Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 10 April 12 >

April 11[edit]

Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics[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 as already moved. Kbdank71 14:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics to Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue
Nominator's rationale: This category states that it "is renamed to Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue" and yet remains extant with identical contents. Skomorokh 23:30, 11 April 2009 (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:Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp inmates[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: listify. Kbdank71 14:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to article Category:Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp inmates to article Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp survivors
Nominator's rationale: Most concentration camps cats in Category:Nazi concentration camps have a subcat with Category:Foobian concentration camp victims while a number have an additional subcat of Category:Foobian Concentration Camp survivors. Category:Auschwitz concentration camp, as far as I know, is the only one with a subcat of Category:Auschwitz concentration camp inmates, which branches out into Category:Auschwitz concentration camp victims and Category:Auschwitz concentration camp survivors. So my question is, what is the ideal format? Should we have an (ideally empty) Category:Foobian Concentration Camp inmates that branches into Category:Foobian Concentration Camp survivors and Category:Foobian Concentration Camp victims or should we just bypass the empty - except for two subcats - Category:Foobian Concentration Camp inmates. Alternatively, we can depreciate all Category:Foobian Concentration Camp survivors and replace them with Category:Foobian Concentration Camp inmates that can have one Category:Foobian Concentration Camp victims subcat. Anewpester (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2009 (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:Mauthausen concentration camp victims[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, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mauthausen concentration camp victims to Category:Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp victims
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent cat (Category:Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp) and parent article (Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp). Anewpester (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2009 (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:Boston Terriers ice hockey 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 14:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Boston Terriers ice hockey players to Category:Boston University Terriers ice hockey players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category currently does not follow standard of other Boston University athletes categories (ie: Category:Boston University Terriers men's basketball players, Category:Boston University Terriers football players). This needs to be done to distinguish Boston University from Boston College, where we see Category:Boston College Eagles ice hockey players. – Nurmsook! talk... 19:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match full name of team used as standard. Alansohn (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and as standard naming conventions. Tavix |  Talk  21:48, 16 April 2009 (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:Songs by Harold Faltermeyer[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 14:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Harold Faltermeyer to Category:Songs written by Harold Faltermeyer
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with other songwriter categories. Richhoncho (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - good idea to sort out these somewhat ambiguously-named categories. Ditto all the similar ones below. Occuli (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2009 (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:Songs by Sam Coslow[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 14:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Sam Coslow to Category:Songs written by Sam Coslow
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with other songwriter categories. Richhoncho (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2009 (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:Songs by Sonny Bono[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 14:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Sonny Bono to Category:Songs written by Sonny Bono
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with other songwriter categories. Richhoncho (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2009 (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:Songs by Pat Ballard[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 14:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Pat Ballard to Category:Songs written by Pat Ballard
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with other songwriter categories. Richhoncho (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2009 (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:Songs by Irving Berlin[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 14:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Irving Berlin to Category:Songs written by Irving Berlin
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with other songwriter categories. Richhoncho (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2009 (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:Songs by Richard Adler[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 14:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Richard Adler to Category:Songs written by Richard Adler
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with other songwriter categories. Richhoncho (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2009 (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:Songs by Stephen Foster[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 14:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Stephen Foster to Category:Songs written by Stephen Foster
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with other songwriter categories. Richhoncho (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2009 (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:Songs by Gerry Goffin[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 14:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Gerry Goffin to Category:Songs with lyrics by Gerry Goffin
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Gerry Goffin is a lyricist and with the rename will sit nicely with the other "songs with lyrics by xxx". Richhoncho (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - good idea to sort out these somewhat ambiguously-named categories. Occuli (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2009 (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:Songs with music by A. Emmett Adams[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 14:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs with music by A. Emmett Adams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another bunch of categories with only one entry in the category and no main article about the songwriter. Also for the same reasons Category:Songs with music by Kurt Adams, Category:Songs with music by Shorty Allen, Category:Songs by George Campbell, Category:Songs written by Billy Mayhew, Category:Songs written by Chauncey Gray. Please note I have tried to expand the category and find enough to create an article on the songwriter without success. If anybody can expand/create the relevant article I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. Richhoncho (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I agree that these single article categories with a redlinked author are superfluous. Occuli (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2009 (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:Flora of the Isle of Youth[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: upmerge. Kbdank71 14:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Flora of the Isle of Youth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Trees of the Isle of Youth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Flora of Cuba and Category:Trees of Cuba, and delete. A small island of no floristic significance. Floristic significance isn't the only consideration here—people are also interested in the flora of political and geographical entities—but we certainly don't want a category for the flora of every little island or municipality in the world. We have to stop somewhere. In determining how, and how deeply, to categorise along political and geographical lines, we generally follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, a real-world standard that addresses this precise issue. The WGSRPD stops at Cuba, and so ought we. Hesperian 12:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge pre nom. Hm - the combination of category name and nominator's sig made me think of golden apples :) Grutness...wha? 23:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom - nothing to suggest that the flora and trees are so different on that island (this isn't the Galapagos vs. Ecuador mainland, which could remain distinct.). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2009 (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.

Semimonthly-Fortnightly-Biweekly-Semiweekly magazines[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--Aervanath (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a dog to explain, please take a deep breath.

Propose merge and/or renaming, categories involved:

Preliminary definitions for a publication:

  • semimonthly: 24 issues a year (twice a month)
  • twice-monthly: 24 issues a year (twice a month)
    +
  • fortnightly: *26* issues a year (every fortnight = every two weeks)
  • two-weekly: *26* issues a year (every two weeks, existing synonym)
  • biweekly-1: *26* issues a year (every two weeks, syn: fortnightly)
    +
  • biweekly-2: 104 issues a year (twice a week, syn: semiweekly)
  • semiweekly: 104 issues a year (twice a week, syn: twice-weekly)
  • twice-weekly: 104 issues a year (twice a week, syn: semiweekly)
Usage note
"biweekly-1" is often thought of as the normal meaning but "biweekly-2" is documented (e.g. at wikt:biweekly by Wiktionary or WordNet via Google Define) because it is a widespread alternative-or-error (based on "biannual" that's twice a year). And biweekly is very often confused with "twice a month", as noted at Fortnightly. Actually, even the definition currently given on Category:Biweekly magazines is wrong ("published twice a month") and was even more wrong before this June 2008 edit from "twice a week". Basically, practically nobody gets "biweekly" right.

Problems:

  • Problem 1: fortnightly and biweekly (1) are redundant, at the minimum.
  • Problem 2: The ambiguous meanings of biweekly 1 & 2 spells endless trouble on a wiki.
  • Problem 3: The additional confusion of biweekly and semimonthly adds more trouble.

Preliminary solutions suggested and why:

  • Solution 1: Soft-merge Category:Fortnightly magazines into Category:Biweekly magazines by tagging Fortnightly with {{category redirect|Biweekly magazines}} (so as to let the bot move them and keep the useful soft redirect in place). The rationale is to keep the "normal" acception of biweekly and fold its more antiquated synonym into it. The con is that there are way enough people who believe in "Biweekly-2" rather than "Biweekly-1", or who confuse semimonthly/biweekly-1, to make the biweekly category be forever a mixed bag, so it solves only Problem #1 and not Problem #2 or #3.
  • Solution 2: Assign Category:Fortnightly magazines as the main category for every-two-weeks (because it's a non-ambiguous synonym of biweekly-1), create and assign Category:Semiweekly magazines as the main category for twice-a-week (because it's a non-ambiguous synonym of biweekly-2), and deprecate Category:Biweekly magazines (tagging it as a category that should not be used and regularly emptied towards one of the two appropriate synonym). The rationale is to use non-ambiguous synonyms and avoid endless troubles from the unwashed masses with "biweekly". The con is to use the more antiquated Fortnightly and deprecate the common Biweekly. The pro is to solve Problems #1-3, though "Semiweekly" and "Semimonthly" may still confuse some.
  • Solution 3: Same as Solution #2 but spelling it out loud by creating and using Category:Twice-monthly magazines (for 24 ish/yr, instead of semimonthly) + Category:Two-weekly magazines (for 26 ish/yr, instead of fortnightly/biweekly-1) + Category:Twice-weekly magazines (for 104 ish/yr, instead of semiweekly/biweekly-2). Basically because it would now be hard not to understand what these really mean, fully solving Problem #1-3, and potentially having less maintenance to do in the Category:Biweekly magazines sorting area (because the alternative names are easier to understand and use instead).

— The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(other editors' discussions)

  • Comment and question: Two problems and one note about your solution:
    • The current system is based on how a journal is described in prose and infobox, i.e. "Foo is a monthly magazine of...", "Frequency: Monthly" (filed in Category:Monthly magazines), or "Foo is an annual magazine of...", "Frequency: Annual" (filed in Category:Annual magazines), etc. Changing the current naming scheme of "FREQUENCY magazines" will ruin this useful and practical parallel.
    • The current system can sort categories in their parent category based on the name, i.e. people will look for "Monthly" at M, for "Annual" at A, etc. Where would "Magazines published every year" be filed with a DEFAULTSORT? At Y as Year, or A as Annual? And what about "Magazines issued twice per month", should it be at "M" as Month, or "T" as "Twice"? I'm not sure that would be intuitive for browsing the category.
    • Last note: if a system similar to Grutness's proposal should be eventually adopted, the whole mirror hierarchy inside Category:Journals by publication frequency should be entirely renamed too for consistency. (And maybe the Newspaper hierarchy too.) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 14:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few comments on the comments:
    • Re point one, I'm not quite sure how this is a useful and practical parallel. Given the initial complaint is that "FROEQUENCY magazine" is misleading or ambiguous in some cases, it must be equally misleading/ambiguous in the prose and infobox. If so, they too should be changed.
    • Re point two, "Magazine published annually" would of course go under A, and "Magazine published monthly" would of course go under M (it would even if it was "...published every month"). Mind you' I'd be amenable to a defaultsorting by frequency (e.g., annually sorted as *001, monthly as *012, weekly as *052 and daily as *365). It would be more cumbersome to code initially, but far more intuitive to readers.
    • Re point three, if they need to be changed, they need to be changed. An overhaul may be needed, but that all depends on the outcome of this discussion. Presumably, though, there are the same ambiguities in these systems as in the magazines one. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point 1: I meant that it'd be less practical and habitual to re-use the wording of your system inside the infobox and lead, because "Frequency: every two weeks" is much longer than "Frequency: fortnightly" or "Frequency: two-weekly". And divorcing them means that we'd lose the useful parallel between the wording used in the category and the wording used in the infobox and in the lead. Your proposal solves the ambiguity for the category names but can't be reused in the infobox and lead, which will have to use another terminology; my proposal had both in a concise way.
    • Point 2: Two notes about using numerical sortkey: If you use "*052" then it'll be very hard to find categories as they'll all be stacked in the "*" of the top cat, while the reader is only presented with the names of the categories, not the sortkeys, making the list seem obscure or arbitrary. Now, we could use "1" and "24" and "52" and such, so that Weekly would be seen under the heading "5", but even then I'm unsure the reader would find it intuitive and useful: we're not used to think of our publications as "24" or "26" or "104". The reader looking for weeklies will have to first read the category's lead section to be instructed of the numerical sortkey and that weeklies are listed not under "W" but under 5.
    • Point 3: I think the potential number of renames implied is to be factored in and weighted against the problems and the solution's benefits: there are at least three category trees (Magazines, Journals, Newspapers) that could be affected. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 14:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think I prefer my Solution #3 because "Two-weekly magazines" and "Twice-weekly magazines" are shorter and simpler than "Biweekly magazines (every other week)" and "Biweekly magazines (twice a week)", etc. (maybe also because I spent too much time on mine), but if there's no consensus for mine, yours would have my second vote, precisely:
  • It does at least address in its way what I termed Problems #1–3, replacing the current categories (that must be a grab bag of the three meanings imparted by people and that we'd never be able to cleanup permanently) with an unmistakable category name that could stay populated only with relevant articles (once cleaned), while retaining the naming scheme of "FREQUENCY magazine" for both categories and lead/infobox. But I think I also like it less because it keeps the problematic wording "biweekly" and thus encourage it in the article too (infobox, lead) instead of a disambiguated language ("two-weekly", "twice-weekly", "twice-monthly") throughout. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 14:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that this is a case where usage of Template:See also could work wonders : ) - keep bi-weekly and twice-weekly, and have them point/link to each other. Same for bi-monthly and twice-monthly. - jc37 02:30, 20 April 2009 (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:The Red Thread albums[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 based upon the almost inevitable AFD. Kbdank71 14:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Red Thread albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is empty after the three (not independently notable) albums in it were merged into the band's main article, The Red Thread, a band for which AfD is the next step. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I have no idea whether the band or any of the albums are notable. However I think that if the band survives afd in its present form then Category:The Red Thread albums should survive with the 3 redirects for the 3 albums (with track-listings in The Red Thread article). See eg WP:CAT-R for categorisation of redirects (which seems appropriate in this case). Occuli (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - category not needed for three redirects to the same article. Anyone who searches for one of the albums will find the band article where the album information is located for all three. Useless for navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. Most articles on bands don't have all of the information about the entire discography in them with zero separate articles as this article does. Otto4711 (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2009 (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:People born on February 29[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 - (And no it wasn't based upon vote-counting.) - The argument that the day technically occurring only once every 4 years may help make this "defining" for the individual, though "weak", is somewhat balanced against the arguments to delete due to not being "defining". What helped in this case to strengthen the "keep" argument, was that the inclusion criteria for the category is not subjective, while application of WP:TRIVIA or WP:OC#TRIVIA can be. So while there may be consensus, based upon past discussions, to not categorise the births on the other 365 days of the year; based upon this discussion, there is currently no consensus regarding births on this specific day. - jc37 03:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People born on February 29 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. See: this previous discussion which resulted in deletion of similar categories. I don't need to add anything. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that in the long term, the borths/deaths lists that we have in date articles (in this case, February 29), should be converted into categories like this. Categories are easier to maintain in this context, and can be more properly referened. Unfortunately, I've never had time to do it systematically, but I'm voting keep in hope that somebody else will see the wisdom in this approach. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 04:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no encyclopedic value in grouping people together who happen to have been born on the same day of the year. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Feb 29 birth date is not just a day of the year. It is the date some people celebrate their birthday only in every fourth year. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And not just for this date, but for all dates. The Italian Wiki is doing this, so why isn't it done here? Lugnuts (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one care to comment on another Wiki that's doing this too? Are the entire Italian-speaking population of the planet wrong too?! Lugnuts (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial intersection, no encyclopedic value. Otto4711 (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can anyone explain why this is defining for an individual? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People are interested in this stuff, and Digwuren is quite right that it is better and easier managed in categories than in lists. I really think that arguments of "no encyclopedic value" are essentially attempts to prescribe what people ought to find interesting, rather than accepting that stuff like this really is interesting to a lot of people. Hesperian 05:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Interesting" ≠ "Encyclopedic". WP is more than (and at the same time, less than) a general interest site. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The sum of all human knowledge", not "the sum of all human knowledge that Wikipedian editors consider encyclopedic, where encyclopedic is circularly defined as whatever Wikipedian editors want to include in Wikipedia." Hesperian 11:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, yeah. But it just so happens that we typically exclude trivia. If day of the year born is not trivial, then hardly anything would be. If we seriously keep any category that can be said to be part of "the sum of all human knowledge", I daresay we'd never delete anything. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have a hell of a lot of solid biographies on my bookshelf. One thing they all have in common is they all mention the date of birth if known. "Categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life", indeed. Hesperian 10:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's a good argument for including day of birth in an article, not one for categorizing based on the same. No decent encyclopedic work would even contain a list of people who were born on the same day of the month (even though WP does already), though of course any good work would include individuals' birth dates in the specific articles about the persons, as would a biography, naturally. So that's hardly a convincing argument. Also, notability is not the standard for categorization of people, which is a common error made here at CfD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely non-defining and unencyclopedic. Falls into overcategorization. — Σxplicit 07:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as characteristic uniting the individuals in the category. Alansohn (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not everything that a set of people have in common is a defining characteristic of that set of people. Unless one is speaking of the draft, the date of one's birth does not unite one with others born on the same day any more than the color of one's eyes or the number of one's teeth. Otto4711 (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You see hardly anything as defining, unless it passes your arbitrary standards. Your examples of eye color and number of teeth are irrelevant as arguments, here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. You can do better in your next stab at efforts to have me abide by your arbitrary choices, perhaps after watching The Pirates of Penzance. Alansohn (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I try to put thoughtful deliberation into my !votes on these categories, unlike some I could name who have a kneejerk desire to keep practically anything and everything despite precedent, consensus, utility and the comments of others. We have for the last three and a half years deleted these sorts of categories as trivial overcategorization every time they've come up. Sorry that you don't like the overwhelmingly solid precedent and consensus against this sort of category, but there it is. Demonstrating that a consensus of that long standing has been changed needs a bit more than "a characteristic uniting the individuals in the category". Under that standard, which does not begin to approach what the actual standard for categories is, no category that grouped on the basis of any actual characteristic shared by two or more individuals would be kept. That isn't how categories work and it isn't how CFD works. Perhaps if you spent less time using a work of fiction to try to justify a category for actual people you might finally figure out how this place does work. Otto4711 (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not have a "kneejerk desire to keep practically anything", despite your blatantly uncivil mischaracterization and personal attack. I would be more than willing to place my far balanced track record of voting, with each one offering a clear justification based on policy, and stack it against yours or those of any other editor. I am far from the only individual here who believes this to be defining and your ad hominem personal attack is unjustified and uncalled for. I will not stoop to matching your shameless personal attacks. Alansohn (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned no names. If you choose to believe that the descriptor applies to you, either in reality or in how you are perceived by others, that is a matter for you and your therapist. Otto4711 (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial; no more defining that people born on various holidays (Christmas, Easter, January 1, my birthday). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note also that we already have a list for this at February 29#Births, which only emphasises the lack of a need for this category, since in deleting it will result in no net loss of information from WP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no such thing as "no net loss" being a valid justification for deletion. As WP:CLN states, lists AND categories are designed to work together and "should not [emphasis in original] be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." What would be lost is the ability to navigate through what you appear to agree is encyclopedic information in the February 29 article using the category system. Alansohn (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Encyclopedic" does not in any way equal "defining". What is so confusing about this concept? Not every detail that would normally be included in an encyclopedia article serves as a valid or reasonable basis for categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I don't understand is why people keep trotting out "defining" as the determinant of whether a category is warranted, even though there is nothing about it in any of our policies or guidelines, and we have bucketloads of non-defining categories. Category:1800 births. Category:English people. Category:Dentists. I could go on for hours like this. Hesperian 02:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a defining characteristic. I think this sort of thing is better done with lists than categories, if at all. Robofish (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That your personal bias, in this or any other case, is for lists is hardly a valid justification to delete a category. Per WP:CLN lists AND categories are intended to co-exist so that those who prefer navigating through categories have that available to them. How is Wikipedia better off by having every article in this category changed to have a see also for List of people born on February 29? Alansohn (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here we are, reading Alansohn's misrepresentation of CLN again. What CLN actually says is The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems. CLN clearly recognizes that there are times when lists are superior to categories, when navboxes are superior to lists, and so on. Otto4711 (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this is clearly a situation where categories are much better than lists. Hesperian 06:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. February 29 is likely to be linked as a DOB in the biographical article and anyone interested in finding out others born on that date is likely to click on the link at the top of the article rather than scroll all the way down through the entire article to find the category. The list also has the advantage of allowing for redlinks for notable people who do not yet have articles. Categories can't do that. And even if one were to buy into the argument that the date on which one happens to be born rises to the level of defining characteristic for some, there are times when even characteristics that would be considered defining for some don't end up with categories because of the issue of category clutter. A classic example is categorizing actors by TV series. While certainly having appeared on "Happy Days" would be considered defining for someone like Ron Howard, we don't use the category system to track it because for every Ron Howard in the category we wind up with Hank Aaron included as well based on guest starring in one episode. At one point Aaron had close to 60 categories on his article, many of which were no more defining of him than his guest shot on Happy Days. Because the category section of an article becomes less useful the longer it becomes we collectively made the decision to create limits, as expressed through the CFD process and as explained at WP:OCAT. That every single time a category like this has come up it's been deleted for the last several years is strongly indicative that community consensus is firmly against the use of DOB as the basis for categorization and the arguments put forth in this singular CFD do not suffice to demonstrate that this rock-solid consensus has changed or that the dozens of editors who weighed in at previous CFDs were incorrect in their understanding of the category system, CFD, CLN or any other policy or guideline. Otto4711 (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will overlook more of Otto's blatantly patronizing and uncivil attitude, and address the issue. The quote offered from WP:CLN simply states that each has pros and cons, which should be rather obvious to any Wikipedia editor. While stating that there are limited situations where one is preferable to the other, Otto offers no valid reason based on WP:CLN as to why this particular category should be deleted. The next paragraph is carefully omitted, which states that "these methods should not [emphasis in original] be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." I don't see any valid justification coming from what WP:CLN aptly describes as the "catgeory camp" to delete this category. Alansohn (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you would think that the notion of pros and cons of different navigational systems would be obvious to anyone. Sadly, some editors continue to willfully misstate and misrepresent CLN, something that has been noted on multiple occasions by multiple editors. I did not cite CLN to say that this category be deleted. I cited CLN in response to an editor's misrepresentation of what CLN actually says and what CLN actually means. Otto4711 (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - certainly not a defining characteristic. Occuli (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not defining, just because you can find sources that say so-and-so was born on feb 29 doesn't make it so. If anyone is in wikipedia because they were born on the 29th, the article would be deleted as non-notable. "some people only celebrate their birthday every 4th year" doesn't make this worth of a category. I know people born on this date who, in fact, celebrate their birthday every year. --Kbdank71 13:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment only. I can see why this article and others of their ilk should be deleted. Then I checked the page views for the article September 5 and found it was viewed over 6,000 times in March, the date in March I chose had over 60,000 page views in March. This establishes in my mind a "want" for this kind of categorization. I then considered the purpose of Wikipedia, an encyclopedia for learning and a bunch of these kind of categories will act as a learning meme, a way of encouraging learning and interest in new topics (who was born today? Who shares a birthday with me?). Also, the most important part of any reference book is the indexing, and categories are the indexing of Wikipedia. So I can see reasons for keep and delete, if it's just one date, February 29, then it should be deleted, but I still think 366 of these categories would benefit the casual reader, if not Wikipedians themselves! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and extend to all 366 dates per Digwuren, Lugnuts, Alansohn, and Richhoncho. I'll add that IMO calling it "overcategorization" is myopic: categories are not just there for articles but also to create data views and indexes; there is currently no way to browse that sort of data, and no easy way to mechanically extract it. (Lists are always partial and incomplete, harder to source and maintain, and they add no value vs. a category for DOB.) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 14:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People are getting hung up on the fact that it's just one day out of a possible 366 and alot of the Delete arguements are "not defining". How is the day any less defining than the year of birth (or death)? It isn't. This needs exanding to all the other days of the year, which will aid navigation for newbies and regular WP users. I hope the closing admin doesn't make an knee-jerk deletion based on extremly weak Delete votes. Lugnuts (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2009 (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:Afghan people by ideology[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 14:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Afghan people by ideology to Category:Afghan people by political orientation
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change to match other subcategories of Category:People by nationality and political orientation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Military of Northern Ireland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Military of Northern Ireland to Category:Military of the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the UK and therefore doesn't have its own military. Furthermore, it has never been an independent country so the category is not useful for historical articles either. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Each of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom has a 'Military of' category including, among other things categories and article on that part of the UK military establishment located in each country. No reason to target this one for deletion. Also needed as a parent category for its subcats involving military in Northern Ireland--none of which are being nominated for deletion. Hmains (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not actually true - there is no Category:Military of Wales as a result of this discussion. It is reasonable for there to be categories for England and Scotland since these have, in the past, had their own militaries. As for the British military in Northern Ireland, that's not the same thing as military of Northern Ireland, so perhaps a renaming is in order instead? Cordless Larry (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Many British categories are split by the constituent countries. UK army regiments have had a geographical area in which the recruit. The Ulster Defence Regiment and its successor are thus properly categorised as Northern Irish. "Military" should apply only to the army (not navy or RAF), but the incldusion of theri bases seems harmless. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2009 (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:Philosophical theories[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 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Philosophical theories to Category:Non-empirical theories
Nominator's rationale: The category was created as a distinction from scientific theories. However philosophical theories is not a term of note, and has has its own descriptive issues. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should really be a "propose renaming" rather than "suggest merging". Beyond that, though, there are a couple of aspects which need covered in more depth:
  • The proposed target name is negative and possibly unclear. Can this be addressed - for example is the category likely to be "moored" in a "Non-empirical theory" article? If not, does that indicate that an alternative target name would be preferable (and if so, what could that be)?
  • The proposed target name also feels inappropriate for some articles in the category, for example Category:Pragmatism, Pragmaticism and Category:Economic theories - not necessarily "empirical" but are they all really "non-empirical"?
These need to be addressed in assessing whether the proposed rename improves the current position. AllyD (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC
Good observations and questions. I think "non-scientific" is more negative, and "non-empirical" is not so negative sounding. Furthermore "non-empirical" is really the concept behind the intention of the category, so how it sounds is the lesser priority. In the cases you mention, pragmatism certainly is a non-empirical theory. However, economic theories are not non-empirical. They do however contain some presumptions of a non-empirical nature quite often (this is the difference between hard and soft science.) Ones like economic theories which had been both scientific and philosophical, will now have to be entirely one or the other of empirical and non-empirical. I think this helps the organization. As far as its mooring is concerned, the philosophical theory has the same problem, however there does exist a "scientific theory" article, which I think, anchors the concept just fine. If you know what a concept x is, you know what not-x is (that's what it means to know a concept). Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename - I would disagree that 'philosophical theory' is 'not a term of note', given that we have articles such as Philosophical theory and List of philosophical theories. The word 'philosophical' should be kept in the name of this category, as most of its contents are clearly related to philosophy. 'Non-empirical theories' would be a bad idea, as some philosophical theories are empirical; this category also contains subcategories such as Category:Economic theories and Category:Political science theories, which are definitely empirical. Robofish (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The present wording is the commonly used one among ordinary people, and they are those for whom an encyclopedia is written. among the other possibilities, non-scientific is impossible, since it also means contrary to science, not outside the scope of science. DGG (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2009 (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:Vanessa Williams songs[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. Kbdank71 13:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Vanessa Williams songs to Category:Vanessa L. Williams songs
Nominator's rationale: There's no reason for keeping two categories for the same singer. Funk Junkie (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2009 (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/2009_April_11&oldid=1138391660"