Category:South African alternative country singers
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 as part of broad international structures of musicians by genre. I too am curious as to how the nominator is certain that there are no other such singers nor will there ever be any more potential articles in this category.
Alansohn (
talk)
23:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Because I have searched around for other South African alt-country singers and this is literally the only guy I found who fit the bill? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer)01:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Did you search exhaustively enough to be absolutely certain that no other person will ever belong in the category, as opposed to Wikipedia only having one article right now?
Bearcat (
talk)
00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I generally try to avoid creating a national occupation subcategory until I can personally file at least three people in it, but that's just me. At any rate, while I wouldn't have created this yet, I don't see a particularly compelling reason to delete it on size grounds — given that there's a practice of subcatting by nationality in most of the musician trees anyway, keep unless somebody can prove that the genre really, truly doesn't exist in South Africa except for this one guy. The lack of current articles on Wikipedia about other alt-country singers doesn't necessarily mean that no others exist.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment
Other notable, South African alternative country singers are Jaxon Rice (of The Diesel Whores) and Andy Lund (of Andy Lund and the Mission Men).
I have done most of the editing on Jim Neversink. I am confused about the sub-categorization - at first I thought that a categorization as South African alt.-country singer would exclude him from a general search for alt.-country singers - but I guess that is not so? I think that given that the list is divided into countries, the SA category should stay. Where else would Neversink and the one Swedish singer be categorized? It is interesting to see how many countries are represented, with which number of entries.
Sorry to Eric444 for undoing his recategorization; explanation above!
SkaraB 15:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment Another notable SA alt.-country singer is Alex Sudheim of the band Lilo.
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:Counterculture Hall of Fame inductees
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: The Counterculture Hall of Fame exists as a promotional tool of the magazine High Times, as does the magazine's annual "Cannabis Cup" in Amsterdam at which the winner is inducted into the Counterculture Hall of Fame. To be a judge for Hall of Fame inductees, one has to pay $199 or $250.
http://hightimes.com/cancup/
High Times appears to be riding on the coattails of long-dead musicians and poets in an attempt to reflect some of their light on the magazine. In essence, the category promotes the magazine, and the Counterculture Hall of Fame is adjudicated by popular vote and thus is not encyclopedia-worthy.
Binksternet (
talk)
22:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OC#Award_recipients, but no objection to listifying it. I'm not too put off by the fact that the award is used as a promotional tool: many notable awards such as the
Booker Prize,
Whitbread Prize, etc, are promotional devices for a business, but are also highly significant (although this one does sound rather cheesier, with its pay-to-judge policy). However, there is no evidence that this award is either a defining characteristic of its recipients, or a sufficiently important thing to be an exception to
WP:OC#Award_recipients. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
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:Dead at 27
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.
Category Creator's rationale:Keep. The age of 27 is no normal age for famous people to die at. Not only is it quite young, many musicians have died at this age. There is an article called
27 Club for this reason. I think a category of this nature would be very suitable and it would ease referencing. --
Cexycy (
talk)
22:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
This is my point. If I was trying to make a category for each age, that would be absurd. I only intend to make one for the age of 27 for this reason. --
Cexycy (
talk)
22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) ×2 Hmm, that may be the case, but this seems best fit for a list, not a category. If this category were to be kept, categories like Dead by 45 or Dead by 12 will start popping up. To delete all but this category would just form a double standard; to allow the creation of all these categories would be overkill. —
ξxplicit22:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Actually, there are quite a few teneous categories, like 1947 births, 1948 births, Living People, etc. If someone wants to make a Dead at 28 Category, dead at 29, etc, what does it really matter as long as it's all factual? Isn't that what Wikipedia is about? Ease of knowledge to all. --
Cexycy (
talk)
23:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Years of birth and death are fundamental biographical info: on many gravestones, they are the only info apart from the name, and it is standard in biographical articles to refer (for example) to "Jane Smith (1901–1976)". You also mentioned
Category:Living people, which exists largely for maintenance purposes because of the extra importance of ensuring that there is no inaccurate negative info in the biographies of living people, whose lives and careers could still be damaged by it (see
WP:BLP). Per
WP:OC, we definitely do not categorise by every verifiable fact, because if we did each article would be cluttered with categories of marginal significance. That's all a bit irrelevant, though, because the decision has already been made not to categorise by age at time of death. An
admin would have been quite entitled to delete this category on sight. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Having the category on the article has the crucial function of allowing the use of the related changes function to monitor edits to BLP articles. That would not be possible if the category was only on the talkpage. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete as trivial (and per the links provided by BHG). Cexycy, feel free to nominate other such trivial categories for deletion.
Ucucha23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete Birth and death date categories are generated by templates and are a normal category for all bio-articles. However, I do not think that age at death categories are very useful. We would need perhaps 110 of them, and some one would have to go through all the 1000s of bio-articles on deceased persons with known dates to add them: any volunteers? No, it is trivia.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete as an arbitrary choice for a single category in this series. consensus and prior decisions say delete. however, if the creator REALLY wants to revive the debate on death by age, they would have to do so by other means, not by creating this category. its either all (age by years or decades, but either is trivial by my reckoning) or none. the article on a "Club" they reference really doesnt make this age that notable.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
06:42, 17 February 2010 (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.
Peace treaties
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 to match parent and because the proposed titles are clearer: an "English peace treaty" could as well be a treaty written in English.
Ucucha00:05, 16 February 2010 (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:Parsons the New School of Design alumni
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.
Question. Is "Parsons the New School of Design" actually the name of the place, or is it "Parsons" whose marketing slogan is "The New School of Design"? It looks to me like one of those branding exercises where "Snodgrass PLC" markets itself as "Snodgrass. The solutions people". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:19, 16 February 2010 (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:Tomar Kingdoms
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. The articles are about cities, and two say that they were formerly part of a Tomar state. I don't think we categorize places by former states they were part of, so tentatively delete.
Ucucha16:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I do not think that
BrownHairedGirl (an Irishwoman) or I (as an Englishman) are qualified to comment on this. I see no reason why places should not be categorised by the polity of which they were formerly part, but I would prefer to see categories of this kind being applied to articles (or categories) on districts, rather than those relating to individual towns or villages, which will not be kingdoms.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:37, 16 February 2010 (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:House of Clare
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename to
Category: De Clare family. From the discussion the strongest case is for a rename. The question is as nominated or as I'm closing. I see more support for the way this is being closed especially with the support for this after it was proposed.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, though "House of..." is in fact standard in these nob-squad categories, as in
Category:French noble houses. But it is not the usual English terminology these days, & we should be rolling it back where we can. No objection to "De Clare".
Johnbod (
talk)
17:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Leave as de Clare - rationale - starting a new trend is, in my opinion, highly inadvisable. What would come next - The House of Marshal or The Marshal Family? possible solution: There could be a lead in the search engine from "Clare" to de Clare if someone were to search using just the name "Clare". It is already in place for fitz Gilbert. More appropriate for this venue. Technically, the founders were fitz Gilberts anyway. The name of Clare only started to be used sometime after Richard fitz Gilbert was awarded Clare Castle. What would we do with the fitz Gilberts? As to changing name to House of Clare or Clare Family, The Wiki search engine is already the in-place solution. (already accomplished) propose leave as de Clare - other possibilities seem inappropriate for the all these reasons given.
Mugginsx (
talk)
20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I am not sure which article you are referring to. The only article about the Clare family is, at this moment, entitled de Clare. As one of the primary editors, and there will be others who will come in with their opinion, I think the re-naming would be inadvisable for the afore-mentioned reasons. Perhaps you are referring to another article? Thanks
Mugginsx (
talk)
21:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Leave unless there's a more compelling reason than "they're not royalty". I don't like "Clare family" because the family was known to history before it took its name from the place. —
Tamfang (
talk)
21:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
[Mugginsx asked me to comment here.] It's usually accepted that category names should follow from article names. From that it would follow that this category should either be called Category:De Clares, which has the disadvantage of being perhaps rather non-obvious, or Category:De Clare family, which more clearly says what it is. On the whole I prefer that this be renamed to Category:De Clare family for reasons of clarity and because they are indexed under that name in the second volume (Medieval Ireland 1169–1534) of the
Royal Irish Academy's New History of Ireland.
Angus McLellan(Talk)22:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm agreeing to the renaming to 'Clare family'. The article should be renamed too, because its subject is a family and not a family name.
PurpleHz (
talk)
22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Sorry for the misunderstanding of what you were discussing. Still, I think you will agree it is always a good idea to get a consensus for any change, even in categories, from editors who have actually contributed to the article. Anyway my opinion is Clare family yes, House of Clare, no. Thanks
Mugginsx (
talk)
23:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Brown-Haired Girl - How dare you falsely accuse me of "Canvassing with a non-neutral message". If you had bothered to read any of those messages you would have seen that they ALL clearly contained the words, "whatever your opinion would you please weigh in on this discussion". That is completly contradictory to your accusation. Indeed, they clearly did not all agree with me, if you had noticed. Your message is incorrect and impolite and deserves a public apology to a public false accusation. These editors all had a perfect right to give their opinion and they clearly did just that, pro and con. As an administrator, you are supposed to be encouraging a free and open discussion. I would suggest that you read the rules on Wiki Civility before making any more untrue accusations. You might find yourself blocked by another administrator because what you did and said is about as anti-Wiki as you can get.
Mugginsx (
talk)
00:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
(Ahem.) Pardon me for butting in, but I too would say that your messages were clearly a non-neutral form of canvassing, for the reason given above. Objectively speaking, of course. A neutral message is completely neutral. The message left was not.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
For the record, the editor involved has a history of disruptive behavior. During the editing of the piece on the Earls of Clare, instead of consulting, he followed much the same pattern as here, rushing around and stirring up the pot, ultimately filing a complaint against me for vandalism, which, all in all, was pretty laughable.
MarmadukePercy (
talk)
01:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Sadly, a disagreement in one article does not "a history of abuse make". The so-called complaint was because you made personal and abusive comments about me which are a matter of record should anyone care to check. At least one administrator agreed with me.
Mugginsx (
talk)
01:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I can forgive a lot of things on this site, including pettiness and even downright stupidity. But your behavior is in a different category. You have consistently shown a pattern of contempt towards other editors. As far as anyone agreeing with you, your allegation of vandalism against me was tossed out. You need to learn to respect others on this site. I've told you this before. If you don't start catching on, I hope you face sanctions.
MarmadukePercy (
talk)
That is patently untrue. My inter-relationship with editors are all on record and easily accessible to anyone. The fact is, that the only editors I have had trouble with are you and your friend. I try very hard to avoid the both of you and have done so successfully for many months until today. With any luck, I will not see your name or read your words again. I really feel sorry for you.
Mugginsx (
talk)
MarmadukePercy told me about this page and suggested i come here to offer my opinion on the renaming. I am the "friend"
Mugginsx accuses of working with MP to cause him trouble. Unfortunately, i refuse to offer an opinion on this suggested renaming, though i have one, because i stay as far away as i can nowadays from
Mugginsx: Accusations of vandalism, poor faith, and dictatorship have rather hurt me. I will point out, though, to answer
Tamfang's point below, that there are a number of people who fit into this category quite well, under any of the names proposed. I just don't want to put them there myself. Cheers, LindsayHi10:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)reply
RenameCategory: De Clare family. I am profoundly unhappy about the "house of" format for categories for aristocratic (as opposed to royal) families. I am sorry to see that Brownhairedgirl is so sensitive over canvassing. It is always good when we get contributions from those involved, who probably do not regualrly contribute to CFD discussions. However, I would deplore partisan canvassing.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
This was the non-neutral canvassing which you deplore. Most CfD debates have only half-a-dozen contributors, so canvassing can easily tip the balance of a discussion. I agree that it's great to have contributions from people knowledgeable on an issue, and the best way to achieve that is to place a completely neutral notification at the relevant WikiProject(s), and/or list the discussion at the relevant subpage(s) of
WP:DELSORT. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename as Category: De Clare family. This makes it perfectly clear who the category refers to. House is misleading as they were not royalty, whereas Clare on its own is too vague and lacking in precision.--
Jeanne Boleyn (
talk)
12:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:De Clare family per nominator (although this is definitely one of her less necessary nominations). Those who argue that it should be "De Clare have several compelling arguments. I'd like to stress the name of the main article as the decisive argument.
Debresser (
talk)
22:44, 17 February 2010 (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:Human evolution fossils
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. While a merge was suggested, the response indicated that this could create more cleanup then a simple deletion.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
CommentCategory:Hominin fossils was moved on the 15th from
Category:Early hominids and this causes the overlap. Perhaps Hominin fossils is the better descriptive title though I would suggest the category description be changed to note that hominin fossils includes not only Hominins but also Hominin related fossil evidence (such as foot prints, tools, etc) which is covered by the more encompassing phrase "human evolution".--
LittleHow (
talk)
12:02, 16 February 2010 (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:Air America Radio
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: Network has not been called "Air America Radio" for a while. The company's final name, and what everyone called it anyway, was just "Air America", so requesting to rename this category to match parent article's title. (And yes, I am aware that
Category:Air America is free, but it seems inappropriate to use considering the dab page located on
Air America.)
SchuminWeb (
Talk)
15:42, 15 February 2010 (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:E-mail Archiving and Compliance
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.
Appropriate as a subcategory to
Category:E-mail as is - there is a much longer list of solutions (eg smarsh, mimecast, etc) and continued innovation/news to be included (eg legal action noted in a company's history section, laws enacted, etc). Rename as suggested.
Brentyoung (
talk)
17:24, 15 February 2010 (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:Sailboat names
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 category seems to be about sailboats, not their names. There was an unresolved discussion in 2005 (during which
Category:Sailboats was created) and apparently there may be some disagreement about what kinds of vessels should go into this category, but nobody seems to agree that the "names" is necessary, any more than we put articles about people into
Category:People names or articles about songs into
Category:Song names. If there's still any dispute about the type of vessel, I hope we can all at least agree that "Sailboats" is a better title than "Sailboat names."
Propaniac (
talk)
15:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
A very good point! There are indeed overlaps in some of these categories. I will take some time out and see what we have re categories and make some suggestions for consideration.
Boatman (
talk)
21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename or delete Please understand that "sailboat" is a US-only term that to UK and I imagine other English-speaking ears rather implies something 15 feet long. This category aims to include all articles on individual sail-powered vessels including commercial freighters and warships. Rename to
Category:Sailing ships or vessels or something similar, if the category is in fact useful - which it may be.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete and then nominate
Category:Yachts by name for deletion. All ships are listed by name so why to we need a category by name? Is this intended to be a super category that includes all sailboats or all yachts? This seems like it may well be OCAT.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Reply The category is badly named and has a daft bit of introductory text, but it is clearly intended to categorise individual sailing boats rather than general articles about sailing boats or about types of sailing boats. If this category is deleted, then the articles in it will no longer categorised under
Category:Sailboats. If it is upmerged, then we retain no distinction between articles on individual sailboats such as Gipsy Moth IV and types of boat such as
J-class yacht,
Fish class sloop. The naming and structure of these categories is currently a big mess, but the solution lies in sorting the articles into more appropriate categories, rather than just pressing the delete button. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:50, 26 February 2010 (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:Editors with a pro-Wikipedia bias
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. I can't quite figure out what exactly this category is supposed to be for, since presumably anyone who spends some of their time editing wikipedia has some sort of bias in favour of the project, unless they are vandals. So this seems to be irrelevant to collaboration between editors, which is the only purpose of such categories
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
There are lots of things that go on in userspace that I would consider pointless, but we do not delete them because, supposedly, they help foster a collaborative environment that facilitates Wikipedia growth.
Ucucha16:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a good bias and I wish others would join it. Specially Jalapenos. :D Ucucha is also right, the nom smacks of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT: what the nom sees as pointless and redundant actually is seen as otherwise, in particular in topic areas were there is a demonstrable (as in ArbCom-banhammering demonstratable) anti-wikipedia bias on the part of groups of editors. It is both a statement of purpose and signal to editors to join. That it hasn't caught up is another matter, but this is not a reason to delete. Something being seen as pointless by editors is not a good reason for deletion, because one editor's "pointless" is another's "point". I do get the point, and its an important one. --
Cerejota (
talk)
16:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Agreed on the
WP:IDONTLIKEIT front here and no policy justification for deletion is offered. This category serves as an aid to navigation and collaboration for those who don't think the category is pointless.
Alansohn (
talk)
18:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
There are lots of categories you don't like. I understand that and am unimpressed with the precedents you offer which have no relevance here. I'm not sure why we bother dealing with these categories at CfD, but their removal is far more divisive and causes more disruption than the oft-repeated attempts to keep Wikipedia clear of any such groups. As this is a clear aid to collaboration, the supposed policy argument is equally irrelevant.
Alansohn (
talk)
19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Alansohn, your personalisation of yet another discussion is unnecessary. It's a pity that that when an editor cites a policy reason you can't simply accept in good faith that it is nominated for a policy reason, even if you disagree with the policy or its interpretation. As to your claim that the category aids collaboration, a category which we are told is designed to divide is a tool of division, not collaboration. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
When someone offers a policy reason for an action you disagree with, alleging
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a form of personalisation. Now, if you can bear to try discussing the substance, why exactly do you think that the policy reason is "irrelevant"? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Please read the discussion before attacking. I was not the one who mentioned that
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an issue. I merely agreed with another editor who you have chosen to ignore. Please don't personalize this. It's not about you.
Alansohn (
talk)
22:48, 15 February 2010 (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:Wikipedians who are recipients of the Commendation Medal
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 - This is a userspace category. We have all kinds of them, intendended to foster collaboration and interest among editors by highlighting their real life achievements and accomplishments. What you could call flair. I wouldn't say it is irrelevant to collaboration: declaring this can help, for example, to locate knowledgeable editors on the topic of military medals, military history, etc. This seems
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the rationale for deletion is hence unconvincing. --
Cerejota (
talk)
16:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep - It is a fact that those who have served in the military, regardless of branch or even country, have a tendency to speak the same language, simply because so many experiences transcend borders. The Russians have a proverb: 'A soldier is a soldier is a soldier; only the color of the button is different'. Civilians and military people lack a certain commonality that is shared by service members even from different nations. This is something that I have experienced time and again, first hand, over many years. This can have an enormous effect upon collaboration between editors, especially as it relates to military-themed articles: If I happen to peruse an article or section on, for example, non-judicial punishment as it affects the lower ranks in various armies, I am more apt to believe that an editor is knowedgeable if I can check that his bonafides are 'up to snuff', and userboxes and user categories are two ways of confirming this. This could also, obviously, affect whether I collaborate with said editor on a particular project. Add to it that this category is no less significant than others that cover, for instance, an editors national origin, sex, age or religion. To be sure, user categories are reflections of editor individuality, and, as such, have validity. If this one is to be deleted, then all should be deleted. No exceptions.
Lyricmac (
talk)
17:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. If the goal of user categories is to foster collaboration between editors in building an encyclopedia, this is probably not the way to go about it. It would be much easier to just have a category for those who served in such-and-such a military. There is no need for user categories that express this kind of puffery, legitimate pride, or whatever you want to call it. This information could also just be placed on a user page as text; there are unlikely to be very many users who would qualify for it anyway and therefore the category will not serve a very useful purpose in grouping multiple users with the same characteristic.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
How? The fact of holding a medal doesn't necessarily mean that the person has any expertise in the history of the medal, or any other issue relevant to writing about it on wikipedia (the state-issued medal I hold came with a pile of explanatory blurb about it, but like the other people I know with the same award I only read the first page of it before falling into a deep sleep which ended only when I was kissed by a prince). If editors want to collaborate, then the appropriate user category would be
Category:Wikipedians interested in the Commendation Medal. I'd be happy to keep the category if it was renamed to a generic form like that. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Pace Alansohn, Lyricmac's comments make it clear that the intention of this category is not to foster collaboration, but rather to ensure that only an in-crowd of editors edit particular articles. Likely to be used to encourage and promote the inclusion of argument from personal experience. The category is therefore not merely unhelpful in our work of building a
verifiable,
neutral point of view encyclopedia but is in fact likely to impede this effort.
Angus McLellan(Talk)22:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
To the contrary, Angusmclellan, my comment was meant to convey my belief that articles should be written by those who are knowledgeable in a certain field, eg, that technical articles about plants should be written by botanists, articles on Mozart symphonies by musicians and military articles by those who are most familiar with the subject, whether militarists or ex-military. If I need to reference Culloden, the BEF or Gettysburg, I would like to know that the author of the book that I am reading or the editor of the Wiki article has at least a modicum of experience with the subject matter. Cliqueish? Perhaps to an extent, but a natural reaction considering that those who really know a subject intimately are generally a minority of the whole (not all wikipaedians are botanists). And no, often that does not include me, militarily speaking-my disciplines run in other directions. Therefore, I am dependent upon either trusting that
Bruce Catton or
Douglas Southall Freeman know and can write clearly about the American Civil War, or checking their 'bonafides'. Hence the use of user categories and userboxes. What is so nefarious about that?--
Lyricmac (
talk)
02:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Lyricmac, that's an interesting principle, and although it does seem to me to clash a bit with the principle that what matters is
reliable sources rather than original research or personal experience. But if you go down that route, winning the medal is no guarantee of expertise in the subject, and per Angusmclellan's comment it may actually be a way of recruiting editors likely to have a particular perspective on the subject. If you want expertise on the
Battle of Culloden, look for someone who has studied it, rather than for the personal experience of an editor who was one of thee poor bloody infantry running around getting shot at. If you want NPOV, stay well away from both sets of participants. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
05:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
If we accept the premise that some user categories are useful for collaboration, then the proliferation of ones that are not useful for collaboration is harmful because it has the effect of diminshing the usability of the user category system. -- Black Falcon(
talk)20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete or close as moot (see
here). I believe that Lyricmac's creation was in good faith, but I believe that this category does not, in the end, foster encyclopedic collaboration. Expertise in a subject area, or the fact that the military experience transcends borders, may justify the existence of categories like
Category:Wikipedian military people and
Category:Wikipedian military scientists or
Category:Wikipedian military historians, but not of this category. User categories, like all categories,
are not (and should not be) merely bottom-of-the-page notices whose purpose is to convey information about individual users; rather they are groupings of users who share one or more common characteristics. In this light, an
all-or-nothing approach is not justified, since it is perfectly valid to judge the usefulness of each grouping individually, and to delete those groupings that serve no collaborative function and keep those that do. -- Black Falcon(
talk)21:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. It is a seperate category ... why? ... not all wiki's have this medal or belong into this category. Those who are recipients of the Commendation Medal have earned it and it should remain.--
Virusunknown (
talk)
21:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Deletion of the category in no way suggests that the Medal's recipients did not "earn it"; however, Wikipedia is generally
not the place to honor individuals' military achievements, sacrifices, or recognitions. Does the category fulfill any function related to the encyclopedia? Thanks, -- Black Falcon(
talk)03:53, 21 February 2010 (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:Famous polar bears
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.
We might consider whether "notable" is a more appropriate word than "famous" for this category tree for individual animals with articles.
Ucucha15:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep "Notable" is no use - this is always removed here, on the grounds that all subjects that escape Afd are by definition notable (until proven otherwise).
Category:Individual polar bears would be the way to go, but all the tree (37 sub-cats) should be addressed, & I think "famous" is ok myself.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a category about specific animals who are definingly notable for their choice of being polar bears and their choice of pursuing fame and fortune in the big city zoos.
Category:Polar bears would be perfect if it weren't about the species as a whole. Something is needed to uniquely identify this as referring to individual animals.
Alansohn (
talk)
18:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep in some form. An upmerge to
Category:Polar bears would be inappropriate, sicne that is largely about the speciies in general, rather than individual members of it. I am indifferent whether the qualifier should be "famous", "notable", "indvidual", or whatever. We do not usually have "notable" or "famous" categories because NN people (or bears) will not have articles.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:25, 16 February 2010 (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:Military Friendly University
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 per
WP:OC#TRIVIA as a non-defining or trivial characteristic. The inclusion of a university in somebody's list of universities-good-for-X may just about merit a mention in the article on a university, but it probably isn't enough for a list, and is definitely not a defining characteristic which requires a category.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Agree with deletion. I told the category's creator that I intended to bring the category here for deletion, but first I wanted to give him a chance to start fixing things. He can create an article about "Military-friendly universities" (a designation for U.S. institutions that was created by a proprietary business, but apparently based on criteria -- and that has been publicized by every university thus designated). --
Orlady (
talk)
15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Understood. However, having been accused in the past of incivility because of actions like nominating unsourced articles for deletion, I have concluded that it is generally desirable to give inexperienced good-faith contributors a chance to rectify a situation before confronting them with an XfD process. --
Orlady (
talk)
18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:OC#TRIVIA argument is a good one. Categorizations of article space shouldn't be trivial or arbitrary. "Military Friendly" is also an ambiguous and possibly non-neutral classification - who defines what being "military friendly" is? --
Cerejota (
talk)
16:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Given that it's an American list of American universities, I kinda suspect that the intention might not be to identify places of learning which give a warm welcome to Taliban fighters from Afghanistan, Somali warlords, veterans of the VietCong, or former soldiers of the Red Army. But maybe I just got a suspicious mind. If there was anyone interested in keeping the category, it might be worthwhile looking for some neutral analysis of what this list means, in the shape of sort of friendly to which military, but since everyone agrees it can go, that's probably not needed. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
05:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I suspect that the category's name is a code word for "American universities who allow U.S. military recruitment on campus despite anti-gay discrimination by the military". Some universities prohibit on-campus recruitment by prospective employers who engage in improper discrimination, and presumably "military-friendly universities" are those institutions who are willing to make an exception for the U.S. military. Arguably, whether a university has a corporate conscience or not is as valid a category as the name of the athletic conference it belongs to.
Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)
19:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
You guess wrong, Eastmain. See
this press release announcing the list and
this report on the current list. The claimed focus is on schools that recruit (or at least accommodate) current U.S. military and veterans. A lot of the schools on the list are
distance education providers that don't have campuses, much less have policies on military recruitment on campus, but the list also includes traditional schools. The cynic in me is sure that all of the schools on the list are well aware that today's veterans get generous educational benefits -- and their tuition checks don't bounce. Regardless of the selection criteria, it's not a defining characteristic of these schools and it's not a good basis for a category. --
Orlady (
talk)
21:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. I DISAGREE WITH DELETION. There are thousands of schools that are considered military-friendly every year. In fact, each year 100s of colleges in the United States based upon information gathered from different schools that applied for the distinction and were selected. Only, the top colleges and universities are selected based upon criteria such as number of military students, availability of financial aid, number of military contracts, accreditation, and more. Those selected are institutions that open their arms to active duty and non-active duty military. But almost all bend over backwards to offer additional support and consideration to members of the military and their families. So, I do believe this is an entirely "new" category and is not a proprietary business (Military Advanced Education is a federal government's magazine published by the US military...our military belongs to the people!!!) but listed as a wonderful resource for our men and women of the U.S. military armed forces attending Military Friendly Universities. So, to categorize it as anything else but its own separate category is misleading and incorrect to those colleges that do not have this title. I disagree with speedy deletion and vote it should stay since there are many other colleges that factor into this new category. --
Virusunknown (
talk)
20:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
...wrote, "who defines what being "military friendly" is?" Answer: Our U.S. Military does...you know those people that uphold our constitution, rights, and freedoms. I may be new and still learning but doesn't Wikipedia's categories help you to browse through articles organized by topic. Is everyone really ready to delete this legit category. Here is some food for thought...instead of quickly deleting everything why not do the research as I have and help correct the newbie's mistakes. The military-friendly category is its own topic of category. Seriously, wiki has a category named University Of Chess with only 1 member and its not marked fro deletion but you want to delete this one that has over 100+ members. Are we not here to make the articles better? My agenda is simply to perform research, report, and publish the "facts". —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Virusunknown (
talk •
contribs)
21:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I think you will find that the people of Vietnam, for example, are not exactly thrilled at the role of the US Military in defending their freedoms, nor are the former inhabitants of
Diego Garcia; and for 95% of the earth's inhabitants, the US military is not "our military".
Neutrality is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and a category about "upholding our constitution, rights, and freedoms" is just as inappropriate as one taking the opposite view. Improve the articles, but don't use the category system to push a point-of-view. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:58, 22 February 2010 (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:Independent politicians in County Kildare
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 both. Ireland is not a big enough country to require splitting the sub-cats of
Category:Irish politicians by party in categories by each of the 26 counties, and there are no other categories of Irish-politicians-by-party-and-country. Note that the only politicians in Ireland categorised by county are local councillors, so there is no need for a dual upmerge. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:United States environmental law
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.
Yes; in mentioning conflicting conventions, I was just referring back to the fact that there are a lot of "United States foo law" categories if you pursue it down the other tree. Perhaps not dominant enough to call it a "convention", though. On balance I think the proposed change is probably a good idea for the reasons outlined below.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment by category creator. I would say that "United States environmental law" suggests federal law, while "environmental law in the United States" could be seen as more inclusive of both state and federal environmental law. So given that there is a distinct subcategory expressly for federal environmental legislation, maybe it's better to go with the more inclusive name. But either naming form is acceptable to me. postdlf (talk)
13:22, 15 February 2010 (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:Reading instruction by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge. While a suggestion of renaming the target has been made, it isn't clear that there's concensus for it, nor what the new name should be; this can, however, be discussed separately.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu08:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Almost all articles in category in question are about reading methods in general, not reading by country -- the articles have no relation with the category.
azumanga (
talk)
04:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom - 'by country' implies either subcats (not present) or articles such as 'Reading instruction in Foo' (not present).
Occuli (
talk)
17:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom.Changed my mind -- see below. Not only is the subject matter not country-specific, but there's no indication of a country or countries in the contents of
Category:Reading instruction by country. (There are no subcategories there -- were country-specific categories deleted previously?) --
Orlady (
talk)
22:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge and Rename This category was created in the hope that articles from other countries would be included to distinguish primarily between learning to read in the USA education system and the UK education. But I have since stopped being an active Wikipedia editor, too stess ful with my disability. But having looked that the other category both categries should be merged and renamed "Learning to read in in the USA" , especially as most of the article are USA specific, and do not universally apply outside of the USA.
dolfrog (
talk)
03:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Learning to read and rename the destination category - Changed my mind (see earlier comment above.) Upon reflection, I don't think "Learning to read" accurately describes the category contents, since (1) the articles deal with both the teaching and learning of reading (not just learning), and (2) the articles in the categories are not limited to initial learning "to read," but also include topics related with improving the student's reading ability. (Moreover, although some of the articles in the "by country" category are US-centric, articles like
Jolly Phonics are specific to other countries, and the subject matter of articles like
Orton-Gillinghamis not necessarily specific to one country. Accordingly, I don't agree with Dolfrog's recommendation.) A better name for the destination category might be "reading learning and instruction", but that likely is not the best name. --
Orlady (
talk)
05:02, 18 February 2010 (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:WikiProject help
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:South African alternative country singers
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 as part of broad international structures of musicians by genre. I too am curious as to how the nominator is certain that there are no other such singers nor will there ever be any more potential articles in this category.
Alansohn (
talk)
23:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Because I have searched around for other South African alt-country singers and this is literally the only guy I found who fit the bill? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer)01:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Did you search exhaustively enough to be absolutely certain that no other person will ever belong in the category, as opposed to Wikipedia only having one article right now?
Bearcat (
talk)
00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I generally try to avoid creating a national occupation subcategory until I can personally file at least three people in it, but that's just me. At any rate, while I wouldn't have created this yet, I don't see a particularly compelling reason to delete it on size grounds — given that there's a practice of subcatting by nationality in most of the musician trees anyway, keep unless somebody can prove that the genre really, truly doesn't exist in South Africa except for this one guy. The lack of current articles on Wikipedia about other alt-country singers doesn't necessarily mean that no others exist.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment
Other notable, South African alternative country singers are Jaxon Rice (of The Diesel Whores) and Andy Lund (of Andy Lund and the Mission Men).
I have done most of the editing on Jim Neversink. I am confused about the sub-categorization - at first I thought that a categorization as South African alt.-country singer would exclude him from a general search for alt.-country singers - but I guess that is not so? I think that given that the list is divided into countries, the SA category should stay. Where else would Neversink and the one Swedish singer be categorized? It is interesting to see how many countries are represented, with which number of entries.
Sorry to Eric444 for undoing his recategorization; explanation above!
SkaraB 15:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment Another notable SA alt.-country singer is Alex Sudheim of the band Lilo.
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:Counterculture Hall of Fame inductees
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: The Counterculture Hall of Fame exists as a promotional tool of the magazine High Times, as does the magazine's annual "Cannabis Cup" in Amsterdam at which the winner is inducted into the Counterculture Hall of Fame. To be a judge for Hall of Fame inductees, one has to pay $199 or $250.
http://hightimes.com/cancup/
High Times appears to be riding on the coattails of long-dead musicians and poets in an attempt to reflect some of their light on the magazine. In essence, the category promotes the magazine, and the Counterculture Hall of Fame is adjudicated by popular vote and thus is not encyclopedia-worthy.
Binksternet (
talk)
22:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OC#Award_recipients, but no objection to listifying it. I'm not too put off by the fact that the award is used as a promotional tool: many notable awards such as the
Booker Prize,
Whitbread Prize, etc, are promotional devices for a business, but are also highly significant (although this one does sound rather cheesier, with its pay-to-judge policy). However, there is no evidence that this award is either a defining characteristic of its recipients, or a sufficiently important thing to be an exception to
WP:OC#Award_recipients. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
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:Dead at 27
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.
Category Creator's rationale:Keep. The age of 27 is no normal age for famous people to die at. Not only is it quite young, many musicians have died at this age. There is an article called
27 Club for this reason. I think a category of this nature would be very suitable and it would ease referencing. --
Cexycy (
talk)
22:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
This is my point. If I was trying to make a category for each age, that would be absurd. I only intend to make one for the age of 27 for this reason. --
Cexycy (
talk)
22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) ×2 Hmm, that may be the case, but this seems best fit for a list, not a category. If this category were to be kept, categories like Dead by 45 or Dead by 12 will start popping up. To delete all but this category would just form a double standard; to allow the creation of all these categories would be overkill. —
ξxplicit22:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Actually, there are quite a few teneous categories, like 1947 births, 1948 births, Living People, etc. If someone wants to make a Dead at 28 Category, dead at 29, etc, what does it really matter as long as it's all factual? Isn't that what Wikipedia is about? Ease of knowledge to all. --
Cexycy (
talk)
23:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Years of birth and death are fundamental biographical info: on many gravestones, they are the only info apart from the name, and it is standard in biographical articles to refer (for example) to "Jane Smith (1901–1976)". You also mentioned
Category:Living people, which exists largely for maintenance purposes because of the extra importance of ensuring that there is no inaccurate negative info in the biographies of living people, whose lives and careers could still be damaged by it (see
WP:BLP). Per
WP:OC, we definitely do not categorise by every verifiable fact, because if we did each article would be cluttered with categories of marginal significance. That's all a bit irrelevant, though, because the decision has already been made not to categorise by age at time of death. An
admin would have been quite entitled to delete this category on sight. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Having the category on the article has the crucial function of allowing the use of the related changes function to monitor edits to BLP articles. That would not be possible if the category was only on the talkpage. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete as trivial (and per the links provided by BHG). Cexycy, feel free to nominate other such trivial categories for deletion.
Ucucha23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete Birth and death date categories are generated by templates and are a normal category for all bio-articles. However, I do not think that age at death categories are very useful. We would need perhaps 110 of them, and some one would have to go through all the 1000s of bio-articles on deceased persons with known dates to add them: any volunteers? No, it is trivia.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete as an arbitrary choice for a single category in this series. consensus and prior decisions say delete. however, if the creator REALLY wants to revive the debate on death by age, they would have to do so by other means, not by creating this category. its either all (age by years or decades, but either is trivial by my reckoning) or none. the article on a "Club" they reference really doesnt make this age that notable.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
06:42, 17 February 2010 (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.
Peace treaties
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 to match parent and because the proposed titles are clearer: an "English peace treaty" could as well be a treaty written in English.
Ucucha00:05, 16 February 2010 (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:Parsons the New School of Design alumni
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.
Question. Is "Parsons the New School of Design" actually the name of the place, or is it "Parsons" whose marketing slogan is "The New School of Design"? It looks to me like one of those branding exercises where "Snodgrass PLC" markets itself as "Snodgrass. The solutions people". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:19, 16 February 2010 (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:Tomar Kingdoms
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. The articles are about cities, and two say that they were formerly part of a Tomar state. I don't think we categorize places by former states they were part of, so tentatively delete.
Ucucha16:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I do not think that
BrownHairedGirl (an Irishwoman) or I (as an Englishman) are qualified to comment on this. I see no reason why places should not be categorised by the polity of which they were formerly part, but I would prefer to see categories of this kind being applied to articles (or categories) on districts, rather than those relating to individual towns or villages, which will not be kingdoms.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:37, 16 February 2010 (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:House of Clare
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename to
Category: De Clare family. From the discussion the strongest case is for a rename. The question is as nominated or as I'm closing. I see more support for the way this is being closed especially with the support for this after it was proposed.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, though "House of..." is in fact standard in these nob-squad categories, as in
Category:French noble houses. But it is not the usual English terminology these days, & we should be rolling it back where we can. No objection to "De Clare".
Johnbod (
talk)
17:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Leave as de Clare - rationale - starting a new trend is, in my opinion, highly inadvisable. What would come next - The House of Marshal or The Marshal Family? possible solution: There could be a lead in the search engine from "Clare" to de Clare if someone were to search using just the name "Clare". It is already in place for fitz Gilbert. More appropriate for this venue. Technically, the founders were fitz Gilberts anyway. The name of Clare only started to be used sometime after Richard fitz Gilbert was awarded Clare Castle. What would we do with the fitz Gilberts? As to changing name to House of Clare or Clare Family, The Wiki search engine is already the in-place solution. (already accomplished) propose leave as de Clare - other possibilities seem inappropriate for the all these reasons given.
Mugginsx (
talk)
20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I am not sure which article you are referring to. The only article about the Clare family is, at this moment, entitled de Clare. As one of the primary editors, and there will be others who will come in with their opinion, I think the re-naming would be inadvisable for the afore-mentioned reasons. Perhaps you are referring to another article? Thanks
Mugginsx (
talk)
21:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Leave unless there's a more compelling reason than "they're not royalty". I don't like "Clare family" because the family was known to history before it took its name from the place. —
Tamfang (
talk)
21:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
[Mugginsx asked me to comment here.] It's usually accepted that category names should follow from article names. From that it would follow that this category should either be called Category:De Clares, which has the disadvantage of being perhaps rather non-obvious, or Category:De Clare family, which more clearly says what it is. On the whole I prefer that this be renamed to Category:De Clare family for reasons of clarity and because they are indexed under that name in the second volume (Medieval Ireland 1169–1534) of the
Royal Irish Academy's New History of Ireland.
Angus McLellan(Talk)22:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm agreeing to the renaming to 'Clare family'. The article should be renamed too, because its subject is a family and not a family name.
PurpleHz (
talk)
22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Sorry for the misunderstanding of what you were discussing. Still, I think you will agree it is always a good idea to get a consensus for any change, even in categories, from editors who have actually contributed to the article. Anyway my opinion is Clare family yes, House of Clare, no. Thanks
Mugginsx (
talk)
23:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Brown-Haired Girl - How dare you falsely accuse me of "Canvassing with a non-neutral message". If you had bothered to read any of those messages you would have seen that they ALL clearly contained the words, "whatever your opinion would you please weigh in on this discussion". That is completly contradictory to your accusation. Indeed, they clearly did not all agree with me, if you had noticed. Your message is incorrect and impolite and deserves a public apology to a public false accusation. These editors all had a perfect right to give their opinion and they clearly did just that, pro and con. As an administrator, you are supposed to be encouraging a free and open discussion. I would suggest that you read the rules on Wiki Civility before making any more untrue accusations. You might find yourself blocked by another administrator because what you did and said is about as anti-Wiki as you can get.
Mugginsx (
talk)
00:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
(Ahem.) Pardon me for butting in, but I too would say that your messages were clearly a non-neutral form of canvassing, for the reason given above. Objectively speaking, of course. A neutral message is completely neutral. The message left was not.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
For the record, the editor involved has a history of disruptive behavior. During the editing of the piece on the Earls of Clare, instead of consulting, he followed much the same pattern as here, rushing around and stirring up the pot, ultimately filing a complaint against me for vandalism, which, all in all, was pretty laughable.
MarmadukePercy (
talk)
01:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Sadly, a disagreement in one article does not "a history of abuse make". The so-called complaint was because you made personal and abusive comments about me which are a matter of record should anyone care to check. At least one administrator agreed with me.
Mugginsx (
talk)
01:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I can forgive a lot of things on this site, including pettiness and even downright stupidity. But your behavior is in a different category. You have consistently shown a pattern of contempt towards other editors. As far as anyone agreeing with you, your allegation of vandalism against me was tossed out. You need to learn to respect others on this site. I've told you this before. If you don't start catching on, I hope you face sanctions.
MarmadukePercy (
talk)
That is patently untrue. My inter-relationship with editors are all on record and easily accessible to anyone. The fact is, that the only editors I have had trouble with are you and your friend. I try very hard to avoid the both of you and have done so successfully for many months until today. With any luck, I will not see your name or read your words again. I really feel sorry for you.
Mugginsx (
talk)
MarmadukePercy told me about this page and suggested i come here to offer my opinion on the renaming. I am the "friend"
Mugginsx accuses of working with MP to cause him trouble. Unfortunately, i refuse to offer an opinion on this suggested renaming, though i have one, because i stay as far away as i can nowadays from
Mugginsx: Accusations of vandalism, poor faith, and dictatorship have rather hurt me. I will point out, though, to answer
Tamfang's point below, that there are a number of people who fit into this category quite well, under any of the names proposed. I just don't want to put them there myself. Cheers, LindsayHi10:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)reply
RenameCategory: De Clare family. I am profoundly unhappy about the "house of" format for categories for aristocratic (as opposed to royal) families. I am sorry to see that Brownhairedgirl is so sensitive over canvassing. It is always good when we get contributions from those involved, who probably do not regualrly contribute to CFD discussions. However, I would deplore partisan canvassing.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
This was the non-neutral canvassing which you deplore. Most CfD debates have only half-a-dozen contributors, so canvassing can easily tip the balance of a discussion. I agree that it's great to have contributions from people knowledgeable on an issue, and the best way to achieve that is to place a completely neutral notification at the relevant WikiProject(s), and/or list the discussion at the relevant subpage(s) of
WP:DELSORT. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename as Category: De Clare family. This makes it perfectly clear who the category refers to. House is misleading as they were not royalty, whereas Clare on its own is too vague and lacking in precision.--
Jeanne Boleyn (
talk)
12:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:De Clare family per nominator (although this is definitely one of her less necessary nominations). Those who argue that it should be "De Clare have several compelling arguments. I'd like to stress the name of the main article as the decisive argument.
Debresser (
talk)
22:44, 17 February 2010 (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:Human evolution fossils
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. While a merge was suggested, the response indicated that this could create more cleanup then a simple deletion.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
CommentCategory:Hominin fossils was moved on the 15th from
Category:Early hominids and this causes the overlap. Perhaps Hominin fossils is the better descriptive title though I would suggest the category description be changed to note that hominin fossils includes not only Hominins but also Hominin related fossil evidence (such as foot prints, tools, etc) which is covered by the more encompassing phrase "human evolution".--
LittleHow (
talk)
12:02, 16 February 2010 (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:Air America Radio
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: Network has not been called "Air America Radio" for a while. The company's final name, and what everyone called it anyway, was just "Air America", so requesting to rename this category to match parent article's title. (And yes, I am aware that
Category:Air America is free, but it seems inappropriate to use considering the dab page located on
Air America.)
SchuminWeb (
Talk)
15:42, 15 February 2010 (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:E-mail Archiving and Compliance
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.
Appropriate as a subcategory to
Category:E-mail as is - there is a much longer list of solutions (eg smarsh, mimecast, etc) and continued innovation/news to be included (eg legal action noted in a company's history section, laws enacted, etc). Rename as suggested.
Brentyoung (
talk)
17:24, 15 February 2010 (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:Sailboat names
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 category seems to be about sailboats, not their names. There was an unresolved discussion in 2005 (during which
Category:Sailboats was created) and apparently there may be some disagreement about what kinds of vessels should go into this category, but nobody seems to agree that the "names" is necessary, any more than we put articles about people into
Category:People names or articles about songs into
Category:Song names. If there's still any dispute about the type of vessel, I hope we can all at least agree that "Sailboats" is a better title than "Sailboat names."
Propaniac (
talk)
15:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
A very good point! There are indeed overlaps in some of these categories. I will take some time out and see what we have re categories and make some suggestions for consideration.
Boatman (
talk)
21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename or delete Please understand that "sailboat" is a US-only term that to UK and I imagine other English-speaking ears rather implies something 15 feet long. This category aims to include all articles on individual sail-powered vessels including commercial freighters and warships. Rename to
Category:Sailing ships or vessels or something similar, if the category is in fact useful - which it may be.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete and then nominate
Category:Yachts by name for deletion. All ships are listed by name so why to we need a category by name? Is this intended to be a super category that includes all sailboats or all yachts? This seems like it may well be OCAT.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Reply The category is badly named and has a daft bit of introductory text, but it is clearly intended to categorise individual sailing boats rather than general articles about sailing boats or about types of sailing boats. If this category is deleted, then the articles in it will no longer categorised under
Category:Sailboats. If it is upmerged, then we retain no distinction between articles on individual sailboats such as Gipsy Moth IV and types of boat such as
J-class yacht,
Fish class sloop. The naming and structure of these categories is currently a big mess, but the solution lies in sorting the articles into more appropriate categories, rather than just pressing the delete button. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:50, 26 February 2010 (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:Editors with a pro-Wikipedia bias
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. I can't quite figure out what exactly this category is supposed to be for, since presumably anyone who spends some of their time editing wikipedia has some sort of bias in favour of the project, unless they are vandals. So this seems to be irrelevant to collaboration between editors, which is the only purpose of such categories
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
There are lots of things that go on in userspace that I would consider pointless, but we do not delete them because, supposedly, they help foster a collaborative environment that facilitates Wikipedia growth.
Ucucha16:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a good bias and I wish others would join it. Specially Jalapenos. :D Ucucha is also right, the nom smacks of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT: what the nom sees as pointless and redundant actually is seen as otherwise, in particular in topic areas were there is a demonstrable (as in ArbCom-banhammering demonstratable) anti-wikipedia bias on the part of groups of editors. It is both a statement of purpose and signal to editors to join. That it hasn't caught up is another matter, but this is not a reason to delete. Something being seen as pointless by editors is not a good reason for deletion, because one editor's "pointless" is another's "point". I do get the point, and its an important one. --
Cerejota (
talk)
16:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Agreed on the
WP:IDONTLIKEIT front here and no policy justification for deletion is offered. This category serves as an aid to navigation and collaboration for those who don't think the category is pointless.
Alansohn (
talk)
18:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
There are lots of categories you don't like. I understand that and am unimpressed with the precedents you offer which have no relevance here. I'm not sure why we bother dealing with these categories at CfD, but their removal is far more divisive and causes more disruption than the oft-repeated attempts to keep Wikipedia clear of any such groups. As this is a clear aid to collaboration, the supposed policy argument is equally irrelevant.
Alansohn (
talk)
19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Alansohn, your personalisation of yet another discussion is unnecessary. It's a pity that that when an editor cites a policy reason you can't simply accept in good faith that it is nominated for a policy reason, even if you disagree with the policy or its interpretation. As to your claim that the category aids collaboration, a category which we are told is designed to divide is a tool of division, not collaboration. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
When someone offers a policy reason for an action you disagree with, alleging
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a form of personalisation. Now, if you can bear to try discussing the substance, why exactly do you think that the policy reason is "irrelevant"? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Please read the discussion before attacking. I was not the one who mentioned that
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an issue. I merely agreed with another editor who you have chosen to ignore. Please don't personalize this. It's not about you.
Alansohn (
talk)
22:48, 15 February 2010 (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:Wikipedians who are recipients of the Commendation Medal
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 - This is a userspace category. We have all kinds of them, intendended to foster collaboration and interest among editors by highlighting their real life achievements and accomplishments. What you could call flair. I wouldn't say it is irrelevant to collaboration: declaring this can help, for example, to locate knowledgeable editors on the topic of military medals, military history, etc. This seems
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the rationale for deletion is hence unconvincing. --
Cerejota (
talk)
16:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep - It is a fact that those who have served in the military, regardless of branch or even country, have a tendency to speak the same language, simply because so many experiences transcend borders. The Russians have a proverb: 'A soldier is a soldier is a soldier; only the color of the button is different'. Civilians and military people lack a certain commonality that is shared by service members even from different nations. This is something that I have experienced time and again, first hand, over many years. This can have an enormous effect upon collaboration between editors, especially as it relates to military-themed articles: If I happen to peruse an article or section on, for example, non-judicial punishment as it affects the lower ranks in various armies, I am more apt to believe that an editor is knowedgeable if I can check that his bonafides are 'up to snuff', and userboxes and user categories are two ways of confirming this. This could also, obviously, affect whether I collaborate with said editor on a particular project. Add to it that this category is no less significant than others that cover, for instance, an editors national origin, sex, age or religion. To be sure, user categories are reflections of editor individuality, and, as such, have validity. If this one is to be deleted, then all should be deleted. No exceptions.
Lyricmac (
talk)
17:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. If the goal of user categories is to foster collaboration between editors in building an encyclopedia, this is probably not the way to go about it. It would be much easier to just have a category for those who served in such-and-such a military. There is no need for user categories that express this kind of puffery, legitimate pride, or whatever you want to call it. This information could also just be placed on a user page as text; there are unlikely to be very many users who would qualify for it anyway and therefore the category will not serve a very useful purpose in grouping multiple users with the same characteristic.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
How? The fact of holding a medal doesn't necessarily mean that the person has any expertise in the history of the medal, or any other issue relevant to writing about it on wikipedia (the state-issued medal I hold came with a pile of explanatory blurb about it, but like the other people I know with the same award I only read the first page of it before falling into a deep sleep which ended only when I was kissed by a prince). If editors want to collaborate, then the appropriate user category would be
Category:Wikipedians interested in the Commendation Medal. I'd be happy to keep the category if it was renamed to a generic form like that. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Pace Alansohn, Lyricmac's comments make it clear that the intention of this category is not to foster collaboration, but rather to ensure that only an in-crowd of editors edit particular articles. Likely to be used to encourage and promote the inclusion of argument from personal experience. The category is therefore not merely unhelpful in our work of building a
verifiable,
neutral point of view encyclopedia but is in fact likely to impede this effort.
Angus McLellan(Talk)22:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
To the contrary, Angusmclellan, my comment was meant to convey my belief that articles should be written by those who are knowledgeable in a certain field, eg, that technical articles about plants should be written by botanists, articles on Mozart symphonies by musicians and military articles by those who are most familiar with the subject, whether militarists or ex-military. If I need to reference Culloden, the BEF or Gettysburg, I would like to know that the author of the book that I am reading or the editor of the Wiki article has at least a modicum of experience with the subject matter. Cliqueish? Perhaps to an extent, but a natural reaction considering that those who really know a subject intimately are generally a minority of the whole (not all wikipaedians are botanists). And no, often that does not include me, militarily speaking-my disciplines run in other directions. Therefore, I am dependent upon either trusting that
Bruce Catton or
Douglas Southall Freeman know and can write clearly about the American Civil War, or checking their 'bonafides'. Hence the use of user categories and userboxes. What is so nefarious about that?--
Lyricmac (
talk)
02:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Lyricmac, that's an interesting principle, and although it does seem to me to clash a bit with the principle that what matters is
reliable sources rather than original research or personal experience. But if you go down that route, winning the medal is no guarantee of expertise in the subject, and per Angusmclellan's comment it may actually be a way of recruiting editors likely to have a particular perspective on the subject. If you want expertise on the
Battle of Culloden, look for someone who has studied it, rather than for the personal experience of an editor who was one of thee poor bloody infantry running around getting shot at. If you want NPOV, stay well away from both sets of participants. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
05:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
If we accept the premise that some user categories are useful for collaboration, then the proliferation of ones that are not useful for collaboration is harmful because it has the effect of diminshing the usability of the user category system. -- Black Falcon(
talk)20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete or close as moot (see
here). I believe that Lyricmac's creation was in good faith, but I believe that this category does not, in the end, foster encyclopedic collaboration. Expertise in a subject area, or the fact that the military experience transcends borders, may justify the existence of categories like
Category:Wikipedian military people and
Category:Wikipedian military scientists or
Category:Wikipedian military historians, but not of this category. User categories, like all categories,
are not (and should not be) merely bottom-of-the-page notices whose purpose is to convey information about individual users; rather they are groupings of users who share one or more common characteristics. In this light, an
all-or-nothing approach is not justified, since it is perfectly valid to judge the usefulness of each grouping individually, and to delete those groupings that serve no collaborative function and keep those that do. -- Black Falcon(
talk)21:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. It is a seperate category ... why? ... not all wiki's have this medal or belong into this category. Those who are recipients of the Commendation Medal have earned it and it should remain.--
Virusunknown (
talk)
21:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Deletion of the category in no way suggests that the Medal's recipients did not "earn it"; however, Wikipedia is generally
not the place to honor individuals' military achievements, sacrifices, or recognitions. Does the category fulfill any function related to the encyclopedia? Thanks, -- Black Falcon(
talk)03:53, 21 February 2010 (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:Famous polar bears
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.
We might consider whether "notable" is a more appropriate word than "famous" for this category tree for individual animals with articles.
Ucucha15:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep "Notable" is no use - this is always removed here, on the grounds that all subjects that escape Afd are by definition notable (until proven otherwise).
Category:Individual polar bears would be the way to go, but all the tree (37 sub-cats) should be addressed, & I think "famous" is ok myself.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a category about specific animals who are definingly notable for their choice of being polar bears and their choice of pursuing fame and fortune in the big city zoos.
Category:Polar bears would be perfect if it weren't about the species as a whole. Something is needed to uniquely identify this as referring to individual animals.
Alansohn (
talk)
18:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep in some form. An upmerge to
Category:Polar bears would be inappropriate, sicne that is largely about the speciies in general, rather than individual members of it. I am indifferent whether the qualifier should be "famous", "notable", "indvidual", or whatever. We do not usually have "notable" or "famous" categories because NN people (or bears) will not have articles.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:25, 16 February 2010 (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:Military Friendly University
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 per
WP:OC#TRIVIA as a non-defining or trivial characteristic. The inclusion of a university in somebody's list of universities-good-for-X may just about merit a mention in the article on a university, but it probably isn't enough for a list, and is definitely not a defining characteristic which requires a category.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Agree with deletion. I told the category's creator that I intended to bring the category here for deletion, but first I wanted to give him a chance to start fixing things. He can create an article about "Military-friendly universities" (a designation for U.S. institutions that was created by a proprietary business, but apparently based on criteria -- and that has been publicized by every university thus designated). --
Orlady (
talk)
15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Understood. However, having been accused in the past of incivility because of actions like nominating unsourced articles for deletion, I have concluded that it is generally desirable to give inexperienced good-faith contributors a chance to rectify a situation before confronting them with an XfD process. --
Orlady (
talk)
18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:OC#TRIVIA argument is a good one. Categorizations of article space shouldn't be trivial or arbitrary. "Military Friendly" is also an ambiguous and possibly non-neutral classification - who defines what being "military friendly" is? --
Cerejota (
talk)
16:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Given that it's an American list of American universities, I kinda suspect that the intention might not be to identify places of learning which give a warm welcome to Taliban fighters from Afghanistan, Somali warlords, veterans of the VietCong, or former soldiers of the Red Army. But maybe I just got a suspicious mind. If there was anyone interested in keeping the category, it might be worthwhile looking for some neutral analysis of what this list means, in the shape of sort of friendly to which military, but since everyone agrees it can go, that's probably not needed. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
05:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I suspect that the category's name is a code word for "American universities who allow U.S. military recruitment on campus despite anti-gay discrimination by the military". Some universities prohibit on-campus recruitment by prospective employers who engage in improper discrimination, and presumably "military-friendly universities" are those institutions who are willing to make an exception for the U.S. military. Arguably, whether a university has a corporate conscience or not is as valid a category as the name of the athletic conference it belongs to.
Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)
19:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
You guess wrong, Eastmain. See
this press release announcing the list and
this report on the current list. The claimed focus is on schools that recruit (or at least accommodate) current U.S. military and veterans. A lot of the schools on the list are
distance education providers that don't have campuses, much less have policies on military recruitment on campus, but the list also includes traditional schools. The cynic in me is sure that all of the schools on the list are well aware that today's veterans get generous educational benefits -- and their tuition checks don't bounce. Regardless of the selection criteria, it's not a defining characteristic of these schools and it's not a good basis for a category. --
Orlady (
talk)
21:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. I DISAGREE WITH DELETION. There are thousands of schools that are considered military-friendly every year. In fact, each year 100s of colleges in the United States based upon information gathered from different schools that applied for the distinction and were selected. Only, the top colleges and universities are selected based upon criteria such as number of military students, availability of financial aid, number of military contracts, accreditation, and more. Those selected are institutions that open their arms to active duty and non-active duty military. But almost all bend over backwards to offer additional support and consideration to members of the military and their families. So, I do believe this is an entirely "new" category and is not a proprietary business (Military Advanced Education is a federal government's magazine published by the US military...our military belongs to the people!!!) but listed as a wonderful resource for our men and women of the U.S. military armed forces attending Military Friendly Universities. So, to categorize it as anything else but its own separate category is misleading and incorrect to those colleges that do not have this title. I disagree with speedy deletion and vote it should stay since there are many other colleges that factor into this new category. --
Virusunknown (
talk)
20:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)reply
...wrote, "who defines what being "military friendly" is?" Answer: Our U.S. Military does...you know those people that uphold our constitution, rights, and freedoms. I may be new and still learning but doesn't Wikipedia's categories help you to browse through articles organized by topic. Is everyone really ready to delete this legit category. Here is some food for thought...instead of quickly deleting everything why not do the research as I have and help correct the newbie's mistakes. The military-friendly category is its own topic of category. Seriously, wiki has a category named University Of Chess with only 1 member and its not marked fro deletion but you want to delete this one that has over 100+ members. Are we not here to make the articles better? My agenda is simply to perform research, report, and publish the "facts". —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Virusunknown (
talk •
contribs)
21:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I think you will find that the people of Vietnam, for example, are not exactly thrilled at the role of the US Military in defending their freedoms, nor are the former inhabitants of
Diego Garcia; and for 95% of the earth's inhabitants, the US military is not "our military".
Neutrality is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and a category about "upholding our constitution, rights, and freedoms" is just as inappropriate as one taking the opposite view. Improve the articles, but don't use the category system to push a point-of-view. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:58, 22 February 2010 (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:Independent politicians in County Kildare
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 both. Ireland is not a big enough country to require splitting the sub-cats of
Category:Irish politicians by party in categories by each of the 26 counties, and there are no other categories of Irish-politicians-by-party-and-country. Note that the only politicians in Ireland categorised by county are local councillors, so there is no need for a dual upmerge. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:United States environmental law
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.
Yes; in mentioning conflicting conventions, I was just referring back to the fact that there are a lot of "United States foo law" categories if you pursue it down the other tree. Perhaps not dominant enough to call it a "convention", though. On balance I think the proposed change is probably a good idea for the reasons outlined below.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment by category creator. I would say that "United States environmental law" suggests federal law, while "environmental law in the United States" could be seen as more inclusive of both state and federal environmental law. So given that there is a distinct subcategory expressly for federal environmental legislation, maybe it's better to go with the more inclusive name. But either naming form is acceptable to me. postdlf (talk)
13:22, 15 February 2010 (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:Reading instruction by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge. While a suggestion of renaming the target has been made, it isn't clear that there's concensus for it, nor what the new name should be; this can, however, be discussed separately.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu08:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Almost all articles in category in question are about reading methods in general, not reading by country -- the articles have no relation with the category.
azumanga (
talk)
04:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom - 'by country' implies either subcats (not present) or articles such as 'Reading instruction in Foo' (not present).
Occuli (
talk)
17:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom.Changed my mind -- see below. Not only is the subject matter not country-specific, but there's no indication of a country or countries in the contents of
Category:Reading instruction by country. (There are no subcategories there -- were country-specific categories deleted previously?) --
Orlady (
talk)
22:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge and Rename This category was created in the hope that articles from other countries would be included to distinguish primarily between learning to read in the USA education system and the UK education. But I have since stopped being an active Wikipedia editor, too stess ful with my disability. But having looked that the other category both categries should be merged and renamed "Learning to read in in the USA" , especially as most of the article are USA specific, and do not universally apply outside of the USA.
dolfrog (
talk)
03:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Learning to read and rename the destination category - Changed my mind (see earlier comment above.) Upon reflection, I don't think "Learning to read" accurately describes the category contents, since (1) the articles deal with both the teaching and learning of reading (not just learning), and (2) the articles in the categories are not limited to initial learning "to read," but also include topics related with improving the student's reading ability. (Moreover, although some of the articles in the "by country" category are US-centric, articles like
Jolly Phonics are specific to other countries, and the subject matter of articles like
Orton-Gillinghamis not necessarily specific to one country. Accordingly, I don't agree with Dolfrog's recommendation.) A better name for the destination category might be "reading learning and instruction", but that likely is not the best name. --
Orlady (
talk)
05:02, 18 February 2010 (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:WikiProject help
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.