Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 15

< December 14 December 16 >

December 15

Category:Delicacies

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 appears that the consensus is that this is too subjective to make a useful category. Listification may be useful; a full list of the category's current content can be found at User:Od Mishehu/Delicacies. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Delicacies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As the delicacy article says: "Delicacies are different across different countries and ages.". Hence this isn't a suitable characteristic for categorization in WP. DexDor (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep - Oxford Dictionaries defines delicacy as "a choice or expensive food" (link). Merriam-Webster defines delicacy as "something pleasing to eat that is considered rare or luxurious." (link). So long as articles categorized as such qualify per the definition of delicacy, the category is appropriate. How does deleting this category help to better-organize the encyclopedia? Northamerica1000(talk) 21:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - upon consideration of the discussion herein, I've struck my keep !vote above. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - term is too subjective to be useful for categorisation. --W. D. Graham 23:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this is subjective. For example, in rural cambodia, tarantulas are considered a delicacy, but I don't think many others consider it to be so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps a "delicacies by country" cat and subcats would rectify the concerns above. If a foodstuff is considered a delicacy in one country, but not in another, surely this would address concerns about subjectivity. This sure would be easy to accomplish. However, if people don't want any delicacies cats, then so be it, I suppose.
Images
Delicacies
From left to right: A black French Périgord truffle, Japanese Kobe beef and Wild Iranian Ossetra caviar.
 – Northamerica1000(talk) 12:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the lovely pictures, and I don't think anyone is doubting that delicacies exist, that different cultures have different delicacies, or that reliable sources don't use the term. The problem is, the term is loosely applied, and the result is subjective inclusion criteria - all we could do is oblige that at least one source calls food X a delicacy for inclusion. Such subjective categories don't usually work because categorization is black and white there is no room for nuance or explanation. Delicacy also changes with time - during WWII rationing, bananas would have been a delicacy in the US because rare and expensive. Expanding the list at Delicacies with sourcing in the current article, perhaps sorting by continent or culture, would provide roughly the same info to users while allowing nuance and sourcing on each item - so this is one of those cases where a list can work, but not a category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, are many of the "delicacies" defined by the fact that they are delicacies somewhere sometime? e.g., various types of animals, cheeses, wines, desserts, etc.? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The question of what is a delicacy is too variable by time and place to make a viable category. Something considered a delicacy in one may be an object of disgust in others; the Mexican apparently like their escamoles, but they would cause horror if served elsewhere. Even a breakdown down by country would be inadequate because of variations by region and by time ... and categorising by country would cause massive category clutter on topics like caviar, which is a delicacy around the globe.
    Apart from the geographical and historical tangles, Obiwankenobi is right that the term is WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Subjective categories are deprecated because they are unstable and lead to irresoluble disputes between editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is ultimately a POV category. What is or is not a delicacy varies from place to place and accoring to the POV of individuals. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another things is some foods were once considered delicacies, but now are so widely available that they no longer fit the definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The extreme example of this is that in post-WWII Berlin chocolate was such a delicacy to the occupied German population, that American servicemen would often pay prostitutes with small amounts of Chocolate, yet in 1948 the Candy Bomber, Gail Halvorsen, began literally bombarding the city with chocolate, and so by early 1949 chocolate was no longer a delicacy in Berlin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2013 (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:Military space program of the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term "space program(me)" generally refers to a programme focussed on science and exploration. The term is generally not used to refer to applied spaceflight, such as military or communications satellites. Renaming the category would also provide consistency with the parent category, Category:Military satellites. W. D. Graham 20:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – these are distinct topics, although often misunderstood. For exemple, Boeing X-37 and Boeing X-40 aren't military satellites. The term spatial program is also used in the military domain:
U.S. military space programs, US Military Space Spending Set at $8 Billion for 2014, ... $8 billion for military space programs in 2014,..., Oxford Companion to US Military History:Military Involvement in the Space Program, And bibliographical references:
Curtis Peebles, High Frontier: The United States Air Force and the Military Space Program,1997, ISBN 0-16-048945-8;
Alton Frye, The Atlantic Monthly; August, 1963; Our Gamble In Space: The Military Danger; Volume 212, No. 2; pages 46-50 (...it is known that the United States already has a number of military space programs), and it is only some examples. Cordially. --Julien1978 (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the term "space program" is not generally focused on science and exploration, military and espionage/intelligence space programs are also generally understood to be space programs. Further, space programs and satellites are not equivalent. There are many space programs that have nothing to do with satellites, like partial-orbit munitions, the SDI program's weaponry, etc. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no support for the assertion that "the term '[space program]" generally refers to a [program focused] on science and exploration." --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2013 (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:Urban exploration in England

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Urban exploration in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Urban exploration in North Yorkshire
  • Propose deleting Category:Urban exploration in Sydney
  • Propose deleting Category:Urban exploration in Wollongong
Nominator's rationale: These categories don't (currently) contain any articles that are specifically about urban exploration; the articles are about old buildings etc (where urban exploration might take place) - that isn't a suitable characteristic for WP categorization (example previous CFD for a similar type of categorization). What next - a category for structures that have been graffitied? DexDor (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the category, I see your point, and fully agree. Cheese453 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all. How a building is used, especially in this case, is not really DEFINING of it. There don't seem to be enough articles to merit topic-articles about the practice of Urban exploration in Sydney, so delete for now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. When I saw the category titles, I assumed that they were for articles about urban exploration. However, AFAICS all of the articles are about buildings or structures, none of which is defined by this usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This use of these places is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2013 (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.

Merging 3 Small Case Law by Party 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: upmerge the Nintendo and Unification Church categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per classic WP:OC#SMALLCAT. Each of have two articles that are already cross-referenced in the "See also" section of each article for navigation with little room for growth. There is no need for a dual merge because they are all well grouped in legal categories. No objection to recreating these later if the article count increases.RevelationDirect (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the creators of each of the three categories and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Law. – RevelationDirect (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 01:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the Stanford cat merge. (a) I've added a couple of more articles to the cat (one is of a person but a major part of his article is litigation involving the university) and (b) the parent category is already fairly large. Erp (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrew the Stanford part of the nomination based on adding the third case. (On the fourth addition of the Camran Nezhat biography article, Spirtos v. Stanford University may lack notability since it was thrown out as frivolous and doesn't appear to have gone to trial so I'm not sure a separate article could ever be created.)RevelationDirect (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True. I suspect Searsville Dam could be added soon (I believe a lawsuit has been filed but no one has updated the article yet [a bit surprising since a lot of the push on that article has come from people supporting the plaintiff's position]). I'm trying to dig up some more litigation (it is not as though Stanford isn't frequently in court on one side or another). --Erp (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge These are too small of categories to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2013 (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.

Merge the entire Lawsuits tree into the Case Law tree

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: withdrawn by nominator, who has opened a wider discussion at WikiProject Law. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#OVERLAPPING since the lawsuit and case law category trees both group court cases together. Indeed nearly all of the articles in the Lawsuit tree are also in the Case law tree. The category trees are so similar, the Category:Class action lawsuits ricochets back and forth between the two. I really have no preference between the two naming formats but the Case law tree is way, way, way more developed than the anemic Lawsuit tree. (There are also a good number of articles that belong in Category:Legal terms rather than either of these but I'll fix that after this nomination.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the main article creator, the US article creator, the list article creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Law. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've worked extensively with these articles for years. Most recently, I created a new category, Category:Fictional lawsuits, and placed it under the Lawsuit tree and I also moved Category:Lawsuits against the Devil and Category:Lawsuits against God out of the Lawsuits tree to the Category:Case law by party area. These were good faith edits made before I decided to make this nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – these are distinct topics, although often misunderstood. The O. J. Simpson murder case#Civil trial was a simple lawsuit for damages, and did not result in any case law. That is, no lawyer would, in good practice, cite the OJ civil trial as legal precedent when arguing a case. No judge or appellate justice could use the civil trial as case citation because the civil trial is not a "reportable" judicial decision. – S. Rich (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How, in practice, should we distinguish between a case that is likely to be cited in a subsequent case versus one that is not (outside of extreme examples like Brown v. Board of Ed and the OJ case)? Or maybe "celebrity" cases go under lawsuits and everything else goes under case law? Or maybe a reverse merge works better? RevelationDirect (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity I ran a search on court cases citing Goldman v. Simpson and it actually gets quite a few hits in California court cases: CADLE CO. II, INC. v. FISCUS, NOLAN v. ELAHIE, WALTON v. MUELLER, LEE v. YOON, CAMERON v. LUGO, PEOPLE v. GOMBERG, OCM PRINCIPAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND, L.P. v. CIBC WORLD MARKETS CORP.. I absolutely concede that there will be some notable cases that are not cited but this underscores the difficulty in spotting which cases are precedent setting.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. And it illustrates my point. These are appellate court case law citations are to the single earlier appellate case that arose out of the original lawsuit that took place in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los Angeles trial court. The jury awarded damages in the lawsuit. The appellate court made a decision of case law that arose out of the lawsuit. (Please excuse me if I'm being redundant.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't disagree on the legal distinction, only on how to categorize articles in Wikipedia. The problem is that the court cases don't have one article on the initial case and then another article on the appellate decisions like they would in Lexus but it is generally all included in one Wikipedia article. So every case that was successfully appealed would be included in both category trees which I don't think aids navigation. Are you proposing that court cases that have only (so far) been brought before the initial court be in the lawsuit tree and anything that an appeals court ruled on in should go in the case law tree? RevelationDirect (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure on how we should characterize the question. Another complication is the fact that case law decisions can pertain to criminal prosecutions. And criminal trials are not "lawsuits" in the common use of the word. So can (or should) these categories be put into the Category:Legal procedure tree? At present they are in Category:Legal disputes, which stands alone. – S. Rich (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Some lawsuits are notable as news events (because of notable facts); others for the case law they establish. There is an obvious overlap, but they are different. Case law should probably be a subcat of the other. The distinction is probably best dealt with by having precuse definitions for what should be in each and cross-references, all in headnotes. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A lawsuit does not necessarily become case law, although it may if appealed. If the matter is settled at the trial court level, it is not case law, and would not be appropriate for that category. GregJackP Boomer! 01:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment can someone draw a venn diagram, starting with all "legal processes" and then mapping out where "case law" and "lawsuit" end up and the extent of their overlap? Is a reverse merge possible?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WikiProject Law/Categorization ought to work on this, but it has no postings in the last few years. But your suggestion for a venn diagram might get some action on their to-do list. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lawsuit is a civil action (generally for money) usually initiated by a private party. (This is contrast to a criminal prosecution which is always initiated by a government.) Case law is a court decision by a higher court that subsequent cases will look upon as a precedent. (Case law may be based on a civil lawsuit or criminal prosecution.) So there are unappealed lawsuits that do not become case law and there is case law that is not based on a lawsuit. So S. Rich is conceptually correct that these are distinct concepts. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that, in practice, Wikipedia articles cover the final appeal of a case (case law) and then, in the background, discuss the original lawsuit or prosecution in the background section. (14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett is alphabetically the first article in Category:United States Supreme Court cases and is a representative example of how these articles are written.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nominator. There is definitely a problem where we have two category trees for court cases that are used interchangeably. There is obviously not a consensus though on whether we should realign the articles based on what those topics are supposed to be or merge them (with some other name that what I proposed). I started a conversation at WikiProject Law to come up with a more refined nomination. Please add your thoughts to the conversation there. Thanks. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2013 (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/2013_December_15&oldid=1138397714"