Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

–––

< June 3 June 5 >

June 4[edit]

Category:University of Missouri–Columbia[edit]

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: no consensus to rename, but reorganising the hierarchy as proposed by Roundhouse0 appears a reasonable solution. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:University of Missouri–Columbia to Category:University of Missouri
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per renaming of parent article. —Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roundhouse0, there has been a very big tussle over the name of article; it has been decided that University of Missouri will be the name of the article in question. Please see the talk page. It is only logical that the category name follow suit.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles/categories should be named in a manner which minimises confusion to the external observer unfamiliar with Missouri and the history of its university system. The university's own Collected Rules and Regulations use 'University of Missouri' to refer to the entire system and also to refer to one particular campus (Columbia). These rules state "University of Missouri-Columbia: For purposes of official correspondence, first reference to the UM campus in Columbia shall be to the University of Missouri-Columbia. Second and subsequent references may be to the University of Missouri, MU or Mizzou." This gives clear support to both the article and category being at the unambiguous "University of Missouri-Columbia". -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a very good argument, Roundhouse0; in fact it's the exact same one I was making earlier. Alas, I was outvoted, and majority rules on Wikipedia, no? I wish you would have been present for the discussion before it reached the category renaming. The one thing I can say about the rules and regs you dug up (which we've already been over elsewhere) is that there's some discrepancy between that and the reality of the situation. The largest point of contention is about the ambiguity of the phrase "official correspondence", which is ostensibly the only place where "–Columbia" is required to be used. Also note that it conflicts with Mizzou's stated guidelines, which does not advise the use of "–Columbia" on first or any reference. The UM System has historically let the flagship Columbia campus do as it damn-well pleases (just ask the other campuses). Mizzou's administration is trying to squelch its public use entirely, and has already ceased using it at the top levels of campus signage, documents, logos, webpages, etc. As lower-level uses (reprinted stationary, redesigned webpages, etc.) continue to be revised, I have little doubt that "–Columbia" is going the way of the Dodo bird, except on "official correspondence" (read: whitepaper legalese that the public rarely sees). And, notably, the other campuses of the system certainly don't advocate calling the Columbia campus "University of Missouri". Alas, this all creates a messy situation out of which only opinion can arise, and the prevailing opinion is that the article (and therefore the category) should be simply "University of Missouri".—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 13:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otto4711, the use of the en dash is another aspect of the school's name that has been debated extensively and decided in the past. See Talk:University_of_Missouri/Archive_1#hyphen_vs._en_dash. It is the only correct punctuation and it will not be changed. It is not hard to replicate; regardless, there are redirects using the incorrect hyphen as needed.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 04:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in Chelmsford Diocese[edit]

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: a headache. The minimalist solution appears to be that Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in Chelmsford and Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in Chelmsford Diocese should be renamed/merged to Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in the Diocese of Chelmsford. The broader issues raised by Peterkingiron may be better addressed another day. If I have screwed up, please let me know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in Chelmsford Diocese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Is the same as Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in Chelmsford. Name without "diocese" at the end is more conventional (see Category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anglican_suffragan_bishops_in_the_Province_of_Canterbury) Dpmuk (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Double names[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Double names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Is this defining? Well, maybe. But the real problem is that it seems to be grouping people that happen to share a quirky but fairly trivial characteristic. Perhaps could be seen as a form of overcategorization by type of name? (What I really want to know, though, it whether Richard Richards' friends call him "Dick-Dick". Comedy gold.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcat by name. Perhaps listify as one of Category:Lists of people by name feature (List of people with the same first name and surname?). BencherliteTalk 11:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - listify by all means (people on whom defaultsort is wasted). Seems to be a subcat of Welsh people. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sirhan Sirhan is anything but Welsh. --Garyseven (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's just a hunch, but this might have been inspired by a sevenfold DYK on a Welsh theme that I had on the Main Page earlier today (archive), which might explain the preponderance of Welsh articles. BencherliteTalk 11:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear overcategorization by coincidence of name format. I have my doubts that this is list material either, as it seems rather trivial. Otto4711 (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The predominance of Welsh people is became so many Welsh surnames are a Christian name in the plural (or genitive?), which is in turn a reflection of the late development of surnames in Wales (where patronymics were used instead). It is also likely to arise in some British Muslim communities, where a patronymic has been transformed into a surname upon arrival in Britain. This is trivial, quirky, etc, but why not keep it anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per prior CFD. No relationship among the entries beyond trivial coincidence and not defining of them as individuals. Postdlf (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete, and include list in category:Reduplicants. Then also remove listed individuals from that head category. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:U.S. Esperantists[edit]

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:U.S. Esperantists to Category:American Esperantists. I'm sympathetic to the deletion arguments, but perhaps a broader nomination should address those. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:U.S. Esperantists to Category:American Esperantists
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change "U.S." to "American" per standard "by nationality" naming conventions. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:U.S. Experantists to Category:American Esperantists -- I have no objection to this suggested change. Objectivesea (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no doubt I will be shouted down again, but this and much of the rest of the Category:Esperantists category structure should be deleted. Categorizing people on the basis of a language they speak is overcategorization by non-defining characteristic. We have deleted categories for polyglots in the past for this reason. The definition of Esperantist is hopelessly vague. Per the article, an Esperantist is "someone who speaks Esperanto and uses it for any purpose. An Esperantist is also a person who participates in Esperanto culture." William Shatner starred in the only feature-length film entirely in Esperanto. Is he an Espirantist? Not under any reasonable understanding but according to this definition he is, both because he used Esperanto and by being in an Esperanto movie "participate[d] in Esperanto culture." The TV show Mission: Impossible used Esperanto for its foreign-language signage; is that part of "Esperanto culture" and are the sign painters Esperantists for having used the language for "any purpose"? What does it even mean to "participate in Esperanto culture"? If I go to, I don't know, an Esperanto convention or something one time or even a couple of times, am I a "participant" in "Esperanto culture"? This concept is far too nebulous and subjective to serve as the basis for a categorization scheme. Otto4711 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (nom). Far from shouting down, I'm actually quite sympathetic to Otto's views here and would be fine with deletion too if that's the consensus. There are a raft of similar nationality-Esperantists categories that could be similarly nominated/deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we go again August 07, delete and overturned at review and Sept 07 Keep. Keep and rename per nom since I can't see anything has changed, & this was debated at great length. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has changed since the close of the last CFD on an Esperantist category is that consensus has gelled that categorizing people by the ability to speak a particular language or languages is non-defining overcategorization and the categories for such people, also known as polyglots, were unanimously deleted. Thus, 1/3 of the proferred definition of an Esperantist, "someone who speaks Esperanto," has been deemed non-defining for categorization purposes. Another 1/3, someone "who uses it for any purpose," is ridiculously vague, as the examples I've noted above amply demonstrate. The final third, "participates in Esperanto culture," is irredeemably vague as there is no possible objective definition in the still-unsourced-since-the-last-CFD article Esperanto culture as to what Esperanto culture even is (WP:OR anyone?) nor is there an objective definition as to what constitutes participating in a particular culture Esperanto or otherwise (WP:OR round two, anyone?), and there is no objective definition as to the degree of participation in said culture that is required to make one a "participant" in it (WP:OR round three anyone?). The first CFD was chock-full of such illuminating opinions as "it's useful" and "it's interesting" and (paraphrased) "I'm an Esperantist and I think it's important" and WP:ILIKEIT. The DRV was tainted by canvassing. The second CFD was more of the same interesting/useful/i like it arguments with a number of per nom and bare "keep" !votes. The category remains vague, arbitrary, subjective and unsupported, and its place is undermined by the clear consensus that categorizing based on language ability is overcategorization and is further undermined by the inability of those in favor of the cat to decide amongst themselves who should be in it in the first place. Otto4711 (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't support most catting by language, as obviously Category:Spanish-speakers includes all Spanish & most Latin American people etc. But you will recall that the recent Irish-speakers category (your turn to find the link) was defeated on the grounds that all Irish people of recent decades spoke Irish to some degree. The Category:Welsh-speaking people and the Scottish Galic equivalent were mentioned in the debate, but no one suggested they should be deleted, because not even most Welsh people speak Welsh. Obviously Esperanto has no native-speaking population so the usual objection does not arise. Precedent is not nearly as clear as you suggest, and whilst I accept there are issues of degree, and where it is defining, I still think the categories are justified; people where the use is clearly non-defing should be weeded out. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not addressing the substance of my argument in the slightest. Otto4711 (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People on the cover of "Sgt. Pepper"[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People on the cover of "Sgt. Pepper" (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of anyone in the category. A good candidate for a list, which is already at Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#Celebrities on the cover. RobertG ♬ talk 09:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Classic non-defining "factoid" about a person. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's also a much better, annotated list at List of images on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. To be sure, there's no serious rationale for keeping this category. I mean, Mae West, Marilyn Monroe, and Marlene Dietrich were already celebrities of the first rank. But shouldn't somebody at least make the effort to defend the proposition that being on the cover may well have been defining for the likes of Aldous Huxley, Sigmund Freud, and Albert Einstein? Cgingold (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no, no one should attempt to make the case that Huxley, Freud, Einstein, et. al. are defined by being on the cover of a particular record album. Otto4711 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do hope you saw my tongue in my cheek... (perhaps yours as well?) Cgingold (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next time you try to put your tongue in my cheek I expect at least dinner and drinks first. I may be easy but I'm not cheap. Otto4711 (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm so sorry to disappoint you, Otto, but you see... that was really supposed to say, "perhaps yours was as well". Hmmm.... I can see how that could be misconstrued, too. (We really must stop meeting like this.) Cgingold (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Possibly unfree murals[edit]

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 delete as empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Possibly unfree murals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant unused subcategory linked to template currently at TFD. MBisanz talk 05:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - if template deleted, eligible for speedy deletion under C3. If template kept, category should stay too. BencherliteTalk 08:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer to TFD results - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Economically disadvantaged communities in the United States[edit]

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. There's a strong case been made that this category has a subjective, perhaps even arbitrary, inclusion criterion and the information it purports to provide appears to be better served by the lists identified below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Economically disadvantaged communities in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category created as a parallel to Category:United States ghettos, a category that is the subject of an active CfD discussion, created by the same editor. A subjective/POV categorization scheme with criteria that do not seem to be supported by any reliable source. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Dravecky (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion unless overt criteria can be supplied which prevent breach af WP:NOR when allocating communities to this category --Matilda talk 05:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Matilda. Duplicate of Category:United States ghettos by the same creator, and with it, the same problems that led to consensus for its deletion. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I argued against keeping Category:United States ghettos principally on the grounds that "ghettos" are complex socio-economic manifestations that cannot be defined clearly enough to use as a Category. Category:Economically disadvantaged communities in the United States strikes me as potentially a more suitable basis for categorization -- but only if a clear and usable definition is available. So I spent a bit of time looking for supporting material using "Economically disadvantaged community" as a search string. Although the term does have some currency, thus far I've only found one instance where an explicit definition was articulated. An official analysis for a piece of legislation in Ohio states:
An "economically disadvantaged community" is an area of the state in which at least one-half of the residents have incomes that do not exceed the federal government's annual poverty guidelines...
I would expect to find that same basic definition in use elsewhere, possibly including the federal government, so it could probably serve to define this category. However, it's of no real use unless some agency (perhaps the Census Bureau) has compiled and made available the statistical documentation that delineates which communities meet the definition. If that information is available, I will gladly support keeping this category. Cgingold (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The category was lacking parent cats, so I placed it in three appropriate categories. Cgingold (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (hope you don't mind I got rid of some white space in your comment) Isn't that working backwards? Shouldn't SuperSuperBoi be starting with references? His keep on the Ghetto discussion asks us to prove a negative, such that these communities aren't ghettos or poor. "Economically disadvantaged" is a euphemism for "poor", or as you categorized it "poverty". But this has already been done by per capita income, and the decision was to use lists, not categories, in order to maintain the rankings. See: List of the poorest places in the United States and Lowest-income counties in the United States. Viriditas (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it would have been nice if SuperSuperBoi had done a better job of setting up this category, but that's not really the issue. The question is whether or not this is a suitable basis for categorization. The lists you cite -- based on per capita income -- don't in themselves preclude a category such as this, provided it meets the criteria I sketched out above. That is still an open question. Cgingold (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point was, if there was a list of "Economically disadvantaged communities" it would be just that: a ranked list by income. A category doesn't work here because the list is dynamic. That's one reason static categories (United States locations by per capita income) hold dynamic lists (Louisiana locations by per capita income). This isn't a topic for a category. Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What does "economically disadvantaged" even mean? Does it mean that the population is less educated than elsewhere, or enjoys a lower standard of living, or that there is a higher rate of unemployment? If so, why not just call it that? I suspect the intent is to use the category as a replacement for the soon-to-be-deleted Ghetto category, to tag communities that the creator thinks are full of black people or hispanics. Uucp (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Can any one produce an objective criterion for what should and should not be included? If not it depends on subjective POV and must be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if you saw the definition that I cited above? Do you think that could potentially serve as the foundation for this category? Cgingold (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're applying the wording from H.B. 413 - a bill introduced to the Ohio legislature to provide funding for computers to poor communities in Ohio - to the states of California, Illinois, and New York? The 2004 bill proposes using Ohio census data to define the boundaries of "economically disadvantaged communities" in that state, but we cannot do that on Wikipedia unless the members of those categories have been defined as such in published sources. Viriditas (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per User:Cgingold above, this category is a superior replacement for Category:United States ghettos, which was a mishmash of race and socioeconomics, and thus ambiguous. By creating this category and Category:United States communities with African American majority populations, this ambiguity is resolved. I agree that an objective criteria must be established, but I think that this can easily been tied to household income being below the poverty line. The only question, in my mind, is whether it should be the mean or the median household income that is used to make this determination. We should be able to easily agree upon this, no? As for lists vs. categories, while I like the ranking capability of lists, being able to quickly tag an article with category tag promotes inclusiveness, which I think is preferable. And why can't the list and the category co-exist? In a way, they complement each other.... Steve CarlsonTalk 03:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my previous comment, items in this category can be easily verified using U.S. Census data, which collects household income figures and reports medians by geography. As an example, check this out. This is the 2000 census data for South Alamo, Texas (which tops the Wiki list of poorest places in the U.S.), which shows that 69.2% of the individuals living there are below poverty level. Ouch! We'd just need to agree upon the threshold of inclusion - my vote would be for any community with over 50% of individuals under the poverty line. Steve CarlsonTalk 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we renamed the category Category:United States communities with a majority of residents below the poverty line, would that address peoples' concerns about verifiability? Steve CarlsonTalk 19:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Islamic Righteous Among the Nations[edit]

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. BencherliteTalk 13:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Islamic Righteous Among the Nations to Category:Muslim Righteous Among the Nations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since this is a category for people, it would be more appropriate to use the word "Muslim" as the adjective, rather than "Islamic". Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename it seems that "Islamic" is used on organizations.--Lenticel (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I do not like the title of this category "Righteous among the nations". The whole thing feels POV, but I suspect this is a Jewish category for those who saved Jews during the holocaust, and that those named have been honoured thus by the Jewish religious authorities. Nevertheless, the usual English word for a non-Jew is a Gentile, and I would prefer to see the whole tree renamed to "Righteous Gentiles". For the presetn case Muslim would be better as the normal English word for an adherent of Islam. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a formal title with capitalization that is bestowed by the State of Israel: "Righteous Among the Nations". Now if it were "righteous among the nations", that could be POV, but it's hard to argue that using an official title is POV. If that view were taken to its extreme, we could argue that Category:United Nations is POV; after all, it sometimes doesn't seem all that "united". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_4&oldid=1074800819"