May 5
Category:American western novelists
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Rename Category:American western novelists to Category:American Western (genre) novelists
- Nominator's rationale we should make it 100% clear that this category is about writing a in the gnere of Westerns, and not a geographical category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I have tried to fix the spelling. Looking over other categories and articles related to this, I also now think we should capitalize. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- rename per nom and per previous CFD. Less ambiguous this way. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 00:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. While it's kind of horrible (I think) to have a parenthetical in a category name, it is certainly clearer. I would be amenable to Category:American Western genre novelists also, although it would be a bit less unambiguous. -- Lquilter ( talk) 15:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This suggests we should rename this category. For what it is worth we have lots of category names with parentheticals in them. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:18, 9 May 2013 (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:U.S. Presidents surviving assassination attempts
- 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. It sounds like there is some support for creating a category to house the articles about assassination attempts on U.S. presidents. Note that this could have been merged to Category:Attempted assassination survivors, but I have not done that because there was no support for doing so in the discussion, and I presume that the same arguments would apply in removing the articles on US presidents from that category (or for deleting the category). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I think this fails WP:DEFINING - having had someone take a potshot at you, especially as a standing president, is not something that would regularly be mentioned in a lede. I'm not sure about the parent, but for the presidents in particular, I think it should be deleted. This list List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots is much more useful. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator's suggestion that the category fails
WP:DEFINING is in error. The category addresses the short-list of Presidents of the United States who have had actual attempts against their life planned AND carried out. No ill-defined "plots" or "potshots" here, but actual attempts at the assassination of a sitting president. This is notable, verifiable, and for these presidents, defining. The statement that the information isn't lede-worthy is nonsense. Is the fact that Andrew Jackson was the first sitting president to have someone make an attempt on his life in the lede of his article? I don't know, but it should be. Is Ronald Reagan's defining-moment, near-assassination mentioned in the lede of his article? I don't know, but it should be. The list-article the nominator compares the category to is riddled with "rumors" and "plots", which is hardly helpful nor "defining," as probably every US President has had people plot against them. Very few people ever carry those plots thru to action, and fewer still ever actually get the president in their sights and make an actual attempt on their life—which, as opposed to the aforementioned article, this category addresses wholly and succinctly. Thank you.
GenQuest
"Talk to Me" 13:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- But that's the issue with categories - you're either in or out. So what is it that makes this category? I think the list article is a much better way of capturing this information - for example, you could create a special section of the list to show credible/dangerous attempts were made - as you say "an actual attempt" - the problem is, there are likely many *more* attempts that are made - even ones which have no hope of succeeding, but that are downplayed b/c the secret service is good at their job. For example, if someone plants a bomb, and it is detected and removed - that is certainly an attempt, and the president survived - but should all presidents who that has happened to be placed here? Does an actual bullet have to leave a chamber or a bomb actually explode before it's considered "an attempt"? There are degrees here, it's not black or white like you paint it. On a side note, I don't think Ronald Reagan's attempt was "a defining moment" - it certainly impacted his life, but I'm not sure if it would be in the lead of any article about his legacy.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 16:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- As an example of "grey", read this one: Assassination_threats_against_Barack_Obama#Shots_fired_at_White_House - shots were actually fired, but the president wasn't there (and thus, happily, survived). Is that an attempt? Should Obama be thus placed? Would it be mentioned in the lede of Obama's article? Again, list is great for this stuff, it's all encyclopedic. But not categories.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- But that's the issue with categories - you're either in or out. So what is it that makes this category? I think the list article is a much better way of capturing this information - for example, you could create a special section of the list to show credible/dangerous attempts were made - as you say "an actual attempt" - the problem is, there are likely many *more* attempts that are made - even ones which have no hope of succeeding, but that are downplayed b/c the secret service is good at their job. For example, if someone plants a bomb, and it is detected and removed - that is certainly an attempt, and the president survived - but should all presidents who that has happened to be placed here? Does an actual bullet have to leave a chamber or a bomb actually explode before it's considered "an attempt"? There are degrees here, it's not black or white like you paint it. On a side note, I don't think Ronald Reagan's attempt was "a defining moment" - it certainly impacted his life, but I'm not sure if it would be in the lead of any article about his legacy.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 16:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Lean to Delete / Create New Category The current category is largely a list of U.S. Presidents and every person serving is the position is bound to annoy someone enough or become the fetish of some wacko and become the target of an assassination attempt. My biggest surprise is that there are any presidents not in this category. My further surprise is that there are a series of articles -- Baltimore Plot, Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento, Reagan assassination attempt, Truman assassination attempt -- that are about specific failed attempts. A new / repurposed category that included these notable attempts would be a far more appropriate subject for categorization. Alansohn ( talk) 16:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is a reasonable idea too - if the attempt was notable enough to have an article, then group those together - but I don't see a reason to so-categorize the presidents themselves. -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a notable event for the individual, certainly, but it is not a defining attribute of a class of people. By that, I mean that one is not going to generally introduce a President of the United States by saying, "John Foo, assassination attempt survivor, ....". It's also hard to conceive of just what, exactly, scholarship might arise that would focus on "surviving assassination attempts". I guess maybe psychological studies of the victims? But then wouldn't they better be defined as PTSD sufferers or something? At any rate this just is not a "topic" of study as far as I know. Also, because of the possibility of indefinite or vague qualifying events, it's much better handled as a list where notes & context can be given. For that matter, the whole attribute is really of interest only if we can see the information about the attempt and survival. The more I look at this the more I think it's borderline trivia, notwithstanding the political nature of most attempted assassinations of POTUS's. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The problem is that "assasination attempt" says little about the person themselves. If we limited it to people who were actually injured by these attempts it would be one thing, but for example in the article on Giuseppe Zangara, the person who put Franklin D. Roosevelt in this category we learn 1-Roosevelt was not injured, 2-we cannot even definitely say that Roosevelt was the target, since the mayor of Chicago was assasinated in the incident. Then there is the problem that this category covers not only in office assasinsation attempts but pre-inagural or post-office attempts as well. Dieing by an assasination is notable, having someone try to kill you, especially when you escape injury entirely is not. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -- If this is intended as a category of presidents, it is unsatisfactory, because it will be a subcat of presidents: we do not allow articles to be in both parent and subcat. It would be legitimate to have a category for articles on assassination plots and attempts. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Peter - there are several non-diffusing cats in the president's tree - presumably so that Category:Presidents of the United States will have all of them. I think this is acceptable, on a case-by-case basis, to sometimes have non-diffusing cats, because the potential scope is quite small. I have even recently tagged them as such.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Listify since the category does not indicate when the assassination attempt took place (before, during, after presidency?) and a list can so indicate it. -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 00:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Not defining. Neutrality talk 07:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Loosely, this is identical to all presidents not assassinated, and since it is likely that many if not all of the ones assassinated also survived an assassination attempt, it is simply a list of all presidents. Assassination threats on Obama increased to 30 a day (a 400% increase, described by the secret service using unbelievably fuzzy math as "about the same" as for other presidents), and a threat is not as severe as an attempt, but not by much.
Apteva (
talk) 18:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, an attempt is clearly more than a threat. Andrew Jackson was the first president to face an assasination attempt at all, his six predecessors never faced such a thing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:59, 19 May 2013 (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:Eastern Orthodox minor church bodies and movements
- 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 at
2013 MAY 28 CFD.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 22:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The "minor" name is inherently POV. I'm not sure what we should do about this--maybe upmerge the contents somehow? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I'm happy with the concept - all these are pretty small or really tiny groups that have splintered off from the main groupings at some point, but "minor" sounds a bit POV, though wholly accurate. If push comes to shove, Keep. Johnbod ( talk) 22:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Replace with Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates in Russia (as it is currently a sub-cat of Category:Eastern Orthodoxy in Russia), and move anything non-Russian into Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates in Asia, Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates in Europe or Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies in North America. An alternative is Category:Eastern Orthodox noncanonical church bodies but that currently seems to contain groups that might more often be seen as denominations in contrast with the "sects" in the nominated category. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I also think we should really avoid the use of the term "sect". It is just as pejorative, POV-pushing and meant to deligitimatize as "cult" is. It is a term of derision which we should not be using. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates. Not all the contents of this category are even in Russia. The "minor" is a POV-pushing statement. It basically says "these are uninportant" and that is clearly a POV view. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Either merge per JPL or Rename to something like Category:Eastern Orthodox dissident churches. The point is that most of these are not in communion with the patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Moscow, etc. No doubt they see themselves and the true believers and the mainline orthodox as having departed from the true way. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, these are the equivalent of Category:Anglican realignment denominations and Category:Independent Catholic Churches, most of which are tiny. We should be able to find a phrasing. Propose Category:Eastern Orthodox independent churches, though i've no idea if this is a term used for them - a note is needed either way. Johnbod ( talk) 18:29, 17 May 2013 (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:Bilingual journals
- 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 to Category:Multilingual journals. The consensus here is not terribly strong, but I have considered this close in conjunction with the previous discussion. I think we need a somewhat stronger consensus if we are going to say that creating subcategories of Category:Multilingual journals is the way to go. For now, they can all be housed in the one category, which is not excessively large at present. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Two months ago we had a CFD for "Spanish and English-language journals". Just as with that category, I don't see much logic in this category. Academic journals are categorized by language. If they use more than one, they are categorized in the Mulitlingual journals. I fail to see the use of separating out journals according to the number of languages they use, either. Hence I propose to delete this category and restore the "multilingual journals" category to the articles that it currently contains. Randykitty ( talk) 16:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- merge to Category:Multilingual journals per nom.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 17:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Category:Multilingual journals has grown too large and is a big dump. Category:Bilingual journals could be the first step into creating categories like Category:Bilingual English-French language journals and Category:Bilingual English-Spanish language journals (for both of which there exists large numbers of articles). As for those that claim that such categorization would result in far too many categories just check the number of bilateral relations categories like Category:Canada–United States relations or Category:China–India relations.
- From Randykitty on february:
- "It still wont make a real dent in that cat, it opens the door to endless discussions (shouldn't this be English-Spanish?), it starts a category tree that is going to be very difficult to define (English-Portuguese-Spanish journals, English-Esperanto-French journals, Dutch-Hindi journals, whatever)"
- Well, it is important to take into account that not all journal-language combinations are meant or deserve to have categories, just only the most common. To discriminate (in the good sence) which articles and categories should exists is part of the work everyday in Wikipedia, there is nothing specially dificult or strange about discriminating among the bilingual combinations that deserve categories. Randykitty's stance of not dividing
Mulitlingual journals is unsustainable in the long run.
Dentren |
Talk 22:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment So what you are saying is that you created this category in order eventually to get around the CFD decision on "Spanish and English-language journals"? I'm not going to repeat the arguments that were given in that CFD, that one is over and if you're unhappy with the decision there, you should go to DRV. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: This proposal is of course like the proposed bilingual catoegires aimed at subcategorize Mulitlingual journals, calling it a "circumvention" of WP:CFD is just to not assume good faith. Dentren | Talk 11:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not assuming anything, good or bad. Above you clearly write yourself that your ultimate goal is to create bilingual categories, something that explicitly goes against the outcome of the previous CfD. -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - It seems to me that language of a written work is a highly notable and likely defining attribute. Category:Bilingual journals seems like a completely reasonable category in that context. I do have a couple of questions though. Is a "bilingual journal" intended to mean a journal with parallel translations? (A lot of newspapers do this.) Or is it intended to mean a journal that publishes articles in one of two languages, but without full translations of all content? The term seems a bit ambiguous to me. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Of course it is. That's why we have Category:English-language journals, Category:Spanish-language journals, etc. For journals that publish in more than one language we have the Category:Multilingual journals. I see no use in having categories like "Bilingual journals", "Trilingual journals", etc. And in the previous CfD there was agreement that there is no need for categories like "Spanish and English-language journals". As for the translations, most journals that publish in more than one language are not translated (that is, an article appears in one of the journal's languages). This is less-and-less common in the sciences (that by now are >95% in English), but very common in the humanities. In the sciences there are some journals (mainly Russian, plus some Chinese ones) that are translated cover to cover. Sometimes we have two different articles for these different versions (with their own ISSNs, often different publishers, etc), sometimes we have 1 article. I would have to search around to see how they are categorized. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Nobody is [yet] proposing a "Trilingual journals" category, and when somebody does the its usefulness can be discussed in its own CfD or a talk page. Second, resolutions in other CfD are not binding for this one and still insisting on previous CfD brings down the level of the discussion as no true argument for deletion is put forward, and ends up only being a power play. The usefullness of each category has to be dealt with independently and based on hypothetical scenarios of future categories that nobody is proposing. Dentren | Talk 22:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but as far as I see, you are explicitly proposing to re-establish a category that was deleted after an earlier (and very recent) CfD. Such an attemp to get around a CfD decision is relevant. -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I do support creating two language journals categories under an appropriate name and wording. But this CfD is dealing with Category:Bilingual journals that can exist or not exist interdependently of these other proposed categories. Dentren | Talk 22:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I would support categories that name the two languages, but "bilingual journals" seems like a good counterpart to / subdivision of "multilingual journals". The arguments for/against "X/Y journals" and "bilingual journals" are sufficiently different that I don't see that one would preclude the other. --
Lquilter (
talk) 22:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- But the implication of having a subcategory "Bilingual journals" is that "multilingual journals" means "3 or more languages". I don't see the usefulness of the distinction between "2" and "more than 2" here. In addition, Dentren's stated goal (above) is to restore XY-language cats, so by keeping this cat, we're just setting things up for more future discussions. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I would support categories that name the two languages, but "bilingual journals" seems like a good counterpart to / subdivision of "multilingual journals". The arguments for/against "X/Y journals" and "bilingual journals" are sufficiently different that I don't see that one would preclude the other. --
Lquilter (
talk) 22:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
And perhaps a Trilingual journals category should exists just as the Category:Triannual journals do, but that is not the discussion here. Dentren | Talk 11:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, totally different .... Back to the subject at hand: I just think that a journal that is routinely published in a particular bilingual format is useful in a different way than multilingual. "Multilingual" signals to me that it accepts articles in multiple languages. "Bilingual" in being aimed at two particular languages implies (a) it might have translations of the content within it, (b) it's aimed at particular bilingual audiences (e.g., American w/ Spanish/English; Canadian w/ French/English; Kazakhstan w/ Kazakh/Russian; lots of countries w/ provincial languages and a national language; etc.). Trilingual might also be helpful if it's common enough (Belgium, I suppose; Switzerland ....). So I just feel that the different terms denote (in general) differences in audience and possibly content, as well as language. Am I wrong? --
Lquilter (
talk) 15:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you are. Precious few journals nowadays are "bound" to one single country (and those that are, are trying more and more to leave that behind both in name and practice, for example the
Netherlands Journal of Zoology). Any Swiss or Belgian academic journals I know are either in English or (less frequently) in English. Some exceptions may be law journals or some very specialized sociology/humanities journals, but even those are usually more general than just Switzerland or Belgium (to stay with those examples). Rather, journals are multilingual because traditionally their field of inquiry is multilingual. Hence, almost all
scientific journals are in English nowadays. This is also where you find the most translated journals: i.e., not publishing articles in language A or B, but having an edition in language A and an edition in language B, which almost always are physically separate: different print editions (with often different publishers) and different websites. Fields like philosophy, theology, or other humanities/social sciences, often still use other languages and publish articles in a variety of languages, but typically the same print edition and the same website will contain articles in all the languages that the journal accepts. The way your thinking is going starts to look like "national" categories ("American journals", "Polish journals", etc). Those have been proposed several times in the past and always !voted down, given that academic publishing (especially with the advance of online publishing) is more and more international nowadays. --
Randykitty (
talk) 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was going to make same point as you did Lquilter, and just like Randykitty said few journals are bound to a geographical single audience, but that does not refute or validate anything. The fact that many Canadian and Latin American journals are bilingual is has more to do with a widening of the contributor base and with language politics, but I can't see how this situation would make any difference for the discussion here. Overall I find the level of the arguments put forward by Randykitty quite poor, specially the lattest appeals to "previous consesus" on categories that are not of the concern in this discussion.
Dentren |
Talk 17:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure how the predominance of monolingual journals gives us an answer. I also don't agree that this categorizing on language is going to get us to categorizing by nationality. I would likely be opposed to national categories for academic journals, but I don't see how it makes categorizing by language a bad idea. Randykitty, some journals are bilingual -- because of field of study or whatever -- so setting aside the nationality question (which is not at issue) & the monolingual question, why is it bad to separate out bilingual from monolingual & multilingual? -- Lquilter ( talk) 00:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- At this point, we have a subdivide between monolingual journals (for which we have language-specific cats) and the cat "multilingual journals" for journals that use more than one language. I just don't see the utility of separating the latter category into a subcat for journals that use 2 languages and a rump cat for journals that use more than 2 languages. I see a difference between monolingual and multilingual. I don't see any substantial difference between bilingual and multilingual. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is difference. How much people do you think can read the full content Spanish-English or French-English journal and how many do you think can read the content of a German-Romanian-French-English-Russian journal? I do however agree with you Randykitty that the monolingual and multilingual is the greater divide and thats why that divide should be (and is) in a greater hierarchy level than the bilingual and other eventual subcategories. Dentren | Talk 01:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it helps the closer at all, I think my position could best be stated as lean to keep -- I don't feel very strongly about it. I think your arguments have merit, Randykitty, I just think that "bilingual" and "multilingual" and "monolingual" are all common terms that are reasonable to keep. Trilingual and so forth start to become less common & less useful. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)----
- I was going to make same point as you did Lquilter, and just like Randykitty said few journals are bound to a geographical single audience, but that does not refute or validate anything. The fact that many Canadian and Latin American journals are bilingual is has more to do with a widening of the contributor base and with language politics, but I can't see how this situation would make any difference for the discussion here. Overall I find the level of the arguments put forward by Randykitty quite poor, specially the lattest appeals to "previous consesus" on categories that are not of the concern in this discussion.
Dentren |
Talk 17:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you are. Precious few journals nowadays are "bound" to one single country (and those that are, are trying more and more to leave that behind both in name and practice, for example the
Netherlands Journal of Zoology). Any Swiss or Belgian academic journals I know are either in English or (less frequently) in English. Some exceptions may be law journals or some very specialized sociology/humanities journals, but even those are usually more general than just Switzerland or Belgium (to stay with those examples). Rather, journals are multilingual because traditionally their field of inquiry is multilingual. Hence, almost all
scientific journals are in English nowadays. This is also where you find the most translated journals: i.e., not publishing articles in language A or B, but having an edition in language A and an edition in language B, which almost always are physically separate: different print editions (with often different publishers) and different websites. Fields like philosophy, theology, or other humanities/social sciences, often still use other languages and publish articles in a variety of languages, but typically the same print edition and the same website will contain articles in all the languages that the journal accepts. The way your thinking is going starts to look like "national" categories ("American journals", "Polish journals", etc). Those have been proposed several times in the past and always !voted down, given that academic publishing (especially with the advance of online publishing) is more and more international nowadays. --
Randykitty (
talk) 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, totally different .... Back to the subject at hand: I just think that a journal that is routinely published in a particular bilingual format is useful in a different way than multilingual. "Multilingual" signals to me that it accepts articles in multiple languages. "Bilingual" in being aimed at two particular languages implies (a) it might have translations of the content within it, (b) it's aimed at particular bilingual audiences (e.g., American w/ Spanish/English; Canadian w/ French/English; Kazakhstan w/ Kazakh/Russian; lots of countries w/ provincial languages and a national language; etc.). Trilingual might also be helpful if it's common enough (Belgium, I suppose; Switzerland ....). So I just feel that the different terms denote (in general) differences in audience and possibly content, as well as language. Am I wrong? --
Lquilter (
talk) 15:14, 7 May 2013 (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:Pages lacking pictures
- 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. Wizardman 03:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: There are several other methods for tracking pages without pictures, not the least of which is posting {{ reqphoto}} to the talk page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- delete per nom. There is already Category:Wikipedia requested photographs. -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This is evidently meant to also include pages with "barely any" photos, which makes the inclusion criteria unclear and unobjective. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:54, 6 May 2013 (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.
Sony Radio Academy Award winner categories
- 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: listify then delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify both categories - I'm proposing that both these award winner categories should be deleted as categories per WP:OCAT#Award, with information retained in lists on the relevant award entries. Note that "... Gold winners" is for the Gold; and " ... winners" is for the Silver & Bronze. So already we have some name confusion and scope that is unclear from the titles of the categories. The main problem though is that these are annual awards for radio programming and personalities, and they are much better handled as a list, where the year, relative rank (gold, silver, bronze) can be listed, and information can be footnoted/referenced about why, nominating commentaries, and so forth. So if the same entity won multiple times, they are listed multiple times, for instance. -- Lquilter ( talk) 02:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Notice: Creator notified. -- Lquilter ( talk) 02:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- lists do the job much better,as they can give the date and citation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete more unneeded award categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:14, 9 May 2013 (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:African-American memoirists
- 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) 22:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:EGRS, these last-rung cats should not be created, as they serve to isolate African-American memoirists from the rest - since American memoirists cannot be further diffused at this point, this cat should be merged. Category intersection with African-American writers can be used to find all African-American memoirists if such a list is needed, and I'd be happy to create a link to just search a search at the top of Category:American memoirists if needed. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 01:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. This is too specific for an ethnicity category to be. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Upmerge to prevent isolation. Neutrality talk 06:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- African-American memoirists will not be isolated from American memoirists of other ethnic identities, because the identity intersection category should ONLY be applied as a redundant category, and NOT as a diffusable category. If the concern is that memoirists should not be "isolated" from other types of writers, I don't see that as a particular issue; if someone is primarily a memoirist then they should be so described. In other words, "ghettoization" is not a good argument for deletion, because ghettoization would be avoided by correctly applying both the parent categories and the non-diffusable child category. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:51, 18 May 2013 (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:UNESCO-Madanjeet Singh Prize laureates
- 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. Wizardman 03:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by award per WP:OCAT#Award. This is a biennial peace/humanitarian award by UNESCO. It's been awarded to folks like Aung San Suu Kyi, Narayan Desai, Pro-Femmes Twese Hamwe, and Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria. These various figures are notable for their activism and courage, but not for having won this award, which recognizes their activism and courage. A list works very well to tie these people to the award, and indeed they are all listed at UNESCO-Madanjeet Singh Prize, where they can be ordered by year and have information specific to their awards. Lquilter ( talk) 01:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Notice: Creator notified. -- Lquilter ( talk) 02:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. This award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of its recipients. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- delete - just make sure the list is up to date before icing the whole category - can you do that LQ? -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This is overcategorization by award. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete -- as with most award categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:21, 6 May 2013 (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.
May 5
Category:American western novelists
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Rename Category:American western novelists to Category:American Western (genre) novelists
- Nominator's rationale we should make it 100% clear that this category is about writing a in the gnere of Westerns, and not a geographical category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I have tried to fix the spelling. Looking over other categories and articles related to this, I also now think we should capitalize. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- rename per nom and per previous CFD. Less ambiguous this way. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 00:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. While it's kind of horrible (I think) to have a parenthetical in a category name, it is certainly clearer. I would be amenable to Category:American Western genre novelists also, although it would be a bit less unambiguous. -- Lquilter ( talk) 15:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This suggests we should rename this category. For what it is worth we have lots of category names with parentheticals in them. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:18, 9 May 2013 (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:U.S. Presidents surviving assassination attempts
- 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. It sounds like there is some support for creating a category to house the articles about assassination attempts on U.S. presidents. Note that this could have been merged to Category:Attempted assassination survivors, but I have not done that because there was no support for doing so in the discussion, and I presume that the same arguments would apply in removing the articles on US presidents from that category (or for deleting the category). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I think this fails WP:DEFINING - having had someone take a potshot at you, especially as a standing president, is not something that would regularly be mentioned in a lede. I'm not sure about the parent, but for the presidents in particular, I think it should be deleted. This list List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots is much more useful. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator's suggestion that the category fails
WP:DEFINING is in error. The category addresses the short-list of Presidents of the United States who have had actual attempts against their life planned AND carried out. No ill-defined "plots" or "potshots" here, but actual attempts at the assassination of a sitting president. This is notable, verifiable, and for these presidents, defining. The statement that the information isn't lede-worthy is nonsense. Is the fact that Andrew Jackson was the first sitting president to have someone make an attempt on his life in the lede of his article? I don't know, but it should be. Is Ronald Reagan's defining-moment, near-assassination mentioned in the lede of his article? I don't know, but it should be. The list-article the nominator compares the category to is riddled with "rumors" and "plots", which is hardly helpful nor "defining," as probably every US President has had people plot against them. Very few people ever carry those plots thru to action, and fewer still ever actually get the president in their sights and make an actual attempt on their life—which, as opposed to the aforementioned article, this category addresses wholly and succinctly. Thank you.
GenQuest
"Talk to Me" 13:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- But that's the issue with categories - you're either in or out. So what is it that makes this category? I think the list article is a much better way of capturing this information - for example, you could create a special section of the list to show credible/dangerous attempts were made - as you say "an actual attempt" - the problem is, there are likely many *more* attempts that are made - even ones which have no hope of succeeding, but that are downplayed b/c the secret service is good at their job. For example, if someone plants a bomb, and it is detected and removed - that is certainly an attempt, and the president survived - but should all presidents who that has happened to be placed here? Does an actual bullet have to leave a chamber or a bomb actually explode before it's considered "an attempt"? There are degrees here, it's not black or white like you paint it. On a side note, I don't think Ronald Reagan's attempt was "a defining moment" - it certainly impacted his life, but I'm not sure if it would be in the lead of any article about his legacy.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 16:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- As an example of "grey", read this one: Assassination_threats_against_Barack_Obama#Shots_fired_at_White_House - shots were actually fired, but the president wasn't there (and thus, happily, survived). Is that an attempt? Should Obama be thus placed? Would it be mentioned in the lede of Obama's article? Again, list is great for this stuff, it's all encyclopedic. But not categories.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- But that's the issue with categories - you're either in or out. So what is it that makes this category? I think the list article is a much better way of capturing this information - for example, you could create a special section of the list to show credible/dangerous attempts were made - as you say "an actual attempt" - the problem is, there are likely many *more* attempts that are made - even ones which have no hope of succeeding, but that are downplayed b/c the secret service is good at their job. For example, if someone plants a bomb, and it is detected and removed - that is certainly an attempt, and the president survived - but should all presidents who that has happened to be placed here? Does an actual bullet have to leave a chamber or a bomb actually explode before it's considered "an attempt"? There are degrees here, it's not black or white like you paint it. On a side note, I don't think Ronald Reagan's attempt was "a defining moment" - it certainly impacted his life, but I'm not sure if it would be in the lead of any article about his legacy.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 16:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Lean to Delete / Create New Category The current category is largely a list of U.S. Presidents and every person serving is the position is bound to annoy someone enough or become the fetish of some wacko and become the target of an assassination attempt. My biggest surprise is that there are any presidents not in this category. My further surprise is that there are a series of articles -- Baltimore Plot, Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento, Reagan assassination attempt, Truman assassination attempt -- that are about specific failed attempts. A new / repurposed category that included these notable attempts would be a far more appropriate subject for categorization. Alansohn ( talk) 16:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is a reasonable idea too - if the attempt was notable enough to have an article, then group those together - but I don't see a reason to so-categorize the presidents themselves. -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a notable event for the individual, certainly, but it is not a defining attribute of a class of people. By that, I mean that one is not going to generally introduce a President of the United States by saying, "John Foo, assassination attempt survivor, ....". It's also hard to conceive of just what, exactly, scholarship might arise that would focus on "surviving assassination attempts". I guess maybe psychological studies of the victims? But then wouldn't they better be defined as PTSD sufferers or something? At any rate this just is not a "topic" of study as far as I know. Also, because of the possibility of indefinite or vague qualifying events, it's much better handled as a list where notes & context can be given. For that matter, the whole attribute is really of interest only if we can see the information about the attempt and survival. The more I look at this the more I think it's borderline trivia, notwithstanding the political nature of most attempted assassinations of POTUS's. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The problem is that "assasination attempt" says little about the person themselves. If we limited it to people who were actually injured by these attempts it would be one thing, but for example in the article on Giuseppe Zangara, the person who put Franklin D. Roosevelt in this category we learn 1-Roosevelt was not injured, 2-we cannot even definitely say that Roosevelt was the target, since the mayor of Chicago was assasinated in the incident. Then there is the problem that this category covers not only in office assasinsation attempts but pre-inagural or post-office attempts as well. Dieing by an assasination is notable, having someone try to kill you, especially when you escape injury entirely is not. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -- If this is intended as a category of presidents, it is unsatisfactory, because it will be a subcat of presidents: we do not allow articles to be in both parent and subcat. It would be legitimate to have a category for articles on assassination plots and attempts. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Peter - there are several non-diffusing cats in the president's tree - presumably so that Category:Presidents of the United States will have all of them. I think this is acceptable, on a case-by-case basis, to sometimes have non-diffusing cats, because the potential scope is quite small. I have even recently tagged them as such.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Listify since the category does not indicate when the assassination attempt took place (before, during, after presidency?) and a list can so indicate it. -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 00:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Not defining. Neutrality talk 07:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Loosely, this is identical to all presidents not assassinated, and since it is likely that many if not all of the ones assassinated also survived an assassination attempt, it is simply a list of all presidents. Assassination threats on Obama increased to 30 a day (a 400% increase, described by the secret service using unbelievably fuzzy math as "about the same" as for other presidents), and a threat is not as severe as an attempt, but not by much.
Apteva (
talk) 18:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, an attempt is clearly more than a threat. Andrew Jackson was the first president to face an assasination attempt at all, his six predecessors never faced such a thing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:59, 19 May 2013 (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:Eastern Orthodox minor church bodies and movements
- 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 at
2013 MAY 28 CFD.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 22:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The "minor" name is inherently POV. I'm not sure what we should do about this--maybe upmerge the contents somehow? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I'm happy with the concept - all these are pretty small or really tiny groups that have splintered off from the main groupings at some point, but "minor" sounds a bit POV, though wholly accurate. If push comes to shove, Keep. Johnbod ( talk) 22:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Replace with Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates in Russia (as it is currently a sub-cat of Category:Eastern Orthodoxy in Russia), and move anything non-Russian into Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates in Asia, Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates in Europe or Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies in North America. An alternative is Category:Eastern Orthodox noncanonical church bodies but that currently seems to contain groups that might more often be seen as denominations in contrast with the "sects" in the nominated category. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I also think we should really avoid the use of the term "sect". It is just as pejorative, POV-pushing and meant to deligitimatize as "cult" is. It is a term of derision which we should not be using. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates. Not all the contents of this category are even in Russia. The "minor" is a POV-pushing statement. It basically says "these are uninportant" and that is clearly a POV view. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Either merge per JPL or Rename to something like Category:Eastern Orthodox dissident churches. The point is that most of these are not in communion with the patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Moscow, etc. No doubt they see themselves and the true believers and the mainline orthodox as having departed from the true way. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, these are the equivalent of Category:Anglican realignment denominations and Category:Independent Catholic Churches, most of which are tiny. We should be able to find a phrasing. Propose Category:Eastern Orthodox independent churches, though i've no idea if this is a term used for them - a note is needed either way. Johnbod ( talk) 18:29, 17 May 2013 (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:Bilingual journals
- 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 to Category:Multilingual journals. The consensus here is not terribly strong, but I have considered this close in conjunction with the previous discussion. I think we need a somewhat stronger consensus if we are going to say that creating subcategories of Category:Multilingual journals is the way to go. For now, they can all be housed in the one category, which is not excessively large at present. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Two months ago we had a CFD for "Spanish and English-language journals". Just as with that category, I don't see much logic in this category. Academic journals are categorized by language. If they use more than one, they are categorized in the Mulitlingual journals. I fail to see the use of separating out journals according to the number of languages they use, either. Hence I propose to delete this category and restore the "multilingual journals" category to the articles that it currently contains. Randykitty ( talk) 16:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- merge to Category:Multilingual journals per nom.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 17:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Category:Multilingual journals has grown too large and is a big dump. Category:Bilingual journals could be the first step into creating categories like Category:Bilingual English-French language journals and Category:Bilingual English-Spanish language journals (for both of which there exists large numbers of articles). As for those that claim that such categorization would result in far too many categories just check the number of bilateral relations categories like Category:Canada–United States relations or Category:China–India relations.
- From Randykitty on february:
- "It still wont make a real dent in that cat, it opens the door to endless discussions (shouldn't this be English-Spanish?), it starts a category tree that is going to be very difficult to define (English-Portuguese-Spanish journals, English-Esperanto-French journals, Dutch-Hindi journals, whatever)"
- Well, it is important to take into account that not all journal-language combinations are meant or deserve to have categories, just only the most common. To discriminate (in the good sence) which articles and categories should exists is part of the work everyday in Wikipedia, there is nothing specially dificult or strange about discriminating among the bilingual combinations that deserve categories. Randykitty's stance of not dividing
Mulitlingual journals is unsustainable in the long run.
Dentren |
Talk 22:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment So what you are saying is that you created this category in order eventually to get around the CFD decision on "Spanish and English-language journals"? I'm not going to repeat the arguments that were given in that CFD, that one is over and if you're unhappy with the decision there, you should go to DRV. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: This proposal is of course like the proposed bilingual catoegires aimed at subcategorize Mulitlingual journals, calling it a "circumvention" of WP:CFD is just to not assume good faith. Dentren | Talk 11:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not assuming anything, good or bad. Above you clearly write yourself that your ultimate goal is to create bilingual categories, something that explicitly goes against the outcome of the previous CfD. -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - It seems to me that language of a written work is a highly notable and likely defining attribute. Category:Bilingual journals seems like a completely reasonable category in that context. I do have a couple of questions though. Is a "bilingual journal" intended to mean a journal with parallel translations? (A lot of newspapers do this.) Or is it intended to mean a journal that publishes articles in one of two languages, but without full translations of all content? The term seems a bit ambiguous to me. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Of course it is. That's why we have Category:English-language journals, Category:Spanish-language journals, etc. For journals that publish in more than one language we have the Category:Multilingual journals. I see no use in having categories like "Bilingual journals", "Trilingual journals", etc. And in the previous CfD there was agreement that there is no need for categories like "Spanish and English-language journals". As for the translations, most journals that publish in more than one language are not translated (that is, an article appears in one of the journal's languages). This is less-and-less common in the sciences (that by now are >95% in English), but very common in the humanities. In the sciences there are some journals (mainly Russian, plus some Chinese ones) that are translated cover to cover. Sometimes we have two different articles for these different versions (with their own ISSNs, often different publishers, etc), sometimes we have 1 article. I would have to search around to see how they are categorized. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Nobody is [yet] proposing a "Trilingual journals" category, and when somebody does the its usefulness can be discussed in its own CfD or a talk page. Second, resolutions in other CfD are not binding for this one and still insisting on previous CfD brings down the level of the discussion as no true argument for deletion is put forward, and ends up only being a power play. The usefullness of each category has to be dealt with independently and based on hypothetical scenarios of future categories that nobody is proposing. Dentren | Talk 22:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but as far as I see, you are explicitly proposing to re-establish a category that was deleted after an earlier (and very recent) CfD. Such an attemp to get around a CfD decision is relevant. -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I do support creating two language journals categories under an appropriate name and wording. But this CfD is dealing with Category:Bilingual journals that can exist or not exist interdependently of these other proposed categories. Dentren | Talk 22:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I would support categories that name the two languages, but "bilingual journals" seems like a good counterpart to / subdivision of "multilingual journals". The arguments for/against "X/Y journals" and "bilingual journals" are sufficiently different that I don't see that one would preclude the other. --
Lquilter (
talk) 22:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- But the implication of having a subcategory "Bilingual journals" is that "multilingual journals" means "3 or more languages". I don't see the usefulness of the distinction between "2" and "more than 2" here. In addition, Dentren's stated goal (above) is to restore XY-language cats, so by keeping this cat, we're just setting things up for more future discussions. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I would support categories that name the two languages, but "bilingual journals" seems like a good counterpart to / subdivision of "multilingual journals". The arguments for/against "X/Y journals" and "bilingual journals" are sufficiently different that I don't see that one would preclude the other. --
Lquilter (
talk) 22:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
And perhaps a Trilingual journals category should exists just as the Category:Triannual journals do, but that is not the discussion here. Dentren | Talk 11:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, totally different .... Back to the subject at hand: I just think that a journal that is routinely published in a particular bilingual format is useful in a different way than multilingual. "Multilingual" signals to me that it accepts articles in multiple languages. "Bilingual" in being aimed at two particular languages implies (a) it might have translations of the content within it, (b) it's aimed at particular bilingual audiences (e.g., American w/ Spanish/English; Canadian w/ French/English; Kazakhstan w/ Kazakh/Russian; lots of countries w/ provincial languages and a national language; etc.). Trilingual might also be helpful if it's common enough (Belgium, I suppose; Switzerland ....). So I just feel that the different terms denote (in general) differences in audience and possibly content, as well as language. Am I wrong? --
Lquilter (
talk) 15:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you are. Precious few journals nowadays are "bound" to one single country (and those that are, are trying more and more to leave that behind both in name and practice, for example the
Netherlands Journal of Zoology). Any Swiss or Belgian academic journals I know are either in English or (less frequently) in English. Some exceptions may be law journals or some very specialized sociology/humanities journals, but even those are usually more general than just Switzerland or Belgium (to stay with those examples). Rather, journals are multilingual because traditionally their field of inquiry is multilingual. Hence, almost all
scientific journals are in English nowadays. This is also where you find the most translated journals: i.e., not publishing articles in language A or B, but having an edition in language A and an edition in language B, which almost always are physically separate: different print editions (with often different publishers) and different websites. Fields like philosophy, theology, or other humanities/social sciences, often still use other languages and publish articles in a variety of languages, but typically the same print edition and the same website will contain articles in all the languages that the journal accepts. The way your thinking is going starts to look like "national" categories ("American journals", "Polish journals", etc). Those have been proposed several times in the past and always !voted down, given that academic publishing (especially with the advance of online publishing) is more and more international nowadays. --
Randykitty (
talk) 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was going to make same point as you did Lquilter, and just like Randykitty said few journals are bound to a geographical single audience, but that does not refute or validate anything. The fact that many Canadian and Latin American journals are bilingual is has more to do with a widening of the contributor base and with language politics, but I can't see how this situation would make any difference for the discussion here. Overall I find the level of the arguments put forward by Randykitty quite poor, specially the lattest appeals to "previous consesus" on categories that are not of the concern in this discussion.
Dentren |
Talk 17:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure how the predominance of monolingual journals gives us an answer. I also don't agree that this categorizing on language is going to get us to categorizing by nationality. I would likely be opposed to national categories for academic journals, but I don't see how it makes categorizing by language a bad idea. Randykitty, some journals are bilingual -- because of field of study or whatever -- so setting aside the nationality question (which is not at issue) & the monolingual question, why is it bad to separate out bilingual from monolingual & multilingual? -- Lquilter ( talk) 00:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- At this point, we have a subdivide between monolingual journals (for which we have language-specific cats) and the cat "multilingual journals" for journals that use more than one language. I just don't see the utility of separating the latter category into a subcat for journals that use 2 languages and a rump cat for journals that use more than 2 languages. I see a difference between monolingual and multilingual. I don't see any substantial difference between bilingual and multilingual. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is difference. How much people do you think can read the full content Spanish-English or French-English journal and how many do you think can read the content of a German-Romanian-French-English-Russian journal? I do however agree with you Randykitty that the monolingual and multilingual is the greater divide and thats why that divide should be (and is) in a greater hierarchy level than the bilingual and other eventual subcategories. Dentren | Talk 01:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it helps the closer at all, I think my position could best be stated as lean to keep -- I don't feel very strongly about it. I think your arguments have merit, Randykitty, I just think that "bilingual" and "multilingual" and "monolingual" are all common terms that are reasonable to keep. Trilingual and so forth start to become less common & less useful. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)----
- I was going to make same point as you did Lquilter, and just like Randykitty said few journals are bound to a geographical single audience, but that does not refute or validate anything. The fact that many Canadian and Latin American journals are bilingual is has more to do with a widening of the contributor base and with language politics, but I can't see how this situation would make any difference for the discussion here. Overall I find the level of the arguments put forward by Randykitty quite poor, specially the lattest appeals to "previous consesus" on categories that are not of the concern in this discussion.
Dentren |
Talk 17:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you are. Precious few journals nowadays are "bound" to one single country (and those that are, are trying more and more to leave that behind both in name and practice, for example the
Netherlands Journal of Zoology). Any Swiss or Belgian academic journals I know are either in English or (less frequently) in English. Some exceptions may be law journals or some very specialized sociology/humanities journals, but even those are usually more general than just Switzerland or Belgium (to stay with those examples). Rather, journals are multilingual because traditionally their field of inquiry is multilingual. Hence, almost all
scientific journals are in English nowadays. This is also where you find the most translated journals: i.e., not publishing articles in language A or B, but having an edition in language A and an edition in language B, which almost always are physically separate: different print editions (with often different publishers) and different websites. Fields like philosophy, theology, or other humanities/social sciences, often still use other languages and publish articles in a variety of languages, but typically the same print edition and the same website will contain articles in all the languages that the journal accepts. The way your thinking is going starts to look like "national" categories ("American journals", "Polish journals", etc). Those have been proposed several times in the past and always !voted down, given that academic publishing (especially with the advance of online publishing) is more and more international nowadays. --
Randykitty (
talk) 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, totally different .... Back to the subject at hand: I just think that a journal that is routinely published in a particular bilingual format is useful in a different way than multilingual. "Multilingual" signals to me that it accepts articles in multiple languages. "Bilingual" in being aimed at two particular languages implies (a) it might have translations of the content within it, (b) it's aimed at particular bilingual audiences (e.g., American w/ Spanish/English; Canadian w/ French/English; Kazakhstan w/ Kazakh/Russian; lots of countries w/ provincial languages and a national language; etc.). Trilingual might also be helpful if it's common enough (Belgium, I suppose; Switzerland ....). So I just feel that the different terms denote (in general) differences in audience and possibly content, as well as language. Am I wrong? --
Lquilter (
talk) 15:14, 7 May 2013 (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:Pages lacking pictures
- 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. Wizardman 03:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: There are several other methods for tracking pages without pictures, not the least of which is posting {{ reqphoto}} to the talk page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- delete per nom. There is already Category:Wikipedia requested photographs. -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This is evidently meant to also include pages with "barely any" photos, which makes the inclusion criteria unclear and unobjective. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:54, 6 May 2013 (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.
Sony Radio Academy Award winner categories
- 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: listify then delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify both categories - I'm proposing that both these award winner categories should be deleted as categories per WP:OCAT#Award, with information retained in lists on the relevant award entries. Note that "... Gold winners" is for the Gold; and " ... winners" is for the Silver & Bronze. So already we have some name confusion and scope that is unclear from the titles of the categories. The main problem though is that these are annual awards for radio programming and personalities, and they are much better handled as a list, where the year, relative rank (gold, silver, bronze) can be listed, and information can be footnoted/referenced about why, nominating commentaries, and so forth. So if the same entity won multiple times, they are listed multiple times, for instance. -- Lquilter ( talk) 02:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Notice: Creator notified. -- Lquilter ( talk) 02:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- lists do the job much better,as they can give the date and citation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete more unneeded award categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:14, 9 May 2013 (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:African-American memoirists
- 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) 22:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:EGRS, these last-rung cats should not be created, as they serve to isolate African-American memoirists from the rest - since American memoirists cannot be further diffused at this point, this cat should be merged. Category intersection with African-American writers can be used to find all African-American memoirists if such a list is needed, and I'd be happy to create a link to just search a search at the top of Category:American memoirists if needed. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 01:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. This is too specific for an ethnicity category to be. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Upmerge to prevent isolation. Neutrality talk 06:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- African-American memoirists will not be isolated from American memoirists of other ethnic identities, because the identity intersection category should ONLY be applied as a redundant category, and NOT as a diffusable category. If the concern is that memoirists should not be "isolated" from other types of writers, I don't see that as a particular issue; if someone is primarily a memoirist then they should be so described. In other words, "ghettoization" is not a good argument for deletion, because ghettoization would be avoided by correctly applying both the parent categories and the non-diffusable child category. -- Lquilter ( talk) 17:51, 18 May 2013 (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:UNESCO-Madanjeet Singh Prize laureates
- 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. Wizardman 03:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by award per WP:OCAT#Award. This is a biennial peace/humanitarian award by UNESCO. It's been awarded to folks like Aung San Suu Kyi, Narayan Desai, Pro-Femmes Twese Hamwe, and Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria. These various figures are notable for their activism and courage, but not for having won this award, which recognizes their activism and courage. A list works very well to tie these people to the award, and indeed they are all listed at UNESCO-Madanjeet Singh Prize, where they can be ordered by year and have information specific to their awards. Lquilter ( talk) 01:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Notice: Creator notified. -- Lquilter ( talk) 02:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. This award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of its recipients. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- delete - just make sure the list is up to date before icing the whole category - can you do that LQ? -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This is overcategorization by award. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete -- as with most award categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:21, 6 May 2013 (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.