Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 6



Category:The Book - Sharm el-Sheikh

 * 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 DELETED, G11.  Empty category just created to promote a website.  postdlf (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * the book - sharm el-sheikh


 * Nominator's rationale: Obvious advertisement / conflict of interest. The user who created this category has the same name as the category.  He has also been adding spam external links (to www.thebook-sharm.com) to various articles.    talk 14:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Industrial design examples

 * 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 . Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * industrial design examples


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete: The category is not defined, and there are no clear requirements for inclusion. Whilst a few examples may be obvious examples of Industrial design examples, in many cases it is a matter of opinion. Articles may be added because an editor favours a particular product, but there is no overall consistency. It seems to serve no purpose - we cover this much better at Industrial design, and at least there, examples that are added can be discussed, and references requested. The main purpose for a category as well as an article is if we want to list every possibility, but trying to assess whether every product on Wikipedia counts as an "Industrial design example" or not seems unfeasible, given the amount of articles, and the lack of any criteria. The category has been around for years, and shows no signs of going anywhere, beyond a pick-and-mix selection of 50 articles. I raised this at the talk page, and got one comment in agreement, but no suggestions for improvement. Mdwh (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I see the problems - really this is "notable or famous examples of industrial design", which isn't allowed, but we should have a category for actual examples rather than just designers etc. Looking at the category quickly all do seem worth including, and if the category has worked long-term on a "self-selecting" basis, it's best to leave it alone. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment But do you have an answer to the question of what the criteria should be, or do we just let anything go in there if someone adds it? What use does a category with either a random selection of products (as it is now), or a very large selection of uncategorised products (if it's updated) serve? We already have category hierarchies for listing hardware products (e.g., see Category:Manufactured_goods) that do allow finding of products much more effectively. Mdwh (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * rename to Category:Industrial designs (pluralising it) to match how many other instances of 'examples' are currently handled in WP in many difference subject areas Hmains (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or that. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Industrial designs''' which captures the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that we already have Category:Industrial design (which is fine, as that's topics about industrial design), so I'm not sure how this category would be different? Mdwh (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Compare Category:African American and Category:African Americans, and dozens of other examples. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Rename to Category:Industrial designs. Clearly this is a better name.  One side effect of this rename, is that it would make it clear that many of the articles in Category:Industrial design are not about industrial design but are instead notable designs. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Victims of Nazism

 * 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 both to Category:Victims of Nazi repression -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Victims of Nazism to Category:Victims of Nazi German repressions
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. The category contains no articles, and its only subcategory is Category:Victims of Nazi German repressions. GCarty (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge both into Category:Victims of Nazi repression. German is redundant.  The plural repressions is ungrammatical.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am fine with merge, as long the the appopriate subcategories are transferred, but there is a difference between Nazi and German Nazi (there were non-German Nazis, too). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Peterkingiron (Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus seems to be in agreement with that as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Political repression in Germany

 * 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 and populate. GCarty (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * political repression in germany


 * Nominator's rationale: This category contained no articles and only one subcategory (Category:Victims of Nazi German repressions). This category has been moved to the more appropriate supercategory of Category:Political repression in Nazi Germany. GCarty (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Are we sure this should be removed? Look at Category:Political repressions by country; there is political repression in US, Poland, Spain... Yes, the Nazi subcategory will contain 90% of content, but there I'd assume there are some instances of political repression predating them, and following them. Wouldn't neo-Nazi parties in Germany be a victim of political repression, for example (not that I have any problems with that :D)? Wouldn't discrimination against an attempt to create a Polish party in pre-WWI Germany be another example? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and populate – Censorship in the Federal Republic of Germany suggests that there is political repression in Germany even today (that we think it's justified is immaterial). By the way, I wonder to what extent German law makes a de jure distinction between the ideology of national socialism in its pure form (i.e., a mix of nationalism and socialism) and the ideology of Nazism (i.e., the ideology of the NSDAP). Anyway, imprisoning individuals for their political affiliation or expressions (which the BRD does) is, regardless of the particular political affiliation of the individuals being targeted, a form of political repression. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 17:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and populate as part of an overall structure of repression by country. No evidence that this dies not occur in Germany. Alansohn (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and populate. Even if Nazi repressions repressions take up 90% of the space, political repression in Germany also occured long before the Nazi era – with the more modern examples including such things as the mass murder of communists and radicals by the Freikorps (which received support from various government officials) in 1918-1919. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Would repression by communist East Germany also belong in this category? GCarty (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say "yes" based on the fact that Category:Politics of East Germany is a subcategory of Category:Politics of Germany, Category:History of East Germany is a subcategory of Category:History of Germany, and so on. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 17:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Islamist terrorism in the United States

 * 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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Islamist terrorism in the United States to Category:Islamic terrorism in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: It's horrendously shameful that an encyclopedia has a category this serious that has existed for this long without the proper spelling . (I'm a total idiot for thinking backwards) The fact that "Islamic terrorism" is a parent category should be hint. Also, entertaining opinions on a possible deletion discussion-- this is covered by 'Terrorism in the United States' + 'Islamic Terrorism', among others that can be much more accurate and less subjective. Stuck out some brainless comments of mine. See below for an alternate rename idea, which is an alternate and more comprehensive way of making things consistent. I do not oppose snow close per better solutions available, pending opinions on one last problem. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Islamist and Islamic are two different concepts, but I would concede that not all of the incidents listed are acts of Islamists.- choster 06:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to decide this Note the parent category is  but some other subcategories from there are  and ; but another is .  So we're using both terms in an almost haphazard fashion. Is there are good reason to settle on one term or another?  If not, leave it as it is to avoid creating busywork.  If there is, we ought to pick on or the other.  Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not rename – "Islamist terrorism" identifies the motivation for the terror (i.e., terrorism motivated by the Islamist ideology) and "Islamic terrorism" identifies the perpetrator of the terror (i.e., terrorism carried out by Muslims). "Islamist terrorism" indicates that the terrorism was motivated by a religious-political ideology and "Islamic terrorism" hints at links between the tenets of Islam and terrorism. In my opinion, identifying the religion of the perpetrator of an act of terrorism without regard for the motivation behind the act is categorisation by a trivial aspect. A person of any religion can perpetrate acts of terrorism against people of any religion; what matters is why such acts are carried out (i.e., what beliefs motivate them). –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 17:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * do not rename and 'motivation' is hardly a trival aspect of the terrorist act: without the motivation, there would be no act.  Didn't we come up with the current name via a previous discussion of some months ago? Hmains (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to religion independent of motivation (I wrote "without regard for the motivation") as being a trivial aspect; some type of political motivation is one of the key defining features of an act of terrorism. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 22:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The result doesn't at all matter to me so long as we end up with any consensus on the namings. My tendency was to Islamic from that incredibly narrow scope of ist where there isn't a terribly large amount of information in English to start. A google search of "Islamist Terrorism" even defaults you to the Islamic Terrorism Wikipedia article. So... well, duck test, and what 99% of Wikipedia readers probably want to end up. As long as any end result is an agreed use so cleanup of a thousand categories can begin either way, you could rename it to Izlambik Tarrorisms for all I care. ...I'd have to post it for rename, but it'd be concensus! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup to reflect the motives behind these incidents. Alansohn (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Added proposal/problem by nominator
 * The Realizations of a Keep?: The encyclopedia is full of contradictions in terms of what redirects to what or which artile talks "more" about terrorism, or some important articles list both as the belief set suggesting violence or which sources seem to be cherrypicked for used, etc., but that can theoretically get changed slowly. In 2007 the parent category was renamed -ist to -ic to 1) meet consistency between article and category, and 2) opinion given that -ist is a subcategory of "-ic violence"... Though IMO that discussion here was closed with zero consideration for the seriousness of the topic. So, going with keep would rather require a check of every single article placed in an "-ist category" to somehow specifically be able to define it as that vs "just an -ic", or it'd go back to the old consistency issue of that, which I guess was way worse.
 * I have no problem with anyone giving a 100% snow close on this as no change with even a little comment on this concern. Or, people are free to tell me I'm trying to be way too specific and picky, but I never like the idea of misrepresenting matters under faith and religion and even moreso if it might be in an article about mass murder. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep based on meaning of terms as pointed out by others before me. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Glossaries of religion

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Glossaries of religion to Category:Glossaries on religion
 * Nominator's rationale: Per convention in the parent cat. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: Per nom & common sense. So many categories that need this treatment eventually. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Sport glossaries

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Sport glossaries to Category:Glossaries on sports
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Glossaries on sports (or "sport") per convention at Category:Glossaries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: Per nom & common sense. Exact same matter as the previous entry. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.