Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 12 September 14 >

September 13[edit]

Category:Vrak.TV[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. The subcategory is probably fine, but there's no use having a category called Vrak.TV for the sole purpose of containing the article Vrak.TV. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:12, 13 September 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:Music published by Another Victory[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 31#Category:Music published by Another Victory. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 07:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The publisher of the songs within this category is not a defining quality of these songs. Most of the songs in the category are redirects and the ones with articles don't even mention who the publisher is, and it surely wouldn't be something that would be mentioned in the lead of the article much less anywhere else. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Does the same argument extend to the rest of Category:Music by publisher? If so, a group nomination might be appropriate. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the other categories are filled with songs by the Beatles and the songs released as solo artists and I am uncertain as to whether the publisher of those is just as non-defining. I think it's more clear cut on a band that has only been around for 10 years with nearly every song in the category a redirect. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:17, 23 September 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:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows[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. Like User:Philosopher, I don't see a problem with this CFD result coupled with the "keep" consensus in the related RFC. The RFC was of a general nature and discussed a number of categories (including the one nominated here), all of which make up a particular type of category. In general, the comments at the RFC are focused on that general type of category and did not discuss the details of this specific category. This discussion, on the other hand, focused almost solely on the merits of the nominated category. I therefore cannot regard the RFC as somehow "overruling" this CFD or rendering this CFD merely a discussion of an inferior or limited nature. Upon relisting this discussion, I saw a rough consensus to delete, and this has only been strengthened by the additional comments that have been made after relisting. I posted an invitation at the RFC for any users who were interested in this specific category to comment here. The discussion has now been open for more than three weeks, and I still see a rough consensus to delete. (I have put to the side the issue of whether having the RFC was an abuse of process with respect to this category; some users have suggested at the RFC that it might be, but that issue did not enter into my assessment here.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this DRV I am relisting this CFD to discuss a new argument raised by the DRV nominator. This cat was properly deleted after this cfd. As DRV closer I am neutral Spartaz Humbug! 20:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep as this particular category is already being discussed on Category talk:Wikipedians#RfC: Is this category and current subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia and this nomination segregates the discussion and resembles forum shopping, albeit unintentional on Spartaz's part. Technical 13 (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you didn't want this relisting you had no business raising this at DRV in the first place. Closing a DRV is never forum shopping and I'm sure most editors would have got that without your helpful comment. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 15:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, let's add some detail why this category (and most subs) should be kept. These categories are maintenance categories used by various WP:WikiProjects that exist and potential new projects that are trying to find the best way to encourage new user participation, as it helps them see what is available for users and what demographics could be improved. They are invaluable to multiple WikiProjects and needed for software development to empower the encyclopedic community with new tools. That being said, it should also be noted that there is a 22-0-4 (speedy) keep (SNOW close) - delete - comment only on the main survey for this category and similar categories on Category talk:Wikipedians#Survey. Technical 13 (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This deletion request is not necessarily duplicative of the RfC. As several commentators noted there, and as commmon sense dictates, one can potentially support the general "Wikipedians" scheme whild disagreeing with particular parts of it. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments at the DRV and WP:TROUT-slap the editor who CFDed the category without realising how it's used. DexDor (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment can those who want this kept please be specific about how this category (and its sub cats) will be used? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is characterization by a far too common character to be useful. Additionally, I as a user of windows never would think it was one of the ways to self-identify that I would categorize myself by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a trivial and pointless characterisation of editors here. WMF can discover which browsers and which OS's editors are using without this half-baked category, if that's what someone thinks this is useful for. Just out of interest, when this wasn't redlinked, how many editors used it? Right now there seems to be fewer than a couple of dozen editors using the template (and its child cats), albeit red. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is apparently useful to a few tool-creators and fits the general tradition of hte main Wikipedians category. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all, please provide evidence that this is "useful" to devs, I very much doubt it is even considered. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still waiting for an answer to Obiwankenobi's request for explanation of how this category (and its sub cats) will be used. Has it already been used in this way? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If such categories are going to be used for devs etc, then there should be a centralised discussion about it. There's no reason for this to exist however, WMF can determine the browser and OS we're all using if it decides to do so. This is just a vanity category which serves no real purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said in the Deletion Review, "... while MediaWiki core developers may not use such categories, WikiProject and usercript developers do." and a MWF developer responded "There's code other than core?!? I jest. You make a good point..." Technical 13 (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? e.g. in what situation would a category populated with 20 people who use MS windows be useful for some technical reason?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Philosopher. An active, good-faith user says he would find the category helpful and I take him at his word. No particularly pressing justification for deleting the category has been advanced. It's accepted that not many editors were using the category at the time of its deletion. This does not seem particularly relevant to the question of whether it should be allowed to exist. It's also accepted that neither the WMF nor most other editors would find the category helpful, but what matters is that there are some editors who'd use it for the maintenance of the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 21:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, this is pointless. One would imagine that several million users browse and edit Wikipedia using "Windows" yet this category attracts mere dozens. It's actually pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Contradiction is not discussion.—S Marshall T/C 07:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure it is, it's adopting an opposing position. This category is of no value. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, okay then, we can do that. The category isn't pointless. It has value.—S Marshall T/C 16:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The value is....? With a grand total of 20 or so editors in it? You do know that websites can determine what browser we're all using, don't you? This category is "fun" but not useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • One of us is deeply confused about this, and I hope it isn't me. I don't see any connection between the number of editors currently in the category and the potential value of the category to the encyclopaedia. I also don't see any connection between what browser we're using and what operating system we're using. Could you explain please?—S Marshall T/C 17:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You first. Explain the benefit of a handful of users claiming they use Windows, while (as I'm sure you're aware) any devs (for instance) can easily determine which OS (or, for instance, which browser) someone is using. This category is of no value, if it was of value, there would be several million uses of this category. Ho hum. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • If you know the browser, you know the OS. The OS is embedded in the browser string - it looks like this: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Avant Browser [avantbrowser.com]; Hotbar 4.4.5.0) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Well, this should be easy enough then. Imagine you're writing a third party application for use with Wikipedia and you need to test it. Could you please tell me what browser and operating system is being employed by User:S Marshall? If you can answer accurately then I will certainly grant you your point and withdraw my objection.—S Marshall T/C 18:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Yes, it's blindingly easy.
                          "S Marshall, you report a problem with the new application. Please can you tell me what browser and operating system you are using for this?"
                          even if I knew you were still in a category of Windows users, I would still ask the question, because you might have changed your own machine or be using someone else's, or an iPad etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just to be clear. This category is unnecessary and pointless because you can just ask me, correct?—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If you had a problem, there are only 2 ways I could get enough info to help: by checking the server logs, or asking you. Even if the categories told me in sufficient detail what browser and OS you were using (e,g. Opera 11.01 on Win XP SP3), I would be a fool to rely on that info as a basis for helping you. I would need to know exactly what setup you were using when the problem occurred. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point that most of us are making is "what is the point of this category"? It's the same as "Wikipedians with a hedge" or "Wikpedians who use shower gel". You do realise that WMF (et al) can determine which OS and which browser is being used by all of us to view Wikipedia and as such, any argument that this kind of "category" is redundant for that purpose? Have you ever downloaded software updates from, say, Apple or Adobe? Perhaps not, but when you do, they already tell you which OS you're using.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Technical13's told you what the point of the category is and I wonder if I'm the only person who's been reading. For the sake of argument I'm prepared to accept that the WMF's knowledge of my computer is second only to that of the NSA, but that doesn't matter. Technical13's argument is and throughout this discussion has always been about third party developers.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have of course read Technical13's argument, and I'm afraid it's a very poor argument. Third-party developers would be very foolish to place any weight on the category. If they don't have access to a technical log, then the only solution is to ask the simple question I just asked you above, or invite the user to visit a webpage of the developer's, which can log the data.
        WMF can use the server logs to get a more precise answer than 90% of computer users can give. Why use a category which may or may not ever have been accurate, and may not be up-to-date, and doesn't even tell which version of Windows is being used? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • But that makes no sense to me either. When did we start to delete categories because they might be inaccurately or inconsistently applied, or because not everyone they might apply to was in the category? When did we start to delete user categories because you can ask?—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is basically WP:OR to assume that this category, which covers about 90% of computer users, is used by developers. How in any way shape or form is this defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not an assumption. At least one practical example of a developer actually wishing to use this category was cited during the DRV; otherwise I wouldn't be making this case so strongly. User categories need not be defining, they merely have to facilitate collaborative work on the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 01:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • You ask "when did we start to delete categories because they might be inaccurately or inconsistently applied"?
                But this isn't an encyclopedic category or a user-collaboration category. By your own argumnet, it has value only as a technical info category, where accuracy matters. As I have explained above, this category is useless for its stated purpose, because no competent developer would rely on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • The reason I'm arguing this with you all is because you seem to have missed the point that in previous discussions on this very topic it's emerged that third party developers do consider relying on it. Diff. Perhaps User:Graeme Bartlett will elaborate.—S Marshall T/C 17:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The explanations of a possible use for the category don't really add up. With less than 2 dozen category members, this is no use for the technical purposes outlined, and any developer who wants to test something with users of a particular operating system would be much better posting a request at WP:VPT.
    Even if the category expanded massively, it would still be of limited use, because the grouping which the techie editors are seeking is much narrower than "Windows users"; they want "Windows users willing to participate in software testing". Unless the purpose of the category is made clear, many of the users who add themselves to the category will have no interest in testing.
    I would be happy to support keeping any Category:Users of X who willing to participate in software testing, but that's not what we have here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly right. If this category has somehow been declared as a means of gauging Windows usage throughout WIkipedia (which is, of course, utter fantasy), then we should state that this is the purpose of the category. Otherwise, it appears, there's no reason for us to have such a category. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. There was nothing in the DRV other then the fact that the creator was not notified that caused this to be relisted, hardly an argument to keep. So far there is no substantial case showing why this should be kept other then WP:ILIKEIT which is not a substantive argument. Note that this was deleted without objection when nominated, so this discussion needs to make a case to overturn that decision. So far I'm not seeing anything close to making a case like that. I'm not considering the case that was presented that these are maintenance categories with the assumption that CfD can not delete maintenance categories. So far nothing here has made the case that there are in fact maintenance categories or that they serve any purpose as such. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not useful to create an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not useful to create an encyclopaedia. If script tool-creators want to find users, who use a specific OS, than they should check the transclusions of the userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Operating systems. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete completely unconvinced by keep rationales thus far. The argument that developers would somehow use this to find windows users is ridiculous. Want to find a windows user? throw a rock, you're guaranteed to hit hundreds of them - likely 75% of our users are on windows.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First, the low numbers of those claiming it show there is minimal need or interest in it. Second, who cares. Third, its not encyclopedic anyway. If we keep a category at all we should upmerge all the Versions to just Microsoft Windows. Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I am relisting this discussion in part due to the discrepancy between (1) what I see as a rough consensus to delete in the discussion thus far and (2) the consensus to keep this category and other related categories at this RFC. We have a slight conflict of forums here, but I am posting a notice at the RFC regarding this discussion, and hopefully things will become clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The RFC is a form of forum-shopping, and it should be ignored by whoever closes this discussion. It was opened while the related CFDs were open, as an attempt to fork discussion and create some sort of a super-vote. It doesn't try to group any particular style or type of user categories; it's just a jumbvle of stuff-at-CFD-which_I-want-kept. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would interpret the RfC as a comment on the Wikipedians categorization system in general and this CfD as a comment on a particular part of it. As such, I don't see any conflict between a "delete" here and a "general keep" there, (though I've stated my own preferences at both forums). – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've not seen a single convincing reason to keep this category. More than 90% of desktop and laptop computers run a version of Microsoft Windows. If a developer or tool-creator needed to find editors who use Windows, they would have no trouble doing so, and a simple post at WP:VP/T would attract volunteers more quickly than trawling through a category of this type to identify active user. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Since 90% of computers use Windows, this is too common to warrant us having it. However, it may be useful to have categories for those using other operating systems. It may possibly be useful to have categories for those who are still using Windows 3 or Windows 95 (possibly also others older than XP) as they are no longer supported by MS, and programs that run on them may not run on some refcent versions. This may mean that there is room for useful cooperation between such users. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 16 September 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:American players of American football of Polish descent[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:American people of Polish descent; please also note the outcome of the discussion concerning Cat:American sportspeople of Polish descent. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am not sure it is worth upmerging to other parents considering how many categories these people are in at present, and they are probably in subcats of any other parent. I have to admit I have grave reservations about the African-American category, but suspect because of special issues that one would survive. However, unless we can create American players of American football of Polish descent as an article, we should not have it as a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 13 September 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:Kannadigas[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a duplicate category. Our article is at Kannada people and Kannadiga is a redirect to it. —SpacemanSpiff 19:52, 13 September 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.

Test nomination: Year range guidelines in categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: self-withdrawal. It appears that some users were thrown off by: (1) my mistake in originally including parentheses; and (2) the non-all-inclusive nature of this nomination; ie, that it was a test nomination. Since I can see some sort of support for the year range guideline in categories, I'm just going to withdraw this and start an all-inclusive nomination. If I nominate all of the relevant categories, we will get a better sample of opinion anyways. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are quite a number of categories that use date ranges to indicate legislative terms: see, for instance, Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament. Almost all appear to use the date range format of "####–####". The manual of style guideline for date ranges recommends using "####–##" for AD/CE dates when the date range is entirely within one century. (This form has been fairly widely adopted in article titles that use date ranges, though there are a few holdouts (**cough, Australia, cough**) against it. A notable exception to the general recommendation is for birth year–death year life ranges for people, where use of the full death year is recommended.) The two nominated categories are examples of the type of change that would be made if we used the recommended format. If users indicate in this discussion that there is support using the recommended format in categories names that refer to legislative terms, I will proceed with nominating the rest after this discussion is closed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment would WP search engine pick up 2003-07 if one searched for "2007"? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't think it would. If you search for "2007", none of the 2006–07 sports year articles/categories come up unless there are redirects from the 2006–2007 form. I guess to resolve that issue, keeping category redirects on the full form would be a must. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Rationale makes sense to me. I've only seen dates within parentheses. Liz Read! Talk! 14:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I support using "####–##" for AD/CE dates when the date range is entirely within one century, but not the use of parentheses. In Wikipedia, parentheses are used in titles to denote a disambiguator, and these date ranges are not disambiguators. The parentheses are un-needed, and obscure the meaning of the category.
    Procedurally, I oppose taking only some of the subcats of Category:Members of the National Assembly for Wales by session, and creating a new format. If the nom wants to rename the Welsh categories, then please nominate all 4 subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is only about the numbered date format and is nothing to do with the parentheses vs. no parentheses. I didn't intent to change those and frankly I don't much care; I apologize for including them originally. The other subcategories of Category:Members of the National Assembly for Wales by session need not be nominated here because one spans across a century divide and the other has no end date yet. I am seeking opinions about the date format issue, which was the focus of the nominating statement, rather than the side issue which can go either way as far as I am concerned. Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Use of all four numbers for both dates will make it easier to find these categories by searching for them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It won't make a difference if category redirects are used. It also depends on what users search for. Depending on the search form used, either category format could be preferable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This should match Category:UK MPs 2005–2010 and numerous siblings. Now that we do not link years there is no reason why that should not become Category:UK MPs 2005–10, but this will need a much wider nom. Category:Wales AMs 2003–07 might accordingly be acceptable if the nom will undertake to make ALL the consequent changes. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I did not nominate Category:UK MPs 2005–2010 and all the rest of those is because this is a test nomination. Yes, if this proposal went through, then I would have nominated all of them. In other words, I undertook doing so in the nominating statement. Did the user not read it? Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:10, 16 September 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:American sportspeople of Irish descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge all. If the categories are created again without passing deletion review, please request speedy deletion under criterion G4. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. This was deleted/upmerged in February 2011, along with many others (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 16). Can the three other cats that have been recreated be added to this discussion? Tewapack (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add them if you do it quickly. I lack the energy to hunt them out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added the other three. I would not that no where in our guidelines on ethnicity + occupation intersections is there an allowance for these categories to split ethnicity categories based on size. People of Serbian descent do not play sports differently, they are not treated as a potential group in sports, and they are not generally tracked as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many other categories of this kind, not just these four. For instance American sportspeople of Asian descent.Hoops gza (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the decision to only categorize by notable intersections is the result of the guidelines that BHG mentioned. I can not say definitively how many people participated in developing them, but I was not one of those involved. The question of whether this intersection is notable is an independent question, which I have argued it is not, and have yet to see anyone try to argue that it is. Doing so would require citing reliable sources that show that this is an actual area of study. It would be easiest if we had the article American sportspeople of Irish descent that you could point us to so we could all look at the sources citied, but one is free to just cite sources in this discussion. See for example the discussion of Category:Women sociologists where people actually cite sources to support the category existing (the same was done, maybe more so, in the discussion of Category:Men sociologists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 19 September 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:Pitbull (entertainer) albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Pitbull (rapper), the title to which the article was moved in June 2013. These categories were recently proposed for speedy renaming, but without the parenthetical disambiguation; thus, I am briging them to a full discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename As far as I understand it, Entertainer is a parent category for those in the performing arts (who are in child categories like Singers, Actors, Magicians, etc.) and not an occupational category meant to be applied to individuals. Liz Read! Talk! 14:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match articles. In disambiguation of categories we try to always have the same disambiguation as in the article itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 14 September 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:Royal Fellows of the Royal Society[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: listify to Royal Fellow of the Royal Society. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete Category:Royal Fellows of the Royal Society
  • Nominator's rationale Unlike regular membership in the society this is not actually based on having been involved in scientific inquiry. It is largely an honorary designattion, and deleting it as a category is similar to why we have Category:Harvard University alumni but not Category:Honorary alumni of Harvard University. This is not a defining characteristic of the people involved, anymore than being a ex officio member of the Yale Board is a defining characteristic of the governor of Connecticut. This type of category seems to go against the general discoragement of awards categoreis, and does not really tell us anything about the people involved at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete and listify. Fellows of the Royal Society are selected by their peers for having made "a substantial contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge, including mathematics, engineering science and medical science". This is a rare and highly prestigious award; it is one of the highest honours available to a British scientist, and the postnomial letters FRS are a huge mark of distinction.
    The Royal Fellows are mostly "patrons", people who lend their name in support of the Royal Society. Some of them, such as Albert, Prince Consort did make a significant contribution to science. In Albert's case, his promotion of science is one of his most defining characteristics. I don't see evidence of similar intensity for the other Royal Fellows, but I am open to changing my mind if other editors have more info. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prince Andrew, Duke of York seems to have exhibited no amount of interest in science before gaining this position, and his appointment was heavily opposed by some.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- (with the possible exception of the royal fellows), FRS is an award only given to those of the highest distinction as scientists. It is a category that we ought to have. This is not an alumni category. I would suggest that being awarded FRS ought to mean that the recipient is automatically WP-notable. Of course this is not a Nobel prize, but it is not an award given lightly. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this nomination only concerns the royal fellows. The regular fellows of the royal society have a different category that is not under discussion. This category is only for those who are royalty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, we should hear from Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz (talk • contribs) 22:38, 17 September 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:Honorary Knights of the Order of the Bath[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notification left at Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notification left at the UK Wikipedians' notice board. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But treating these awards in this way leads to us having 17 award categories on the article Nicolae Ceaușescu. How can it be argued all 17 of these awards are notable in this case. I do not think this can really be defended as a workable system of categorizing. This is way too many categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JPL, taking one extreme example is a really bad way of deciding on the merits of a category as a whole. Ceaușescu is is squillions of award categories because one of his defining characteristics is that he was showered with honours by govts which hastened to disown him after his fall from power.
The bottom line here is that your rationale is fatally flawed, because you didn't research the topic. Cherry-picking extreme examples doesn't breathe life back into a dead argument. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The very nature of the awards category guidelines say that we should not be having all these award categories when so many of the awards have been handed out so freely. Contrary to what you say Ceaușescu is not an extreme example, he has recived way fewer awards and is in way fewer categories than many others. The rules on overcating by awards strongly suggest that we should not categorize people by awards that are handed out to people who get lots of awards, and these awards given to foreign individuals almost always tend towards that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The annulled category also strikes me as breaking our general rule against present/past splits in categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, the solution you should be seeking is merger rather than deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. These are people who had the very rare "distinction" of having their honour removed from them. That is highly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete -- This is essentially a diplomatic honour. The annulled category is for three people who were stripped of the honour, again diplomatic cases. They belong in an appendix to the same list. Something says that the clergy are also only Honorary KB; if so, we may need to keep a category for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The claim that I was involved in picking the extreme example is not true at all. In the main category the first person is Abbas II of Egypt. He is in 32 awards categories. This is not picking an extreme example, but just the first of many. Several other people in the category are in this many if not more award categories. People like Dwight D. Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur. These are distressingly large numbers of categories that are just too many to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eisenhower is in 46 awards categories. This is just ridiculous. This is an extreme in overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I take extreme exception to the claim I "cherry picked extreme examples". I chose someone who may have had fewer awards cats than is average for this category. There are lots of people who are in over 30 awards cats in this category. When this happens to any article we have a problem, when it has happened as much as it has the system is broken.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is important to hear from group members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals. I assume they have been notified about all of these deletions. They will have insight into the importance of honors and orders which the regulars of CfD lack. This notification should be standard practice. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering how spread out these are, I doubt they have been informed of all of these nominations (though this one seems to be accounted for). -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or listify. For all the categories proposed to deletion: a discussion (see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Archive_14) has yet arrived without absolute conclusion but propositions : listifying or a collapsible section in categories with orders categories as one of the possible apllications but deletion were not considered to be an application of the "Award argument" : WP:OC#AWARD. Before this discussion arose, I have already started a listification for some time now about heads of state, with the pages of the Category:Lists of state honours awarded to Heads of State and Royals and "mirror category" Category:Lists of honours of a royal family by country. And I have recently build the templates Template:HonHeads, Template:HonHeadsUK and Template:HonHeadsCommonwealth to make the link between the persons page and the lists. See Albert II of Belgium ("Honours" section) for its application. I would recommand you would put a "warning sign" in categories targeted to invite to do the process of listing, rather than a deletion process. So, let's be constructive, not "simply distructive" for mere inadequation reason. I insist you don't delete anything before the transformation into lists can be done. There is an amount of elements and information in those categories. Sometimes, the only way to understand the "final" use of a decoration (among many other national decorations) is an observation of who receives it, when the description simply describe "merit towards the State" or likewise. Those lists, whatever the form, are instructive. I never enrolled myself formally in the Wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals list , so I cannot speak as a member, but I have been working on the subject for quite some time now and I have created many of these orders categories, on the mere observation that they already existed (with British orders categories like this one as an archetype).
    I have also created the general category Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members with only one intention to it : to gather in this category, the grades categories and articles of order that are effectively awarded to royals and heads of states as a mere "bottom line". The orders in this lists should not be construed as order awarded ONLY to royals and heads of states. Mimich (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Order commented. As already mentionned, this category is a well distinct list as the non-Commnwealth realms citizens are not full members, hence "not received into" the order, but merely receiving the decoration. And knighthood title "Sir" cannot be used by them if awarded Honorary Knight Grand Cross or Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath . It is an important distinction at least in the usual practice of the orders for Order of the Bath, Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Royal Victorian Order and Order of the British Empire. The Queen apparently awards this "Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath" to visiting/visited Presidents or fellow Sovereigns she doesn't consider for the Order of the Garter. But I cannot say if it is a closed description of the grade, but the main key of it surely. Mimich (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reading - There exists a page List of honorary British knights and dames yet, potentially incomplete (I haven't check). Comments of the page can enlight but this is a page with all orders mixed, not a page for one order.
    1. I'm still wondering about an easy tool that would allow to identify new additions in articles if the person doesn't listify one's addition (by not knowing, or lazy even with a warning element on the page). Rechecking a long list can be boring, although I have frequently added category lines after such checking (so I know). Also : what if there is no page for the order yet. Will it be accepted to create a page with a line of listing to start with. Category seems much easier, more practical as a dynamic listing, at least.
    2. I already tried a system (Is it a solution for gradification when there is a little members in a category ?) : Use, in the second part of the category instruction, the numbers 1 to 5 to identify the grade, followed by the name classification elements. Result in the Category:Recipients of the National Order of Vietnam. But that wouldn't help diminish the number of category lines. 1 line "recipient" = 1 line "Grand Crosses", if desired so, finally — Mimich (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would have no problem with listifying. I assumed that these awards already had lists. Such lists would be way more useful than the categories as they now stand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technical consensus ? (around HIDDENCAT ?). But, either as a first move if listififying or if keeping them finally as useful technical tool, we need to keep them as a basis anyway, but some don't want to see all those categories at the bottom of pages. So, how about making the orders categories in general compulsory hiddencats by consensus (Wikipedia:HIDDENCAT), only visible if you check "see hiddencat" in your profile. One good mean is to build a "warning" element (template with "hiddencat sign" in it) and add it to the Template:Medal category which is yet settled in a lot of orders categories (but not all) or if no Template:Medal category, add the warning template alone. This warning element should mention the "profile checking" link. But one question : wouldn't it crowd "hiddencat" ? is it OK ? Mimich (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another proposition = HIDDENORD (=keep now, before listifying). In order not to overcrowd HIDDENCAT, how about a separate element ("HIDDENORD" for honours categories with a distinct "appearance zone" at the bottom of the page and "honour check" in one's profile, independant of the " Categories: " zone and checking. Mimich (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another proposition = [[Honour:]]( = Keep). In order not to overcrowd HIDDENCAT, how about an [[Honour:]] or [[ODM:]] (= Orders, decorations and medals) instead of [[Category:]] with a distinct "appearance zone" at the bottom of the page and "honour check" in one's profile, independant of the " Categories: " zone and checking Mimich (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another proposition = a collapsible bottom honours table (= Keep). = To settle a consensus (no directly added [[Category:]] at the bottom) and build a whole new tool (with explanation page, of course) : a (compulsory ?) collapsible honours table at the bottom of each biography page (with as default setting : "no honours known or mentioned here. Please help if existing" if compulsory). This could rely on templates that can direct to categories by using compulsory ( [[:Category:|CAT]] ) mentions (or using [[Category:]] with "ODM categories" as compulsory HIDDENCAT ?). Mimich (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Listing tools : build the listing (= Listify) = to avoid long rechecking of long list of honours. Create a {{ODM-added}} (for mere addition but no list-doing by usual wikipedians), {{ODM-list|COUNTRY}} (for mere addition and list-doing by usual wikipedians) and {{ODM-checked}} and even a {{ODM-unsourced}} to mention after each line in an "Honour" section. This would lead to : 1. a visible icon 2. an "hiddencat" technical category (= new additions checking tool) that would be handled by ODM-skilled wikipedians (EXCEPT for {{ODM-checked}} that can be a visible mere icon, only to be used by "certified ODM-skilled wikipedians"). Mimich (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Listing tools : link to the list (= Listify). I have already build the templates Template:HonHeads, Template:HonHeadsUK and Template:HonHeadsCommonwealth to make the link between the persons page and the "Heads of State and Royals" lists (see my above comment and (Albert II of Belgium as example). I can improve them (the flag itself may lead to a general "ODM of COUNTRY" list page instead of the country page as now, next to the link itself linking to "Heads-lists"), and build, for other recipients, Template:Honours, Template:HonoursUK and Template:HonoursCommonwealth (linking to those list pages or distribution page to other specific order list pages). List pages would have to be non deletable by consensus (unless consensus defaults), even if little list on it. You have to start little, sometimes, to grow over time. Mimich (talk) 11:03, 19 September 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:Mental retardation[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There has been a change of terminology in the real world since Wikipedia was founded, and the main article of this category, formerly Mental retardation, was just renamed (in accord with medically reliable sources) to Intellectual disability. There appears to be broad editor consensus, from reading the sources, about the terminology change. Notified Category creator using {{cfd-notify}} -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:46, 13 September 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:Human diseases[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. Discussion on this was kind of all over the place, and the category was so poorly populated I don't think we can necessarily regard the deletion of this category as a final repudiation of the concept of a separate category scheme for human diseases, but in it's current state the category is not really making a meaningful contribution. I suggest that if there is interest in making a subcategory for human diseases, that this be proposed and discussed at Category talk:Diseases and disorders. Since not many users watch category talk pages, users may need to post notices at WikiProjects, etc. to gain input. Obviously this deletion is without prejudice to re-creation if there is sufficient support for doing so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need for this category; Human diseases are already dealt with by default in Category:Diseases and disorders. Notified Category creator using {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—redundant category per nom. Additionally, it would difficult to populate this category with diseases that only affect humans. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hardly seems necessary. I think we can assume that most diseases with Wikipedia articles affect humans, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia written by and for humans([citation needed]). Diseases that only affect non-humans are worth singling out with their own category, as they're the minority, not the other way around. Robofish (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, we already have 2 such categories: Category:Animal diseases and Category:Plant pathogens and diseases. Cgingold (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and remove the redirect from category: Diseases to allow the natural developemnt of separate categories for various animal and plant disease categories. XOttawahitech (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-- it would be nice in the fullness of time to have separate subcategories for human disease, animal diseases, plant disease etc. Presumably these would logically be placed in a parent category called disease. I would also disagree with Beeswaxcandle's statement that it would be hard to find diseases which only affect humans. There are many, but there are also many which affect other species in addition to humans, so I guess what would happen eventually in the latter scenario, is a disease be placed into human disease and animal disease (e.g.). Lesion (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response "Many" diesases that affect only humans? Would you please give some examples of these diseases that only affect Homo sapiens and affect no other species? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's not so. Many of the congenital disorders such as renal agenesis don't just affect humans. Nor is it the case that all (or even most) of the disorders classified to Chapter 5 of ICD-10 solely affect humans. What other conditions/diseases/disorders are proposed? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess anything with "human" in the title of the disease would be a good indicator? Lesion (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's three diseases (HIV, HPV and Human herpes virus), all of which have closely-related viruses that affect other animals. If editors feel that a category for the diseases caused by these three viruses is needed, then that under discussion is fine. However, each of these diseases is already classified appropriately. For example, HIV is in Category:Sexually transmitted diseases and infections, which is a sub-category of Category:Infectious diseases, which is a sub-category of Category:Diseases and disorders. The alternate article HIV/AIDS is in Category:Syndromes, which is a sub-category of Category:Diseases and disorders. HIV/AIDS is also in Category:HIV/AIDS, which is a sub-category of Category:Infectious diseases. As a result, I still believe that we don't need a special category for Human diseases. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Read! Talk! 14:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason these categories ended up as subcagteories of Category:Diseases and disorders is that for an undocumented reason in 2010 user: Mindmatrix redirected the category: Diseases to Category:Diseases and disorders.
By suggesting that there is no need to separate human diseases from plant diseases and animal diseases, you are suggesting that human diseases cannot be a subcategory of humans, and ensuring that animal and plant disease categories will remain as subcategories of Category:Society, which of course makes no sense. X Ottawahitech (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC) This proposal also means that Category:Plant pathogens and diseases will remain as a subcategory of Health care XOttawahitech (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Note: User:Ottawahitech is the creator of the category under discussion. [reply]
I created the category as a redirect because at the time the primary category for disease-related articles was Category:Diseases and disorders, but I figured some readers might end up at the non-existent Category:Diseases instead. That is, I simply created a convenience category for readers. Mindmatrix 12:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks matrix: After you posted above I investigated further and found an old CfD also nominated by Cgingold which explains the mess we are in now:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_2#Category:Diseases XOttawahitech (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be suggesting that the situation we're discussing came about as a result of that CFD. Not so. All that happened there was that two redundant categories were merged. There was no discussion of Animal and Plant diseases, and I have no idea when those sub-cats were placed in Category:Diseases and disorders (or its predecessor). (You'd have to look thru the edit histories for those categories.) Cgingold (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Cgingold: But, that is exactly what happened: the situation today is the direct result of the 2008 CfD! At that time the categories that you mention were not redundant at all:
Category:Diseases – was the top-tier parent category which included:
Category:Animal diseases since its creation in 2005
Category:Plant pathogens and diseases since its creation in 2007
Category:Diseases and disorders – was created in 2008 and included only human diseases and disorders.
It is a real shame that this was missed by the nominator, the participants and the admin who closed the 2008 discussion, and is an attestation of the poor quality of the whole wp:CfD process. Just m $.02. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a highly selective and extremely misleading presentation, Ottawa. Both of the categories at issue included all sorts of human diseases and disorders -- and neither of them actually specified "human" -- so they most assuredly were highly redundant. Your assertion that it was the CFD itself that created the problem rests on the ludicrous contention that there is some sort of intrinsic distinction between "Diseases", on the one hand, and "Diseases and disorders" on the other. What arrant nonsense. Those categories were merged for good reason. I too have seen some very poorly-reasoned discussions at CFD, but this wasn't one of them. Cgingold (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As something designed to help humans, Wikipedia will default assume humans. Also, the overlap between humans and other species in diseases is so high, that it is not clear that such is a good way to divide categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Can you please clarify: are you saying that Category:Animal diseases and Category:Plant pathogens and diseases have no value and should be deleted? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re Generic Categories that Default to "Human": I am, of course, well aware of the issue highlighted by Ottawahitech. As the Wikipedia Category structure has evolved over the years, a number of categories comparable to this one have been filled with articles and sub-cats that are primarily -- but not exclusively -- about humans, resulting in a situation that is, to be sure, less than ideal. The sheer scale of the effort that would be required to properly and completely sort everything out is enormous -- well beyond what I myself would want to devote my waking hours to -- and quite possibly not worth the end result. So I have chosen to leave those categories basically as is, while attending to aspects of the situation that can more readily be improved. Cgingold (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: To that end, I have added a hatnote and separated out the sub-cats for Animal and Plant diseases, moving them to a highly-visible location near the top of the listings. Cgingold (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cgingold: since you say you are not willing to devote the necessary time to fix this category, may I suggest that you stop nominating faulty CfDs that end up causing others to spend their own time? -- Having said this I do recognize that you have good intentions, and unlike many other participants in CfD discussions you do acknowlegde problems instead of simply contributing a a fly-by-night Delete which only serves to discourage good faith efforts by others. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dare say I put at least as much thought into this issue before I started the CFD as you put into it before you created the category. You know, it's ironic that you complain about my freely acknowledged unwillingness to devote exorbitant amounts of time and effort to dealing with (not necessarily "fixing") this and the other category trees that are similarly constituted -- and yet you yourself have only devoted enough effort to place one single article in this new category that you contend is vitally important. Something doesn't add up here, Ottawa. Cgingold (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for User:Ottawahitech: It's not clear from the name whether the category was intended for ALL diseases that humans suffer from (and would that also include "disorders"?), or more narrowly, for diseases that ONLY affect humans. The lone article that you've placed in the category, on the Marburg virus, doesn't really help in that regard, as Marburg is in fact a primate virus -- which I think it's worth noting, already have their own category. Cgingold (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructure -- Diseases should cover all species. Human diseases should be a subcategory. It may be that a lot of the contents of Category:Diseases and disorders need to be moved down a level. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:Systematic bias is being exhibited when we think the generic title should be about humans, and not all diseases. Many non-human diseases are just as important to humans as human diseases, such as Mad Cow, or Hoof and Mouth. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 08:51, 17 September 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:People with arthritis[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. In a situation such as this, where a characteristic that applies to many people is highly defining for some and not particularly defining for most, a focused list (a stand-alone list or one within the article about the topic) might be more appropriate. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:People with arthritis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Nominator's rationale This is not really a defining characteristic. Many people develop this later in life. I noticed this on the article of Napoleon III, who is neither notable for this, nor would this be one of the basic biographical points about him. This is too trivial to be worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or at least purge of all articles about people who are not notable because of arthritis). For info: There's an essay about this sort of categorization at Wikipedia:Do not write articles using categories. Note: Many other categories under Category:People by medical or psychological condition are similarly bloated. DexDor (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge first per DexDor and then see how many are left. This category is problematic given that there over 100 different forms of arthritis ranging from temporary conditions through to deformities and that the most common form, Osteoarthritis, is in ca. 3.6% of the population. However, that said, there may well be some people who are notable for one of the arthrites. They are most likely to be notable for their patient advocacy. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh no-o-o-o-o! Please, please, please - Do Not Encourage Folks to Purge the category. (At least not until we're done with the CFD discussion.) I guess you must have missed my very recent comments (elsewhere) on this very subject, Beeswaxcandle. I explained at some length why it is essential to leave articles in categories that are under discussion at CFD (with the exception of those that were unquestionably placed in the category entirely by mistake). We need to be able to evaluate this proposal as thoroughly as possible, so any purging that may be needed should not take place until we are done here. However, it would probably be very helpful to see a listing of articles that may not merit placement in this category. Cgingold (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) I meant as the outcome of the CfD. I agree that fiddling with content during a CfD is problematic and it has frustrated me at times also. If after purging we're left with an untenably small category, then it could be deleted.

wrt to DexDor's comment that "many other [sub-] categories under Category:People by medical or psychological condition are bloated": I hope that the bloat will be dealt with outside the CfD process, and that only those that are actually problematic are brought here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the (currently) 38 members of the list. The articles where arthritis is defining are: Nicola Miles-Wilden, Rain Perry, David Prowse, & Kelly Skidmore. The remainder are notable for other reasons and developed arthritis later in life. There are a few sportspeople whose active careers were terminated by arthritis, and could arguably be left here. As a result of this, I am striking my !vote above and changing to Keep and Purge. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'll refer back to your assessment when I evaluate the contents of the category. Cgingold (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cgingold's opinions are his own; any implication that one shouldn't touch categories - especially for any living people are gravely mistaken. WP:BLP trumps any deference that Cgingold hopes to enforce. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I've said on the subject conflicts with the obligation to address actual WP:BLP concerns if and when they arise with respect to particular individuals. Thus far nobody has suggested that the whole category needs to be deleted on those grounds. Cgingold (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But on the other hand... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a very common condition in older people, and generally non-defining. Categorising people by medical condition is sometimes justified, but I don't think it is in the case of arthritis. Robofish (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining for most people, and usually not noticeably singling out some from all. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not characteristic enough among a plethora of other medical issues. While for some people this might be life-changing, so can be many other things and that by itself is not notable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is too common a condition to require a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 16 September 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:Recipients of the Order of the Sun (Peru)[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 all to Category:Recipients of the Order of the Sun (Peru). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 10 October 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:Recipients of the Order of the Sun (Namibia)[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. An article about the award (Order of the Sun (Namibia)) would be helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Recipients of the Order of the Sun (Namibia)
  • Nominator's rationale This goes against the general rules of WP:OC#AWARD. In general all award cateogries are discoraged. In this particular case there is one person who is in the category. He has a listing in his article of about 10 awards and honorary degrees he has received. This is essentially on the level of an honorary degree. It is not worth categorizating the person by. It just leads to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The recipient is a Namibian. Awards by a coun try to its citizens should be allowed whatever we do to the diplomatic awards. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment However we lack an article Order of the Sun (Namibia). What shows that this is a notable award at all. Actually, what evidence do we have that the award is even an award given by Namibia. I see no one putting forth evidence of this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Official National Order. It is well an official namibian order. see Namibian Government Gazette for official publication. Mimich (talk) 10:35, 25 September 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.

Nobel Laureates by nationality[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, primarily (but not entirely) on procedural grounds. It is not appropriate to address the question of whether Nobel laureates should be categorized by nationality without considering Category:Nobel laureates by nationality and all of its subcategories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete Category:American Nobel laureates
  • Listify and Delete Category:Argentine Nobel laureates
  • Listify and Delete Category:Australian Nobel laureates
  • Listify and Delete Category:Austrian Nobel laureates
  • Nominator's rationale We already categorize people by specific nobel prize received. This category just adds more clutter to already cluttered articles like George Marshall. Even if we could cut him down to just having award categories for the Nobel prize, this would still be one of a lot of categories. We really should avoid categorizing people more than once for the same thing. These people are all going to be in specific national categories for being diplomats, writers, chemists, etc. We do not need these more particular categories, they just lead to more categories. I gave up after the first four because I do not feel like wasting the energy a whole nomination would require unless I can get some indication of support for fixing categories. After having people attack my nominations at CfD at my talk page recently in very belligerent ways, claiming everything here is obscure, I just do not feel like expending the energy to do this all the way unless there is a clear consensus to support this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrative comment. Won't not tagging and listing all the categories create a bit of a skewed sample of opinion? If users who watch the categories aren't aware that they are being discussed for deletion, they won't be participating, and often those who watch particular categories favour their retention, either because they created them or they have been involved in organising/editing them. (Some would say this is actually better because it ensures that those who opine are uninvolved/not attached to the categories, but that's not how we've chosen to do things on WP ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not the 2 Nobel Prize categories that cause most of the clutter at articles like George_Marshall - it's the large number of (what are generally considered to be) lesser awards. DexDor (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This is a perfectly valid and worthwhile use of Categories. I am very concerned about Category clutter, but this category tree is hardly to blame for the problem. This kind of dual categorization is analagous to the way we deal with say, physicists: one category for nationality and another for sub-field of physics. Cgingold (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Category:Nobel laureates is subcatted by nationality and also discipline. This is exactly as it should be. Oculi (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these are used as nationality, not ethnic/racial categories and are therefore appropriate. Should we see Category:Nobel laureates of Fooish descent that ought to go... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These seem to be valid categories per Cgingold and Oculi's arguments. Liz Read! Talk! 14:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- This is an interational award of such prominence that it is an excepotion to the general rule against AWard categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are missing the issue here though. The people are all otherwise in nobel award categories. This nomination only seeks to end the particular subdivision of them by nationality, to end the pactice of them being in 2 categories for getting 1 award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all on both procedurally and substantive grounds.
    Procedurally, the nominator should have taken the few minutes required to include all the sub-cats. Taking only a sample risks skewing the discussion, and also risks a perverse outcome where the precedent apparently set with he sample is not upheld when the others are nominated. (There was a case like that in Irish sporting categories earlier this year, and it created a huge time-wasting wikidrama).
    Substantively, the crucial point is that winning a Nobel is probably the highest accolade in any of the fields to which it applies. Very few awards should be categorised both by discipline and by nationality, but the extraordinary prominence of the Nobel fully justifies it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 17 September 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:Vevo Certified songs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: listify. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 14:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just putting this out there to question whether Vevo certification is a defining aspect of these songs. Not to mention the overcategorization as it is of traditional certifications in many of these same articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just anothe3r minor award category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a defining characteristic, a minor semi-promotional award where the publisher themselves make the award. This isn't even notable to have an article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional use only. Adabow (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify the text content of the category to List of Vevo Certified music videos (see Vevo Certification). This is, as noted above, not a suitable basis for categorization; however, I think that the information would be appropriate for a stand-alone list. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The availability of the Vevo website is limited in other countries, so this page is useful for those who wants to know Vevo-certified songs but Vevo is not available in their countries. If this page should be deleted, then most of the pages introducing other brands should be deleted also. Many of them are for self-promotional purpose. Most of the celebrity singers choose to upload their music videos to their Vevo Youtube accounts and the number of view counts of Vevo's videos are soaring. Therefore, Vevo Certification has significant meanings to many of Youtubers. It's not just a self-promotional tool. --Cat2006house (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't the list, as suggested by Black Falcon, be better for that? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to listify the category as if a list is needed it should be created fom info on the official website (or other RS), not from the category contents. DexDor (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't you realize not a lot of people can access the official website? --58.153.57.92 (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • To me, that only shows that even Vevo doesn't consider their "award" important enough to be shown for a world-wide audience. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Vevo isn't available worldwide because Vevo doesn't have any plans to increase its availability, not because they don't treasure the award or don't think it's important. --58.153.57.92 (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exactly. The award is only available to their target audience, and that is the basic premise of targeted advertising. That is its purpose and they don't care it anyone else sees it, i.e. it has no importance besides its promotional value. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the only place to get this info is the Vevo website, then the accomplishment is non-defining to the song. A list would also require the topic being covered in reliable, third-party sources. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Look, Vevo isn't really a very large company in terms of its actual value. Vevo doesn't want to spend too much money on increasing the availability, not because of target advertising. --42.98.7.73 (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Regardless how Vevo expands, they show the award only to their target audience, which makes it targeted advertising. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If it's really target advertising, as you say, then why did Vevo upload the videos of the singers being awarded Vevo-certified awards on Youtube? These videos can be viewed worldwide. Your statement doesn't make any sense. --119.237.26.30 (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No, they can't. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Regardless, the certification is not a defining aspect of the songs within this category. Try a well-sourced list instead and maybe it will survive. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Are you replying to me both times (as your indentation implies), because I said "Not a defining characteristic" as the first thing in my argument. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Not to you. The indentation is just to indicate it's part of the same chain of conversation with the IPs. I apologize for the confusion. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per Black Falcon. this revision might be helpful. -- Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 13:14, 25 September 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_September_13&oldid=1136102631"