Categories classifying stars by spectral type and luminosity class
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's proposal.
Stars can be
classified by
spectral type (O, B, A, F, G, K, or M) and
luminosity class (I, supergiants; II, bright giants, III, giants; IV, subgiants; V, main sequence stars, also called dwarfs; and VI, subdwarfs.) We currently have a number of categories with names of the form color size (e.g.,
Category:Orange dwarfs) which classify stars in this way. However, these names are undesirable for two reasons:
Many of them (e.g.,
Category:Yellow-white subgiants, whose name gets exactly 0 hits on Google Scholar) are rarely used in the astronomical literature.
Worse, some of these categories have names which are used by astronomers, but not in the same way as they are in our classification scheme. For example, the term red giant is used in our classification scheme for stars of spectral type M and luminosity class III, but in reality may include stars of spectral type either K or M. Similarly, red dwarf, used in our classification scheme for stars of spectral type M and luminosity class V, may also include stars of spectral type K. (See e.g. p. 189, Firefly Astronomy Dictionary, John Woodruff, 2003,
ISBN1552978370.) This causes confusion and misclassification.
Therefore, I am proposing the following renamings:
Support either proposal. My one concern is that, for viewers that are not familiar with astronomical notation, roman numerals (for the luminosity class) might not be as clear as the text names. However, we could manage that via an explanation on the category pages.—
RJH (
talk)
17:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support either proposal, with a preference for using English names for
luminosity classes. Roman numerals are rather obscure jargon. (The OBAFGKM classes are also obscure, but there isn't a widely used alternative in English, whereas there is for the Roman numeral luminosity class.)
ASHill (
talk |
contribs)
17:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult unblocks
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Pointless empty category, created as a first-edit by an SPA, I assume to prove a
WP:POINT regarding the "Admins willing to make difficult blocks" category. In my opinion, the solution to a problem that doesn't exist – if there's a consensus to unblock someone, they'll be unblocked. –
iridescent22:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Rationale of someone besides the nominator It's not pointy. Most admins are busy. A few may be willing to sit and contemplate. This category would be for them. If we delete this category, then one could conclude that admins conspire with each other. It would be better to delete this category if it remains empty for a week or so. Why the rush? More discussion at WP:AN
Voxtel (
talk)
22:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Not a SPA. Made a deal with an admin to remember my name rather than editing a few days then forgetting my name after a break. Not a sock because I don't ever edit the same articles and if I do, I search the history to find the username that I used. So its BRA, not SPA (bad record keeping account). Also, not a POINTY but trying to fill a void. This cat. would prove that there are a few admin willing to sit and contemplate a difficult unblock.
Voxtel (
talk)
22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Price index
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.
I chose "Price index" over "Price indices" because I intended for the category to cover different articles related to price index theory. "Price indices" implies that the category consists of articles related to different types of price indices. I'm open to renaming the category, but I'm not sure "price indices" covers the subject matter any better.--
Bkwillwm (
talk)
02:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename discussion ends here. Add new discussion immediately below.
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:1989 Films
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge, strays from film category naming convention. No more common of a typo than that for any other year. Category is currently empty..
KathrynLybarger (
talk)
20:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Merge, and don't keep the other title as a redirect. Redirects are tricky enough with categories as it is without encouraging more of them.
Grutness...wha?02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2003 Albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge, strays from album category naming convention. No more common of a typo than that for any other year. Category is currently empty.
KathrynLybarger (
talk)
20:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Merge, and don't keep the other title as a redirect. Redirects are tricky enough with categories as it is without encouraging more of them.
Grutness...wha?02:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Cartoon Network television movies
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 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:Managers of Japanese baseball teams
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 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:Places on Long Island
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This is a redundant category. See Category:Geography of Long Island, Category:Towns on Long Island, etc.
Mycroft7 (
talk)
14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Types of scientist by nationality
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.
Comment. These meta categories are all confusingly named. At the lower levels, they all take the form "X by Y", in which the Xs are constant, and the Ys change. So someone familiar with the naming convention would expect that everything after "by" would be the variable in the listing. The higher level categories are not named this way. This one (and many similar) are actually backwards from the naming convention at the lower level. I've never been particularly fond of the "X by Y and Z" alternative, because at first glance you would expect both Y and Z to vary in the listing. Once you realize that only one varies, it isn't obvious which one that should be, Y or Z. I don't have a good suggestion about what the rename should be. The best I can come up with is
Category:Scientists by nationality categories or
Category:Index of scientists by nationality (by type) or
Category:Scientists by nationality (by type) or
Category:Nationalities of Scientists by type. The confusion is around how to parse the names of these categories so that it is clear what they contain. You can parse the current name as "(Types of scientists) by nationality", which is contrary to the naming convention and confusing or "Types of (scientists by nationality)" which is not confusing but still contrary to the naming convention. Perhaps we should just use commas for these meta categories. In this case, we could call it
Category:Scientists by nationality, by type --
☑ SamuelWantman07:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
That last seems the best to me. There is, or is thought to be, a rule against punctuation in category titles, though I can't actually see it in
WP:CAT or
WP:NAME, but this type of name is justified as an exception imo, if such a rule exists.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Huh -- and I always thought I was the only one who ever had a problem parsing those categories! LOL - I would certainly agree in principle with Sam's suggestion. However, in this case I believe the proper name would actually be
Category:Scientists by type, by nationality, since the scientist cats are first broken down by type -- and then further broken down (internally) by nationality.
Cgingold (
talk)
23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Hmmm... Well, I can see how that particular application of logic yields that result. But I guess the more important question is, Is that the most compelling bit of logic to apply, in the first place? The real point being, we could debate competing logics all day, without necessarily arriving at a good solution. In this case, the formulation you're suggesting yields a category name that would probably be counter-intuitive for most readers. If you look at the super-cat,
Category:People by occupation and nationality, the emphasis is implictly on the first term, which is how the sub-cats are sorted. I think that, regardless of our precise choice of wording, readers will generally expect sub-cats to be sorted by the first term they encounter. So I would suggest that that is what should take precedence here. In the final analysis, I think we may be better off staying with the naming system we've got, rather than switching over to commas.
Cgingold (
talk)
07:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I understand what you are getting at, and I suspect that there isn't a perfect solution to this that will make intuitive sense to every one. To me, the current name is more intuitive than the suggested replacement. --
☑ SamuelWantman08:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Ha ha, so we've come full circle. There's some truth to your last remark, except that it doesn't address the reason I brought this to CFD in the first place: Categories for "Types of Xyz" are generally used for articles that are about Xyz Type1, Xyz Type2, Xyz Type3, etc. -- not for articles about people who do/are Xyz Type1, etc. So by the customary use, this category should be for articles about the various types of scientist -- and not for bio articles about individual scientists.
Cgingold (
talk)
09:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Can you think of a way to address your concern by filling in the blank in "____ of scientists by nationality"? --
☑ SamuelWantman00:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I hate to throw a monkey wrench in to such a productive discussion, but I can't see a consensus yet to close, and you're all just trucking along, so here's my opinion. Per the supercat
Category:People by occupation and nationality, rename this to
Category:Scientists by occupation and nationality. True, "Astronomer" is a type of scientist, but that will be conveyed by the word "scientist" in the title, and any of these could be considered an occupation. "What do you do? I'm an astronomer." --
Kbdank7114:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
An interesting suggestion... but not really an improvement over "Scientists by type and nationality", when you think about it.
Cgingold (
talk)
03:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I am closing this discussion as delete. None of the people advocating the keeping of this category have rebutted the sound rationale of the nominator. We have guidelines (
WP:CAT,
WP:OCAT) that specifically discourage these types of categories, and there is a long history of deleting them. There is nothing to stop editors from creating cited lists with this material, and that is, by far, a much more appropriate way to include this information in Wikipedia. I don't believe in closing discussions by counting votes. Instead, I believe the arguments made during the discussion must be weighed against any relevant policies and guidelines. If people disagree with the policies and guidelines, they need to make cogent arguments for why the guidelines are wrong or do not apply in this case. That has not happened here. --
☑ SamuelWantman03:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Hi Enigmaman: Can you please elaborate on this because it seems many people are not aware that the creation of this category is part of a bigger pattern. Thank you,
IZAK (
talk)
19:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Everyone should see
User talk:Comradesandalio and
his contributions. He (?) has a long and established pattern of creating disruptive and racially-motivated content, whether it's a category or an article. Look at all the deletion notices on his page. Look at the fact that all his edits seem to be geared towards a specific POV. I do not have any history with the user and thus don't have experience with him dating back for any decent length of time, but I have looked at his edits and I am not pleased. Enigmamessage22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Your initial comment certainly got my attention, Enigma, so I took a good look at the user's talk page. And there's no question that he has a long and troubling history of highly POV editing. That said, I don't think it was appropriate to slap the label of "racist creations" on this particular category. Like any other category, this one should be evaluated on its merits, not on its creator's apparent POV. As the
aphorism points out, "even a broken clock tells the right time twice every day."
Cgingold (
talk)
23:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete in keeping with my past comments advocating the deletion of all categories identifying people by religion. Where relevant, these identifications are much better handled in the applicable articles and (if necessary) in lists that then link to the articles on the individuals.
6SJ7 (
talk)
00:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep but possibly rename to
Category:Jews opposed to Zionism -- a valid category simply because there has been much opposition to Zionism by prominent Jews both historically and in the modern age. Just because it's controversial doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. --
Wassermann (
talk)
03:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename. It's an encyclopedic topic, though I wonder if "Jewish opponents of Zionism" would be a more appropriate title.
CJCurrie (
talk)
05:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - the cat in of itself has survived many numerous attempts to delete it by the same user its time he should give up and recognise that there are jews who r opposed to Zionism and they r real and not ashamed at all about their vocation, thus very worthy of the biggest freest encyclopedia in history of humans--
YY (
talk)
14:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Israeli atrocities
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.
Delete By its nature, it is POV. All of these atrocity categories need to be removed, not just this one. Terrorist atrocities/Militant Atrocities/Non-Geneva Convention Atrocities or something like that.
Sposer (
talk)
13:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete So many things wrong with this. Wow. POV, inaccurate, contains the wrong articles, not categorized properly, etc. Enigmamessage22:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Categories classifying stars by spectral type and luminosity class
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's proposal.
Stars can be
classified by
spectral type (O, B, A, F, G, K, or M) and
luminosity class (I, supergiants; II, bright giants, III, giants; IV, subgiants; V, main sequence stars, also called dwarfs; and VI, subdwarfs.) We currently have a number of categories with names of the form color size (e.g.,
Category:Orange dwarfs) which classify stars in this way. However, these names are undesirable for two reasons:
Many of them (e.g.,
Category:Yellow-white subgiants, whose name gets exactly 0 hits on Google Scholar) are rarely used in the astronomical literature.
Worse, some of these categories have names which are used by astronomers, but not in the same way as they are in our classification scheme. For example, the term red giant is used in our classification scheme for stars of spectral type M and luminosity class III, but in reality may include stars of spectral type either K or M. Similarly, red dwarf, used in our classification scheme for stars of spectral type M and luminosity class V, may also include stars of spectral type K. (See e.g. p. 189, Firefly Astronomy Dictionary, John Woodruff, 2003,
ISBN1552978370.) This causes confusion and misclassification.
Therefore, I am proposing the following renamings:
Support either proposal. My one concern is that, for viewers that are not familiar with astronomical notation, roman numerals (for the luminosity class) might not be as clear as the text names. However, we could manage that via an explanation on the category pages.—
RJH (
talk)
17:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support either proposal, with a preference for using English names for
luminosity classes. Roman numerals are rather obscure jargon. (The OBAFGKM classes are also obscure, but there isn't a widely used alternative in English, whereas there is for the Roman numeral luminosity class.)
ASHill (
talk |
contribs)
17:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult unblocks
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Pointless empty category, created as a first-edit by an SPA, I assume to prove a
WP:POINT regarding the "Admins willing to make difficult blocks" category. In my opinion, the solution to a problem that doesn't exist – if there's a consensus to unblock someone, they'll be unblocked. –
iridescent22:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Rationale of someone besides the nominator It's not pointy. Most admins are busy. A few may be willing to sit and contemplate. This category would be for them. If we delete this category, then one could conclude that admins conspire with each other. It would be better to delete this category if it remains empty for a week or so. Why the rush? More discussion at WP:AN
Voxtel (
talk)
22:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Not a SPA. Made a deal with an admin to remember my name rather than editing a few days then forgetting my name after a break. Not a sock because I don't ever edit the same articles and if I do, I search the history to find the username that I used. So its BRA, not SPA (bad record keeping account). Also, not a POINTY but trying to fill a void. This cat. would prove that there are a few admin willing to sit and contemplate a difficult unblock.
Voxtel (
talk)
22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Price index
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.
I chose "Price index" over "Price indices" because I intended for the category to cover different articles related to price index theory. "Price indices" implies that the category consists of articles related to different types of price indices. I'm open to renaming the category, but I'm not sure "price indices" covers the subject matter any better.--
Bkwillwm (
talk)
02:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename discussion ends here. Add new discussion immediately below.
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:1989 Films
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge, strays from film category naming convention. No more common of a typo than that for any other year. Category is currently empty..
KathrynLybarger (
talk)
20:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Merge, and don't keep the other title as a redirect. Redirects are tricky enough with categories as it is without encouraging more of them.
Grutness...wha?02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2003 Albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge, strays from album category naming convention. No more common of a typo than that for any other year. Category is currently empty.
KathrynLybarger (
talk)
20:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Merge, and don't keep the other title as a redirect. Redirects are tricky enough with categories as it is without encouraging more of them.
Grutness...wha?02:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Cartoon Network television movies
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 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:Managers of Japanese baseball teams
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 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:Places on Long Island
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This is a redundant category. See Category:Geography of Long Island, Category:Towns on Long Island, etc.
Mycroft7 (
talk)
14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Types of scientist by nationality
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.
Comment. These meta categories are all confusingly named. At the lower levels, they all take the form "X by Y", in which the Xs are constant, and the Ys change. So someone familiar with the naming convention would expect that everything after "by" would be the variable in the listing. The higher level categories are not named this way. This one (and many similar) are actually backwards from the naming convention at the lower level. I've never been particularly fond of the "X by Y and Z" alternative, because at first glance you would expect both Y and Z to vary in the listing. Once you realize that only one varies, it isn't obvious which one that should be, Y or Z. I don't have a good suggestion about what the rename should be. The best I can come up with is
Category:Scientists by nationality categories or
Category:Index of scientists by nationality (by type) or
Category:Scientists by nationality (by type) or
Category:Nationalities of Scientists by type. The confusion is around how to parse the names of these categories so that it is clear what they contain. You can parse the current name as "(Types of scientists) by nationality", which is contrary to the naming convention and confusing or "Types of (scientists by nationality)" which is not confusing but still contrary to the naming convention. Perhaps we should just use commas for these meta categories. In this case, we could call it
Category:Scientists by nationality, by type --
☑ SamuelWantman07:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
That last seems the best to me. There is, or is thought to be, a rule against punctuation in category titles, though I can't actually see it in
WP:CAT or
WP:NAME, but this type of name is justified as an exception imo, if such a rule exists.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Huh -- and I always thought I was the only one who ever had a problem parsing those categories! LOL - I would certainly agree in principle with Sam's suggestion. However, in this case I believe the proper name would actually be
Category:Scientists by type, by nationality, since the scientist cats are first broken down by type -- and then further broken down (internally) by nationality.
Cgingold (
talk)
23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Hmmm... Well, I can see how that particular application of logic yields that result. But I guess the more important question is, Is that the most compelling bit of logic to apply, in the first place? The real point being, we could debate competing logics all day, without necessarily arriving at a good solution. In this case, the formulation you're suggesting yields a category name that would probably be counter-intuitive for most readers. If you look at the super-cat,
Category:People by occupation and nationality, the emphasis is implictly on the first term, which is how the sub-cats are sorted. I think that, regardless of our precise choice of wording, readers will generally expect sub-cats to be sorted by the first term they encounter. So I would suggest that that is what should take precedence here. In the final analysis, I think we may be better off staying with the naming system we've got, rather than switching over to commas.
Cgingold (
talk)
07:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I understand what you are getting at, and I suspect that there isn't a perfect solution to this that will make intuitive sense to every one. To me, the current name is more intuitive than the suggested replacement. --
☑ SamuelWantman08:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Ha ha, so we've come full circle. There's some truth to your last remark, except that it doesn't address the reason I brought this to CFD in the first place: Categories for "Types of Xyz" are generally used for articles that are about Xyz Type1, Xyz Type2, Xyz Type3, etc. -- not for articles about people who do/are Xyz Type1, etc. So by the customary use, this category should be for articles about the various types of scientist -- and not for bio articles about individual scientists.
Cgingold (
talk)
09:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Can you think of a way to address your concern by filling in the blank in "____ of scientists by nationality"? --
☑ SamuelWantman00:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I hate to throw a monkey wrench in to such a productive discussion, but I can't see a consensus yet to close, and you're all just trucking along, so here's my opinion. Per the supercat
Category:People by occupation and nationality, rename this to
Category:Scientists by occupation and nationality. True, "Astronomer" is a type of scientist, but that will be conveyed by the word "scientist" in the title, and any of these could be considered an occupation. "What do you do? I'm an astronomer." --
Kbdank7114:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
An interesting suggestion... but not really an improvement over "Scientists by type and nationality", when you think about it.
Cgingold (
talk)
03:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I am closing this discussion as delete. None of the people advocating the keeping of this category have rebutted the sound rationale of the nominator. We have guidelines (
WP:CAT,
WP:OCAT) that specifically discourage these types of categories, and there is a long history of deleting them. There is nothing to stop editors from creating cited lists with this material, and that is, by far, a much more appropriate way to include this information in Wikipedia. I don't believe in closing discussions by counting votes. Instead, I believe the arguments made during the discussion must be weighed against any relevant policies and guidelines. If people disagree with the policies and guidelines, they need to make cogent arguments for why the guidelines are wrong or do not apply in this case. That has not happened here. --
☑ SamuelWantman03:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Hi Enigmaman: Can you please elaborate on this because it seems many people are not aware that the creation of this category is part of a bigger pattern. Thank you,
IZAK (
talk)
19:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Everyone should see
User talk:Comradesandalio and
his contributions. He (?) has a long and established pattern of creating disruptive and racially-motivated content, whether it's a category or an article. Look at all the deletion notices on his page. Look at the fact that all his edits seem to be geared towards a specific POV. I do not have any history with the user and thus don't have experience with him dating back for any decent length of time, but I have looked at his edits and I am not pleased. Enigmamessage22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Your initial comment certainly got my attention, Enigma, so I took a good look at the user's talk page. And there's no question that he has a long and troubling history of highly POV editing. That said, I don't think it was appropriate to slap the label of "racist creations" on this particular category. Like any other category, this one should be evaluated on its merits, not on its creator's apparent POV. As the
aphorism points out, "even a broken clock tells the right time twice every day."
Cgingold (
talk)
23:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete in keeping with my past comments advocating the deletion of all categories identifying people by religion. Where relevant, these identifications are much better handled in the applicable articles and (if necessary) in lists that then link to the articles on the individuals.
6SJ7 (
talk)
00:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep but possibly rename to
Category:Jews opposed to Zionism -- a valid category simply because there has been much opposition to Zionism by prominent Jews both historically and in the modern age. Just because it's controversial doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. --
Wassermann (
talk)
03:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename. It's an encyclopedic topic, though I wonder if "Jewish opponents of Zionism" would be a more appropriate title.
CJCurrie (
talk)
05:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - the cat in of itself has survived many numerous attempts to delete it by the same user its time he should give up and recognise that there are jews who r opposed to Zionism and they r real and not ashamed at all about their vocation, thus very worthy of the biggest freest encyclopedia in history of humans--
YY (
talk)
14:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Israeli atrocities
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.
Delete By its nature, it is POV. All of these atrocity categories need to be removed, not just this one. Terrorist atrocities/Militant Atrocities/Non-Geneva Convention Atrocities or something like that.
Sposer (
talk)
13:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete So many things wrong with this. Wow. POV, inaccurate, contains the wrong articles, not categorized properly, etc. Enigmamessage22:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.