Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 28 March 2 >

March 1[edit]

Category:Adherents of Judaism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Adherents of Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is just a more general version of subcategories under Jewish denominations (e.g., Orthodox Jews). shirulashem (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is this category any different from Category:Christians? Should that be deleted too?
  • Delete. If allowed to be populated, this category would contain thousands of articles about believing Jews, who are already categorized under the many sub-categories of "Category:Jew". People like Noam Chomsky who do not adhere to Judaism already have their own category, "Jewish Atheists." Yoninah (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had seen this recently on an article and was baffled as to where this was supposed to fit in the category structure. As it appears to overlap with other existing categories and as it appears to add nothing to assist navigation, I don't see a purpose for keeping it, unless I can be convinced otherwise. Alansohn (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The headnote says

    This category includes people who adhere to Judaism. This category is different from the Jews category because not all Jews practice or accept Judaism as their religion (e.g. Noam Chomsky).

    This is a valid rationale for the existence of the category, but there may be value in having a category for oterhtwise uncategorised religious Jews. It should however be a temporary category until they can be asdsigned to a more specific one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Brewcrewer and Yoninah.--Shuki (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Brewer. And who decides what level of observance is adherence? We have categories for the self-identified levels of Judaism, such as Category:Orthodox Jews, if anything we should create objective categories for Conservative and Reform, and not a subjective category called "Adherent". -- Avi (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. i agree with brewcrewer (wow! ;) ) and avraham. with the variance in interpretations of what consists of 'proper' judaism across many sects, who is to decide who is a proper "adherent" and who is not? untwirl(talk) 23:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, wait, wait! Let's discuss this some more. Wow. First of all, to all the comments that are similar to "who is to decide who is a proper "adherent"". People are only in the category if they explicitly state they adhere to Judaism. Also Yoniah, the statement was meant to stop people who thought Judaism was only a religion from deleting the category, not to include him in the category. Anyway, whatever the name of the category should be, there still needs to be either a category specifically for Practicing Jews, or one for people who are not Practicing Jews; in other words there really should be a way to distinguish the practicing Jews from the people who are just Jewish by birth (if you disagree, please say why). There are also a number of Jews who state that their religion is "Judaism" but do not state their denominations; what should we do with those? I apologise for the delayed response.Parthian Scribe 05:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parthian Scribe, I don't agree with your logic. Do we have categories for Practicing Catholics or Non-Religious Muslims? Why the focus on practicing or non-practicing Jews? Also, doesn't Category:Orthodox Jews mean that these Jews are practicing Judaism? A generic category called "Practicing Jews" would probably open up a can of worms as to what "Judaism" means — does "practicing" mean Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, or something else entirely? Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parthian, the problem is that this category is misleading in its simplicity. Who's to say what an adherent to Judaism is? An Orthodox Jew might say that someone who observes the halacha (i.e., a Shomer Torah uMitzvos) is an adherent to Judaism. But that's certainly not what a Reform Jew would say. The criteria for inclusion in a category should not be open to debate, but this category's criteria certainly are. I disagree that there must be a generic category for "practicing Jews". This is accomplished by putting the subject in a category of Orthodox Jews, Reform Jews, etc. You say you want to distinguish between people who are just Jewish by birth and people who are practicing Jews. This can be done by using the category Secular Jews. shirulashem (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yoniah, having a category for Practicing Catholics wouldn't make sense because all Catholics by definition adhere to Catholicism anyway. A category for adherents of Judaism is different, since it is possible for a Jew to be a lifelong Hindu but still be Jewish. Having a category for adherents of each sect of Judaism doesn't really cover everyone either. Shirulashem, a Secular Jews category like you mentioned might be a good idea; assuming Jews of all faiths other than Judaism are included. Parthian Scribe 03:39, 8 March 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:Prison sentencing[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy merge and delete per creator request (see below). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Prison sentencing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As it stands now, this category is redundant to a number of other pre-existing categories, including Category:Penology, Category:Penal imprisonment, and Category:Imprisonment and detention. I don't think we need this one to add to the already-confusing mix. There is no need to merge the contents anywhere as they are appropriately categorized already. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY Merge to Category:Sentencing (law) at author's request (WP:CSD#G7). I didn't realize this already existed, but had I known at the time, I simply would have placed these articles into it. Shaliya waya (talk) 01:29, 2 March 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:Photo Incentive 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: delete (has remained empty). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Photo Incentive albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete My first CfD so please be gentle. It's a category of one article, which is currently at AfD. Regardless of whether or not it's deleted, a category of one appears to be overkill. Note also the band is a red link (deleted at AfD in Dec. 2008) StarM 20:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yes, there's only one entry, hardly a category. Belasted (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe one article in the category has now been deleted, so I guess there's no reason not to delete the category. Belasted (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment agreed but I don't know protocol for speedying CfDs. Assume someone will be along StarM 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment it should be gone in a few minutes. Belasted (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy keep. Nom is not entirely sure what she's doing. LOL--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as empty. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:07, 4 March 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:Films shot in 65mm[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Films shot in 70mm for consistency with other subcategories of Category:Films by technology. (Close is without prejudice to a future nomination for either deletion of this category or for a broader nomination for this and other subcategories of Category:Films by technology that would propose the other tweaks to the name that the nominator here proposed). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films shot in 65mm to Category:Films shot with 70 mm film
Nominator's rationale: 70 mm film is the same as 65 mm film. As the ladder article redirects to the first one, the category should be named after it as well. Additionally, there should be a space between 70 and mm. Also, saying films with shot with or on 70 mm film sounds better than films shot in 70 mm film. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:20, 1 March 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:1750-1899 fashion[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 to Category:History of clothing (Western fashion). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1750-1899 fashion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category simply makes no sense. There is no logical reason for grouping these years into a single category - fashions from 1750-1795 are more like fashions from 1700-1750 than they are like fashions from 1800-1899. There are no similar fashion categories for long periods. PKM (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are ghosts from a long-gone edit war. We should probably pick something that makes sense to non-specialists and sort everything out. - PKM (talk) 21:26, 1 March 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:Labor relations in the United Kingdom[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) 03:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Labor relations in the United Kingdom to Category:Labour relations in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename to the UK spelling. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to the UK spelling. (Even Cgingold can stray into error.) Occuli (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was just a youngster at the time! Cgingold (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean he isn't CGingold the infallible after all? Otto4711 (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • US/UK spelling changes don't qualify for Speedy -- though perhaps they should in cases like this. Cgingold (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to the UK spelling. obvious. untwirl(talk) 23:14, 4 March 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:United States children rights case law[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) 03:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States children rights case law to Category:United States children's rights case law
Nominator's rationale: Rename, More grammatically correct category name. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 08:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - We certainly don't want to be submitting legal briefs with glaring typos. Cgingold (talk) 05:50, 2 March 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:Georgian pop music groups[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Georgian (country) pop music groups. Kbdank71 20:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally nominated this category for speedy renaming and am bringing it to full CFD now following Good Ol'factory's observation about the lack of disambiguation for categories that use "Georgian". As such, this nomination is intended to test whether there may be support for a large-scale change from "Georgian" → "Georgian (country)". Here is the text of the CFD/S discussion:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 08:59, 1 March 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:Second wranglers[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. Three weeks have passed since the close of the previous debate and no-one took that discussion to DRV. Attempts to turn this discussion into a DRV of the previous debate don't work. Now, if and as the Senior Wranglers category was properly deleted, this category for the runners-up goes too, for consistency. BencherliteTalk 13:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Second wranglers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a procedural request for discussion based on the deletion of Category:Senior Wranglers. –Black Falcon (Talk) 07:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC
  • This gives an account of the national importance attached to Wranglers in the 1800s, eg p205. I might well have made some efforts to provide citations in the cfd if it had been a delete nom rather than an innocent rename request which appeared to be heading towards keep when I last looked at it. Occuli (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for all the same reasons the senior category was deleted. Noting that this is not the appropriate format for rehashing the senior discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the logical follow-up to the previous discussion—for consistency if for no other reason. But I essentially agree with the deletion positions expressed in the previous discussion, though I can see both sides. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People in the prior discussion for Senior Wrangler keep harping on who cares about being valedictorian from some school. They show a severe ignorance of history. In the 19th century, Cambridge was one of the handful of top universities in the world (some would say still). It'd be like comparing Harvard now to Podunk Community College. Making it on the list of Wrangers (as pointed out by Occuli's source) was a source of nationwide celebration and the news would even make it over the Atlantic (I get several substantial NY Times hits from that period). In a prior discussion that resulted in "keep", a source was found that stated "The securing of the top position as Senior Wrangler was regarded, at the time, as the greatest intellectual achievement attainable in Britain and the Senior Wrangler was feted well beyond Cambridge and accorded pre-eminent status among his peers". This fits in with what I know from having read about the intellectual life in that time period. The Senior Wrangler category should never have been deleted, and since all reasons for deleting this one hinge on that, this one should be kept as being the runner-up to a substantial, defining characteristic of famous mathematicians of that time period. --C S (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the same thing as for Senior Wranglers, whatever that ends up being. Everyone seems to agree that they stand or fall together. The place to contest the closing of the previous discussion is DRV, not here. Algebraist 01:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Drv is that way... - jc37 11:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and of course restore Senior Wrangler). Even if one thinks distinctions like "valedictorian" should be deleted, this is much stronger, much more defining, and this fact is well-known to anyone acquainted with the history of mathematics and 19th century education in Britain. This was comparable to being first in the Chinese Imperial examinations, also considered an event of national importance, and something we should have lists and cats for too. A glance at Wrangler (University of Cambridge) should help convince doubters, along with the sources provided above and in the earlier discussions. An earlier commenter noted that just why these particular examinations were thought so important is obscure - this explains the "deletes'" reluctance. But that these distinctions were considered extremely important is not in any historical doubt.John Z (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Once again we see one of the respects in which categories are inferior to lists. I viewed the last deleted version of the Senior Wranglers category to see who was on the list (I'd guess a lot of names that everybody would recognize). But of course, they're not there any more. You can't tell. Categories have no edit histories showing what's been included in them. Somewhere in Wikipedia policies there's something about what to do if a category has been empty for some specified number of days. Guess what: nobody has any way of knowing whether a category has been empty during any specified time period. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While categories have no history of their contents, the edit history of the bot that depopulated the category is available. Here is the full list of articles that were removd from the category. As for knowing whether a category has been empty for a specified period of time, I've seen an innovative approach being used recently: blank the category page and indicate in the edit summary that it is being done so that the category can be deleted in four days if it is still empty. See, for example, here. I hope this helps. –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's quite easy to get back to the list of both Senior, and Second Wranglers. The complete listing is at List of Wranglers of the University of Cambridge, so would be easy to repopulate. Incidentally, I'm a keep for both categories. The status of senior wrangler was extremely significant at the time, with much national prestige being attached to the people who obtained that position. Mrh30 (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep both--a major award of significance in the unique system of 19th century british higher education. DGG (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per my and others' comments in this CfD. - jc37 11:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The delete argument was based on the 'precedent' of Valedictorians which was mentioned explicitly by everyone of the delete persuasion (except Jc37, who introduced a persuasive combination of scouting and personal anguish). Please read through Valedictorian (of whom there will be thousands per annum as every US high school gets one), and the very brief cfd for [:Category:Valedictorians] (a cursory deletion with which I agree completely) and explain how it is a precedent for anything at all (except for the deletion of risible categories). Occuli (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no question that we have similar awards categories. For example, there is Category:Rhodes scholars, or for that matter, any of the subcats of Category:Award winners.
    Last I recall, several Wikipedians were working on pruning that cat, however, due to WP:OC#AWARD. See: Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#Award_winners. - jc37 18:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore Senior Wrangler - both significant achievements and defining characteristics - saying it is just another valedictorian is like saying the Victoria Cross is just another medal. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is quite a persuasive argument. If categories such as this are removed, the logical next step would be to remove categories such as Category:Victoria Cross recipients, which would be a bit ridiculous. Mrh30 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore Category:Senior wranglers. Defining characteristic. To come out top in this trial was considered to have beaten every other would-be mathematician in the whole of Britain in your year. It was seen as carrying immense weight. Jheald (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore Category:Senior wranglers, both of which capture a defining characteristic for the individuals involved and provide an effective means for navigating through similar articles. Alansohn (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent of Senior Wranglers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Second Wranglers and restore Category:Senior Wranglers with that capitalisation. These are titles, and so Wranglers is a proper noun in each case. Since histroically, Cambridge University had a much higher reputation than Oxford for Mathes (and the Sciences), the annual awardee of these titles were the top British mathematics graduate of their year: a notable distinction. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this; restore Category:Senior wranglers, and add soft redirects from the capital=W versions. These are in effect notable medals, and should be kept as the medal cats (which most of the members of the cat belong to). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The comparisons to "valedictorians" are spurious. Senior Wrangler was a matter of international note and importance. Philippa Fawcett was the subject of international news coverage when Cambridge failed to award her the title of Senior Wrangler despite her first-place exam finish, as an easy internet search will reveal; for example "Collegiate Honors". Friends Intelligencer and Journal. 47 (28). Philadelphia: 445. 12 July 1890. Or consider this item: "The announcement that a lady had been placed 'above the Senior Wrangler' caused the greatest excitement throughout the country...".("The mathematical Tripos". Nature. 61 (1580): 346. 8 February 1900.). Note that this article was published ten years after the event itself, but assumes that the reader will know what is being referred to. Here is another: "The English man of business takes about the same interest that the same man in this country takes in who is the star of a football team." ("Senior Wrangler Abolished". The American Educational Review. 30 (11): 519. August 1909.) —Dominus (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are any number of things that the average man (or woman) of business would find absolutely fascinating but that we don't base categories on. Otto4711 (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. My point was that the principal argument against the category, a comparison to "valedictorians", was specious. —Dominus (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is indicative of a general phenomenon in these discussions. Typically, the deleter argues that Senior/Second Wrangler is like being a valedictorian, completely unimportant in the scheme of things. When pointed out this is wrong, rather than withdrawing the "delete" vote, s/he will then implicitly admit it is important, but there are a lot of other important things we don't base categories on. Stick with a reason people. It's hard to argue based on a moving target and it also makes it seem like you're more interested in deleting than in presenting a cogent reason for deletion. --C S (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the closer - While I agree that consensus can change, in this case, there is also the "larger" consensus about such categories as a group. (Rather than just this isolated category.) Therefore, I request that the closer take Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#Award_winners and the CfDs listed there, into consideration of this closure. - jc37 18:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore Category:Senior wranglers. No new arguments from me, it seems to be explained quite clearly above: these were major academic prizes won by a succession of notable people.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So any award is allowed as long as those receiving it are notable? ("Major" being a subjective word.) - jc37 19:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that this isn't just any award. Looking at examples on the overcategorization talk page, this isn't like getting rid of Miss Virginia Teen USA, it's like getting rid of Category:Miss America winners, or in the football comparison above, Category:Heisman Trophy winners. The award isn't famous because notable people won it, these notable people first became famous because they won the award. John Z (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    James Clerk Maxwell became famous because he was a second wrangler? Not in the classes I took. In retrospect, it's a fairly minor aspect of his biography. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because he became more famous for great things later, which of course are what we remember in retrospect. I said "first became famous", which is accurate. That's like using a Heisman trophy winner who later led a team to victory in the Superbowl to argue for eliminating the Heisman trophy category, or using Bill Clinton to eliminate the Rhodes scholar category, which incidentally is much more deleteworthy than the wrangler categories. Of course Senior Wrangler is more notable than Second, but the consensus seems to keep or delete both. Cf Lectures on Ten British Mathematicians of the Nineteenth Century, which says "Senior Wrangler was considered the greatest academic distinction in England." and mentions that the competition became so hypertrophied that it distorted the educational system, which is why people like G H Hardy worked to change it. Or Twentieth century physics by Laurie M Brown, Abraham Pais, A. B. Pippard which says that "to be a Senior Wrangler virtually guaranteed entry into any profession, with rich pickings for those who elected to remain in Cambridge to coach succeeding generations." People built their lives around being Wranglers, and the competition for the honor had major effect on British science education; what could be more defining than that?John Z (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What could be more defining than that? Well, being the prime developer of the electromagnetic theory, for one. He's far from being "defined" as a second wrangler. But I'm unsure why users are re-arguing the senior wrangler issue here. That seems to be an issue for WP:DRV, as has been repeatedly pointed out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) The original question put to me was: is any award notable if the people who won it are? I would respond that as long as the awarding body is also notable (in this case the University of Cambridge) then such an award is definately notable. You might as well ask whether becoming a Category:Knights Commander of the Order of the Bath is notable: it is not the sole cause of notability for anyone, but it is of sufficient interest that those holding the award can be grouped into a category together and listed in an article on the award.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On an additional note, there doesn't seem to be a lot of point in opening a DRV on Senior Wranglers until this discussion is complete. Once this is decided as keep then we can go an restore the other category (which does not seem to have had anything like a sufficient discussion before it was deleted, most !voters clearly misunderstanding the nature of the award). Calling for a restoration of the other category is simple a way of avoiding the discussion: "X was deleted so Y should be too".--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that people are making arguments as if this is the senior wrangler category. It is not, so any arguments related to that category are appropriate for DRV, not here, and will be ignored by a closer. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...will be ignored by a closer. Wanna bet? :-) --C S (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. No admin worth his salt will ever admit to having considered arguments that were about a different category when closing a discussion. Thus, you probably won't be able to prove that the arguments weren't ignored, as they should be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you want to go double or nothing on whether the admin will admit to that.  :-) --C S (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, to make bets that a closing admin will or will not improperly consider arguments relating to other categories sounds like a lame topic of disagreement that isn't typically subject to proof anyway, so what's the point? The underlying principle is that this is not a DRV for the other category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I too might have liked a formal DRV of the other category, the cases are so close that the arguments that would have been in the first wrangler DRV would be identical to the ones here except for their purported aim, so this seems to have become that debate. For people like Maxwell, an atypical member of this category and therefore not a good test case, it is certainly more defining than dying from stomach cancer, say.John Z (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not swayed by the keep arguments above. What everyone seems to forget is that List of Wranglers of the University of Cambridge is by far a better navigation tool since it puts each of these persons in a very useful perspective of their school and the year. This is not what categories are for. While categories and lists can coexist, in this case the need for the category, in addition to the list, is not made. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus does seem to be that lists should be used rather than categories, except for the most notable awards. But contrary to a natural first impression, many sources have been given that show that in fact, in 19th century England, these were "most notable awards". So this argument seems to be against categories for any awards. As quoted above, the (senior) award "virtually guaranteed entry into any profession" so these categories might be particularly useful for putting in context the wranglers who left the sciences and took up other professions. John Z (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And exactly why is this not true from the top graduates from just about every school? And why exactly is the category better then the list? Vegaswikian1 (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true for "the top graduates from just about every school" because, as has been shown in these debates, and is well known to historians, this is in fact a "most notable award", and the consensus is to keep such categories. It was more famous back then than the Fields Medals are now in the USA, IMHO. It got sort of ridiculous, which is why people like G. H. Hardy strove to change the system. The category is better than the list for that class of people - wranglers in other professions, because it alerts readers of such articles about a notable fact about such a person, which they would not likely think to look up in a list. John Z (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't any notable facts about a person be in the article itself? Whether or not they are in other professions? And it's just as easy to add Category:Second wranglers to an article as it is to add "See Also: List of Wranglers of the University of Cambridge". --Kbdank71 13:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is an argument against having nearly any categories at all. It appears most think "the most notable awards" deserve categories for their winners, and that categories are a useful alternative method of navigation.John Z (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per vegas. The list in this case is more useful. The list contains every person who, well, came in second. The category does not, therefore it is less useful. --Kbdank71 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a debate about the second wrangler category, which does tell us this.John Z (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does? List of Wranglers of the University of Cambridge has over 150 years worth of second wranglers listed. The list has every second wrangler, not just the ones that have articles. It has the year they placed, and the college. The category, on the other hand, has only 26 articles in it with no annotations like year or college. So tell me again, how does the category do the same as the list? --Kbdank71 13:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I misread your comment, so I said something stupid. I agree with Alansohn's reply below.John Z (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that a list is more useful directly contradicts WP:CLN, which emphasizes that lists and categories are designed to co-exist. The fact that a list can do things that a category can't is an inherent design feature of Wikipedia, not a flaw in this category or a justification for its deletion. I know that you have a personal bias as to this matter, but that seems to be a rather poor reason to remove a category for those who disagree with you and prefer to navigate through articles using categories. Alansohn (talk) 18:59, 20 March 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.

Healthcare[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. Kbdank71 20:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Chicago to Category:Healthcare in Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Las Vegas to Category:Healthcare in Las Vegas, Nevada
Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Omaha to Category:Healthcare in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Philadelphia to Category:Healthcare in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Pittsburgh to Category:Healthcare in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Nominator's rationale: Per many other predecents adding the state to city names in US categories, and to match other members of the category Category:Healthcare by city of the United States. The items in Las Vegas appear to be entirely at places with LV addresses.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and recent precedents. Occuli (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having a Vegas address is not material! The majority of Vegas addresses are not in the city. In this case, the work to add a metro area category is small so if this rename goes through, adding a metro area category is not a lot of work. For the record, the main post office is about 6 miles outside of the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My suggestion is to update all the "Las Vegas" categories to "Las Vegas, Nevada" and then make those subcategories of "Las Vegas metropolitan area" categories. Although I could also be fine with the solution that the "Las Vegas, Nevada" parent category be redefined to include the unincorporated communities of Paradise and Summerlin (not Henderson and such), and all its subcategories follow that rule.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My position has been to rename to Las Vegas metropolitan area categories since the members would always be correctly contained. Then if someone wants to split out the city they can. BTW, about 2/3s of Summerlin is in the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll withdraw the Las Vegas nomination, and nominate a bunch of Las Vegas categories later on.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom This provides information for the reader that they should not have to guess at--namely, the U.S. state in which the city is located Hmains (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - And neutral between Mike's and VW's preferred implementation. Either is fine as long as whichever is selected, it's "finished" : ) - jc37 10:37, 5 March 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.

Cemeteries[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. Kbdank71 20:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Atlanta to Category:Cemeteries in Atlanta, Georgia
Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Baltimore to Category:Cemeteries in Baltimore, Maryland
Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Chicago to Category:Cemeteries in Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Cincinnati to Category:Cemeteries in Cincinnati, Ohio
Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Nashville to Category:Cemeteries in Nashville, Tennessee
Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Omaha to Category:Cemeteries in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Philadelphia to Category:Cemeteries in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Pittsburgh to Category:Cemeteries in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Propose renaming Category:Jewish cemeteries in Omaha to Category:Jewish cemeteries in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming Category:Burials in Baltimore to Category:Burials in Baltimore, Maryland
Propose renaming Category:Burials in Chicago to Category:Burials in Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming Category:Burials in Los Angeles to Category:Burials in Los Angeles, California
Propose renaming Category:Burials in Omaha to Category:Burials in Omaha, Nebraska
Nominator's rationale: Per many other predecents adding the state to city names in US categories, and to match other members of the category Category:Cemeteries by city and Category:Burials by city in the United States. This doesn't seem to have the outside-the-city-limits issue, except for the mind-boggling Pittsburgh category, which includes cemeteries from seven counties.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and recent precedents (and move the 1 or 2 non-Pittsburgh articles into the Pennsylvania parent?). Occuli (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename cemeteries, delete burials. Even though I know I have no chance of toppling this particular windmill in this CFD, I still feel compelled to state that where one is buried in all but some extraordinary cases (maybe Poets’ Corner, maybe at sea), is not a defining characteristic. Individual decedents may have no input into where they are buried and may indeed be buried somewhere they would not have wanted to be. Remains can also be moved following burial so the characteristic is mutable. Even if the cemetery in which one is buried is defining, surely the city or state is not and those buried within the city limits of a particular city have no encyclopedic relationship to one another past coincidence of burial. Otto4711 (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each of the burials categories in this nom is an umbrella category containing only subcats, so Otto is this case is tilting at non-existent windmills. Occuli (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate Otto's contention, but I don't think it's what this nomination is about.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that's not the main thrust of the nomination but should the categories come up for deletion later no one can say that I had the chance to make the point about the city-level categories and didn't. As for these being only container categories, if I were feeling particularly cantankerous I'd go find some of the CFDs in which Occuli hung his keeper's hat on considering the contents of sub-categories to be contents of the main categories and note the sweet, sweet irony that a reversal of position for the sake of convenience always brings. But I'm not feeling particularly cantankerous today. Maybe tomorrow. Otto4711 (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meshuggah would be one. No irony or reversal that I can see. Is this perhaps another illusory windmill? Occuli (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, I'd like these nominations for cantakerousness-free. I don't actually disagree with Otto on the subject of burials, but I think that's got to be hit at the root categories, not these fringeworthy ones.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It continues to disturb me that a routine renaming would turn into agenda pushing for categories one editor decides he doesn't like. These categories record a defining characteristic about the individuals so organized and provides a means to group and navigate through such articles. CfD is pretty much as screwed up as it ever was with any semblance of an understanding that categories are about navigation lost to some editors. Alansohn (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match articles, if the article is at City not City, State then keep the cat to match. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom This provides information for the reader that they should not have to guess at--namely, the U.S. state in which the city is located Hmains (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per Hmains. Yoninah (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match articles per Carlossuarez46. It should be pointed out that this means only the Nashville and Omaha categories would change; the others would be kept. Rklear (talk) 06:55, 5 March 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:Creator (religion)[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. Kbdank71 20:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Creator (religion) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category is defined as being "intended for religious ideological concepts of diverse philosophy, which include the terms 'Creator,' or, 'Creativity,' in reference to an individual adherent, or deity." As such, this is inappropriate categorization by shared name, with nothing else linking the articles so categorized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see the sort of coherent organizing principle needed for a valid and useful category. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but there is a Creator as Cgingold has just notified him/her/it. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well-spotted ... these templates are more powerful than I suspected. Occuli (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be some confusion here: I only notified the creator, not The Creator. Cgingold (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Avi (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know what I was thinking. It was a bad idea, so junk it. --Tacosunday (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC) (Note: Tacosunday is the category's "creator". Cgingold (talk) 20:41, 4 March 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:Abduction claims[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 since this has been "repurposed" mid-CFD to include "non-alien" abduction claims. That repurposing would make the nomination and support moot, and the request to rename to "alien abduction reports" is also unworkable, as the only things in "abduction claims" are the "mormon sex in chains", which isn't alien, and "alien abduction reports". That leaves the remainder of the discussion, which is heavily in favor of deletion. Kbdank71 15:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abduction claims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Question Re Category:Abduction phenomenon: I think that should be renamed to Category:Alien abduction phenomenon. However, as you know, the main article was recently renamed to "Alien abduction". Would you support renaming that article to "Alien abduction phenomenon" (which was also suggested by another editor)? Cgingold (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category should be 'phenomena' (plural). Occuli (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless somebody makes a persuasive case to the contrary, I will modify my proposal to utilize this name. Cgingold (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this illogical. 'Abduction claims' are the claims of abduction, and 'alien abduction claims' are claims which are a subset of that. The Mormon sex in chains case is a valid claim of abduction, and obviously not one of alien abduction. If the category is to reflect real life (no irony intended) then it needs to cater for both aliens and weirdos! I think the existing category should remain, and a sub category for Aliens should be created. So, in summary, oppose rename and support subcategorisation, which, by the way, we can and should do without this discussion! After all, the Mormon case does need to be categorised as a claimed abduction! (and yes, I was the editor who added it to the category under discussion.) Where else would it go? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do see why this proposal has been made, but I think the "problem" is also that the category also needs to be a member of additional categories to widen its "obvious" scope to embrace (if that is the right word) non alien abductions. In that way it increases the benefit to the encyclopaedia without diluting its use. We need to think of broader matters than a simple narrowing of this individual category, and thus bring real additional value to the project, surely? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at this some more. The issue is definitely with the original name when created, but, now it's here, putting it in the category Kidnappings which I have, opens the way for the simple creation of Category:Alien abduction reports as a sub category of Category:Abduction claims, and the simple recategorisation of the current members except (at present) Mormon sex in chains case. As far as I can see this solves the entire problem and adds value to Wikipedia's category scheme. It's not even particularly arduous to do manually if necessary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been bold and done that thing. New cat, made it a subcat of this cat, recatted the prior contents of this cat. Put new cat in relevant cats. Looks clean now. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking I agree with you. I think that this was possibly "accidental use" of CfD on the basis that the solution was present if one stood far enough back to look at it, and didn't really involve or invoke the CfD process "as designed". It's not as if the category and the proposal were controversial or really needed a huge discussion. So a little boldness coupled with judicious use of WP:IAR and were are there or thereabouts. I can't see a reason currently for losing "abduction claims". It is simply underpopulated. it could hold articles like Johnny Gosch for example, where nothing has every been proven. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care enough either way over this to put a case for it, but the issue is that no-one ever proved that the poor kid was kidnapped, thus it remains a claim. That one has also ended up with a load of wacko conspiracy theories, too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename, and the create a parent category for abduction claims and fix the categorization of the few articles (one article) that need recategorziation. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now we need to evaluate the merits of the "new" repurposed Category:Abduction claims. I'm not sure it's necessary (or even desirable) to have a category that is focused on claims of abduction, especially if there is only one article. But I'd like to hear from other editors on this question. Cgingold (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong suggestion that we move that discussion to the category talk page for the present. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nominated category now that it has been "re-purposed". Jeez, what a mess. You know, it is quite confusing to other editors when we come across these nominations and editors have chosen to completely rejigger things mid-discussion. To me, this is a good example of a re-jiggering that was obviously well-meaning, but ultimately not terribly useful. As things originally stood, it was relatively clear to me that the category was intended for alien abduction claims and that Mormon sex in chains (har, har, HAR) was just mistakenly included. So I would have supported the original nomination rationale to simply rename the category. I don't see a need for a category for non-alien abduction claims—it's too much like one of those "alleged" categories with all the problems that accompany them. Category:Kidnappings already exists and seems to me to be a sufficient category for all things kidnapping. Are there really tons more articles like Mormon sex in chains that are searching for a home? Not that I can find. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categories on allegations are just as bad as articles called "allegations of ...". If WP dignifies this with an article titled Alien abduction then we should jump in with both feet and title the category likewise, but we don't, we hedge with Category:Alien abduction reports of which this is a superset adding the Mormon sex in chains article which doesn't belong. Since this category is essentially duplicative, it ought to go... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_1&oldid=1138392646"