Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 15

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Julien1978 (talk | contribs) at 09:29, 16 December 2013 (→Category:Military space program of the United States). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< December 14 December 16 >

December 15

Category:Delicacies

Nominator's rationale: As the delicacy article says: "Delicacies are different across different countries and ages.". Hence this isn't a suitable characteristic for categorization in WP. DexDor (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military space program of the United States

Nominator's rationale: The term "space program(me)" generally refers to a programme focussed on science and exploration. The term is generally not used to refer to applied spaceflight, such as military or communications satellites. Renaming the category would also provide consistency with the parent category, Category:Military satellites. W. D. Graham 20:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – these are distinct topics, although often misunderstood. For exemple, Boeing X-37 and Boeing X-40 aren't military satellites. The term spatial program is also used in the military domain:

U.S. military space programs, US Military Space Spending Set at $8 Billion for 2014, ... $8 billion for military space programs in 2014,..., Oxford Companion to US Military History:Military Involvement in the Space Program, And bibliographical references:

Curtis Peebles, High Frontier: The United States Air Force and the Military Space Program,1997, ISBN 0-16-048945-8;

Alton Frye, The Atlantic Monthly; August, 1963; Our Gamble In Space: The Military Danger; Volume 212, No. 2; pages 46-50 (...it is known that the United States already has a number of military space programs), and it is only some examples. Cordially. --Julien1978 (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Urban exploration in England

Nominator's rationale: These categories don't (currently) contain any articles that are specifically about urban exploration; the articles are about old buildings etc (where urban exploration might take place) - that isn't a suitable characteristic for WP categorization (example previous CFD for a similar type of categorization). What next - a category for structures that have been graffitied? DexDor (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging 3 Small Case Law by Party Categories

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per classic WP:OC#SMALLCAT. Each of have two articles that are already cross-referenced in the "See also" section of each article for navigation with little room for growth. There is no need for a dual merge because they are all well grouped in legal categories. No objection to recreating these later if the article count increases.RevelationDirect (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the creators of each of the three categories and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Law. – RevelationDirect (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the entire Lawsuits tree into the Case Law tree

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#OVERLAPPING since the lawsuit and case law category trees both group court cases together. Indeed nearly all of the articles in the Lawsuit tree are also in the Case law tree. The category trees are so similar, the Category:Class action lawsuits ricochets back and forth between the two. I really have no preference between the two naming formats but the Case law tree is way, way, way more developed than the anemic Lawsuit tree. (There are also a good number of articles that belong in Category:Legal terms rather than either of these but I'll fix that after this nomination.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the main article creator, the US article creator, the list article creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Law. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. And it illustrates my point. These are appellate court case law citations are to the single earlier appellate case that arose out of the original lawsuit that took place in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los Angeles trial court. The jury awarded damages in the lawsuit. The appellate court made a decision of case law that arose out of the lawsuit. (Please excuse me if I'm being redundant.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't disagree on the legal distinction, only on how to categorize articles in Wikipedia. The problem is that the court cases don't have one article on the initial case and then another article on the appellate decisions like they would in Lexus but it is generally all included in one Wikipedia article. So every case that was successfully appealed would be included in both category trees which I don't think aids navigation. Are you proposing that court cases that have only (so far) been brought before the initial court be in the lawsuit tree and anything that an appeals court ruled on in should go in the case law tree? RevelationDirect (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure on how we should characterize the question. Another complication is the fact that case law decisions can pertain to criminal prosecutions. And criminal trials are not "lawsuits" in the common use of the word. So can (or should) these categories be put into the Category:Legal procedure tree? At present they are in Category:Legal disputes, which stands alone. – S. Rich (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Some lawsuits are notable as news events (because of notable facts); others for the case law they establish. There is an obvious overlap, but they are different. Case law should probably be a subcat of the other. The distinction is probably best dealt with by having precuse definitions for what should be in each and cross-references, all in headnotes. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A lawsuit does not necessarily become case law, although it may if appealed. If the matter is settled at the trial court level, it is not case law, and would not be appropriate for that category. GregJackP Boomer! 01:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment can someone draw a venn diagram, starting with all "legal processes" and then mapping out where "case law" and "lawsuit" end up and the extent of their overlap? Is a reverse merge possible?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WikiProject Law/Categorization ought to work on this, but it has no postings in the last few years. But your suggestion for a venn diagram might get some action on their to-do list. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lawsuit is a civil action (generally for money) usually initiated by a private party. (This is contrast to a criminal prosecution which is always initiated by a government.) Case law is a court decision by a higher court that subsequent cases will look upon as a precedent. (Case law may be based on a civil lawsuit or criminal prosecution.) So there are unappealed lawsuits that do not become case law and there is case law that is not based on a lawsuit. So S. Rich is conceptually correct that these are distinct concepts. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that, in practice, Wikipedia articles cover the final appeal of a case (case law) and then, in the background, discuss the original lawsuit or prosecution in the background section. (14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett is alphabetically the first article in Category:United States Supreme Court cases and is a representative example of how these articles are written.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_15&oldid=586312658"