! Toni! Toné songs
Nominator's rationale: I made this category not realizing that I accidentally left the é out of Toné. Can this be speedily renamed as a spelling error? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably You also left out an exclamation point: Category:Tony! Toni! Toné! songs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:27, 15 June 2008 (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:Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC)

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 Category:Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) to Category:Chairs of the Joint Intelligence Committee (United Kingdom). Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) to Category:Chairs of the Joint Intelligence Committee
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Moved from speedy section — needs to be pluralized and abbreviation in parentheses can be omitted. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Chairs of the Joint Intelligence Committee (UK) Category:Chairs of the Joint Intelligence Committee (United Kingdom), consistent with title of main article. At first glance, I thought that this pertained to a US legislative committee. But there is no such committee in the US Congress. In fact, it's neither US nor legislative, so Otto's concerns aren't relevant to this category. But I do think it should indicate which country it is. It also badly needs a parent category or two. Cgingold (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do UK legislators not serve on or chair multiple committees during the course of their legislative careers? I don't see how a distinction between US and UK legislators is relevant here. Otto4711 (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2008 (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:Intelligence gathering legislation

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/2008_June_22#Category:Intelligence_gathering_legislation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Intelligence gathering legislation to Category:Intelligence gathering law
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Many of the articles contained in this category are not statutes (and therefore, not legislation). We should broaden its scope to include all law involving intelligence gathering. —Markles 18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The issue addressed by Markles is just one of the problems with this category. A more fundamental issue is the scope in terms of subject matter. Although it specifies "Intelligence gathering", the articles currently in the category cover an array of subjects ranging from regulation of intelligence agencies & activities, to protection of classified information, to criminal sanctions for espionage. Amazingly, the one article that directly pertains to the narrow subject of "Intelligence gathering" -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- was not even in this category until I added it, despite being the most well-known of all U.S. intelligence-related laws thanks to being in the news continually for the last several years.

In my judgement "Intelligence gathering law" per se is probably too narrow to serve as a viable category. We might want to broaden it to cover the regulation of intelligence agencies & activities, which would include much of what is currently in the category, but would I think exclude the Official Secrets Act, the Espionage Act of 1917, and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. We could also consider broadening even further so as to include all of the above.

One last issue has to do with the parent categories. The category's creator placed it in Category:Espionage, which I changed to Category:Intelligence (information gathering) -- a better match for "Intelligence gathering". He also placed it in Category:United States federal defense and national security legislation -- indicating that he intended it to be used for articles pertaining to the United States. At present there is only one non-US article, Official Secrets Act, but there are two other articles on other Official Secrets Acts, and probably other non-US articles as well. So we need to make a decision on that aspect too. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (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:Indian railway accidents

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Indian railway accidents to Category:Railway accidents in India
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This would match all similar categories in Category:Railway accidents by country, for example Category:Railway accidents in France (not "French railway accidents"). Yechiel (Shalom) 15:59, 15 June 2008 (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:Former dictators

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Former dictators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category Category:Dictators has already been deleted by another discussion, and the same reasons apply here: the only difference between "Dictators" and "Former dictators" is a temporal one, while the main reasons why the main category was deleted (Violates POV by endorsing a subjective view, which could never have unbiased criteria as to what a dictator is) remains the same. Benito Sifaratti (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As much as I would like to have a category for Dictators, I'm afraid there's no way to come up with workable criteria that would yield a list of names that would have unanimous support. And adding "Former" just compounds the problem, since that term is one that we avoid using in categories. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I had forgotten that I created the category. :) Where is it stated that we avoid the word "former" in categories? And the word "avoid" is not definitive. Also, we seem to have a working category for "Massacres," Category:Massacres, which seems to have survived over time by coming to some workable criteria over time. We limited it to obvious, single-event, massacres basically, and put some "See also" links to other less-specific and more controversial applications of the term "massacre" such as the categories for aerial bombing, firebombing, etc.. The benefit of hindsight allows more consensus over time as to who fits in the category "dictator." It seems to be working in this category. We go by multiple reliable sources, mainstream historians, etc.. People need to know what a dictator is, don't you think? What good is history if we can't point out a few obvious dictators? And how better can a encyclopedia better serve its readers? Who is more dangerous than a dictator? "Dictator" is a common term. I agree that a current dictators category would be too controversial. Due to the lack of consensus on reliable sources and historians and degree of dictatorship. That consensus happens over time as the historical record is made clear. And my view of an example of a current dictatorship is a 2-party system without runoff elections. That consensus may take a little time. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral point of view does not apply just for current things involving many points of view. Things that took place in the past and polarized opinions about it should also be treated neutrally, just as if was something taking place today, even if by today one of both sides have become the most common one. An example: The second term goverment of Juan Domingo Perón, that was ended by the Revolución Libertadora ("Liberating Revolution" in english). By that date, the country was divided in two main factions, peronists and anti-peronists. The view of the peronists was that Perón was the legitimate governor and the revolution was the dictatorship. On the other hand, the anti-peronists thought that Perón was the dictator, and that this coup was liberating them (that's why it had that name). So... how would you categorize either Perón or Lonardi and Aramburu as "Former dictators" without asuming either the peronists or the anti-peonists as being right despite of the other group? Benito Sifaratti (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the word "dictator" is thrown around a lot. That is why we might agree to only put people in the category where there is agreement by a larger percentage of historians over time. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a ruler who is unconstrained by law.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
a ruler with absolute power and authority, especially one who exercises it tyrannically.
http://www.cpsd.us/Web/Curriculum/Drama/animalfarmvocab.html
A ruler who is not restricted by a constitution, laws or any opposition.
http://www.saburchill.com/history/hist003.html --Timeshifter (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those contradicting definitions just prove that the word "dictator" has no universal criteria to define it. For a ruler to truly be unconstrained by law or opposition, there would have to be no law around the ruling. It may apply for a tribal chief or the leader of a small and informal organization, never for the ruler of a country since some centuries ago. What we usually find, and label informally as "dictatorship", is a national goverment that is ruled by laws but has the factic power to modify, ignore or "bend" them at will. But that is ultimately a political definition. Most governors usually regarded as dictators don't deny in an open manner the national constitucion, but resort instead to claim an emergency, a transitory state of things or a certain "legal" background, like the congress delegating their power the president or such. Do we talk then about a ruler "not restricted by a constitution", or about an exceptional case? That's the point, the point where the "dictator/not dictator" debates begin.
The frontier between a leader versed well enough into the ways of power as to develop the right strategies to always have his desired outcomes, and a dictator, is not written in stone anywhere. Benito Sifaratti (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Which is why we need this category. It has not really been a controversial category. People can remove names from the category anytime they want. The current names have been there for months without problems. It is easy to spot some of the dictators with hindsight. Here is another dictionary definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictator
1. a: a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome. b: one holding complete autocratic control. c: one ruling absolutely and often oppressively.
I don't see the need to try to add the category to people where there is dispute. I do see the need for the category. When adults, and especially children, ask about dictators, it is easier to give them some examples rather than try to explain with definitions. They need multiple examples from all sides of the political spectrum. An encyclopedia should give multiple examples of dictators. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2008 (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:Famous Neighborhoods

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Famous Neighborhoods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as inherently subjective. "Famous" isn't a good word for categories. BencherliteTalk 10:54, 15 June 2008 (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:Honorary Doctors of the University of Chicago

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Honorary Doctors of the University of Chicago (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. So now that WP has a complete phalanx of alumni categories, we're going to start getting into honorary degree recipient categories? Ay yai yai. Anyway, I don't think receiving an honorary degree from any university is terribly defining for a person, since the honorary degree usually comes after they achieve something as a way of recongising the previous achievement — it's not just something that is given out of the blue and defines a person in a self-standing way. Categories like this would probably be better treated as a list, and it could be completely appropriate to create such a list for any university or college, in my opinion. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2008 (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:Fiji Islands alpine skiers

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fiji Islands alpine skiers to Category:Fijian alpine skiers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change "Fiji Islands" to "Fijian" as the adjective for the nationality of a person from the country of Fiji. See recent precedents directly on point here and here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2008 (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:Football Players from Maramureş

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: Double merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Football Players from Maramureş (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Too specific - no other football players category does it by sub-national division. Category:People from Maramureş County can be used in combination with Category:Romanian footballers. Biruitorul Talk 06:08, 15 June 2008 (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:Frank-N-Dank 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Frank-N-Dank albums to Category:Frank n Dank albums
Nominator's rationale: Official site doesn't use a dash and the "n" is uncapitalised since it's short for "and". Spellcast (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2008 (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:Brenda Song soundtracks

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Brenda Song soundtracks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - we do not categorize soundtracks on the basis of what artists appear on them. Otto4711 (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if I knew who Brenda Song was I couldn't support this. What a mess if these proliferated. Cgingold (talk)
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:Brenda Song shows

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Brenda Song shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - we do not categorize TV shows by the people who appear in them. Otto4711 (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if I knew who Brenda Song was I couldn't support this. What a mess if these proliferated. Cgingold (talk)
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:Brenda Song movies

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Brenda Song movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - we do not categorize films by the people who appear in them. Otto4711 (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2008 (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/2008_June_15&oldid=1074800739"