Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 1

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Myotis (talk | contribs) at 13:42, 2 May 2009 (→Category:Armenian Genocide deniers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 30 May 2 >

May 1

Category:Turkish cuisine milkys

Propose renaming Category:Turkish cuisine milkys to Category:Turkish cuisine dairy
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Milkys" is a dubious term. Please suggest a better title. Mukadderat (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film awards for Best Cinematography

Propose renaming Category:Film awards for Best Cinematography to Category:Cinematography awards
Nominator's rationale: Not all awards in category are for "best" cinematography; respect WP:NCCAT guidelines for non-capitalization of regular nouns. Moreover, I believe the word "cinematography" is sufficiently specific to cinema so as not to require the "Film awards..." precursor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film awards for Best Editing

Suggest merging Category:Film awards for Best Editing to Category:Film editing awards
Nominator's rationale: Merge per unnecessary duplication and WP:NCCAT naming conventions for regular nouns. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FAA images

Suggest merging Category:FAA images to Category:Federal Aviation Administration images
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Images with the FAA image template are automatically placed in Category:Federal Aviation Administration images thus rendering this category redundant. This should be merged by placing the correct license template on the images if they don't have it already. 71.66.241.245 (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Any reason, other then the work involved, why both of these should not be deleted with the images being moved to commons? Aren't all of these in the public domain? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But Category:Federal Aviation Administration images is the category images with an FAA license tag are automatically placed in, and since people keep uploading US government images to here instead of commons, that category should be kept.--71.66.241.245 (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foodservice navbox templates

Category:Foodservice navbox templates - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: I'm not super familiar with category policy, but aren't categories intended for articles? This seems like over-categorization to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Armenianism

Category:Anti-Armenianism - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category unlikely ever to be neutral. "Anti-Armenianism" implies racism against Armenian people, whereas this category has been used for any person or organisation which has had a disagreement with the Armenian genocide, Armenian organizations or the modern Republic of Armenian (e.g. even academicians seem to have been added to this category, because they may question the Armenian genocide). Great potential for violation of WP:BLP. Most notoriously, Bernard Shaw and Justin McCarthy prominent American historians who question the Armenian genocide, were tagged with this cat. The controversy lies that such people are automatically branded as anti-armenian. Academicians should not be automatically branded as such. Saguamundi

Category:2004 United States election voting controversies

Category:2004 United States election voting controversies - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Not used. Only one page exists that could reasonably fit the description. 2004 United States election voting controversies Bonewah (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New York Mets first round draft picks

Category:New York Mets first round draft picks - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete as a trivial intersection of draft selection and team. TM 17:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children's films

Propose renaming Category:Children's films to Category:Family films
Nominator's rationale: I find the idea of categorising these as children's films to be far too exclusive. Especially on Wikipedia! Although children watch these films, so do lots of adults. I feel renaming this category to Family films would better reflect this and would be far more neutral than saying these films are aimed solely at one age group. John Sloan (view / chat) 17:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That main article should be renamed to List of Family films. John Sloan (view / chat) 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Otto shows that there's precedence against renaming. However, I see that the deletion of the Family films cat was not matched by a renaming of Family film, which still exists as an alternate main article. It also makes what I think is a valid distinction between a family and true children's film, suggesting there might be a case for recreating Family films as a separate category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the book "Children's Film's" by Ian Wojcik-Andrews, he refers to them casually as both "family" and "children's" films. Allmovie also declares them to be one in the same with their genre of "Children's/Family" films.[1] If there is any change, we should also note that they can be referred to by both names, and both have the same meaning. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:El Salvador beach volleyball players

Propose renaming Category:El Salvador beach volleyball players to Category:Salvadoran beach volleyball players
Nominator's rationale: Change to nationality (adjective form) per WP:NCCAT. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 16:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Daredevil

Propose renaming Category:Daredevil to Category:Daredevil (Marvel Comics)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main. Not only are there other things that can be titled "Daredevil," there are other Daredevils in comics. CfR to apply to the subcategories as well (they will be tagged.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note For Category:Covers from Daredevil related titles, I propose adding a hyphen as well as a dab. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Small case of not quite paying attention when creating at least some of the cats... The parent images one should have gone in as Category:Daredevil (comics) images (precedent Category: Flash (comics) images). The point made about the over all parent is a good one, though I'm unsure if it needs to be dabbed as thoroughly as the articles. Yes, it is likely that Daredevil (the profession) would be reasonable (sufficient articles to justify a category) and a more likely search than the comics. However, it is unlikely there are, or will be, enough articles/files related to the Lev Gleason Publications character to justify categories. That makes it unreasonable to dab the cats on "(Marvel Comics)".
    And there are a couple of specific problems with the rename for the cover images cat:
    • Adding the dab becomes very, very awkward in a search. It's an unlikely search argument and it's unlikely that there will be a separate similar category for the other comic book character or one related to any of the "Daredevil" articles. (see Category:Covers from Flash related titles for a similar situation.
    • Unless there is something that can be pointed to that changing "related to Foo" to "Foo related" needs a hyphen, saying it is needed comes across as personal preference. If there is, it may be better that the entire class of categories (currently 23) get moved to "Covers from comics related to Foo" for simplicity (no, I don't think that punctuation in a category title makes for simplicity).
- J Greb (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what are the guidelines on this? Should the category name mirror the article name? This might be unwise because the move of an article would result in the need to rename a whole set of categories (that said this article's name is stable and is unlikely to be moved at any time soon). If there isn't such a guideline then shouldn't we do this renaming if there is going to be another Daredevil category? I can't think, for example that we will need one for other Daredevil characters in comics, so that isn't a problem and there isn't much at Daredevil that shows there might need to be an eponymous category. So basically if there isn't a guideline for this, then shouldn't we do what we always do with disambiguation: wait until there is a sign there could be problem and then deal with it then? If there is such a guideline then this is pretty much cut and dried and it needs to be renamed. (Emperor (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian Genocide deniers

Propose renaming Category:Armenian Genocide deniers to Category:Armenian Genocide skeptics
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is blatantly POV. It privileges one side of an active area of historical research by calling the other side "deniers" of what is assumed to be true. Even worse, it mimics the phrase "Holocaust denier" as if the scholars categorized here are somehow similar to the scum who deny the Holocaust. Over a year ago a proposal to delete the category failed. Many editors believed the category conveyed some information. Accepting that judgment, it seems that we should at least move to a more neutral name. Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is no question of the historical facts..." If there is no question of the facts, then why are the most-respected scholars of Ottoman history (e.g., Bernard Lewis) "denying" those facts? Answer: there is a question of the facts because this is an active area of historical research. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "Category:Armenian Genocide deniers" implies racism against Armenian people, and this category has been used for any person or organisation which has had a disagreement with the Armenian genocide, Armenian organizations or the modern Republic of Armenian on this subject, whereas this nominated "Category:Armenian Genocide skeptics" states their disagreements on this subjet, and does not imply racist view towards Armenian people and Armenia. Saguamundi
I can appreciate that deniers of this genocide would not wish to be lumped with the "scum" that deny that genocide. But isn't that just a subjective sentiment on the side of the deniers? I imagine the victims of this genocide would not be so outraged by such an apparent parallel. Which leads me to the conclusion, I think, that we should set aside subjective feelings about certain words and focus on their literal meaning. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that you premise everything on the assumption that this was indeed a genocide. Case closed, move on. Why do you take that stand? This is still an area of active research, where even the biggest names in Ottoman historiography disagree with each other. The truth is not really known yet. Something this much up in the air doesn't merit being lumped together with an indisputable historical fact like the Holocaust. And scholars working on this don't deserve being lumped together with Holocaust deniers.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to seem insensitive to your concerns, but look at the categories under Category:Skepticism. It just doesn't seem to fit and I still believe this belongs under Category:Denialism. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, this fits better under Category:Denialism than under Category:Skepticism. But it doesn't have to be in either--the best home would be as a sub-category of Category:Armenian Genocide.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless you also propose we also change Category:Holocaust deniers to Category:Holocaust skeptics. There is no good reason to make the Armenian Genocide an exception to this trend, regardless of Anthon or his favorite historians' views on the event. Wikipedia, in accordance with the rules of majority-point-of-view and undue weight, has rightfully treated the Aghat as a genocide, in accordance with mainstream historical views. It is hard to see this request as anything but an attempt to push and promote the minority POV (Armenian Genocide Denial) by breaking a well-established trend on a well-established genocide. The Myotis (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lumping the Armenian Genocide with the Holocaust is not appropriate. Those scholars who "deny" the Armenian Genocide are respected, at the top of their field (people like Bernard Lewis)--they are not the pariahs who deny the Holocaust. A category gathering together those people should reflect that the field is one of active historical inquiry, and that those skeptical of genocide claims can have legitimate grounds for skepticism.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that line of argument is that they are not being "lumped in" with deniers of the Nazi Holocaust anywhere on Wikipedia. They are two separate and distinct categories that happen to use the same word in their titles, a word that accurately reflects the content of the articles in those categories. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but they are both sub-categories of Category:Denialism. Further, the rhetorical value of using the phrase Armenian Genocide deniers is that it triggers an immediate association with Holocaust deniers.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that logic, anything in the category " Alternative theories of the September 11 attacks," another such sub-category would also be associated with Nazism. I'd like to see whatever proof you have of that "psychological trigger." It also seems to me we have been dancing around a more important point, that category names like this should reflect terms used in the sources of the articles. So, if you could demonstrate that the majority of sources refer to them as "skeptics" rather than "deniers" that would be compelling. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed skeptic simply because it seemed the best neutral alternative to denier, which I am convinced is not neutral. If you have a better suggestion, I would be eager to hear it.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly how much a person is "respected" should have no bearing on what language we use to categorize them. They still deny that a well-established genocide was that, and as such are deniers of it. If a few of them - and I assure you the same goes for the list of Holocaust deniers - have indeed gained degrees or a measure of respect, that should be incidental, though it should also probably be kept in mind that only a select few in each list have gained those. Wikipedia should worry more about factuality and less about 'sullying' the name of people who have done exactly what we have labeled them as doing. These people have denied that a genocide has occurs and they deserve - they should expect and accept - that they will be know as a denier for it. One does not offer controversial and potentially offensive support for a fringe theory without acknowledging the negative publicity for it - and I suspect in many cases that is the sole reason they have done it.
This proposal smacks of biographical favoritism at best and outright POV pushing at worst. If you seriously beleive the Armenian Genocide is still "up in the air" as according to how it is defined, perhaps you had better make sure the Armenian Genocide article reflects that (it currently does not), before you ask the rest of wikipedia to follow suit. If you are just trying to 'save' the reputation of the people on that list, you are wasting your time. The Myotis (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music composers

Suggest merging Category:Music composers to Category:Composers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. New cat created today, redundant. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_1&oldid=287443819"