Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 7 March 9 >

March 8[edit]

Category:Free images with attribution requirements[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: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Free images with attribution requirements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Images requiring attribution.
Category:Free images with attribution requirements was created after this discussion, but it seems redundant with Category:Images requiring attribution, which is a subcategory of Conditional use images, a subcategory of Free images. Gimmetrow 23:35, 8 March 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:Angry Video Game Nerd[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) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Angry Video Game Nerd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Besides the incorrect name of the category (it should be "Games reviewed by Angry Video Game Nerd"), most of the articles populating the category make no mention of why they are in the category. Such mentions typically take up a few sentences. The Angry Video Game Nerd article already has a list of the games it reviewed. The games are notable for reasons other than it being reviewed by the Nerd, there are many other game reviewers of equal standing or more.WP:OC Jappalang (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I feel this just creates further category clutter. It is also a category that is unlikely to be added to in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazimoff (talk • contribs) 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all of the reasons stated above. Seems to be a category that could have also been created to promote this particular reviewer, and, as such should be deleted as (something close to) spam. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above : an article for Nerd has merit, but a category for all his reviews doesn't. --Oscarthecat (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is equivalent to "Games reviewed by Gamespot", etc. Non-defining. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:15, 9 March 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:Direct2Drive products[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) 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Direct2Drive products (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a product catalog of a commercial service. It is equivalent to "Games available at Best Buy". A similar category (for Steam) was deleted on these grounds, see [1]. I vote to delete the category. If this information is deemed valuable, it can be copied to list form and added to the Direct2drive article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nom's reasoning is sound. There is nothing special about these items being offered on Direct2Drive. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:31, 11 March 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:Doctors convicted of murdering their patients[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:Doctors convicted of murdering their patients to Category:Medical practitioners convicted of murdering their patients. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Doctors convicted of murdering their patients to Category:Medical practitioners convicted of murdering their patients
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current category covers doctors only, but all medical practitioners (and in particular nurses) have a similar opportunity to murder their patients: as this page on the BMJ website says in the opening sentence - "medicine has arguably thrown up more serial killers than all the other professions put together, with nursing a close second." Covering both doctors and nurses IMHO is therefore justified and will help researches find such cases more easily. Malick78 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, although this option was discussed a bit at the last CfD on this category. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for all the same reasons it should have been deleted the last time. Categorizing murderers by their occupation is not a useful categorization scheme. Categorizing killers by the sorts of people they killed is not a useful categorization scheme. Otto4711 (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Of course we don't generally want to categorize murderers by their occupation. This is an exception to that "rule" because it represents such a singular betrayal, much like Category:People who killed their children. Cgingold (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notion that this is a "singular betrayal" is POV. Otto4711 (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If those words were in the name of the category, I would agree. It was simply a shorthand way of referencing what XDanielx articulates below. The point is, these particular crimes are widely considered to be inherently noteworthy, precisely because they are understood to be such a singular betrayal, both of the doctor-patient relationship and of the Hippocratic Oath. Cgingold (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Inherently noteworthy, IOW "notable," is not the standard used for categorization. If it were then every article on Wikipedia would be eligible for its own category. Otto4711 (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Cgingold meant notability in the general sense, not in the sense of compliance with our article notability guidelines. Likewise for my own use of the word. — xDanielx T/C\R 23:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think the real key is that they are "inherently noteworthy" because of the betrayal aspect. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 07:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the nom. Of course we shouldn't categorize all murderers by occupation, but this is unique in that (A) in the case the occupation is heavily tied to the homicide(s), and (B) this particular category represents a notable topic in literature, news, regulatory politics, etc. — xDanielx T/C\R 07:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per xDanielx. This seems to be a useful intersection. Carom (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There should be no objection to the use of "doctor", because Ph.D.s do not have patients. Arguably it might exclude surgeons (who in Britain have traditionally reverted to Mr on qualifying). Nurses who kill patients (of whom there are examples) deserve a seaparate category. However, this category or soemthing like it should certainly be retained as this is a particularly heinous variety of murder, involving a betrayal of trust. Unfortunately murder of chilresn by their parents (often accompanied by suicide or the murder of an ex-spouse or ex-partner) as too common to be notoriously notable; it is thus a poor analogy. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certain psycologists & family therapists having Ph.D.s have "patients" in US English. I also seem to recall that dentists in Britain are Mr rather than Dr. and some have killed their patients - although molestation is more notable in the literature. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; clearly notable intersection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate proposal: Rename to Category:Physicians convicted of murdering their patients - This name has the virtue of being both precise and more concise. A parent category (and a sub-cat for nurses) can be created as warranted. Cgingold (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good formulation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In practice there is very little difference between the way nurses kill and the way doctors do: both use powerful drugs and pick on weak patients whose death will not surprise people. Putting them together is useful. The only real difference between the two groups is that doctors can sign death certificates - so whether this is enough to warrant the separation of the two groups should be born in mind. I would say that lumping them together is more beneficial than this minor distinction (since not all killer doctors will be the one who writes the certificate anyway: if the death is in a hospital any doctor could theoretically sign it - the article therefore needs to specify whether the killer signed or not). Also, I wouldn't like having 'Physician' in the title, since this does not reflect actual use of English by English speakers world wide (ever popped round to see your physician?) - but that's just my personal feeling - I realise our article on the subject uses this non-representative term:)) Malick78 (talk) 07:41, 12 March 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:King Kong television series[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: double upmerge with secret handshake, or even merge into Category:King Kong and Category:Television programs based on films for the benefit of those not fluent in CfD-speak. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:King Kong television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Double upmerge to Category:King Kong and Category:Television programs based on films. Only one member since creation in July 2007, seems unlikely to become more populated. Fayenatic (talk) 21:27, 8 March 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:School massacres[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: not renamed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:School massacres to Category:School attacks
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The events in this category do not generally rise to the level of being massacres (see also:List of events named massacres), but are generally isolated incidents of attacks by lone individuals on schools. The category name should reflect this. Kendrick7talk 21:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Attacks is simply not defining and too ambiguous. That would allow all of the verbal attacks that are notable to have a category. Is that what we want? If the articles in there are not correctly categorized, then remove them. You don't need a rename. If there is an appropriates new category, then create it. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There aren't any articles about "verbal attacks in schools." -- Kendrick7talk 22:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Vegas, and because "School massacre" has I think become an independent term in popular usage, so we do not need to bring in all the general "massacre" issues here. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that's true. "School shooting" seems the most common term I ever hear. -- Kendrick7talk 22:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional observation: I note that the article List of school-related attacks states: "A broad definition of the word attacks is used for this list so as to include public attacks on one's self (suicide)." Some "school attacks" have resulted in only the suicide of the attacker, but few such attacks have their own articles (typically they are blended into articles about the school or community). --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that list also has as a see also, School violence. So maybe a solution would be to add Category:School violence or similar and Category:School massacres would be a member of that. Don't know it that is worth the effort. I guess the question may be, are acts of violence or attacks that are not massacres of sufficient notability for a category? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost none of the attacks in the category were carried out by soldiers or more than one person. I'm hard pressed to find the more generic meaning of the word "massacre" to just mean a "random killing of more than one person" in any article prior to the mid- to late 90s. -- Kendrick7talk 16:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Category:School massacres or at worst Rename to Category:School killings. Do not remame to "attacks", which is too broad and does not indicate that multiple murder is involved. That is what makes these events so horrific. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, --Shamir1 (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest that Kendrick undo his pointy moves of most of the articles in the category. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we know what we're talking about when "massacres" replaces "attacks", which could be anything from teachers on strike to rival football fans vandalizing the school afterhours. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Note that Kendrick prefers Dunblane school shooting to Dunblane Massacre (see edit histories, around the time this cfd was opened). (Dunblane Massacre gets 21,000 google hits and Dunblane school shooting gets 23.) Kendrick also seems to think that a single person can't commit a massacre: it's the number of victims that is important, not the number of assailants. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "massacre" seemed to have never been used to describe lone gunman attack until around the mid-90s. I think it's ambiguous for us to conflate these attacks with actual historical massacres. -- Kendrick7talk 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The victims in school massacres are defenseless innocents. "Attack" is more ambiguous. --GHcool (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are no objective criteria to determine whether or not an event is a massacre, so I wouldn't consider the status quo to be acceptable. However others have highlighted the inherent vagueness of using the "attacks". Were firearms used in all of these attacks, and if so, would a straightforward title like Category:School shootings be ok with everyone? — CharlotteWebb 17:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading upward I see that there is at least one "knifing" in this category, silly me. Perhaps separate categories would be appropriate for cases involving unorthodox weaponry. — CharlotteWebb 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On final thought, rename to Category:School-related attacks to match the article List of school-related attacks, however this would beg the creation of sub-categories according to the particulars of the various incidents. — CharlotteWebb 17:48, 13 March 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:Dartmouth Jack-O-Lantern alumni[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) 21:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dartmouth Jack-O-Lantern alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not defining; Category:Dartmouth College alumni is sufficient, and a list exists at Dartmouth Jack-O-Lantern. Dylan (talk) 21:13, 8 March 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:First Ladies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose Renaming Category:First Ladies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Category:Spouses of Massachusetts Governors
Nominator's Rationale: Proposed name change would take in to account that Massachusetts has had at least one "First Gentleman", Chuck Hunt, the husband of former Acting Governor Jane Swift. --TommyBoy (talk) 19:05, 8 March 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:Thursday songs[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:Thursday songs to Category:Thursday (band) songs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Thursday songs to Category:Thursday singles
Nominator's rationale: Almost completely emptied due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concealer (song). This album now only contains a handful of songs which have been released as singles and, as such, should be either renamed or deleted. Redfarmer (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sure there was some rationale for having category by songs and not by singles/EPs. Lugnuts (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All by-artist singles categories were deleted long ago. If any of the song articles remain, the category must as well, per hundreds of precedents.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Thursday (band) songs to match the parent article and to avoid ambiguity that these are songs somehow associated with Thursday (more Monday & Saturday & Sunday songs than Thursday I suppose, but there are no doubt some). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Thursday (band) songs per Carlos. — CharlotteWebb 17:53, 13 March 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:Expatriate footballers[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming :
Nominator's rationale: to be consistent with the naming of the page Category:Football (soccer) players, as the two pages I ve nominated here list just association footballers (and not footballers of any other codes). Mayumashu (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - another case of American imperialism. No one except in America plays American football. For the rest of the world "football" means Association Football. Related sports, such as Rugby football, Rugby League football, Australian rules football, are generally so described, so that no difficulty arises. It would be better for Category:Football (soccer) players to be changed (back?) to Category:Footballers. Unfortunately, I suspect that will cause confusion, as Americans would add Amercian-rules football players to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a meaningful grouping, does a Ivorian playing in Malaysia have anything really in common with a Finn playing in Sweden, or someone from Dublin playing in Belfast, or all the non-Monaco people playing for their French league team (probably the whole squad)? No. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Peterkingiron (ie keep as is). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category completely and its subcats per Carlossuarez46. -Djsasso (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone had better tag all the subcats then. (I'm not sure that Carlossuarez46 has advocated this.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is deleted, those may go next, I don't propose that as the immediate result of this debate, nor do I want to cloud this debate with the larger issue. If this is deleted, I'll probably nominate the others, and tag them, of course. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:32, 12 March 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:World Heritage Sites in México[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:World Heritage Sites in México to Category:World Heritage Sites in Mexico
Nominator's rationale: Uniform name with other Mexico-related categories. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:43, 8 March 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:Arkansas State University athletics[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: not renamed, splitting needs no CfD input. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming the following categories:
Nominator's rationale: Arkansas State University has changed its nickname from Indians to Red Wolves. See this ASU athletics press release. While the change won't officially take effect until the 2008-09 academic year, I see no reason not to change now, especially since the new mascot will be unveiled on March 13. Dale Arnett (talk) 15:18, 8 March 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:Twin people[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. Being a twin person is undoubtedly less defining than being a pod person, but probably more rather defining than the school or university where one studied. Your mileage may vary. The name is simply not English, but the proposals to rename came too late in the day to get much scrutiny. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Twin people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Categorizing people by whether or not they have a twin is not defining for categorization purposes; we have a List of twins, and we have Category:Twins, we don't need to have a category where often one twin is notable and the other isn't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm not sure there's any such thing as "twin people" anyway. People with twins, sure. (Although even that shouldn't really be a cat.) --Lquilter (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This provides information that the other sources of info in WP do not provide. It is in alphabetic order. The List of twins is ordered by occupations. Being a twin is certainly a defining characteristic of these people. Hmains (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and note that articles in that category include notable people with a non-notable twin. Otto4711 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We usually avoid the term "notable" in the definitions of categories. We also avoid "non-notable". And now you want to use both? Pichpich (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I took the time to look at a few of these. While many do list being a twin, they do not indicate that being a twin was in any way defining. If it was, then keeping would need to be considered. Without that link, there is no reason to keep. Also, the result here should probably match the one for Category:Only children which is probably a more defining characteristic but harder to prove. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not supposed to vote on wikipedia, read the policies. Concensus means finding out the policy that approaches the situation better, not voting WP:VOTE. If you're not going to check out wikiprojects and policy pages to bring point out don waste time with all the unwikipedic "keeps" and "deletes". As far as my opinion go it might be interesting to have a list of historic famous figures that have twins. If not in a category perhaps in a list (lists and articles can really get silly and are still in order with wikipedia's policies) Somebody shold bring up the policy that makes this category worth keeping (or not worth keeping, whatever)--20-dude (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as having a twin doesn't usually have any bearing on their notability. Sure the Olsen Twins are notable because they grew up in the entertainment industry together. If there is a list, than just use that instead even though a category does require less upkeep. When it comes to the name, if the result of this dicussion is keep, than you could just rename the category to "People with a twin." Mr. C.C. (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete, for the reasons given by Hmains and Otto. However, I am uncomfortable about the name. It is clearly useful to segregate articles about people from medical/social/cultural articles which are currently in category:Twins. I suggest an alternative: upmerge this to category:Twins, but first make a sort key for each of the existing articles starting with a space, so that they all sort at the top. Either that, or keep. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If I had a twin i would find it pretty defining I think. Open to rename. Johnbod (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you were an only child, wouldn't that be defining as well? or one of nine children? etc. Many of one's characteristics are defining in the eyes of the person, but not in any encyclopedic sense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Twins. I do not understand the difference between "twin people" and "twins". If the point is that the other twin is NN, I suspect the fact that a person has a twin is also NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-definitive. -Sean Curtin (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I strongly disagree with the idea that having a twin is a defining characteristic. Note the ambiguity of the term "defining": there's a marked difference between something defining in the sense that is an integral part of how one perceives his own life (and surely, having a twin would fall in that class but so would, say, having grown up in a broken home, being married, being an only child) and something that is a "defining characteristic" in the sense implied by the categorization guideline, i.e. "significant (useful) topics to which the subject of the article most closely belongs to as a member, and where users are most likely to look if they can't remember the name of the thing they are trying to look up.". There is absolutely no chance that users will look up Kiefer Sutherland through this category. (especially since "twin people" is a particularly absurd name). This is pure trivia. Now I know that many users love those trivia categories so as a compromise, we could create articles for pairs of twins who both have articles on Wikipedia, so that they may appear in the twins category as a pair. Say create Daniel and Henrik Sedin, add their birth date, add them to the twins cat, and link to Daniel Sedin and Henrik Sedin. Pichpich (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the only possible distinction is between articles that are about two people (a pair of twins), and articles about one person, who has a twin (who may or may not have their own article). For example, the difference between the article Olsen Twins, and the two articles Mary-Kate Olsen and Ashley Olsen. As for the distinction between Category:Twins and Category:Twin people, it seems unclear, and the two should probably be merged under one title or the other. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 07:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that Category:Twins is for articles about the occurrence of twins -- biologically, historically, socially, whereas Category:Twin people is for articles on people who are themselves twins. My suggestion is going to be Prune and rename to Category:People who are twins or something similar to clear up that confusion. While being a twin is not defining for everyone, it is for some. The rest can go in a list. Powers T 23:49, 16 March 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:Non-Italian popes[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: merge, i.e. empty and delete as each sub-cat was already a member of both categories. — CharlotteWebb 18:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Non-Italian popes to Category:Popes by nationality
Nominator's rationale: The content of the two categories is virtually identical, and since both are intended to be parent categories with about a dozen subcategories, a split is not necessary. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Duh! Shame that this is not a speedy criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Category:Popes by nationality doesn't need the further split. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge (except Italian popes) - There have been so few non-Italian popes that the category can only be a small one, and does not need further division. There has been one English Pope; one Polish; etc. The present pope and his predecessor are the first for nearly 500 years. I suppose there were French popes during the Avigon exile, and perhaps they should be a subcategory. Since the rest were Italian, it is probably not worth having a category for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:21, 10 March 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:Works with auric section[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: deleted (a couple days ago). — CharlotteWebb 18:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Works with auric section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be only one article linked here. Google turns up only four hits for "Auric section." I suspect this might mean the Golden ratio but it's hard to tell, and the category description doesn't offer any context. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator has populated the cat a little, but what he's doing seems to be original research. I don't think any of the articles should be in the cat unless the article mentions something about the golden ratio or auric section without the cat creator bootstrapping. If the cat does survive, I think its name should be changed to Category:Works with golden ratio. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If a reasonable criterion for inclusion can be provided (e.g., that reliable sources attest that the particular work involves the golden mean; see below) then I would also support renaming the category. However "Works" doesn't work for me. How about Category:Golden mean in art and architecture? Silly rabbit (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator may well mean the Golden ratio, as s/he is using the the Greek letter phi (φ) (albeit with a misdirected internal link) as his/her symbol, as with the Golden ratio. However this does nothing to recommend the category, which remains unexplained and irrelevant. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Auric section" is apparently not defined anywhere on Wikipedia, and is, as far as I can see, not mentioned in any of those articles. A quick Google seem to indicate this has to do with paranormal something. That's all I managed to find out. Furthermore, the definition "proportions equivalent or close to Phy (φ) in their design" could include virtually everything out there. Lastly, Phy redirects to Methadone, so - indeed - delete now!
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several works might have golden section, but only the ones pointed out in publications on the matter are being listed. Again, I'm not crazy about the name of the category, in fact I'm ating it right now--20-dude (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've taken a closer look and the whole thing is just absurd. Among the works that User:20-dude wants to include are the Mona Lisa, The Great Pyramid of Giza, Dali's The Sacrament of the Last Supper, The Venus de Milo, Michelangelo's David, and the United Nations Headquarters. The golden ratio article says that the ratio is approximately 1.618. The dimensions or the Mona Lisa are 77 x 53 cm. for a ratio of 1.453. According to its article the Pyramid of Giza as originally constructed was 280 cubits tall with a width at the base of 440 cubits, for a ratio of 1.571. I found an image online of Dali's Last Supper and measured with a ruler - 6 1/2 inches by 4 1/4 inches for a ratio of 1.529. About the closest he comes is Noah's ark, which my King James Bible says was 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits. The last two dimensions have a ratio of 1.667, but that's basically equal to 5/3. The formula in the golden ratio article is a lot more complicated than that. So far as the Venus de Milo and David are concerned, those are human figure sculptures, not rectangles, and it's impossible to know what dimensions are being used. You can pretty much pick your measurement and try to make it fit. Likewise, the UN headquarters is a complex of buildings with a lot of straight lines, curves, triangles, and probably some rectangles that are somewhere in the ball park. By the way, my new widescreen TV has a ratio of 16:9 which comes out to 1.778. Is that going to end up in the list, too? It looks like he wants to include any rectangle that has a ratio between 1.4 and 2.0, basically most of the rectangles a person is likely to see in everyday life, not very close to square, but not really long and skinny either (my dresser? my bed? most of the books on my shelf?) Not only is this original research, it's not very good original research. Count my vote as delete. But, let's give 20-dude a chance to defend himself. I just got a message saying it's the middle of the night where he is and he just turned in. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I won't even bother to explain to you why your first comment is so wrong in many levels and puts in evidence your lack of knowledge of the topic you pretend to have a strong opinion about --20-dude (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

voting is evil -- Read the policies. Before you start the prepotent nonsense. Besides, I think nobody with no experience on the matter should have a say (let's be practical, what's the opinion of the unfamiliarized people worth anyway?) The practical thing is to ask the experts from the Golden ratio related articles for Peer review.

However I see the points. I went with auric section, but it has many names: phy, divine proportion, golden ratio, golden number, and many more. There is no original research, it's common for people to be ignorant about the topic, but there are many books on the topic, from luca pacioli-da vinci's published work (1506), to those of Matyla Ghyka (several books from 1927 to 1952), which is my main guide, but since you seem to know more than him, then be my guest, lests forget this silly idea and go ahead with the infinite pokemon categories and articles. I was amazed by the amount of works of art that doesn't even have an article. But somebody is trying to make a list that has been published over and over again and a minutes (minutes!!) later wikipedians are campaigning to delete it. Have you even bothered to go ask any architect you know about the matter. God!!

Here are some fast sources: [http://milan.milanovic.org/math/english/golden/golden3.html Rasko Jovanovic, Durmitorska] (An internet published work of an Ukranian mathematician from Belgrade University), [2] (this one is shorter but has a nice bibliography I have used) and goldennumber.net (a site devoted to the topic by Gary Meisner). And some bibliography I've used is:

• Geometría del Diseño. Estudio en Proporción y Composición. Kimberly Elam. Trillas, 2003. • Nexux Network Journal – Architecture and Mathematics Online. ([3]) Kim Williams Books • De la Divina Proporción. Luca Pacioli, Luca Paganinem de Paganinus de Brescia (Antonio Capella) 1509, Venice • The High Reinassance and Mannerism. Linda Murray. Thames and Huson, 1967 • Historia de la Construcción Arquitectónica. Antonio Castro Villalba. Edicions UPC, 1995


Every single edit has had these sources as references, but I'm not a damn machine, I can't possibly indicate all my sources from second one, creating an article takes time. Probabbly the best outcome of this nonsense (besides the fact that we inally have the sources) is the comment by Steven J. Anderson about the content of the listed articles not including its auric ratio properties. Good observation. But you have also to take in consideration that we have a chicken and egg situation here: the list of the one by one elaborations. I think I can do all of them, but again don't expect me to have it finished already from the first edit. This thing take time, and wikipedia is for me just a hobby at best.--20-dude (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another productive thing about the list is that the lack of articles on trascendental works as most of the famous examples of auric proportion tend to be will be noticed. There wasn't a holy family article, that's a big crime right there. --20-dude (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on your talk page, 20-dude, I'm not trying to be destructive. Sometimes I'm snarky with my comments. I freely admit it. If there's something about this in secondary sources, I'm happy to hear it. I just had an opinion and I expressed it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the secondary sources I put above your comment, there are some sketches that analize them in the internet pages. All the examples are there over and over. My tone is bitchier, hahaha, I'm sorry, my underpants are too tight. Nevermind my comments above, I forgot categories can't be moved in order to be renamed, so I guess we would eventually have to erase this one, especially since we all agree its name sucks big time (I admitted its since the begining hehe). Just help me decide a better name and give me some time to fill the new category.

Works featuring Golden Ratio? Artistic production with Golden Ratio? Works with Golden Proportion? You name it, because I'd like to avoid having the whole situation happening again--20-dude (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll erase the category myself: Just give me a day to figure out the most appropiate way.--20-dude (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd lean towards deleting the category altogether, on the grounds that the whole idea is absurdly imprecise, as well argued above by Steven. There is no clear way to delimit whether a building should or shouldn't be included. However, if the category is kept, it should definitely use the term "golden ratio" or "golden section". These are the standard terms in English. I've seen them used hundreds of times and I don't recall ever having seen "auric section" before. SethTisue (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrong. As as any documental investigator can tell you, the way to delimit a list of the sort is by published material. People that is just learning about the topic might think it is infinite. It is not. Actually, take the listed items, the items I listed in the talk page, add 10 or so and that's about it. Those are the specific samples exposed in the Golden Ratio publications over and over. (read the items listed, don't you think it's a very specific list? why would anyone specifically choose these items among the infinite work of human pruduction?) People thinking any item can be listed there implicitly expose his lack of familiarity with the topic. I'm an architect, in my formation I heard the words golden ratio as often as I heard Mies Van der Rohe, Antonio Gaudi, Luis Barragan or Frank Lloyd Wright (and those are the popular ones)... It would be absurd to go and object to a category talking about types of cardiac arrest or russian law. There is a saying: Shue maker go to your shoes (implying that, say, he shouln't try to built his store or make his clothes or car, , if he wants to have them right).
On the name issue as we established before, you're absolutely right, it will be in fact changed.
And again, although you wisely didn't state your opinion as a vote but rather a respectful leaing, I have to remind to everybody in this entire page, nobodies vote matter, this is not a voting, voting isn't aloud in wikipedia, if you do so you show your own lack of either respect for its policies or ignorance about them. the key is finding out the right policie addressing the issue closer or the logic that approches our policies better. In this case, the name was proven a mistake and that's it the article will be in fact deletet --20-dude (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested in knowing the plan I figured, it will go as follows: I'll copy the list of items, put them in a sandbox somewhere related to the golden section (any ideas where?), erase all the category links ("wikis"), indicate sources for each, move the sandbox into a list article, write the sourced information that explain their geometric properties, copy/move the sourced info to the articles of each item, categorize them as "Artistic works designed with golden ratio" (ideas for a possible sharper name will be beforehand requested in the talk page of the list) and that's it. Do I need to repead we are talking about a very sourced, published, limited group of artistic items or did you got already from the previous hundred times I've said it.--20-dude (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erase the links already

The links to the category can be erased. I don't need the information on the category anymore.--20-dude (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would add {{db-author}} on the category page, then this can be closed speedily. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:00, 8 March 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_March_8&oldid=1140185771"