Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 10

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< February 9 February 11 >

February 10

edit

Category:Closed down Wikipedia projects, activities or processes

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) 03:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need both these categories; it just unncessarily complicates things. DexDor (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2016 (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:Charged Energy

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: Speedily deleted by RHaworth per WP:G6. Mangoe (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two issues with this category: a) the capitalization is incorrect; and b) I don't see what would populate this category. Existing categories like Category:Electric charge seem sufficient. /wiae /tlk 18:59, 10 February 2016 (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:IOP Publishing academic journals

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: IOP Publishing offers some journals that are not of the Institute of Physics itself, but are published on behalf of partner organizations, e.g., The Astronomical Journal of the American Astronomical Society; see separate listing for titles of publishing partners and IOP own titles. fgnievinski (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The publishing company "IOP Publishing" is obviously to be confused with the learned society "Institute of Physics". IOP Publishing is a TLA with weird capitalization for when the learned society publishes. OK, User:Fgnievinski is right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't understand the distinction either. I think simply renaming to Category:Institute of Physics academic journals makes for betterr English though less jargon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Don't Split to Category:Institute of Physics academic journals. I understand that the current IOP Publishing name is more precise but listing the parent organization seems less jargon-y and would aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the navigation benefit for double categorizing tons of journals by their publisher (ABC Publishing) and their learned society (Associates Biologists Clubs). RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it backwards to have, e.g., Chinese Physics B listed as a journal of a physics society based on the UK. fgnievinski (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not. It's listed as a journal published by IOP Publishing. It's actually published by the Chinese Physical Society, and is hosted by IOP Publishing, but we've always categorized journals hosted by a publisher with other journals of the publisher. X published on behalf of Y' gets both the categories of X and Y. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:46, 16 February 2016 (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:Journal of Economic Literature

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. MER-C 11:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: limited growth potential. fgnievinski (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2016 (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:Alternate magazines

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. SQLQuery me! 00:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Does this term exist? And if it does, does it refer to publication frequency? To me it rather resonates with being alternative by content, style, or ways of production and distribution. PanchoS (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My best guess is that this about "alternative publication frequency", i.e. an unusual publication frequency for which a dedicated category doesn't exist. If I'm right then delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge and delete. The adjective "alternate" conveys to me the dictionary concept of alternating, defined by Merriam-Webster as "occurring in or forming a repeated series". So one month they would publish "Beauty Tips for the Pulchritudinally Challenged", and the next month it would be "Practical Vacuum Cleaning for Cats".
    However, this category defines itself as magazines published at odd times or the publication rate is alternative from a regular rate - i.e. 10 issues a year or only releases occasional issues. I see that we have a Category:Magazines by publication frequency with 15 subcats, but this feels to me like an "others" category -- it groups a) publications with an irregular frequency alongside b) those with a regular but unusual frequency. That's not a coherent combination.
    We already have a Category:Irregularly published magazines for type A, and any irregularly published mag which fits there should be recategorised accordingly. I don't see any need for a catch-all category of other-regular-frequencies, so once this categ is purged of the irregulars, it should just be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative media is not a defining concept. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2016 (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.

Media by country

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 according to Option B. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
  • either Option A
OptionA: 210 renamings to "Media of Foo"
  • or Option B
Option B: 206 renamings to "Media in Foo"
Nominator's rationale: The by-country sub-categories of Category:Media by country nearly all use the format "Fooish media". (There are 5 outliers: Category:Media in the European Union, Category:Media in Georgia (country), Category:Media in Iraqi Kurdistan, Category:Media in the Republic of Ireland, Category:Media of Macau)
At CFD January 28, the sub-cats of Category:Broadcasting by country were renamed from "Fooian broadcasting" to "Broadcasting in Foo".
The rationale for dropping the adjectival form in the broadcasting categories was explained so well by PanchoS that I will simply copy that explanation: Using nationality names tends to be inappropriate for the media of ethnic minorities, and is prone to confusion with eponymous languages, especially in an area working with language. For example: TRT Kurdî perfectly fits in Category:Television stations in Turkey, and it would fit in Category:Broadcasting in Turkey, but does it fit in Category:Turkish broadcasting? Less so. Or how about private, Catalan-language station RAC 1? This clearly is broadcasting in Spain, but is it Spanish broadcasting? Clearly in terms of being located in Spain and being under Spanish jurisdiction, but less so in terms of "Spanish culture" and certainly not in terms of Spanish language. Let's be more precise here and use the country names rather than nationalities.
There remains a choice between "in" or "of":
  • Option A would standardise all categories on "Media of Foo".
  • Option B would standardise all categories (except the UN) on "Media in Foo".
The head articles overwhelming use the format "Media of". That is also used for the national subcats of Category:Cinema by country‎, whereas Category:Television by country uses "Television in Foo".
I am inclined to follow the head articles and prefer Option A, but I can see a case for Option B. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Media by country: Survey and discussion
edit
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:Organizations designated as terrorist by location of organization

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging:
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: While individual acts of terror are somewhat clearly defined, designating an organization altogether as a "terrorist" one is often relative to the point of view, other sides seeing it as "liberation" from oppression or even supporting it as a proxy army, sometimes considering it the lesser evil, sometimes even the lesser evil in light of humanity. While in many cases terrorist designations may be common sense in the Anglophone world, in others it isn't. Fortunately we have the category tree Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator‎ that allows us to be more precise in regard to who designates a group as "terrorist". In turn, this category tree should avoid the WP:POV designation, but rather categorize the groups by objective criteria. Organizations designated terrorist by one or the other country should of course remain (or become) categorized as such.
The proposed name is also more in line with Category:Insurgencies, thereby improving our taxonomy. "Latin America" is replaced by "South America" so it better corresponds to then–parent Category:Insurgencies in South America and grand-parent Category:Rebellions in South America.
Side notes: Does this mean the actions of every insurgent group qualify as a full-scale insurgency? Not necessarily. While the group's terrorist attacks, guerrilla warfare etc. may fail at their objective, i.e. launching an insurgency, it still is an insurgent group by its objective. Are all organizations currently categorized here "insurgent groups"? The vast majority is, very few might need to be purged, and some may be added.
--PanchoS (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Nomination slightly adjusted after creating Category:Insurgent groups; pinging first participant. PanchoS (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. PanchoS is right: the NPOV quality being captured here is insurgency, and the new titles convey that much better.
Category:Terrorists and its subcats were deleted at CFD 2009 April 27 because of their blatantly POV nature, and subsequent debates have upheld that decision. However, since then we have had a proliferation of "designated as terrorist" categories.
This formulation "designated as terrorist by Foo" attributes the labelling per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which makes it much better than the unattributed designation "terrorist". However, it still fails NPOV, because it gives the political judgements of certain governments a privileged place in the category system. There is no other topic area in en.wp where the category system is used in this way to convey to convey a partisan political view, and the information conveyed through the "designated as terrorist by Foo" should be handled in the nornmal way: by annotated lists, supported by explanation in the texts of the articles.
These categories do not even have the virtue of the "designated as terrorist by Foo" categories. Unlike those designated-by-Foo categs, these designated-in-area categs do not even attribute the POV which they convey. Instead, their implicit inclusion criteria is "someone somewhere applied this label", which effectively a renaming of the old Category:Terrorist organizations -- which was deleted at CFD 2006 June 12. That equivalence was noted in 2015 by an editor who recreated[1] as a {{category redirect}} to Category:Organizations designated as terrorist.
This nomination will not fully resolve the wider problem of using designation as a way to attach POV labels to organisations. But it will remove the worst of it, by removing the unattributed categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The usefulness of Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator in avoiding POV by attributing the designation was largely undermined by this (IMHO totally botched) discussion back in June. BrownHairedGirl, I don't think using the "by designator" is POV because these designations are not just someone's point of view or opinion, they have clear and pratical ramifications. Governments don't make up these lists to express dislike - inclusion on the list makes the organization automatically subject to certain laws/restrictions/etc.
The current "designated organization by continent" without specific designator just an transparent way of returning to the previously deleted Category:Terrorist organizations. I'm fine with using insurgent groups, but we're still left with the problem that organizations and people are still frequently categorized under Category:Terrorism in Asia (or wherever) which undermines this effort to use NPOV (or at least, less POV) insurgency instead of terrorist. I'm also not sure categorizing many of these organizations is especially meaningful. Is this categorization by where the organization was founded, where its leadership lives, or where it operates? They don't usually have a publicly posted address for their headquarters, and many are quite international in their membership and sphere of action. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Thanks for your comment as the categories' creator. I agree with you that this CfD in June 2015 was totally botched and quite unfortunate, and at the same time I agree that BrownHairedGirl's proposal, which goes beyond what we're currently discussing, need further considerations.
In this CfD we're however not discussing whether to avoid "terrorist organization" at all. All I'm asking for is not to use it unqualified by designator. Regarding possible "mis"categorizations, this is not about categorizing terrorist acts under Category:Terrorism, which may, if backed by WP:RS, even encompass one or the other group or individual, as it currently does. Rather this is a best-effort WP:NPOV approach to our category tree. While individual article decisions rely on a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, or categorization scheme should proliferate WP:NPOV rather than constituting WP:POV by itself. True that the scope is quite limited, but the outcome would already be a major improvement, while with going too far we would risk botching it all again, like in June. Hope I managed to convince you to support my proposal. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PanchoS: Yes, all of that is absolutely fair, and in case I wasn't clear, I do support the nomination in general. (I'm obviously just bitter about that previous CfD). To be honest, I don't remember creating these, but I imagine that I must have imagined them as metacategories, so I should have named them Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator in Africa or something equivalent, but that's kind of irrelevant now that the "by designator" tree has been destroyed.
With all that said, I would love to hear further suggestions on how to make the location qualification more precise. "Insurgent organizations active in X" or "Insurgent organizations based in X" ? If nothing else works, then I guess go ahead with the proposed names above, but I think the location aspect is rather vague. Will these be sub-categories of Category:Organizations by subject and country or Category:Paramilitary organizations by country ? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: I agree that designation as "terrorist" does have practical consequences, often big consequences. But that's a separate issue from the POV nature of designation. POV labels can have very serious consequences in many contexts, which is one of the reasons to avoid them in categories. Grave consequences arise from being called a "communist sympathiser" in McCarthyite America, an "apostate" in an islamist regime, or a "counter-revolutionary" in a communist state, or a scab in an industrial dispute; but all three are blatantly POV.
A useful parallel is the Southern Poverty Law Center's designation of various organisations as "hate groups". It is thoroughly researched, based on defined criteria, and with serious consequences for those designated ... but ultimately there is a POV in both defining and applying the criteria. So Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC was deleted (rightly IMO) at CFD 2014 April 12. However, it still seems to me to be perverse and partisan to delete one attributed-POV category while keeping others.
In this case, we aren't discussing even attributed POVs. The categories nominated here clearly fail WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, since there is no attempt to attribute the labelling. The title "Organizations designated as terrorist" simply means that we have an unspecified source for applying the label "terrorist" ... but since the core policy WP:V imposes the same requirement on all categories, there is in effect no difference between Category:Terrorist organizations in Foo and Category:Organizations designated as terrorist in Foo. As you note, this is effectively a re-creation of Category:Terrorist organizations: an unattributed POV label.
PanchoS's proposal here is much limited than I would like. But it does an important job, by proposing the removal of categories for which there is no plausible defence under the NPOV policy -- unlike the categs with named designator, which do at least try to meet WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, and as I said above, I'm not actually opposed to this nomination. I agree that we're off topic now, but for the record, I don't think being labelled a communist sympathiser, an apostate, or a counter-revolutionary or a hate group is equivalent. I don't think an organization being labelled a terrorist in the United States is the same as being formally listed as a terrorist by a department of the United States government. One has *potential* for consequences, but the other is virtually guaranteed. A closer comparison would be Category:FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives or any of the sub-categories in Category:Fugitives by country. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Not sure I understand why "organisation" is to change to "group", nor why it matters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Insurgent seems to be the equivalent of rebel, but not all rebellions involve terrorising the populace. The incumbent government will often (as in Syria) seek to designate all its armed opponents as terrorists, even if they are conducting a conventional war. I would suggest that the characteristics of terrorism are conducting random violent acts, which are liable to hurt civilians or operating otherwise than in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question after the previous comment. If renamed, how is this category going to relate to the tree of Category:Rebel militia groups? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am far from certain that terrorism and insurgency are equivalent terms. But it strikes me as POV to label these organizations as mere "groups". Their wide membership and organizational structure suggests otherwise. Dimadick (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2016 (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:Video gaming operating systems

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category contains no pages, and only a single subcategory. The subcategory can be added to the parent category, and this category can then be deleted. SJK (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge the subcategory. Not all game systems are consoles, but vice versa is true. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do any non-console game systems have distinctive operating systems as such? If they do I don't believe we have any articles on them. I'm not aware there exist any "video gaming operating systems" other than "game console operating systems" - certainly not any notable enough for WP articles. (Of course you can play video games under general purpose operating systems such as Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, iOS, Android, etc - but that doesn't make those operating systems "video game operating systems", since they aren't in any way specifically designed for playing video games, even if in some cases they have APIs designed specifically for use by video game developers.) Given all of this, I think my original proposal is superior to your suggested alternative. SJK (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge nominated category to its both parents per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2016 (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:Communist Party of Poland (Mijal) politicians

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. MER-C 11:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: sort of eponymous category, category only contains the one politician who gave name to the category. No need to upmerge, article is already in all relevant categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2016 (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:Deputy directors of the Information Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic 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: rename/merge per amended nomination. Note, however, that the parent is Category:Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, so we have created a naming inconsistency here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
* Propose deleting Category:Deputy directors of the Information Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category has no parent categories and contains just one page (which is in plenty of other categories) (and has a very long name). DexDor (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily detailed categorization / long category names. DexDor (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – there is no evidence this position is particularly notable; "deputy director" positions in government departments generally aren't, even if sometimes their occupants might be. (I don't know enough about the subject matter to judge whether the sole page currently in the category is notable in its own right or not.) In any event, the category is premature while we only have one article in it; if we ever end up with multiple biographies of people who have held this position, that would be evidence that the position is notable in its own right, and hence would justify recreating the category in that circumstance. SJK (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not need to categoize people by every minor office held.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It and parent and sibling to Category:China Foreign Ministry information officials. (1) The name is much too long. (2) The parent is an orphan (3) I see no point in splitting officials according to rank. (4) we have decided that China means PRC and the Nationalist republic is "Taiwan". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative by Peterkingiron, we can even simply have Category:China Foreign Ministry officials. I've solved issue nr (2) meanwhile which means that the alternative proposal now translates as an upmerge of both siblings to the parent and a rename of the parent category. I've tagged the parent and sibling categories for these purposes. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2016 (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:Wikipedians on editor review

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. MER-C 11:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are for "users currently in editor review", but Wikipedia:Editor review died in 2014. DexDor (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2016 (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:Liberal Wikipedians

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. MER-C 11:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to Category:Conservative_Wikipedians. Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations. See, among others, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, and especially WP:ENC; this promotes no encyclopedic purpose. J♯m (talk | contribs) 05:20, 10 February 2016 (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:MediaCorp

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. – Fayenatic London 21:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the article, which was recently moved without controversy to Mediacorp. This was proposed twice at WP:CFDS but both times was objected to because the article had been moved without a formal discussion. I restate my opinion that forcing this to a full CFD is pretty much a waste of time since no one has been able to come up with any substantive reason that the nomination should or could be opposed. This is a textbook case of the type that WP:BURO is meant to address: enforcing process and adherence to "rules" over taking immediate steps through more rapid processes when the underlying action is essentially inevitable and of the "no-brainer" type. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy nomination
  • Category:MediaCorp to Category:Mediacorp – C2D per Mediacorp. Was previously opposed here b/c the article was moved without discussion, but it appears to me to have been a non-controversial move with no objections Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose speedy Sorry, but C2D explicitly requires a discussion. An unopposed technical request is not a discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless someone can articulate a substantive (ie, nonprocedural) reason that the rename should be opposed, to insist on a full discussion pretty much flies in the face of WP:BURO. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd like to agree Good Ol’factory, but WP:BURO has its limits, esp when it comes to consensus-forming processes. For example, there have been some recent big rows over the early closure of AFDs, and previous bustups over speedy actions which stretched or broke the criteria.
          There may be a case for widening C2D, but until a change is agreed, this doesn't fit. A single categ is easy to list at a full CFD, using Twinkle, so it's not a huge burden. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • If there's no substantive case to be made for why it should not be renamed, then moving it to a full discussion is a waste of time, whether that waste is small or large. This always happens on this page with users who seem to enjoy enforcing process over substance. And every time these types of discussions get moved, they end up being processed as nominated. I don't know of a single exception, and I doubt that this will be one either. (The waste or time comes not with the effort required to nominate it for a full discussion, but the loss of the advantage of the speedy process—the category will thus remain at a name that is different than its main article for at least a week, and possibly much longer, given the amount of time it takes for many CFD discussions to be closed.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There may be a case for widening the scope of the speedy process. But if that process can be used for things which clearly don't fit the criteria, what's the point of those criteria? If there was a speedy process to be used at admin discretion, this might have been processed. But there isn't, and GO has been around CFD for long enough to now where the boundaries are.
    As to timewasting, this move could be done now if GO had taken it to full CFD instead of a speedy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, the criteria exist to catch and weed out cases where it's likely that there is some sort of substantive argument that the rename would be inappropriate or not preferred. That's simply not the case here—you're enforcing a rule for the sake of the rule, and not for the reason the rule exists. The criteria are limited to the circumstances that are most likely to be uncontroversial. But that doesn't mean that other cases are not similarly uncontroversial and shouldn't just be processed in order to avoid the bureaucratisation that you're demonstrating. You didn't have to give your personal OK to it, all you had to do was remain quiet. "this move could be done now if GO had taken it to full CFD instead of a speedy": now that is a good one: putting aside the fact that it could not have been processed yet, since it was nominated less than a week ago—have you looked at the backlog on CFD lately? Discussions are lucky if they are closed within two or three weeks, let alone the mandated seven day minimum. As of today, there's still an open discussion from November 2015. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BrownHairedGirl: Do you disagree with the actual rename proposed here? RevelationDirect (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @RevelationDirect: I have no opinion either way. I haven't evaluated it, and the point of a full discussion is that it draws more eyes to the proposal.
          @Good Ol’factory: ok, I was 17 hours out; if the speedy had been as a full nom, it could have been processed this evening rather than when I posted. As to the rule, it exists to provide limited and clearly-defined exceptions to the principle of consensus for a full listing. If you want a discretionary criterion for CFD/S, why not propose adding one? Something along the lines of WP:G6 "C2F: housekeeping and other uncontroversial moves". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe that a degree of discretion is already built in to the speedy criteria. They are not water-tight rules, and I don't think they were designed to be so. I just find enforcing a rule for the sake of the rule and not the underlying reasons for the rule to be unnecessary pedantry and is precisely the kind of thing that WP:BURO addresses. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename as uncontroversial, but: While we don't want to be overly bureaucratic, our policies are there to be obeyed, at least in general, unless they obviusly don't make any sense in a particular situation. While I agree this one seems uncontroversial, I can recall so many other cases where it isn't, and I can imagine so many editors prone to abuse WP:CFD/S for in fact controversial moves or deletions, that it proved a really good thing that we have binding CFD/S criteria. While it's true that some full WP:CFDs tend to take very long, uncontroversial ones are usually closed within a week, or even less if WP:SNOWBALL is invoked. Also, I'm not against finding a more speedy process for probably uncontroversial, urgent decisions, for example related to WP:ITN topics or such. But I can't see this particular decision to be urgent – does it really matter here if the case is closed immediately or if it takes a week? I think not. Cheers to both of you, PanchoS (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PanchoS: One of my concerns is what happened to this particular nomination the first time it was placed at WP:CFDS. A user opposed the nomination and placed it in the "opposed" section. It then sat there for more than seven days, after which the user removed it completely from all CFD processes and removed the CFD tag from the category because it was a "stale nomination". Had I not noticed and revived the nomination, the category would probably not have been nominated for a full CFD, let alone renamed, and the category would have been named differently than the article for who knows how long. I don't mean to pick on this particular editor, but this sort of thing does happen quite frequently at CFDS—users patrol the page and oppose ones that don't fit their interpretations of the criteria without bothering to ask whether the nomination is a good idea or not. It would be different if users who opposed speedy nominations bothered to move the nomination to a full discussion, but they rarely do. How this sort of pattern of behavior benefits Wikipedia—you tell me. (Even above, User:BrownHairedGirl acknowledges that on the substance of this particular nomination: "I have no opinion either way. I haven't evaluated it". If this isn't placing process above substance, what is?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Olfactory: I wouldn't expect someone opposing a CFD/S on procedural basis to have an evaluation beforehand. CFD/S is quite a problematic procedure, as there's noone systematically checking these nominations for compliance with CFD/S criteria, unless some casual gatekepper thankfully pulls the brake before further harm is done. It's also perfectly okay not to bother and move the nomination to a full discussion. In fact, it's often preferable if the original nominator has the opportunity to put the full nomination forward with a good rationale, or to postpone it, or to abandon it altogether. All we could ask for is that the original nom be notified or pinged. I'm actually in favor of a ping requirement. --PanchoS (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PanchoS: A ping would be more than typically occurs, I would say. I'm not suggesting moving opposed nominations to a full discussion is anyone's responsibility (it certainly isn't), but I am pointing out that there's more potential for harm in the way CFDS is being patrolled than I think is being acknowledged by you or BHG. (It's not just a matter of increased delays in renaming a category, as here--categories that do need to be renamed are being blocked without any follow-up.) I would also suggest that right now, there are plenty of editors checking for compliance at CFDS. More nominations are stopped than need to be. If anything, we are currently erring on the side of too much enforcement, as this case nicely demonstrates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Ol’factory I think that PanchoS mistakes the nature of the patrolling which does take place at CFD/S. There are some editors who evidently patrol the nominations with some degree of regularity routinely (inc you and Armbrust), tho probably nowhere near as many as would be ideal. But as with any speedy process, every speedy proposal has to be evaluated by the admin processing it -- that admin takes personal responsibility for checking that their admin actions fall within the agreed criteria.
In my case, I was processing a big CFDS backlog last night. As usual, I check every category against the cited speedy criteria before processing it. I apply a triage principle to my assessments: 1/ categs which clearly meet the speedy criteria; 2/ those which clearly fail it; 3/ those where I am uncertain. The clear procedural fails get an oppose from me without any further evaluation; the doubtfuls may get a comment or question; and those which look procedurally ok get a further quick "is this a good idea" check. If I think the proposal looks procedurally sound but substantively less than sound, I will either not process it, or add a comment/question. I presume that other admins do something similar.
Sure, there are wider failings with CFDS. There should be perma-logging of all CFD/S nominations, whatever their fate; the record should not just disappear into the page history. A lack of eyes is common to many en.wp processes as editor activity continues to fall, and it threatens the viability of many of them (including full CfD, where participation has plummeted since 2006/7). Followup to opposed noms would be nice, but if the bodies aren't there, who will do it?
As above, I can see a case for a G6-style "uncontroversial housekeeping" addition to the speedy criteria ... but such proposals would need a lot more scrutiny than the technical ones, and I wonder about the wisdom of creating such a path when the eyes are not there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any further criteria at CFDS are really necessary. I do think that the current criteria can be flexible enough. It just comes down to whether editors are going to interpret them in a strict, water-tight fashion, or with a degree of flexibility. If they are going to start to be interpreted strictly in a consistent way, there are dozens of speedy renames that go through every week that could not. (If anyone's interested, I could explain the type of renames I'm thinking of here. I'm aware that the discussion is getting sidetracked a bit, so I don't want to expound on something that is beside the point to everyone.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I think a CFDS objection is silly, I drop it there so I don't clutter the CfD process. (I would have simply given up on this one, for instance.) My concern is similar though: that the current CfD process is strained. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename, while many sources listed in the article mention "MediaCorp" and I could not find a mention of a decapitalization in the name, I found that "Mediacorp" is used on their own website which looks like sufficient evidence. With these findings at hand, however, I can better understand why User:BrownHairedGirl is skeptic about this being processed speedily. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Marco. But my objection wasn't based on any analysis of the substantive merits of the proposed change. It was solely because the nominator had been trying to use the speedy process for a change which clearly does not meet the speedy criteria. If editors think that speedy criteria are too restrictive, the solution is to widen them ... but not to blame an admin for upholding the rules as they actually are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand the background, but - even if coincidentally - I still regard it as a nice illustration that things should be double-checked in case of doubt, and that the speedy criteria were correctly and reasonably applied. Hypothetically we could also have drawn the opposite conclusion that the article name would need to be reverted. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I've stated several times already, I do not think that the speedy criteria are too restrictive, and I would appreciate it if editors would not obliquely suggest that this is my view. My view rather is that some users' interpretation and application of the criteria is too restrictive. There is a significant difference. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good Ol’factory, I really do not see that there is any interpretation involved in this case. WP:C2D is quite explicit: "This applies only if the related article's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous, and uncontroversial – either because of longstanding stability at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion that had explicit consensus to rename." (emphasis added by me)
            In this case there was no claim of either longstanding stability or an explicit consensus.
            If we were looking a page which had been stable at the new title for three or six months, then there would indeed be room for discretion about whether that time was "longstanding" ... but your speedy nom was a mere 17 days after the move.
            Throughout this discussion it has felt to me that I have been discussing it without someone who didn't read beyond the dash in that sentence :( If you want to propose some other basis for assessing whether a name is uncontroversial, then feel free to propose a change ... but until then, I will continue to read the sentence as a whole, not just the first part.
            I find it particularly odd that after the renaming was rejected once at speedy, you immediately brought it back to CFD/S, even tho the intro to CFD/S says of contested nominations that "If the nominator wants to continue the process, they need to submit the request as a regular CfD". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you can't see the flexibility, you can't see it. That's fine. But that doesn't mean others can't. The difference, I think, is this—I tend to read and consider all WP policies, guidelines, and procedures together as a whole, not in isolation from one another. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I understand this is really a big thing for you, can you try to explain once more why in this case the condition "either because of longstanding stability at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion that had explicit consensus to rename" might be overturned? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'd be curious to know the answer to that too. I don't see what other polices or guidelines provide for such a large jump out of what C2D actually specifies. GO evidently reckons they have spotted something, so it would be nice to have it spelt out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • OK, but don't blame me if you feel like throwing out a "TL;DR". It all depends, of course, on how one interprets the words of the speedy criteria. Are they watertight, or are they more flexible than that? Is the text exhaustive, or are they simply providing examples? The phrase "either because of longstanding stability at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion that had explicit consensus to rename" can plausibly be read to exhaustively list the only possible requirements for a proposed change to be unambiguous and uncontroversial. Or, it can plausibly be read to be an instance where examples are being provided of situations that would meet the general standard of "unambiguous and uncontroversial". When all the criteria are read as a whole, it is clear (to me) that none of the criteria purport to set out exhaustive standards. They provide general principles supplemented with examples. The sentence which follows the "either ..." statement—"If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply"—reinforces that the previous phrase provides what will probably be the most common examples of the standard being met—but they themselves are not the standard itself. This approach is confirmed to me because I played a role in crafting many of them. Never was it suggested in the designing that they were meant to be watertight, exhaustive, or the only ones which could render something "uncontroversial and unambiguous". They were meant to be general statements of principle with some well-chosen examples. (Even if the criteria are read in a strict, watertight fashion, we have the added problem of interpreting the phrase "longstanding stability". This is defined nowhere, and obviously it requires interpretations, and different users' interpretations will necessarily differ. The article in this case had stability at the current name. Was it "longstanding"? Maybe not under your interpretation—but it's also easy to construct an argument that it was. (I'm not going to do so here, because that is not the crux of my argument nor the one that I was relying on.)) The speedy criteria for renaming categories also cannot be read outside of other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:BURO (which, by the way, is policy, not merely a guideline: "[Wikipedia] it is not governed by statute: it is not a quasi-judicial body, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." In this case, the overarching concern should not have been enforcement of a rule as it is interpreted by users. The overarching concern should have been: "is this proposed rename uncontroversial and will it result in an unambiguous name?" I saw little to no concern in addressing this question, and I think if it was asked, the answer would have unquestionably been "yes". If it's not, show me why it's not. What I did see was adherence to process—a user opposing and then removing this nomination from consideration completely because it didn't meet his interpretation of the criteria. Reflecting on WP:BURO, how would this have helped the encyclopedia, to have the article and the corresponding category named differently? The original nominator was not notified. The nomination was just thrown out of the process altogether as a type of sacrifice to the gods of "correct process". It was kind of a pathetic display, in my opinion, but I don't want to be too harsh on users, because I know everyone is doing what they do in good faith and with the view that they are doing what is right. That's why I haven't even brought it up with the user in question. In conclusion (and I promise I won't say any more about this discussion)—I agree that process can be important, and we generally want users to follow it, don't we? Well, this is a prime example of why users get a little bit fed up with process sometimes. I could have renamed the category on the sly, and I bet dollars to donuts (mmm) that no one would have noticed, and if they did, they wouldn't have cared. What do you think an observant user—with a limited amount of time and energy and stuffs to give—will opt for next time they face a similar situation? Go through the processes—(1) nominate it for speedy, (2) check if it opposed, (3) if it is opposed, nominate it for full, (4) participate in the discussion, explain to others why you tried to speedy it; (5) wait a few weeks to a few months for the discussion to be closed—or just get it done in 30 seconds? I know what I'll be doing but I can certainly understand it when users go the other way. Every day on my watchlist I run into two or three categories I'm watching that have been renamed by users without going through any process—they are uncontroversial renames, generally—ones that need to be done but should have gone through WP:CFDS. I used to say something every time, but I'm thinking that I'm not going to bother anymore. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So now this discussion has been open for well over a month, with no additional comments having been made in the past month. This is not at all unusual for CFD—without promptings such as this one, it could easily stay open for another month. I think this suggests some degree of skepticism towards the argument that this could have been dealt with in seven days had I just nominated it for a full discussion in the first place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the nominator had simply made the substantive case for a change, the discussion would have been fairly short, and therefore simple to close.
      However, the nominator chose instead to use the CFD to pursue a meta-discussion about procedural issues, which became quite wordy. That makes closure a more onerous task, which reduces the chances of a prompt closure.
      There is indeed a general backlog of CFD closures, but some of the short discussions on this page have already been closed. Sadly, the nominator chose a path which was near guaranteed to propel this one down the queue.
      In future, I hope that the nominator will take their meta-discussions about procedure to a proper venue such as WT:CFD, and reduce the burden on CFD closers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lol—you're breaking my heart here, User:BrownHairedGirl. This discussion hasn't really become any more difficult to close because it contains a "meta-discussion". No one has opposed the nomination. I know it's hard to admit that your actions too have delayed things quite substantially in getting this category renamed; that too, I guess we could emotionally attach a "sadly" to, if we wanted to. Anyway, the original thought was that this discussion could be closed in seven days—that was a bit of a pipe dream based on theory and not practice, regardless of how this discussion played out. There are a few discussions on this page that are still open—some appear to be pretty clear cut with unanimous or near-unanimous consensus, or a clear absence of consensus, and they lack any scintillating meta-discussions. If you didn't think that it was OK to have the meta-discussion in this forum, I'm suprised that you participated in said discussion and even invited me to further explain myself. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • GO, I have seen passive-aggressive nonsense before ... but it's not often as blatant as your attempt to blame me for your repeated refusal to move the procedural discussion to a more suitable venue, and take it out of the substantive discussion. Since you refuse to do that, I have continued to reply here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uh, it's just that I don't really care to move it to another venue. If you want to see such a discussion, go for it—but I won't be starting it. It's nothing to do with you personally. (Well, OK—it is kind of something to do with you personally, in an indirect way. I don't want to start a discussion on that subject, because I'm guessing that you will participate, and discussing things with you is ofttimes unpleasant, or at least not joy-filled. In short, I don't want to do it. But honestly, even if it was someone else, I still wouldn't be interested.) You can't say you haven't played a role in delaying this category from being renamed, though. Well, I take that one back too. You can, and probably will. (I didn't think my suggesting it was all that passive though—I pretty much just said it.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Open for nearly two months now. I've recently closed the other remaining of the discussions on this page. This is not an unusual time frame for full discussions at CFD, even for non-controversial stuff. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2016 (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:Hadron MSDS

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: speedily deleted by RHaworth per WP:G6. Mangoe (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think this category serves any useful purpose, as it seems altogether too specific. What articles would ever fall into this category? /wiae /tlk 04:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - only contents is a single user page. The primary purpose of categories is to hold content such as articles, with a secondary purpose to hold meta-information useful to the process of writing an encyclopedia, such as policy or process pages. This category serves neither of those purposes. SJK (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please close -- The category seems already to have been deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2016 (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:Shuttle Redwhitestar

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Test category. Bamyers99 (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2016 (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/2016_February_10&oldid=1074816160"