Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 8 March 10 >

March 9[edit]

Category:Computer cookbooks[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful category of books about computers that have the word "cookbook" in the title. The name confusingly suggests this might actually be about cookbooks (for cooking food) distributed only in computerized form. Msnicki (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But they're not. They're ordinary tutorials that just happen to have the word "cookbook" in the title. Msnicki (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is categorization by common name without reflecting anything about the thing itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recorders[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:Recording devices. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Recorders redirects to Recorder, the musical instrument. This should be something like Category:Recording devices or Category:Signal recorders. Tassedethe (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Muslim saints by century[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 both to Category:Muslim saints.
There is a clear consensus not to retain the two nominated categories. The two editors who commented on this nomination both argued for deletion rather than merger, and addressed their comments to the viability of the concept of a "Muslim saint". Whatever the merits of those arguments, making them in this discussion was a bit pointless. because Category:Muslim saints was not nominated for deletion, so those were arguments for an action which could not be the outcome this discussion. If editors want to open a CFD on Category:Muslim saints, they are free to do so; but in the meantime Category:Muslim saints still exists, so these categories are being merged there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both contain the same single article. While both could theoretically expand, they show no signs of doing so at the moment. Until the target contains a reasonable number of articles that would merit sub-division, leave them there. Really it smacks of "Well if the Christians can have "by century" categories, why can't we Muslims have them too?". Wiki is no place for keeping up with the Jones. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; we don't even have an article Muslim saints, why? Because I don't know if this concept is Islamic (the terminology doesn't seem Islamic) and is there some centralized authority that "recognizes" saints that transcends the various doctrinal and jurisprudential schims in Islam - not heard of it, but maybe there is, the burden is on those wanting to keep these. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do have the article Wali which is more a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia article. From it I gather 1-that Salafis seem to use the term much the way The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and at least historically some Evangelical or other Protestant groups did, as a synonym for believers. To quote the article on saint "In many Protestant churches, the word "saint" is used more generally to refer to anyone who is a Christian." The attempt by some religious historians to use "Saint" as a specialized term to cover non-Christians boils down to an attempt to create unifirmity across religions where there is none. We also learn that " Within some Protestant traditions, "saint" is also used to refer to any born-again Christian." So it can be used as a less broad term, but in that case even less susceptible to encyclopedic use. With a large group of Muslims using it that way, I do not think it will work to claim that there is a body of "Muslim Saints". There is no general or universal agreement on who the saints are. I think we would be best served by not using the term "saint", but only using terms actually used in Islam itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Categories for years in French sport(s)[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: withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider deleting

Nominator's rationale: The above categories were nominated for speedy deletion as empty categories. However there was no action proposed for Category:1996 in French sports and earlier and Category:2010 in French sports to Category:2013 in French sports although these categories are minimally populated (other articles in the year could be included). Listed to give the creator a chance to say whether he proposes to populate all of them. Note that all the above and others should have the parent category Category:French sport by year but do not, so it is not readily possible to say how inclusive the above listing is. And the category by year for French motorsport eg Category:2000 in French motorsport should be a subcategory of the appropriate category above. PS: France is the largest country which does not have a “sport(s) by year category, although this does not mean that these categories are necessary. Refer also to the France portal? Hugo999 (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Punch (magazine)[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale: Ugly titles either way, but the magazine has a subtitle, and used it very consistently, throughout the vast majority of its run. It's ridiculous to make something up to disambiguate when the only reason you have to disambiguate in the first place is because you're abridging the name. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - the magazine may use the full name, even consistently, but everyone knows it as simply Punch. Note also that the main article is also at Punch (magazine). - The Bushranger One ping only 06:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the rest of the policy: WP:NATURAL says that we avoid parenthetical disambiguation when another natural title exists. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names. "Punch, or the London Charivari" is an obscure name - who uses it beyond the front of the magazine? I'd bet very few people do. "Punch" is the only name it is commonly known by, and the article name is still at Punch (magazine). Wikipeida - The Bushranger One ping only 13:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the Bushranger and per WP:COMMONNAME. "Punch" is indeed the only name by which this mag is commonly known. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- while London Charivari may have been part of its long title at some stage, no one ever called it that. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Article is at Punch (magazine) and category names usually match the article name unless there is a really good reason to depart from that convention. That a category name is "ugly" is a subjective opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to match article titles. Use of parenthesis is a perfectly good way to disambiguate things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is similar to why the article is at Madonna (entertainer) and not Madonna Louise Ciccone (which is just a redirect).John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Library buildings on the National Register of Historic Places[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. I'm also restoring some recent "libraries">"library buildings" changes in this category tree. A general RFC would be welcome on this front.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent category and many sibling categories. Libraries are collections and can also be a building. If the collection is donated, it is in a sense complete when donated. Since these are explicitly building the category name should state this. This brings the naming in line with the parent category and most related categories. This was objected to at speedy partly since Category:Library buildings did not exist. However after thinking about that, there are at least 4 subcategories there so creation made sense overriding my opposition when the thinking was that there would only be one subcategory. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator. I have real doubts about the attempt to make general categories of libraries, churches and hospital including the word "building" ... but these are categories of historic buildings, and the category name should reflect that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is just like other discussions about whether articles on churches should be categorized as church buildings or as churches (meaning congregrations OR buildings OR both), based on observation that many members' articles have a current focus on their buildings, often because they were started as NRHP articles. See BrownHairedGirl's closing of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 4#Congregational churches categories, and see discussion therein.
Almost all the contained articles, I expect (but did not check all), are titled as "X Library" not "X Library building", because even articles created at first based on a NRHP-building-focus are set up to be expanded and cover a more general library focus. Going too-narrow in the category seems to be a mistake, and seems to require the continued existence or recreation of the more general parent category. Any exceptions at all, any articles solely about a library that is not NRHP-listed, or any revision of the library article to cover more about the library and less about a historic building, would render erroneous the switch of all to a too-narrow category. Categories should be robust and more general first, not fragile and too-narrow. As BrownHairedGirl suggests, perhaps a general RFC somewhere, rather than battling at separate CFDs again and again, should be conducted. --doncram 19:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is worse than the Church case. There are many uses of the word "Church" that convey things that are not buildings. The things here are libaries without reservation, the term "libary building" is not at all part of common speech.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Apostates[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. All the contents are properly placed in the Category:Religious converts tree.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Apostates
  • Nominator's rationale This is a term that derives from the Greek for something like "rebellion". It is a very negative term. There is a reason why the current subcats are all using "Convert". That is a much more positve and acceptable term. People will self-drescribe as being converts. Most people do not self describe as being apostates. Oddly enough the groups that might have a few who would use that language, categories like Category:Former Roman Catholics are not in this category at all. This is a negative name and not wise in use. Also I think I could challenge its current inclusions on logical grouds. Category:Religious converts is one of the sub-categories, but it is not clear that everyone who converts to a religion came from a former religion in a way that they could be called an apostate. Some converts entirely lacked any clear religious postion, even when you considder atheism such, prior to conversion. I also have to say I am feeling slighted that Category:Converts to Mormonism from Roman Catholicism was left out, and it seems odd that only converts from Roman Catholicism have been included. As it is now the contents seem to be POV-pushing that apostasy is only leaving the Roman Catholic Church. However I think we should just go with not trying to class converts as apostates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a work in progress. What the nominator sees as bias is just slow work. It starts with 1 denomination and moves to the others. There is now no RC bias. The nom is correct about "but it is not clear that everyone who converts to a religion came from a former religion in a way that they could be called an apostate" so I have excluded these categories from the tree. All sub-cats now have a clear "from foo religion to foo religion". Mormonism is now present. Apologies for hurting the nom's feelings by leaving it out. Re self-describing: would the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate have self described as an apostate? Yet that's what he was and how history remembers him. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a pejorative way of describing people who converted from one religious to another (or to no belief). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is it any more dejorative than heretic or muderer? Yet we have Category:Murderers and Category:Heretics in Christianity. Nobody likes being called a heretic, yet it's the best description for his act. Nobody likes being called a muderer, yet it's the best description for his act. With apostacy, there is always a from/to situation: to the winning religion, he is a convert; to the losing religion, he's an apostate. They are two sides of the same coin. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Murderers is a category that we limit to, at least with living people, those convicted of murder. We do not go around categorizing living people as heretics. I do not think we should go around categroizing living people as apostates, and to categorize many of these people in that way just does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"We do not go around categorizing living people as heretics" - actualy we do: Category:People convicted of heresy. This lines up nicely with Category:People executed for apostasy - of course none of these people survived execution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very, very different category than this. That is based on an actual conviction. Here you are labeling people as apostates who have never been tried for it. Anyway, other stuff exists is a very bad argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is indeed usually the case. However, Religious converts also includes people who go from no religion (incl. agnostics and atheists) who could not be said to have apostacised. So there might be a case for a schema for "Apostates", "Converts to organised religion", both of which have "Religious converts" as a parent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the actual contents of the category at present that is a horrible idea. Gary J. Coleman would never say that he lost his religion. A-because he moved from one religion to another and B-because he sees his new Latter-day Saint faith as building on his old Catholic background. Considering that he has served in lots of high level church leadership positions in the LDS Church, including being a General Authority that is just a bad idea. Walter F. Gonzalez also not work. Actually then there is Morris D. Rosenbaum and many other people in the converts from Judaism category, who in many cases it is hard to say they were ever as religious as Jews as they were as Christians. There are some who it may be the other way, but that is just a horrible name that would not at all describe what actually happened to the people currently in the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is the word "apostate", then the solution is to replace it with a descriptive phrase. Since an apostate is someone who lost their religion, by moving to another religion, or whatever, then they did indeed lose their religion. Coleman is a syncretist, by your description, though from a Catholic point of view, he would be a heretic, by mixing Catholicism with Mormonism. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coleman is not a syncretist in any meaningful sense of the term. He is without question a Latter-day Saint, but he still respects his Catholic background. He also accepts those parts of it that are workable with being a Latter-day Saint. The current category Category:Converts to Mormonism from Roman Catholicism is well named. To say these people "lost their religion" is still POV pushing and problematic. To start calling them "heretics" would be to go beyond any sources you will find. Those are fighting words, and in many of these cases no one has ever made a fight about these people changing their religions. Anyway, converts do not neccesarily come from any clear religious background. Many of the people in Caegory:Convets to Christianity from Judaism were more ethnic than religious Jews before conversion. Can you find any sources that actually call Coleman a heretic? I can find lots that talk about his process of "conversion". That is how most people self-describe the process. Category:Former Catholics is a name that works just fine, it does not imply anything or make statements, which your proposed name still does. We do not need a holding category of the type you propose.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they didn't come from a religious background, then they can't be apostates can they? And I'm only using your description to show what your usage leads to, since we are discussing Category:Apostates, nto Category:Gary J. Coleman's own categorization. It doesn't really matter if the real Coleman is a syncretist or not, your description of him is of a syncretist. To Catholicism, syncretism is by definition heretical. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well my definition was off. Anyway, defining people by what Catholicism would consider them is not an acceptable way to define them in wikipedia. I just do not think we should use the phrase "lost their religion". Conversion works as a good description. I think the idea of introducting some other terminology as a super-category over some or all forms of conversion is a very bad idea. Anyway, it does matter that we adequately understand these people if we are to correctly categorize them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also related discussion on Heretics in Christianity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Apostate is historically an important term that significantly defined the way people saw reality in the past, particularly Roman Catholics. It is a perfectly objective category about people who were seen as being apostates in some meaningful way. Trying to censor history in this way is the opposite of being encyclopaedic. It introduces a marked POV that is ignoring or distorting how things actually took place historically, and seems to have more in common with contemporary political correctness, trying to sanitise things, than fidelity to truth. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I wondered how long it would take for somebody to start claiming "censorship". Congrats on being the first.
      There is no possibility of censorship here; no content will be removed from any article if this categ is deleted, because categories are just a navigational device.
      In religious matters, people apply all sorts of negative labels to those who they disagree with: apostate, heretic, infidel, sinner, schismatic, recusant, blasphemer, etc etc. The fact that such terms were used is a matter of historical record, as is the fact that they have been applied to some individuals. There is no problem with using these terms in the text of an article, where their usage can be attributed and sourced. Similarly, they can be used in a list, because lists can be attributed and sourced ... but a category appears at the bottom of an article with qualification, explanation or attribution, and should use the most neutral terminology possible. The existing category system provides a clear navigational structure, without introducing this sort of POV terminology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Of course deleting categories that offend your sensibilities can be censorship, and can have damaging consequences for the way editors write articles. It is not possible to understand the course of Christianity without examining the influence of notable apostates and heretics. Please use some discrimination, instead of lumping together apostate with terms like infidel, sinner, schismatic, recusant and blasphemer. Those are quite different terms, and no one is suggesting there should be categories for them. Most of the global population are "infidels", some would claim that 100% are "sinners" and so on. Do you have a coherent argument that doesn't resort to irrelevant comparisons like these? To claim that the role of concepts like apostate and heretic, say in the Roman Catholic Church, are "POV" is encyclopaedic nonsense. These terms are at the core of the history it is our job to document, and define the realities of those times. This deletion thread should be read together with an unfortunate parallel thread, further advocating the suppression of Category:Heretics in Christianity. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not categorize people based on how the Roman Catholic Church views them. This is why we have Category:Former Roman Catholics not Category:Apostates from the Roman Catholic Church. We do have Category:People excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church but that is because we are recording an actual event. What this category does is label people with an extremely pejorative term. We do not categorize people with pejoratives.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly is this royal we you keep so grandly referring to (five times)? As for labelling people with "an extremely pejorative term", that is just your own idiosyncratic point of view. You seem to be just making things up. I would think many historical "apostates" would have been very proud of the label. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boggle. You accuse another editor of making things up, while trying to mind-read long-dead people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "we" is the collective of wikipedia, and as one can see it is supported by actual mention of existing categories. Gary J. Coleman who is among those who have been labeled as apostates by this system has never so described himself, and in his work has tried to cast as postive as possible light on his Catholic background and speak as positively as possible of Catholicism, while at the same time accepteing the truth claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some converts to Christian religions from Judaism in the modern era would not even agree that they have moved beyond Judaism. It would be a clear endorsement of one view to call them "apostates" from Judaism, something that I do not think wikipedia should engage in. Moishe Rosen would not self-idnetify as an apostate from Judaism. His actions and agenda might be rejected by other Jews, but considering that they are not going around labeling David Ben Gurion as an apostate for having dabbled in Buddhism, this boils down to a postion more centered on specific political goals than relgious goals, and is clearly only one possible Point of View, i see no reason that wikipedia should endorse that point of view as correct.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Epipelagic. First off, stop trying to misrepesent me: I do not support deletion of these categories because they "offend my sensibilities". I support their deletion because they breach the core policy of WP:NPOV.
    Secondly, if editors are writing articles based on the existence or otherwise of categories, then they need help to improve their editing skills. Categories are a navigational device; they exist to navigate between articles, not to prescribe their contents.
    Thirdly, as I have already said, there is no problem in writing about people who have been pejoratively labelled by one church or another, provided that those terms are attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ... and I hope that any gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of those topics can be filled. The creation or deletion of the categories has no impact either way on the documentation of this history, and it would be helpful if you took some time to read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV before commenting further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Yet again you don't address my point, which is that the term apostate, set in its historical context, is an important term if the history is to be set out in an encyclopaedia manner. As Wikipedia's own article on Apostasy says, " The term apostasy is used by sociologists to mean renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person's former religion, in a technical sense and without pejorative connotation". Historians use the term in the same non-pejorative manner. Still, I'm not going to continue attempts at rational argument, either here or in the parallel thread on heretics, given the provocations and escalating battle posture. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is an important term. Hwever, it is also a pejorative term, because it reflects one POV of the development of a person's religious beliefs. That's why it should only be used if attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
I'm sorry that you don't want engage in rational argument, but that's up to you. You seem to have great difficulty in accepting that someone with whom you disagree is doing so on a rational basis, but if you overcome that difficulty then please take a few minutes to read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and we can discuss it further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pejorative? How can you be so sure that historically many people didn't regard the label as a badge of honour? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They may well have (though I don't know how any of us can suppose to know one way or the other), but it doesn't change the fact that my dictionary identifies it as a pejorative in modern usage. Synonyms given in the OED include "infidel", "unfaithful", "turncoat", and "pervert". None of these words have a very positive connotation. There are other categories that can communicate the same information without these words. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A purusal of most of the articles in this category will show that generally they identify the people as having "converted" to x religion. They are not identified as "having apostatized from y religion". The view of them as "apostates" is a negative way to view their situation, and not generally how they would self describe their situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The fact that all of the subcats are convert categories tells all. It's a pejorative way to describe conversion that we should abjure. Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete John Travolta is categorized here - are we his parish priest to make this determination? What about every divorced Catholic - or any Catholic with unremitted sins (impure thoughts, perhaps?). Crass, BLP violation fodder, and ultimately of no use. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mangoe, JPL et al. Unlike the "Heretics" category, there are much better ways of parenting these subcats, and we already use them. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from POV and BLP concerns this is rarely a defining facet of someone's life. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1865 establishments in Pakistan[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:1865 establishments in India. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:1865 establishments in Pakistan to Category:1865 establishments in India
  • Nominators rationale In 1865 Lahore, where the one item mentioned in this category, Lahore Museum was established, was clearly in India. Rudyard Kipling is without question the most noted British writer from India, and his father John Lockwood Kipling was one of the earliest directors. Kipling's work "Kim" is without question set in India, but it begins at the Lahore Museum. In 1865 Lahore was clearly, without question in India. Annada Government High School established 10 years later in a place just as clearly then in India and just as clearly in Pakistan in 1965, which is as good a year as any to pick, is sitting in Category:1875 establishments in India without anyone being bothered at all. Pakistan did not exist in 1865, we are engaging in extreme anachronism. What next will we call the starting of a museum in Nazareth in 1865 an establishments in Israel in that year? In fact, Ali Jinnah who are article describes as the "founder of Pakistan" would not even be born until 1876. However in many ways Pakistan was a late theory embraced by Jinnah, he inially wanted gauranteed Muslim power in a unified state of India. It was Muhammad Iqbal who in 1930, that would be 65 years after this category is about, proposed the idea of a seperate Muslim state to be carved from India. Iqbal would not be born until 1877. However it was not until 1933 that Choudhary Rahmat Ali proposed the name of Pakistan, and he was not even born until 1895. Thus we have a category claiming things happening in a place 30 years before the man who invented the name of the place was even born. Realistically claiming events as happening in Pakistan before the 1947 partition is too anachronistic to support, but before the birth of the man who invented the name, the man who proposed the idea and the man who lead the movement that brought the idea to reality, especially when it is something that at its start was so much a part of the general feel of India, just cannot work. India was a conceptual reality in 1865 while the founders of Pakistan were not even born yet. Annada Government High School of course probably shows why we have to use Pakistan, for Agrani School and College which is not too far from the other school, at least it is in an area with the same general political history, clearly belongs in Category:1957 establishments in Pakistan, and comes from a time when Jinnah's and Iqbal's dream was living at its height. However if an institution was establishmed next to Annada Government High School today it would be placed in Category:2013 establishments in Bangladesh. Pakistan thus cannot be used to apply before it actually existed in a place anymore than we would accept the establishment of a school the city of Ungvar in 1930 being classed in Category:1930 establishments in the Soviet Union. This category is the extreme in retroactive attempts to impose the present on the past and just does not work. We should merge to reflect how the founders of the Lahore Museum thought of the place that they were founding the museum in, and how most other people in Lahore would have characterized the country it was located in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - establishments and disestablishments should be categorised by how the political entity they are located in was at the time, not anachronistically labeling it with something that didn't exist then. Now, that said, is there a political subentity that this was located in that existed at the time? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Lahore was in Punjab. To make things even more fun, it was in the non-divided Punjab that encompassed parts of both modern India and Pakistan. On the other hand the Annada Government School was in Bengal. That was also an entity that included almsot all of modern Bangladesh, plus modern West Bengal, plus Bihar and some other areas, although Koch Bihar was not part of Bengal but is in modern West Bengal. For the moment though, considering the size of the India category, I see no reason to subdivide it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One word: ouch. Yeah, plain old merge for now. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not even bring up the best part. Karachi the most populous city in Pakistan, and the surrounding area of Sindh, were part of the Bombay Presidency from 1847 until 1936, so the southern Pakistan-India border does not exist until that year, and even at that there was border conflict there in the 1960s (see Times Atlas of World History, 1989 edition, p. 281). I have not even gotten into how Jammu and Kashmir. The line between the two parts of Punjab was drawn by Radcliffe alone after a judicial tribunal of Muslim, Sikh and Hindu judges failed to decide on a boundary. We might even have an article under Radcliffe line. Then there is Gwadar, a portion of Pakistan that was controlled by Oman until 1956.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Pakistan did not exist in 1865. It may be possible to deal with Indo-Pakistani antagonism by moving articles to provincial categories, or using "British India" or the "Indian Raj". However that requires a much wider discussion as to what we should call pre-partition India. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Pakistan did not exist in that year, and what is currently Pakistan and Bangladesh was part of India at the time. The distinction India/British India is less relevant. --Soman (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

LGBT African-American culture[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. We have been particularly merciless on specificity by "letter" in LGBT subcategories, and this seems likely to continue. As for the accusation of bad faith, I don't see it here. Bearcat seems to have written a guideline representing at least a marginal consensus. It is up to the community whether that guideline holds, but I don't see how Bearcat is acting in bad faith when representing that this guideline is being violated, even if it is new. Bearcat probably should have pointed out the authorship, but that can be deemed an oversight rather than an act of malice. In my opinion, anyway.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per several recent CFD discussions — and per WP:LGBTCAT — this is not a case where division into separate G/L-specific subcategories is useful or desirable. Articles about the distinctively gay or lesbian African-American cultures might be useful, but the category should be kept at the common LGBT level without subcategorization for individual letter. Merge. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The nominator's rationale is not actually a rationale; it's an assertion. If the nominator wants to make a rationale for why he believes that "this is not a case where division into separate G/L-specific subcategories is useful or desirable", then I might change my mind. But a bare statement of "X is not desirable" is simply a personal preference dressed up in a passive voice, and it is no basis for a change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is not a "change" to anything; the request here is just to put things back the way they were before it all got sliced and diced. The creation of a massive profusion of divided categories last fall was an "I spit on your consensus, ptui!" change perpetrated by a user who has actually been blocked as a disruptive editor, and the nomination is fully in accordance with the existing consensus — Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT has a longstanding consensus against dividing "LGBT" categories into separate subcategories for each individual quadrant except in a few special cases. They're allowed in a few very specific circumstances which are already explicitly spelled out — any such category that the WikiProject has not already explicitly deemed as allowable may only be created if the WikiProject specifically establishes a new consensus to specifically allow it as a specific new case, and that consensus to allow was not sought here.
By late last year, in fact, almost every single "LGBT" category on Wikipedia had been funneled into quadrant-specific subcategories, which frequently had only one or two articles in them (violating WP:OC#SMALL), and many CFDs on the newly-narrowed subcategories have already reaffirmed the undesirability of this — for just two examples, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 7#LGBT comedians and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 30#Gay men by nationality.
The thing is that LGBT-related categories require much more active monitoring for WP:BLP violations and other inappropriate uses than almost any other branch in the entire Wikipedia category system, and the LGBT WikiProject simply does not have the resources to properly monitor an endless profusion of new splitout categories. And thus, if the LGBT WikiProject does not want individual lesbian-specific or gay male-specific subcategories in this case, that decision needs to be respected and honoured — because if we're the ones who are stuck with a special responsibility to monitor these categories each and every day to ensure that Michael Jackson and Justin Bieber aren't getting added to them by bad faith users who think that kind of thing is funny, then we do get a rather massive say in how much granularity we're willing or not willing to accept, how many categories we're willing or not willing to monitor and maintain. (And I'm not just making stuff up, either — both Jackson and Bieber, to name just two examples, really, really do actually show up in LGBT-related categories with alarming regularity. And I've also had to keep about a dozen American Republican politicians as permanent features on my watchlist, despite my lack of even the remotest interest in their articles otherwise, for exactly the same reason.) Which is why the project has always insisted on maintaining a balance: we want a useful set of categories to exist, certainly, but we also don't want there to be so many hypergranularized subcategories that we lose our ability to properly monitor and maintain them.
And at any rate, this rationale was already present in the nomination; I just linked to the policy document where it's already all spelled out — WP:LGBTCAT — in the hopes of not having to repeat it all in this much depth. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was a very convincing set of arguments. However I think it should also be pointed out that in a split like above, the default is to assume that there is no need to split. People have to show both proposed sub-cats are notable enough on their own to have cateories, if they cannot than we should upmerge. It does no one any good to have trivial split categories, and that is what these end up being.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also a good point. To expand further, in these cases even a comprehensive by-letter breakdown still results in only partial diffusion at best. While some articles in Category:LGBT African-American culture could certainly be diffused into a gay-specific or lesbian-specific subcategory, by virtue of being both gay and lesbian many more (e.g. National Coalition of Black Lesbians and Gays, Atlanta Black Pride, etc.) have to be either kept in the parent category anyway, thereby robbing the subcategories of most of the context that would actually be necessary to make them useful in the first place, or diffused into both subcategories simultaneously, thereby violating WP:OC#OVERLAPPING. Which is why this is generally a trivial split in most cases; while LGBT African-American culture, just like LGBT culture at large, certainly has some aspects that are exclusively L or G or B or T in nature, the bulk of it is shared equally across all four letters (and even the letter-specific stuff does still retain some relevance to the whole — the fact that I'm a gay man rather than a lesbian, for instance, didn't make The L Word uninteresting or irrelevant to me and my culture.) It's the same as the reason why most cities' "Culture of City" categories do not actually require separate subcategories for each individual neighbourhood within the city. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note sneakiness. In my comment above, I had missed that the nominator had linked to WP:LGBTCAT. My mistake, so I went to check it out ... and found that it redirected to a massively verbose expansion of the "sexuality" section of Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. A little further checking revealed that this huge new detailed guideline had been written entirely by Bearcat, on 5 March (i.e. only 4 days before he made this nomination). It was dodgy enough to unilaterally rewrite a guideline, dodgier still to write it so prescriptively ... and outrageously manipulative to then cite that self-written guideline as if it represented a consensus, without even having the courtesy to disclose that it was recently self-written. Admins are supposed to follow high standards, not this sort of sneakiness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note incivil and unacceptable accusation of bad faith. The section in question precisely and accurately represented the existing consensus, as already established by a raft of previous CFDs on these very matters — the comedians and "gay men by nationality" ones I already linked to above being just two examples; I can provide many more — and by many, many past discussions at the LGBT WikiProject. The guideline simply had not been properly updated to reflect the actual state of consensus as it actually exists, and instead was just vague and confusing and outdated and not helpful as written. The section does not represent my own personal opinions — it is simply an updated and more detailed summary of the established consensus, as already demonstrated by every discussion that either CFD or the LGBT WikiProject has ever had on the matter. You will not find one single, solitary discussion anywhere on CFD or at the LGBT WikiProject that establishes any sort of consensus to allow the entire LGBT category tree to be systematically split up into subcategories for each individual quadrant, and not just in a few specific and scope-limited cases; the LGBT WikiProject has already clearly decided that it does not want the entire tree to be comprehensively broken down in this manner, because it does not have the resources to properly maintain that, and CFD has already clearly reaffirmed that the division isn't warranted in most cases by CFD's standards and practices either.
The fact that I'm the one who updated the document to more fully reflect the actual existing consensus does not change the fact that it exactly reflected the existing consensus, fully and properly and legitimately established by all of the proper venues and processes for establishing that consensus, and in fact differs from my own personal opinions in several very significant ways which it would not have done if it reflected my own personal opinions. I would, for example, personally support several other "LGBT occupation" splitouts that the established consensus has already precluded (I don't have the same objection to "LGBT actors by country" that many others do, for instance, but the consensus against it is already in place as per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_15#Category:LGBT_actors_from_individual_countries, regardless of my own views), and oppose several that it has accepted (e.g. since we're now allowing "LGBT entertainers from Country" I don't think we need to maintain "LGBT musicians from country" as a separate subcategory anymore, but since consensus has explicitly allowed the musicians categories they remain permissible until someone actually gets a new consensus to upmerge them). But again, I updated the document to reflect the established consensus, not my own personal opinions.
Bottom line here, kindly argue this case on its merits one way or the other, rather than by launching ad hominem attacks against me as a person, because I've done absolutely nothing wrong here. The consensus has been quite clearly established in the correct venues by the correct processes, and the document was an entirely accurate summary of what the current state of that consensus is — and while you're certainly free to offer reasons why the existing consensus should be changed to allow this kind of splitout, you are not free to claim that a consensus to disallow it in most cases hasn't already been established in all of the proper venues for that discussion. Just because I'm the person who happened to update WP:CATGRS to reflect the existing consensus that CFD has already established does not mean that the consensus itself is nonexistent or that this nomination is automatically invalid. (And, for the record, WP:CATGRS was very largely my own work in the first place — which certainly doesn't mean I own it, but it does mean I'm allowed to update it when a lack of clarity or a change in the legitimately established consensus necessitates an update.)
This is also, just for the record, not the first time that you've responded to an existing consensus that you happened to disagree with by arbitrarily decreeing that it didn't even exist at all, or that you've falsely accused me of acting in bad faith for simply acting in accordance with the existing consensus. And so far, your only arguments in this discussion have been that (a) the nomination was "just my personal preference" rather than existing consensus, and (b) I happen to also be the guy who documented the specific reasons why the existing, legitimately and properly established consensus already does, in fact, specifically deprecate this. You have yet to present any actual reason why the existing consensus should be changed; you're just claiming (incorrectly) that it doesn't even exist at all. You're free to have different opinions about what we should be doing, certainly, and yes, consensus can change over time — but I need to remind you, again not for the first time, that you need to present a cogent case why the existing consensus should be changed, rather than attacking people for simply maintaining and documenting and nominating in accordance with the consensus that is currently in place. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Bearcat, I will post a longer explanation later. But just for the record, I stand by my accusation of bad faith this time, and by the copious evidence of your bad faith on the previous occasion. I have also discovered that you have again been unilaterally redirecting categories without taking them to CFD, which is contrary to well-established practice. It's time for you to start seeking consensus rather than acting unilaterally in pursuit of what you believe to be right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I stand by my summary of how my actions in both cases were not in bad faith, and were completely consistent with a consensus that already exists — in over ten years of editing Wikipedia, in fact, I have never, not once, not one single solitary time, EVER redirected a category (or any other editing action, for that matter) in any manner that was not fully consistent with a properly established and fully existing consensus.
Again, if you disagree with an established consensus, you certainly have the right to present a case for why that consensus should be changed, but your disagreement most certainly does not give you any right to personally decree that the consensus doesn't even exist. Policy and procedure documents are allowed to be updated as consensus evolves or changes or requires further detail — and again, the consensus against this type of quadrant-specific splitout of an LGBT-related category has already been properly established by all of the proper venues for establishing that consensus. And furthermore, as I've already mentioned the categories that you're most likely alluding to were created by a user who's been banned from the site — and Wikipedia policy explicitly states that such edits can be deleted or redirected or reverted on sight without requiring a deletion discussion first. So even if CFD didn't already have a well-established consensus against the quadrant-specific level of LGBT subcategorization in most cases, it would still have been a wholly correct and fully policy-compliant thing for me to do anyway, because the edits were put in place by a banned user. So no matter how you slice it, I've done exactly nothing wrong.
And at any rate, you still have not presented any reason why this type of subcategorization should be allowed, but have based your case entirely on the patently false claim that the consensus against it doesn't even exist in the first place and that I'm therefore just imposing a personal opinion. Except that even if that opinion weren't fully consistent with the established consensus, opinions are still valid enough to deserve a fair discussion — yet you still haven't even taken the time to mount any actual counterargument besides "that's just an opinion" and false accusations of bad faith.
The consensus does already exist — so if you've got a real reason why it should be changed, then by all means present it. But if all you've got is the claim that I've acted in bad faith, then all I can say is that I have never — not one single solitary time in over ten years of editing Wikipedia — acted in any way inconsistent with Wikipedia's existing consensus, and if you ever accuse me of doing so again I'll be forced to strongly consider initiating an RFC. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:In Death (novel series)[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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article about series, In Death, per C2D. Trivialist (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed title is too ambiguous to make a viable category; it will lead to miscategorisations, which owing to the limitations of our software are hard to monitor. The article may be fine without the "(novel series)" disambiguator, but the category needs it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BHG, the category name would be highly ambiguous. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ambiguous category names can attrack all sorts of unlinked things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rifle ammunition[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clear and unambiguous case of duplication of the target, larger, longer-established category. Was objected at speedy due to not fitting any of the C2 criterion, perhaps there should be a "clear duplicate" one? The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is not a duplicate; it is a subset, and it's an inappropriate subset because it cuts across the existing sub-categorisation scheme of Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges, to no useful purpose.
    The mis-labelling of this one as a duplicate seems to me to be a good illustration of why a "clear duplicate" speedy criterion would be a bad idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Merge both to Category:Small arms ammunition, which will cover both, also that for muskets, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongest possible oppose this - "small arms" is vague, and muskets use an entirely different sort of ammunition. Pistols and rifles tend to share loads though, so that is logical. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pistols use the same loads as muskets, if you look at pistols from the pre-cartridge era. Or modern reproduction dueling pistols -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except, being from the pre-cartridge era, each individual load was unique; ".32 Winchester" is notable, while ".32 musket ball" is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You could use a paper cartridge load from a musket in a pistol -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • By definition, muskets can't use cartridges - they're muzzleloaders. Regardless, though, "pistol and rifle cartridges" is clear - "small arms ammunition" would include shotgun shells, which are rather different; categorising them in with pistol/rifle cartridges would be a bad idea indeed. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Members of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico by session[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. The McCain argument is the strongest here; if we can't imagine doing this style of categorization for one of the most notable legislatures in the world, I find it hard to imagine us doing it for a less notable one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A group of subcategories which separate members of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico by individual legislative session that they happened to serve in. Per WP:OCAT, this kind of subcategorization is not desirable as it creates a large number of overlapping categories, resulting in excessive category bloat — because every time a politician gets reelected, he or she has to be added to another new sessional category in addition to the ones that they're already in. Note, for example, that María de Lourdes Ramos Rivera is in five of the six categories simultaneously, Jorge Colberg Toro is in four of them, and on and so forth. And furthermore, since the 29th is the current session, this also simultaneously functions as a violation of Wikipedia's proscriptions against "current vs. former" categorization.
We should not, in fact, have a separate subcategory for each individual session of the legislature; we should be using lists, not categories, for that purpose. If subcategorization is desired, then the subcategories should be by political party (e.g. Category:New Progressive Party Members of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, Category:Popular Democratic Party Members of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, etc.) instead, since that's a much more straightforward criterion which isn't nearly as subject to constant flux and "another new category every four years" bloat — as well as one which actually tells you something much more useful and defining about the person's politics than which time period they happened to serve in does. Merge to Category:Members of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico and delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. If we allow this, we will then allow Members of the U.S. House of Representatives by session. Then John Dingell will be in about 30 more categories, John Conyers in about 25 more categories, and way too many people in multiple categories. Then we will create by congress categories for the Seante, which will be an even bigger nighmare because Senators get elected in waves to serve terms that stretch through 3 congresses, so by default virtually all will be in multiple categories. We do not want this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ángel Bulerín manages to be in all 6 categories. This is just so not a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The overlap will be a lot worse when the category is adequately implemented. Antonio Silva Delgado would be in all six categories. At least another 5 people would fit in 5 of these categories, and that is only from going through the list of the current house. This is totally a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Look at how many categories John McCain belongs to. Yeah, sorry, the number of categories an article belongs to is irrelevant. Categories serve a purpose: easy navigation of content. By your very same logic putting all members under one single category would be ridiculous: Category:Members of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico would have hundreds of items. This is why subcategories are created, to avoid cluttering categories by making them more specific. Your suggestion is totally a bad idea; this is not. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John McCain may belong to a lot of categories; but few to none of them are predominantly overlapping categories that will mostly contain the exact same batch of articles as each other. It's not an issue of number alone; it's an issue of the degree of overlap from one category to the next. If two distinct categories are going to mostly contain the same batch of articles as each other with maybe one or two or five unique entries at most, then two distinct categories aren't needed — subcategories should be organized by characteristics which keep their article sets mostly unique. Note, for example, that I did explicitly state that these people should be subcategorized by the political party that they were members of — it's not that subcategories are disallowed on principle; it's that this isn't the most useful criterion on which to organize them. Subcategorization by political party would be useful and welcome, and I'd even be more than willing to assist in creating and populating the new categories — but you have yet to present any cogent reason why subcategories by session should exist besides "because we can". Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The House is composed by 51 members. Of those 51 only 28 revalidated which means the 28th and 29th session overlap only by 54%. So what's its gonna be? Where do we draw the line to say that when a category overlaps it should be deleted? Is it at 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, or 100%? Show me the policy that states the exact ratio where categories should overlap. Right, there is no such policy. There is only a guideline and that's why it is a guideline, because such matters will never be able to reach a compromise. Having said that, what's your rationale then? That because 54% overlap we should merge them? Why did you choose 54% to be your threshold? What's the logical rational for choosing such threshold? Or was it arbitrary? Did you actually sit down to calculate how many overlap? Sorry, you have not presented a single argument that states clearly why these subcategories should be deleted except your personal preference to merge them simply because you don't like such overlap. This is Wikipedia, we are driven by WP:BEBOLD and an editor was bold created these categories for whatever the hell reason but you must come here and present a logical rationale to delete them. I'm not the one that has to present a rationale to keep them, you are the one that has to present a rationale to delete them. So far you have not presented one. The categories must stay until a logical rationale is presented to delete them or a policy is established. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again: a rationale has been provided already; the fact that you disagree with it does not inherently make it "illogical". You need to argue a reason why they should be kept because that, not just dismissing the existing arguments as "illogical", is how you might actually convince people to change their minds. Wikipedia literally would have died out ten years ago if all it took to get your way in a discussion was to deem any argument you disagree with as automatically invalid. Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not provided a rationale based on logic and policies. Your rationale is based on personal preference. You have been asked a very simple question based on logic: how do you determine when a category should be deleted by its overlapping content? When said content overlaps by 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, or 100%? How do you choose which is the threshold? How did you choose the threshold for this deletion proposal? Tell me, I will wait for your logically based argument. You don't have one. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no specific arbitrary percentage "threshhold"; Wikipedia specifically deprecates arbitrary cutoffs like that, in fact. For one thing, it is possible for two categories to have a significant percentage of overlap and yet still be valid — many people have worked in both television and radio, for instance, and thus there's often overlap between a "television personalities" category and a "radio personalities" category, but those are fundamentally different jobs which do merit their own distinct categories regardless of how much overlap any given pair may or may not have.
The problem here is not defined by the percentages alone, but by the fact that what's being built here is a set of 29 separate categories whose membership is going to be an undulating wave of constantly shifting overlaps from one category to the next. The rule does not mean that any two categories that happen to surpass a specific percentage of overlap have to be merged no matter what their other merits — it's meant to preclude category sets where overlapping membership is built right into the nature of the set, such as categorizing sportspeople by each individual season in which they happened to play in a particular sportsleague, or politicians by each individual term that they happened to sit in a legislative body, or writers by each individual year in which they happened to publish a new book. Because by the very nature of the set, most people are going to end up belonging in five or six or seven or twelve or twenty of them simultaneously — and that simply is not helpful to our end users, especially given that we have the much more workable (and much more useful, for that matter) alternative of using lists instead of categories to present that information.
But you see, that is the problem. That is an opinion, not a fact. When you say, "and that simply is not helpful to our end users" that is your personal opinion and perspective on this matter, it is is also entirely incorrect. These categories are extremely useful to our users since it (1) compartmentalizes the members by session and (2) makes it easier to find all the members in one single place by using the category mechanism (rather than inside an article). Once again, your rationale is not based on logic, but on an opinion and a personal preference. The nature of the sets are irrelevant to the discussion as we do not have an overlap threshold within a policy that can tell us when categories should be merged. Let me give you an example: Category:Current members of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico was merged into Category:Members of the 29th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico. That kind of merging make sense because the context of both categories are exactly the same (notice I'm talking about context not content). However, the context of Category:Members of the 28th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico is very different than the context of Category:Members of the 29th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico. They are different sessions, with different members, during different periods, under different circumstances, and dealt with different laws. I'm glad that you finally sat down and took the time to explain your point of view, but you have to understand that it is just that: a point of view, a personal opinion, a preference, not a truth nor a fact. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm glad that you finally took the time to sit down and explain your point of view. (And again, mine was adequately explained right from the start, but let's not get into that right now.) But here's a couple of other things you might want to consider.
Firstly, one of the reasons that lists by session are generally seen as more useful than categories is that the lists can provide actual concrete information about the actual "context, not content" that you believe these groupings have, whereas a category can only provide a bare "content, not context" grouping of the names. A list, for example, can actually give the actual dates that the legislature was in session. A list can annotate who the senior officers of the legislature (the speaker, the majority and minority leaders, etc.) actually were. A list can go into specific detail about the different circumstances and different laws that were actually discussed and dealt with. A list can provide specific detail about who actually represented which particular district during the session. A list can provide detail about whether some members died or resigned during the session and were subsequently replaced by new ones in special elections. A list can be organized as a "wikitable sortable" if desired, so that users can change the sort order to view the list by the criterion of their choice (alphabetized by name, in order of district, grouped together by political party, etc.) A category can only alphabetize the members' names, and can't actually provide any of the actual detail that users actually need about the session — a list can provide the user with a lot more useful information, and a lot more flexibility in how it's presented.
Secondly, again, nobody said that all subcategorization was disallowed under any circumstances. The people can be organized into subcategories by political party, because that does tell you something very specific and useful about the people's political views. And I even offered, earlier in this discussion, to help with creating and organizing that.
Thirdly, it is not actually an important value of Wikipedia that all information must be accessible, in your words, "in one single place by using the category mechanism (rather than inside an article)". Wikipedia does not favour categories over lists for all possible pieces of information — in fact, for the reasons I outlined in point #1 above, lists are actually preferred, and categories deprecated, in many cases. It is not an important value of Wikipedia that our users require a way to bypass or avoid lists, or that the category mechanism is always the preferred way of presenting any possible grouping of topics. There are some circumstances where lists and categories should coexist with each other, some where a list isn't useful but a category is, some where a category isn't useful but a list is, and some where we really don't want either one. But categories are just a tool that sometimes is the best one for the desired job and sometimes isn't — they are not the pinnacle of a hierarchy of data organization, such that Wikipedia gives them special status over other methods even when those other methods actually do the desired job better.
And finally, you know, you do seem to still be having trouble with the distinction between somebody explaining an established Wikipedia consensus and articulating their own completely random, isolated personal opinion. Consensus can sometimes change, granted, but there's usually a lot of very good reasons why it's been arrived at — so a person who understands what the consensus is, and why it's been arrived at, simply explaining what those reasons are is not the same thing as trying to force that consensus to conform to their own opinions.
Long story short — if it's about "context, not content", lists actually provide the context you're looking for in a way that categories don't. Bearcat (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you see, your whole argument defeats itself for two reasons: (1) by your logic we should not have categories since we can simply have lists which dwelve more into the context and (2) the category Category:Members of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico does give you context: the people listed here belong(ed) to the 29th session of the House (not the 28th, and not of the Senate). You need to understand that categories serve a purpose: they help users navigate content. Lists also serve a purpose, and so do articles. But I see no reason whatsoever why in this particular case we should solely have an article rather than have an article and a category. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, Wikipedia has been around for a long time, and people have developed an extensive and well-reasoned set of policies and practices to determine what types of information should be presented (a) in list form only, (b) in category form only, (c) both as a list and a complementing category, or {d) neither at all. The fact that there are some types of information that fall under criterion C does not in any way undermine or defeat the fact that other types of information — such as grouping legislators by individual session of the legislature — fall under criterion A instead. And again: the fact that the category groups the people who served in a particular session does not equal "context": the category cannot tell you which party they were a member of; the category cannot tell you which legislative district they represented; the category cannot tell you when that particular session was in office; the category cannot tell you who the ranking officers of that legislative session were; the category cannot tell you what laws that particular session dealt with to make it distinct from another session. Those are all pieces of information that are critical to the context of the grouping; if those pieces of supplementary information are not present, then the context is not being met just because it lists the members' names. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I most certainly did present a rationale based on logic and policies — again, just because you don't happen to agree with it does not make it a priori illogical. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm all ears if you've got a reason why we need this information to be organized as categories instead of lists — but frankly, given the attitude you've been taking here so far I really suspect that you don't actually have one. Bearcat (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem exactly caused by creating categories for each session? Please define the problem based on facts rather than on opinions. I don't see any problem at all with us doing this as we do not have any technical limitations whatsoever. It seems this is just your personal preference and a fear of having people belonging to multiple categories. I mean, you just used the word "nightmare" which is purely subjective. Politicians belong to multiple categories by their nature. Get used to it. We cannot limit how many categories they belong to simply because you don't like how it looks. If we proceed by your logic then we would have to create a policy based on maximum number of categories regardless of wether these categories are sessions or not. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of things that are technically possible — categorizing people by their blood type, hair colour, marital status, whether they happen to have more or less than the usual number of fingers or toes, etc. — are still bad ideas, and WP:OCAT spells out numerous examples. And creating a large number of WP:OC#OVERLAPPING categories whose membership is going to be relatively constant from one category to the next is one of those deprecated examples; it is not helpful to the end user for each politician's article to have five or six or ten distinct categories that really serve to mostly convey narrow variations on the same information, such as a separate category for each individual session of the same legislative body. If Puerto Rico had a "one term only" rule, such that every session of the legislature had a completely new membership, then subcategories by individual session might be warranted — but it doesn't, so adding people to another new category each and every time they happen to be re-elected to another four-year term in the same job is just unhelpful overcategorizing. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that WP:OC#OVERLAPPING, which is a guideline and not a policy, very clearly states that such stance is just "generally better". It does not say, "we should always" avoid such categorization. I mean, look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_19#Subcategories_of_Category:National_League_All-Stars it was a debate done in 2006 (7 freakin years ago) and even then people realized the very same thing: that such categories were helpful both for navigation, browsing, and exploration. Yet, even though 40% of the people agreed to said such scheme, the administrator opted to call it in favor of merging simply because of his personal conviction. Such a thing would never happen today as the result would be an obvious "no consensus". Sorry pal, but unless you can succinctly explain the logical rationale or policy that states that such subcategories should be deleted there's no reason do delete them. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you happen to read WP:ONLYESSAY like you were told to? The "logical rationale or policy that states that such subcategories should be deleted" has already been provided — WP:ONLYESSAY states quite clearly guidelines are binding in the absence of compelling reasons to make exceptions, which "because we can" is not — and just because you disagree with it doesn't make it illogical. As previously stated: you need to provide a real reason why we need this to be organized as categories; you need to provide a real reason why lists are not good enough. Guidelines may have exceptions, that's true — but the reasons not to make an exception here have already been explained, so the onus is on you provide a reason why we should make an exception, and simply dismissing the basic validity of the reasons why we shouldn't make an exception does not count. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware WP:ONLYESSAY is an essay right, RIGHT? I mean, it says so at the very top of the page. Did you even read that? So, your argument is based on an ESSAY? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clearly you don't have a real reason to make an exception here if think that's a useful argument. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand. This is not a case of establishing an exception as this is not a violation of any policy. You, as the nominator, must present a logical rationale to delete these categories rather than a personal preference. So far you have not. The categories must stay until you or somebody else present a logical rationale to delete them or a policy is established prohibiting them. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A rationale for deleting these has already been provided. You have the right to disagree with it, by all means — but just because you disagree with it does not make it illogical. You need present a real reason why we do need this to be organized as categories rather than lists — simply dismissing other people's valid opinions just because you have a different one is not acceptable. I'm all ears if you can present a real reason, other than "because we can" or "because I deem your position automatically invalid", why we should keep these — but you have yet to say a single productive thing in this discussion besides calling everybody else illogical just for disagreeing with you. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can not base a rationale merely on personal preference. Your argument must be based on logic and policies. Just presenting a rationale is not sufficient. So far you have failed to provide a rationale to delete these categories based on logic and policies. I don't have to present an argument to keep these as they do NOT violate any policies, it is you, the nominator, who must present a logically and policy-based argument to delete them since they do not violate any policies at all. It seems you are going around and around and just beating a dead horse because you don't have any logic-based argument here at all except your personal preference to delete these categories simply because some of their content overlaps and you don't like that. Weep fucking do, just because you dislike something doesn't mean we must stop doing it. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And weep fucking do to you too, just because you don't agree with a deletion rationale doesn't mean that the rationale itself is an "illogical" personal preference that isn't already supported by about ten years of established Wikipedia consensus and procedure. Bearcat (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We really shouldn't categorize MPs by individual session in the UK either, to be perfectly frank; we should have lists of UK MPs by session, and categories by party. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion, because those aren't the categories I nominated here — and per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because one country has implemented a really bad idea doesn't mean that others should be encouraged to follow. Most, indeed, do not follow — of the four major English-speaking countries which are responsible for the largest percentages of Wikipedia content (Canada, US, UK, Australia), the UK is the only one that does this; Canada, Australia and the US all use lists, not categories, to provide users with information about who served in a particular legislative session. Germany uses lists, not categories. The Netherlands uses lists, not categories. France uses lists, not categories. There are admittedly a few other countries besides the UK which do indeed categorize legislators by individual session — but they're very much in the minority, do not represent standard practice, and very much should be encouraged to undo it. (Not to mention that even if there were actually a genuinely convincing reason to keep that type of categorization in the UK, as a US territory Puerto Rico should line up with US political categorization practices rather than UK ones anyway.)
And just for the record, WP:POLITICIAN does confer notability on members of state, provincial or territorial legislatures (see criterion #1) — the restriction on "local councillors" refers to municipal (county/city/town) politicians. And also, category clutter is not mitigated by simply shortening the categories' names, because that doesn't resolve the more salient issues of having to create and populate another new category every time there's a new election, or having to place people in five or six or twelve or fifty of them simultaneously if they get reelected more than once. You could shorten these all the way down to "PRHR24", "PRHR25", etc., and they'd still be category clutter. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By your same logic, just because Canada, Australia, and the US do not use subcategories that doesn't mean that Puerto Rico should not. Once again, there is no technical limitation to do this and no logical rationale either except personal preference. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that something is technically possible does not, in and of itself, constitute proof that it's actually a good idea. Lots of things that are technically possible on Wikipedia are either deprecated or outright disallowed for lots of very good reasons. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does it constitute proof that it is a bad idea. Lots of things that are technically possible on Wikipedia and created by editors are kept and allowed for lots of very good reasons. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure...when there's an actual reason why we need it. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in Wikipedia is "needed". We are a volunteer organization, not a government nor a nation. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're interpreting my statement exactly backwards. Even as a volunteer organization, there are still volunteer efforts that Wikipedia legitimately needs and volunteer efforts that we legitimately don't. The rule on here is not that absolutely anything goes unless it's technically impossible; people quite regularly try to add all kinds of things that we genuinely do not need or want, and Wikipedia has a rather extensive system of rules — policies, guidelines, procedures and even many conventions that aren't written down anywhere at all yet still need to be understood and followed — in place to keep a lid on such things. And those rules do need to be followed unless there's a genuine reason why an exception should be made. Bearcat (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I support the nominator's take on this: we should have lists for legislators by session but not separate categories. The UK MPs by session is a particularly egregious example of overcategorization leading to category clutter and it should not be used as the pattern as the way to go. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no rationale to merge these lists as we do not have any technical limitations nor any policy against them. WP:OCAT is a guideline, not a rule, nor a policy. I fail to see exactly what from WP:OCAT specifically disallows this. Furthermore, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, not a rule nor a policy. No one has given a succinct and strong argument about why these categories should not exist: the arguments presented here are based on opinions and personal preferences, rather than on logical conclusions. Opinions are a subjective matter. If you want to establish a policy then do it through other medium rather than on a CfD. Once again, there is no policy nor a rational argument against this. The categories stand by their own per WP:POLITICIAN as each session of local assemblies are unique both historically and politically. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read up on why WP:ONLYESSAY is just as invalid a CFD argument as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is. Guidelines exist to clarify how policy is actually applied — which means that they're extensions of policy, and thus are binding in the absence of genuinely compelling reasons to make special exceptions. (Like, for instance, is there an actual reason why we need the information to be organized as categories rather than as lists? Or is "because we can" really the best you can do?) Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, guidelines are NOT an extension of policies. They are just that, guidelines, that serve to guide us but are not regulatory. You also need to understand that NOTHING in Wikipedia "is needed" since Wikipedia is driven by volunteers. However, when you wish to delete something from Wikipedia (rather than creating) you must have a valid rational argument to proceed with such deletion rather than a personal preference. There is no rational argument to delete these categories, period. If you don't like them then don't use them when you create these articles, but there is a big difference between not liking them and deleting them. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, guidelines ARE an extension of policies. Wikipedia spells this out quite clearly; the policy is a statement of the rule, and the guideline is an explanation of how the rule is actually applied in specific instances where guidance or clarification may be needed. And accordingly, guidelines must be followed unless there's a specific reason why we need to make an exception to them — and "because we can" is not such a reason. And just because you don't agree with somebody else's argument does not automatically make it "irrational"; you need to provide a real reason why we need these categories — a real reason why lists aren't good enough — rather than dismissing the longstanding conventions of CFD just because you happen to hold a different opinion. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, guidelines are NOT extension of policies. You are very confused to what a policy is and what a guideline is. A guideline is simply that, a guide, a suggestion, a best practice, it is not a rule. Guidelines do not have to be followed. Here, for your convenience, from WP:GUIDELINE, "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Nowhere does it say that they must be followed. You are basing your argument on WP:ONLYESSAY which is a GODDAMN ESSAY BY ITSELF NOT A POLICY. Here, for your own convenience: "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval." So, tell me again, WHICH POLICY} STATES THAT THESE CATEGORIES SHOULD BE DELETED? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are an extension of policies, and must be followed unless you can make a compelling argument for why the case at hand should constitute a valid exception to them — and the fact that WP:ONLYESSAY is only an essay is the most laughably absurd non-starter of a circular reasoning argument I've ever heard in my entire time at Wikipedia, just for the record. You do still have to follow it unless there's a compelling reason not to. And just for the record, I'm pretty damn close to being the last person on Wikipedia whom you should try to pull an "I know better than you do" argument on — I'm by no means perfect, but I do have a pretty solid sense of how things actually work around here, because I was actually around for most of the incidents and slapfights and carpetbombing attacks and policy and procedure discussions that created the current state of Wikipedia practice (for better or for worse). And you do need to provide a reason why an exception should be made — because simply dismissing other people's reasons why it shouldn't be is not an argument. You need to make a positive case in your favour, because that's how you might actually convince people to change their mind — simply asserting that any argument you disagree with is automatically illogical, without actually attempting to articulate an alternative viewpoint, is not generally a very productive strategy. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, guidelines are not extensions of policies and do not have to be followed. You are the one that has to present a logical argument as to why these categories should be deleted as there is not a single policy that disallows them. I, too, have a solid sense of how things work on Wikipedia but I don't understand how your or my understanding of Wikipedia is relevant to this discussion at all? You can not in any way or form base a deletion proposal on a personal preference. Here, for your own convenience, from WP:CONSENSUS which is a goddamn policy: Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense You can also look at WP:CLOSEAFD, which is the central point for AfDs which states: "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." Where are your reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments here? WHERE ARE THEY? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, guidelines are not extensions of policies and do not have to be followed. - Sorry, but yes, they are, and yes, they do. Note, for instance, the General Notability Guideline. Are you seriously suggesting that notability is not something that has to be followed? Your comment about WP:CLOSEAFD is particulary ironic as, were I an uninvolved adminstrator assessing this for closure, your comments would be devalued in weight as not being reasonable, logical, or policy-based. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not, and it is quite astonishing that an administrator has such poor understanding of Wikipedia. Here, for your own convenience, from WP:NOTSTATUTE which is a policy: "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures." It is unfathomable that an administrator is willing to dismiss a discussion from someone who is asking the nominator to state, through logic, his rationale to delete these categories rather than by his personal opinion or personal preference of how things should be done. As an administrator your job is to rule out an outcome based on logic with support by policies. As an administrator your judgement is bound by policies. Furthermore, you need to understand that our guidelines merely describe our best-known practices, not rules. Per WP:POLICY, "Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules." You should know this as an administrator. Further down that same policy: "Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." Notice that nowhere does the policy states that guidelines "must" be followed nor that they are rules. You should know that as an administrator and I'm quite baffled at the fact that you don't. My advise is that you involve other administrators on this matter and it is very clear that you are not qualified to deal with this subject. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll overlook the borderline personal attacks, as I see no point in continuing this discussion any further. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The argument presented has been reasonable, logical and policy-based; just because you happen to have a different opinion does not mean that someone who disagrees with you is being unreasonable or illogical or flouting policy. Guidelines are extensions of policy, and do have to be followed unless you can present a good, cogent and valid reason why a particular case should be treated as an exception to them. Wikipedia is not a place where you can just do absolutely anything you want, and then dismiss anybody who suggests that maybe it isn't actually such a good idea as being irrational. We do allow for the possibility that guidelines might occasionally have exceptions, because there might occasionally be a genuinely good reason why Case X is fundamentally different from Cases A through W — which is why they're called guidelines and not commandments — but you need to present a good, cogent and valid reason why an exception should be made, because a guideline is binding unless there's a good, cogent and valid reason for it not to be. You do have a right to hold a different opinion than I do — which is why things get nominated for discussion before they get deleted, so that people have an opportunity to hold that discussion — but simply dismissing other people's opinions as "invalid", without even attempting to articulate any real reason why maybe they should be kept instead, is not the way to imbue your opinions with a whole lot of authority. Bearcat (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahnoneemoos, please mind WP:CIVIL. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I fail to see how WP:CIVIL applies here? Neither person here has attacked the other personally. Discussion can get heated but User:Bearcat and myself both know to not cross personal boundaries. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looked like it could head that way, so, best to be cautious. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Merge but ONLY after the lists that would limit the use of the objected categories have been created. WHEN AND IF the lists exist, then the categories are less needed but, until they are created, there is a temporary justification for the existence of the categories. Pr4ever (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize how easy it is to take a category and listify it, right? Five to ten minutes per category at most. And hell, if you have access to the appropriate information there's no reason why creating the lists couldn't start right now so that they'll already be done by the time this discussion is ready for closure. 27th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, 28th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico and 29th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico already exist, for example — which means that even if we apply that condition those three can already go. And what's stopping anyone from just going ahead with 24th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, 25th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico and 26th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico right now? Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom - this is indeed a bad idea as spelled out by the nominator, and the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean the other stuff shouldn't eventually be merged either for exactly the same reasons. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone mentioned John McCain who is in 9 award cats. If we did this type of cat for the US House and US Senate he would be in 15 more categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We know that. I fail to see how this comment is relevant to this discussion and how does making McCain being part of 15 categories is relevant? Could you please elaborate? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because this would set a precedent, for potentially doing the same sort of thing for the U.S. Congress. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not bound by precedents. I can't remember the policy right now, but you can look it up. Besides, there is already precedent for this from the UK guys and the way the categorize stuff which is synonymous to this. Still US Congress is categorized differently. You need to understand that unless there's a policy for it, they can be categorized completely differently and still adhere to policy. Just because in this particular instance they are being categorized as such, that does not mean that all of Wikipedia must be categorized in the same way. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many users prefer pseudo-consistency over letting all the different subjects develop a separate scheme. No policy has to exist to support such preferences, and in fact in many areas they have become relatively widespread and therefore the basis for a consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is so frustrating. I can't believe I have to explain this kind of stuff to administrators. Listen, there is a big difference between consensus and practice. Just because certain areas of Wikipedia do things in a certain way does not mean that all of Wikipedia must do it in the same way. That is called a practice, not consensus, nor policy, nor standard. Practice is not the basis for consensus. We obviously have a case here where there is no policy that establishes how we must categorize articles and we have different areas of Wikipedia categorizing them differently. The outcome of a CfD does not determine policy and cannot be used as policy for future cases: only policies can be. CfD do not establish polciies. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not bound by precedent, no, however it is considered good editing practice to follow them. Prior CfD outcomes can and do indicate the preferences of the community, and they can and are used to gauge how future CfDs on similar topics can be considered. If you find yourself having to "explain...to administrators", especially multiple ones, policies and guidelines, it might be worth pausing to ask yourself if you really understand how the standards under contention apply in the circumstance, particularly given your misunderstandings about guidelines above. However, as it's clear you are determined that your position is the right one and everyone else is wrong, I won't be continuing this line of discussion any further, rather leaving it for the closer to judge on its merits. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to respond that the user appears to me to have misinterpreted the meaning of my comment, but Bushranger beat me to responding. Anyhow, I agree with him that disengaging on this issue might be wise at this point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, your interpretation is incorrect. As an administrator you are bound solely by policies not by what you might consider a practice. Wanna see why your interpretation is incorrect? The UK and Puerto Rico users have a practice to separate their categories by session, while the US users have a practice to keep them together into a single category rather than by session. As an administrator you cannot use a practice as your basis to rule in a certain way. If you would have not known about the UK practice, by your logic, you would have ruled in favor of a merge in this case, simply because of your ignorance towards our users practices and your incorrect assessment that administrators use practices to determine ruling. This is exactly why administrators base their decisions solely on policies, because policies are written and established by consensus, rather than practices which are based on perception. Now, please do not state that I'm trying to say that everyone else is wrong simply because I'm correcting you. You need to be corrected because you happen to be an administrator and it seems you might rule other CfDs by following an incorrect procedure. Once again, follow policies, not practices. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Puerto Rico is a possession of the United States with a legislature patterned after the United States congress. This means that how its legislature is treated has a high probability of influencing how congress is treated. Anyway, having such high likelihood of repeting categories makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the UK shouldn't be doing so — just because they are doing it doesn't mean it's a good idea, or that they shouldn't be strongly urged to undo it. In fact, it's always been in violation of the WP:OCAT rules; the only reason it hasn't already been canned is because it's a gargantuan job that nobody's felt quite ready and willing to actually take on. But that doesn't make it not a violation, and it doesn't make it something that other countries are entitled to follow at their own discretion; it just makes it a bad idea that hasn't been cleaned up yet, no different from countless other bad ideas on Wikipedia that haven't been cleaned up yet. The Puerto Rico contingent does not have the prerogative to make up its own special rules for itself that are significantly different from the standards in place for everybody else. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no, administration, policies, and Wikipedia do not work that way. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly is this discussion still not closed or relisted a full month later? Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Oklahoma Music Hall of Fame inductees[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. Already listified at Oklahoma Music Hall of Fame.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_9&oldid=1074811490"