| < January 30 | February 1 > |
|---|
- 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 Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by city to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by settlement. -- Xdamr talk 04:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by city to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by ?
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. At present, this category is not appropriately named since it does not only contain cities and I don't believe that we need to create parallel trees for towns, villages, unincorporated communities and any other type of place. I'd suggest a rename to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by location (one editor is changing location to city in some categories, see the emptying of Category:Buildings and structures in Florida by location) or Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by settlement. This is a test case since if this passes, there are more that would need to be changed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- 'location' does not work as it could include states and counties; 'settlements' is the correct level since that includes cities, towns, villages, etc. Practically, however, how many/which subcats in this buildings and structures category are not cities?
Hmains (
talk)
21:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say between 5% and 10% are not cities. Also remember that by using the title of city, editors are discouraged from adding other members to the category so we don't know how many there may be. In any case, the number of non city settlements is not the issue, the fact that they are there is the issue. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- the only non-cities I noticed were New England style towns and there are not many those. In any case, 'Settlements' covers that towns of all kinds throughout all US State settlement categories.
Hmains (
talk)
03:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Places like Category:Buildings and structures in Paradise, Nevada are not for cities. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Settlement" would be suitable, or "locality", or "municipality" if that's a term that would be used in the US. "City or town", while not ideal, is also an option. I've seen all of those in use in different trees. No !vote yet; just throwing out a couple of ideas. Bearcat ( talk) 01:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- use "municpality"
70.29.210.242 (
talk)
05:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Does not work. From
municipality, A municipality is an administrative entity composed of a clearly defined territory and its population and commonly denotes a city, town, or village, or a small grouping of them. A municipality is typically governed by a mayor and a city council or municipal council. That excludes unincorporated areas which should be allowed.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- How about "civic area" then?
70.29.210.242 (
talk)
05:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- We already have category structures ( Category:Settlements) based on settlements, so why reinvent the wheel? Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- How about "civic area" then?
70.29.210.242 (
talk)
05:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Does not work. From
municipality, A municipality is an administrative entity composed of a clearly defined territory and its population and commonly denotes a city, town, or village, or a small grouping of them. A municipality is typically governed by a mayor and a city council or municipal council. That excludes unincorporated areas which should be allowed.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I live in a township, but I still manage to know what to fill in when an application asks for my city / state / ZIP code. "Municipality" or "settlement" might be more correct, but also more awkward and unfamiliar.
Alansohn (
talk)
04:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- But that is not a city so the category name is simply not correct. If your township was listed in a category like this, I would be correct in removing it since it is not a city. Vegaswikian ( talk) 09:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Here is
Virginia, people live in either a "city" or a "county," but not both. For this reason, I am fairly sure that it is standard practice to refer to both "cities" or a "counties" as "municipalities." If the idea is to exclude counties, then we should use "settlement," or maybe "community"-- or even leave it as it is.
Carlaude:
Talk
04:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Correct, how you perceive this is based on where you live. I live in an unincorporated community which is not a city and not a municipality but it can be considered as a settlement based on how we use that in categories. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- rename to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by settlement. 'Settlement' covers everything below the county level in the U.S, as can be seen by studying the Category:Settlements in the United States category tree. Counties already have their own category trees and are not a consideration here. Also counties are not considered municipalities anywhere in WP nor in actual usage in the US. Hmains ( talk) 03:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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: Egrem. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Suggest merging Category:Members of the House of the People (Afghanistan) to Category:Meshrano Jirga representatives
- Nominator's rationale: For other countries we use the name they use for their legislatures. It is the Category:Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is the Category:Diet of Japan. The Press uses the Afghan name. I find it confusing to use a translated name, and think we should also use the Afghan name. If we were to use a translated name, I suggest we should use something like: Category:Members of the Upper House (Afghanistan). Geo Swan ( talk) 15:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment – it is customary to match the article, which is House of the People (Afghanistan). So a reverse merge would seem appropriate (if these are the same people). In any case I think Afghanistan should be in the name (per clarity). (Most of Category:National legislators include the name of the country and those that do not are the confusing ones.) Occuli ( talk) 17:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reverse merge -- This is the English WP, so that we should use an English term for it. The nom could only be considered if the article on the House was renamed first. There is no reason why the Afghan name could not appear in a headnote on the category page, along with a link to the House of the People (Afghanistan) as a main article (currnetly trhere is none listed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron ( talk • contribs)
- NOTE: previous discussion from December 2009 where this name was selected is found here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Reverse Merge to match title of parent article. Alansohn ( talk) 04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Scientists without traditional higher education (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: What is the definition of "Traditional higher education"? What we may regard as such now may not have been the case historically; the first entry in the category is Henry Cavendish, who from his own article attended Cambridge University, although he didn't graduate. To my mind, that may constitute a "traditional higher education", but the whole category is way too subjective. Rodhull andemu 03:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Traditional higher education means a university masters degree which is the minimum criteria to get a job as a scientists in a research institute. The category is for the people who gained fame as scientists, but lacked that criteria. -- Defender of torch ( talk) 03:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- er, I got a job as a research scientist, albeit in a social science department, with "only" a B.Sc. The Dip.Law might have helped, but it wasn't critical. My professional experience was. Rodhull andemu 02:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as blatant recentism, as well as the subjectivity mentioned by the nominator. Having a university degree is a new-fangled fad, which only caught on in the 20th century (or possibly in the late 19th-century). The traditional route is not having a degree (masters or otherwise), but diligently applying a good brain and being self-taught. (Having piles of money helped too, so that you didn't have to work down the mines all day and could afford to build your own laboratories). If fully populated, this category would be filled with some of the great names of science: Michael Faraday is there already, but there could be many more. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I do not have any strong opinion here, I just want to say a category like this is helpful for the present generation. It can be renamed like Category:Autodidacticism or something like that?? -- Defender of torch ( talk) 08:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reply. The quick answer is no. Category:Autodidacts was deleted at CfD 2007 Feb 21, and then recreated ... after which it was deleted again at CfD 2007 April 20, and salted (i.e. protected to prevent it from being re-created). In fact, this category could be seen as a bit of an end-run around that salting; I am not suggesting any bad faith on your part, but there is a lot of overlap between the two categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I believe Archimedes had an external degree from Sheffield Polytechnic. Occuli ( talk) 17:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This category is kin to category:Computers without a BIOS. It just enshrines prejudices and gaps in understanding. -- Ancheta Wis ( talk) 18:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete -- I looked at two articles on South Asians, who only completed high school education. For pre-1850 scientists, I do not think that relevant degrees were available, as most univerities mainly taught a classical syllabus. I am however aware that Robert Plot taught chemistry at Oxford in the 17th century and Black at Edinburgh in the 18th. One of those I read about was a brilliant mathematician who was given a Cambridge Fellowship. The problem is probably one of where to draw the boundary. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:OCAT by non-defining characteristic; seems like the underlying point of this is probably closer to either "scientists who should be taken with a grain of salt because they weren't properly educated" or "scientists who prove that education isn't really important" than to grouping people on an encyclopedically notable criterion. Bearcat ( talk) 01:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This is way too vague and also confusing now the idea that "Traditional higher education means a university masters degree". As recent as 50 years ago when I was at Oxford there were very many academics with the highest honours, such as Fellow of the Royal Scoiety, who only had a first degree (although to confuse matters that is a MA). There are still a few, although possibly not in science. -- Bduke (Discussion) 02:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Speedy keep. Depopulating a category before asking editors to make a decision on the viability of a category amounts to pre-empting consensus, and it places an unfair barrier in the path of editors who want to consider whether to keep or delete the category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Apocalyptic folk musicians (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an empty category for a nonexistent genre that has no main subject page. Apocalyptic folk music is considered, at best, a subgenre of Neofolk, the subject is covered in a subsection of said article, and all relevant bands are already listed in Category:Neofolk music groups. So, nothing to see here. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 00:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment – it is empty because the nom emptied it, on 30 Jan. Occuli ( talk) 02:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
| < January 30 | February 1 > |
|---|
- 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 Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by city to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by settlement. -- Xdamr talk 04:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by city to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by ?
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. At present, this category is not appropriately named since it does not only contain cities and I don't believe that we need to create parallel trees for towns, villages, unincorporated communities and any other type of place. I'd suggest a rename to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by location (one editor is changing location to city in some categories, see the emptying of Category:Buildings and structures in Florida by location) or Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by settlement. This is a test case since if this passes, there are more that would need to be changed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- 'location' does not work as it could include states and counties; 'settlements' is the correct level since that includes cities, towns, villages, etc. Practically, however, how many/which subcats in this buildings and structures category are not cities?
Hmains (
talk)
21:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say between 5% and 10% are not cities. Also remember that by using the title of city, editors are discouraged from adding other members to the category so we don't know how many there may be. In any case, the number of non city settlements is not the issue, the fact that they are there is the issue. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- the only non-cities I noticed were New England style towns and there are not many those. In any case, 'Settlements' covers that towns of all kinds throughout all US State settlement categories.
Hmains (
talk)
03:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Places like Category:Buildings and structures in Paradise, Nevada are not for cities. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Settlement" would be suitable, or "locality", or "municipality" if that's a term that would be used in the US. "City or town", while not ideal, is also an option. I've seen all of those in use in different trees. No !vote yet; just throwing out a couple of ideas. Bearcat ( talk) 01:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- use "municpality"
70.29.210.242 (
talk)
05:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Does not work. From
municipality, A municipality is an administrative entity composed of a clearly defined territory and its population and commonly denotes a city, town, or village, or a small grouping of them. A municipality is typically governed by a mayor and a city council or municipal council. That excludes unincorporated areas which should be allowed.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- How about "civic area" then?
70.29.210.242 (
talk)
05:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- We already have category structures ( Category:Settlements) based on settlements, so why reinvent the wheel? Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- How about "civic area" then?
70.29.210.242 (
talk)
05:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Does not work. From
municipality, A municipality is an administrative entity composed of a clearly defined territory and its population and commonly denotes a city, town, or village, or a small grouping of them. A municipality is typically governed by a mayor and a city council or municipal council. That excludes unincorporated areas which should be allowed.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I live in a township, but I still manage to know what to fill in when an application asks for my city / state / ZIP code. "Municipality" or "settlement" might be more correct, but also more awkward and unfamiliar.
Alansohn (
talk)
04:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- But that is not a city so the category name is simply not correct. If your township was listed in a category like this, I would be correct in removing it since it is not a city. Vegaswikian ( talk) 09:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Here is
Virginia, people live in either a "city" or a "county," but not both. For this reason, I am fairly sure that it is standard practice to refer to both "cities" or a "counties" as "municipalities." If the idea is to exclude counties, then we should use "settlement," or maybe "community"-- or even leave it as it is.
Carlaude:
Talk
04:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Correct, how you perceive this is based on where you live. I live in an unincorporated community which is not a city and not a municipality but it can be considered as a settlement based on how we use that in categories. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- rename to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by settlement. 'Settlement' covers everything below the county level in the U.S, as can be seen by studying the Category:Settlements in the United States category tree. Counties already have their own category trees and are not a consideration here. Also counties are not considered municipalities anywhere in WP nor in actual usage in the US. Hmains ( talk) 03:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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: Egrem. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Suggest merging Category:Members of the House of the People (Afghanistan) to Category:Meshrano Jirga representatives
- Nominator's rationale: For other countries we use the name they use for their legislatures. It is the Category:Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is the Category:Diet of Japan. The Press uses the Afghan name. I find it confusing to use a translated name, and think we should also use the Afghan name. If we were to use a translated name, I suggest we should use something like: Category:Members of the Upper House (Afghanistan). Geo Swan ( talk) 15:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment – it is customary to match the article, which is House of the People (Afghanistan). So a reverse merge would seem appropriate (if these are the same people). In any case I think Afghanistan should be in the name (per clarity). (Most of Category:National legislators include the name of the country and those that do not are the confusing ones.) Occuli ( talk) 17:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reverse merge -- This is the English WP, so that we should use an English term for it. The nom could only be considered if the article on the House was renamed first. There is no reason why the Afghan name could not appear in a headnote on the category page, along with a link to the House of the People (Afghanistan) as a main article (currnetly trhere is none listed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron ( talk • contribs)
- NOTE: previous discussion from December 2009 where this name was selected is found here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Reverse Merge to match title of parent article. Alansohn ( talk) 04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Scientists without traditional higher education (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: What is the definition of "Traditional higher education"? What we may regard as such now may not have been the case historically; the first entry in the category is Henry Cavendish, who from his own article attended Cambridge University, although he didn't graduate. To my mind, that may constitute a "traditional higher education", but the whole category is way too subjective. Rodhull andemu 03:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Traditional higher education means a university masters degree which is the minimum criteria to get a job as a scientists in a research institute. The category is for the people who gained fame as scientists, but lacked that criteria. -- Defender of torch ( talk) 03:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- er, I got a job as a research scientist, albeit in a social science department, with "only" a B.Sc. The Dip.Law might have helped, but it wasn't critical. My professional experience was. Rodhull andemu 02:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as blatant recentism, as well as the subjectivity mentioned by the nominator. Having a university degree is a new-fangled fad, which only caught on in the 20th century (or possibly in the late 19th-century). The traditional route is not having a degree (masters or otherwise), but diligently applying a good brain and being self-taught. (Having piles of money helped too, so that you didn't have to work down the mines all day and could afford to build your own laboratories). If fully populated, this category would be filled with some of the great names of science: Michael Faraday is there already, but there could be many more. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I do not have any strong opinion here, I just want to say a category like this is helpful for the present generation. It can be renamed like Category:Autodidacticism or something like that?? -- Defender of torch ( talk) 08:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reply. The quick answer is no. Category:Autodidacts was deleted at CfD 2007 Feb 21, and then recreated ... after which it was deleted again at CfD 2007 April 20, and salted (i.e. protected to prevent it from being re-created). In fact, this category could be seen as a bit of an end-run around that salting; I am not suggesting any bad faith on your part, but there is a lot of overlap between the two categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I believe Archimedes had an external degree from Sheffield Polytechnic. Occuli ( talk) 17:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This category is kin to category:Computers without a BIOS. It just enshrines prejudices and gaps in understanding. -- Ancheta Wis ( talk) 18:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete -- I looked at two articles on South Asians, who only completed high school education. For pre-1850 scientists, I do not think that relevant degrees were available, as most univerities mainly taught a classical syllabus. I am however aware that Robert Plot taught chemistry at Oxford in the 17th century and Black at Edinburgh in the 18th. One of those I read about was a brilliant mathematician who was given a Cambridge Fellowship. The problem is probably one of where to draw the boundary. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:OCAT by non-defining characteristic; seems like the underlying point of this is probably closer to either "scientists who should be taken with a grain of salt because they weren't properly educated" or "scientists who prove that education isn't really important" than to grouping people on an encyclopedically notable criterion. Bearcat ( talk) 01:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This is way too vague and also confusing now the idea that "Traditional higher education means a university masters degree". As recent as 50 years ago when I was at Oxford there were very many academics with the highest honours, such as Fellow of the Royal Scoiety, who only had a first degree (although to confuse matters that is a MA). There are still a few, although possibly not in science. -- Bduke (Discussion) 02:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Speedy keep. Depopulating a category before asking editors to make a decision on the viability of a category amounts to pre-empting consensus, and it places an unfair barrier in the path of editors who want to consider whether to keep or delete the category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
-
Category:Apocalyptic folk musicians (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an empty category for a nonexistent genre that has no main subject page. Apocalyptic folk music is considered, at best, a subgenre of Neofolk, the subject is covered in a subsection of said article, and all relevant bands are already listed in Category:Neofolk music groups. So, nothing to see here. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 00:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment – it is empty because the nom emptied it, on 30 Jan. Occuli ( talk) 02:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.