Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 28

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< September 27 September 29 >

September 28

Category:Marshall Thundering Herd golfers

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 (C2C). The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename for the same reason as the Texas Tech golfers nomination below. In this case, the only individual in this category is a woman. Dale Arnett (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2012 (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:Texas Tech Red Raiders golfers

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 (C2C). The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with other categories within the structure of Category:College golfers in the United States, which distinguish by sex. All of the individuals in this category are men. Note also that the only Texas Tech women's team that uses "Lady Raiders" is the women's basketball team; all other women's teams use the men's nickname of Red Raiders. Dale Arnett (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2012 (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:RNA Tie Club members

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Membership of the RNA Tie Club appears not to have been a defining characteristic of most of its members, and there is already a list in the head article. The club is mentioned in only 4 of the 17 blue-linked biographical articles in the list: Gamow, Ledley, Dounce, Crick. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 28 September 2012 (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:Mortal Kombat media

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. No precedent against a broader category if different media are included.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. All the media are images. This is similar to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 18#Category:G.I. Joe media. IMHO a group nomination for Category:Video game media should follow if this is agreed; it has 3 parents called "images" and none called "media". – Fayenatic London 17:44, 28 September 2012 (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.

Works based on video games

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to fit in with ongoing standardisation of categories for works based on works. I volunteer to tidy up afterwards, setting up sub-cats for TV & moving head categories (e.g. films based on video games) from the categories to individual pages where appropriate. – Fayenatic London 17:02, 28 September 2012 (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:North Korean billionaires

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per deleted PROD by User:Takayama812: A category which will only contain one person, ever, and a person who only *might* be a billionaire, when he *lived*, should not exist Illia Connell (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a remark: Who can tell whether or not this category can be filled with more entries in the future?--Bli (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If and when that happens, it can be re-created. – Fayenatic London
Delete I would love to have this category populated with all the members possible but there is not currently a way to verify the data contained therein. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of the funniest categories I've seen, but there's really no point to having it when the contents will only ever be the current leader. Specs112 t c 14:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm reminded of Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents* (which contained Aaron Burr and Harry Whittington). It's humorous, but it serves no encyclopedic purpose. *Also, the applicable term is "sitting". —David Levy 21:20, 28 September 2012 (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:Terrorist incidents by responsible party

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: keep. The container category cannot possibly label a group here. The subcategories will have to be considered individually, though. If none of them survive, this may be deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:NPOV. The term terrorist is clearly POV. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2012 (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:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

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: listify. This already has a List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, so this is a matter of checking to see all are included on that list and then deleting.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category violates WP:NPOV the term terrorist is clearly POV.We can have List of attacks attributed to LTTE Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2012 (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:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Central Intelligence Agency

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. This does not meet the standard of proof. The CIA is not commonly referred to as a terrorist group.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category violates WP:NPOV it can be said attributed to CIA but to say to add the word terrorist is clearly POV. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify. There are two problems here. The first is the use of the POV term "terrorist", and the nominator is right that it should not be used in category names. The second problems is that "Attributed to" is a WP:WEASEL phrase, which begs the question of who does the attribution. Is it the opponents of the CIA, a neutral third party or a lone individual? The source(s) and details of an attribution are crucial, and that cannot be accommodated in a category. In a list, these crucial points can be be explained, as required by WP:WEIGHT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify per BHG. After reading the current contents of the category, I fully support her reasoning and conclusion. – Fayenatic London 19:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ...except that I don't object to the use of the word "terrorist" for these incidents. – Fayenatic London 12:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Delete and listify: As per BrownHairedGirl.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep WP has a fully developed category tree under Terrorism and does not shy away from the use of the term and the creation and maintenance of categories with the term 'terror' in their name. This is regardless of the opinion of an editor that 'terrorism' is a POV term; others have concluded it is a fact and WP is about facts. 1) these were attributed to the CIA; 2) these are terrorist attacks on their face. Read the articles Hmains (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmains, please read WP:TERRORIST. Describing these events as bombing, shootings of whatever is a statement of fact. Describing them as "terror" is a value judgement about motive, and that is not neutral.
    Wikipedia does shy away from using the word "terror" in category titles. Category:Terrorists was deleted at CfD 2009 April 27. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is rather different, as it was a matter of labelling people as "terrorist" (noun) rather than incidents as terrorist (adjective). The description "terrorist incident" is about the method, not the motive. What POV would not count a car bombing and an aircraft bombing as "terrorist incidents"? Nevertheless I'm still supporting BHG's suggested action on this CfD, not because of the description as terrorism, but because of the difficulty over attribution to the CIA as alleged perpetrator/backer when it was not officially claimed/confirmed. – Fayenatic London 12:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the (alleged) perpetrator, I object to the description of any actions as "terrorist", because it is a highly-contested POV term. It is exceptionally rare for any organisation to refer to its own actions as "terrorist"; instead it is a pejorative term applied to the actions of opponents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify per BrownHairedGirl. Kanatonian (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plain delete -- The category has two members. Kashmir Princess says that the incident was instigated by KMT intelligence in Taiwan. The other was specifically deniued by CIA, which said that ther operatives might have had American training, but were not operating under its orders. In the context of Beruit, it is far more likely that the incident was caused by political opponents, perhaps Christian militia. Accordingly, the category should be empty. It is a frequent cry that things have been caused by CIA or by the British Secret Intelligence Service, but such matters are well-nigh on impossible to prove. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my above comment on the LTTE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify per BrownHairedGirl.HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this clearly violates NPOV rules. There is no need for a list at this time since the category is so small.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2012 (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:Merlin Entertainments

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. While the current name matches the current name of the article, it sounds wrong for a category name. In this case, using the more formal name reads better and is not incorrect. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2012 (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:NSC Minnesota Stars players

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, noncontroversial merge to the current name for a team which had no other changes than the team name. Also, C2D. The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Name change following the 2011 season. – Michael (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2012 (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:University and college academic buildings in the United States

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: no consensus on the first two; rename third to Category:Kansas State University academic buildings to match format.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge I believe the merge result at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_15#Category:Academic_buildings supports my belief that there is no clear distinction created here by the insertion of the word "academic", and so what we have here is essentially a duplicate sub-category. I see as well that these three categories were created by the same editor who created the now-merged Category:Academic_buildings. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Academic buildings" provides a meaningful distinction within this category, then the top-level category probably shouldn't have been deleted, since all of the other building types do have their own trees. Hmains, I think I understand things reasonably well, save for why my every interaction with you seems to be so distinctly unpleasant. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notional top-level category here might be Category:University and college academic buildings, not Category:Academic buildings. I can't come up with a scenario where we would want to categorize academic buildings outside of a higher education setting. I suppose it's possible that a high school with a campus could have individual buildings that require categorization, but I suspect that would occur infrequently.
If there's an issue with the naming, is there another word that we could use in place of "academic" that would be less ambiguous? - Eureka Lott 07:15, 30 September 2012 (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/2012_September_28&oldid=1166569520"