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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The university's official English website uses Bern, notBerne. (Check the copyright notice and the page title) The category should reflect this. - I also just realized there are two duplicate categories with differing names, so I propose consolidation at "University of Bern" WhisperToMe (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Movement against intellectual property[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The existing title was quite inaccurate, as most of the organizations (people, ideas) are not "against" intellectual property as a principle but against the current laws on IP, which is hardly the same. The name of the category is also rather ORish ([1]). I suggest changing it to more neutral (and more correct) "Movement on intellectual property" ([2]), although I have no problem with discussing better names ("Intellectual property movement" may be even better, and is more popular, too ([3])). I hesitate to ask for the entire category to be renamed Free culture movement - the term is as popular as "IP movement" ([4]) but I am not sure if it would encompass every single article in the current category. PS. I am also rather uneasy with the entire split of movements from activism in our category system, but that's a different issue... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the people categorized here are not activists in this area, but just hold some opinions, so this is basically a people by opinion category. It's also POV to say there's a "movement" since displeasure about intellectual property rights arises from the right, the left, libertarians, and pirates/thieves. And nearly all of the categorized folks have some respect for intellectual property rights (mostly wanting to keep their own). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Intellectual property activism (of which this is currently a subcat). Virtually all the activism relating to intellectual property is (in some way) against it - there's very little pro-IP activism, so I don't think we need to spin out this category at all. If it is kept, it would need to be found an acceptable name - I'm not sure any of those suggested by the nominator are satisfactory. Robofish (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 - jc37 00:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category was previously deleted in 2005 and now has been re-created shortly after the CfD for the category of people born on Feb 29 was closed as "no consensus". However, as I read that close, the argument for keeping the category was strengthened by the unique nature of February 29—that it only occurs once every four years. The closer specifically stated, "So while there may be consensus, based upon past discussions, to not categorise the births on the other 365 days of the year; based upon this discussion, there is currently no consensus regarding births on [February 29]." In other words, the decision is hardly an invitation to create categories for people born on the other 365 days of the year, and I would maintain that grouping people by an "ordinary" day of birth in the calendar is obvious overcategorizaiton. All in all, it seems like a great case of WP:BEANS. (If the March 1 category is deleted, there's no need for the parent category, so it too is nominated.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, categorisation by birthday is overkill. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a defining date for the individuals concerned (what, you don't celebrate your own birthday?!) Categories for all dates should be created too. Again, the Italian Wiki has done this, so why isn't it done here? Categories for people born on the 1st March (or 20th April, 15th October, 2nd May, etc) are no less overcat'ing than 1952 births, 1991 births, etc, etc. You link to a discussion from nearly four years ago! Consensus can change (here, I actually linked to a real WP policy, and not a phoney one, in the case of BEANS). Lugnuts (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) We don't take out cues from Italian WP. (2) Categorizing by day is more of an OCAT than by year, for the reason given by Postdlf below. (3) Consensus can change, but the February 29 discussion did not indicate a change about these categories in general. (4) BEANS seems like an entirely appropriate observation (not given as a reason to delete). (5) Actually, now that you mention it—no, I don't celebrate my own birthday. Other people seem to by sending me gifts, but in my life it's pretty much like any other day, as it is for many people I suspect. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are not defined by their birthday, otherwise we'd all have articles. This is nothing more that trivia. --Kbdank71 12:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the person is notable in the first place - then they'd have an article. coming from London isn't notable on its own. Neither is making an American film, but we have categories for those things. Lugnuts (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to link to a policy: WP:NOT"merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia" --Kbdank71 12:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – could this not be done by bot in some way (to produce a list rather than a category) from eg persondata? I don't personally think there is anything much in common between Alfonso Caruana and Arthur Hugh Clough; it is mildly interesting that they were both b. 1 Jan but not defining. Occuli (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about a bot to create and populate the categories from the Persondata info... ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A hidden category, perhaps. Occuli (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not taking a position in just proving information. Try this link. While not perfect, it shows some interesting results. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now While I appreciate Lugnut's efforts to categorize all birthdates, I think that a more global approach on this issue should be used, rather than trying to deal with this on a day-by-day basis. User:Jc37 crafted a closing statement that captures what I think is the case here, which is that February 29 is far more defining that March 1 (or any other date). Kbdank71's argument gave me a good laugh as an argument for deletion, clearly confusing the direction of causality of categories; there are categories for the year and city in which I was born, as well as the college I attended and the municipality in which I live, yet that has nothing to do with my notability or why I don't have a Wikipedia article documenting my exploits and achievements, but if I were notable I would most definitively be included in these categories. As an aid for categorization, I fully support Occuli in suggesting that we develop an approach that uses Persondata to generate categories for basic biographical data, including the other 365 dates of birth. Alansohn (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - consensus is unanimous against categorizing people by date of birth and there has been nothing offered to suggest that consensus has changed. That two people happened to have been born on the same month and day (in the same year, separate years or ever) is trivial. The Italians do it? So what? Since when has it been a good idea to take direction from the Italians? Otto4711 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When in Rome, for instance. Occuli (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely pointless and trivial as a category; March 1 is more than capable of listing births recorded on that date. Hardly analogous to the categories of births by year, as those anchor people to a particular time in history, and they are also useful for maintenance purposes. That one person was born on March 1, 2009 and another was born on March 1, 1909, or March 1, 1009 is not significant nor useful to group as a category. Postdlf (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only. February 29 was debated on 11 April when the result was "no concensus." My comments there still apply save I would like to add that I think those voting for delete are swimming against a tide - a week or two's time somebody else will think another date is relevant and create another category. However much we debate the "need" for these categories, the "want" has already been established. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely why deletion discussions are permitted for categories: To delete categories that some "want" but consensus agrees are not "needed" or otherwise appropriate. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I feel hoisted. (Un)-fortunately, I can see both sides of this argument and will not lose one second of sleep which ever way the discussion goes. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alanshohn's comments above. Cbl62 (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as trivia. What on earth does someone born on 1st March 1517 have in common with someone born on 1st March 1917? Categorising by year of birth groups people who lived through a similar period in history, but this groups people whose lives may have nothing at all in common, not even a shared historical epoch. If we want to make categorisation very finely-grained, it would make more sense to categorise by full d.o.b, such as "people born 1st March 1950". (No, I'm not advocating that, but it would make a lot more sense than this category). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overcategorization. People born on March 1 have no important quality in common from which anything can be deduced, unless we believe in astrology. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP now pursues a policy on not linking dates, in contrast with a few years ago, when everything was linked. I assume this is a sample nomination and that a whole tree of birth date categories is to be deleted ultimately. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Merge two categories that basically cover the same area. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the whole. "Hoteliers" is part of the "chief executives" tree, & supposed to be for owners, chairmen, CEOs. I expect some of these should really be moved to populate the executives cat, for which there are surely more notable candidates. The distinction seems worth preserving. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out that neither article currently included supports the individuals being in the category. So if there are some others then keeping the category may make sense. Or maybe a rewrite of the articles to show that this is defining for the individuals.(sez Vegas?)
"Jacob Truedson Demitz wears The Beverly Hills Hotel’s five-year gold pin, from work 1976-1984 as Front Desk Manager and Duty Manager there" - seems enuf. Boesky should be in the hoteliers (for the same hotel) if his exact title is unmentioned. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So those are executive positions? I think the problem there is the question, what makes being an executive for a single hotel defining? Maybe for a few hotels, say one with 5,000 rooms might qualify or maybe based on some other significant criteria. But then this raises the issue of being POV. For me this category might be more correctly named Category:Hotel company executives which would more likely be defining for the individuals. But then how is this really different from Category:Hoteliers? Is the action her to merge both into Category:Hotel company executives? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Hotel executive" is far more descriptive of the role that best captures the individuals included in the category. Alansohn (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting a reverse merge? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There is a difference. A Hotel executive is a manager of a hotel company. A hotelier will usually be the proprietor: one is the owner, the other the manager. Possibly merge both to Category:Hotel managers. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I don't see the need for a separate category here, given that they cover similar ground, and at least some of the people in these categories belong in both. I don't have any strong preferences on the name of the merged category, though; either of these would be appropriate, or the Category:Hotel managers suggested above. Robofish (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
