Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 25

May 25

Category:Liberal websites

Category:Liberal websites - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Just as the previous category "American Liberals" was deleted, this one should also be deleted for the same reason. "Liberal" is completely subjective designation and is therefore far too vague of a criteria for a category. Inclusion in this category could never be determined objectively, but rather merely supported by the opinion of others. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• keep a category for liberal websites is no less legitimate in WP (except in POV thinking) than the same category type for conservative websites: Category:Conservative websites. This is not the case of both being trash; they are both useful for WP readers. Hmains (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This ignores the rationale for deletion entirely. How is it determined whether a website should be included in this category? --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

See my exaplanation below. Signature^brendel 01:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Many web-sites, just like people may identify clearly as being liberal. My only suggestion would be specify whether or not this cat referes to modern or classic liberal web-sites since WP is international and supposed to be non-U.S. centric (otherwise using the term liberal would be anambigous). Signature^brendel 01:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As with others I voted keep on, make sure to limit it to self-avowed websites. Still some websites do have an admitted/planned liberal or conservative outlook.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Several websites clearly identify as liberal. This category is part of the Category:Political websites. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Modern liberal American magazines

Category:Modern liberal American magazines - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Just as the previous category "American liberals" was deleted, this one should also be deleted for the same reasons. "Liberal" is completely subjective opinion and is therefore far too vague of a criteria for a category. Inclusion in this category could never be determined objectively, but rather merely supported by the opinion of others. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

keep for the same reasons that Category:Liberals was recently kept by WP. Read the articles. Same as Category:Conservative American magazines. Hmains (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Liberals was kept for entirely different reasons. It is a high-level category and is very strict in its criteria for inclusion. Note that on that category's page it states specifically "NOTE: to be included in this category, people must define themselves as liberals; a given editor's subjective opinion of that person's politics is irrelevant." Clearly, with this category, that is not the case. How is it determined whether a magazine is included?

Just like people, some magazines, the TNR and American Prospect come to mind, identify themselves clearly as modern liberal. In other instances verviable third party info is available categorizing magazines as such; see my post below. Signature^brendel 00:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep Modern liberalism is a well-defined term, whose meaning is universal (note that I am not simply using the term "liberal," which could refer to either classical or modern liberalism). Second, magazines often identify their position very clearly; thus determining whether or not a magazine, such as The New Republic, is modern liberal is easy - soucres, often the magazines' own editorial board are available. This category can be maintained just as easily as the "political positions" column added for UK news periodicals. Signature^brendel 00:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-identification is one thing, but identification as such by others, especially by critics, cannot be considered reliable (especially given the often pejorative nature of the word "liberal" in modern American politics). --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I some cases yes, but not always. For example, tetriary level political-economy textbooks and scholarly articles may identify certain magazines clearly as such. Certain mass media outlets, such as Newsweek are also trustworthy (e.g. Newsweek refered to the National Review as conservative, and can be used as a reputable sources. True, not all critics or oberservers are trustworthy, but that is what WP's reputable source guidelines are for. The perjorative use of the word liberal is immauture and found only in sources that do not fit WP guidelines for reputable sources. If WP guidelines for sourcing are adhered to it is easily possible to use third part sources to determine a magazine's political leainings. Furthermore, the fact that magazines do self-identify (e.g. TNR & AP) is sufficient cause to keep this category per rationale used for Category:liberals. Regards, Signature^brendel 01:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Magazines can, and often do, have a clearer/consistent political ideology compared to people.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:American liberal organizations

Category:American liberal organizations - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Just as the previous category "American Liberals" was deleted, this one should also be deleted for the same reason. "Liberal" is completely subjective opinion and is therefore far too vague of a criteria for a category. Inclusion in this category could never be determined objectively, but rather merely supported by the opinion of others. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

keep for the same reasons that Category:Liberals was recently kept by WP. Read the articles. Same as Category:Conservative organizations in the United States Hmains (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Organizations issue mission statements that may clearly identify their position on the political compass and authoritative sources on the positions of prominent position are commonly available. Signature^brendel 01:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons stated by the above person. Organizations can have mission statements that say they're liberal so it's more defined.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:American liberal politicians

Category:American liberal politicians - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: "Liberal politician" is an opinion and thus a purely subjective designation. Inclusion in this category can not be substantiated other than by the opinion of others. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

keep for the same reasons that Category:Liberals was recently kept by WP. Read the articles. Hmains (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That was kept for entirely different reasons. It is a high-level category and is very strict in its criteria for inclusion. Note that on that category's page it states specifically "NOTE: to be included in this category, people must define themselves as liberals; a given editor's subjective opinion of that person's politics is irrelevant." Clearly, with these categories you created that is not the case. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not presume that you know what I am thinking as you clearly do not. The contents of the articles is the reason for placing these articles in this category. I trust the authors of the articles and the continued WP editing of them; clearly, you do not. Compare to Category:Paleoconservatives and Category:Conservatives, both of which should have 'American' subcats and would have except for the pernicious idea of some WP editors that Americans cannot have political activities and positions and be categorized as such--that only European political categories are legitimate. Hmains (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't claimed to know what you are thinking. But you have populated the contents of this category with people that are considered to be liberal (by you or others) rather than those who self-identify as being liberal politicians, the much stricter standard in Category:Liberals. It is completely subjective and relies entirely on opinion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the wise thing to do then is to remove those people who don't self-identify as liberals or for whom reputable third party sources are not available. This category can still serve a purpose, however, IMHO. Signature^brendel 01:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't think those categories should exist when applied to people. "Paleoconservative" in particular is something of a neologism.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Many American politicans, current and former (JFK comes to mind), identify as liberals. For others reputable third part sources are available. It is, therefore, possible to objectively determine whether a politican is a modern liberal. Signature^brendel 01:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete When applied to people the term "liberal" is more easily disputed/nebulous than with magazines or organizations. Especially as people may change self-identification more thoroughly and disapprove of their previous identification.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Non-free GFDL images

Category:Non-free GFDL images - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Category that makes no sense, you can't have an image that is non-free AND GFDL at the same time. Both images which were in it were just cigarette packages also labeled with {{Non-free logo}}. ViperSnake151 21:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Albums produced by James Stroud

Category:Albums produced by James Stroud - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This producer doesn't have a page on Wikipedia; no need for a category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Members of the United States armed forces

Suggest merging Category:Members of the United States armed forces to Category:American military personnel

Nominator's rationale: Both categories serve the same purpose - people in the US military. Although "American military personnel" may not be the best name, the categories for personnel in other countries' militaries currently use the "nationality military personnel" format (see Category:Military personnel by nation). I am currently starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Renaming of "Military personnel by nation" subcategories to propose a better name, but merging these two categories is a separate matter. Scott Alter 19:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Seem to be exact duplicates. —Kevin Myers 20:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I would probably say no to a merge, except for the fact that both are being used incorrectly. Members of State Guard Units, such as the New York Guard, would be considered American Military Personal, but not members of the United States armed forces. Members of the United States Merchant Marines, would be considered members of the armed forces during a time of war, but not military personnel. I think some delineation is needed, without claiming to know what that would be. MrPrada (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you are associating "military personnel" with "non-civilian, uniformed servicemen;" however, I am not making the same association. Someone who works for the military, whether civilian or not, is personnel of the military. This would include Merchant Marines - a "civilian auxiliary of the U.S. Navy." A current problem with the category is the ambiguity of whether it is meant only for the Military of the United States (nationwide) or all militaries in the United States (state-based or otherwise). I don't think you should use these two categories to make this distinction, as I believe these categories were created for the same purpose - members is synonymous with personnel, and armed forces is synonymous with military. If you want distinguish state vs. national, I'd recommend creating a new category, rather than trying to make do with a poorly named category. In any case, your point that Merchant Marines should not be included in military personnel is moot, as there is no category for members of the Merchant Marines. --Scott Alter 22:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:United States Marine Corps people

Propose renaming Category:United States Marine Corps people to Category:United States Marine Corps personnel

Nominator's rationale: Personnel is more commonly used for military categories than people. The other branches of the US military use personnel (Category:Members of the United States armed forces) and other countries also use personnel (Category:Military personnel and subcategories). Scott Alter 19:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Certainly "personnel" is the preferred term -- Rename per nom. Cgingold (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Songs by Tony Hatch

Propose renaming Category:Songs by Tony Hatch to Category:Songs written by Tony Hatch

Nominator's rationale: This should be renamed so that it's more clear that these are songs written by him, as opposed to being sung by him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Rename per nom, and per many in Category:Songs by songwriter. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Bill Clinton appeals-court nominees who were never confirmed

Propose renaming Category:Bill Clinton appeals-court nominees who were never confirmed to Category:Unconfirmed candidates for the United States Court of Appeals nominated by President Bill Clinton

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think the current cat name is a bit awkard, uses a dash which is unconventional, and does not fully convey the notability of the categorized subjects. MrPrada (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Failing a judicial nomination isn't a defining characteristic (and most of them are unnotable). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or at least substantially rework, or listify. Bailey Aldrich, a successful nominee, is not categorised by administration so it's not clear why categories for unsuccessful nominees should be more specific. There could perhaps be Category:United States court of appeals nominees to complement Category:United States court of appeals judges. (There are categories of presidential candidates, eg Category:United States presidential candidates, 1992, but failure is left implicit.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, Bill Clinton is in the candidates category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Failure of the other 33 is left implicit. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. After this nomination, I created an article which includes a list of the unconfirmed nominees at President Clinton's judicial appointments controversy#List of failed nominees.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-defining. Brewcrewer already listified (thanks!). gidonb (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Even without Bc's list I would have argued that this is not of sufficient importance to serve as the basis for a category. With the list already in place, there's nothing left to discuss. Cgingold (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:AIDS-related LGBT deaths

Suggest merging Category:AIDS-related LGBT deaths to Category:AIDS-related deaths

Nominator's rationale: Merge - not a useful subcategorization of the parent. VIolates Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality by ghettoizing LGBT people who have died of AIDS-related causes. Otto4711 (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per nom; and each article is already in a G or LGBT category. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Sole survivors of aviation accidents or incidents

Category:Sole survivors of aviation accidents or incidentsTemplate:Lc1

• Delete - Overcategorization: This is a sub-category of Category:Survivors of aviation accidents or incidents, which I believe adequately categorizes these individuals. The fact that they are/were "sole survivors", while interesting, is not such a significant distinction as to require a separate sub-category. Moreover, there is already a List of sole survivors of aviation accidents or incidents. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. For info, the article for Vesna Vulović has the category Category:Fall survivors - defined as "People who have survived great falls"! Lugnuts (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:World War II politics

Propose renaming Category:World War II politics to Category:Politics of World War II

Nominator's rationale: to conform with naming conventions and interWiki use in specific category reference (Politics) first and general reference last (World War II). mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: As it currently stands, this category is rather a mess. Not only is there an ongoing disagreement between User:mrg3105 and another editor over the explanatory material, but under any plausible inclusion criteria most of the current sub-categories should be removed, as they are not focused on politics. Another issue is where it belongs in terms of parent cats, and how that relates to its intended purpose. At present it has just a single parent cat, the recently created Category:Political science of the Second World War, which appears to be focused on inter-country politics, rather than internal, domestic politics. If this category is to focus on the latter, it would be better placed in Category:Home front during World War II -- and should probably re renamed to Category:Domestic politics during World War II. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring of World War II categories

• Comment/Question - Upon reviewing the category structure for Category:World War II, it was startling to encounter a completely unrecognizable array of categories. I see that over the last few days it has undergone a radical, single-handed restructuring by User:mrg3105. I would like to inquire as to whether this was done in consultation with other editors, as there's no sign of that on the category's talk page (or on the WikiProject Military history talk pages).

I'm not suggesting that the previous arrangement of sub-categories could not be improved upon. But whatever the possible merits, I feel that it is not appropriate for any single editor to make such sweeping changes to such a major, heavily-used category entirely on his own accord. Unlike articles, there is no way to compare the new category structure with the former structure, and it is virtually impossible to recreate the former structure if that is desired in whole or in part. Cgingold (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that we don't know each other, but please trust me when I say that you do not want to have the past or the current structure in place. The reason I begun revising categories is, aside from their non-compliance with naming conventions, that I could not locate categories for my own articles or locate hem only with the greatest of difficulty.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not a "single editor". All the categories I have so far created are based on existing articles in other projects, and consensus on category naming conventions. For example the suggestion for Category:Domestic politics during World War II is not necessary because politics only concerns itself with domestic issues, the inter-state relationships are termed international relations or foreign affairs, and are represent by diplomacy, hence Category:Diplomacy during World War II, and the yet to be created Category:International relations during World War II. Home front during World War II is a rather interesting case because on looking up sources (I will add them to the article when editing it) I realised it represents exactly as it says, the effect on the homes and all that is related to the family unit as a result of the impact of the war. However, because the category has no description, and because the main article has introduction has the pitifully small and unreferenced definition that it is

the name given to the activities of the civilians during a state of total war. Life on the home front during World War II was a significant part of the war effort for all participants and had a major impact on the outcome of the war.

I have placed it in the social discipline category, and it will later include such subject areas as

Societies under occupation during World War II

Social change during World War II

Community change during World War II

Family change during World War II

Quality of life during World War II

Civil defence during World War II

Environmental damage during World War II

Urban damage during World War II

Rural damage during World War II

Industrial damage during World War II

Infrastructure damage during World War II

Cultural damage during World War II

In any case, it seems to me that my contributions have improve the categorisation of Second World War articles--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Briefly, mrg -- The first & last lines in your comment get to the heart of the issue. First, I am both amazed and amused to learn that you are "not a 'single editor' ". What are you, then, pray tell? In all seriousness, this is a worrisome indication of very fuzzy thinking on your part. You conclude by reiterating that in your view, you've done a great service to Wikipedia. Taken together, these remarks confirm that you're not taking to heart the central issue: namely, that massive, unilateral changes to the category structure are unwise and deplorable, because Wikipedia is -- in its very essence -- a collaboration. And you now know that I am far from alone in taking issue with your unilateral approach, because similar concerns have been articulated by other editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Radical_restructuring_of_Category:World_War_II -- which is where all further discussion of this issue should take place. Cgingold (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:'Great Landowners'

Category:'Great Landowners' - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic, as it appears Wikipedia does not have an article on Great Landowners. Tim! (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Listify classic case for listing; it would be a large one if done correctly. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Listify and delete per all above. Otto4711 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:History of Tampa

Propose renaming Category:History of Tampa to Category:History of Tampa, Florida

Nominator's rationale: per convention, to add state's name to naming of cat pages pertaining to American cities Mayumashu (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:College radio stations in Georgia

Propose renaming Category:College radio stations in Georgia to Category:College radio stations in Georgia (U.S. state)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Obvious reason and to make this a new speedy criteria since this error is made way too often and is always backed by consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Obvious rename - and I'd certainly support adding this to the Speedy criteria. Presumably that needs to be taken up on the Speedy talk page. Cgingold (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)*\
• Rename per nom Mayumashu (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)