Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 8 March 10 >

March 9

[edit]

Category:Soapstar Superstar

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Soapstar Superstar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by performers by performance. Lugnuts (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional women in war

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Fictional women soldiers and warriors. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional women in war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I don't know, it insinuates that women fighting is something to be surprised about. It seems a bit sexist to me so I think it should be deleted. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You're misunderstanding the meaning. It means women in works of fiction, as in fictional characters who are woman and participate in war. It actually adds credence to the idea that woman are able to fight rather than takes away from it, in my opinion. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I think we should get a third opinion on the matter before coming to a resolution though. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Angelo State University images

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 20:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Angelo State University images to Category:Images of Angelo State University
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To make name consistent with others of this type. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:POINT after creation following deletion of corresponding "deniers" category. Also, this has no parallel to the Nazi and Soviet propagandists categories, as those people spread propaganda on behalf of those governments, not against them as this category would do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted, because it's unavoidably biased towards the point of view that the Armenian genocide didn't happen. Wikipedia shouldn't give fuel to Armenian genocide denialism. Also, the application of this category to biographies of living persons is utterly inappropriate, as "propagandist" is a pejorative label. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "denier" doesn't carry any inherently negative connotations, whereas the word "propagandist" does. Moreover, it is possible to objectively confirm whether a person denies something, but not possible to objectively confirm that a person is a propaganidst. Black Falcon (Talk) 06:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous, subjective original research, and per WP:BLP. There is no non-arbitrary way of defining who "dogmatically promote[s]" something or does something "for political gain". The title itself is biased, due to its use fo the word "propagandist". The list of "possible reasons for a person to be included in this category" further adds to the category's problems:
  • People who promote Anti-Armenianism. - What does this have to do with Armenian Genocide propagandism?
  • People who promote Anti-Turkism. - Anti-Turkism is not unique to Armenians or those who recognise the genocide.
  • People who want to gain rapport in some Armenian societies or amongst certain Armenian organizations. - Unverifiable. Moreover, most politicians in California want this ... does this automatically make the propagandists?
  • People seeking support from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. - The ARF is not a single-issue organisation and people can seek support from it for any number of reasons (e.g. scholarships).
  • People exploiting the Armenian community or Christian communities for donations or votes. - Unverifiable, subjective.
  • People who seek reparations and/or land from the current Turkish government. - This is a legal/economic matter; what does it have to do with propagandism?
  • People who own websites or blogs that exclusively promote hatred by using the Armenian Genocide as a justification. - Cannot be objectively defined.
  • People who seek recognition, fame, or fortune by constantly talking or writing about this tragedy. - Cannot be objectively defined; also, to use a wiki expression, assumes bad faith (WP:BLP problem).
  • People who hold a grudge or hatred against the Turkish, Armenian, or Azeri government. - Unverifiable; by the way, why are the Armenian and Azeri governments included?
Black Falcon (Talk) 06:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anti-Turkism and the Armenian Genocide are distinct concepts. Some people who are anti-Turk deny the Armenian Genocide, and not everyone who recognises the Genocide is anti-Turk. As for the other propagandists categories, they are created on the basis of state affiliation rather than on the basis of an issue; moreover, I'm not strictly averse to their deletion. Black Falcon (Talk) 07:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - A vague an inherently POV category, with an impractical definition made by the editor who could not get Category:Armenian Genocide deniers deleted. The proper antonym for that category, in any case would be "Armenian Genocide recognizers". The Myotis (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So I ask, what is the difference between this category and Category:Nazi propagandists and Category:Soviet propagandists? So you can verify someone being a propagandist then? Tell me then, a better term to describe someone who consistently promotes the recognition of the Armenian Genocide for bad intentions? — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because A. those people represented oppressive, now extinct governments and used national media to disseminate such information in order to garner internal support. None of the people who have been inserted into this category are either employees of a government nor are they trying to garner support for a certain government. B. The people inserted into this category are defined according to holding a certain (an fairly common) historical view. The Soviet and Nazi propagandists are defined by their jobs, not their views. C. The Armenian Genocide cannot by any stretch of the rational imagination be considered a political cause, thus people who recognize it cannot be appropriately called propagandists. The Myotis (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A---But there is propaganda by the Armenian government and the Armenian media, and some of the people inserted into the category have been included. I'm not saying all of it is propaganda, but these people have been known to support forgeries and/or far-fetched points of view ON the Armenian Genocide. B---It's quite uncommon, only common in Armenian society (as most Authors on the book are of Armenian descent), calling it common is POV anyway. And the people added also seem to be following a job-like agenda to promote a certain point of view, which is fine, but they also promote some propaganda as well which isn't fine. C---Why not? There is evidence that some seek recognition ONLY because of profit or for name recognition or for political purposes of gaining reparations or land from the Turkish government. This category would not be added to people who promote the Armenian Genocide for humanitarian reasons. If people can be called "Denialists" then it should be OK for some people to be called "Propagandists" (It's political labeling, it's wrong, but Wikipedia ACCEPTS IT). — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no precedent for making a category for people with a 'job-like agenda', as whether or not they have an agenda is impossible to determine objectively. Also, just because some have more radical views than others does not make their views propaganda. You cannot make such a rash statement as to say that "this person is in it for money', both because that violates 'biographies of living persons' and because it is impossible to prove. What you see as propaganda most see as conventional history, and your personal suspicions cannot be used as criteria. "Seems" and "there is evidence" justifications cannot be used in wikipedia. Also denial is simply a position on whether or not something happened, while propaganda automatically indicates the information has a political motive. The Myotis (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (posted as-is after edit conflict) - Precisely because they are so pejorative, the words "propaganda" and "propagandist" are terms that should only be used very sparingly in Wikipedia, especially when it comes to categories. That in itself is sufficient reason to delete this category. However, it is abundantly clear that its creator, Arsenic99, is trying to Make a Point, in response to the recent highly contentious CFD for Category:Armenian Genocide deniers, in which he/she argued strenuously (but unsuccessfully) for deletion. Clearly a lot of effort went into the very impressive inclusion screed "criteria" -- which only underscores the underlying motivation for the category. Cgingold (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the objective comments, I simply believe that it is wrong to use political labeling, and I made this category to show you that political labeling is wrong, but apparently, everyone seems to think it's not OK to label certain people with a certain POV, but it is OK to label people who oppose that certain POV. There is some unfairness going on here, and people are acting like as if I have made some sort of wrong move, when Wikipedia policies seem to show it's OK to have these categories like Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists. Please tell me EXACTLY what is OK and what isn't and please stop the selective pickings and exceptions. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read WP:AGF and do not accuse me of prejudice when you have never met me. I have many Armenian friends and they support my POV on the issue, though this category has nothing to do with POV. It is not an attempt at denying the existence of anything. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People who killed their children

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who killed their children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Natural parents

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natural parents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - It's not clear what this category was intended for. (I removed the sole article that was in it, Baby scoop era, because I was unable to establish a plausible rationale.) If it was supposed to be used to distinguish "birth parents" from "adoptive parents", it would not be useful to keep as a category, given the colossal number of articles that would encompass. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. A "natural child" is a euphemism for an illegitimate child (ie born out of wedlock). I do not think the fact that a person has had a natural child (in this sense) is useful for categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term "natural parents" was the term used during the baby scoop era to refer to mothers separated from children by adoption, to differentiate them from adoptive parents. The term "birth mother" was not used during this time period. As well, it is currently used by mothers who feel that the term 'birth mother' is highly derogatory and denigrates them. The two terms are very politicized -- both sides consider the other term to be derogatory (adoptive parents often consider the term "natural parents" to insult them by extension, while mothers separated from their children by adoption consider the term "birth parent" to reduce them to being of no significance other than a reproductive function (speaking as a linguist and policy analyst here)) -- and it would be unbalanced to have one without having the other. Cedartrees (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentWhile the term might warrant an article concerning its historical and current use, the category itself is mostly empty. Are there articles that fit here or not? Dimadick (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Riksdag

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. There is much consensus to have the category match the main article. While Riksdag is a dab page, that does not mean we cannot rename this to foo of sweden, and just create foo of finland. If consensus determines a move from parliament of sweden to swedish riksdag, this can be easily moved as well. Kbdank71 14:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional incarnations of evil

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional incarnations of evil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unclear criteria for inclusion ==> original research when adding articles to this cat. --EEMIV (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_9&oldid=1138391009"