Category:Members of the European Parliament from Northern Ireland
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 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).
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. 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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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: DeleteWP:OC#CATGRS. Serves no purpose except to support the obsessions of certain editors. Trivial. Bulldog 22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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. 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 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. 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
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
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 (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
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
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.
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
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:People from Rochester, Medway
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. 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
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
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 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.
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.
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. --
Kbdank7112:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)reply
"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.
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. --
Kbdank7114:44, 30 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
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 - 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
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
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:Members of the European Parliament from Northern Ireland
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 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).
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. 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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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: DeleteWP:OC#CATGRS. Serves no purpose except to support the obsessions of certain editors. Trivial. Bulldog 22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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. 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 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. 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
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
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 (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
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
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.
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
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:People from Rochester, Medway
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. 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
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
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 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.
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.
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. --
Kbdank7112:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)reply
"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.
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. --
Kbdank7114:44, 30 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
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 - 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
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
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.