[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 17 November 19 >

November 18

[edit]

Category:Leaders of the Communist Party of China

[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Vaguely defined, and there is really no good way to narrow down the definition as currently phrased. (It was not, for example, limited to members of the Politburo.) Upmerge. --Nlu (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2012 (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:Kansas City Royals navigational boxes

[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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mach other similar categories Astros4477 (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2012 (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 convicted of child sexual abuse

[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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Likely target of BLP and vandalism issues that serves no real beneficial purpose to the encyclopedia and potentially violates UNDUE in at least some of the articles inthe category Nouniquenames 15:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems we're asking for a solution to a non-problem. "Likely target of BLP and vandalism issues" is not a reason to delete a meaningful category -in fact, every major BLP article, for example, is a "likely target of BLP and vandalism issues", but we don't use it as a reason to delete. Second, "that serves no real beneficial purpose to the encyclopedia" is a personal and unexplained opinion -as any meaningful navigational aid, this brings beneficial purpose to the encyclopedia and its readers. As for UNDUE violations, if there are, they can be simply solved by removing the questionable entries from the category. I would only like to see them renamed to "...people convicted of underage sex", given that sometimes (depending on laws) such convictions come from episodes like 18 years olds having sex with 17 years olds, and to cluster them together with real child predators seems problematic. --Cyclopiatalk 16:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a legitimate category for some particularly obnoxious offenders. Since the criterion is "convicted", there is no BLP issue over libel, since it will be true. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Legitimate category. Hasn't had any vandalism or disagreement on the Canadian page. Donmike10 (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- disagree with reasoning to delete Unibond (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all No valid reason given to delete. These categories are not BLP issues, all of these people having references in their articles proving they were convicted of these crimes. And you can't delete something because you fear vandalism. We have this same conversation going on at a deletion review at [1]. Dream Focus 21:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and an obvious keep at that. Since the categories are specifically about people convicted of sex crimes against children, the only way these can be BLP violations is if someone is erroneously or maliciously added to the category, and that can be taken care of by regular editing. AniMate 21:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This stems from [2]. --Nouniquenames 02:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. In general, I support keeping people-by-crime categories when they are restricted to people convicted of an offence, and I prefer deleting those which are not based on a conviction. Conviction is a binary choice; either someone was convicted or they were not, whereas any other way of categorising people-by-crime involves a lot of great areas which our binary categorisation system cannot accommodate.
    These categories are based on conviction, so I am inclined to say "keep all". But before I do so, I have one concern, which is how the concept of "child sexual abuse" ties in with the actual charges on which people are convicted? If someone is convicted of raping a child, that clearly fits this category ... but what if the charge was indecently exposing themselves to a minor? Child sex abuse#Types is a little scanty, and I worry that we may not have a clear definition of what types of offence are labelled "child sexual abuse". Can anyone point to a source which would allow a stable and neutral definition of the scope of this category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, that's why I would move them to Category:People convicted for underage sex or something similar. --Cyclopiatalk 12:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • They have categories by nation in the parent categories of Category:Sex offenders by nationality, Category:Statutory rapists and Category:Rapists by nationality. Dream Focus 15:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I've been misunderstood. I would keep the nation-separated categories, I'd just substitute "child sexual abuse" with "underage sex". --Cyclopiatalk 15:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was just pointing out other categories exist that could handle that. Statutory rape means underage sex. Dream Focus 15:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Makes sense. Could be merged there, then? --Cyclopiatalk 15:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • No. Child sexual abuse normally means younger children. Statutory rape means you can't prove he didn't just seduce her, or it wasn't consensual, this way you just prove sex existed and can more easily convict them of that. Dream Focus 15:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Child sexual abuse normally means younger children. - I understand, but where do we put the line to decide what goes in the former and in the latter category? Where does abuse on a 12-y.o. kid go? We need objective criteria, especially for something so delicate, otherwise we should stay on the safe side and lump them together under the least concerning definition. --Cyclopiatalk 15:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • At the Roman Polanski article's talk page you can read the long debate that happened off and on again at times(see archives), where some don't consider it rape if they are a fan of the rapist, or the victim wasn't a virgin. So people just argue constantly back and forth over what categories to put someone in, trying to downplay the severity of the abuse of anyone they are a fan of. You just have to look at what crime they were convicted of and use that to determine what category they belong in. Dream Focus 18:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You just have to look at what crime they were convicted of - Official crime definitions change from state to state, from time to time. They're too diverse and variable to be used as an objective discriminant. We need some kind of general and unquestionable line to draw, and I doubt one exists. That's why putting all under "underage sex" or "statutory rape" seems to me the best way to go. --Cyclopiatalk 18:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • "Underage sex" or "statutory rape" makes it sound like it was consensual. Check the news coverage, and what the media calls it. Then argue back and forth on the talk page on which category to use. Saying all the convicted child molesters are just guilty of "underage sex" or "sex with a minor" sounds rather insulting to the victims. I believe most areas have the law different for having sex with a child below the age of 18(or whatever the legal age is in that area) and having sex with someone below the age of 12, 10, or whatever. Dream Focus 18:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Saying all the convicted child molesters are just guilty of "underage sex" or "sex with a minor" sounds rather insulting to the victims. - Why? They are guilty of "sex with a minor" - that's technically entirely correct. Unless you can find a clearcut, general, objective line that separates the two things, I think we should stick with the technical definition. --Cyclopiatalk 19:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • "Having sex" and "raping" are two different things. Anyway, this isn't the place for the discussion. You need to go to the Wikiproject for crime, and start a discussion there to get some feedback from those familiar with this sort of thing. Dream Focus 19:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only if the category is renamed to the correct name for the actual offense. Just because people are considered odious doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to get it correct. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these categories have a clear criterion for inclusion (the perso having been convicted of this action), and that's enough to ensure that BLP patrols have no trouble determining the validity of any categorization here. We don't just delete any negative person-related category for fear of BLP vandalism. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. I am not convinced that the term is really clear enough for use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2012 (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:Female actors in BDSM pornographic films

[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 all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clearly overcategorization as per WP:OC#PERF, specifically "performers by action or appearance". It starts with this, and eventually you will end up with Category:Female actors in INSERT GENRE HERE pornographic films, Category:Female actors in pornographic films involving horses, etc. Nymf hideliho! 13:49, 18 November 2012 (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:United States Air Force organizations in Korea

[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: merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a double of Category:United States Air Force units and formations in the Korean War. The other category is named according to the standard naming conventions, and thus this category should be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2012 (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 executed by China

[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently, Category:People executed by the People's Republic of China was merged into Category:People executed by China, but I think the merger was ill-advised. (See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_8#More_People.27s_Republic_of_China_categories for the merger discussion, which was premised by the recent merger between People's Republic of China and China articles.) The reason is simple: while it is true that the PRC article has been moved/merged with China, the problem is that right now, Category:People executed by China category refers to all executions throughout Chinese history. (See the other subcategories -- e.g., Category:People executed by the Han Dynasty and Category:People executed by the Tang Dynasty.) Executions by the People's Republic of China therefore should specifically remain as a subcategory thereof as a historical differentiation. --Nlu (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2012 (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:Sarawak-stub

[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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was wrongly nominated at templates for discussion. Opening discussion here. The previous discussion has been pasted in below. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a Malaysia stub and Sarawak geo stub template.. so why we need this ?? Is Sarawak not in Malaysia ? — иz нίpнόp  14:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. Just because something is part of something else doesn't preclude it having its own stub template. More specific templates help organise articles in a much clearer fashion for anyone who potentially wants to start working on that topic. I would never expect it to be used side by side with the Malaysia template, but the Malaysia template can always cover subtemplates, if it needs to. Similar cases exist, such as Template:Ohio-stub. However, the image should change to the geo-stub flag. Much cleaner, and not OR. I do note however, that the user who created these templates does actually somehow hold the opinion that Sabah and Sarawak aren't part of Malaysia, so they may not be currently very well applied. If there is a pragmatic reason to delete, such as there simply not being enough entires to justify a unique tag, then that's another matter, but determining that would definitely require a bit of cleanup, and I suspect in the end that there are a lot of Sabah and Sarawak stubs. CMD (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are provinces of Malaysia, and there is no reaon why we should not have stub categories for them. There should also be one for Penninsula Malaysia (formerly Malaya). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete - Most of the articles in these categories were either Malaysia wide articles and been added to both of these categories in addition to (or instead of) Malaysia stubs, or were not stubs. After cleaning this up, remaining membership is 4 and 13 respectively, which is not usually enough to justify stub categories. We have subnational stub categories when there are enough non-geography stub-sized articles to justify them, which I don't think is met in this case - virtually all the remaining members are political parties and also tagged with {{Malaysia-party-stub}}. However most of these parties seem to focus specifically on one or both of these regions.
Also, the CfD notice looks horrible on a stub template. In future this should be added to the associated categories instead, when moving discussions here from TfD. --Qetuth (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - it appears upon searching there may be enough untagged stubs related to Sabah/Sarawak to bring both categories back up to 15-20, but not much further. As with the political parties, most of these stubs would usually be tagged by type long before region in other countries. A look around what other subnational stub tags we use shows that we do not generally take this step until other methods of subdividing the country's stubs are exhausted, or in cases of a clear need for distintion from the parent country (examples include Abkhazia or some distant island territories). I don't see this in our articles on these two states, so solidifying my vote. --Qetuth (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Template:Malaysia-stub. These are the only 2 of the 13 states of Malaysia to have separate stub categories at the moment; the Peninsula comprises 11 states which do not have such categories. I thank Qetuth for his work and agree with his conclusions. Only the "geo" sub-categories have enough members to justify separate templates/categories, and they exist for all the states. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - for the majority of history, neither Sabah nor Sarawak were part of Peninsular Malaysia. "Peninsular Malaysians" require a passport/visa to travel/work in Sabah and Sarawak. Sabah and Sarawak also retain their own parliament and culture. Leng T'che (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2012 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_18&oldid=1140114797"