Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 31

< July 30	August 1 >

July 31

NEW NOMINATIONS

Supermax prisoners

Rename both to Category:Prisoners at ADX Florence, to match ADX Florence. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Tudors

Category:The Tudors - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV show. Category not needed for the show article and subcats categorized elsewhere. Otto4711 12:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PlayMania

Category:PlayMania - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - minus the improperly categorized articles for hosts, the remaining material is interlinked and does not warrant a category. Otto4711 12:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former political parties in Mexico

Category:Former political parties in Mexico - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Defunct political parties in Mexico, in accordance with various other recent CfDs. Soman 11:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Bubwith

Category:People from Bubwith - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Pointless Category which will have very minimal content. Q ^{T C} 10:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is just as pointless as People from London. Which isn't very pointless. I can't see anything overly wrong with the category. Mattythewhite 10:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bubwith is a village with a population just over 1,000, not a "city or town" per the category name. Johnbod 12:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by educational institution in Jersey

Suggest renaming Category:People by educational institution in Jersey to Category:People from Jersey by educational institution

Nominator's rationale: This would bring it into line with the other subcategories of Category:People from Jersey which has just undergone a substansial sub-categorisation RichardColgate 06:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - : - convention is People by educational institution in Foo. Man vyi 07:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish folklore

Suggest merging Category:Jewish folklore to Category:Jewish mythology

Nominator's rationale: This categories seem to be indistinguishable. Category:Jewish folklore is newer. Also, if I understand correctly, mythology is, specifically, narrative folklore which is believed to be true. Soft redirect recommended to discourage re-creation. --Eliyak T·C 05:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are both standard types of category. There is no apparent reason to treat these categories differently from the others. Postlebury 10:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Category:Jewish folklore was apparently created by a user who felt that "mythology" implies false belief. In fact, mythology is believed to be true, while this is not necessarily true for folklore. According to the mythology article, mythology has two characteristics: it is believed to be true, and carries elements of the supernatural. As far as I can tell, the articles in both categories belong in Category:Jewish mythology by this definition, whereas they are now split in an apparently arbitrary way. --Eliyak T·C 11:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Java7837 14:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MTV people

Category:MTV VJs - Template:Lc1

Category:MTV India VJs - Template:Lc1

Category:MtvU VJs - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - per strong precedent against categorizing performers by the networks for which they perform, because people can appear on any number of networks in the course of a career. List of MTV VJs already exists. Otto4711 04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who met untimely deaths

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Speedy close. (Already nominated.) Eliyak T·C 04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who met untimely deaths - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: "As per discussion at Category_talk:Fictional_characters_who_met_untimely_deaths, this category seems like a patently bad idea and "could include virtualy 25% of all fictional characters ever conceived". I agree. If all fictional characters who met untimely deaths were listed here, the category would have so many members as to be useless. Plus, who is the arbiter of what constitutes an untimely death? Some would say Darth Vader died an untimely death (brought up on the category's talk page). Others might argue his death was quite timely, just in time to save his son and his own soul, and to cap off an epic trilogy. Rangek 03:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this already nominated? Or was that a list of the same topic? CaveatLector^Talk 03:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire and salt the earth - we do not categorize fictional characters based on living or dead status and there is no possible objective definition of whether a fictional charcter's death is "untimely." Since this will undoubtedly be recreated again and again if not salted, SALT. Otto4711 04:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Allied occupation of Europe

Category:Allied occupation of Europe - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category, along with its article Allied occupation of Europe, consists of original synthesis: an attempt to weave unconnected events into a single, original pattern in attempt to support a personal POV. Accordingly, the category, as well as its companion article, should be deleted according to Wikipedia policy of WP:NOR. Digwuren 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV title. The Allies did not occupy "Europe". Postlebury 10:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, renaming to restrict to after end of WWII Significant topic, on which I'm sure there are many more articles, although there is already an adequate number with the German sub-cat. Yes the main article is problematic, but that does not affect the utility of the category (the reverse if anything). I don't understand Postlebury's problem - virtually everywhere except Norway, Sweden, Yugoslavia(?) and Switzerland was occupied. Johnbod 11:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem: there was no orchestrated Allied Powers' campaign to occupy Europe. Merely because a few regions in Europe were occupied by a few distinct Powers is not sufficient basis to synthesise an "occupation of Europe" any more than it is to synthesise "Allied occupation of World" out of these same events. Digwuren 12:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have your own POV here frankly. Johnbod 12:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the WP:SYNTH and the allied occupation of europe sources. See some relation? Suva 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Child molestation victims

Category:Child molestation victims - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This is like the recently deleted rape victims category. Its a WP:BLP nightmare and we do not need a list for where to find all the people who have been molested as children, SqueakBox 00:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note that SqueakBox removes categories like this and the rape one, and uses the phrasing "remove trolling" in the edit summary. Even when there is a 3rd party reliable source to back up the claim. This nomination, and his comments on the rape category, seem to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Why is it a WP:BLP nightmare? If everything is verified, then there's no problem? Right? The correct answer is yes, BTW. Lugnuts 07:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstaining from voting, but adding Comment: I've seen the category removed from an article with the rationale "unsourced and not in text" in a case where a) the information was certainly in the text, and in the first part thereof; b) the information was clearly attributed to reliable print media sources (such as Rolling Stone) which were properly footnoted and had online links (ie, they could be instantly checked and verified by anyone wishing to do so) c) the subject in the article had voluntarily and actively come forward about his abuse, so he wasn't being "outed" or having his privacy invaded. The fact that none of these things were checked before the cat was removed leads me to believe that the claim that it's a "BLP nightmare" is largely unfounded. The sources are there and nobody's bothering to check them.

I'd also add that I think that this CfD should run its course BEFORE actions are made to depop the category. If there's an obvious BLP vio, that's one thing, and if consensus is reached to delete the cat, of course that should be honored. In the meantime, though, I don't think it should be removed from articles merely because editors don't like the category. DanielEng 11:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need a category grouping celebrities who have sought kudos in our putrid contemporary media by telling stories (true or not) about their supposedly terrible childhoods. Postlebury 10:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a pretty terrible assumption. Most abuse survivors who come forward do so not for kudos, but for the purpose of helping other survivors and showing support and solidarity.DanielEng 11:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and they're not all "celebrities" as you put it either... Lugnuts 13:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]