Category:Norwegian artists who have sold 1 million+ records[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) 00:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a useful categorization.--Lenticel(talk) 23:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had it been part of a systematic scheme, I'm sure it would be useful, but until such a scheme is established I don't see any justification for keeping this category. __meco (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. See "Musician categories - A" below. Kbdank71 13:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - unnecessary eponymous categories per extensive precedent. Material is interlinked through text and/or template. Otto4711 (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of Category:X Japan I have no objections, just the suggestion of a respective guideline amendment that reflects said extensive precedent, in order to strengthen future rationales for similar proceedings. – Cyrus XIII(talk) 22:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, very good. Be sure then to make future proposals more transparent by citing the guideline right away. :) – Cyrus XIII(talk) 01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Both are categories containing many articles and are essential containers for the subcategories. (Category:Yellowcard members is missing or has gone astray.) Contrast with the drifting category Category:ZZ Top members where extra work has to be done outside the category structure to discover other articles related to ZZ Top. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not in any possible way essential, as everything in the category is accessible through the main articles for the bands, which is where anyone with any interest in the band is going to start their search for the material. Otto4711 (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And by "extra work," do you mean clicking on the link to the band's article that is contained within the members category? Oh my, such a burden! Otto4711 (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. There is a lot of precedent, but there are a lot of keeps here. (drive-by CFD'ing? Let's please assume good faith) Consensus can change, I recommend revisiting this issue on an larger scale . Kbdank71 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete all per extensive precedent. All material is interlinked through text and in most cases template and none of these eponymous categories are warranted. Otto4711 (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note you've missed out Category:ABBA. I have more sympathy with a bulk nom like this rather than picking off single categories apparently at random but would like some rationale (Category:Bryan Adams and Category:ABBA seem similar at first glance and I've heard of both). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left off ABBA because I don't object to the category. I included Bryan Adams because the contents are almost entirely people he's collaborated with who are interlinked through their various articles, but I didn't want to remove them lest I be accused of emptying the category before nominating it. Otto4711 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I'm on Category:Alice in Chains, if I remove stuff like their songs and albums (which already are in appropriate sub-categories) from this category, leaving only the band and its discography it would be okay, right? indopug (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda with Indopug. I created the category and promited the band and discog to FA and FL. Why should it be deleted? Burningclean[speak] 23:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not seeing a justification for deletion under that "per extensive precedent". Which precedent? I'm not aware of one. The fact the nominator excluded ABBA indicates there probably isn't one. In any case, these categories are useful (they help navigate in areas where a navbox isn't appropriate) and do no harm. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is Wikipedia:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people and the precedent is the hundreds of eponymous categories just like these which have been deleted. WP:NOHARM is not a reasonable argument and anyone interested in information on a band or its albums is likely to navigate to them through the band's article. Otto4711 (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, thanks for the assumption of good faith and for all intents and purposes calling me a liar. Appreciate it. Otto4711 (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more closely at Wikipedia:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people I find that one Otto4711 has written some of it: see eg this diff. In particular the linked cfd for ZZ Top seems an extremely tenuous justification: 3 editors have opined (1 being Otto4711) and come out 2 to 1 (had I contributed it would have been 2 to 2). This is not the sort of consensus upon which a guideline can be based. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are mostly individuals. I'm not sure why a guideline for an individual has been extended to a band, an entity with a completely different dynamic. (And Cat:Rick Astley survived its recent cfd.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That CFD close was no consensus and was IMHO a wrong closure, since it relied on people citing the parent category with no regard to the consensus that has emerged over the past year regarding these sorts of categories. The simple point remains unrefuted that anyone interested in a band or an individual artist or that person or group's albums or songs is going to start their search by typing the band's name into the search box and that the band's article is going to serve as a navigational hub, since it will have links to the band's discograpy and members. These categories are not necessary and not useful. I am saddened that you are for all intents and purposes single-handedly trying to undo a year-long consensus that was established over the course of many CFDs. Otto4711 (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I can undo a consensus on my own, then it wasn't one. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most or all - I'm not up to (healthwise) a full-blown discussion, but I'm fundamentallly in agreement with the arguments made by Roundhouse0. I did check out 4 of these categories at random a couple of days ago (Bryan Adams, Alice in Chains, Apoptygma Berzerk, and Atomic Kitten) and found that they all have (or could easily have in the case of Bryan Adams) 3 sub-cats plus loose articles, which certainly meets any common sense test as a rationale for having a parent cat to group them together for navigational purposes. That's what this is all about. Cgingold (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the standard, which has been arrived at over the course of literally hundreds of CFDs, is not "could there be subcats" or whatever. It's "does the main article serve as an appropriate navigational hub?" In every case here, the main article does serve as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, you are 100% correct Otto4711... but in practise, with so many editors on board, with so many different interpretations of the manual, it doesn't necessarily fly that way. Tedious, or poorly structured articles (for example) can prove to be nothing more than a frustrating navigational hub for headaches. Even the most well written and well structured articles on Wikipedia are often riddled with ambiguous links, or links which have the potential of becoming ambiguous rather quickly as editors busily continue to merge, delete, rename, and change redirect targets. A rock-solid advantage of navigating categories, is the fact that their contents are not subject to link ambiguity or text-case conflicts, and never lie about spelling, even when articles themselves have been incorrectly named. Furthermore, casual users are unlikely to ever seek information about a particular band using typical category terms like "RCA recording artist" or "Bands established in 1997" (or whatever)... they are going to be looking for that band by name, and there's really no reason why they shouldn't be provided with a quick, no-BS, ambiguity-free overview of all its related articles at a glance, especially when that option already exists, and is currently only a click away. I fully agree that not every band requires it's own category, but many do, especially if it reduces the high number of tiny categories that are likely to be created in their absence. From a personal viewpoint, I fail to see any good reason to fragment these groups of related articles, which would probably make little sense to most casual users grouped any other way. WikHead (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that you agree that not every musical artist needs an eponymous category. All I am trying to do here is prune some of the ones that don't need them, per the compromise or consensus or whatever one wants to call it that was hammered out over a year ago. If consensus of this particular set of categories are deemed so vital to navigation that they are kept, that does not IMHO mean that the principle of clearing out eponymous overcategorization has changed. Otto4711 (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Cgingold. Common sense test. Guideline is wrong-headed. Any topic with multiple associated articles and sub-categories should be mutually navigable via the category interface. — CharlotteWebb 15:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on precedent "I think it is quite appropriate to cite policy, tradition, and precedent with reference to specific cases. I also think it is inappropriate to treat each new specific case as being unique without reference to those long established principles." [1] Feel free to tell me how that doesn't apply here, and besides, he said that way back in July of 2007. --Kbdank71 13:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was more of a compromise than a consensus. We agreed to stop fighting about the band category deletions as long as the only deletions were for band categories that only contained members, albums, songs, discography, and a lead article. That's why it's okay for Otto to support the deletion of these but not support the deletion of the ABBA category, because the ABBA category has more content that's outside the bounds of that compromise. I still support the concept of having categories whose sole purpose is to unite other categories under them, but I'm not going to vote that way while this compromise is in effect.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with question. Hey Mike, when you said "for band categories that only contained members, albums, songs, discography, and a lead article", did you really mean to say "members, albums, songs, and discography SUBCATEGORIES"? I ask this, because the way I understood it from the few CfD's I've been involved with in the past, is that band categories are frowned upon, only if they serve as nothing more than a container for SUBCATEGORIES. You see, in my case, I've become a rather frequent editor of the April Wine articles... and I was at one point, about to create an April Wine members category, as Myles Goodwyn was not categorised with his band at that time. Before creating that category however, I noticed that it had once been deleted by a former creator, the moment that IT was nominated for CfD (only member in the band with his own article). Rather than recreating the same mess, I created Category:April Wine to serve that purpose, and also to contain a video article, and other related articles that I'm working on. An article about second video (a VHS tape) will probably be added to that category by early next week (if it still exists)... along with another member article, the moment I'm able to find valid references to back up what I have written. My point is that if this category gets deleted, I'll only be inclined to create other smaller categories (that's plural) to facilitate what exists and what I'm currently working on. To me, it makes more sense to simply just leave the category that exists, and allow me to be constructive within it. WikHead (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant subcategories. Regardless of what happens with the ubercategories, those songs, albums, and members categories should be created, and their articles should not be in the main category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for your comments Mike. I hadn't realised until now, that it was actually YOU who nominated "Category:April Wine members" for deletion (on March 24, 2007) because it contained only one article. I now get the impression however, that you have changed your mind, and are suggesting the category should exist after all... along with "Category:April Wine videos", which would also contain only one article. I believe a SINGLE eponymous category in this case is far more effective than creating TWO categories that are obviously not large enough to support their own existence. The existing eponymous "Category:April Wine" is at least serving a wider purpose, which in turn is "preventing" over-categorisation and future CfD annoyances. I get the feeling that anyone attempting to create those smaller categories would immediately have other editors all over them like hair on a gorilla (example). -- WikHead (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:COMMON. A main category is very useful to navigate from a subcategory to another one. Europe22 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. See "Musician cats - A" above. Kbdank71 13:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - unnecessary eponymous category containing only the band's article and album subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band (of which I know nothing beyond the article) has a long history and spawned several other bands which could reasonably be added to the category, as could various members who do not as yet have articles. I have not grasped the rationale behind the objection to eponymous categories: if we have a band XYZ, then it will have songs, members, videos, offshoots etc, and Category:XYZ is the obvious place to gather all these. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The objection, which has been stated over and over and over and over again, is that eponymous categories are overcategorization unless the material about the person (or in this case band) is so voluminous and complex that the article about the person or band can't reasonably serve as a navigational hub. That is not the case here as the lead article can easily serve as the hub and the category is not warranted. This has been established in what probably now amounts to at least 200 CFDs over the course of the last year. Otto4711 (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of navigation within categories is to make the category structure self-sufficient within category space. One eponymous category per band/person is hardly over-categorisation. Deleting 200 such is however grossly over-cfd-ing and leaves random holes in the category tree. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing random about it, nor are they "holes" because not every person or band who has a Wikipedia article needs a category named after it. If that were the case then every single article here, which is going to have other articles that are related to it, would qualify for its own category. Are you really suggesting that we adopt the standard of a category for every person? The deleted categories were deleted for very specific reasons, those being that there was insufficient material to warrant their existence because everything in them is adequately interlinked and the main article, which is where 99.9999999% of people interested in a topic are going to start looking, links everything together. Otto4711 (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Kbdank71 14:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency with the article. No need for the abbreviation.--BelovedFreak 16:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete as a test creation two similar categories were created.}} Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created for a company that barely merits a single article, unlikely ever to contain any other articles. Editor who created it appears not to grasp the concept of categorization. Russ(talk) 12:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete as a test creation two similar categories were created. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicative of Category:MTG; apparently created by an editor who didn't grasp the basic concept of categories. Russ(talk) 12:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as likely to be confused with the rapid transit system categories / subway categories, and be improperly populated. 70.55.89.134 (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Kbdank71 14:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [Rethink - see below] This is a recent creation - there needs to be some limit to these categories otherwise some well-travelled footballer like Adrian Mutu will be in about 20 of them (each intersected with several doping categories). Immigrant/emigrant/expat ... -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Émile Mpenza is a good example of category proliferation. I'm not sure what the answer is. (The list actually only covers the Premier League.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Support above comment. Dozens of similar categories should also go. Djln --Djln (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What if it was of the "People who have played football outside of their country?" type? CelarnorTalk to me 18:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find this an important class of categories to keep. It is a transparent scheme for keeping track of such fottballers. __meco (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy delete G7 as below. BencherliteTalk 12:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough articles on the subject to warrant a category. GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, original author supports deletion - see this edit to my talk page. Speedy delete per CSD G7, tagged as such. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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, although Peterkingiron's idea of "foo of Monaco" has some weight. Kbdank71 14:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This probably looks like nitpicking (and it is), but what the hey ... While not technically a "spelling error" and thus not eligible for speedy renaming, in my experience "Monégasque" is by far the most common form of this word outside of WP, even in English. The entry in the Oxford English Dictionary is spelled "Monégasque", with alternate acceptable spellings being listed as "Monagasque" and "Monegasque". My google search gives 151,000 hits with the no-diacritic version and 343,000 hits for the diacritic version. (For those keeping score, "Monagasque" gets only 2650 hits.) Yes, I know this isn't a French-language wiki and while use of the diacritic is not absolutely necessary in English, its use definitely makes the word "more correct", in my opinion. Not using it in English is similar to writing "cafe" instead of "café" or (for perhaps a more on-point example) "Burkinabe" instead of "Burkinabé". I would have no problem with keeping redirects if desired. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the current way is correct, and this is not an article, it would be easier to use the unaccented version than an accented one, hence enhancing usability. 70.55.89.134 (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—dictionaries vary in the form they give this word. Merriam-Webster has it as unaccented. The nominator did not restrict his search to English; doing so gives a clear majority to "Monegasque" (92,700 versus 35,700. Spacepotato (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it's not "wrong", but it's like "cafe" vs. "café". English has no native diacritic marks with the letter "e", so of course other language writers are more likely to use the diacritical version. Google also reveals more than twice as many English-language pages that use "Burkinabe" than "Burkinabé", but WP uses "Burkinabé". Google English-language search also reveals 16 million pages that use "cafe" to 3½ million that use "café", but the article is at café. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have given evidence that we should use cafe instead of café and Burkinabe instead of Burkinabé. This is the English-language Wikipedia and so we should use the terminology used in English. What forms are preferred by languages other than English is not relevant. Spacepotato (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are simply applying the interpretation you want and obviously you didn't understand the interpretation that I was implying but didn't spell out. So here it is: the evidence could also be used to demonstrate that WP avoids the use of alternate spellings that only English uses when there are other English spellings that are also used in other languages. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC
This is a possible interpretation of how Wikipedia editors have behaved in these cases, but we have normative conventions which prescribe different behavior. Spacepotato (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; if I nominated the "Burkinabé" categories for a change to "Burkinabe", would you personally support it then? I think we should be formatting these adjectives according to one set of principles and not be applying different principles for different nationalities, which from the above examinations appears to be the current situation. (I find it hard to believe though that, for example, suggesting a move from Category:Zürich to Category:Zurich would result in a successful move.) At the end of the day, though, in modern English printed form not on the internet, I still find the accented version of Montégasque to be more common — and in my area of work I run into the term quite often — regardless of what the google search reveals (which is probably more a result of English-language typists who don't know how to apply accents than any accurate reflection of use in professionally printed matter (see comment below on difficultly of using accents)). Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Monegasque is already obscure and adding accents goes too far. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally favour changing all Fooian cats to 'of Foo'. 'People of Monaco' is greatly preferable to Monagesque. There was even Nigerien (of Niger, rather then a misspelled Nigerian). We did this with towns (and lost 'Liverpudlians', much better known than Marshallese or Equatoguinean). I do object to the proliferation of accents, Goran Đorović for instance. This seems to close off much of English wiki to editing by English speakers. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Since it is not easy on computer keyboards to type letters with accents, this change would be of no help whatsoever to the user trying to find these entities in WP. Actually, a detriment. Hmains (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia's use of accents has already gone far enough. I don't think that we need further proliferation of characters that no one will be able to type. CelarnorTalk to me 18:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No strong opinion but if the outcome is rename, please keep the old versions as redirects. Changing all to "of Monaco" might be better still. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all for accuracy; the concerns regarding usability are addressed by the possibility of redirects... While we should strive to use English when possible, we should not do so at the expense of technical accuracy. Black Falcon(Talk) 00:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that the accented form is more accurate? Spacepotato (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malawi should be Malaŵi (see its infobox). Mozambique is Moçambique. However I think accents are dropped in English. (English doesn't have accents as far as I am aware. Depot. Debris. Naive. These are English words adopted from French which would put accents on each.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) While accents are generally dropped in English, they are at times retained even in common usage (e.g. Café, Tansu Çiller). Moreso than in everyday usage, I think that a reference work should seek to preserve as much of the original form of a foreign-language term as reasonably possible, especially when there is the option of creating redirects from the non-accented terms. If the non-accented form of a term overwhelmingly predominates in English-language sources (as is the case with "Malawi" and "Mozambique"), then I agree that we should use the non-accented forms; however, it doesn't seem to me that Monegasque is substantially more common than Monégasque, especially in academic sources (see Monegasque vs. Monégasque in Google Books). Black Falcon(Talk) 15:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Roundhouse is right in supposing that English has no accents. It simply does not(, to state the obvious). English has become the de facto (primary) world language so there is a feeling amongst many people (as it undoubtedly seems) that English therefore should cater to retaining the non-English qualities of non-English names (the opposite of anglicizing them, as formerly happened), as names identify places and people at a fundamental level and therefore in doing so are sanct. To retain this sanctity is a noble goal, that unfortunately the apparatus that is the English language with its current conventions is not equipped to handle. English seems to be evolving towards general use of diacritics with the gradual spread of computer ability for the use of these non-English symbols but at present their use is (still) akin to a form neologism. Mayumashu (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the extent to which the English language is equipped to handle the use of accents, but Wikipedia can handle it through the use of redirects... Black Falcon(Talk) 15:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I see no accents used where they are typically used in other reference books, I think: "laziness". (Note: I'm not actually suggesting anyone here is lazy; I'm just saying what I instinctively think, which is no doubt wrong and judgmental, but I think it nonetheless.) So I think: People writing in English are just too lazy to figure out how to do it. It's not "hard", as we consistently hear. Those who say it is just haven't bothered to figure it out because they couldn't be bothered to do it or are lazy. Quality reference works should strive for better, IMO. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. Kbdank71 14:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge, "BY Dra" is an abbreviation for "BY Draconis" (we're talking about stars, here). I wouldn't mind renaming to "BY Draconis variable stars" for clarity, but apparently all the variable star categories just end in "variables", so I'll leave that to a more full nomination on another day. Notified creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, cats have identical definition. Spacepotato (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they did not until you changed them, which is typically not a good idea mid-CFD. Many editors like to see how the categories looked at the time of nomination. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the main article, not the definition. Spacepotato (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the main article, they had/have no definition. Are you saying they were the same because there were no definitions? If so, I'm not sure I understand the relevance of nothing being there in both (apart from the main articles, which were different). If that's what you meant by the "identical definition", I'm not sure I understand fully what you're getting at. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A definition is a criterion that enables you to tell what should be put in a category. Presumably, a star should be put in Category:BY Dra variables if and only if it is a BY Dra variable and Category:BY Draconis variables if and only if it is a BY Draconis variable. As "BY Dra" is an abbreviation for "BY Draconis", these two criteria are identical and so the definitions are the same. This is what I meant by my earlier remark. Spacepotato (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks; I think I was thinking explicit def'ns whereas you were referring to implied def'ns. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom - it is one category under 2 names. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.—agree with rationale, and "BY Draconis variables" is much clearer.—RJH (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 while cleanup is performed, to be renominated at that time if necessary. Kbdank71 13:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge, Wikipedia's definition of hobby is exactly leisure activity. You will will see it at once when you look into both categories' contents: Birdwatching is classified as "leisure activity", while Butterfly watching is a hobby :-) `'Míkka>t 00:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but sort better. Snowball fighting is not a hobby; a hobby must be capable of having several books written about it (like Birdwatching). But now see below too. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod. Looks like a sorting issue rather than a case of pure duplication. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No merge and Comment - This is a very odd set of categories. To begin with, it's rather perplexing that Category:Hobbies is not a sub-cat of Category:Leisure activities. As a matter of fact, almost everything currently in Category:Leisure really ought to be moved into Category:Leisure activities, since they all, with few exceptions, involve activities of some sort. Outside of a few completely sedentary things, such as sleeping, meditating, or sitting in a chair and thinking, pretty much everything people do can be characterized as a form of activity. For that matter, even meditating and thinking might be considered types of activity by some. (In a nutshell, mental activities are no less activities than physical activities.) At any rate, that's how it looks to me. The only things I would leave in Category:Leisure are the handful of articles that deal with leisure in purely conceptual terms. Cgingold (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good idea, and support. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup. Based on these comments and the category contents, it appears that a good cleanup is required. If after that there are some categories that need deleting, then we can discuss. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
