Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 11

< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mangoe (talk | contribs) at 22:24, 11 January 2011 (→Category:Organizations designated as hate groups: adding Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the Anti-Defamation League to the mix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:24, 11 January 2011 by Mangoe (talk | contribs) (→Category:Organizations designated as hate groups: adding Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the Anti-Defamation League to the mix)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< January 10	January 12 >

January 11

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Lists of Australian leaders by year

Propose renaming Category:Lists of Australian leaders by year to Category:Lists of Australian incumbents by year

Nominator's rationale: Rename.

The titles of these categories should reflect the titles of the articles they contain; the term "incumbents" is used in the article titles, therefore it should also be used in the category titles. Neelix (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose "Incumbents" is much, much too vague. I would leave the categories alone and rename the lists. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Organizations designated as hate groups

Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center - Template:Lc1

Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the Anti-Defamation League - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CAT, "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." By all means, list such organizations in the SPLC article, but do not add this categorization reflecting PoV of one particular non-profit organization to all these articles. Imagine what the articles will look like if every John Doe, who maintains some list, will add categorization based on that list to each listed article. --Vicky Ng (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The SPLC is not "every John Doe"; they're acknowledged by the vast majority of reliable sources as an authority on hate groups. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Listify There have been considerable disputes about the notability of this designation (see for instance most of talk:Family Research Council). We don't have Category:Hate groups (it was deleted last April) so we don't need this one. Mangoe (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I have the beginnings of a list on one of my subpages - anyone's welcome to contribute. In particular, can anyone suggest more groups whose designations we can use? Because SPLC is really the only one that does a comprehensive list, but more can't hurt. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete Bad idea for Misplaced Pages to participate in SPLC's publicity campaign. Moorlock (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the Anti-Defamation League also exists, so it would be good for people to note whether they oppose any category of hate groups, or whether they just don't like the SPLC. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete Whatever the merits and bonafides of the SPLC, this is categorisation based on a POV position. Since Roscelese has demanded that we also have an opinion on the ADL category (despite WP:OTHERSTUFF), I would delete that one too. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

lol "demanded." Because God forbid I even suggest that people have an internally consistent theory of editing, instead of just taking the opportunity to snipe at a group that has labeled people they like as hate groups. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:New York City mayoral candidates

Propose merging Category:New York City mayoral candidates to Category:New York City politicians

Nominator's rationale: Merge I have seen the argument elsewhere that candidates for the Presidency of a country are inherently notable and that creating a category to sort candidates is important, but I don't see the Mayorship of New York City being equivalent to the presidency of a nation. TM 20:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Deaths from motor neurone disease

Propose renaming Category:Deaths from motor neurone disease to Category:Deaths from motor neuron disease

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. Wiki monde (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki monde (talk • contribs) 17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose First off, the nom doesn't give any rationale as to why the rename should happen, and second, the main article is at Motor neurone disease (IE neurone, not neuron). Lugnuts (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose – second off, there is an open cfd on this very category. Occuli (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ice Age

Propose renaming Category:Ice Age to Category:Ice Age (film series)

Propose renaming Category:Ice Age films to Category:Ice Age (film series) films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Title is ambiguous. Note that the page Ice Age redirects to Ice age, which is about a generic geological period of temperature reduction. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Support the first; but do we need the second at all? Could it not be merged with the other? Peterkingiron (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Support rename of the second (part of Category:Films) but do we need the eponymous one? (This served a function before the recent deletion of Category:Ice Age characters, which has caused 2 articles to be upmerged from a well-defined but small category into the undefined and badly named Category:Ice Age.) Certainly rename Category:Ice Age per nom if kept. Occuli (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikimedia Nepal

Category:Wikimedia Nepal - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary cat. for one userspace article. This belongs on Meta. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Seraskier

Category:Seraskier - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: I have no idea what this category is. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment -- According to the one article, it appears to be a rank of statesman in the Ottoman Empire. Can we notify the appropriate project (Turkey?)? If correct, it should be possible to populate it, but the single article is little more than a stub, with two red-link categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Turkish wiki has a few in the category tr:Kategori:Seraskerler. Should it be Category:Seraskiers? NB There are both Seraskier and Serasker, so some merging might well be required. Occuli (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Serasker is more common – I have added several such and suggest a rename to Category:Seraskers. Occuli (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Indigenous languages of the North American Northwest Coast

Propose renaming Category:Indigenous languages of the North American Northwest Coast to Category:Indigenous languages of the Pacific Northwest Coast

Nominator's rationale: "North American Northwest Coast" is not most common usage; the norm is "Pacific Northwest Coast" as per both ethnographic terminology and also as per the related ethnography article Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast.Skookum1 (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Common usage (and the top article title) is "Pacific Northwest." This should be reflected in both the category and the list. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Rename, but retain "North American" with Category:Indigenous languages of the North American Pacific Northwest Coast. All the other categories for indigenous languages of N. Am. in Category:Indigenous languages of the Americas and Category:Languages of North America use it for quick series finding and accurate use. The linguistic category precedent 'rules' over the 'geographic-cultural abbreviation without continent' I think. The other cat. titles are long in this series, so this could fit right in there.—Look2See1 t a l k → 06:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment "Pacific Northwest" has global recognition as a term, so the suggestion that it has to include teh continent is spurious; "American West of North America", "Atlantic Seaboard of North America" etc would be pointless. "Pacific Northwest Coast" was chosen for the ethnography article expressly because the region in question is only the coast, not the Interior; the ethnographic term, originally, was "Northwest Coast" i.e. "peoples of the Northwest Coast", for example, vs "people of the Northwest Plateau" (cf. Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Plateau, which is the corresponding inland article. The title Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast has stood for a very long time, and unchallenged in {{NorthAmNative}}, which is teh "core" wikiproject relating to native culture and languages. there is no reason at all to come up with a cumbersome, and much less common usage, title than the currently already-cumbersome and not-most-common usage title, simply because some "rule" (wikipedia guidelines are only guidelines, not "rules" and are easily overridden by "most common usage" on the one hand and WP:IAR on the other.Skookum1 (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Rename, as per my post above. The "ethnographic term Northwest Coast" alone has no clarity, is it of Africa, California, New Zealand ? Meanwhile "Pacific Northwest" does not have specific "global recognition as a term" - it is used variously for 2 U.S. states only; or 2 states and B.C.; or those 3 and some portion of Alaska's panhandle - no consensus. That is why Category:Indigenous languages of the North American Pacific Northwest Coast has continent clarity for non-locals, non-professionals, and international readers. Examples such as Category:Indigenous languages of the North American eastern woodlands, Category:Indigenous languages of the North American Southeast, and Category:Indigenous languages of the North American Southwest located in Category:Indigenous languages of the Americas demonstrate the "non-regional and non-vernacular" precedent already in use for indigenous languages.—Look2See1 t a l k → 08:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I totally, totally disagree; "Pacific Northwest Coast" is a unique indentifier and unmistakeable for anywhere else on the planet; I looked at he category contents and there is no "Indigenous languages of the South American Central Amazonia", there is only "Indigenous languages of Central Amazonia". You'll tell me that's because "Central Amazonia" is a unique identifier, unmistakeable for anywhere else; I'm telling you the same for "Pacific Northwest Coast". You'll tell me "Indigenous languages of Mexico" is acceptable over "indigenous languages of North American Mexico", because "Mexico" is a unique identifier, ditto with "California" etc. - but "Pacific Northwest" and "Pacific Northwest Coast" are equally unique identifiers, and cannnot be mistaken for anywhere else in Europe, Australia or Africa any other continent; only one continent has a Pacific Northwest, and this is a proper name of a region as well as a locational description. Only when there is a RISK of confusion with another continent is there any reason to add "North American" - I can see it with "eastern woodlands" (sic, as in ethnographic literature that's typically capitazlied, but "Misplaced Pages knows better" ho-hum) and "North American Plains" (which should jsut be "Great Plains", though granted in Russian that may have a confusing translation to some expanse of Eurasia and the failure of the RM at Talk:Plains Indians is a reminder of how specific to the US that term is. Great Basin and Great Plains are landforms, potentially ocnfusing if translated to other languages "Pacific Northwest" is as unmistakeable as saying "North Atlantic" or "South Pacific".Skookum1 (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Rename per nom and per parent article Pacific Northwest. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Rename per nom In the absence of evidence otherwise "Pacific Northwest" is unambiguous. The term is also in common use, consistent with the name of the article used for the region and more concise. The argument showing the parallel with "Central Amazonia" is very persuasive. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:People whose family was killed in The Holocaust

Category:People whose family was killed in The Holocaust - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category regarding trivia. As tragic as it may be, losing your family in the Holocaust is no different than losing your family in any other way.TM 03:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete, but not at all for the nominator's reasons. How would we define "family"? Immediate family? Some members of immediate family? Entire extended family but not immediate family? Grandparents and great-aunts/uncles? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete -- Much too vague. Almost any European Jew whose family came from Nazi-occupied countries would qualify. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete and replace with Category:Holocaust survivors where it is not present. --Vicky Ng (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Online companies

Propose renaming Category:Online companies to Category:Internet based companies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I believe that this rename makes the purpose of the category clearer. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment I would favour anything which distinguishes between companies which sell goods and services on the internet and companies which support the delivery of the internet (although such companies invariably also sell their services on the internet). The present name at least categorizes the former without catching the latter. The problem is more in Category:Internet companies, which is a mix of both. I'm not sure that the proposed change would reduce the confusion here. --Mhockey (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: See, I wonder why we need Category:Online companies to wrap around Category:Online retailers since everything in the larger category is retailing a service or product. (Arguably, the only exception is Category:Online dating which could be moved under Category:Social network services.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think all the online retailers sell goods to consumers. That does not apply to Category:Online brokerages or Category:Online insurance companies - it would be a stretch to call them online retailers. And Online dating (which makes its money from selling its dating services) is different from social network services, which make their money from advertising. --Mhockey (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory 01:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep -- This is needed as a parent for various other categories, but purge by transferring articles into appropriate sub-categories. For instance Amazon.com is a retailer, though it also hosts a marketplace. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Articles on deletion review

Propose renaming Category:Articles on deletion review to Category:Misplaced Pages pages that are the subjects of deletion reviews

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is populated by a template that serves all namespaces, not just articles, and the category should be renamed to reflect its actual scope. Bsherr (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But while the suggested rename is not confusing, it does not sound good. How about Category:Misplaced Pages pages under discussion at deletion review? --SmokeyJoe (talk)

It would be inaccurate. It's the deletion process decision, not the page, that's under discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You could add the implied "that are", if that addresses your concern. Either is grammatically correct. --Bsherr (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages pages that are the subjects of deletion reviews reads better to me. I assume present tense is intended (at the DRV close, the page is removed from the category?). Why "deletion reviews" plural? If it is only for current discussions, it should usually, if not always, be singular? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, present only; the category is populated by Template:Delrev. My take is that plural is correct to distinguish that the contents of the category are each the subject of a deletion review, as opposed to the contents of the category being the subject of a single deletion review. --Bsherr (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If name length is a problem, why not Category:Misplaced Pages pages currently undergoing deletion review? Or even simply Category:Misplaced Pages pages currently in deletion review? Grutness...wha? 00:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Because, again, that would be inaccurate. It's the deletion process discussion for the page that's under review, not the page itself. Saying "subjects of" doesn't fully communicate this, but it's better than further omission. --Bsherr (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory 00:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisting note: There seems to be agreement that a rename is a good idea, but there has been difficulty in agreeing to the new name. Good Ol’factory 00:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Suggest Category:Pages subject to Deletion Review. The category name should be short. We do not like "current" categories, but since this is populated by the template, it presumably only has current entries. The closing reviewer will presumably remove or replace the category on closing the Delrev, if the removal of the template dies not depopulate it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)