Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 12



Category:First Employment Contract

 * 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 15:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

first employment contract
 * Rename to Category:Employment law in France. Current name is too narrow, proposed name will allow inclusion of a broader array of articles and is basically more consistent with the general pattern for categories (i.e. "X by/in country).  Cgingold (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:44, 17 February 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:People executed by unspecified method

 * 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 15:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * people executed by unspecified method


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete or convert to administrative category. This is one of the those "remainder" categories that group articles that haven't been otherwise categorized within a scheme, in this case within . I suggest deletion, but if it's felt that this is a useful category for administrative purposes to help people find articles for which they can perform research to determine method of execution, I suggest converting the category to have it only apply to talk pages in the same way and others are used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see the rationale for the category, but this seems like a sensible suggestion, as upmerging to either or  would not make sense. Cgingold (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to . Conversion to an adminstrative category might be sappropriate too.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at you'll see that there are no articles directly in that category -- they've all been placed in various sub-categories. That's why I said I don't think it would make sense to start doing that. Cgingold (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There would be no need for an upmerge if we deleted it. If you check the articles, they are all as Cgingold suggests in other subcategories of, such as a nationality category, the country/authority that did the executions, the century of the execution, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:50, 14 February 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:Filming location

 * 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 pluralize, no consensus on deletion. Kbdank71 15:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Filming location to Category:Filming locations
 * Nominator's rationale: Categories usually have the plural version, so this should probably be "Filming locations". An alternative would be "location shooting", although maybe that should be created as a separate category, with "filming locations" as a subcategory. — Snigbrook  20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - this category is extremely broad in conception. Anywhere is potentially a filming location and places are not generally defined by whether a film or TV series was filmed there. Two of the three sub-categories should probably also be deleted, so this has no value as a container category either. Otto4711 (talk) 19:33, 14 February 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:Science fiction related lists

 * 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: relisted on 18th. Kbdank71 15:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Science fiction related lists to Category:Science fiction-related lists
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Conventional hyphen when the word "related" is used in a category of lists. Tim! (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Then it should be Category:Science-fiction-related lists, otherwise it is science lists related to fiction. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the simpler Category:Science fiction lists would be preferable. Tim! (talk) 17:32, 13 February 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:Enforcers of the NHL

 * 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 recreation of previous deleted category with a different name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * enforcers of the nhl


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete No objective criteria for inclusion in this category; this is the sort of thing that leads to lame and drawn out edit wars based solely on editors' personal opinions. There are also some (mild) BLP issues, since the image of an enforcer is not a uniformly positive one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * DELETE: The term 'enforcer' is an arbitrary, subjective label. ccwaters (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Previously deleted as Category:Enforcers I believe. -Djsasso (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice catch... previous category deletion here: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_5 ccwaters (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The term enforcer is use in the NHL by everyone and even by the players themself. The edit part is based on the numbers on fights in the NHL and people who were considered as ENFORCER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bls2009 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is calling someone an enforcer is point of view. Where do you draw the line, when is someone an enforcer and when are they just someone who fights now and then. It's not a quantifiable position. -Djsasso (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Enforcer is a guy with big mouth and fight, I can see that by the number of major penalties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bls2009 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But how big a mouth, how many penalty minutes? One person might consider Player X an enforcer and another person might not consider him to be. The problem is that its subjective. -Djsasso (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it's true, you can't judge ou big his mouth is ! but just look the number of pages dleed for the categorie ENFORCERS, you can see that it's just not normal that a categorie ENFORCER isn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bls2009 (talk • contribs)
 * But that is the problem, alot of the players you added most people would not consider an enforcer. Claude Lemieux for example is known as a Pest not an Enforcer. -Djsasso (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say the same thing about Chris Simon. He's washed up now, but he was a skilled forward. ccwaters (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see what's the matter ! Just keep it, enforcer is part of the game you can't denied it ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bls2009 (talk • contribs)
 * I agree its part of the game, but on wikipedia when you add something to a category you have to be able to back up with proof that someone is what the category says they are. The problem with enforces is that one source might call someone an enforcer and another source might not. This is especially a problem for enforcers because of the negative conotation that comes with it. -Djsasso (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes but we can gather the term Pest and Enforcer, that the same kind of play Whatever do what you want, I can see that in wikipedia it's not as free as it is said... i gave up
 * Delete: Recreation of previously deleted category. – Nurmsook!  talk...  16:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per ccwaters in that it is just a subjective label. Also per the previous deletion discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - recreation of previously deleted category. Tagged. If speedy declined, delete per subjective nature of the categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 17:34, 12 February 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.

Fix Image->File in the image issue category names

 * 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 images to files, fair use to non-free, and prepend with Wikipedia. (and leave redirects) Kbdank71 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Category:Images with no copyright tag to Category:Files with no copyright tag (renamed to Category:Wikipedia files with no copyright tag)
 * Category:Images with unknown source to Category:Files with unknown source (renamed to Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source)
 * Category:Images with unknown copyright status to Category:Files with unknown copyright status (renamed to Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status)
 * Category:Images with no fair use rationale to Category:Files with no fair use rationale (renamed to Category:Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale)
 * Category:Disputed non-free images to Category:Disputed non-free files (renamed to Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files)
 * Category:Replaceable fair use images to Category:Replaceable fair use files (renamed to Category:Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files)
 * Category:Orphaned fairuse images to Category:Orphaned fairuse files (renamed to Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files)
 * Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons to Category:Files on Wikimedia Commons (renamed to Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons)
 * Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons to Category:Files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons (renamed to Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons)
 * And the same with the daily subpages of all the above.


 * Nominator's rationale: Namespace change from Image: to File:. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note by nominator (made after the discussion already started): I had merely replaced the word "image" with "file" - this should probably be the focus of the discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Od Mishehu: I disagree about what the focus should be. Renaming of categories is a fairly costly process, since it often means a lot of edits to both pages and templates. Thus we should take the chance to apply all improvements at the same time, like update the names according to the latest guidelines and practises. --David Göthberg (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No objections to the basic premise, except we should exchange "fair use" with non-free while we are at it. So make it Category:Files with no non-free use rationale, Category:Unused non-free images and Category:Replaceable non-free files instead. Remember to update Template:CSD/Subcategories + the relevant templates and make sure categories with the new name get created for all the "pending" dated categoreis so nothing is left in redlinked category limbo. --Sherool (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you used the word "unused" instead of "orphaned". I think I agree with that, "unused" is clearer. (Although orphaned works fairly well for me too, but is probably somewhat cryptic for Wikipedia beginners.) I also see you forgot to change "images" to "files" in your example above, but I guess that was just a mistake. If we also prepend "Wikipedia" as I suggest below, then Category:Orphaned fairuse images should be renamed to Category:Wikipedia unused non-free use files, right? I use "non-free use" here instead of just "non-free", since as I understand it that category is for files that supposedly do have a fair use rationale on their file page. (But I just checked, some files in that category lacks a fair use rationale.) This also means I suggest renaming Category:Replaceable fair use images to Category:Wikipedia replaceable non-free use files. --David Göthberg (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah The missing "file" was an oversight, think we are mostly in agreement then. I kinda think "unused non-free use files" is a bit unnessesary though. If a file with a non-free copyright tag is not used for 7 days it's speedy deleted per criteria #5, the presense or absense of a use rationale doesn't rely matter in that case. --Sherool (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I slightly prefer "non-free use" over "non-free", but it doesn't matter that much to me. But one thing I would like to point out is: I think it is very okay to have long category names for administrative categories, and especially this kind that only are shown on file pages. So I prefer to make them clear instead of short. I hope someone else will comment so we get more info on how people interpret those names. --David Göthberg (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename, and prepend with "Wikipedia". I agree with changing the word "image" to "file". I don't have a point of view on if we should change "fair use" to "non-free use". (Our article on fair use doesn't have a single occurrence of the word "non-free", and the Google test shows that "fair use" is much more common. But I see that our guidelines use both terms, and I see that "non-free use" might have the benefit of making people think twice about using such content.) Anyway, if we don't change "fair use" then at least see to that "orphaned fairuse" is changed to "orphaned fair use" with a space, so all "fair use" are spelled the same. And while where at it: As I understand the guideline Naming conventions (categories) then these file categories are clearly "administrative categories" and thus should nowadays have the word "Wikipedia" in the beginning of the name. Thus for instance Category:Orphaned fairuse images should be renamed to Category:Wikipedia orphaned fair use files or Category:Wikipedia orphaned non-free use files. --David Göthberg (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Files in those categories are pending deletion for non-compliance with the Non-free content criteria policy, using "fair use" to refeer to such content in the context of internal policies have long been depreciated since it confuses the issue. A lot of people know what fair use is (or think they do), and would often argue that their use coply with fair use law when told that images did not comply with the relevant Wikipedia policies. Using a different term helps empasis that even if an image is legaly fair use it doesn't nessesarily comply with the Wikipedia excemption policy for using contnet that is not free licensed. --Sherool (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sherool: Ah, I see your point. Okay, so I think you are right, naming them "non-free use" is probably better than "fair use". --David Göthberg (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize that this has consensus, but I'm relisting it anyway to get more input. These categories are used by many editors (and possibly bots), and I don't want to make this change based upon a discussion that only had three people.  If it helps, I think changing image to file is a good idea, although I have no opinion on prepending "wikipedia" or changing fair use to non-free.  --Kbdank71 14:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename prepending Wikipedia and spelling fair use one way. Defer the fair use vs. non-free discussion to another discussion since that is more complicated and does not affect all of these categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Why defer the desission on fair use vs non-free? It's not that complicated. Those categories relate to files that fail to comply with the Non-free content policy, they are all contained in Category:All non-free media because they use a copyright tag listed in Category:Non-free image copyright tags (hmm, guess this should be changed to file copyright tags or some such one of these days). I think there is a rater strong presidence for using "non-free" in this context, and reserving "fair use" to when we are actualy refeering to the law stuff rater than Wikipedia policies.  --Sherool (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support renaming as discussed above, that is: replacing 'Images' with 'Files', replacing 'fair use' with 'non-free use', and adding 'Wikipedia' to the names. All seem like sensible changes. Robofish (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support rename ("images" to "files") as per all above. Consistency in our naming conventions is good. No opinion on "fair use" vs. "non-free", though I do concur that it probably should be a separate discussion. -kotra (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support all renaming options: "Wikipedia", "file", and "non-free". Sensible, and lets do them all at once.  Powers T 13:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename: "file", "non-free". Neutral on the "Wikipedia" part. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename: 'image' → 'file' and 'fair use' → 'non-free'. Neutral on prepending 'Wikipedia'; the inconsistency between Category:Wikipedia images and Category:Non-free images makes it hard to choose. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:48, 1 March 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:Members of the National Assembly

 * 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 15:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Members of the National Assembly to Category:Members of the French National Assembly
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity. There are dozens of National Assemblies.Biruitorul Talk 04:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename Excellent nomination. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename Absolutely. Long overdue. Dahn (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By all means, Rename per nom. Cgingold (talk) 12:20, 13 February 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.

Train (band)

 * 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 15:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Train songs to Category:Train (band) songs
 * Propose renaming Category:Train albums to Category:Train (band) albums
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Adding a disambiguation for clarity purposes, so it's not thought that these songs or albums are ones "about" choo-choo trains. The article about the band is Train (band), so renaming the categories will also match the categories to the article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say Rename as well, otherwise the category could theoretically be filled with songs like "Driver 8" or "Train in Vain", right? Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename for clarity. Occuli (talk) 11:16, 13 February 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:Articles with inappropriate criticism sections

 * 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 15:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * articles with inappropriate criticism sections


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete This is an unused category. It guess it was supposed to be used by criticism-section but this templates adds articles (correctly) to Category:Cleanup from section. No need to keep this extra category. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Magioladitis (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this can be speedy deleted per the old CSD C3 part of CSD G8. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:22, 15 February 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.