Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 5: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:47, 6 May 2008 editGuettarda (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,420 edits →Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"← Previous edit Revision as of 05:45, 6 May 2008 edit undoHrafn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,179 edits →Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism": Strong keep (again)Next edit →
Line 18: Line 18:
*'''Delete''' per nom. ] (]) 01:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per nom. ] (]) 01:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' - actually this ''is'' a defining characteristic - it's a declaration that the signatory is willing to add their name to a list of evolution denialists. Categories are easier to maintain than lists - existence of one does not preclude existence of the other. ] (]) 04:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) * '''Keep''' - actually this ''is'' a defining characteristic - it's a declaration that the signatory is willing to add their name to a list of evolution denialists. Categories are easier to maintain than lists - existence of one does not preclude existence of the other. ] (]) 04:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep:''' as I said in the ] (closing overturned at ]), less than a year ago: "Being a signatory to this petition is a ''strong and verifiable indicator'' of affiliation to the Intelligent design movement. This is ''frequently'' "defining" as it tends to colour the signatory's views on Methodological naturalism, the Scientific method and Science." ] was created as a backstop when it last looked like this category might be deleted, and is (at best) erratically maintained. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 05:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


==== Category:United States executive orders ==== ==== Category:United States executive orders ====

Revision as of 05:45, 6 May 2008

< May 4 May 6 >

May 5

Category:Establishments by United States executive order

Category:Establishments by United States executive order - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Discuss - looking through the parent Category:United States executive orders and its subcats, many of the articles are not about the order itself but about something established by use of executive order. So I created this category and now bring it here to see whether it's worthwhile to categorize to this level of precision. Otto4711 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"

Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a defining characteristic. Already exists as a list. Powers 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:United States executive orders

Propose renaming Category:United States executive orders to Category:United States Executive Orders

Category:Executive Orders of George H.W. Bush
Category:Executive Orders of George W. Bush
Category:Executive Orders of Jimmy Carter
Category:Executive Orders of Bill Clinton
Category:Executive Orders of Gerald Ford
Category:Executive Orders of Lyndon B. Johnson
Category:Executive Orders of John Kennedy
Category:Executive Orders of Richard Nixon
Category:Executive Orders of Ronald Reagan
Category:Executive Orders of Franklin D. Roosevelt

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All of the subcats capitalize both "Executive" and "Order" (although obviously "Executive" is capitalized in the subcats because it's the first word). The question is whether the parent should have its capitalization changed to match the subcats or the subcats should have the "o" in "order" lower-case. I have no opinion either way, just so they match. Otto4711 (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Commonwealth of Independent States Cup winners

Category:Commonwealth of Independent States Cup winners - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: We don't have a category even for Champions League winners, so why have it for winners of this demi-forgotten tournament where the strongest teams play with their second squads? MaxSem 15:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:People assassinated by the Romanian Communist regime

Category:People assassinated by the Romanian Communist regime - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: This category is a POV contraption, and the terminology it uses is absurd. For one, a regime does not "assassinate" - organizations and people do. Secondly, the people it includes dies in prison, where they were sent process of law, some by a number of causes (including natural factors), and a few others also executed by by process of law (it included the tried and shot WWII mass murderer Ion Antonescu, before I took him out; by the same definition, the serial killer Ion Rîmaru could be said to have been "assassinated by the communist regime", since he was executed at a time when communists were in power). Yes, many were in fact killed, and most of those who died in prison without being killed were also victims of the regime, as were many of those who were simply in prison. The regime was grossly unjust to these people, but the law was still the law in place. If somebody wants to reflect the one purpose of this category that could ever be salvaged, let him consider a cat on the Victims of Soviet repressions model. But this is a political statement, and the politics it stands for are alarming. Dahn (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as we have this category (and I'm glad to have it), why shouldn't we keep the category People assassinated by the Romanian Communist regime ? It would be insulting to the memory of the victims of the communist regime. Concerning Antonescu: I agree that he was a mass murderer, but his trial was very controversial and it wasn't held in accordance to democratic laws. We can't compare Antonescu's trial with the trial from Nürenberg. It is very likely for Antonescu to get the death penalty even in Nürnberg. But I'm talking here about an abusive communist trial. Nothing more that that. --Olahus (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have said: the Iron Guard was not a regime, it was an organization, and did not engage in, nor could it engage in, any form of legal process when killing people. Similarly, people killed by the Antonescu regime were not "assassinated" by the Antonescu regime, since the terminology cannot apply in such an individual-to-state relationship. Thus, aside from forcing one interpretation upon the reader, what the category you created does is to lump together people who simply died in prison (killed or not) with people who were executed by due process of a questionable law. "Abusive communist trial" (and I think you'll find that historians other than the ultra-nationalist core-group in Romania do not refer to Antonescu's trial as abusive, but merely question certain aspects of it, while most findings of the trial were validated by other national and international bodies after Antonescu's sentencing) does not equal "assassination", and, as much as I am inclined to believe that most of the trials were sinister machinations, we don't create categories based on one's POV. As for the "insulting to the memory of victims by not keeping the category", which I suppose is a mere "in yo' face" based on my comment that making the sentenced war criminal Antonescu part of a category on victims of anything, well let's just say I'd advise you to keep this discussion within the limits of rationality and avoid straw man arguments. Dahn (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would say the regime (or more precisely the Securitate) probably did assassinate people like Noel Bernard and his RFE colleagues Mihai Cismărescu and Vladimir Georgescu, and badly wanted to assassinate Ion Mihai Pacepa. The Bulgarian regime assassinated Georgi Markov, did it not? However, the RFE deaths' link to the regime is still unproven, so we need not speculate here. Let me also point out that Antonescu's execution took place under the monarchy rather than the Communist regime and that, as Dahn observed, the other members of this category died in prison rather than being "assassinated". After all, to be assassinated, one should be somebody (a beggar or a baker can't be "assassinated), and by the time these men died, they were former somebodies. Flueraş one could possibly say was "murdered", but "deaths in custody" covers that well enough. Biruitorul (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment There is, of course, a world of possibilities to reflect the situation in Communist Romania through categories. Though I'm not sure about the details of a category tree, one could easily create Category:Victims of repression in Communist Romania (no Antonescu and his henchmen, for chronological and moral reasons). That would in fact also cover people who were not killed by the regime, but were imprisoned for political reasons (as "repressions" would indicate) and were subject to what is, by any standard, immense suffering (Lena Constante, Corneliu Coposu etc., even the fascist activist Radu Gyr) But, as I have indicated in some discussion before, there are paradoxes to consider, particularly when noting that a number of people who enforced terror in Romania were also its victims - Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu, Eugen Ţurcanu, Vasile Luca, and perhaps even Ana Pauker. Either way, a different and NPOV sort of categorization can be imagined, but the cat we're discussing just doesn't work. Biruitorul does make a good point about Securitate assassinations (which, I maintain, do imply an organization being involved). If I got it right, Biru, you're not yourself saying that the category could apply to them; but since one may consider that this begs the question, I'll provide a short answer to that: the problem with creating a cat for people assassinated by the Securitate is that it takes us through a full circle back to Flueraş, who may have been purposely killed, and the killing may be pinned on the Securitate. And the cat would still need to be narrowed down, because its present use shows that it serves as a POV-push (equating "unfair trials" with assassinations), and, given its vague title, there is simply no way of doing away with the probability of such a rhetorical abuse. Dahn (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Precisely - let's delete this and go back to the drawing board. The idea is not a bad one, but this first attempt was not executed too smoothly. (And you are correct - I'm not saying the RFE people or even Flueraş should be included here, due to the wider problems with the category and that the assassinations, despite obvious markers, remain unproven, just that the regime or, if you prefer, one of its organizations, did apparently carry out assassinations.) Biruitorul (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Landforms of Achill Island

Suggest merging:
Nominator's rationale: Achill Island is of course the most beautiful place in the entire universe, but there is no need for separate categories for all its features, and these two categs contain only two articles. There may be a case for creating a Category:Achill Island, but if so it doesn't need to be subdivided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Balochi musician

Propose renaming Category:Balochi musician to Category:Baloch musicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename spelling to match parent Category:Baloch people. Tim! (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Television shows running 10 or more seasons

Category:Television shows running 10 or more seasons - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary inclusion citerion Tim! (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Author's Rational to keep Since when is "ten years" arbitrary? It's specific, it's measurable, and it's notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Useless? If that's the guideline, then we should delete all television-based entries--after all, it's only "entertainment" and what's the use of that? HOWEVER, if there is usefulness in tracking various television shows, why would there not be more use in knowing which ones have lasted over a decade? It's far more likely that a long-lasting show will have a higher cultural impact than a short-lived one.
Arbitrary? What's "arbitrary" about a specific ten-year period? Maybe "why not nine years" or "why not eleven years" ... I suppose...--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Your choice of 10 years. Why not 5 or 9 or 11? This would be better as a list of long running TV shows. If you really want longest running, why not use 20 years? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic trivia? Having a concise category for the longest-lasting prime-time shows with the greatest social impact over an extended period of time is anything but "trivial" -- and if prime-time television shows belong in an encyclopedia, why should the longest-running ones not be categorized?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a case where a list makes much more sense than a category. As a category, this adds nothing to the article; by the time you've gotten to the bottom of the page, it's blindingly obvious to you that the article belongs in the category, and the article has so precious little in common with other members of the category that the reader is unlikely to find another interesting article by clicking and browsing. If anyone actually wants this information, they'll search for the list. --M@rēino 13:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that's a good reason to delete. The other's were just "I don't like it" arguments. You wanna delete on this reason, go ahead--fine by me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and Convert to List - The idea from this category is great, but the format isn't. The information contained here could serve the project much better as a list that could be contained in the "See Also" sections of the articles that are currently contained in the category. Mastrchf (/c) 20:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as arbitrary inclusion criteria. Shows that last 9 years generally differ in no major way than those that make it to 10. Listifying would be an OK idea. Good Ol’factory 22:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Limerick Vikings football

Category:Limerick Vikings football - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for one of two American football teams in Ireland. The only article is the one on the team itself, University of Limerick Vikings, and that article shows no sign of any other articles which could be included in the category.
The article is already in all appropriate categories, so there is need to merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Albums produced by Bryan Adams

Category:Albums produced by Bryan Adams - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: This is a redundant category of Category:Bryan Adams albums. It would be different if Adams had produced a number of albums for other artists, but those listed here are all his own. Wolfer68 (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Not quite true, actually — there are also two Tina Turner albums and a Rod Stewart album in here. No vote, just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Well, those were added since the CFD request was posted. Although, I don't know how producing one track on an album considers one the producer of the album. --Wolfer68 (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Hollywood's Rock Walk inductees.

Propose renaming Category:Hollywood's Rock Walk inductees to Category:Hollywood's RockWalk inductees
Nominator's rationale: There is properly no space between "Rock" and "Walk" as per the official website. Jjb (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Comment - Let's just say that I am very skeptical that this honor is sufficiently noteworthy to merit a Category (rather than a List in an article). I suppose it's possible that the fact that I don't even recall ever hearing of it merely reflects the fact that I haven't set foot in Hollywood in about 25 years. But surely something that important would have an entire article here -- not just a one-paragraph section at the end of an article about a chain of guitar shops. Am I missing something? Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - overcategorization by obscure award given by a guitar store. I don't think it ought to be listified either, because it's trivial. I wonder if the bands so "honored" even know that they have been? Otto4711 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Nationalists by nationality

Nominator's rationale: I cannot think of a vaguer term than "nationalist". The result of categorizing in this way will be meaningless or, at best, vague. What does one have to do in order to be a nationalist? By the broad definition, about three quarters of European politicians were nationalists at some point, and, in countries that had to undergo a conflict of national liberation, "nationalist politician" and "politician" are synonymous, and together they are almost synonymous with "fooian nationalist". Categorize these people by political movement: the fascists were nationalists (and they are categorized as fascists), the members of the Indian Congress Party were nationalists (and they are categorized as such) etc.; others categories we already have manage to pretty much fulfill the intentions behind this series of cats, without the inherent POV and unanswerable questions, and one could always create more on specific parties. Dahn (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - the term is far too vague to mean anything - from Nick Griffin to Billy Bragg, from Boudica to Enoch Powell (and that's just in Britain). Do it by parties, or periods, or something adapted to local circumstances, but this type of sweeping category is not going to prove very useful. Biruitorul (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To clarify, while I'm not too clear on what constitutes Luxembourgian nationalism, the Italian category seems to contain people associated specifically with the Italian unification, the Ukrainian category contains people associated specifically with the Ukrainian unification movement during the period when the Ukraine was divided between Poland and the Russian Empire and was not at all an independent entity, and the only person in the Iranian category is the founder of the Pan-Iranist Party during the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran. So three of the four categories already have a clear and unambiguous context to them. And it's not at all true that in countries that had to undergo a conflict of national liberation, "nationalist politician" and "politician" are synonymous, and together they are almost synonymous with "fooian nationalist", either — there were plenty of non-nationalist politicians in all of these countries, too, and even to the extent that Dahn's statement is true it would only apply to the specific historical period during which a national liberation movement was actively underway. Apart from my lack of understanding of Luxembourg I don't really see the actual problem here. Keep, although review and rename the categories if necessary. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Descendants of Queen Victoria

Category:Descendants of Queen Victoria - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: This is overcategorization serving no purpose whatsoever. There is already a list (itself quite irrelevant) for the successors to the English throne. The cat contradicts the purpose of categorization, it overlaps with other categories for families, and does not appear to be limited by anything. Dahn (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. First, beyond the second generation, descent from Queen Victoria is generally a matter of trivia than one of encyclopedic relevance. Second, maintaining this is bound not to be worth the effort. Third, the slippery slope argument: why not categories on descendants of all other monarchs - which of course would tend to make such categories less and less relevant due to overlap. So just delete. Biruitorul (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per clear reasoning of Dahn & Biruitorul. Cgingold (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - as Biruitorul says, decent beyond a couple of generations is basically trivia, and closer relatives will no doubt be fairly easy to reach via her article. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Category:
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 5: Difference between revisions Add topic