Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 20: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Category:Frisbee: Response (summary: Frisbee not genericized mark; the governing bodies use "flying disc".
Line 169: Line 169:
******From [[WP:NPOV]]: "All [[Wikipedia]] articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a '''neutral point of view''' ('''NPOV'''), representing fairly and without bias all '''significant''' views (that have been [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|published by reliable sources]])." Do you have a reliable source? Also from [[WP:NPOV]]: "Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: [[Wikipedia:No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]." --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 11:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
******From [[WP:NPOV]]: "All [[Wikipedia]] articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a '''neutral point of view''' ('''NPOV'''), representing fairly and without bias all '''significant''' views (that have been [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|published by reliable sources]])." Do you have a reliable source? Also from [[WP:NPOV]]: "Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: [[Wikipedia:No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]." --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 11:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
****BrownHairedGirl and Rich Uncle Skeleton. I have struck out my initial agreement with putting "alleged" in the titles of categories. It is ugly. I think it makes more sense to create an "alleged" template to put at the top of controversial categories. It would explain that [[WP:NPOV]] was used to incorporate all significant viewpoints concerning articles and subcategories. That means some articles and subcategories inclusion may only have a significant minority viewpoint that they should be included in the category. The template would further explain that inclusion in a category is not endorsement of the claims of war crimes (or whatever the category name; torture, massacres, etc.). The template would say that the category is an aid to readers of wikipedia. [[Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories do not form a tree]] states that "A person browsing through a hierarchy should find every article that belongs in that hierarchy." So in the hierarchy of human rights abuses the average reader deserves a breakdown by subcategory too. Such as war crimes, and war crimes by country. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 13:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
****BrownHairedGirl and Rich Uncle Skeleton. I have struck out my initial agreement with putting "alleged" in the titles of categories. It is ugly. I think it makes more sense to create an "alleged" template to put at the top of controversial categories. It would explain that [[WP:NPOV]] was used to incorporate all significant viewpoints concerning articles and subcategories. That means some articles and subcategories inclusion may only have a significant minority viewpoint that they should be included in the category. The template would further explain that inclusion in a category is not endorsement of the claims of war crimes (or whatever the category name; torture, massacres, etc.). The template would say that the category is an aid to readers of wikipedia. [[Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories do not form a tree]] states that "A person browsing through a hierarchy should find every article that belongs in that hierarchy." So in the hierarchy of human rights abuses the average reader deserves a breakdown by subcategory too. Such as war crimes, and war crimes by country. --[[User:Timeshifter|Timeshifter]] 13:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
*****The problem with arguing NPOV can solve a categorization problem is that categorization is all or none. There's no way of presenting "both sides", because it's either included or it isn't. And yes, I guarantee I can provide reliable sources for allegations of war crimes that 99.9% of us would probably consider crazy. Weirdos publish things too, you know. [[User:Rich Uncle Skeleton|Rich Uncle Skeleton]] <sup>[[User talk:Rich Uncle Skeleton|(talk)]]</sup> 22:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep, restrict, clear out''' The article [[War crimes]] rightly starts with the [[Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907)]] and the categories should only include events after that for which trials, charges, or perhaps formal investigations of some sorts have been done/made by an international body or Court (UN, league of Nations etc). Many of these categories are ok: France, Czech, Poland, China (?), Former Yugoslavia (?) and so on. Many are not: Ireland, India, Sri Lanka, Algeria, US, Israel, Rwanda, Afghanistan - for various reasons, whether date, type of event (not being a war as such) or lack of international process. Some are more complicated: Bangladesh, Russia. That's not to deny the many atrocities that don't fit the criteria, but it's the only way to go. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep, restrict, clear out''' The article [[War crimes]] rightly starts with the [[Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907)]] and the categories should only include events after that for which trials, charges, or perhaps formal investigations of some sorts have been done/made by an international body or Court (UN, league of Nations etc). Many of these categories are ok: France, Czech, Poland, China (?), Former Yugoslavia (?) and so on. Many are not: Ireland, India, Sri Lanka, Algeria, US, Israel, Rwanda, Afghanistan - for various reasons, whether date, type of event (not being a war as such) or lack of international process. Some are more complicated: Bangladesh, Russia. That's not to deny the many atrocities that don't fit the criteria, but it's the only way to go. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I'm not ready to make any recommendations yet, but I believe Johnbod is pretty much on the right track (although he's got Rwanda in the wrong group). He posted his remarks while I was looking through the relevant categories in order to formulate some preliminary thoughts -- and I was pleased to see that he used a very important word which had been missing from the discussion: "'''atrocities'''". (Oddly, [[:atrocity|that article]] had been missing from several obvious categories, until I added it myself, just now.)
*'''Comment''' - I'm not ready to make any recommendations yet, but I believe Johnbod is pretty much on the right track (although he's got Rwanda in the wrong group). He posted his remarks while I was looking through the relevant categories in order to formulate some preliminary thoughts -- and I was pleased to see that he used a very important word which had been missing from the discussion: "'''atrocities'''". (Oddly, [[:atrocity|that article]] had been missing from several obvious categories, until I added it myself, just now.)

Revision as of 22:19, 20 September 2007

< September 19 September 21 >

September 20

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Disco groups

Propose renaming Category:Disco groups to Category:Disco musical groups
Nominator's rationale: To follow the musical groups by genre category format, and since this is a subcategory of the musical groups category, it should follow the same format. Sdornan 16:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose: Category:Musical groups by genre deliberately doesn't have a convention, and I believe that the current name is common, unambiguous (unlike "psychedelic groups" above) and perfectly adequate. Xtifr tälk 08:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But perhaps it should have a convention? >Radiant< 14:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See my comments above at Psychedelic groups for why I don't really think we should. Xtifr tälk 05:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (note Xtifr is referring to his comments here) the wub "?!" 19:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 19:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flamenco bands

Propose renaming Category:Flamenco bands to Category:Flamenco musical groups
Nominator's rationale: To follow the musical groups by genre category format, and since this is a subcategory of the musical groups category, it should follow the same format. Sdornan 16:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would have said "flamenco groups" is more common, or that seems to be what I've always heard. From my brief googling though it looks like they're about equally used. the wub "?!" 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters by disease

Unnecessary middle layer, small and no significant growth potential. Suggest merging with Category:Fictional characters by situation. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional adoptees

Exceedingly common trope in fiction, for instance used to put children with misplaced parents for soap-style humor. This category is a group of people that have absolutely nothing in common other than an over-used plot device. Suggest deletion. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional manslaughterers

While there is a legalistic difference between murder and manslaughter, this depends rather heavily on culture and circumstances, and on perception of the motives of the character. First, fiction doesn't (generally) write from a legal point of view, and second, judging whether a character had the intent to kill (i.e. murder) or not (i.e. manslaughter) is original research. Note the non-existence of the real-life counterpart Category:Manslaughterers. Suggest merging to Category:Fictional murderers. >Radiant< 16:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Legally the distinction between murder and manslaughter can be blurry at the edges, and and boundary varies heavily between different countries. Very difficult to have any definitive category relating to manslaughter. --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "manslaughter" is a legal distinction based on the jurisdiction in which the death takes place. Trying to maintain a category on the basis of the distinction is untenable. I'm skeptical of the Fictional murderers category as well so oppose a merge. Otto4711 18:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional vampire hunters

While "vampire hunter" sounds cool, (a) this category contains both "people that hunt vampires" and "vampires that are hunters of something", and (b) most of these characters also hunt a wide variety of other monsters. Suggest merging to Category:Fictional hunters. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of characters on The Simpsons and Category:Lists of characters from The Sopranos

Per standard of parent cat, rename to "lists of <foo> characters". >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of fictional characters in comedy

Lists of characters by setting already exist. Classifying each individual setting as "comedy" or "not comedy" is original research, as the borderline isn't clearly defined. This is both unclear and redundant. Suggest deletion. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films by topic

Listed here for discussion. The cat contains a plethora of subcats named "<foo> films", "films about <foo>" and "<foo>-themed films". Would standardizing be a good idea, and if so, on what? If yes, I'll nominate the misnamed cats accordingly. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Footballers by club and subcategories

Most of the category tree uses the term "Football (soccer) players", not "footballers". Suggest renaming for standardization. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indoor soccer players in the United States by club

Most of the category tree uses the term "Football (soccer) players", not "soccer players". Suggest renaming for standardization. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Footballers that died on the pitch

Unclear cat name. Suggest renaming to "died on the field", or listify / delete as an arbitrary intersection. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Certainly not rename to "field". Why isn't this excellent category linked into the Deaths by cause tree? Actually shouldn't it be "who" died? Johnbod 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seem pretty clear to me and fits in with the Category:Deaths in sport category. Lugnuts 18:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename either to Category:Footballers who died on the pitch or Category:Footballers who died during matches. It should be "who" and not "that." "During matches" is a little more clear than "on the pitch" for those non-English English speakers amongst us but "on the pitch" isn't so completely alien as to not be understandable. Otto4711 18:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • add to my keep above and Rename per Otto. I would prefer the pitch one as more dramatic. Johnbod 19:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indoor soccer players in the United States by competition

Insufficient size for subcategorizing this by country. Suggest merging to Category:Indoor football (soccer) players by competition. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian footballers with foreign heritage

Redundant with List of Asian footballers with foreign heritage, which (unlike this category) can explain what that heritage actually is. Suggest deletion. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wells–Bennett–Grant family, Category:Bennion–Eyring family, Category:Hinckley–Bitner family and Category:Pratt–Romney family

All these cat names include endashes or emdashes rather than hyphens. This makes adding articles to the cat needlessly impractical, and to my knowledge we don't use such characters in article or cat names if we can avoid it. Rename all. >Radiant< 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all to hyphenated versions. Johnbod 16:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all - eponymous overcategorization by family. Articles are superior to categories for families because articles for the families can include text that explains the interrelationships between the familiy members, something that categories can't do. Articles on individual family members are easily interlinked to other family members through text. These sorts of family fusion categories are especially problematic. Go back far enough and every family is related to every other family. Otto4711 18:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slovenian people by city

Category:Slovenian people by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:People by city in Slovenia, convention of Category:People by city. -- Prove It (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. LeSnail 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Constantine

Category:People from Constantine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:People from Constantine, Algeria, to match Constantine, Algeria. -- Prove It (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. LeSnail 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American disc golfers

Propose renaming Category:American disc golfers to Category:Flying disc players
Nominator's rationale: With only two known flying disc player articles in all of Wikipedia, there is clearly no justification for game-specific much less country-specific subcategorization of a non-existent category. New name is consistent with parallel category names (Category:Flying disc tournaments, Category:Flying disc games) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Frisbee

Propose renaming Category:Frisbee to Category:Flying disc
Nominator's rationale: There is no Frisbee article (it is a redirect to Flying disc), and contents of category is flying disc material in general, not Frisbee™-specific for the most part (to the extent any of it is, it still fits in the new category name). New name is treating "flying disc" as the name of a discipline (not unlike "equestrian", "creative" as used in the design industry, "chiropractic", etc.; this "nouning" of adjectives (cf. "plastic") is not tremendously common, but clearly acceptable in unusual cases. Before anyone says "no, it should be Category:Flying disc games, that more adjectival category already exists as a subcat for specific-game articles like Guts (game). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everyone has heard of a frisbee, but "flying disc" was new to me & would have conveyed nothing out of context. Surely they have lost their TM exclusive rights, as Hoover and Biro have (in the UK anyway)? I forget the name of the process once everyone uses the term, some rights cannot be protected. Johnbod 15:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: The process you are thining of is trademark genericization, and no it has not happened to Frisbee, which remains a US registered trademark. Furthermore, the governing bodies of flying disc, both in the US and internationally, all use the term "flying disc". WP:IDONTKNOWIT does not militate against this rename. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disk flicking games

Propose renaming Category:Disk flicking games to Category:Disk-flicking games
Nominator's rationale: This probably qualifies for speedy, but I'm not certain that an overwhelming majority agrees with consistently hyphenating compound adjectives (I think they should, but... :-) Feel free to speedy it if no one objects. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "disk flicking"? Really? Is that the technical term? Everything in the category is arlready categorized in a games category that doesn't sound ridiculous. Delete this. Otto4711 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Newbridge

Category:People from Newbridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:People from Newbridge, Caerphilly, to match Newbridge, Caerphilly. -- Prove It (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. LeSnail 18:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Studios Park

Category:Hollywood Boulevard (Walt Disney Studios Park) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Production Courtyard (Walt Disney Studios Park) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge both into Category:Walt Disney Studios Park, overcategorization. -- Prove It (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies operating from offshore shell corporations

Category:Companies operating from offshore shell corporations - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: I have slightly mixed views about this category; on the one hand it is arguably a useful collaborative grouping, but on the other it is clearly a controversial statement that (if it was made in the text of the article) should properly be supported by a cited authority. Pushing it down into a category allows the allegation to be made without supporting authority, and that strikes me as an uncomfortable position. It would be a bit like (although much les extreme than) having a category called "suspected tax cheats" or "unethical corporations". I am by no means 100% sure it should be deleted, but I think a discussion needs to be had. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Haliburton and General Electric still have the main company registered in the US, although like every other multinational we can be sure there are many offshore shell companies in the group (I know for a fact in the case of one of the two). The others have the "Ultimate Holding Company" to use the technical term, registered in Bermuda, etc. Really the category ought to be renamed and restricted to these, as say Category:Multinationals with offshore holding companies or similar. Johnbod 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Agree that fuzzy issues also arise on when one looks at different parts of the corporate tree. Most large companies (which might be in Wikipedia) will tend to be publicly listed, which means that the top company will more normally (although not always - Hutchison Whampoa is incorporated in Bermuda, TNK-BP in the British Virgin Islands) be located onshore. On the other hand, if one goes too far down the tree (speaking as an offshore lawyer), almost every major multinational utilises offshore companies at some point in its structure as part of either its tax or liability structuring. --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Box Office Gross of Sinatra Pictures

Category:Box Office Gross of Sinatra Pictures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, not a category. However the text should be merged into Frank Sinatra filmography. -- Prove It (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War crimes by country

Category:War crimes by country - Template:Lc1
Category:War crimes in Afghanistan
Category:War crimes in Algeria
Category:War crimes in Azerbaijan
Category:War crimes in Bangladesh
Category:War crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Category:War crimes in Cambodia
Category:War crimes in China
Category:War crimes in the former Czechoslovakia
Category:War crimes in France
Category:War crimes in Georgia (country)
Category:War crimes in India
Category:War crimes in Indonesia
Category:War crimes in Iraq
Category:Iraq war crimes
Category:War crimes in Ireland
Category:War crimes in Israel
Category:War crimes in Lebanon
Category:War crimes in Myanmar
Category:War crimes in the Philippines
Category:War crimes in Poland
Category:War crimes in Russia
Category:War crimes of the Second Chechen War
Category:War crimes in Rwanda
Category:War crimes in Serbia
Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka
Category:War crimes in the United States
Category:War crimes in Vietnam
Category:War crimes in former Yugoslavia
Nominator's rationale: "War crime" is a legal term, and is generally understood to be such. While the idea of this category and its subs may be good in theory, the manner in which they have been applied appears to be largely ad hoc and not subject to any sort of standard in determining whether or not something is a "war crime". What determines what is included? It appears to be left to the whim of editors. This runs the obvious risk of encouraging POV-pushing through categorization. Just one example: at the time of this nomination, a subcategory of Category:War crimes in the United States is Category:Massacres of Native Americans. However, Category:Massacres by Native Americans is not included as a subcategory. There have never been war crimes trials in the United States for any massacres committed against or by Native Americans. From what I've been able to tell, the vast majority of incidents described in the articles included in the subcategories have never been the subject of war crimes trials, let alone convictions that would affirmatively determine that a legal "war crime" has taken place. In other words, a more accurate category name for all would be "Alleged war crimes in ...", but I don't think such a rename would create a useful category. I suggest that events that legitimately qualify are so few and far between that they may be included in Category:War crimes and there is no need to subdivide them by country. If subdivision is found to be appropriate—as it may be for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, for example, where trials and convictions for war crimes have actually occurred—they can be re-created as needed. Most of these articles could be (and are!) included in more nebulous categories such as Category:Human rights abuses, rather than this one, which carries a distinctly legal connotation. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See War crimes article. I have no problem with adding "Alleged" to the category titles. I suggest putting it in parentheses at the end of the category names. As in Category:War crimes (alleged). This way we keep the category alphabetization intact. It is common to have clarifying info in parentheses at the end of article names. I am reading a library book now called "A Savage War of Peace. Algeria 1954-1962." By Alistair Horne. It is a famous book. Copyright 1977, 1987, 1996, 2006. It is chock full of barbaric war crimes from all sides. There is a blurb on the cover: "On the reading list of President Bush and the US military." There are rarely trials for war crimes, torture, massacres, terrorism, etc.. Yet we have categories for them all. It is up to history in the end and public consciousness what is determined in the long run to be war crimes, massacres, torture, terrorism, etc.. In the meantime WP:NPOV is used to categorize according to all significant viewpoints. --Timeshifter 10:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they are to be kept, using the "alleged" would be necessary for accurate categorization. But having a category for "alleged" war crimes is not terribly useful. The articles may as well just be categorized in Category:Human rights abuses. Specifying that the incident is an alleged war crime adds little or nothing. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem with "alleged" categories is the POV one: alleged by who? How do we define which allegations to include? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and that's the exact problem with these categories—they are war crimes according to who? How do we define which alleged war crimes to include? My suggestion is that only where war crimes are proven to have taken place legally should they be included. That eliminates the need for these sub-categories, because 90% of the articles in them won't qualify. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • BrownHairedGirl. You have reached the nub of the problem. I suggest WP:NPOV: "This page in a nutshell: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." We have to make this determination of what to include in all articles. The same is true for categories. At least if we include "(alleged)" less people will get bent out of shape. :) --Timeshifter 10:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I can here "allege" that the creation of the Internet was a war crime, and maybe I can get 500 of my friends to agree with me and allege the same thing. Now, if true NPOV is used, you will include Internet in the category Category:Alleged war crimes, because it has been alleged. Problematic, no? Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • From WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." Do you have a reliable source? Also from WP:NPOV: "Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability." --Timeshifter 11:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • BrownHairedGirl and Rich Uncle Skeleton. I have struck out my initial agreement with putting "alleged" in the titles of categories. It is ugly. I think it makes more sense to create an "alleged" template to put at the top of controversial categories. It would explain that WP:NPOV was used to incorporate all significant viewpoints concerning articles and subcategories. That means some articles and subcategories inclusion may only have a significant minority viewpoint that they should be included in the category. The template would further explain that inclusion in a category is not endorsement of the claims of war crimes (or whatever the category name; torture, massacres, etc.). The template would say that the category is an aid to readers of wikipedia. Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories do not form a tree states that "A person browsing through a hierarchy should find every article that belongs in that hierarchy." So in the hierarchy of human rights abuses the average reader deserves a breakdown by subcategory too. Such as war crimes, and war crimes by country. --Timeshifter 13:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem with arguing NPOV can solve a categorization problem is that categorization is all or none. There's no way of presenting "both sides", because it's either included or it isn't. And yes, I guarantee I can provide reliable sources for allegations of war crimes that 99.9% of us would probably consider crazy. Weirdos publish things too, you know. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, restrict, clear out The article War crimes rightly starts with the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) and the categories should only include events after that for which trials, charges, or perhaps formal investigations of some sorts have been done/made by an international body or Court (UN, league of Nations etc). Many of these categories are ok: France, Czech, Poland, China (?), Former Yugoslavia (?) and so on. Many are not: Ireland, India, Sri Lanka, Algeria, US, Israel, Rwanda, Afghanistan - for various reasons, whether date, type of event (not being a war as such) or lack of international process. Some are more complicated: Bangladesh, Russia. That's not to deny the many atrocities that don't fit the criteria, but it's the only way to go. Johnbod 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not ready to make any recommendations yet, but I believe Johnbod is pretty much on the right track (although he's got Rwanda in the wrong group). He posted his remarks while I was looking through the relevant categories in order to formulate some preliminary thoughts -- and I was pleased to see that he used a very important word which had been missing from the discussion: "atrocities". (Oddly, that article had been missing from several obvious categories, until I added it myself, just now.)
  • A big part of the problem we're dealing with is that, although the term "War crime" has a legal definition, it's widely used in common parlance as a synonym for "atrocity". As a result, all sorts of things have been dumped into Category:War crimes and its subcats which may or may not belong there. I'm not sure how to keep that from happening altogether, but I'm pondering the possibility that it might be useful to have a high-level parent Category:Atrocities, with Category:War crimes as one of its subcats. However, we also need to take into consideration all of the other related categories: Category:Human rights abuses (which is something of a mess right now, IMO); Category:Crimes against humanity, Category:Massacres, and Category:Genocide. (Have I missed one?) Well, that's about as far as I've gotten -- I just wanted to put all of this into the mix for everybody else to factor into their thinking. I'll come by later and see how things have progressed. Cgingold 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right about Rwanda - excluded as not a "war" as such - it's hard to tell from International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Johnbod 15:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the War crimes article deals only with the legal aspects of the term, and not the common parlance. This may be helpful: Template:International Criminal Law. If we decide to use only the legal meaning of the term as our guide to categorization, then I don't think we have to categorize only by trial results. Allegations count too. If the allegations meet some legal definition of war crimes. List of war crimes, as mentioned previously, is good too. The many subcategories of Category:Human rights abuses can be used to place everything else. I just looked up "war crime" in a couple places:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war%20crime
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Awar+crime
It looks like all the definitions pulled up from the above 2 searches are legal ones. --Timeshifter 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethnic groups in Puerto Rico

Category:Ethnic groups in Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Convert into Ethnic groups in Puerto Rico, not a category. -- Prove It (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disneyland Resort Paris 15th Anniversary

Category:Disneyland Resort Paris 15th Anniversary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Disneyland Resort Paris ... enough is enough. -- Prove It (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disneyland Paris

Category:Disneyland Paris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Disneyland Park (Paris), to match Disneyland Park (Paris). -- Prove It (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the other way, rolling in Category:Disneyland Resort Paris too. Nearly all the articles in all 3 cats in fact relate to the park, with sub-cats for other stuff. You have Disneyland Resort Paris too; Disneyland Paris is the top level. Johnbod 16:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_20&oldid=159264729"