Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 13 November 15 >

November 14[edit]

Category:Erdős number 1[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete (empty). I don't think I've seen a nomination where nearly everyone who'd be likely to close it had voted, so since someone has to, I will. First, the category is empty. Second, a votecount (yes, I know) puts the opinions at 13 delete, 8 keep, and 3 abstain. Third, the arguments for deletion (there aren't any surviving Erdos 2+ categories, it's trivial and non-defining, we don't do collaborator categories with anyone else (not even the obvious choice of Kevin Bacon)) seem significantly stronger than the arguments for keeping (the numbers are notable and interesting, the size of the category is fixed (at 511!), the nomination process is hopelessly flawed). I encourage anyone to send it back to DRV if you like, but it seems to me that a better use of effort might be to make a good list here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Erdős number 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This relisting is under the terms of this DRV. Entering the debate, there is a rebuttable presumption that Erdos numbers are trivial. If they are trivial, then, by the terms of WP:OCAT, they should not form the basis of categories. (This presumption arises from consensus at the DRV.) If any member of the community has evidence that Erdos numbers are considered non-trivial by any reliable source, please present it here.
A related question is: if not categories, then what should be done with the data set of individual Erdos numbers of Wikipedia's mathematician articles. As this forum is categories for discussion, this forum is a fine place in which to suggest what might be done with the data. Suggestions include "listification", "infobox"ing in the individual articles, and others. For the full range, consult the prior discussions available at the record of the DRV. New suggestions are also always welcome.
Remember: the deletion of the Erdos number categories will not eradicate this information from Wikipedia. Categories are only appropriate for significant "defining characteristics". At this point, the presumed outcome of this discussion is the reworking of the data into some other form, but that presumption is subject to any evidence offered here, to be evaluated by the community. Xoloz 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that inclusion in the infobox is an excellent idea, regardless if the category is kept. I think lists of mathematicians for #1 (and #2, and at most #3) would be useful in that they could provide references showing the "how and why" of the number as applied to an individual (per WP:BLP). While I supported the categories for #1 and #2 in the past, per Xoloz's excellent closure explanation of the DRV linked above, I now oppose grouping as categories. - jc37 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Consensus, as demonstrated in previous CfD and two DRVs, is that Erdős numbers are notable. Notability is also shown by references in Erdős number article. Erdős number 1 is a fixed, stable group and clearly qualifies as a "defining characteristic" by any reasonable definition of that term. Gandalf61 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That explains a reason to "keep" the article. Why the category? - jc37 22:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Erdős number 1 is a fixed, stable group and clearly qualifies as a "defining characteristic" by any reasonable definition of that term - and is also objective and neutral. Therefore it clearly meets the requirements of WP:CAT. Therefore there is no reason to delete this category. Gandalf61 23:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain due to lack of faith in the process. The three admins that closed the last three discussions all ignored a clear consensus or lack thereof, and rather than expressing their disagreement with the previous comments by adding a new comment of their own, overrode many previous participants and imposed their own minority opinion as a closure decision. I see no evidence that this pattern will not continue here. In addition, I think the fatigue caused by five previous discussions is likely going to discourage people who might otherwise have something to contribute to this discussion, making it less meaningful than it should be. —David Eppstein 00:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; where do we stop? "Erdos number 1" amounts to "collaborators of Erdos". Why not a "collaborators of..." category for a dozen other notable and sociable mathematicians and scientists? If it's because Erdos numbers have special cultural significance, then why not restore the other Erdos number categories? Either way, you get an illogical outcome. In addition, we don't have "Student of ____" categories as far as I know -- nor do I see any good reason to create them -- and who your advisor was is a far more defining characteristic of an academic than who one of their collaborators was. SparsityProblem 05:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This is an WP:ALLORNOTHING argument, which is discouraged in deletion discussions. The other examples quoted by SparsityProblem have only superficial similarities to the specific category that is the subject of this CfD. Gandalf61 14:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Question So what general principle would you propose for determining when a "Collaborators of [x]" category is appropriate? SparsityProblem 18:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your problem? In general, in XfD discussions, we discuss the item on its own merits. There is no need for the participants in the discussion to be able to come up with general rules for how to decide for instances of some generalization of the item in order to justify their positions. If you vote for keeping Yak shaving, you don't have to explain how your argument would apply to a putative article Cat shaving.  --Lambiam 00:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comparison is irrelevant, because "yak shaving" is a known idiom and "cat shaving" is not. OTOH, a "Collaborators of Gian-Carlo Rota" category would be just as well-formed as a "Collaborators of Paul Erdos" category. I would be interested to know if the Keep !voters have a reason for believing that the Rota category should not exist but the Erdos category should exist (or if indeed, they think the Rota category should also exist), because that would help me decide whether I think there's a good reason to keep this category. SparsityProblem 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming that by "collaborators" you mean "co-authors", your comparison with GCR is irrelevant, because co-authors of Paul Erdős have as a defining characteristic that they have Erdős number 1; no similar statement can be made of Rota's co-authors.  --Lambiam 09:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite. Co-authors of Paul Erdős have a widely-understood label of "Erdős number 1", which is not the same thing as a defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are begging the question. SparsityProblem (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone tells me they are a co-author of Paul Erdős, I'd be like "Oh wow, then you have an Erdős number of 1". If someone tells me they are a co-author of Rota, at best I could say: "Then your Erdős number is at most 3". I would quite definitely not say: "Then your Rota number is 1". I hope you can see the difference. To further paraphrase your comparison, we have a category "People from New Hampshire", which amounts to "People from a U.S. state bordering on Maine". Why not a "People from a U.S. state bordering on Tennessee" category for many other notable artists, politicians and scientists? Where do we stop?  --Lambiam 16:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have a "people from states bordering on Maine" category because that is a synonym for "people from New Hampshire", and it's verbose and isn't a description that would commonly be applied. The "people from New Hampshire" category is obviously better. OTOH, "people with Erdos number 1" is a synonym for "people who coauthored with Erdos", and it's not obvious which name is better; given that, and given that we don't normally have "people who coauthored with X" or "people who collaborated with X" or "people related to X" or "people who were advised by X" or in general, "people who [relationship] with X" for fixed X categories, there would have to be a pretty strong argument that Erdos is unique and a compelling reason for keeping these categories. It is true that Erdos numbers have significance, but that would be an argument for keeping *all* the EN categories. Since we have already settled the matter for EN >= 2, it doesn't make sense to keep 1 but not >= 2 on the basis of this argument. SparsityProblem (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "We have already settled the matter" here means that by repeatedly ignoring consensus you got your way. If that is the basis for deleting all the other EN categories I suppose it would apply equally well to this one. Otherwise, this seems to me to be extremely circular logic: we deleted them, therefore the basis for deleting them was valid, therefore it should apply to this case as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but if you feel that consensus was ignored, you ought to take that up with the admin who closed the original CFD, the admin who overturned the first DRV, and the admin who closed the second DRV. Three separate individuals. None of them are me. It's also a funny kind of "consensus" that must exist when three separate admins, none of whom have any stake in the matter, don't see it there. There are two possible explanations for this: either there's a massive Wikipedia conspiracy to suppress information about Erdos numbers, or the people who argued for keeping the categories didn't have a strong enough argument based on Wikipedia guidelines and precedent. In any case, there's nothing circular about it. The only matter under consideration is whether to keep EN 1; the other categories' fate has been decided in a way that is as final as anything on Wikipedia. Thus, an argument needs to be provided that applies specifically to EN 1 and wouldn't also imply the other categories should be kept. SparsityProblem (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amenable to a list. Not a defining characteristic for some, or even most, individuals included. Ubi Terrarum 09:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I made a lot of contributions to the previous debates, possibly too many, so I am not going to offer an opinion, just to ask a few comments:
  1. The point about an WP:ALLORNOTHING argument wrt the "collaborators of X" argument might be an irrelevant one at AfD, but CfD has historically put quite a lot of emphasis on consistency of approach to categories. If E-number=1 is to be restored as a category, please can contributors try to consider some wider principles on when "collaborators of X" categories are appropriate? It's an issue which is likely to arise again, and although this CfD is unlikely to answer to it, some consideration of that point would be helpful both to future debates and for the stability of whatever decision is reached here.
  2. If listifying and/or inclusion in an infobox are being considered, I hope that consideration will be given to the verifiability of any numbers listed (shouldn't they all be referenced, without original research?) and to how to address in concise form on an infobox the two different definitions of an Erdos number (whether paths are calculated only within mathematics, or more broadly within academic publictions).
  3. I'm surprised that my suggestions at the CfD of using talkpage categories didn't receive much response, but it still seems to me that having such categories on article talkpages as subcats part of the Category:WikiProject Mathematics could be helpful to that project. That may not be a suitable option, but it might be one to explore as a way of restoring some of the functionality which members of that project felt was lost in the deletion of the mainspace categories.
That's all. Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unlike #s 2, 3, etc., E-1 is fixed & stable & finite. So whatever harms may come from having an E-number categorizing scheme, this is the least harmful version of them. Numbers E-2 and up have problems of establishing boundaries and, frankly, the higher the number the less notable & defining the E-number is (assuming, arguendo, that E-number is to some extent notable & defining). In other words, the outcome of E-1 consensus can't have strong precedential value for other E-numbers. --Lquilter 16:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have still to see a convincing argument that Erdős numbers are a defining attribute. Yes, the concept of the Erdős numbers is notable, but this discussion is not about that ... it's about categorising the people who collaborated with Erdős. Is the simple fact of their collaboration a defining attribute for them, on level with attributes such as year of birth, profession, and nationality? No. I have no issue with a list, a talk page category maintained for WikiProject Mathematics, or both. I no longer support an infobox parameter, because infoboxes should present only a general overview of the subject. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No.1 is stable, unlike the other numbers, as noted. But so is the first degree of Kevin Bacon. And 1st Degree of Kevin Bacon is something that is more commonly found than Erdos nos. You could just listify it. 132.205.99.122 19:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for all of the same reasons that Cat:Bertolt Brecht collaborators was deleted. Categorizing people on the basis of having collaborated with someone else is untenable. Notable people in every field of endeavour collaborate with other notable people in their fields. Just because person A and person B each collaborated on separate occasions with person C does not mean that there is any relationship between A and B. Otto4711 20:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just because person A and person B each were born in Ohio does not mean that there is any relationship between A and B. Is "having a relationship" the criterion for a category? Ntsimp 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recall the words "categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life" from WP:OCAT. A person's birthplace is almost always notable in their life. For a person who may have collaborated with hundreds of other scholars, one particular collaborator is almost never notable. For people who had particularly close collaborations with Erdos, this can be discussed in their article. Grouping people by collaborators is not useful for navigation between articles. SparsityProblem 21:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have said before, it is useful for the kind of navigation between articles that I have been doing. Erdős may not be a priori special in this respect, but due to developments in mathematical culture he is. Ntsimp 21:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to propose the deletion of Category:People from Ohio, please feel free and I shall undoubtedly weigh in with an opinion. The existence of that category has nothing to do with the existence of this one. Otto4711 01:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (the category) with Strenuous Procedural Objections Reopening a new CfD for Erdos Number 1 particularly, after 2 previous deletion CfD to delete the whole list of categories had been rebuffed as "Keep" for lack of consensus, and a third was closed with deletion by admin fiat contrary to consensus, and two subsequent Deletion Reviews, both of which had clear consensus to overturn the preceding closure (if not to keep all the subcategories) is highly objectionable. My comment here is mainly pro forma, and to give notice that I do not intend to answer all questions on the subject at all venues, as I had been trying to do, but instead to focus on constructing the case for Arbitration. Pete St.John 21:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have procedural objections like David Eppstein and Pete St. John. But to satisfy the process I will likewise recommend keeping the article for the reasons listed by Gandalf61. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only do I believe these numbers to be a non-defining characteristic, I'd maintain that reliably keeping track of these numbers is nearly impossible. All it takes is one person on the fringe to collaborate with two others, and a recalculation has to be done. It's basically the equivalent of the "Current..." categories we always delete, so I think these all should go as well.--Mike Selinker 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment To play devil's advocate, this CFD is only about Erdos Number 1, and no new people will ever acquire that characteristic, since to do so they would have to collaborate with Erdos directly, and Erdos is dead. SparsityProblem 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have hooked my wordprocessor up to a Ouija board, and we are writing away ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, per WP:COI, but I also see the last CfD as a clear keep, on the basis of the arguments presented. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a notable defining characteristic useful for navigation among the 100 or so articles that belong in the category. Frankly, I share David Eppstein's lack of faith, but you know what happens when good people do nothing. Ntsimp 22:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally trivial; non-defining, and in my mind is almost a performer-by-performance (in this case, performer by co-star) category. Carlossuarez46 23:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in conformance with the outcome of the previous CfD strangely ignored by the closing admin.  --Lambiam 00:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. Trivial. -Sean Curtin 00:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I am still agonising between the merits of the category and the nature of the closures of the previous CFD and DRV. Meantime, I invite people to consider whether the same arguments as here apply to Category:Wikipedians with Erdős_number 1, Category:Olympic medalists by medal and, in particular, Category:Olympic gold medalists Thincat 10:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When someone wins an olympic gold medal, they are likely to be greeted on their return home by crowds in the street and a civic reception, and the label "olympic gold medallist" sticks to them so hard that they might as well rename themselves from John Smith to "Olympic Gold Medallist John Smith". How many people have had crowds welcome them home after their Erdős number falls to 1? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment While we are discussing the merits of other categories, three words: People from Shaw-cum-Donnington. -- Gandalf61 (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply. Two words: John Boys. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply. An unfortunate example, since John Boys was actually born in Bonnington, and is indeed the sole member of the category People from Bonnington, so I am not sure that he belongs in People from Shaw-cum-Donnington at all - by the same logic, Arnold Schwarzenegger would be placed in People from California. Leaving that confusion aside, what point are you making here ? You seem to be saying that People from Shaw-cum-Donnington is a legitimate category because it contains John Boys, and so by extension your argument is that a category of people is acceptable as long as it contains at least one notable person. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Really, Gandalf, that's a wild leap, and you have misunderstood the situation. You ask whether Arnold Schwarzenegger would be placed in People from California? That's a huge category heavily sub-divded, but Arnie is already in several sub-sub-categories of People from California, including Category:California actors, Category:California sportspeople and Category:Governors of California.
              As to John Boys, he spent three years at Donnington, and was one of the most significant people in the history of the parish of Shaw-cum-Donnington, and his time there is defining attribute of his career. The category exists people the relationship of people to places is categorised because it is so often a defining attribute, and also because, like year of birth, it is a crucial point in identifying people. --15:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Reply So you defend the category People from Shaw-cum-Donnington, yet dismiss People with Erdős number 1 as trivial. That's a great joke ! Gandalf61 (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Gandalf, please take care not to put words in my mouth (there are enough there already). I did not say I would want to keep it, I just noted that unlike the collaborators-of-Erdős (let alone collaborators-with-collaborators-of-Erdős), People from Shaw-cum-Donnington does actually categorise on a defining characteristic. I would support the upmerger of Category:People from Shaw-cum-Donnington to Category:People from Berkshire because it is too small and has limited potential for growth, and will send it to CfD now (as I also did recently for other similar categories; see e.g. CfD:People from Sheldon). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Reply I am pleased that you agree with me that Category:People from Shaw-cum-Donnington is an absurd category. It would have been better if you had clearly said so in the first place, then I would not have wasted my time trying to guess at what you meant by "Two words: John Boys". Gandalf61 (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You've got to be kidding. It is a ridiculous category, and the only reason it's a "defining" characteristic that links most of the things in the category is because the category is virtually empty. Once again, you've advocated endlessly through this ridiculously convoluted CfD-CfD-CfD-CfD-DVR-DVR-CfD process to have these categories removed because you've decided they are trivial and "not defining" but you can't provide an explanation as to how any other categories that easily can be seen as trivial and "not defining" are perfectly good (and things like "People from Ohio" seem to be). --15:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
                    • As User:Otto4711 wrote, "If you want to propose the deletion of Category:People from Ohio, please feel free and I shall undoubtedly weigh in with an opinion. The existence of that category has nothing to do with the existence of this one." In addition, this is not the place for complaints about the CfD process; there are other appropriate places to debate whether the process is structured as it should be, but complaining about how the rules of the game must be flawed because you don't like the outcome won't persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you. SparsityProblem (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • That's great, but we're talking about the standards of categorization, standards that are applied differently when you don't seem to like a particular category. As for the "rules of the game" - I'm not the one who pitched a fit when the first DRV didn't go my way, and then had the thing overturned at my whim. That was you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Civility, please. SparsityProblem (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • WP:POT please. You're the one who used WP:CIVIL to defend your attacks on others because you are discussing their actions, and not them personally. I am doing no different. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • The first DRV was overturned because of the blatant votestacking which had ocurred, and which continued apace even after admin intervention. If Gandalf61 thinks that WP:CANVASS shoud be deleted as a guideline, the place to discuss that is at WT:CANVASS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • What do you mean by "votestacking"? Yes, one participant engaged in obviously inappropriate (and frankly unwelcome) canvassing, but you can't possibly claim that his wrong actions generated the overwhelming support these categories have had in every CfD to date. Throw out all !votes cast by people after they had been canvassed, and consensus was still in the categories' favor. Not that that mattered, in the end. Ntsimp (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • "Votestacking" means recruiting large numbers of people who are likely to vote for one's preferred outcome, without a concomitant attempt to recruit people who are undecided or may disagree with one's preferred outcome. Bhg wasn't claiming that the wrong actions of the participant in question generated the support that the categories had, only that that was the reason why the DRV was overturned. And thus, the DRV was overturned for an objective, factual reason, not because of anyone's "whims". SparsityProblem (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Oh please. The standard reaction to canvassing is to admonish the canvasser and to trust the closing admin to properly weigh the arguments from the comments. It isn't a vote, after all. And the campaigning in question anyway met only one of the four criteria of WP:CANVASS: it was limited in scale to a nonpartisan and public audience (WT:WPM) but was clearly biased in message. Overturning the DRV and doing it again was a hysterical and counterproductive overreaction. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • It wasn't a matter of not "trusting" the closing admin. The closing admin himself chose to overturn the DRV after he was asked whether he was aware of the canvassing that occurred. No one asked him to overturn it. SparsityProblem (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Yes, you clearly trusted the closing admin. Trusted him so well that you left a long comment questioning his decision on the DRV talk page and then pointed him at it on his talk page. And now you refer to it as if the decision to overturn was made only by the closing admin with no external pressure. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • I'd think that if your terms "pressure" and "lack of trust" were warranted, then the closing admin would have admonished me for overstepping boundaries rather than -- as he actually did -- thanked me for bringing these matters to his attention. In any case, how about all that trust and respect that the Keep !voters on the original CFD showed towards User:Kbdank71, the admin who closed the original CFD with the conclusion "delete", eh? If various individuals hadn't accused him of rouge-adminhood over that decision, this process wouldn't have been drawn out for as long as it has. (Note that I'm not trying to argue that their bad behavior excuses mine, since as I explained, there was nothing questionable about my having asked the closing admin from the first DRV whether he had seen evidence that he didn't address in his closure summary.) SparsityProblem (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Not defining for most; trivial; information can be listified easily if needed. Snocrates 11:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am addressing the nominator’s (rebuttable) presumption that Erdős numbers are trivial. It is clear to me that ENs are at any rate notable: there are many references in Erdős number and Paul Hoffman's "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers. Hyperion, 1998. ISBN 0786863625" has an extensive discussion. The latter reference (which I do not have to hand and will not be able to report back on if this CFD closes on time) also discusses people with particular Erdős numbers. I cannot remember whether the book explicitly states that ENs (or holding of a low EN) are non-trivial but their significant inclusion suggests the author considers they are not trivial. Be this as it may, notable facts may also be non-defining or trivial, in which case the Wikipedia:Overcategorization guideline suggests they are not suitable for categories (which the nominator wisely draws our attention to). My own conclusion is that in this case notability implies non-trivial. Note also “In some cases, trivia may be appropriately handled via categorization.” (essay Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Trivia_and_categories). A stronger argument is that ENs are non-defining. It seems to me that ENs may sometimes be “considered notable in a person's life, such as their career, origin and major accomplishments” (quoting WP:OCAT). An example is in the article on Arthur Rubin (a very distinguished mathematician in his own right) where the information was included at this article’s creation in April 2006 ([1]) and is still there. Rubin is also a Wikipedian and he has declared a WP:COI in this present discussion. Less eminent mathematicians may regard low EN as very much defining. There is ambiguity in the definition of EN which can be addressed in the description of the category and does not necessitate deletion. The ability to deal with ENs other than by categorisation does not imply the category is against policy or guidelines. Finally, whatever one’s view of classification by EN, the situation should not be seen as clear-cut under WP policies and guidelines. Hence, there will not be justification for deleting the category unless there is consensus expressed in the present discussion. Thincat 12:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I wasn't going to comment again, but am struck by one of Thincat's sources "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers". For goodness' sake, it's a biography of Erdos himself and if an Edros-biog didn't discuss the numbers we should consider deleting the head article. But the fact that a biog of Erdos discusses the numbers does not demonstrate that they are a significant attribute of anyone except Erdos himself. And the article on Arthur Rubin is a useless as an example, because it's a self-reference, and Wikipedia is not a Reliable source.
      Finally, you forgot to mention that Wikipedia:Handling trivia is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It carries no more weight than an essay explaining why Jimbo is a green lizard from the planet Zog. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply To quote from User:Xoloz's close rationale from the second DRV: "What seems to have been lost to some of those commenters urging that deletion here be overturned is that deletion of the categories does not serve to eradicate Erdos number data from Wikipedia. Individual Erdos numbers may be added to each mathematician's article; and lists, as appropriate, may be maintained. Categorization is about reader navigation and no clear compelling case has been made regarding why readers would wish to navigate among mathematicians on the basis of their number. Passion aside, an individual's number is not known to be that highly significant." Maybe you've read this already, but when you start out your comments by citing The Man Who Loved only Numbers, that doesn't do much to show an awareness of the distinction between covering the topic as an article and reifying it in the category system. -- SparsityProblem (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with the same objections as many previous editors regarding how this CfD/CfD/CfD/DRV/DRV/CfD process seems to work. ---- Cheeser1 (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto4711. Not a defining category. Amount of categories should be kept down, they are not intended to serve as tags or became poor man database system (see rules dealing with categorization). Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Erdős numbers are an intersting concept. The problem is at the category is at present empty. Do we have some WP mathematicians out there, who can populate it? If that cannot be done within a reasonable time, the category must go. The larger Erdős number categories have not been (and should not be) created. According to [2], there are 511 people who could appear in it. This is a significant group. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Actually, this category had previously been populated, along with the larger Erdos number categories. You may wish to familiarize yourself with the previous debates, starting here. SparsityProblem (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Listify. This has gone around many times. I am not convinced that this is a defining characteristic. A list here would be much more informative in that it would show how early any collaborative writing would would have been done and how often. To me those are very important pieces of information. You can only provide that level of detail in a list. A category simply does not work in this case. It does not matter it the membership in this group is trivial or not. What matters is if the information is a defining characteristic and if a category is the best way to present this information. If the number is so important, then a list is clearly needed so that we can see which authors are still missing articles. If the number is that important, then all authors with this number should be notable enough for an article and the list would red flag those that are missing. Again a reason why a category is far from being the best solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As a supporter of the categories, I'm quick to say that low Erdős numbers are definitely not important enough to make their bearers notable by themselves. Of the thousands of people with Erdős number ≤ 2, maybe 500–600 currently have a Wikipedia article, and IMO most of the others shouldn't. This has been used to argue against the Erdős number categories, but I don't agree with this interpretation of "defining characteristic". Ntsimp (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I would love to see a diff link to support your claim "This has been used to argue against the Erdős number categories". As far as I know, no one ever used the fact that a low Erdos number isn't grounds for notability in their argument for deletion. SparsityProblem (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, here [3] [4] [5] are three that I interpreted that way from the CfD itself, and then here it seems that the closing admin made the same interpretation and was convinced by it, as he gave it as his first reason for deleting. Ntsimp (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really. In your first link, Bhg was explaining that there were three main reasons to turn a biographical attribute into a category, and notability was only one of them. She then debunked each one as it might apply to the EN categories, without implying that a link to notability was necessary (rather than sufficient.) In the second link, I said "Notability doesn't prove that it should be a category," again, trying to say that a link to notability was not sufficient (perhaps the contrapositive of what you seem to think I was saying.) (I also wasn't using "notability" in the Wikipedia sense, as I was replying to a comment that wasn't using it in the Wikipedia sense either.) The third link was about the direction of causation between ENs and notability, and wasn't saying that notability is required for categorization either. The last link, from the CfD, is a bit confused in its phrasing (in the first paragraph), but I think this can probably be attributed to hasty writing rather than intent. SparsityProblem (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • In the first one, Bhg was ticking off a list of, "Is it a defining characteristic for this reason?" and arguing that the answers were no. While not claiming that failing to be grounds for notability was sufficient for deletion, it was part of her argument against the categories. In the second one, when you said, "And no, there is no way that having an Erdős numbers 1-3 qualifies as a 'defining attribute'. No one is notable for having an Erdős number of 3.", that was not an argument against one or more of the categories? In the third one, "Mathematicians are not known because they have an Erdős number; rather they have an Erdős number because they have done things which establish notability...such categories are repeatedly deleted at CfD because they categorise a selective reflection of notability rather than reason for it.", were the parts I interpreted this way. Finally, what's "a bit confused" about "Erdos numbers are not defining, or else all of those 8,000 people would have WP articles."? This is perfectly clear to me. Of course, I don't expect you to speak for anyone else. If I misinterpreted your own intent, I shall stand corrected. I do still believe the claim I have made. And I believe it's clear that this particular point was an important reason for the outcome of the CfD. If all my interpretations here are mistaken, you can at least see that they're reasonable. Ntsimp (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Iggy Arbuckle articles[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Delete per precedent (that links in the main article are enough in this case). - jc37 10:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iggy Arbuckle articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per multiple precedents - contains only main article and lists of characters and episodes. BencherliteTalk 20:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa whoa whoa! Hold everything! Just because something starts out small, doesn't mean it must go! If we did that with everything, we'd not exist, because we'd kill our young off at birth! Besides, after one or two more seasons of the show, the characters will likely have enough individual info to have their own articles. Assuming about five or six more articles are therefore created, that will up the containments of the category to eight or nine. The following is not a rhetorical question; I expect a full and honest answer: Doesn't anyone in this encyclopedia have any patience at all? -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion would be without prejudice to recreation if justified in the future by the standards of the consensus then prevailing at CfD, but (as Otto says below) the characters and episodes structure would handle articles on characters and episodes. Categories are, in general, created to categorise existing articles, rather than to house articles that might be written in the future. BencherliteTalk 07:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and ample precedent. We do not require a category for every single TV show that has an article and a character and episode list. The show article serves as a navigational hub. Should any of the characters or episodes warrant articles at some point in the future, they would go into Category:Iggy Arbuckle characters and Category:Iggy Arbuckle episodes respectively. It has nothing to do with patience. Otto4711 (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Musicians featured on Theme Time Radio Hour[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musicians featured on Theme Time Radio Hour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as an example of overcategorization of the "performance by venue" type, as per ProveIt's handy list of precedents. BencherliteTalk 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC. Doczilla 06:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is overcategorization of performer by performance. --Lquilter 16:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 01:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categories for actors (etc) by TV show have been deleted and listified. This category should thus also go.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Recalled products[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. The problem of undefined scope (or excessively broad scope, if one takes the title at face value and uses the broadest definition of "recalled") has primacy over questions of whether the article is or can be adequately populated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recalled products (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Single-article orphaned category with no clear criteria for inclusion and the potential for to become an enormous mishmash of unrelated objects. The concept of "recalled" is vague, and can have many different meanings, from taken off the market with all existing items recalled to be destroyed, or (at the other extreme), recalled just to check that the product is free of a rare defect (as often happens with cars) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and now that it has been called to our attention, use it more frequently.DGG (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; cars are a great example, appliances another, computers (remember the batteries problems or when the pentium couldn't do math), when things are wrong they get recalled, fixed and not much more is considered - so not defining. In the case where the product is pulled off the market entirely due to danger of consumer injury that may be notable, but not always defining: Vioxx? Spinach? Tylenol? Hamburgers? Watermelons? as many of these came back or will with different packaging, warnings, procedures or such. Carlossuarez46 00:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Carlossuarez46 and common sense. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Perennial Philosophy[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Perennial Philosophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No clear inclusion criteria. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Songs with sexual themes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 10:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs with sexual themes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - vague category. How much of a song needs to be about sex or dealing with sex for it to have a "sexual theme"? Otto4711 18:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Songs about copulating, or Delete. Otherwise, "songs with non-sexual themes" would be smaller, but the more specific category may be justified. I think gay sex is copulating too, isn't it? Johnbod 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod said it for me--this has to be defined narrowly or it doesn't mean much. If some aren't sexy enough for the consensus, they can be edited out. DGG (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Songs about copulating" would be a silly category. Is heavy petting copulating? How about fisting? There's really no way to avoid subjectivity. SparsityProblem 05:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vaguely named category. Doczilla 06:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vague, OCAT, and boundary-lessness. Some people would say that almost all music has sexual themes. Are we just talking about lyrics? What about the Stravinsky's Rite of Spring? --Lquilter 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a songs about cat in all but name, how much about the subject (even if you could define it within some NPOV bounds) must the song be and what RSes tell us its that much. Carlossuarez46 00:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Lquilter as hopelesly vague. I just looked again at the lyrics of one of the first songs which came into my head Leonard Cohen's Chelsea Hotel No. 2, and I can't see a clear answer as to whether it has a sexual theme; it's arguably more about the general meaninglessness of a popstar's life. And what about Dirty World, whose lyrics allude to sex, but are arguably more about male obsession with cars? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. According to Schopenhauer sexual desire (used different wording) can be found behind most of human activity, no need to confirm it with an all-inclusive category. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the great majority of the items seem to be about the act of sexual intercourse, not general sexual activity or sexual desire. A renaming , together with a re--check of the individual items, should deal with it. Or perhaps that should be introduced as a new category with a more specific rationale. DGG (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think these kinds of things (theme lists) -- where they are warranted -- work better as lists; the relevant lyrics can be quoted in references, creating a documented list, that can also explain and define the criteria and the significance better than a category can. --Lquilter (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I thought that the categoriseation of songs by subject matter was generally disapproved of. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Statutory Professors of Oxford University[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Statutory Professors of Oxford University to Category:Statutory Professors of the University of Oxford
Nominator's rationale: The university is at University of Oxford and other categories use this name format as well. Timrollpickering 18:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:ACM magazines[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. BencherliteTalk 01:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ACM magazines to Category:Category:Association for Computing Machinery magazines
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym as we have done for several other categories in this area. Vegaswikian 18:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:ACM Special Interest Groups[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. BencherliteTalk 01:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ACM Special Interest Groups to Category:Category:Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Groups
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym as we have done for several other related categories. Vegaswikian 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Navigable bridges[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete (now empty). BencherliteTalk 02:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Navigable bridges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Newly created category that duplicated the existing Category:Aqueducts and its subcategories. All six pages that were added to it are in that category or a subcategory of it. Mayalld 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as empty. I don't think this is really duplicated in Category:Aqueducts and I think creating a child of Category:Navigable aqueducts would be a reasonable step. I recall there were several of these in Hawaii at one time that were actually used for tourist trips. So this is a very notable class of Aqueducts. Vegaswikian 19:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as Category:Navigable aqueducts & repopulate following Vegas's logic. Not the same as aqueducts. Johnbod 20:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I may be coming at this from a slightly UK-centric POV here! Just about all the aqueducts in the UK are navigable aqueducts, so the current UK subcategory would become a sub-category of navigable aqueducts Mayalld 21:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator should not have emptied the category just before nominating, as he did. There are 3 leat articles already, no doubt more potentially. The US & UK sub-cats might need splitting into sub-cats, no big problem. These categories were not very well maintained, despite being small. Johnbod 22:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accepted! I started off by removing what appeared to be a nonsense categorisation from 4 UK articles on my watchlist (and from a UK perspective, it is - here aqueduct always means Navigation Aqueduct unless stated otherwise). Clearly the category needs to fork in two, with most of the UK stuff going to Category:Navigation aqueducts (Navigation rather than Navigable, as the category will include currently unnavigable navigation aqueducts. Mayalld 08:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where those that are not navigable today navigable in the past? If they were then inclusion in the proposal could be OK. I guess the discussion would be, is the category restricted to navigable today or at any time? Vegaswikian 09:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now I'm not sure. I think the issues have been identified, I'm jut not sure that the best solution is. Normally I would suggest using defunct, but in this case, they are only defunct in the sense that they no longer function to carry traffic. I think there is some logic to combining the canals and aqueducts that carry traffic, however I think this is still problematic since the usage of these terms may vary by country. With a subcat for those that no longer do it could work if we don't need to subdivide these categories by country. That may not be needed if they are also included in a general other category by location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 20:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Mayalld and Vegaswikian. 132.205.99.122 19:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment clearly I would like it kept and the consensus so far seems to be for renaming. I have created Category:Navigable aqueducts with the pages that were formerly here at Navigable bridges. Perhaps a few different terms would be useful or even a different term (a move might be in order if a different term is preferred). ---- Carrie (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as Category:Navigable aqueducts or (better still) Category:Navigation aqueducts; Repopulate as necessary. This is not the same as Category:aqueducts, which relates to usually watercourses providing drinking water to cities (particularly ancient cities), sometimes crossing high bridges. Not all are ancient - much of Birmingham's water reaches it along the Elan Valley Aqueduct, a pipeline built in the years around 1900. There is a related phenomenon to the navigation aqueduct, which is a bridge carrying a brook over a canal. This might merit an article, but probably not a category. I suspect all the examples will in fact be carrying canals over valleys, as carrying a river over a valley seems improbable. Perhaps therefore Category: Canal Aqueducts would meet the specification. This would also deal with my issue of a brook or river crossing a canal (which would necessarily be in an arteficial cutting. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for closing admin. I think the consensus here is to delete as nominated. The issue of how to cleanup the problems raised in this discussion do not need to be resolved here. It looks like several editors are working on a solution. I say let them continue and we can revisit this, if needed, after they finish their work. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Girl[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. BencherliteTalk 00:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Girl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous band overcategorization along with being ambiguous. ALbum and member subcats don't warrant the parent per extensive precedent. Otto4711 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:The Orb[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. BencherliteTalk 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Orb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a band. Everything is well interlinked and categorized. Otto4711 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Mad Men episodes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mad Men episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - all of the episode articles have been redirected per outcome of an AFD. Otto4711 04:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Cowboy Mouth[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. BencherliteTalk 00:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cowboy Mouth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete unnecessary eponymous cat for a band. Carlossuarez46 03:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This category is useful for connecting all singles, albums, films and members of the band on one page, as opposed to having a separate category for each of those items. This matches how the category is set up for many other bands. Frog47 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - singles, albums and band members should be in appropriate categories in the Songs by artist, Albums by artist and Musicians by band category trees and the main article for the band will serve as a navigational hub. We have had hundreds of similar categories deleted and if there are other similar band categories then they should cleaned up and, if the remaining material doesn't warrant the category it should be deleted. Otto4711 16:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, here are over 200 examples of similar categories to "clean up" as you put it:Category:Categories named after musicians. This is an entire category of categories named after musicians. Frog47 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, and there used to be over 600 in that category. There have been 400 similar categories deleted and there is no need for this one. Otto4711 18:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I nearly passed right by this one, but I had to find out what on earth "Cowboy Mouth" could be. While I sympathize with the category's creator, in this case I am in agreement with Carlossuarez & Otto (with whom I am often at loggerheads). Since the category has no articles that fall outside of the standard areas of songs, albums, and band members, there is no real need for a category. Much better to link all of the articles through the standard template for bands -- which has already been created. Cgingold 03:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 06:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:The Sandbaggers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. BencherliteTalk 00:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Sandbaggers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for a television series. Aside from improper performer by performance categorisation of four biographical articles, the main article and the episodes category alone do not justify an eponymous category for the series. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Bilderberg attendees[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. BencherliteTalk 00:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bilderberg attendees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Otherwise famous people who have attended one or another conference, not defining. Carlossuarez46 03:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - c.130 pa, nearly all of whom will be notable, and the List of Bilderberg attendees is much bigger and better Johnbod 14:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obviously we can't start categorizing people in terms of all of the notable conferences they may have attended. As Johnbod notes, the List article is a much better approach to this subject. Not surpisingly, this poorly-conceived category has no parent cats. Now, what might be worthy of a category is the members of the Bilderberg Steering Committee -- but, alas, they're not even named in either article. (I was also somewhat amused to find that Joseph Retinger, the man who is credited (if that's the term) with starting the whole thing is included in neither the list nor the category.) Cgingold 03:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified the creator of the category about this CfD. Cgingold 03:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary. Doczilla 06:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary. I know alot of works needs to be done on the articles/category but that doesn't justify deleting a category, but warrants work to be done on it. For some people bilderberg is more unofficial government than innocent conference. Categories are more efficient for lists than lists because dynamic tree view. Chendy 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bilderberg is arguably one of most politically significant conferences in the world, and it is the subject of frequent speculation by conspiracy theorists, possibly with some justification. But the people who attend are nearly all notable for many other much more significant attributes, and the list can do the job much better by being sourced and by listing which year's conference people attended. (Any deficiencies of the current list can be rectified, but the flaws of he category are structural). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 11:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:ACM[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. BencherliteTalk 00:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ACM to Category:Association for Computing Machinery
Nominator's rationale: To expand the abbreviation; by itself, "ACM" can stand for many things (see ACM). Black Falcon (Talk) 03:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Artefacts/artifacts[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was keep as is. I particularly liked Carlossuarez's comment about "WP's quirky patchwork"... BencherliteTalk 00:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated by User:Arthur_Rubin under speedy moves. Moved from speedy section today.--Mike Selinker 01:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose UK/US differences are not speediable, and since the word "archaeological" uses the UK spelling, so should artefact. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Grutness. Ravenhurst 13:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • in regard "artefacts" to "artifacts"; I couldn't find any indication that it's a US/UK difference. After looking around Wikipedia, I still can't. At the very least, though, we need to standardise within topics, which will require renaming some "artefact"s to "artifact"s or some "artifact"s to "artefact"s. Could you suggest a WikiProject to associate this with? An RfC? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I checked several dictionaries. The UK English ones I checked (Collins, Heinemann's, Penguin, Oxford) all listed artefact first with artifact given as an alternative spelling - in one case specifically listed as a US variant. The US English one I checked (Websters) listed artifact first, with artefact given as an alternative spelling. From that it seemed to be a UK/US split. I must admit, I was surprised - up until then I had thought that "artifact" was simply a mis-spelling. FWIW, the one "transatlantic" dictionary I have (Reader's Digest) lists artefact first. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually we don't have to have the same spelling throughout a category tree. For instance, Category:Organizations includes a lot of "organisations" where appropriate. --Lquilter 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Grutness. DuncanHill 03:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Grutness. Other non-American cats, or at least European ones, should be brought into line (Norse, China) etc, but Americas only cats left. Johnbod 11:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Grutness. It isn't broke, so don't fix it. Mayalld 17:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There's no reason to change this. There's no clear national tie for Etruscan or Archaeology or Egyptian or 4th century to either BE or AE, so both are acceptable and we go with the first creator. --Lquilter 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose part of WP's quirky patchwork, but saves us a cross-Atlantic row (as rhymes with cow, but if need be rhyme with toe, and we'll load up the longships to fight this one out - :)). Carlossuarez46 00:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As an Englishman, it is annoying to me to keep running into American orthography, but I have to put up with it. Occasionally articles as tagged as using English orthogrpahy e.g. Industrial Revolution. Unless we have a generally agreed convention as to which speeling should be used it should all be left as is. However, if the decision is to change it, the old forms should be left as redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I was unaware that this was a British/American problem. Certainly, if renamed in either directions, the old forms should be retained as redirects, even if if they were only misspellings. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:English-Americans[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was merge. A separate nomination is needed to rename Category:English Americans. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English-Americans to Category:English Americans Prove It (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Controversial matter. Not speediable. Ravenhurst 13:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved from speedy, and support. This category has four members, while the target category has hundreds.--Mike Selinker 01:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There will be no consensus about which of these is the better name. Let's just stick with the established one. LeSnail 01:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. VartanM 04:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, and preferably rename to something that could not possibly mean "English people of American descent", which since it is not an established term like "Irish Americans", this could. Perhaps Category:American people of English descent to match others - though I realize a good majority of these were themselves born in England. Johnbod 14:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nom. Do not rename. The naming pattern that governs can be seen in Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. Hmains 03:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may not be as much a problem in the American cats, but the same naming pattern can be shown to have causeed hopeless confusion in the English and other equivalent cats, some of which have been renamed for this reason. I think they all should be. Johnbod 14:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, not defining, how English must one be to be categorized here? And how barring OR do we know other than for people born there or are English in their female antecedent line that they really are English at all - one's mother's husband isn't necessarily your biological father - it would be OR to assume that it was. Carlossuarez46 00:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In practice most are born in England; Jimmy Carter etc do not feature. Ideally it could be sorted one day by someone with time on their hands, & renamed more specifically, losing the odd Mayflower descendent, but deletion now is unjustified - many other cats in this tree have the same issue. Category:English immigrants to the United States is a bit underused - & raises the question of whether pre-1776 immigrants should be included. Johnbod 14:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Support Johnbod. The American melting pot means (I presume) that most immigrants are fully American in the second generation. Certain ethnic groups (eg Hispanic Americans) may be an exception. The category (or shoudl it be both categories) should be merged with Category:English immigrants to the United States, second and later gernations members of the category should be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Space Battleship Yamato[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. BencherliteTalk 00:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Space Battleship Yamato (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for an anime/manga series. Articles are extensively interlinked and appropriately categorized. Otto4711 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2007_November_14&oldid=1074799311"