Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 3 May 5 >

May 4

[edit]

Category:Software under LPGL

[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Software under LPGL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete (Note that if kept, the typo must be fixed since the license if LGPL) That being said, this is not a sufficiently defining characteristic: membership in Category:Free software is sufficient. Further breaking down the category in little bits and pieces corresponding to the many variants of free licenses is counterproductive and will only isolate articles in small-ish categories. Pichpich (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2011 (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:Basel-City

[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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Basel-City to Category:Basel-Stadt
Nominator's rationale: This category and some, but not all of its subcategories, use the name "Basel-City", whereas our article, and some of the subcategories use "Basel-Stadt". I couldn't find explicit guidance at WP:CAT, but my intuition is that we should favour consistency unless there is some overriding concern not to. I'd be grateful if someone could generate a list of the relevant (sub)categories with Basel-City or Basel-Stadt in the title, and tag as appropriate. Skomorokh 14:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategories: added 19:06, 4 May 2011 (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:Phillips 66 basketball players

[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Phillips 66 basketball players to Category:Phillips 66ers players
Nominator's rationale: Stylization consistent with other semi-professional basketball teams. For example, Category:Peoria Caterpillars player is another AAU team that doesn't use "basketball players". There is no need to specify "basketball" in the category name when the description lets the user know what it's for (much like Category:Miami Dolphins players doesn't use Miami Dolphins football players). Jrcla2 (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2011 (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:Hasidic rabbis in Europe

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hasidic rabbis in Europe to Category:European Hasidic rabbis
Nominator's rationale: Consistancy with other European categories. Chesdovi (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why do you wish to use the term "rabbis" here, when, in CFD of May 1st, you advance the term "Jewish religious leaders"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have just argued elsewhere that "in" is too limiting to that country or region?! If we have a rabbi that lived in Europe and then America, he would be listed as an Amerian rabbi and as a "Rabbi in Europe". 1) It would be better to be consistent in style if all were XXXan rabbi. 2) According to your reasong, Rabbi In Europe would exclue him being rabbi anywhere else. However if we say he was "European", well Europaens can move about, not having to remain "in" Europe. 3) We have Jews and Judaism in America, then we have American rabbis. So too with Hardei Judaism in Europe, we can have European rabbis. Your first point is discounted b/c I have nominated the other cat for rename aswell. Chesdovi (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not all situations are the same. The questions here is not to rename them to "...of Europe" but to something else entirely. I could live with "...of Europe" here too since "of" and "in" mean the same in most contexts as it relates to famous rabbis. But your suggestion would only create confusion as I have explained above. IZAK (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying this "in" categroy may only list rabbis who lived in Europe their whole lives? Chesdovi (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, rabbis move around a lot, but this category is for rabbis who have "predominantly" lived in Europe, yes, even though they may have spent some years at some point away from Europe. IZAK (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see your point. If "of" and "in" mean the same, i.e. they lived "predominantly" in Europe, why on earth can we not call them "European"? That's exactly what the term means! What "confusion" do you refer to? Your point #1 is not 100% correct: It is not "perfectly consistent" with other rabbi cats: Do any of Category:Rabbis by nationality these say "in" instead of "...ean"? #2) What is "logical" here? Fine, we have Category:Haredi Judaism in Europe, but all the rabbis in the "Rabbis by nationality" are also sub-cats of Jews and Judaism in “xxxx (country)”). We don’t have Rabbis in Germany, Rabbis in America. #3. Who cares about "migration"? It is much clearer to have the term "European" used as we can have a an Israeli of European descent; but why have two cats, one saying "Israeli rabbi" and another saying "Rabbi in Europe"? If he was in Europe, why is he called Israeli? However, a calling someone European does not limit him to having to be in Europe only. If we call him European, we 1) understand that he was from Europe, and 2) it allows us to have him being categorise as being from elsewhere too. The main reason for the rename is that it is not consistant. We have Category:Israeli religious leaders, then Category:Israeli rabbis, then Category:Israeli Orthodox rabbis, then Category:Haredi rabbis in Israel. Is then called perfectly consistent? Chesdovi (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi: You are missing the point and making a wrong comparsion as well. Firstly "European rabbis" moved to many countries so it's important to keep in place those who remained primarily in Europe. Secondly, STOP comparing it to modern-day Israeli religious leaders because Israel is only 63 years old while the Jews and rabbis were in Europe for 2000 years. You are being too hasty, I'm afraid. IZAK (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this clear. Based on your previous post and point 3 of your original post, you want to retain the “Rabbis in Europe” as it signifies “primary residence” of that person, as oppose to “European rabbis” which does not imply “predominant residence.” 1. Please explain how the word “in” implies primary residence? Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine does not only include rabbis who lived in Palestine most of their lives by any means. Also, should we also make a category “Rabbis in America” as opposed to the current “American rabbis” for the purpose of separating rabbis who lived mainly in the USA? Another thing, if we indeed have a rabbi that moved around, with most of his life spent in Europe, can we add “Rabbi in American or Israel” as well? You imply that a Dayan Abramsky would not be categorised as a “Rabbi in Israel” because he was only there for relatively few years.
Further please clarify what you mean by saying I should not compare it to “modern-day Israeli religious leaders because Israel is only 63 years old while the Jews and rabbis were in Europe for 2000 years” This category uses the modern classification term “Haredi”, itself only 63 years old, while Hassidic 200? Chesdovi (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi you are now going around in circles. Perhaps it's time for you to review Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If everything were right we could stop editing the encyclopedia because there wouldn't be anything to fix". Going round in circles? I've obvioulsy stumped you with that lame response. PS. You don't have to agree with me that we shouldn't be keeping wrongly named categories. You've stated your view. If you have nothing further to add to the issue at hand, just leave it and move on. Chesdovi (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of a European nationality! And who says European means descent? European means "of/from Europe". Nevertheless, the parent cat is "rabbi by region", not ethnicity. And last point: Rabbis in Europe are called Ashkenasi rabbis, itself a term used to classify rabbis of European descent. POINTY nom? Talk about hypocracy: Debresser nominated Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel for rename to "in" the Land of Israel after discussions had taken place about whether a rabbi in Palestine can be called "of" Palestine, i.e. "Palestinian". Chesdovi (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi you are now going around in circles. Perhaps it's time for you to review Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't try and stifle debate and productive editing with the accusation that I am taking this too seriously. If you feel you have run out of steam and can't be bothered to contiune the discussion normally, there is no need to get the last word in such a fashion. Chesdovi (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not been convinced of the correctness of this name. IZAK has tried to assert that "in" means primary abode, yet as we have Category:Hasidic rabbis in Europe and Category:Hasidic rabbis in Israel, this leaves rabbis like Chaim Leib Shmuelevitz as categorised as both. Did he live his life 50% in Europe and 50% in Israel? He already is categorised as "Lithuanian Orthodox rabbis", why can we not also refer to him as a European and Israeli rabbi? It doesn't make any sense. Shlomo Wolbe spent most his life in Israel, yet he is categoriesd as "Rabbi In Europe"? Chesdovi (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We can not call them "European" because that is a loaded term. A rabbi born in Russia, who lives there until he is 30 but then becomes a Rabbi the day after going to Israel is clearly "European" in some sense, but clearly not a "Rabbi in Europe". The rename has too many potential problems. Leave it as is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2011 (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:Haredi rabbis in Europe

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Haredi rabbis in Europe to Category:European Haredi rabbis
Nominator's rationale: Consistancy with other European categories. Chesdovi (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why do you wish to use the term "rabbis" here, when, in CFD of May 1st, you advance the term "Jewish religious leaders"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2011 (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:Rabbis by geography

[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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rabbis by geography to Category:Rabbis by region
Nominator's rationale: Better and more accurate description. Chesdovi (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why do you wish to use the term "rabbis" here, when, in CFD of May 1st, you advance the term "Jewish religious leaders"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we can include earlier leaders in the region. The term rabbi is used only for people who lived from around the time of the Romans and onwards. None of the earlier Hasmoneans or high preists were called rabbis, but they were the religious leaders in the Land. Basically to have a more encompassing category. Chesdovi (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2011 (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.
[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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Politicians convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: According to WP:BLPCAT: "Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." Because hardly anyone is notable solely and primarily for being convicted of drunk driving, this category cannot be used on Wikipedia. Also I propose deleting the subcategory, Category:Politicians convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. I've long believed that this is inappropriate overcategorization. It is a factoid about the person, not something that makes the person notable and therefore probably not something we should categorize by. (And yes, I realize we categorize by year of birth and death.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The interpretation of the policy given in the nomination is plainly a misreading, to me. [A]n incident relevant to the person's notability in no ways implies that the incident needs to be "solely" or "primarily" the cause of the person's notability, as the nominator suggests. [R]elevant to the person's notability means for instance that when discussing why the person is well-known or important, this incident is something they would mention. Are there many for whom "that politician who did ____, ____, and was convicted for drunk driving" is true? I couldn't say, but it's a very different question than the one posed by the nominator. No comment on the worth of the categories. Skomorokh 14:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom and GoF. I strongly agree that this is not a defining characteristic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2011 (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/2011_May_4&oldid=1138395532"