RachelBrown (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
*'''Delete''' I am quite surprised that no one has noticed that this category is essentially meaningless as gays have lived in many countries around the world which have vastly varying laws. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 20:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' I am quite surprised that no one has noticed that this category is essentially meaningless as gays have lived in many countries around the world which have vastly varying laws. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 20:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC) |
||
::*An excellent point. In many countries, ''being'' homo/bi/transsexual is illegal, so "LGBT criminals" would be like saying "monotheistic theists". By whose standards of legality do we decide who is or isn't a "criminal"? If it's by the standards of the specific country people live in, then the category's meaningless, since nationality/sexual orientation should be what we're concerned with, not 'criminality' (i.e. "LGBT Arabs" is much more useful and specific than "LGBT criminals"). And if it's just "being considered a criminal ''anywhere''", then the category's still meaningless as ''all'' LGBT people qualify: instead of having a distinct category, just make all LGBT categories a subcategory of [[:Category:Criminals]]. Much simpler. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 20:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC) |
::*An excellent point. In many countries, ''being'' homo/bi/transsexual is illegal, so "LGBT criminals" would be like saying "monotheistic theists". By whose standards of legality do we decide who is or isn't a "criminal"? If it's by the standards of the specific country people live in, then the category's meaningless, since nationality/sexual orientation should be what we're concerned with, not 'criminality' (i.e. "LGBT Arabs" is much more useful and specific than "LGBT criminals"). And if it's just "being considered a criminal ''anywhere''", then the category's still meaningless as ''all'' LGBT people qualify: instead of having a distinct category, just make all LGBT categories a subcategory of [[:Category:Criminals]]. Much simpler. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 20:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC) |
||
'''Delete''' - Otherwise, you'd logically have to include everyone in [[:Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality]] - [[User:RachelBrown|RachelBrown]] 22:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
====[[:Category:Ships by country]] general cleanup ==== |
====[[:Category:Ships by country]] general cleanup ==== |
Revision as of 22:08, 20 November 2005
November 18
Category:Firearms manufacturers
Empty category of which information is already covered in Category:Firearms companies. Hurricane111 23:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Firearms manufacturers might be a more appropriate title, and seems to be the most common form at Category:Manufacturing companies. - SimonP 16:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Reverse merge into Category:Firearms manufacturers, which sounds better and is the more common form. Carina22 17:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
People from California
- Category:Oaklanders → Category:People from Oakland (redirect already exists)
- Category:San Diegans → Category:People from San Diego (redirect already exists)
- Category:San Franciscans → Category:People from San Francisco (redirect already exists)
- Category:Pasadenans → Category:People from Pasadena
- Category:Bakersfieldians → Category:People from Bakersfield
- Category:Fresnans → Category:People from Fresno
- Category:Sacramentans → Category:People from Sacramento
Proper naming convention. Every category in Category:People by U.S. state follows this pattern. I've got California covered here, but there's a whole ton in Category:American people by city that should be done too. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Concur. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nearly all categories for people by city follow this pattern. it less sterile, shorter and no less convenient, and if you don't happen in a moment to know what the adjective form is, spend three seconds and check the page Category: People from California orCategory:American people by city, get it and learn something. -Mayumashu 02:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Use names which are clear to everyone, not just locals. CalJW 06:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Figure-out-able adjectives have a place in Wikipedia. The Tom 08:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Considering you just used the non-existent adjective "figure-out-able", I don't think you'd be a good judge on what adjectives people are usually familiar with. For instance, "Fresnan" gets less googles than "Fresnian" and "Fresner", and about equally much as "Fresnoan". And "Bakersfielder" gets only slightly less than "Bakersfieldian". Looks like the inhabitants don't know which adjective to use, either. Radiant_>|< 10:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- are you sure you looked at your results carefully? if you use the four you mention 'Fresnan', 'Fresnoan', 'Fresner', and 'Fresian' in the plural form to avoid mere adjectival use and get use of the demomynic form you get, for English use, 557 hits for 'Fresnans' and 62 hits for 'Fresnoans'. not one of the first page of 191 hits for 'Fresners' referred to people of the city, so presumably few actually do. 'Fresians' gets 50 hits. Fresnan is nine to one the most prevalent word in use. 'Bakersfieldians' get 425 hits to 'Bakerfielders' 55, again nine to one. -Mayumashu 15:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- you figured out what I meant, though, right? The Tom 17:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- using the base form will bring up a lot of adjectival use of the word and not just demomynic use. its better to check plural use -Mayumashu 16:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - The current names are fine STopCat 18:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - Every people have the right to determine their own collective name, this is especially relevant in Wikipedia when the name is clear and understandable. It is also less sterile.Reggaedelgado 20:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Category:SBC Communications to Category:AT&T Corporation
The merger was approved and finalized today. And SBC is now officially no more. AT&T does not have it's own category, but SBC does. With the SBC name going away, a category with that name doesn't make a lot of sense. But with the new name, "AT&T Corp", it makes sense (to me at least) to move all of the entries from the SBC directory over to a new directory with the name of the new combined company. - TexasAndroid 22:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Osomec 14:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Category:Movie villains to Category:Film villains
'Film'has been established as the proper word to use when referring to such media on Wikipedia. Apostrophe 20:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Category:Music by nationality to Category:Music by country
Rename. 'Music' does not have nationalities, people do. -Mayumashu 16:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, prefer the existing standard. How does music have a country any more than a nationality? Christopher Parham (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- music does not have a country, countries have music - nationality however is originally a legal term that refers to a person's country as a matter of the person's legal status. it is no mere coincidence that, as User:Radiant points out, nearly all non-people cats have been named by country, not nationality. -Mayumashu 03:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- As I noted below, we've been using the word "nationality" elsewhere in category titles to mean "national character," not just "person legally entitled to hold passport from the state of Fooland." Provided that a category's contents are named in the format "Nationality X", what we're saying is that X has the normative and intangible characteristics of said nationality, even if it isn't physically located in the patch of ground associated with the government that uses the same nationality terminology with reference to its citizens. This is why Category:Literature by nationality, Category:Architecture by nationality and several others use nationality rather than country: Finnegans Wake is Irish lit even though Joyce hadn't set foot in Ireland for decades at the time of its composition. Swan Lake is still Russian when performed by an American ballet company in London. Thai food is still Thai when served at a restaurant in Alabama, but chicken-fried steak served in Bangkok isn't. The Tom 19:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Most categories other than for people go by country. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Nationality most certainly can apply to things other than people. Merriam-Webster sayeth 1. National character The Tom 01:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Sounds more natural. Osomec 14:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Category:Bachelor's degree holders
Are we really going to add this category to everyone who has an undergraduate education? This category would apply to hundreds of thousands of articles. - SimonP 15:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- delete -Mayumashu 15:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: If anything, these should be handled by lists. Joshbaumgartner 07:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Carina22 17:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Category:People of Adelaide to Category:Adelaideans
Rename to shorter name using commonly used adjective form of word Adelaide. -Mayumashu 15:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. People putting articles into categories who are unfamiliar with the term will have a hard time figuring it out. Much better to stick to a common naming convention "People from XXX" instead. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Object, such adjectives are generally unknown in other countries, and using them would instill miscategorization. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- comment. what 's also unknown to users is whether the cat name is "Native of Foo" (typically British), "People from Foo" (typically North American), and "People of Foo" (typically Australian) used for cats for countries in other continents. there is no standard form in reality outside of one s continent with English and the time it takes for say a European to know which of the above three is the correct form for an American or any place is no longer than what it takes to check the Pasadena, California page, go to its category page and from it get the name of the cat, Category:Pasadenans (all of five seconds). -Mayumashu 02:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose These things should all stay as they are. CalJW 06:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I've lived there and never called it that myself. It just doesn't work for all towns or cities. - Longhair 08:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Carina22 17:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Category:People of Melbourne to Category:Melburnians
Rename to shorter name using commonly used adjective form of word Melbourne. -Mayumashu 15:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. People putting articles into categories who are unfamiliar with the term will have a hard time figuring it out. Much better to stick to a common naming convention "People from XXX" instead. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
style="color:#0C0">e]] ] 23:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Object, such adjectives are generally unknown in other countries, and using them would instill miscategorization. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- comment. it is not that difficult to find out what these adjective forms are and hey you learn something by doing it and isn t that the point. -Mayumashu 02:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose These things should all stay as they are. CalJW 06:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Longhair | [[User talk:Longhair|Talk]] 08:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Note that "Melbournian" gets more googles than "Melburnian". Apparently people don't really know which is the correct adjective. Radiant_>|< 10:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- well, you re wrong again but i ll admit the numbers are a bit too close for comfort - "Melburnians" gets 58, 700 hits and "Melbournians" 32,300 with some going to describe people of Melbourne, Florida, so say 2:1 for Melburnians, the proposed name -Mayumashu 16:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Term isn't even consistent. Carina22 17:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per Howcheng. --Vizcarra 00:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Category:Fictional water
Overcat. Only one article (Ice-9) which is also in the more appropriate Category:Fictional materials. Delete. Radiant_>|< 12:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, it's just not fully populated yet wtih existing articles. 132.205.93.33 19:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Such as what? Ice-9 isn't even water, technically speaking. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ice-9 is a form of ice, ice is a phase of water, solid water. 132.205.44.134 06:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- There's lots of fictional/mythological waters, geologic springs with mystical properties, etc. 132.205.44.134 06:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Such as what? Ice-9 isn't even water, technically speaking. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Items in this list can be listed under Fictional materials instead. -Silence 21:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Category:LGBT_criminals
Does have anything meaningful. What next African-Italian criminals? 71.35.229.17 04:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't need this category. NatusRoma 06:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It is pov to only maintain positive LGBT categories, but if you make a group nomination of all LGBT categories I will support it. CalJW 11:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not a meaningful intersection. Radiant_>|< 12:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per User:Radiant!. There is nothing inherently "POV" about not having a way to sort articles. Placing an article in categories can sometimes lead to POV disputes, however, and there is no need to suggest that that there is something about being LBGT that connects to criminality. Cateogy:LGBT and Category:Criminals can coexist as identifiers in one article without being merged like this. Jkelly 00:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. a useful reference - the category combines infamy for having been a criminal with notoriety in the form of many people's fascination with LGBTism. -Mayumashu 02:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep useful. Carina22 17:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep STopCat 18:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Why does this category have such strong support, while Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_criminals has almost unanimous "delete" votes? There's something fishy about this... -Silence 21:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete For starters there doesn't seem to be enough here to differentiate from criminals in general. Okay I can see Cunanin and especially Alig. I'll grant that. However Squeaky Fromme? I didn't even know she was LGBT and I don't see how it relates to her crimes at all. Added to that there aren't that many names here. I think placing some of these in Category:Child sex offenders and others in Category:Rapists wouldn't screw up those Categories. Those that can't can be under general murderers or whatever crime is appropriate.--T. Anthony 07:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- (Edited content)--T. Anthony 07:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep A useful resource, and a useful antidote to all politically correct people Wikiluva 08:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I take offense to that. I have a long-abiding hatred for excess political correctness on Wikipedia, and continue to fight it today. My vote is based purely on establishing consistency with dozens of other similar VfDs in the past weeks and months. Being a homosexual and being a criminal are totally unrelated concepts, therefore having a category linking the two is, according to most editors involved in the matter, incorrect. The same applies to being a Jew and being a criminal, being a circus clown and being a criminal, and being Brazilian and being a criminal. It is POV to draw correlations where there are none. At best, a "homosexuality and crime" article could list these people as examples, where relevant, as an article or list could do a vastly better job of establishing context and detail than a category, which by nature can't have any details on the individual entries. -Silence 13:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ditto. I'm not being PC as much as I don't see the point of this category. Do we have Category:Polygamous criminals or Category:Celibate criminals? Existing sex crime categories seem sufficient for any LGBT specific crimes. For others I don't see the point.--T. Anthony 14:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep As legitimate as most of these categories. Osomec 14:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I am quite surprised that no one has noticed that this category is essentially meaningless as gays have lived in many countries around the world which have vastly varying laws. Arniep 20:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- An excellent point. In many countries, being homo/bi/transsexual is illegal, so "LGBT criminals" would be like saying "monotheistic theists". By whose standards of legality do we decide who is or isn't a "criminal"? If it's by the standards of the specific country people live in, then the category's meaningless, since nationality/sexual orientation should be what we're concerned with, not 'criminality' (i.e. "LGBT Arabs" is much more useful and specific than "LGBT criminals"). And if it's just "being considered a criminal anywhere", then the category's still meaningless as all LGBT people qualify: instead of having a distinct category, just make all LGBT categories a subcategory of Category:Criminals. Much simpler. -Silence 20:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Otherwise, you'd logically have to include everyone in Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality - RachelBrown 22:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Category:Ships by country general cleanup
Proposal is for some minor changes to cleanup the Ship by country listings per a lot of the CfDs that have already been passed in recent weeks:
- Category:Ships of Argentina:
- Category:Aircraft carriers of Argentina: merge back into parent, only has two articles, not likely to grow.
- Category:Cruisers of Argentina: keep, has four articles under it ultimately.
- Category:World War II cruisers of Argentina: merge back into parent Category:Cruisers of Argentina (add Category:World War II cruisers to articles.)
- Category:World War II ships of Argentina: delete as superfluous path to Category:World War II cruisers of Argentina.
- Category:Icebreakers of Argentina: merge back into parent Category:Ships of Argentina, only one article, can be recreated if more Argentine icebreakers warrant articles in the future.
- Category:Ships of Australia:
- Category:Australian ferries: Rename Category:Ferries of Australia (5 articles)
- Category:Royal Australian Navy ships: Over 200 articles, needs to be broken into sub-categories. For searches purely by name, List of ships of the Royal Australian Navy is appropriate.
- Category:Submarines of Australia: Keep, only one article currently, but many uncategorized (at least as subs) Australian submarine articles currently exist.
- Category:Ships of Brazil:
- Category:Brazilian Navy ships: merge into parent Category:Ships of Brazil, only 3 articles. Total Brazilian ship articles come to six, thus not needing sub-categorization.
- Category:Brazilian Navy submarines: merge into parent Category:Ships of Brazil, only 2 articles.
- Category:Ships of China:
- Category:Submarines of China: merge into Category:People's Liberation Army Navy submarines under Category:Naval ships of China, currently is superfluous to have so many decendants for one submarine article.
- Category:Submarines of the People's Republic of China: merge into Category:People's Liberation Army Navy submarines as above.
- Category:People's Liberation Army Navy submarine classes: merge into Category:People's Liberation Army Navy submarines, as a seperate category for classes is not necessary with this few articles.
Joshbaumgartner 03:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose all parts that are based on the idea that categories with only two or three articles are not legitimate. Accurate categorisation should be preferred. CalJW 11:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Amended Oppose all. Nominate separately. CalJW 05:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thus I would assume you would keep Category:Aircraft carriers of Argentina, as it has two articles (representing the sum of such ships). But what about Category:Icebreakers of Argentina, which has only one article, and frankly even if it had two would not really warrant categorization as such beyond Category:Ships of Argentina. As for the Brazilian Navy categories, it is also not solely based on article quantity. If we keep them, Category:Brazilian Navy submarines should be under Category:Brazilian Navy ships, and then the only sub to Category:Ships of Brazil would be Category:Brazilian Navy ships. For the significance of the category, it seems over-doing it to have so much vertical categorization for a group of articles that really don't need it. Just interested to get your input/clarification on these... Joshbaumgartner 15:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- You are asking people to consider too many issues at once. I don't want to swap essays. Please nominate them one at a time. In the meantime, I have change my vote to "oppose all" on the grounds that if this sort of nomination is acceptable people might get all sorts of things through by including them in diverse nominations that were just to much trouble for others to look into thoroughly. CalJW 05:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with that, but the reason I presented these as a group, was because the same problem happened when a large number were presented as individual line items. A number of people had suggested that these be grouped. However, my tendency is to agree with you, so if others agree, I'll split this up into seperate line items. Joshbaumgartner 07:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I do a high proportion of those nominations myself, but not for such varied collections of categories. CalJW 16:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with that, but the reason I presented these as a group, was because the same problem happened when a large number were presented as individual line items. A number of people had suggested that these be grouped. However, my tendency is to agree with you, so if others agree, I'll split this up into seperate line items. Joshbaumgartner 07:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- You are asking people to consider too many issues at once. I don't want to swap essays. Please nominate them one at a time. In the meantime, I have change my vote to "oppose all" on the grounds that if this sort of nomination is acceptable people might get all sorts of things through by including them in diverse nominations that were just to much trouble for others to look into thoroughly. CalJW 05:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Rename. There is a point at which over-segmentation reduces the usability of the category system, and I think these ones have reached it. - SimonP 18:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose All - As per CalJW. These really should be separate nominations. So many different things going on, you're asking for chaos the moment someone wants to support some, and oppose others. TexasAndroid 17:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose all or nominate separately as per CalJW STopCat 18:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Category:Mexican American stuff
- Speedy keep all WP:POINT nominations by User:Arniep. Radiant_>|< 12:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)