Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) at 17:19, 7 November 2009 (→Category:Scientists Opposing The Mainstream Scientific Assessment Of Global Warming: d). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

November 7

Category:Scientists Opposing The Mainstream Scientific Assessment Of Global Warming

Category:Scientists Opposing The Mainstream Scientific Assessment Of Global Warming - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Classification into this category is inherent a WP:BLP issue and needs clear sources. Categorizations cannot be easily sourced. There is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which allows sources and clear quotations. Also see WP:BLPCAT. Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• ...Redirect? After yet another no consensus on the topic I'm not at all surprised to find some minor forking start. Regardless of how much I enjoy having the article there and stuck in a gigantic endless glob of text so large it'd be impossible to spot consensus in it anymore anyway, is needs to be taken care of. The article surrounding this is, as Stephan mentioned LoSOtMSAoGW. It's already a list. Categories are made to contain a number of articles that are particularly notable toward that group... merely a bland list. The list article is more comprehensive, has far fewer way to interpret an entry on it, and persons listed are notable. Oh, and I forgot to ask why we would need a category listing qualified persons when we already have that same list. Right. ...The BLP danger level is already insane on the list page, and I wouldn't want to promote the scuffle more by encouraging forking and eventual intraWiki link webs, to say nothing of it being a form of canvassing to keep feeding new names into the list article. In other words, a total mess that would be incredibly tedious to change if it ever needed to be modified. Redirect to the parent compilation, or delete if that feels inappropriate. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

delete - empty category created with insufficient thought William M. Connolley (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Islamist Terrorist plots against United States' interests

Category:Islamist Terrorist plots against United States' interests - was created and populated by a single user in an hour. Seems to build on already-existing categories, as I explained on his talk page "All of those articles are already listed as terrorist plots, they don't need each person to go add a new type of category, they don't need "Category:Islamofascist terrorist", "Category:Islamist terrorism", "Category:Islamic terrorist attacks", "Category:Muslim terror plots", "Category:Islamic terrorist plots" and "Category:Islamofascist plots to commit terrorism". It seems he wishes to differentiate based on "interests" (this seems to mean against the United States, which already exists as a category, and against an Embassy, again, already a category), which seems a terribly subjective term. For example, the 1994 Brooklyn Bridge shooting which he added to the category targeted Jews, not Americans, and the 1977 Hanafi Siege was due to a "list of demands", which makes it a hostagetaking, not a terrorist attack - at least subjectively. Sherurcij 03:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. No existing category covers Islamist plots against US interests worldwide. Certain subcategories discuss Islamist Plots incedents in New York, for example. None duplicate this. The race-baiting strawman in the protest "Category:Islamofascist plots" is noted, resented and rejected. --DaleEastman (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I never mentioned any races...Sherurcij 03:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness, such statements that deliberately race to an already sensitive highly stereotyped topic could be perceived as a personal attack that could offend another user. Misplaced Pages policy really tries to crack down on the possibility of future offenses. More discussion is good, but let's sure that any more warnings of actual action may need to be taken :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: This is already covered elsewhere as nominator demonstrated (saved me much work!). We're not in the business of creating a category for every contingency or summary of other categories. Actually, if you actually look at a lot of the articles listed, there are already far too many redundant categories. That the category author is rushing about tagging articles on a personal opinion of what fits is also entirely unacceptable. Oh, and that I'm going to head off to RfC/U for the rather... discouraging comment from the author. Wait no. That requires 2 editors warning. I shall go be the second, then. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, took me awhile to find that the consensus guideline was for this, WP:OC#OVERLAPPING. If you have "Islamic terrorist attacks", "Terrorist attacks against the United States", "Violence in Islamic extremism", etc.; depending on what combination you use you could get what the new category wants to get and it would actually be far more precise. A consensus between common contributors in a lot of these types of articles most always use "Islam and antisemitism and Terrorism in the United States" as a very quick and extremely accurate way to flag most things we instantly scream "terrorism!" at. This even lets readers go read the Islam-related article where it discusses matters of non-violence as well, which is something we oft forget. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Traditional/folk music world-wide

Category:Traditional/folk music world-wide - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete or rename. We shouldn't have a slash in a category name like this, and this category seems to be better covered by other categories. If kept, give a better name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic schools

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic schools to Category:Catholic schools

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I bring this up to generate some discussion. There is no reason why Eastern Catholic schools should be excluded from this cat. In many countries I am sure that Roman and Eastern Catholics operate seperate schools, and in that case, fine, seperate them. But places like Canada the same Catholic school hierarchy runs all Catholic schools, for Latins and those from other rites. It also beter fits the main article Catholic school. I have listed this nom at wikiproject Catholicism and wikiproject Schools--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Matches the name of the two major parents Category:Roman Catholic education and Category:Roman Catholic Church organizations. While you may be able to build a case for a new parent category, I don't believe that there is a case for renaming this existing category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Query Is there any information regarding how many nations make a distinction, and those who don't, or moreover, any idea about the number of schools which would fall into each case? LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the name of the Church and this is the name of its schools. Others schools go into other and appropriate categories of their own. Hmains (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this is the name by which the Church is known to distinguish it from any other form of Catholicism which should have their own categories they should not just be grouped together. Keith D (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Former railway stations

Category:Former railway stations - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete or Merge. Duplicates Category:Defunct railway stations. OR failing that, make one for stations that are no longer used but still standing, and one for stations that no longer exist. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Military forts of Acadia

Category:Military forts of Acadia - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Acadia was never sovereign state nor did it ever posess a seperate military. These were forts of France or of Great Britain that happened to be in the geographic area of Acadia (today's Maritime Provinces of Canada). The content is better covered by cats by state like Category:French forts in North America and cats by locale like Category:Military forts in Nova Scotia. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)