Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 19: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 23:05, 19 May 2008 editSkoojal (talk | contribs)8,660 edits →Category:Queer studies← Previous edit Revision as of 23:08, 19 May 2008 edit undoSkoojal (talk | contribs)8,660 edits →Category:Queer studiesNext edit →
Line 203: Line 203:
:To be clear about it: I don't like 'queer' because it suggests insanity. That's a good reason for not liking it. Are there terms that would be less derogatory? Yes, almost anything would be less derogatory. ''Gay'' or even ''homosexual'' would do. ] (]) 23:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC) :To be clear about it: I don't like 'queer' because it suggests insanity. That's a good reason for not liking it. Are there terms that would be less derogatory? Yes, almost anything would be less derogatory. ''Gay'' or even ''homosexual'' would do. ] (]) 23:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - queer studies and queer theory, under those names, are legitimate and encyclopedic areas of interest. While some may find the word "queer" derogatory (I don't and I'm queer, and ] certainly has no problem with it), that is irrelevant because ]. No valid reason offered for deletion. ] (]) 12:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - queer studies and queer theory, under those names, are legitimate and encyclopedic areas of interest. While some may find the word "queer" derogatory (I don't and I'm queer, and ] certainly has no problem with it), that is irrelevant because ]. No valid reason offered for deletion. ] (]) 12:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:You're wrong. Queer is a derogatory term and is understood that way by the large majority of gay people. That you may happen to like it is irrelevant. The reason given for deletion is correct. And while I note that this discussion is going against me thus far, all that this shows is that some wikipedians don't understand wikipedia's policies. ] (]) 23:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - It's not merely a "real phenomena" , it happens to be a widely used term that designates a real academic field of study. There's no reason for Misplaced Pages to shy away from using correct and accurate terminology that is based on actual usage in the real world. ] (]) 13:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - It's not merely a "real phenomena" , it happens to be a widely used term that designates a real academic field of study. There's no reason for Misplaced Pages to shy away from using correct and accurate terminology that is based on actual usage in the real world. ] (]) 13:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:Black people are sometimes called niggers. That is also actual usage in the real world. If that's not a valid reason for wikipedia having a category called 'nigger', and it isn't, then neither should there be a 'queer' category. ] (]) 23:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC) :Black people are sometimes called niggers. That is also actual usage in the real world. If that's not a valid reason for wikipedia having a category called 'nigger', and it isn't, then neither should there be a 'queer' category. ] (]) 23:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:08, 19 May 2008

< May 18 May 20 >

May 19

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Mind sports

Category:Mind sports - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Duplication of existing category structure for games/sports. Recreation of previously deleted category with no substantial alteration. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, as soon as possible. Duplicate structure, as well as the focus of a single editor with his/her own idea that a game and sport are the same thing and thus should be duplicated everywhere. (Also suggest preventing recreation at least for a few months to editor loses interest.) 2005 (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with the suggestion to block recreation of this category for some time period. This user has created many sock puppets for his/her purpose which can be seen here. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use → Non-free

Category:Fair use sounds to Category:Non-free sounds
Category:Fair use music samples to Category:Non-free music samples
Category:Fair use music samples by artist to Category:Non-free music samples by artist
Category:Fair use video samples to Category:Non-free video samples
Nominator's rationale: To match the parent category (Category:Misplaced Pages non-free content) and to reflect the renaming of Misplaced Pages:Fair use to Misplaced Pages:Non-free content over a year ago (see log entry). –Black Falcon 20:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Antique albums

Rename Category:Antique albums to Category:Antique (duo) albums
Rename Category:Antique songs to Category:Antique (duo) songs
Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article: Antique (duo). In this case, there is a real possibility for confusion between "albums by Antique" and "collectable albums" or "songs by Antique" and "really old songs". –Black Falcon 20:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Ancient temples

Category:Ancient temples - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: A category for "ancient temples all over the world" seems unneeded, given the existence of the more specific categories found in Category:Temples (such as Category:Ancient Egyptian temples). –Black Falcon 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

All sub-categories of Category:Concert tours

(except for Category:Warped Tours which refers to a proper noun)

Previous CFD decision resulted in the current title of Category:Country music concert tours to match the parent Category:Concert tours. I asked whether the sub-categories should follow the same convention, but anyone who may have read my comment chose to ignore it. Nominations follow. — CharlotteWebb 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

list of sub-cats (TL;DR)
Neat, eh?

Category:Albert Edelfelt

Category:Albert Edelfelt to Category:Albert Edelfelt images
Nominator's rationale: There does not seem to be enough material in the mainspace related to Albert Edelfelt to justify an eponymous category. Since this category currently contains only images by Edelfelt, it should be renamed to reflect that and made a subcategory of Category:Images of paintings or Category:Images of art. The only category that is really similar to this one (that I could find) is Category:Vincent van Gogh images. –Black Falcon 18:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:University of Wisconsin alumni

Propose renaming Category:University of Wisconsin alumni to Category:University of Wisconsin System alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was proposed for merger to Category:University of Wisconsin-Madison alumni with a result of no consensus. Some months later an editor unilaterally redirected the category to the proposed target, I presume in good faith. There are currently five categories for alumni within the UW system: Category:University of Wisconsin-Green Bay alumni; Category:University of Wisconsin-Madison alumni; Category:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee alumni; Category:University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh alumni; Category:University of Wisconsin-Platteville alumni. Others are possible, for the remaining schools within Category:University of Wisconsin System. I propose that the nominated category be renamed and repurposed to serve as a parent category for the various university alumni categories in the system, which was suggested at the previous CFD as well. Otto4711 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Playboy Cyber Girls

Category:Playboy Cyber Girls - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted back in 2006 (see Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_14#Category:Playboy_models and Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_2#Category:Playboy_Cyber_Girls.) Rather than speedily deleting as having failed two prior CfDs, relisting for discussion to see if anything has changed since then. Tabercil (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Italian-Irish people

Propose renaming Category:Italian-Irish people to Category:Irish people of Italian descent
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with other subcategories of Category:Irish people by ethnic or national origin, and because the current title is ambiguous. It is sufficiently confusing that at least one editor tried to redirect this title to (non-existent) Category:Americans with Italian-Irish ethnicity, and the majority of articles currently in the category appear to be about Americans, not Irish people. Nonetheless, the parent categories in which this was placed make it clear that it was intended to be about ethnic Italian people in Ireland. Russ (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "descent" is vague, ambigous, and overinclusive. The hyphenated term has a far greater contemporary usage. Hopefully, this will limit the cat the people that have lived in both countries or have an otherwise strong connection to both countries - the only way the cat is defining. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The rename is far clearer and with either naming inclusiveness is limited by ability to provide sources. Mayumashu (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Mis-use due to confusion over criteria is a symptom of the current title. Reasonable people can variously interpret it as "Italian people in Ireland", "Irish people in Italy" or "people who are partly Irish and partly Italian regardless of location" (hence the mistaken inclusion of several Americans, such as De Niro). I would support a large-scale renaming, as I doubt this is the only category suffering this problem. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Much clearer. The "Fooian Booians" format is an abomination. Good Ol’factory 22:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories:Santa Catarina

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: disambiguate necessary as there is a city by this name in Mexico as well as an island within this (Brazilian) state and various towns in Guatemuela and Mexico (see Santa Catarina). Mayumashu (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New York places categories

Category:People from Riverdale, New York - Template:Lc1
Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: This is a relisting of this CfD discussion based on the outcome of this DRV. Primary concerns with the category were overcategorization and lack of verifiability, but concerns were raised during the DRV regarding categorization of individuals from well-known neighborhoods that are not official political divisions, in the cases where verification can be provided. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Both neighborhoods are unique and categorizing the people that have lived there is acceptable. People are routinly categorized by towns far smaller then these neighborhoods with thousands of inhabitants. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The existence of other categories for defined political units like towns does not serve as justification for these categories. "But this neighborhood is special!" is a dandy argument for maintaining a sourced list of notable residents, which can include information on how these notable residents contributed to the specialness of the neighborhood. Otto4711 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to city parent/Delete - I am saddened that we have to go through this all again, because the problems remain exactly the same and the arguments for keeping the categories remain arguments for maintaining a list. People can live in dozens of neighborhoods over the course of a lifetime and only in extremely rare cases are they defined as being "from" a particular neighborhood. Implementing a category structure on the basis of neighborhood will result in enormous category clutter and will deeply impair navigational utility by fragmenting the already heavily fragmented people from city category structure into tinier and tinier slivers. Yes, Greenwich Village is clearly a notable neighborhood (I know little about Riverdale). The notability of the neighborhood does not serve as justification for a category for residents. Not everything that is notable is categorizable, otherwise every article on Misplaced Pages would be eligible for its own eponymous category. A list of notable residents is far and away the best way to present this information, because it can include reliable sources for their residency and can also include information on what impact if any they had on the neighborhood and what impact if any the neighborhood had on them. Otto4711 (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep both New York City has a handful of neighborhoods whose identity and boundaries are strongly defined and well-known. Greenwich Village and Riverdale are two such neighborhoods. In addition to meeting the textbook definition of the purpose categories are intended to serve, the problem of undercategorization has also been ignored. Both Manhattan and The Bronx have some 1.5 million residents and long histories of notable residents. Forcing all of these into mass categories by city or borough, each of which has nearly 500 entries, loses valuable information that can be obtained for the small number of neighborhoods where there is a clear definition of the area, a track record of notables associated with the area, and all of this supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Both Greenwich Village and Riverdale meet this criteria, and The New York Times, the national paper of record, is extremely helpful in documenting these areas, their notability and teh connection of notables to these neighborhoods. Parent categories exist for both neighborhoods (a claim that was associated with justifying deletion at the original CfDs), with a substantial number of entries associated with each. Lists and categories are NOT intended to compete with each other. Per Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and navigational templates, "These methods should not (emphasis in original) be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa." As these categories meet all relevant Misplaced Pages policies, no justification exists for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Upmerge both. No one disputes that NYC, or other cities, have significant, notable neighborhoods worthy of documentation in Misplaced Pages. That's not the issue here. The issue is whether it makes sense to categorize people by their association with unincorporated and geographically small areas whose boundaries shift over time. It makes perfect sense to draw the line at municipalities, as those are objectively defined by the existence of a formal government and have formal, objective boundaries. And it's less likely that someone's connection to a municipality will be tenuous than to a neighborhood simply by virtue of size if nothing else (I myself have lived in three separate NYC neighborhoods in the past three years). I think these also put the cart before the horse, in that the neighborhoods' notability are more defined by who has inhabited them (whether distinct ethnic groups or historically significant individuals) rather than individuals' notability being defined by what neighborhood they are "from." We simply cannot say that every individual has a categorically significant relationship with a given neighborhood. For every Jane Jacobs who wrote about Greenwich Village extensively and lived there for decades, there is a Sarah Jessica Parker who...I don't know, bought a brownstone there or something? (the category had been applied to Parker's article with no mention of the neighborhood in the text...I think she was actually a West Village resident, but I digress) There certainly is "valuable information" on neighborhood topics (and I myself have written a number of articles on neighborhoods), but categories are a HORRIBLE way to preserve it, in that they lack any internal organization, annotation, and sourcing. DO IT IN ARTICLE TEXT. Explain it, source it, and organize it. Set forth who actually had a lasting impact on the neighborhood, and separate the chaff of those who just had a coincidental and trivial connection. Postdlf (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Darkwave groups

Propose renaming Category:Darkwave groups to Category:Darkwave musical groups
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other categories of bands. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:University of Maryland, College Park affiliates

Category:University of Maryland, College Park affiliates - Template:Lc1
Propose deleting Category:University of Maryland, College Park affiliates
Nominator's rationale: While the number of Misplaced Pages articles in this category was small, there are a large number of affiliates that could fall into this group. I instead broke this up into two categories, one is Category: University of Maryland, College Park research projects and the other is Category: University of Maryland, College Park research centers. I think these are more logical distinctions than the generic term affiliates, and both of these categories scale better if more articles are created. Jussen (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that there were a few articles in this category that didn't fit into either group, I put those back into the main University of Maryland category. Jussen (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Queer studies

Category:Queer studies - Template:Lc1
Propose deleting Category:Queer studies.
Nominator's rationale: The term queer is derogatory. Skoojal (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
No doubt queer studies is a real phenomena, but not all phenomena have to have their own categories. Categories with offensive names must go. The queer studies article is a different question entirely. I don't think it needs to be deleted, because it doesn't look as though it's wikipedia endorsing the term queer. Skoojal (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
To be clear about it: I don't like 'queer' because it suggests insanity. That's a good reason for not liking it. Are there terms that would be less derogatory? Yes, almost anything would be less derogatory. Gay or even homosexual would do. Skoojal (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong. Queer is a derogatory term and is understood that way by the large majority of gay people. That you may happen to like it is irrelevant. The reason given for deletion is correct. And while I note that this discussion is going against me thus far, all that this shows is that some wikipedians don't understand wikipedia's policies. Skoojal (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's not merely a "real phenomena" , it happens to be a widely used term that designates a real academic field of study. There's no reason for Misplaced Pages to shy away from using correct and accurate terminology that is based on actual usage in the real world. Cgingold (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Black people are sometimes called niggers. That is also actual usage in the real world. If that's not a valid reason for wikipedia having a category called 'nigger', and it isn't, then neither should there be a 'queer' category. Skoojal (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:FIU Golden Panthers football players

Propose renaming Category:FIU Golden Panthers football players to Category:Florida International Golden Panthers football players
Nominator's rationale: spell out initialism per convention and drop the word 'university' per convention for American university sportspeople cat pages Mayumashu (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Do keep in mind they have nothing on the Maryland Terrapins 69.143.226.129 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Operating system remakes

Propose renaming Category:Operating system remakes to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The only ghits for this phrase are derived from the wiki (note the singular form has 0 ghits) and the use of the word "remake" to describe this type of OS software is obviously not in popular vernacular. It describes operating systems that have been built to be compatible with existing, well-known commercial operating systems. I am tempted to suggest Category:Reverse-engineered operating systems but I'm not sure if this would apply in every case, and it leaves some ambiguity as to whether the category was for an OS produced by reverse-engineering, or for an OS that has been reverse-engineered. Suggestions would be lovely. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Gaming operating systems

Category:Gaming operating systems - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is basically an attempt to generalize Category:Game console operating systems, itself kind of a premature category because these operating systems are rarely notable when detached from the game console itself. Anyhow, the category in question includes three much broader categories, for DOS, Windows, and Linux (no Mac?), using the criteria that "many games are ported to these platforms", which is really just a narrow, domain-specific way of saying "a lot of software is made for these platforms" or "these platforms are popular". It is non-defining, as none of these operating systems are expressly for games, and what qualifies as "many games" is POV. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Location map templates Netherlands

Propose renaming Category:Location map templates Netherlands to Category:Netherlands location map templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. All similar categories use the more grammatical form "Foo location map templates". Grutness...wha? 02:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:People from São Carlos (city)

Propose renaming Category:People from São Carlos (city) to Category:People from São Carlos
Nominator's rationale: there are no states, counties, cantons, departments, provinces, etc. with this name and therefore the disambiguate "(city)" is wholly unnecessary Mayumashu (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
this would mean working towards establishing precedent for every city to be followed by a country (Category:People from Paris, France, Category:People from Detroit, Michigan, United States a lot of extra wordiness and clutter - if you don t know where it is, typing it into search and pushing Go is easy enough Mayumashu (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Now how exactly does a single added word equate to "a lot of extra wordiness and clutter"? And why on earth not spare all of our readers the bother of looking up each and every unfamiliar city they come across when we can easily provide that info in the category name? I have yet to receive a good, direct answer to that question. Cgingold (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
and you would persume to know which cities are and which are not well-known? Mayumashu (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh???? What's that supposed to mean? More to the point, when is anybody going to answer the bottom-line question? Cgingold (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
How is it to be determined which ones are and which ones are not in need of adding the name of the country? That is the answer to your "bottom-line question", as you put it. The only NPOV answer to my reply to your question is every single one, wouldn t you agree? Mayumashu (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:My Gym Partner's a Monkey

Category:My Gym Partner's a Monkey - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Only holds two articles, seems a little redundant as it won't actually grow. treelo talk 00:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)