Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 28 October 30 >

October 29

[edit]

Category:Major league baseball replacement players

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Major league baseball replacement players to Category:Major League Baseball replacement players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Major League Baseball should be capitalized to be consistent with the article Major League Baseball. Jackal4 (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2008 (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:Windows Seven

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Moved to Category:Windows 7. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Windows Seven to Category:Windows 7
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The software is named Windows 7, not Windows Seven. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you pronounce Josh's statement?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two names are pronounced the same, but spelled differently. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now, do you know of anyone who responds to the "Windows Seven" spelling by saying "I hate it when you spell the name this way"?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it does annoy me. Are you suggesting that this isn't a spelling issue, because "7" isn't a letter? - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we had Windows 5 and Windows 6, then we could have Windows 7 after that. But, I do think that the final name of Windows 7 sounds surprising becuase Windows versions 4 through 6 got special names. Georgia guy (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2008 (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:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JarlaxleArtemis

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JarlaxleArtemis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Since JarlaxleArtemis = Grawp, and we know exactly what to do when we see Grawp, I propose we delete this under WP:DENY NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 22:08, 29 October 2008 (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:Tatars

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Tatar topics. Kbdank71 14:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tatars to Category:Tatar
Nominator's rationale: this page serves as a collector for all things TartarTatar (people, language, history, nation) Mayumashu (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I d support either of these alternatives. But there has been a precedent set of sorts - there are Category:African American, and others Mayumashu (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support "topics", which I see I suggested at the Native American debate; here and as a general standard for "all things Foo-related" etcnic categories. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2008 (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.

Subcategory pages of Category:People by race or ethnicity

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per convention naming pattern for sub-category pages under Category:People by race or ethnicity. This follows up on the discussion about Category:Silesian people from a few days ago. Mayumashu (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In light of the fact that we are having what amounts to a centralized discussion to establish an all-encompassing naming convention, I want to focus attention on the inherent ambiguity of the word "people", which can be construed in two very different ways: as both the plural of "person" and as a collective noun referring to an entire ethnic group. That being the case, I believe that serious consideration should be given to using the word "individuals" instead of "people", since that would eliminate the ambiguity in these category names. This issue has been raised in previous CFDs by a couple of other editors and myself, but hasn't been given a serious, focussed discussion. Cgingold (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly means both. I don t see, however, why both cannot collect on one page. Mayumashu (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you joking?? - Surely you can't be serious! Cgingold (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Cgingold's suprise. Vagueness in category naming is simply less-than-acceptable, per WP:CAT, among other policies and guidelines. That said, if there are more of these, and they all use "people", than I'll support this nom "per convention", but would greatly favour a group nom following this to change "people" to something else (individuals, persons, etc.) - jc37 02:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing vague about it. It means very clearly just two things, people as individuals and as groups. (We can list groups first in the 'Pages in category "ABC Category"' section by placing a '+' mark before the name of the item populating the category page, as the '+' appears before 'A', 'B'... on the list.) At any rate, this nomination is not about revamping the whole of how we place people in categories - it just concerned with bringing the Cat:People by ethnicity in line with Cat:People by nationality in the naming pattern by which these pages are named Mayumashu (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it meaning "two things" could very well be a problem. Would you explain how you feel that it wouldn't be? - jc37 07:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the list for articles about the group and for those on individuals can be kept on the same cat page but separately, by using a '+' mark, as I suggested just above. Mayumashu (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any thoughts on the issue I raised re ambiguity? Cgingold (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue seems to affect the whole of Category:People by race or ethnicity if not Category:People itself and I can but quail at its enormity. And suggest that in the meantime we rename these few in line with the others. Occuli (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; I feel like Occuli on "individuals". Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Perhaps categories for Fooish individuals should use Fooish persons. -choster (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and close for WP:POINTiness. Mayamashu has tried this stunt before, and nothing has changed. Its the same old story, the same old senseless rationale that everything needs to look the same way. The only "convention naming pattern" is the arbitrary one Mayumashu is repeatedly trying to stuff down everyone's throat per fiat.
    There is no need for a "naming pattern" to begin with, and its due to Mayumashu's own establishment of that that we have to deal with this concoction again. But its just pedantic "lets make everything line up the same way" silliness. PEOPLE and NAMES are not at all uniform, do not all follow the same internal rules, and there is absolutely no need to fix what isn't broken.
    And its incredibly annoying to see this again and again and again. I'd even say return to the -s forms for the ones Mayamashu has boxed through so far. They worked fine! The strategy seems to be that even if something fails one, if tried often enough it will get through eventually. That is totally uncool. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for putting the link up from the previous discussion. my thoughts given there/then, I know, have not changed. er, so, you are against having conventional naming patterns for category pages in general, I gather. presumably (certain?) sub-category pages of Category:People by nationality should use 's' and not 'people' as well? Would you have all such cat pages that can take 's' grammatically with 's'? and, revisiting the talk from May and addressing comments you made then, I ve checked and each of these listed here in this nomination are properly formed adjectives Mayumashu (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your arguments are the same as they were six months ago, so there was no reason to file this Cfd. The issue is also not "having conventional naming patterns for category pages in general", nor about the infinitely ridiculous '-s' and not '-s' argument. Neither the categories nor the articles that fall into the categories change either form or function if "-s" becomes "people". This "discussion" that you have provoked again -- and again are trying to box through with the same lame arguments -- hinges on one thing and one thing only: your personal preference for "xyz people" because then category listings would line up nicely. This is a question of taste, not function. Neither the categories nor the articles in them change in either form or function by such a rename. Nothing at all is gained by it.
The argument with "properly formed adjectives" was and continues to be fallacious. There are no "properly formed" anythings that need to be discussed when the English language is not "properly formed" to begin with. And the notion that "Russians" has to be renamed to "Russian people" because the latter is a "properly formed" expression does not wash when the former is also a "properly formed" expression. It moreover means exactly the same thing as the latter, and is also the vastly more common form of it. And, the inverse of the fanciful "properly formed" argument is that the "properly formed" plural of 'American' is "American" (no -s) just because 'Japanese' is "Japanese". The facility of the English language to represent both (countable) nouns and adjectives with the same word does not indicate that the English language is broken or that anything needs to be done to "fix" it! English is a functional language, and the facility to morph nouns into adjectives (and vice versa) is an irrevocable feature of that language. It is not a bug to be squashed just because it offends your sensibilities of orderliness.
The argument for "conventions" is also complete claptrap. There are no "conventions" for demonyms in the English language, and there is no "MLA guide on category naming" that needs to be followed. There are accordingly no "conventions" that need to be honored here. Any "conventions" you might wish to impose are those that that you are defining yourself. There are no reasons for anyone to conform to such arbitrary matters of taste.
Attempting to establish personal taste as binding by fiat is a contemptible abuse of process, and the notion that a pseudo-bureaucratic Cfd can sanction it is naive and utopian, and contrary to the principles of this encyclopedia.
And it is also incredibly stupid and arrogant to not once, but repeatedly, try to force your own taste on everyone else. It degrades the entire process.
To recap: the rationale that the 'Category:People by race or ethnicity' look nicer when things line up is a matter of taste, not function. The suggested renames are not functional, not desirable, not pragmatic, not productive, not practical and not needed. The arguments are utterly oblivious to the realities of the living English language and to the practical considerations why things are the way they are. The attempt to drive personal taste through as "convention" is fatuous arrogance. And this rehash of a "discussion" is an abuse of process, undermines the spirit of the encyclopedia, WP:POINTy, and an immense waste of everyone's time. Yes, your arguments are the same as they were six months ago, so there was no reason to file this Cfd. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if this were indeed pointless to us then neither I nor you would bother with it. more importantly, if it were pointless, neither would five other users have bothered to comment, with four voting on it and none agreeing with you that this nomination being based on pointlessness (either as WP policy or in a general sense). I have not tried repeatedly - this is a second attempt with five pages but a first as a mass nomination that includes all pages that for no viable reason do not follow the ad hoc convention. I had nothing to do with creating this ad hoc convention (that is, the idea to name subcats of Category:People by nationality, which preceded work on the subcats of Category:People by race or ethnicity). It is interesting that you mention demonyms. that there are no conventions for demonyms was why they were gotten rid collectively here at WP:Cats for discussion, and you may be surprised to hear that I led the charge at the time to keep demonyms - go check, if you will (it was a year and a half ago, I believe). 2/3 to 3/4 of users often here at WP:Cats for discussion like to have conventionally naming for cat pages, and yeah, there is often no great rationale for the choices, even some of whatever is first sticks (precedent setting) Mayumashu (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the debate above; this would be a case for Category:Celt or Category:Celtic topics. I see it has the Category:Celtic studies above it fort many of these subjects. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to match the categories for other such peoples, I created and populated Category:Celtic culture Hmains (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2008 (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.

Burials in London, England

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Burials in London. Kbdank71 14:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Category:Burials in London, England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Duplication - categories for burials in the UK are already grouped under Category:Cemeteries in London. This new category adds nothing but results in a duplication and confusion of entries, e.g. see Category:Burials at West Norwood Cemetery . Ephebi (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've identified the problem; "London" is not a burial ground - it doesn't make sense to me to say that someone is "buried at London". A huge number of new "Buried in Foo" categories have recently been created by User:EstherLois and I'd like to understand what they mean. ... PS "Burials at London cemeteries" would make sense, but brings us back to the original duplication problem. That's why I say Delete. Ephebi (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no duplication problem and User:EstherLois is merely using the established wording arrived at via previous cfds; eg Category:Burials in New York City. Occuli (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it doesn't make sense to say someone was "buried at London". It makes complete sense—London is a big place. If you are "buried at [or in] London", you were buried somewhere in that city. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a long discussion some time ago about terminology when a consensus established "Burials at Foo cemetery" over many other options. See this CfD. Ephebi (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2008 (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.

People buried in Abney Park Cemetery

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus on keep/delete; rename for sake of consistency with other burials categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:People buried in Abney Park Cemetery to Category:Burials at Abney Park Cemetery
Nominator's rationale: Standardisation - burials in cemeteries are normally categorised using the convention Burials at .... See earlier CfD Ephebi (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep/Rename per nom Where someone is buried is a strong defining characteristic of an individual and a characteristic noted in most professional biographies. I don't know what other sources participants are reading, but Abney Park Cemetery is a notable cemetery, accompanied by an article that makes a rather strong case for the notability of the cemetery. Abney Park Cemtery is one of the Magnificent Seven, a group in the first wave of cemeteries constructed outside the center of London in the middle of the 19th century. While I would argue that all notable cemeteries should have categories devoted to their notable burials, Abney Park Cemetery stands even higher than your average cemetery in terms of its claim to notability. I challenge any participant to read the Abney Park Cemetery article and argue that a lack of a vampire is a credible argument for deletion of a category, and I won't even bother to respond to the possible lack of input from the deceased as a rationalization for deletion. If the article is insufficient in establishing a claim for notability under Wikipedia standards, I look forward to the AfD for Abney Park Cemetery. As burial at any of the Magnificent Seven is a strong defining characteristic, I support the retention of this category with a revised title, as recommended by the nominator. Alansohn (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've made a great argument for the notability of the cemetery. What you have once again failed to do, as you always fail to do, is grasp that notability is not the standard for categorization. You keep addressing an argument that at its core has nothing to do with the actual discussion. I asked you once if you would advise how many times it will take repeating before you understand the difference between notability and definingness before you would grasp it. Obviously we have yet yo reach that threshold number. The notion that my comments can legitimately be paraphrased as an argument that the lack of a vampire is an argument against the notability of Abney Park or for the deletion of the category is so far beneath even your powers of argumentation that I'm amazed you even dared to try it. Perhaps the reason you're not going to respond to the possible lack of input of the deceased as to where they are buried is that every time it's been brought up in the past you've been unable to address it and your inability to address it continues here. As for this canard about what does or doesn't get included in a standard biography, all kinds of things get mentioned in standard biographies that we don't categorize for. Otto4711 (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, I will remind you that you were the one who brought up the issue of notability in pointing out that "There seems to be less such reliable sourcing about Abney Park Cemetery", which is an argument for the lack of notability of the cemetery itself that could be directly cut-and-pasted to the AfD for the cemetery. Apparently a lack of a vampire also has something to do with why this category should be deleted, and I await your explanation of the relevance of this supernatural void in justifying the deletion of this category, especially with Halloween just a day away. I've already addressed the fact that burial location is a strong defining characteristic and that burial at Abney Park Cemetery is a stronger claim than most in terms of definingness. Huge numbers of people make rather specific plans for their burial, from the design of the coffin to the specific location within a cemetery where they want to be buried overlooking the babbling brook. Sure, there are people who have the decision made for them, but so what. There is no policy logic that requires an individual to play an active decision-making role in their place of burial or any other characteristic. We have probably thousands of articles in Category:Prisoners and detainees and I know very few who have "chosen" to be a prisoner or detainee, let alone anyone at all who picked their own prison or the location of their cell. For that matter, we keep track of year of death, despite the fact that only suicides and perhaps execution victims have any role in deciding the year they die. No one decides their year of birth. Most people retain their birth religion, "imposed" on them with no choice. And we are discussing above a few dozen categories by race or ethnicity and I know of not a single person in the history of the world who has ever decided to join with the Crimean Tatars, become a Dagestani or sign up as a Sherpa. It would appear that the precedent that an individual need play no role in becoming part of a category is self-evident. Abney Park Cemetery is a burial location that has been deliberately selected, is a notable cemetery and a strong defining characteristic of the individuals buried there, regardless of their year of birth, year of death or whether or not they are a Sherpa. Alansohn (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no, I didn't bring up the notability argument. Ephebi did. My comment about the sourcing for Abney Park was incidental, since as I've pointed out time after time after time after time notability is not the standard for categorization. If you want to argue this bullshit ephemera and engage in your typical distortions, feel free to continue coming off like an ass. As for the remainder of your comments, per WP:WAX I find them as ridiculous as I always do, especially given that I have expressed any number of times that I believe that Wikipedia's mania for categorizing based on race and ethnicity is out of control. If you find such categories to be overcategorization, please feel free to nominate them for deletion. Otherwise, I wish that you and the other people who don't seem to understand that pointing at a category other than the one being discussed and whinging "what about this category? What about that one over there?" and expecting that it's suddenly going to be anything other than pointless would find something else to whinge about because the argument is tiresome. But to address one in specific, given the prevalence of plea bargaining in at least the American judicial system, I think you'll find that indeed many prisoners did make the decision to accept jail time and thus become prisoners. Yes, some people do make elaborate funeral plans. Some people don't have those funeral plans carried out by their next of kin or the State. So to add another stake through the heart of your argument (ooh, another vampire reference, go nuts!), what the notion of funeral plans comes down to is categorization by the prospective decendent's opinion about said arrangements, which is another form of overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have addressed your issues and shown the broad precedent for such categorization and why this category is a strong defining characteristic. I am not swayed by your rhetoric, no matter how many words are bolded or italicized. Your rather blatant hostility and incivility has me ending this conversation. Alansohn (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have upgraded my position to Strong Keep. Above and beyond the claim of notability for the cemetery itself, and the strong defining characteristic of burial there, the rather clear and broad precedent set at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_21#Category:Burials for retention of such categories on a rather thorough basis has not been rebutted. These scores of categories exist -- what has been called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- with the names they have, because of this precedent set some 15 months ago. While I understand that there are those who seek to overturn this consensus, there has been no justification offered here to justify overturning this consensus, nor has there been any evidence to support a possible claim that consensus has changed in this regard. Alansohn (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and Keep per many precedents. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, categories are a much more practical way of maintaining this information than keeping a list on the cemetery article and trying to make sure there's prose mention of it in each article text. This is based on my experience with the Cave Hill Cemetery article... it became much more practical just to remove the prose list and link to the category; it also solved the problem of people adding non-notable people to the article's burial list. --Rividian (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do know that the category should be removed if the reason for inclusion is not clearly stated in the article text. A mere mention is not sufficient. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? All biographies of dead people should mention where the person is buried, both in prose and category if there is one. But the category is much faster to add... prose can be added later. Removing an accurate category just on a technicality seems highly wonkish. If it really bothers someone so much, they should just add the prose. --Rividian (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Faster is not a reason to imply something without a citable source. So since the source really needs to be cited, it clearly needs to be included in the article text and that is not something we should shortcut. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It only needs to be included if it's a challenged claim... burial locations are practically never very controversial claims. You seem to be making this a much more challenging issue than it needs to be. We shouldn't delete a category because sometimes it's added without a reference! We should fix those articles without appropriate references, if it's genuinely a problem. --Rividian (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After reading the above discussions and participating in the discussion, it is clear that this category is not needed. The most convincing argument for my taking this position is the support for the category as a way to not have to worry about providing reliable sources. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep anything and clearly here the notability of the the cemetery is not inherited by its inhabitants. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename if needed. Just to counteract the absurd and insulting assumption of bad faith that people only want this category to avoid providing reliable sources. It's a burial location... it's hardly controversial in 99.9% of biographical articles. --Rividian (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the - perhaps very naive - reason that Abney Park is a large and important London cemetery containing lots of (mostly Non-Conformist) notables; and a useful way to sort dead people within a large city is by the major places of disposal of body. Places of burial, unlike places of death, are generally not difficult to verify. Frankly, I don't see the problem. (no comment on the renaming - I prefer the "People buried in.." format, but it looks like a done deal) HeartofaDog (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Nobody is notable or defined by where they are buried, even if 99.9% of bio articles mention it. I guarantee absolutely none of the articles start off by saying "John Actor, an actor, is best known for being buried in Rotting Swamp Cemetery." It's incidental information at best, and not necessary to categorize by it. Otherwise, we'd have hundreds of thousands of stubs that say nothing more than "Joe Nobody is buried wherever. This article is a stub." Not every factoid needs to be categorized. --Kbdank71 17:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A rather wise admin closed the far broader discussion on this issue at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_21#Category:Burials as keep, reflecting the remarkably broad consensus that burial location is a strong defining characteristic that is appropriate for categorization, and no evidence has been provided that this consensus has changed. Unlike the article world, where the presence (or absence) of reliable sources is an excellent marker for notability, judgments and decisions made at CfD rarely present any discussion of Wikipedia policy whatsoever. Without a meaningful explanation of why this category differs from the several dozen other cemeteries for which there is an extremely strong precedent for retention, or an explanation showing that only those factoids included in an article's opening sentence are worthy potential subjects of categorization, or any evidence that there has been any change to the previous consensus reached on the issue, this all boils down to an argument based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alansohn (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Incorrect. The rather wise admin did not say that the keep indicated that burial location was a defining characteristic; rather, he wrote nothing more than "keep" (which according to some, is grounds for a DRV (but since it was a keep, I won't hold my breath waiting for the DRV notice)). I have specifically stated that if it did make someone notable via a defining characteristic, we would have an article for every person buried in every notable cemetery, and we do not. Hardly IDONTLIKEIT. How about responding to what I wrote, instead of bringing up a long paragraph of irrelevant points? --Kbdank71 21:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, this category is a union of two notable facts. Maybe people's biographies don't start off mentioning their burial, but some cemeteries start off by mentioning their people! See Oak Ridge Cemetery for example. A nonentity in your "swamp cemetery" would not make it here. Ephebi (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same half-baked argument could be used to delete birth/death year categories, which obviously no one wants to do... "it's not like anyone is best known for being born in 1914" / "This category will lead to hundreds of thousands of stub articles that say 'Joe Nobody was born in 1914'". --Rividian (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2008 (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.

OJ Simpson

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete Category:O. J. Simpson, no consensus on Category:O. J. Simpson murder trial. Kbdank71 17:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:O. J. Simpson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:O. J. Simpson murder trial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Discuss - the parent cat was recently CFDed with a result of "consensus that two categories aren't necessary, no consensus as to what to do with them. Suggest renomination." Possible outcomes that I see are: 1) Delete Category:O. J. Simpson, retain Category:O. J. Simpson murder trial; 2) Upmerge the trial category to the parent; 3) Delete the parent category, rename the murder trial category to Category:O. J. Simpson trials to capture O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case; 4) Something I haven't thought of. I have a preference for deleting the parent, as merging the categories takes the murder trial category out of the parent Category:Trials in the United States. I have no incredibly strong opinion on the idea of renaming to "trials" to capture the robbery article, but as I said at the last CFD, I don't find it terribly necessary. Otto4711 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's kind of complicated. Retaining both categories means that there would be two articles in the main "trials" category, Simpson's article and the Vegas robbery article. That seems unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:O. J. Simpson - this will enable articles relating to his distinguished sporting career to be included as well as ones to his subsequent (alleged) criminal one. I see no objection to this appearing in multiple categories including trial ones, despite trial not being part of the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well for what it's worth our content related to O.J. Simpson suffers from pronounced recentism. I'm not saying his legal problems are being given undue weight by any means, only that his achievements in football are given undue levity—the infobox has more salient information about his sports career than the prose does! I believe an article similar to those in Category:Career achievements of sportspeople could easily be written for O.J. — CharlotteWebb 15:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- jc37 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:43, 29 October 2008 (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.

Magallanes y Antártica Chilena Region categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Magellan and Chilean Antarctica Region and Category:Geography of Magellan and Chilean Antarctica Region. Kbdank71 15:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Categories are at two different forms of the name of this region, article is at a third, varying essentially according to degree of seemingly ad hoc anglicisation. I don't have a particular preference for which, as long as we end up with something consistent, for which there's reasonable evidence for common use in English. Alai (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename using "Magellan and Chilean Antartica Region" form as the best English translation of the Spanish name. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until all Chilean regions uses the same form. Currently the word Región is spelled in English at all articles and at most articles (with the exception of Santiago Metropolitan Region and Magallanes) the short version of the Spanish form is used. This is the current "maintream" translation in wikipedia. If Magallanes Region got an english name then Los Ríos and Los Lagos Region should be renamed to River Region and Lake Region? The same logic should be aplied to all Chilean regions. Dentren | Talk 11:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take it you're "opposing" the option favoured by Peterkingiron immediately above. Note, however that the nomination is for three inconsistent entities, all at different forms of the name. Presumably you're not opposing moving all of them -- right? Alai (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long vs Short version of the name: why should Magellan Region be spelled with its full name as Magellan and Chilean Antarctica Region and not Aisén Region as Aisén Region of General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo ?
  • To include or not the roman numerals: XIV Los Ríos Region or Los Ríos Region.
  • English or Spanish spelling? Which parts of the name should be spelled in English and which in Spanish? Dentren | Talk 08:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, for heaven's sakes. If you want to have a discussion there about a wider convention, fair enough, but don't be using "adjourn and move for change of venue" as a rationale for a blanket oppose of all attempts to achieve a modicum of internal consistency in the meantime. Alai (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's of any assistance to the closer, I'd be happy with either the "Magallanes y Antártica Chilena Region" or the "Magellan and Chilean Antarctica Region" form for all. Alai (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I support the use of the English name (choice number 2 in each of the categories listed), for purposes of standardization in the English Wikipedia. We use Spain and not España for the country, but we have an English-language version of the country name. My only question is if there is support for the use of "Magellan and Chilean Antarctica Region" as the appropriate English name. Alansohn (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Between you and me, I was going mainly by the literal translation in the article. I'm rather struggling to find high-grade usages of any of the above. Best I've found so far is Britannica, which uses "Magallanes y La Antarctica Chilena", just to be slightly different. Some sub-reliable-sources flag sites use either "Magellan and Chilean Antarctica" or "Magellan Region and Chilean Antarctica". Given that the Antarctic treaty makes a nonsense the idea of this being a "region" of Chile at all, this is something of an annoying entity, really. Alai (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Uhm, the article is at Magallanes and Antártica Chilena Region, so, naturally the category should be at Category:Magallanes and Antártica Chilena Region. The rationale for using Magallanes and Antártica Chilena Region is that the region is made up of two provinces: Magallanes and Antártica Chilena. Simple. Neutral. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd, uhm, be fine with that name, but in the interests of strict accuracy... It consists of four provinces: the above two, plus Tierra del Fuego and Última Esperanza. (Setting aside the issue of whether the Chilean Antarctic can be said to be a province at all, when the Antarctic Treaty suspends such territorial claims.) Nor is where the article happens to be located currently an infallible guide, especially since it's been moved several times, evidently without any discussion whatsoever (much less any explicit consensus, or heaven forbid, evidence of usage being cited). Alai (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2008 (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:Christian groups and movements

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. It appears that this was moving in a direction but got stalled over a week ago. I would recommend a renomination in the hopes of fixing this structure if this is still desired. Kbdank71 14:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian groups and movements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Propose Deletion - Superfluous, serves no useful purpose.
Nominator's Rationale: This quasi-catchall category gathers together an array of other categories which are properly parented and function quite well without this one. I don't see any compelling reason for that particular assortment of categories to be grouped together. And I am unable to discern any way in which this category improves navigation -- to the contrary, it adds some unneeded clutter to the roster of sub-categories of Category:Christianity. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for Category:Christian organizations, it should be a catch-all category for organizations that are not denominations, nor church bodies/ denominations by another name (i.e. Christian organizations are Christian schools, mission organizations, Bible socities, etc.) --Carlaude (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining the discussion, Carlaude -- I'm glad I asked a second time. I do appreciate (in both senses of the word) that you are trying to improve the structuring of a very complex and "messy" set of categories. So let me lay out more clearly the issues that concern me when I look at the contents of Category:Christian groups and movements.
To begin with, even if we were to keep the category there are several sub-cats that shouldn't be listed there directly: Category:Protestantism and Category:Roman Catholic Church are each already included in both Category:Christian denominations and Category:Christian denominational families -- and Category:Christian evangelicalism is already part of Category:Christian movements. In addition, Category:Christian denominations is already part of Category:Christian denominational families, so that takes us down to 4 sub-cats.
Here's where it gets more complicated. Looking at the definition you wrote when you created Category:Christian denominational families, "Denominational families (or movements) are groups within Christianity..." -- in other words: "families = movements = groups". Hopefully, that definition could be rephrased so as not to equate those terms -- I suppose it reflects the "overlap" you referred to above. In any event, I suspect you had that in mind when you created Category:Christian groups and movements. However, given that Category:Christian denominational families is one of the fundamental sub-category structures, I really don't see what's gained by housing it in Category:Christian groups and movements rather than lodging it directly under Category:Christianity (and perhaps in Category:Christian movements, as well.)
That brings us to Category:Christian movements and Category:Christian organizations. There's no real need to have this extra, intermediate-level category to group them together. A simpler option would be to move them back into Category:Christianity and link them horizontally using {{CatRel}} -- and dispense with the extra layer of categorization.
Cgingold (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My most prefered option is to merge Category:Christian groups and movements and Category:Christian denominational families, as most Christian movements are or tend to become denominational families over time. But since this CfD is not (yet) a poll on that option per say, I was not sure how to vote. I voted keep in hopes that the merge into Category:Christian denominational families (and not Category:Christianity) can be done still, say in a septarate CfD.
I would most like to keep/put
I am not sure I follow all of you comments above but this would seem to address all the concerns you have. I agree horizontal links using {{CatRel}} or the like could also be of help to the needs of the system. --Carlaude (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2008 (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:Donizetti

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete; a {catmore} link to the main article has already been added to the compositions category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Donizetti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small and eponymous category, completely unnecessary. If retained it should be renamed to the composer's full name. Otto4711 (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably better to put a direct link on the cat page ("see also" or "further information"), rather than actually putting the article into a category for compositions. Cgingold (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2008 (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:Comic book creators

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete; I'm relying on Emperor's word here that all the articles are already in the appropriate subcategories. I checked about ¼ of them and they all were, but I did not check them all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Comic book creators to Category:Comics creators

The consensus in the past at CfD, and at WikiProject Comics, is to default to "comics". - jc37 10:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as nominator. - jc37 10:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, and I expect that all of the entries are already in more specific subcategories. Postdlf (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe so, yes. Though User:Emperor would be the one to ask for the definitive answer. - jc37 06:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and use as a category of categories only (i.e. all people in it should be moved to subcategories, if they aren't in them yet). Fram (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as mentioned above all the creators here are in their more specific categories (like "American comics writers" and "British comics writers") and none of these should be merged to the main category as that is only for those articles where it is unclear what their nationality or field is (so a merge would only mean we'd have to remove them from Category:Comics creators, which makes unnecessary work for everyone when it can be sorted out in one step). I have asked the creator if I've misunderstood the purpose of this category and they haven't replied despite my raising it twice so it appears to have no use or purpose except to overcomplicate things that were previously pretty clear and straightforward). (Emperor (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2008 (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:Sargent Shriver

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sargent Shriver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - the lead article and image in no way warrant an eponymous category. Otto4711 (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2008 (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:Gay-for-pay models

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Gay-for-pay models to Category:People appearing in gay pornography
Nominator's rationale: Merge - category is redundant, raises WP:BLP issues and the phrasing can be seen as pejorative. Otto4711 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, seems perjorative. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, agrees that it seems perjorative and there is potential damage to an actors career in that industry. The category would be an opinionated statement and not verifiable, per say. Opens up too many issues and serves no purpose. You can describe what it means to be Gay-for-pay, but to judge someone's sexual orientation and categorize them seems to be outside of what wiki is trying to achieve. Who is going to be appointed the "god" to make that judgement and categorize someone. --Pornguychi 02:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pornguychi (talk • contribs)

don't get rid of this category... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.87.254 (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2008 (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:Hilarious Instruments

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: SPEEDY DELETE as nonsense, meaningless, vandalism, or WP:SNOW, take your pick. Postdlf (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hilarious Instruments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is useful only for insulting musicians that play these instruments. —Kww(talk) 02:35, 29 October 2008 (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:Australian Student Liberal Organisations

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Australian student politics, which could then be nominated for renaming if desired. I'll leave the issue of whether these articles should be included in Category:Liberal Party of Australia to individual consideration on the articles' talk pages. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Australian Student Liberal Organisations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not worthy of its own category then we'd need categories for all political student organisations. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2008 (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/2008_October_29&oldid=1079086152"