Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 31

[edit]

Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by city

[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 Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by city to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by settlement. --Xdamrtalk 04:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by city to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by ?
Nominator's rationale: Rename. At present, this category is not appropriately named since it does not only contain cities and I don't believe that we need to create parallel trees for towns, villages, unincorporated communities and any other type of place. I'd suggest a rename to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by location (one editor is changing location to city in some categories, see the emptying of Category:Buildings and structures in Florida by location) or Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by settlement. This is a test case since if this passes, there are more that would need to be changed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2010 (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:Category:Members of the House of the People (Afghanistan)

[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: Egrem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Members of the House of the People (Afghanistan) to Category:Meshrano Jirga representatives
Nominator's rationale: For other countries we use the name they use for their legislatures. It is the Category:Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is the Category:Diet of Japan. The Press uses the Afghan name. I find it confusing to use a translated name, and think we should also use the Afghan name. If we were to use a translated name, I suggest we should use something like: Category:Members of the Upper House (Afghanistan). Geo Swan (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2010 (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:Scientists without traditional higher education

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Scientists without traditional higher education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: What is the definition of "Traditional higher education"? What we may regard as such now may not have been the case historically; the first entry in the category is Henry Cavendish, who from his own article attended Cambridge University, although he didn't graduate. To my mind, that may constitute a "traditional higher education", but the whole category is way too subjective. Rodhullandemu 03:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Traditional higher education means a university masters degree which is the minimum criteria to get a job as a scientists in a research institute. The category is for the people who gained fame as scientists, but lacked that criteria. --Defender of torch (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
er, I got a job as a research scientist, albeit in a social science department, with "only" a B.Sc. The Dip.Law might have helped, but it wasn't critical. My professional experience was. Rodhullandemu 02:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant recentism, as well as the subjectivity mentioned by the nominator. Having a university degree is a new-fangled fad, which only caught on in the 20th century (or possibly in the late 19th-century). The traditional route is not having a degree (masters or otherwise), but diligently applying a good brain and being self-taught. (Having piles of money helped too, so that you didn't have to work down the mines all day and could afford to build your own laboratories). If fully populated, this category would be filled with some of the great names of science: Michael Faraday is there already, but there could be many more. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category is kin to category:Computers without a BIOS. It just enshrines prejudices and gaps in understanding. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I looked at two articles on South Asians, who only completed high school education. For pre-1850 scientists, I do not think that relevant degrees were available, as most univerities mainly taught a classical syllabus. I am however aware that Robert Plot taught chemistry at Oxford in the 17th century and Black at Edinburgh in the 18th. One of those I read about was a brilliant mathematician who was given a Cambridge Fellowship. The problem is probably one of where to draw the boundary. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OCAT by non-defining characteristic; seems like the underlying point of this is probably closer to either "scientists who should be taken with a grain of salt because they weren't properly educated" or "scientists who prove that education isn't really important" than to grouping people on an encyclopedically notable criterion. Bearcat (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is way too vague and also confusing now the idea that "Traditional higher education means a university masters degree". As recent as 50 years ago when I was at Oxford there were very many academics with the highest honours, such as Fellow of the Royal Scoiety, who only had a first degree (although to confuse matters that is a MA). There are still a few, although possibly not in science. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:14, 1 February 2010 (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:Apocalyptic folk musicians

[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 keep. Depopulating a category before asking editors to make a decision on the viability of a category amounts to pre-empting consensus, and it places an unfair barrier in the path of editors who want to consider whether to keep or delete the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Apocalyptic folk musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an empty category for a nonexistent genre that has no main subject page. Apocalyptic folk music is considered, at best, a subgenre of Neofolk, the subject is covered in a subsection of said article, and all relevant bands are already listed in Category:Neofolk music groups. So, nothing to see here. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:43, 31 January 2010 (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.