Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carlossuarez46 (talk | contribs) at 00:20, 25 February 2008 (→‎People by city in Indonesia categories: fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< February 22 February 24 >

February 23

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Korean culture of Japanese origin

Category:Korean culture of Japanese origin - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: :This category was created by the abusive sockmaster Azukimonaka (talk · contribs)(KoreanShoriSenyou (talk · contribs)). He has been vandalising Korean related articles with this category. It doesn't belong to any existing category too. If someone thinks that existence of this category is valid, so many adapted items from Korea or outside of Japan should be in the same vein such as Ramen, Kanji, Karate, (Chinese origin), Yakiniku, Hagi ware, Satsuma ware(Korean origin), Tempura(Portugues origin) , Anime, MOS Burger (American origin), Appletrees (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy

Category:Energy gearing - Template:Lc1
Category:Energy transfer - Template:Lc1
Category:Energy control - Template:Lc1
Category:Energy insulators - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete: Catch-all for loosely related categories involving different types of energy. At best, it should only contain subcategories. I think they should just be deleted, but I'd accept an argument for including Category Electrical Energy xxx, Category Kinetic Energy xxx, etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That was an argument for subcategories, not a suggestion that it be done without a plausible argument. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Related subcategories:
Category:Heat control Template:Lc1
Category:Electrical energy control Template:Lc1
Category:Mechanical energy control Template:Lc1
Category:Heat transfer Template:Lc1
Category:Mechanical energy transfer Template:Lc1
Category:Electrical energy gearing Template:Lc1
Category:Mechanical energy gearing Template:Lc1
I'm only nominating for deletion those categories in the list which were recently created, which is all except Category:Heat control. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely you should be suggesting a merge of some sort? Are all of these articles adequately categorised otherwise? It seems most unlikely. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They're all newly created categories, so, although a merge may be appropriate, it shouldn't really be necessary, and there's a reasonable debate about where to merge. My detailed proposal would be to revert all edits by the category creator on those articles.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi!
  • I have added descriptions to the categories in question. I do not deny that some of the categories could have a better name phrase, but I will try convey my thoughts of the categories.
  • There is also some discussion here: User_talk:Glenn#Category:Energy_control.
  • --Glenn (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kosovo independence supporters

You have called {{Contentious topics}}. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead:

Alerting users

  • {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
  • {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
  • {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
  • {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.

Editnotices

Talk page notices

Miscellaneous

Convert to article Category:Kosovo independence supporters to article Wikipedians who support Kosovo's independence
Nominator's rationale: Category meant for userboxes improperly named. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed]

Category:Entertainment companies of USSR

Propose renaming Category:Entertainment companies of USSR to Category:Entertainment companies of the Soviet Union
Nominator's rationale: Naming conventions. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's so according conventions, I have nohing against. The sense remains the same anyway, so it's ok to me. It's just interesting, what does the rationale exactly say and how is it applied to countries like USA, do you put America instead?--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Rubikonchik[reply]

People by city in Indonesia categories

Category:People by city in Indonesia - Template:Lc1
Category:People from Bandung, West Java
Category:People from Blitar, East Java
Category:People from Bogor, West Java
Category:People from Denpasar
Category:People from Jakarta
Category:People from Madiun, East Java
Category:People from Makassar, South Sulawesi
Category:People from Medan, North Sumatra
Category:People from Padang, West Sumatra
Category:People from Palembang, South Sumatra
Category:People from Pekalongan, Central Java
Category:People from Semarang, Central Java
Category:People from Surabaya, East Java
Category:People from Surakarta, Central Java
Category:People from Yogyakarta
Nominator's rationale: Massive over-categorization - there are 91 cities and 349 regencies in Indonesia. Leads to unverifiable labeling of where someone is "from". Does it mean they were born there; lived there; worked there; visited there? Caniago (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agree that this is significant over-categorisation that will open up all sorts of problems for little gain. However, "People from Indonesia" is arguably too broad - how would you feel about categorisation by the 33 provinces? A superior middle ground position? --Merbabu (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion- I would suggest either province or even island as a narrower categorisation - the city based categorization is too problematic for the potential number SatuSuro 07:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and not only because I was just going to populate the Jakarta category;-) "People by city in" categories exist for "all" (okay, 107) countries. The reason for this probably is a universal interest to know which notable people were born and/or raised in their hometown. Is that different in Indonesia? Generally, the meaning is "born and/or raised in such and so", though sometimes extended to include people immediately associated with one particular town. I agree there is a chance for over-categorization when small towns are being included. For the Netherlands, I've only made categories when 15 or more people with wiki entries came from that town. Before that number is reached a section on "natives" can be added to the town's entry. The "people from city" categories are subcategories of "people from province", where all the people from smaller towns go. Similar structures are in place for most European countries. For the UK and US, things seem to have gotten a bit out of hand though (with 1034 cities, towns, villages, and hamlets for England alone, while I've noticed for the US the occasional inclusion of people that basically just stayed the night in a town). Apparently, that hasn't bothered anyone too much, but it may be prevented by setting a minimum size limit to the subcategories in "Category:People by city in Indonesia" and writing the purpose (e.g. born and raised) with each subcategory. Afasmit (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the fact that you aware of the issue in other countries - it seems odd that you argue for keep here - category maintenance people actually have larger thresholds when they look at this issue - and I would have thought 20-30 was a minimum population for such categories - my opinion is that any with less than 20 to 25 are not justifiable categories to keep open, unless there is a condition stipulated within the Indonesia Project (where this discussion should actually have been announced as well) - as there are large numbers of stubs that are worth defending that have minimal information at ptreent SatuSuro 11:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or upmerge people by city, county, etc. are established category types. There is thus no reason why we should not have something of this kind. The question is whether there are enough articles to make a worthwhile category. The usual solution is to have a country category. This would have 33 provincial subcategories. If there are a large enough number of entries for a particular province, these could be subcategorised by city. To qualify for inclusion a person should have a real and lasting connection, probably usually by residence there, but without ruling out birthplace or childhood home, particularly if that is significant in theri biography. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all. No reason to single out Indonesian city people categories for deletion. They are perfectly legitimate categories for the the US; they are just as legitimate for Indonesia. Hmains (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasonable way to break up Indonesian people - huge country with potential for many notable biographies needing to split up geographically like US, UK and other large countries. This isn't Category:People from San Marino by city.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Zealand-centric

Category:New Zealand-centric - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Useless category. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are generic-sounding names like 'dairy' or 'School Certificate' that has NZ-specific meanings, and meanings for countries beyond NZ. To discount this possibility exists is to engage in double standards. --JNZ (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alberta Alliance MLAs

Propose renaming Category:Alberta Alliance MLAs to Category:Alberta / Wildrose Alliance MLAs
Nominator's rationale: The party changed its name after a merger in March, only two people ever became Alberta Alliance MLAs. It is kinda useless to have to categories to reflect elected members from this party. --Cloveious (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into category for the merged party. The category page should be provided with a headnote to the effect that it includes predecessors. However "MLA" is not an abbreviation whose expansion is obvious (Member of Legislative Assembly?) please expand. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Weapon designers

Suggest merging Category:Weapon designers to Category:Weapons scientists and engineers
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Redundancy. Zargulon (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merge? The proposed target for the merge does not exist. What's the redundancy you're talking about? Pichpich (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, it exists now. The redundancy is that the designers were all scientists or engineers whereas not all the scientists and engineers were designers.. I thought it would be better to go for the more inclusive cat. Zargulon (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, still not convinced. Can you give me an example of a "weapons scientist" that couldn't reasonably be labelled a "weapon designer" or a "weapon engineer"? Pichpich (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are not asking the right question.. you should be asking "can you give me an example of a "weapons scientist" or a "weapons engineer" that couldn't be labelled a "weapon designer". Answer, yes: examples are all the minor scientists who worked on specific parts of the atom bomb e.g. the core, the fuse etc. without contributing to its overall design. The principle is that a designer needs to be involved with the whole entity (here, weapon) at some level, whereas an engineer or a scientist may only be interested in some component or set thereof. Zargulon (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... ok. I'm not sure that this subtle distinction is really worth the awkwardness of the title, which makes it an unnatural subcategory of its parents. Why not just create a category people who worked on the bomb and put that as a subcategory of weapon designers? In any case, if their involvement in weapons design was tangential, why would we need to attach them to this category? Just throwing ideas out there, I don't really have a strong opinion on the whole thing. Pichpich (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't feel it's that awkward but I respect your feelings. The main reason I introduced it was because I wanted to make it a subcat of scientists and of engineers, and I thought it sounded better if it actually had "scientists" and "engineers" in the title. Zargulon (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nuclear weapons scientist and engineers" could reasonably be a subcat of "weapons scientists and engineers", or indeed of "scientists" and "engineers", but "nuclear weapons developers" could hardly be a subcat of "developers"..along with "software developers"? "photograph developers"? "late developers"? But even if "nuclear weapons developers" sounded ok, nuclear weapons are hardly the only example. Any complex armament involves weapons scientists and engineers who are not designers, and those people probably work on a variety of weapons. Zargulon (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian LGBT people

Propose renaming Category:Christian LGBT people to Category:LGBT people involved in the Christian Church
Nominator's rationale: Ok, I'll admit my proposed renaming is awful but hopefully someone can suggest a better name. Here's the problem: in this debate it was agreed that such categories should stay and I have no quarrel with that. The problem is that this category should be intended to group people whose identity as a Christian and as a homosexual has been defining. Of course, it makes a lot of sense to have a category for Paul Barnes (pastor), Anita C. Hill, Chris Glaser, Justin W. Lee, Daniel A. Helminiak and so on. All these people have been, for various reasons, involved in defining or influencing the difficult relationship between the LGBT community and the Christian community. But unless the category's name makes this more explicit, it will continue to hold biographies of people who have not been remotely involved in these debates. People like Samantha Fox, Oscar Wilde, Sam Champion, John Bodkin Adams, May Swenson. Yes, the latter are Christians, yes they are LGBT people. But the intersection of these two characteristics is meaningless in most cases. Pichpich (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am Lquilter, and I approve this attempt at clarifying the intended scope of the category. A proposed rename would make the connection to WP:CATGRS very clear. (And I took the liberty of fixing a typo in the proposed name, Pichpich.) I'm open to other names too. Perhaps Category:LGBT people in Christian occupations? That sounds almost a little too specific but when I look at the various examples of people we would want to include or exclude, it works. A somewhat lengthier version that is perhaps more grammatically correct would be Category:LGBT people in Christian Church-related occupations. --Lquilter (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching the typo. By the way, before anybody starts suspecting that I have something against the LGBT people categories, please rest assured: what I really have a problem with is the absurd subcategories of Category:Christian people. The same sort of cleanup should be done for categories like Category:Christian writers, Category:Fictional Catholics (how ridiculous is it to throw Robert Chase, Diane Murray, Rey Curtis and Crazy Jane in that category? It also has subcategories like Category:The Sopranos characters which is not only ridiculous but incorrect to boot.) As for the best name for the category, I think it would have to be something that allows the inclusion of militants for the recognition of gay rights by the Christian Church, whether or not these militants hold any religious office. Pichpich (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the suggested rename is awkward. There is no monolithic "Christian Church" that people are involved in. It is also subjective. What constitutes being "involved" with the church? Being part of the clergy? Weekly attendance at service? Going every Christmas and Easter? Being baptized? Otto4711 (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you get my point. Sure, the renaming is not ideal which is why I'm asking for suggestions. Did you check out the examples above? As it is, the category is not serving its intended purpose. If the category is to mean LGBT people who happen to be Christians then it is as useful as a category of Christian aviators or a category of LGBT bodyguards. But the intersection is meaningful in cases where LGBT Christians have either fought for acceptance by the church or were ostracized by their church because of their sexual orientation. Unless the name of the category reflects this, we'll be stuck with a category that perpetually needs to be cleaned up to reflect its intended use. By the way, Otto, you ask: "What constitutes being "involved" with the church? Being part of the clergy? Weekly attendance at service? Going every Christmas and Easter? Being baptized?" I hope you realize that one can ask the much simpler question: "What constitutes being a Christian?". Ironically enough many Christian traditionalists would argue that any homosexual is not a Christian unless he's devoted to fighting his sexual orientation. If anything, this stresses the need for a category name that avoids the judgement call "person X is a Christian" and returns it to its true intention "people involved in the relations between the LGBT community and Christian communities". I think we can all agree that this is what the category should be. Pichpich (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why this is a judgment call. If there are reliable sources in which the person identifies as LGBT and in which s/he identifies as Christian, then they're an LGBT Christian and they can go in the category. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that this category is supposed to include only those LGBT Christians who have fought for inclusion or been ostracized by their churches, because that idea is not supported in the head note for the category or on its talk page. Otto4711 (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, this category was nominated for deletion about a year ago and the result (obviously) was keep. Otto4711 (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to be so condescending Otto. If you had paid attention you'd have noticed that I referred to this CfD in my initial nomination. But why bother reading when you've made up your mind, right? This is a recurrent problem with categories that are a defining characteristic for some and a trivial characteristic for others. That's how we end up with friggin' John Travolta in Category:American aviators next to Chuck Yeager. For categories to be semantically sound and to avoid category clutter, it's important to have precisely formulated inclusion criteria. This is particularly important when categories are intersections of unrelated characteristics. Don't you find it odd that the category ends up saying: theologian Daniel A. Helminiak who has argued in favour of an opening of the Christian Church to the LGBT community is, just like serial killer John Bodkin Adams, your run of the mill Christian LGBT person? Does it not matter that the category includes Samantha Fox, Toshi Reagon and Jerry Smith (football player) who, as far as we know, have never said squat about the connection between these two aspects of their lives? Categories are supposed to carry information, not trivia. Categories are supposed to be used to categorize people through their defining characteristics. All these people are already included in categories Category:LGBT people by nationality and Category:Christians by nationality because we don't want to isolate them in these intersection categories. So I'm proposing we use this category to say something more meaningful than person X is both Christian and gay. Pichpich (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I'm trying to be condescending there won't be any confusion about it. I didn't notice that you'd linked the CFD in your nomination. Your assumptions about what membership in this category says, other than the person in it is an LGBT Christian, don't persuade me. Otto4711 (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) See Wikipedia:Categorization of people and particularly the advice: limit the number of categories, which says: "For example, a film actor that holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right." Using the category as it is being used currently is just creating clutter. If that'll make you happy, keep the category under this name and write clearly in the introduction that this is not what CatScan would end up by computing the intersection of LGBT people and Christian people. Pichpich (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these are personal characteristics - everybody has a religious and sexual orientation, both of which are legitimate categories in and of themselves. Not everybody has a law degree. I guess I'm confused, is it the wording or the intersection that is up for debate? You suggest a merge but seem to argue against the intersection. --Phyesalis (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both are legitimate categories. Absolutely. What I'm suggesting is refocusing the category so that it's not the intersection of these two legitimate categories but something slightly more restrictive so that it only includes people for which this intersection is meaningful in their public life. Pichpich (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Neither Samantha Fox nor Oscar Wilde work/ed for a Christian church - it isn't their professional involvement in organized religion but rather their personal commitment to JC. In response to Pichpich, I don't see why this category needs to be qualified with an explicit reference in which the subject links their religious and sexual orientations. Do LGBT by nationality subjects have to link their orientation to their nationality? However, one option is suggest that categorizations are based on notable characteristics - the fact that John Travolta apparently flies plans could not be used to categorize him as an aviator because he isn't known for flying planes. Or maybe you could just parse out what "aviator" means for WP category purposes (that of professional/exploratory aviation) over at the category's talk page. And maybe this is inconsistent, but since the phrase "Christian" is overwhelmingly understood as one who has a personal (rather than personal and professional) relationship with Christ, it would be weird to suddenly redefine the spirit of the Christian LGBT category as those who are professionally engaged with Christ. How much more meaningful does the category need to be? It covers spiritual and sexual orientation - there's a lot of info coded in those two positions. --Phyesalis (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (See also the edit conflict reply to Otto above.) I know I'll sound like a broken record but it's all about making a smart use of a category which is currently filled with many biographies which have nothing to do with the relation of LGBT and Christian communities. Sure, we can leave it like that. We're just wasting an opportunity to create a category which would actually be interesting to browse. If someone were to look for meaningful examples of LGBT Christians, they'd sure be disappointed to read about Samantha Fox. By the way, don't be fooled by my crummy proposal for a new category name: I do not mean to restrict it to people holding religious offices, I just want to find a way to reduce the category to its essence by removing individuals whose simultaneous faith and sexual orientation is not a significant part of their public life. I'm sure that it is a big deal in their private life, but this moves us away from an encyclopaedic use of the category system and closer to a tabloid. Pichpich (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How arrogant of you to assume that just because you're disappointed that Samantha Fox is in this category that other readers will be too. And how presumptuous of you to decide that her faith and her sexuality are not simultaneously important in her life, especially when there's a quote right in her article in which she discusses how her faith and her sexuality (in the context of her erotic modeling) intersect! Did you even read her article before deciding she was unworthy to be in this category? I found her article quite interesting and it's likely I would never have read it at all had she not been in the LGBT Christians category. Otto4711 (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not contesting that it's a big deal for Samantha Fox (and I said precisely that about 1 line above your comment). I'm not disappointed to find Samantha Fox is there because I find her insignificant (though actually, I do, but that's beyond my point). I just think everyone can agree that this intersection is not a meaningful part of her public life. For the record, I did read her article and the interview you refer to mentions how she reconciles her erotic modelling and her faith, not her homosexuality (or bisexuality) and her faith. You will also find the following interesting quote from her: "People keep trying to say I'm a lesbian. I don't know what I am." What I don't get Otto is how you can argue on one hand that it's meaningless to have a category for 19th century women writers because it's not a meaningful intersection and then argue here that one shouldn't attempt to instill a more meaningful slant to this category. Pichpich (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WAX is a pretty poor argument. Those categories are triple intersections of sex, occupation and timeframe and in general triple intersections are IMHO overcategorization. And yes, the quote is about her erotic modeling, and I said precisely that about 2 lines above your comment. Otto4711 (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems you also opposed intersections of women and occupation. Is consistence really so much to ask for? And come on, show a little good faith: I say "simultaneous faith and sexual orientation is not a significant part of her public life", you say "not so, she discusses her faith and sexuality simultaneously", I reply "but she does not discuss her sexual orientation and faith simultaneously" to which you reply "of course, I never said that". Re-read the exchange to grasp its full absurdity. Pichpich (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look. You are completely and utterly wrong-headed in your intention here and you're not going to change my mind regardless of what you do or what you say or what previous opinions of mine that you dredge up. The last I heard "Christian" isn't an job and "LGBT" isn't a sex so my opinion on the women by occupation category is more than a little bit less than relevant. Otto4711 (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument isn't productive, the strength of Otto's points have nothing to do with his previous votes. If Otto was the subject of the discussion, sure, but the category is the focus here. --Phyesalis (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As proposed, this is taking away valid people's (whether they are ministers or rock stars shouldn't matter) spirituality and relegating them to employees of the church. I know a janitor at a local church and he's agnostic. Should he be in the newly named cat? I think not. Leave it as is unless we can come up with something a little less demeaning to LGBT Christians. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 04:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demeaning to Christians? No no no, I think you don't understand what Lquilter and I are trying to do. I don't mind rockstars in the category: if they've made both their Christian faith and their sexual orientation simultaneously part of their public life, great, let's have them in the category. Obviously, if you're an openly gay priest, minister, bishop etc, you de facto make the reconciliation of your faith and sexual orientation an integral part of your public life. We're not demeaning Christians or, for that matter, LGBT people. We're trying to get the category centered on people whose Christian faith has significantly and publicly interacted with their sexual orientation. In short, we're trying to get closer to the spirit of Wikipedia:Categorization of people, that is ensure that the number of categories [is limited] to what is most essential about this person and conversely ensure that the category is a more meaningful subcategory of Category:LGBT issues and religion, a meaningful subcategory of Category:Homosexuality and Christianity. Ok, my suggested new name sucks, I get that but please overlook this for a moment and ask yourself whether the suggested goal is worthwhile even if the proposed means through renaming is off the mark. Pichpich (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting take. To further clarify, I'm thinking of a category that would include category:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith. (well I suppose, we would need to create category:LGBT ordained or vowed Christians but you get the idea) The category would also include people who have been active participants in the oftentimes difficult relationship between Christian communities and the LGBT community, but it would leave out people who a) are homosexual, b) are Christians but c) have not in any way, shape or form made that duality a significant part of their public life. Pichpich (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are, of course, correct that I meant only the Christian members of category:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith. I understand the suggestion that you are making, but surely it would then need to be applied to the Jewish and Muslim LGBT categories, and extended to other faiths as well? Perhaps a better approach would be to make the suggestion for them collectively? I also wonder about someone ordained or vowed who is also gay and chooses to stay as far away from the interactions between the communities. I know a closeted man with formal roles for the Catholic church, and who would never voluntary get anywhere near these inter-community interactions for fear of being outed accidentally (or even maliciously). If he were wiki-notable and there were reliable sources for him being closeted, would he go into your category? Just a couple of thoughts for you to chew on. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh and I forgot to mention: Oscar Wilde is an interesting case. His sexual orientation is well documented and in fact his refusal to hide it carefully got him to jail. From what I know (and that seems more or less confirmed by the article) though Wilde was raised in the protestant faith, that had little or no bearing on his life. It's not even too clear whether he was a practising Christian. On his deathbed, he suddenly decides to convert to Roman Catholicism. Can't we agree that it's a big stretch him to categorize him as an LGBT Christian? Pichpich (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Wilde was a fan of Pascal? In any case, if we can reliably demonstrate a death-bed conversion, then I have no particular problem with him being in the category (as it is presently constituted - the one you propose would be a different story). I would have much more problem if the article described him as Christian - or Catholic - without noting the ambiguities that you note. Jay*Jay (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nom. Support Jay*Jay's rename to category:LGBT Christians. If there are problems over definition they can be dealt with by providing a headnote on the category page, defining who should appear and who should not. The question of who is a Christian is always a diffcult one, but I would suggest that the category should not be used for nominal Christians, only for those for whom their faith is a significant issue in their biography. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment - Weirdly, nobody has addressed the CATGRS issue yet. WP:CATGRS spells out clearly what's required for an intersection category. The criteria specify that a head article has to be able to be written on the topic of the intersection itself. Because the current category is vague, it encompasses several possible such topics that could support the criteria. These are: (1) Anybody who is both a Christian and an LGBT person. This is the type of intersection category that is often considered ovecategorization and is not permitted by the criteria set forth in WP:CATGRS. This is how the category is used now, because it is titled so vaguely. The proposed switcheroo to "LGBT Christians" wouldn't change the vagueness or the use one whit. Unfortunately, this is overcategorization. There is nothing in particular gained here that wouldn't be gained by use of the intersection tool, and we have been told many, many times, that our most cherished intersections are irrelevant unless they are supported by WP:CATGRS. (2) people practicing a specifically LGBT-oriented version of christianity. This is Carlossuarez46's favorite take on intersections (the famous "there is no Asian American science" argument), and here, "LGBT-flavored Christianity" might well support an article, and therefore a category for practitioners of LGBT-flavored Christianity. But I don't know that article, I haven't seen the scholarship to support it, and I don't think that most people in the current category practice anything that might be reasonably called "LGBT-brand Christianity". (3) LGBT people who are notably involved with Christianity, as opposed to personally (and non-notably) people of faith. This is what I believe that Pichpich is trying to get at, and I think it could easily be supported by a head article -- maybe already is. Christianity need not be considered simply a "job" like a cleric or a janitor. Anyone who is notably Christian would qualify. For instance, Francis Collins is by profession a scientist; however, it would certainly be reasonable to call him a Christian in this category (if he were LGBT) because he notably professes and talks about Christianity, and how it is reconciled with his occupation.
Let me put it another way. We can and should have a category that focuses on LGBT people who are notably involved with Christianity: The founder of the MCC, Gene Robinson, and many others. An article needs to be written, if it hasn't already, on this topic, and relevant people should be so categorized. What is the relationship that people see between this needed (and currently non-existent) category, and the current existing category that is merely an intersection between any and all LGBT people who have ever at one point in their life professed Christianity? The current category includes, apparently, anybody who has ever professed Christianity in a verifiable way such that it can be mentioned in their Wikipedia article; this includes those whose whose Christianity is notable and public (Gene Robinson) as well as those whose Christianity is private and last-minute (Oscar Wilde) and those whose Christianity is titular, nominal, and on-the-record (many, many people). I'll assume arguendo that all of them can be described in their articles as "Christian" and placed in "Christian" categories. How do people think that the intersection of this type of Christianity and LGBT-ness should be related to the other intersection that Pichpich proposes and that supports an article per WP:CATGRS? --Lquilter (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess a simpler proposal would be to avoid the renaming issue altogether and simply rephrase the introductory line of the category along these lines. Pichpich (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Far-left politics

Category:Far-left politics - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: 'Far-left' is by far to dubious to be basis of categorization. 'Far-left' carries (except in France) a clear negative pov tinge. Left/right scales are highly contextual. Soman (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subcats, also proposed for deletion:
Are you saying that all the articles in the categories above are already in suitable other categories? This seems unlikely, and the nomination should be to upmerge. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I consider this a frivolous nomination. The term far left is established in political science and used by several government agencies (as Germany is concerned, see http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/de/arbeitsfelder/ and Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung) and we already have the category Category:Far-right politics with several sub categories with identical structures. These categories — left and right — of course must be treated equally, in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV. We cannot delete the categories on far-left and keep the categories on far-right. Several other Wikipedia editions have similar categories for far-right and far-left - for instance nl:Categorie:Links-radicalisme and fr:Catégorie:Extrême gauche. It is meaningless to lump politicians who advocate a totalitarian society together with the democratic Social Democratic Party of Germany. Harry Barrow (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The terms 'far-left' and 'far-right' are not exactly analogous. The term 'far-left' is far more difficult to delimitate. That said, I don't think the 'far-right' category is entirely unproblematic, and more so its subcat Category:Far right political parties (in which pov inclusion problem is endemic). The fact that German state intelligence has a rather notorius behaviour of labelling organisations, parties and movements as 'extremists' should not set precedent at wikipedia, likewise as the labelling of organisations as 'terrorists' by various states is not used for labelling at wiki categories (instead we have the Category:Organizations designated as terrorist). The categorization on non-English wikis is an issue in those wiki communities, not enwiki. --Soman (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any difference between Red Army Faction or Red Brigades terrorism or leftist advocacy of totalitarian societies, and right-wing terrorism or advocacy of totalitarian societies. I suggest you instead propose all categories with the "far" label for deletion. It is impossible to delete only the left-wing categories and keep the right-wing ones. Harry Barrow (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment, WP:OTHERCRAP. Moreover, if your criteria for inclusion is "advocacy of totalitarian societies", then the category is definately has a pov problem. Also, I think this issues in similar to the discussion on listing of parties at the main article, Talk:Far_left#Listing_of_parties_.28again.29. Left/right distinctions are highly contextual. What is far left in one country might be moderate right-wing in another. Thus labels such as socialist, communist, etc., are more useful for categorizations. --Soman (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • We are absolutely not going to ignore Wikipedia:NPOV. It constitutes a gross violation of the NPOV policy to treat left and right differently, so it's only possible to discuss the problem of having such categories at all. This category has no more a POV problem than any other category with the label "far". I am willing to discuss whether we should use the far-right and far-left labels, but I'm not willing to discuss whether we should use only one of the two identical and opposite labels. Harry Barrow (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment, 'far-left' and 'far-right' are not identical concepts. 'Far-right' is a term fairly less ambigous, it refers to a fairly well-identified political tendency in Europe, its less ambigious due to the wish by the mainstream rightwing to distinguish themselves from fascism after WWII. Whilst it is less POV to refer to to say that Rifondazione Comunista is 'communist' rather than 'far-left', 'far-right' is in some ways less problematic to call Lega Nord 'far-right' instead of 'fascist'. --Soman (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep certainly, but maybe rename. The Radical Left is how many like to be called I think. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have a reason? Relata refero (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If "far left" is POV, which I don't accept, then "radical left" is not. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "far left" is a common term in political science: 10500 hits in google scholar [1], 987 hits in google books [2]. Martintg (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, no-one is arguing that 'far left' is not a commonly used term. There is an article called far left, and there's no argument over deleting that one. The question is if their can be any npov inclusion criteria for such a category. I'd say no. --Soman (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, as long as we have category:Far-right politics, I disagree that the opposite category is any less neutral. I think it is useful to have a top level category for politics and organisations like the Red Brigades, Red Army Faction and parties on the far-left. Such organisations clearly distinguish themselves from what is only considered "left-wing". Harry Barrow (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How? Militant leftists such as you name are different from radical pacifist anarchists are different from refounded neo-Stalinists. Neither they themselves nor political scientists would group them together. Why do we? Relata refero (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not think there is a problem of definition. They may differ from each other fundamentally, but that does not prevent others identifiying them all as far left. Indeed, one of the issues as to the far left in Britain is that there is a multiplicity of small groups which disagree with each other. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - 'others identifying them all as far left', so the criteria for delimitation should be 'others identifying them'? --Soman (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, as per the small groups which disagree with each other, this doesn't hold as an inclusion criteria. Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is far larger than all British left factions together, and arguably more radical than most of them. The problem is that left/right distinctions are contextual, and do not fit well for international comparisons. --Soman (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dennis Potter works

Propose renaming Category:Dennis Potter works to Category:Works by Dennis Potter
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Naming convention of Category:Works by author. Tim! (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IrDA

Propose renaming Category:IrDA to Category:Infrared Data Association
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym to match main article. Or Delete since the category is not likely to be expanded. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as current, encyclopaedic. Relata refero (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Relata, I'm not sure you've read the nomination. There's no quarrel about the cat's existence so I'm not sure what "encyclopaedic" has to do with anything. Pichpich (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:RFID

Propose renaming Category:RFID to Category:Radio Frequency Identification
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CDMA

Propose renaming Category:CDMA to Category:Code division multiple access
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as current, recognisable. Relata refero (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the telecomunications industry is replete in acronyms, and "CDMA" is more commonly used rather than the expanded form. Martintg (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents on volcanoes

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents on volcanoes - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Not notable; link to volcanoes is very tentative in some cases; list is short and will not expand; numerous aircraft-related lists already covering causes. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the three incidents in the category, only the British Airways Flight 9 crash is actually related to volcanic activity. The other two crashed against a mountain which just happened to be a volcano. Pichpich (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:HSDPA

Propose renaming Category:HSDPA to Category:High-Speed Downlink Packet Access
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the telecomunications industry is replete in acronyms, and "HSDPA" is more commonly used rather than the expanded form. Martintg (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:HSPA

Propose renaming Category:HSPA to Category:High-Speed Packet Access
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the telecomunications industry is replete in acronyms, and "HSPA" is more commonly used rather than the expanded form. Martintg (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wireless broadband

Category:Wireless broadband - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Single entry group. No need to up merge since the article has the needed categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sludge metal groups → Category:Sludge metal musical groups

Nominator's rationale: Merge/Rename - Category:Sludge metal groups should have been Category:Sludge metal musical groups and should be merged and renamed. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 00:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_23&oldid=193814727"