Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 19

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 21:30, 20 January 2009 (→Category:Nymphomaniacs: d). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< January 18 January 20 >

January 19

MCC

Propose renaming Category:Presidents of the MCC to Category:Presidents of the Marylebone Cricket Club
Propose renaming Category:Secretaries of the MCC to Category:Secretaries of the Marylebone Cricket Club
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation; MCC is ambiguous. Other MCCs have presidents and/or secretaries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presidents of the ICC

Propose renaming Category:Presidents of the ICC to Category:Presidents of the International Cricket Council
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation; ICC is quite ambiguous, and some of the other ICCs have presidents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disturbances of pigmentation

Propose renaming Category:Disturbances of pigmentation to Category:Disturbances of human pigmentation
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I started the WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the "Disturbances of pigmentation" category should probably be renamed to "Disturbances of human pigmentation" as the scope of the category is limited to conditions affecting the pigmentation of human skin (see List_of_skin-related_conditions#Disturbances_of_human_pigmentation for a listing of all the conditions considered part of this category). Without the word "human," the scope of the category is broader than intended. kilbad (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Deferring to the wisdom of the dermatological experts and the interest of greater clarity in the title. I still haven't heard back about that rash I spoke to you about, and its starting to spread and ooze a strange green substance, but that's another story. Alansohn (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please assure us that it's not contagious... or at least put some fresh bandages on and try not to scratch too much. Cgingold (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I initially created this category for dermatology related articles. However, I have since suggested this rename after I found a few articles about different albino animals within the category (which would not be an improper categorization as it is now named). Therefore, I think a rename to Category:Disturbances of human pigmentation is appropriate given the desired scope of the category. With regard to other sub-cats of Category:Diseases and disorders, if any of them are named such that articles are being included which the category was not created for (due to poor naming, as this one is an example), I think considering a renaming would be appropriate. I think taking each category on a case by case basis is the best way to approach it. kilbad (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prix Goncourt winners

Propose renaming Category:Prix Goncourt winners to Category:Prix Goncourt laureates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. correct nomenclature. emerson7 21:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Madoff fraud

Category:Madoff fraud - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete A catgory named "Madoff fraud," prior to any ajudication of the case against Madoff, violates out WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:V policies. At a minimum the category needs to be renamed. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as overcategorization. Even more fundamental than the naming issues is the fact that all but two most of the articles listed are merely about people and organizations who/that were victims of the scheme, which isn't an appropriate use of a category. (Presumably they're included in the list article.) Unless and until there are more articles that deal substantively with the fraud scheme, there's simply no need for a category, however named. Cgingold (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category serves a useful purpose in grouping articles about this specific fraud. What is taking place now is the identification of the victims and more disclosures and articles will come later. This is the largest fraud in history. Certainly the losses of millions, bankruptcies, and suicides related to the Madoff fraud suggest the the utility threshold for a category has already been reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsw (talk • contribs) 22:15, January 19, 2009 (UTC)
It may well warrant a category in the future, but at present I honestly think it would be better served with a navbox template. Cgingold (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that a category would come first and then establish if the articles included in the category merit the added structure of a navbox. patsw (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fraud has already been stipulated in the agreement to terminate the operations of the investment company Madoff ran and official notice given to investors. Since Madoff alone controlled "Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC" and since it has been turned over to a receiver who has already determined that the fund was not invested but fraudulently operated, the category name is accurate. The extent of his criminal liability has yet to be determined but he made an admission on December 10, 2008 implicating himself which has been covered extensively in the media and in the Bernard Madoff article. Does the nominator have an alternate name? patsw (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC) (Note: Patsw is the category's creator)[reply]
Cetrainly Category:Alleged Madoff fraud would be superior at this point in the legal process. However the other issues identified by the other comments are not addressed by a renaming. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding alleged is fine by me if that's a consensus. Of course, the fund has already been declared fraudulent and shut down, Madoff's personal criminal liability in it has yet to be determined. That is a consequence of the fact that the fund bears his name. I offer Category:Madoff fund fraud as another name. patsw (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I was surprised to see the category, but think it might be useful in the future. Patsw tends to overstate the agreement of Madoff to the charges (as far as the public knows anyway). I tend to agree with UnitedStatsian and Cgingold in their comments, but am not that familiar with the requirements for categories. Smallbones (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & as not particularly useful. All the articles should be linked from the main one and a cat, especially inflammatorily named, is of no use. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cancer deaths in Hawaii

Category:Cancer deaths in Hawaii - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete In modern American society, since many other causes of death have been controlled, about 10% or so of all people die of cancer. There is nothing remarkable about living in the state of Hawaii and dying of cancer. Nor is it related to the person's notability, since that would happen before the person died and qualified for this category. Borock (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that being a worthwhile category if the articles were about the deaths, not the people who died. Borock (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As creator I would be OK with deletion—I actually subdivided the massive category of Category:Deaths from cancer into places so that listifying (and thus deletion) could be made easier and more palatable. I think deletion is definitely warranted for all the cancer death categories, but I'd prefer to see the whacker taken to the entire scheme of people dying from cancer (both by type and by place) rather than just cherry-picking Hawaii off. I know, I know, WP:ALLORNOTHING, but if we're gonna do it, let's do it. If there's consensus to delete here, I'm certainly willing to nominate the rest. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It obviously doesn't make sense to pick off at random one sub-category for one particular state. But by the same token, is there anything more or less important about dying from cancer than from any other cause? In other words, why single out the cancer death cats for possible deletion? I've always kind of wondered what real value there is in having all of these "deaths by cause" categories. At the same time, they don't bother me enough to propose a crusade to eliminate them -- mainly because I'm pretty sure they're never gonna cause a problem with category clutter (if you see my point... ) Cgingold (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that point on category clutter is a good one. I think it's true that cause of death is usually not defining, but the same dangers generally don't exist in having a category for them. As I see it, they are silly categories, really, but at the same time it's hard to get very worried about them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think they are clutter, and that they are defining. Most (cancer) deaths that get reported these days usually say something like "Joe Bloggs passed away today, after a lengthy battle with lung cancer...", etc. Defining and encyclopedic IMO. Lugnuts (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a productive category, part of a structure that organizes and allows navigation by cause and place of death, that also has the side benefit of keeping people busy adding the necessary categories as new articles are created. Alansohn (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one subcategory in a larger organized system, why just pick off one in the group? --MPerel 04:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge - to Category:Cancer deaths in the United States. I can't imagine there's much difference from an encyclopedic standpoint whether someone dies of of cancer in Hawaii or Alabama or Iowa. On a nationality basis, sure, big differences in available treatments and social networks but in-country I'm not seeing it. Could be listified if the information is desired. The fact that this is one category out of the set is OK for CFD purposes. We often engage in test nominations to try to come to some consensus about a category structure. The idea that it's a benefit to keep people doing busywork adding categories to articles is...odd. Otto4711 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by state seems an NPOV way of breaking up a large category as its parent is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish-speaking Filipinos

Category:Spanish-speaking Filipinos - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete overcategorization Number1spygirl (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Local governance in India

Category:Local governance in India - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete Newly-created unnecessary duplication of established category Category:Local government in India. Currently only contains one stub article, category was created by editor of that article, and I've put it into the established category. PamD (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment :- As creator of the category, I agree for outright deletion. The category was created due to my unfamiliarity with the nuances of categorization.
But it seems that re-naming the category Local government in India as Local governance in India would be more meaningful. See that the title of one major article is Municipal governance in India. Other facet of the subject is Rural local governance in India(it is reffered to as Panchayat raj) and both constitute Local governance in India.The subject Local governance is broader than Local governments. Similarly, another category which I had originated as a possible sub-sect of this category is Local Governance in Kerala.(Kindly replace the capital letter G with small letter in the category, if possible). Rajankila (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nymphomaniacs

Category:Nymphomaniacs - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Is this really a category? This easily rivals "Pedophiles" as the least appropriate category I have ever seen. To label anyone a "nymphomaniac" is subjective and POV, even if done in the clinical sense. As the main article Hypersexuality says: "Hypersexuality is the desire to engage in human sexual behavior at a level high enough to be considered clinically significant. There is no universal definition of what is considered hypersexual, yet several investigators agree that this condition with sexual overdrive is a cause for concern" (emphasis added). Since there is no set definition that we can adopt to determine that the desire is "clinically significant", we can't categorize people using any standard, since the choice of standard would be POV. And even if there was a standard we chose to use, how do we measure "desire to engage in human sexual behavior" anyway? Right now the only person included in this category is the Ancient Roman Valeria Messalina, who had a reputation for having sex at Roman orgies (gee, sex at orgies—what a surprise). Legends of Catherine II of Russia is also included, no doubt for the whole "died with a horse story", which is untrue, so there it's essentially categorizing an urban legend by the type of rumor. Bad, bad, bad. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I seldom get involved in category discussions because categories are completely useless to me, but this is a good example of a cat that needs to get deleted sharpish. It adds nothing, is based on a definition that doesn't mean anything, or means wildly different things to different people, and just generally leaves lots of articles open to vandalism. --Ged UK (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I sure wish you would tell us how you really feel about this category, Good Ol’factory! Okay, so I was sitting here carefully weighing all of the many pros and cons of the category, when suddenly it occured to me that you completely overlooked it's fatal flaw: gender bias. Where's Casanova? Where's John F. Kennedy? And above all, where is David Duchovny?? Why, they're nowhere to be found -- because nymphomaniacs, by definition, can only be women. Clearly there is only one course of action that we can rightly follow here: as I'm sure you will agree, we must rename to Category:Sex addicts! :p Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand that the word is no longer used by professionals in the mental health field. Nor is "sex addict" much better. BTW I don't think a person who has sex every night with his or her spouse would be labeled with one of these words. So where is the logic needed in a serious reference work like Wikipedia? Borock (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pejorative, subjective, and category member candidates unlikely to be referenceable by reliable sources. --MPerel 05:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not definable, subjective, or verifiable (seems to point to the propensity or desire rather than actually following through). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Virgin Islands American football players

Propose renaming Category:United States Virgin Islands American football players to Category:United States Virgin Islands players of American football
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Like the Puerto Rican nomination below, I've separated this one from the "by-state" nominations below. I propose that this one be named to conform with the "by-nationality" categories of Category:Players of American football by nationality, which use "Fooian players of American football". The alternative would be Category:Players of American football from the United States Virgin Islands, but in other categories USVI is treated as a nationality distinct from "American" (or at least as a type of "sub-nationality" within American). Ultimately, I'm fine with either approach). Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Puerto Rican American football players

Propose renaming Category:Puerto Rican American football players to Category:Puerto Rican players of American football
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I've separated this one from the "by-state" nominations immediately below. I propose that this one be named to conform with the "by-nationality" categories of Category:Players of American football by nationality, which use "Fooian players of American football". The alternative would be Category:Players of American football from Puerto Rico, but in other categories Puerto Rican is treated as a nationality distinct from "American" (or at least as a type of "sub-nationality" within American). Ultimately, I'm fine with either approach. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American players of American football by state

Propose renaming (see drop down box):
Nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent category is Category:American players of American football. In this name, the first "American" refers to nationality; the second "American" is part of the name of the sport called "American football". It follows that the "by-state" container category name should be patterned after this (proposed above). The individual state categories, as they stand now, use "American football" ambiguously—it's a bit unclear whether it's referring to "football players from STATE who are American" or "players of American football from STATE". The latter is correct, of course, so we may as well name the categories in this way to eliminate the ambiguity that can result from mixed-up usages of "American", "football" and "American football". Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kittitian and Nevisian players of American football

Propose renaming Category:Kittitian and Nevisian players of American football to Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis players of American football
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use country as adjective per everything else in Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis people. "Kittitian and Nevisian" is awkward and was abandoned in category names some time ago. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Papal conclave, 2005

Category:Lists of Papal conclave, 2005 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Husch Blackwell Sanders famous lawyers and alumni

Category:Husch Blackwell Sanders famous lawyers and alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Missouri

Propose renaming Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Missouri to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Missouri Territory
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Add "…Territory" to the end. Consistency with other territorial delegatations. See Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives . —Markles 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American repatriates

Reason: Repatriates? Who is to choose where the Black man should live? I suggest renaming this category to Category:Liberated slaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.4.45 (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm guessing that what is trying to be categorized here is "African American immigrants to African nations". "Liberated slaves" would be a fine category too. Not the same thing but lots of people would have been both. Borock (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, we have Category:People of Liberated African descent, Category:Repatriated ex-slaves, Category:Repatriated slaves of African American descent, and more .... Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_19&oldid=265358204"