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:Abduction researchers
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: Delete We already have the category Ufologist and I feel this is redundant and that the term "researcher" validates the activities of those tagged in some way, thus violating NPOV.
Verbalchat16:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)reply
What strange timing - I had just added 2 articles to this category, and was planning to nominate it for possible merging, but took a short break and... Voila! It turns up on this page... Kinda spooky, wouldn't you say?? :) Well, as I was saying, Merge to
Category:Abduction phenomenon; all 3 articles are already included in the other parent,
Category:Ufologists. I have no real problem with the term "researcher" as such, but it is small, narrow, and redundant.
Cgingold (
talk)
18:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree, if kept it certainly needs to be renamed as suggested. But you didn't address the issue of redundancy, etc. -- I could possibly be persuaded. Btw, there are also two other related cats that need to be renamed in the same way. I was planning to raise this issue first at the main article, which itself was recently renamed to
Alien abduction but should probably be called "Alien abduction phenomenon", imo. However, I suppose
Category:Abduction claims should be taken to CFD without further delay. (Done.)
Cgingold (
talk)
00:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I disagree that the categories are redundant. All adbuction researchers may be ufologists but not all ufologists are abduction researchers. A reader interested specifically in abduction researchers shouldn't have to search through all of the ufologist articles to find them.
Otto4711 (
talk)
01:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)reply
After further reflection -- in light of the fact that
Category:Ufologists has 86 articles in it, which do completely swamp this small sub-set -- I am switching to Keep and Rename to
Category:Alien abduction researchers. I have made the same argument myself on other occasions, and I'm glad to see Otto endorsing this rationale. (I just hope that my change of heart doesn't cause him to reconsider his position.)
Cgingold (
talk)
02:11, 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.
rename Category:British Bangladeshis
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.
Rename per nom: Bangladeshis are a large immigrant community in UK, so it is a desirable category. There is long precedent for this form.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:57, 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.
Category:Barlows of note
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.
Listify and Delete as
Occuli. This is the best means of bringing together all those of the same surname, soemthing that is really only needed for disambiguation purposes.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:00, 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.
Ghanaian MPs
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.
Keep - the UK scheme is in my opinion an examplary demonstration of the synergy between lists (all MPs of a particular parliament) and categories (MPs with articles). I see no reason why it should not be carried over to Ghanaian MPs, who seem to be elected in a roughly comparable system. (I take it that a Ghanaian MP is just as notable as a UK one, although many articles are at present missing.)
Occuli (
talk)
14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I have absolutely no problem with all Ghanaian MPs having articles and I've even started several myself. Can you explain to me why the same information (MPS in a given parliament) needs to be in two different places? I'd be in favor of deleting the UK version as well.--
TM15:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Vegaswikian wants the UK equivalents to be listified, but it is simply untrue to say "that this is what is apparently happening for the UK categories". The
CFD which Vegaswikian opened relates only to one such category out of 54, and it has not yet been closed. I see no consensus to listify and delete even the one category which has been nominated, let alone the other 53 which have not even been nominated. I think it's very poor conduct to say that "this is what is apparently happening" when the CFD referred to has not been closed and when most participants oppose Vegaswikian's view. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)reply
As I read that discussion, several UK categories were already listified and since this is a major effort it will take time to do all of the categories. Is that not what was written in the other discussion?
Vegaswikian1 (
talk)
04:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)reply
It is correct that lists are being constructed, and that this will take time. It was not correct for you to say that "listify and delete" has been agreed for those categories. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Are you saying that categories are a better tool to get the missing articles created? Clearly this is a place where the list excels.
Vegaswikian1 (
talk)
04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. These categories are a well-designed and workable tool in navigating the still-scanty coverage of the Ghanain Parliament. Per
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods" ... and "these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
02:21, 7 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:Relgious sees in Canada
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:Actor-athletes merge to Category:Sportspeople turned actors
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: it is not a long list so there is no need to limit it to those notable for play a sport and not for being notable for having coached, managed, or officiated one. All were notably involved in sport first and then politics (none were notable politicians first) 'Athlete' is problematic outside a Canadian-American context.
Mayumashu (
talk)
00:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete both as a trivial intersection of two professions. Many people have more than one profession over the course of a lifetime. Listify if desired.
Otto4711 (
talk)
05:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per Otto as
overcategorization on the basis of a
trivial intersection. People who were both actors and sportspeople should simply be categorized in both category trees rather than in an intersection category. There seems to be no need to upmerge in this case, as all of the articles seem to be otherwise appropriately categorized. –Black Falcon(
Talk)05:22, 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.
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:Abduction researchers
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: Delete We already have the category Ufologist and I feel this is redundant and that the term "researcher" validates the activities of those tagged in some way, thus violating NPOV.
Verbalchat16:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)reply
What strange timing - I had just added 2 articles to this category, and was planning to nominate it for possible merging, but took a short break and... Voila! It turns up on this page... Kinda spooky, wouldn't you say?? :) Well, as I was saying, Merge to
Category:Abduction phenomenon; all 3 articles are already included in the other parent,
Category:Ufologists. I have no real problem with the term "researcher" as such, but it is small, narrow, and redundant.
Cgingold (
talk)
18:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree, if kept it certainly needs to be renamed as suggested. But you didn't address the issue of redundancy, etc. -- I could possibly be persuaded. Btw, there are also two other related cats that need to be renamed in the same way. I was planning to raise this issue first at the main article, which itself was recently renamed to
Alien abduction but should probably be called "Alien abduction phenomenon", imo. However, I suppose
Category:Abduction claims should be taken to CFD without further delay. (Done.)
Cgingold (
talk)
00:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I disagree that the categories are redundant. All adbuction researchers may be ufologists but not all ufologists are abduction researchers. A reader interested specifically in abduction researchers shouldn't have to search through all of the ufologist articles to find them.
Otto4711 (
talk)
01:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)reply
After further reflection -- in light of the fact that
Category:Ufologists has 86 articles in it, which do completely swamp this small sub-set -- I am switching to Keep and Rename to
Category:Alien abduction researchers. I have made the same argument myself on other occasions, and I'm glad to see Otto endorsing this rationale. (I just hope that my change of heart doesn't cause him to reconsider his position.)
Cgingold (
talk)
02:11, 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.
rename Category:British Bangladeshis
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.
Rename per nom: Bangladeshis are a large immigrant community in UK, so it is a desirable category. There is long precedent for this form.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:57, 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.
Category:Barlows of note
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.
Listify and Delete as
Occuli. This is the best means of bringing together all those of the same surname, soemthing that is really only needed for disambiguation purposes.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:00, 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.
Ghanaian MPs
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.
Keep - the UK scheme is in my opinion an examplary demonstration of the synergy between lists (all MPs of a particular parliament) and categories (MPs with articles). I see no reason why it should not be carried over to Ghanaian MPs, who seem to be elected in a roughly comparable system. (I take it that a Ghanaian MP is just as notable as a UK one, although many articles are at present missing.)
Occuli (
talk)
14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I have absolutely no problem with all Ghanaian MPs having articles and I've even started several myself. Can you explain to me why the same information (MPS in a given parliament) needs to be in two different places? I'd be in favor of deleting the UK version as well.--
TM15:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Vegaswikian wants the UK equivalents to be listified, but it is simply untrue to say "that this is what is apparently happening for the UK categories". The
CFD which Vegaswikian opened relates only to one such category out of 54, and it has not yet been closed. I see no consensus to listify and delete even the one category which has been nominated, let alone the other 53 which have not even been nominated. I think it's very poor conduct to say that "this is what is apparently happening" when the CFD referred to has not been closed and when most participants oppose Vegaswikian's view. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)reply
As I read that discussion, several UK categories were already listified and since this is a major effort it will take time to do all of the categories. Is that not what was written in the other discussion?
Vegaswikian1 (
talk)
04:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)reply
It is correct that lists are being constructed, and that this will take time. It was not correct for you to say that "listify and delete" has been agreed for those categories. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Are you saying that categories are a better tool to get the missing articles created? Clearly this is a place where the list excels.
Vegaswikian1 (
talk)
04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. These categories are a well-designed and workable tool in navigating the still-scanty coverage of the Ghanain Parliament. Per
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods" ... and "these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
02:21, 7 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:Relgious sees in Canada
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:Actor-athletes merge to Category:Sportspeople turned actors
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: it is not a long list so there is no need to limit it to those notable for play a sport and not for being notable for having coached, managed, or officiated one. All were notably involved in sport first and then politics (none were notable politicians first) 'Athlete' is problematic outside a Canadian-American context.
Mayumashu (
talk)
00:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete both as a trivial intersection of two professions. Many people have more than one profession over the course of a lifetime. Listify if desired.
Otto4711 (
talk)
05:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per Otto as
overcategorization on the basis of a
trivial intersection. People who were both actors and sportspeople should simply be categorized in both category trees rather than in an intersection category. There seems to be no need to upmerge in this case, as all of the articles seem to be otherwise appropriately categorized. –Black Falcon(
Talk)05:22, 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.