Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 20

< March 19	March 21 >

March 20[edit]

Category:Members of the European Parliament from Northern Ireland[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 all 3. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

(next one added later)

Category:Members of the European Parliament from the United Kingdom to Category:Members of the European Parliament for United Kingdom constituencies

Nominator's rationale: per other sub-categories of Category:Members of the European Parliament from the United Kingdom, which use the "for Fooish constituencies" format.

The place of birth of a politician should of course be categorised appropriately, but geographical categories of elected office-holders should reflect the place that elected them, not where they were born. Otherwise we would have absurdities like categorising Peter Hain as a "South African MP", even though he has been politically active only in the UK and has been elected to the UK Parliament (not he S. African one).

The "for Fooish constituencies" format removes any ambiguity about whether the categories are intended to reflect the nationality of the MEPs or the constituency they represent, an ambiguity which has led to the removal of Bairbre de Brún MEP from the Northern Ireland category. This is because she was born in Dublin, but was elected to the European Parliament for the Northern Ireland constituency. She made her political career in Northern Ireland, and was twice elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly for Belfast West, and renaming these categories to match Category:Members of the European Parliament for English constituencies and Category:Members of the European Parliament for Welsh constituencies will remove any ambiguity in her case and for any other MEP elected for a constituency outside the country of their birth. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – support, but does the same not apply to Category:Members of the European Parliament from the United Kingdom? Note that most of its articles use 'for the UK'. ('From' is certainly ambiguous. I don't think it is synonymous with 'born in'. In wiki-speak, people can be 'from' several places. Peter Hain was born in Nairobi ... he is not generally thought to be 'from Kenya' AFAIK.) Occuli (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; but any fule kno that Hain is Welsh, just like John Redwood :) Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood is from Vulcan. Occuli (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in the real world, people can be "from" several places, so it's a hazy way of constructing a category. As to the UK category, I will add it to the nom, which I should have done at the outset. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all 3 per nom and per above. Occuli (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the proposed name Category:Members of the European Parliament for Scottish constituencies would contain an unnecessary plural as there is but one constituency: Scotland (European Parliament constituency). (The same apples to NI: Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency) but the proposed name follows a different format.) AllyD (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Scotland currently has only one EP constituency, but until 1999 it had 8 constituencies, all of which are listed at Category:Members of the European Parliament from Scotland. This is different from Northern Ireland, which has only ever had one European Parliament constituency, and this distinction explains why the plural is needed in Scotland but not in N. Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I believe that this name is most accurate, as some MEP's come from the south, and from Northern Ireland is incorrect terming, it may imply to people that those MPs from the south are from that place, which is inaccurate.--Theosony (talk) 20:05, 23 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:Eugenicists by nationality[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. the wub "?!" 17:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete and all sub-cats WP:OC#CATGRS. Trivial overcategorization. Bulldog 22:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep - No valid rationale provided for deletion. Cgingold (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard of WP:OCAT. Please provide a reasoning for why this does not meet those guidelines for deletion. Thank you. Bulldog 23:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL - Apparently you didn't notice my CFD nomination for Category:TED Speakers (directly below) where I explicitly cited WP:OCAT in my rationale for deletion. Furthermore, the burden is on YOU to make the case for deletion. You can't just waltz into CFD and toss out a couple of magical phrases and expect to have your request granted. Cgingold (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dividing occupations by nationality is a long-standing convention, and in this case is particularly useful because the eugenics has has taken different shapes in different countries. Categorising eugenicists by nationality is therefore an important way of grouping related articles.
(Additionally the nomination appears to request the deletion of all the articles in this category and its sub-categs, which is not how things work: proposals to delete articles should be made at WP:AFD, not here). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do divide occupations by nationality. Unfortunately, "eugenicist" is not an occupation. You don't get paid working as a [eugenicist http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenicist]. You may be a eugenicist, and work as a sociologist, or psychologist, or historian. Would you support a Category:Nihilists by nationality? Bulldog 06:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Or Category:Pacifists by nationality, Category:Vegetarians by nationality, Category:Atheists by nationality ... Occuli (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of which are professionally specific. True. But a eugenicist, nihilist, satanist is not anywhere on the same league as a pacifist. You can argue that some nations, i.e. Arabic or Buddhist nations, have a greater reason to be vegetarian. Others have a greater reason to be pacifist (perhaps historically, Switzerland). A nation can even be atheist - communist countries pretty much have to be. But, a eugenicist country? Even the sound of it makes no sense. WP:OCAT states that if there is no intrinsic connection between non-occupational cross-sections, they should not exist. Hence, this cat should not exist. Rebuttal? Bulldog 22:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's really pretty simple: they are individuals who engage in advocacy of eugenics. Not an occupation, but a form of activism. We have dozens of such categories, many of them divided by nationality. Cgingold (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other crap exists. Yes, I know. Sometimes things are divided by nationality when they become to unwieldy. At least for this category, it will never happen, and only continues to reek of overategorization. Of course, I'd be willing to reconsider my stance on this if SOMEONE would bother to answer the question. Bulldog 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer should be fairly obvious: we have no Category:Nihilists, so there is nothing to subdvide into a Category:Nihilists by nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per bhg. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. WP:OCAT is as silent as the grave on this matter. The random 5 or 6 articles I have looked at seem to relate incontrovertibly to Eugenicists, founders of Eugenics societies etc. Occuli (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does the same nominator get from 'Jewish philanthropists' (below) to 'Eugenicists by nationality' in 2 or 3 edits in a few minutes? Must be an unusual 'to do' list.Occuli (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six degrees of Kevin Bacon Bulldog 06:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

keep no valid reason advanced for deletion Hmains (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a two-way mixture of nationality and social belief system. Generally forbidden in WP:OCAT. And your reason for keep is....??? Bulldog 20:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

comment any reason why User:Bulldog123 is going to the trouble of hiding its identity in this nomination by signing itself as 'Bulldog'. Is it ashamed of its own results? Hmains (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to how I changed my signature nearly half a year ago? [1] Pay closer attention. Bulldog 20:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Bulldog, please pay closer attention to the long-standing wikipedia convention that a signature should include a link to your user page and/or talk page. Without such a link, only way to tell which user you actually are is by taking the extra step of looking at the page's history. That's an unnecessary inconvenience to other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is no such rule. You're right, it's just a convention. And it saves people from leaving me passive-aggressive messages. Secondly, I find it humorous that because I drop three numbers off the end of my sig, somehow everyone is miraculously unsure of my identity, even though there is no other user named Bulldog. Bulldog`

Whether or not there is a formal rule, it is a common courtesy which helps editors interact. The fact that you are explicitly keen to make it difficult for other editors to leave messages for you by including neither your actual username or a link makes me think that the disruptive is intentional. Your assumption that any messages left you will be "passive-aggressive" is a reamrkable display of bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, get rid of the brown-font on the word "Brown" in your sig - and I'll restore the link. It's brazen to my eyes, and makes the exact pronounciation of your username unclear. We have a deal then? Bulldog 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly. My username is there in full, with links to my user page, talk page, and contribs. the No-links-bulldog is the first person to complain that it gives them comprehension problems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The generic-user "Bulldog" said that "there is no other user named Bulldog", but I see over 20 usernames that start with "Bulldog". It's true that some of these are blocked sockpuppets or inactive and that User:Bulldog123 has made far more edits than any of them, but to suggest that no possible confusion could result is obviously wrong. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nationality=citizenship is how these get broken up NPOV-ly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no real reason for deletion Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:34, 24 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:Jewish philanthropists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. the wub "?!" 17:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete WP:OC#CATGRS. Serves no purpose except to support the obsessions of certain editors. Trivial. Bulldog 22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Nominator's rationale is unsupported and not persuasive. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cgingold is apparently unaware of Irrelevant intersections by race, gender, or ethnicity, where it is explicitly stated that Category:Jewish mathematicians is overcategorization. Yet, somehow, Cgingold believes Jewish philanthropists is not. Also note, that I don't think there has ever been more than a handful of instances that User:Cgingold has voted to delete a category with the word "Jewish" in it. Unless you provide a reason why this category should be saved but the mathematicians one shouldn't have been, I can only assume you are heavily swayed by biases. Bulldog 23:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL - As if you would know! (Or have you been covertly wikistalking me??) Seriously, now - the only one pushing a very clear agenda here is YOU, my friend. A while back you made something of a career of getting Jewish categories deleted, no matter how valid. I'm perfectly aware of the guideline you've cited -- and more importantly, of how it has been misused ever since it was put in place through application as a supposedly binding rule, when it's really just a flawed statement of what is, in fact, a non-existent concensus on the subject. Sorry, but it just ain't gonna fly. (continued below) Cgingold (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase that. In every single 'Jewish'-related CfD you have participated in that I know of you !voted - never giving a reason why. Falling back on unrealistic expectation for the nominator. I've listed a guideline, correctly. You have yet to explain how it does not apply. Bulldog 06:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You have listed a guideline without providing a persasive reason why it applies to this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be an excuse for why people don't want to think about it. If I don't spoon-feed it, everyone will just play dumb and pretend not to know? I don't get it. Explain to me why Jewish mathematicians is an illogical cat, but Jewish philanthropists isn't? What I assume is your explanation is basically saying that all you need to be is ethnically Jewish and then you magically adhere to all Jewish cultural tradition. Which is completely nonsensical. Bulldog 22:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep pointy nom with no meat. The category is clearly different from Jewish mathematicians, since there is a Jewish way of being a philanthropist (giving money to Jewish charities for a start) when there is no Jewish way of being a mathmetician. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you admit that these people would actually have to be devout followers of Judaism, adhering to the most rigid religious codes in order to be categorized, yes? Bulldog 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No of course not. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do non-practicing Jews and philanthropy have to do with eachother? Nothing. Bulldog 18:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep per Johnbod – although perhaps Bernard Madoff should be expelled. There is seemingly a Jewish way of being a scientist - Category:Jewish scientists – but not as a mathematician or businessman. (I had not realised that someone was counting one's contributions to cfds. CFDscan perhaps.) Occuli (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Madoff almost makes me think we ought to reconsider our broad concensus against "former" categories. Or perhaps we should invent a brand new category for "purported philanthropists later found to have been frauds". I have a feeling that he's gonna have company. Cgingold (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest that Bulldog might want to familiarize himself with the Jewish notion of Tzedakah, loosely translated as "Charity" -- a core concept in Jewish ethics, culture, and tradition. And also, try Googling the terms "Jewish charity" & "Jewish Philanthropy", which get 73,500 and 47,900 G-hits, respectively. If he still thinks this is a fundamentally trivial, nonsensical & pointless category, I'm afraid he is beyond my ability to help. Cgingold (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. The all explaining google-hits-test. Yes, it's still a nonsense category. You can synthesis any organized movement + charity and find results. There is nothing at all suggestive that these people listed in the categories are being charitable because of some arcane Jewish cultural tradition when, it's likely, most of them haven't even regularly practiced Judaism. This is the same argument, attempted on Category:Jewish mathematicians. Again, Cgingold, how is this different? Bulldog 06:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep per Johnbod. The role of the philanthropist has a particular prominence in Jewish culture. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to only include people that are observant of Jewish religion in this category then? Otherwise this argument is moot, as I'm fairly certain a good number of people categorized here probably have never attended a synagogue in their lives - except perhaps a few times as a child. Would you add Category:Christian philanthropists to a person who had Catholic parentage but does not practice Catholicism as an adult because 'Christians are charitable!!'? Bulldog 20:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Bulldog (or Buldog123 or whoever you are), it seems that there is a lot you don't understand about this category. Please read Who is a Jew?, and you'll see that according to most definitions it's quite possible to be Jewish without ever having said a prayer or been near or a synagogue. The same does not apply to Catholics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I should mention that this comment proves you and I are thinking on totally different levels here. To put it in a mathematical analogy, I'm trying to talk about calculus, and you're still teaching me how to multiply. So you're saying all you need is to have a Jewish ancestor and you automatically adhere to all arcane religious rules of Judaism? Makes a lot of sense. Bulldog 21:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You have an astonishingly simplistic and mechanistic view of things, Bulldog. In the real world, the outlook and value system of Jewish people is influenced and shaped by the core Jewish ethos, regardless of whether or not they are religiously observant. Cgingold (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're acting like all people of Jewish descent live in some bubble together somewhere - some massively exclusive club where everyone lives by the same ambiguous moral codes. I'm sorry, Cgingold, Judaism is not magical. Everyone of German descent doesn't think and breathe about sausages, suspenders, and Oktoberfest. Bulldog 19:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Your flippant remarks betray a profound ignorance of developmental psychology, social psychology, etc. etc. Very sad. Cgingold (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator's accompanying statement that this Category "Serves no purpose except to support the obsessions of certain editors" is inappropriate and unacceptable at Wikipedia. Handicapper (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC) (Note: I created this category.)[reply]
keep no valid reason advanced for deletion Hmains (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment any reason why User:Bulldog123 is going to the trouble of hiding its identity in this nomination by signing itself as 'Bulldog'. Is it ashamed of its own result? Hmains (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HAH. I've changed my signature almost an entire year ago. It just goes to show Hmains has never read a single message I've sent him in full. No surprise. Bulldog 20:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. Your signature violates WP:SIGNATURE, as it doesn't have a link to your identity. Please correct that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. That isn't what Hmains was complaining about. You want to join the 'change your sign' lynch mob, do some on the cFd above. Bulldog 19:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep per previous keep votes - notable. Badagnani (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-defined and defining characteristic. The wording of the nom justify deletion as the category only exists "to support the obsessions of certain editors" is disturbing in and of itself. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being 'well-defined' is not a reason for "keeping." Anything can be well-defined. This is clearly just a way to avoid having a discussion about the category. Please provide a legitimate reason showing a connection between BOTH religious and non-religious Jewish people and charity/philanthropy. If you cannot, it fails the guideline in WP:OCAT. Or everyone that is not an adhering Jew should be removed. Bulldog 21:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity/religion category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To the extent it's well-defined and verifiable, it's an arbitrary intersection. Category Jewish followers of Tzedakah would not be an arbitrary intersection, but it's inherently unverifiable, as the 2nd highest level of Tzedakah is anonymous charity, according to our article. (I believe the article to be correct, but it would be inappropriate for me to say so.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, as I said above (and I'm sure you're aware of this), "the outlook and value system of Jewish people is influenced and shaped by the core Jewish ethos, regardless of whether or not they are religiously observant". Cgingold (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the nominator's "serves no purpose..." is inappropriate, and a probably WP:NPA violation. That doesn't mean that the category should be kept. However, I believe the category and Category:Jewish scientists do fall into WP:OC#CATGRS, to the extent it can be verified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment makes more sense to people who know how much disruption and obsessiveness sparks from the creation and management of some of these categories. It is not meant as a personal attack on Handicapper, as I already told him on his talk page. Bulldog 19:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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:TED Speakers[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) 02:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and add to the existing list article) - Categorizing individuals on the basis of conferences at which they have spoken is a prime example of WP:OCAT, of the "performer-by-performance" variety. I am well aware of the high regard that many have for the TED conferences, but they are hardly unique in their perceived stature in the world of conferences, which is a very large world. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per persuasive nom. It is a good example of "performer-by-performance", and also a non-defining characteristic unlikely to get into a 2 page obit. Occuli (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created the category and added the category to the first 50 or so speakers, but I was unaware of "performer-by-performance" until now. Greg Salter (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:20, 23 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:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in America[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 12:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in America to Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Longstanding policy to prefer "the United States" to "America" which is ambiguous. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, pending expert advice. It seems to me that the structure of the Gaelic Athletic Association in North America does not lend itself neatly to this form of category naming, because The GAA in North America includes three separate county boards: North American GAA, Canada GAA and New York GAA. I'm no expert in this, but I will ask the good folks at WikiProject Gaelic games for their input. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Hmmm its a bit of a tricky one. You're right BHG, the main county boards in North America are North American GAA, Canada GAA and New York GAA and I think the North American and Canadian county boards have "sub"-county boards after that. However I think all GAA clubs on wiki are categorised according to their location and not the county board they are affiliated to, e.g. we have Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in County Dublin, as opposed to Category:Dublin Gaelic Athletic Association clubs. Therefore I think the suggested rename is ok, unless somebody else can think of a reason to leave it as it is. Derry Boi (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I think that for the purpose of making the article accessible to people outside the GAA who aren't familiar with the somewhat confusing structures of the GAA in the states, I would agree with catagorising by country rather than county board. There is a comprehensive listing of GAA clubs on a single page and that is broken down by county board anyway. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:55, 23 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:Birth in 1951[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 delete as uncontroversial merge requested by creator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Underpopulated and not according to general Wiki convention. THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – this contained only User:Kubek15/vladimir-cech which I have now removed; so it's probably speediable. Occuli (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already covered by Category:1951 births Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a duplicate of Category:1951 births. Cgingold (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as duplicate, per Cgingold. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 21 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:People from Rochester, Medway[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) 02:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Rochester, Medway to Category:People from Rochester, Kent

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rochester is still in the County of Kent; Medway is merely a unitary authority for administrative purposes, not a new county. It's not like the metropolitan counties created in 1974, which actually were counties. The parent category is Category:Rochester, Kent, as is the article on the city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as argued by nominator. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:40, 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.

Category:Three times annually journals[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:Triannual journals.--Aervanath (talk) 07:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Three times annually journals to Category:Triannual journals

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Wouldn't the word for this just be "triannual"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - although it does alleviate the rather predictable pattern in Category:Journals by publication frequency. (Its creator is probably following the advice in triannual. 'Thrice' is a word that is underused these days.) Occuli (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(There is also Category:Eight times annually magazines.) Occuli (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, or to avoid confusion with "triennal": Category:Journals with three issues a year. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Jonbod, rename using three issues a year to avoid confusion. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's comments:
- The past: I made the overdue Category:Journals by publication frequency hierarchy on the model of the Category:Magazines by publication frequency hierarchy. I named this "Three times annually" after Category:Eight times annually magazines so as to be consistent, and assuming that a "N times annually (journals/magazines)" scheme would be more regular with "Three" included in it, rather than Triannual — even wikt:triannual recommends not to use the term. (Actually, I even wondered if I shouldn't avoid "Biannual" too and replace it with "Two times annually" or even "Two times a year", but I didn't so as to stay consistent with the established Category:Biannual magazines).
- The future: I'm not against changes, it's not a hot issue (pun intended), but I think the subcategories of Category:Journals by publication frequency and Category:Magazines by publication frequency should be kept as consistent as possible, so it's not just about changing this one category but deciding about the naming scheme of two mirrored hierarchies and looking at the consequences:
  - a) Category:Triannual journals doesn't imply renaming another category, but it's recommended to avoid Triannual because of confusion with Triennal.
  - b) Category:Journals with three issues a year diverges from all other categories that are "FREQUENCY journals" and would imply to rename all other subcategories such as Category:Monthly journals and Category:Monthly magazines, etc. which is a lot of renames.
  - c) Category:Three issues a year journals keeps the common "(PERIOD) journal" trailer and only imply to rename Category:Eight times annually magazines, but it seems less commonly used than the next one, see below.
  - d) Category:Three times a year journals keeps the common "(PERIOD) journal" trailer and only imply to rename Category:Eight times annually magazines to Category:Eight times a year magazines. Also, from a Google,[2] it seems by far the most common scheme.
  - e) Category:Three times annually journals is the current one, it keeps more of the common "(PERIOD-)y journal" trailer and doesn't imply any rename at all. If the only reason to rename it was "Triannual" and we rule out "Triannual" then renaming isn't necessarily needed at all.
- Obviously, I'm in favor of (d) or (e). Also, while at it, there are two issues about the current "Biannual" categories: (1) We have "Bi-monthly" vs. "Biannual", and on Google the hyphenated "Bi-annual" seems more common. (2) We could avoid Biannual/Biennal with Category:Two times a year journals (if "d") or Category:Two times annually journals (if "e"). Decisions, decisions. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 16:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no name to rename "Monthly journals" etc., which are perfectly clear. Category names do not have to be perfectly consistent, if there is a reason for them not to be, but they should be grammatical, which "Three times annually journals" and "Three times a year journals" are not. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nom). I agree with Johnbod that "Journals with three issues a year" or "Journals with three issues annually" is preferable than "Three times annually journals" and "Three times a year journals". I didn't think there would be a problem with using "triannual", but if it's thought to be too apt to be confused with "triennial" I've no problem with supporting the Johnbod proposal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Triannual journals, which is the shortest accurate formulation. I really don't see any significant potential for confusion with "triennial" (are there any triennial journals, by the way?), just as I don't see any reason to rename Category:Bi-monthly journals just because some people incorrectly assume that "bi-monthly" means "two times each month". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (see below) per WP:OC#SMALL. There is only one article in this, and it is properly categorized in American, English-language, Music, and University of California journals. I'm not sure that we need to categorize this by frequency as well. --Kbdank71 12:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose deletion (creator's comment #2, this time on the deletion): There was only one entry because the category was brand new – there are now 16 journals, as the most cursory search on Google would give a clue to anyone. (In the limited time I had after creating the Category:Journals by publication frequency hierarchy, I categorized the prominent Nature (journal), Science (journal), and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences to help spread a bit the news among editors of journals but that was less than 10 days ago.) Also, it may help to check WP:OC#SMALL before pasting it:
  - "will never have more than a few members": journals published 3 times a year (or 2 or 4 times, for that matter) are a dime a dozen, there is growth potential among zillions of journals.
  - "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme": which is the case, there is no reason for Category:Magazines by publication frequency to exist and not Category:Journals by publication frequency, and the later would be incomplete without subcategories at least for such common frequencies as biannual and triannual journals. Not to mention that categorization by frequency is standard and useful. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm familiar with WP:OC#SMALL. As I said, I don't see the use to categorizing by frequency, and the "accepted scheme" argument never held any weight for me. However, since the category is now populated, I'll strike my delete. Rename per nom. --Kbdank71 14:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to Category:Triannual journals. Confusion with another term is usually not a reason to avoid a correct name for a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 29 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:Public libraries in Chicago[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:Public libraries in Chicago, Illinois. Kbdank71 12:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Public libraries in Chicago to Category:Chicago Public Library (or, if not, Category:Public libraries in Chicago, Illinois)

Nominator's rationale: These are all part of one system, the Chicago Public Library system. So rather than rename it "Public libraries in Chicago, Illinois," I'd suggest naming it something more specific.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shouldn't the category name reflect the fact that it's for the CPL system? IOW, Category:Chicago Public Library system?? Cgingold (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - do we have anything similar elsewhere? Why not just follow the standard formulation in Category:Public libraries in Illinois? I would go for 1. "Public libraries in Chicago, Illinois" 2. Category:Chicago Public Library system. 'Chicago Public Library' sounds to me like a single library building (the article should perhaps have system tacked on, too.) Occuli (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is Category:Minneapolis Public Library. And also Category:Chicago Public Schools. Neither uses "system," though they could. The state category defines libraries from multiple governmental entities, but this one (and the Minneapolis category) defines just one. So I thought being specific made more sense. However, if I'm alone in this belief, then I propose the obvious alternate Category:Public libraries in Chicago, Illinois.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes admirable sense - I'll change to 1=. Category:Public libraries in Chicago, Illinois 1=. Category:Chicago Public Library 1=. Category:Chicago Public Library system. (Ask Obama.) Occuli (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In my initial comment (above) I was going on the assumption that what you said was correct. But it seems to me that in the absence of definitive confirmation that there is not even a single other library in Chicago that can properly be described as "public", we should play it safe and rename to Category:Public libraries in Chicago, Illinois. Cgingold (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't "public" mean "run by the city"? I can say for certain that Chicago doesn't have two different municipal library systems, nor do any of the libraries in the category belong to any other system.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I'm sure you know, "public" doesn't mean "run by the city", which would be "municipal". The point is there could well be "public libraries" located in the city of Chicago, that aren't part of that city's public library system -- perhaps State of Illinois or Federal govt. libraries (or ???). That's why I think it's best to go with Category:Public libraries in Chicago, Illinois. Cgingold (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I'm serious, I don't know that. I'm not aware of state libraries in Illinois (there aren't any here) or federal libraries outside D.C. But regardless, these libraries are part of the CPL system, not any other. There is no danger of extant articles being miscategorized by this plan. But hey, it's just a suggestion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are various sorts of federal libraries (and depositories) outside of D.C., probably including Chicago, but practically speaking I suspect it's fairly unlikely that very many of them would have articles -- though, there's always the possibility of redirects to sections. When all is said and done, given your assurance that all of the existing articles pertain to the CPL system, I don't see any reason not to rename this category to Category:Chicago Public Library system, leaving open the possibility of creating Category:Public libraries in Chicago, Illinois if & when the need arises. Cgingold (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure. I don't much like the "system" element, but whatever works.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From the broadest perspective, the proposed rename would appear to be the safest. This would allow inclusion of the notable individuals who have been involved with the system. If the concern is to have a category that is only for the libraries, then it probably should be renamed to Category:Chicago Public Library libraries. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be fine too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Public libraries in Chicago, Illinois (1st choice) or Category:Chicago Public Library system (2nd choice). I am not a fan of placing biographical articles into non-biographical categories, and that is why I am a little weary about changing from a list category (for articles about libraries) to a broader topic category (for articles related to the Chicago Public Library system). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:31, 25 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.