Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 4 May 6 >

May 5[edit]

Category:Establishments by United States executive order[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. Wow, a true category for discussion. Unfortunately, there wasn't much discussion. I'm not sure what a no consensus decision would be here, as the question posed was "is it worthwhile?" I guess we'll go with the safe route and keep it for now. Maybe it can be populated and made less vague-like, and if not, it can always be re-nominated in the future . Kbdank71 16:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Establishments by United States executive order (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Discuss - looking through the parent Category:United States executive orders and its subcats, many of the articles are not about the order itself but about something established by use of executive order. So I created this category and now bring it here to see whether it's worthwhile to categorize to this level of precision. Otto4711 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 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:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"[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. The main argument here is whether or not the category is a defining characteristic. Many of the keep reasons were refuted by stronger arguments. For example, the statements that the signatory is willing to add their name to a list of evolution denialists (Guettarda) and This is truly a list of importance to determine who is or is not an Evolution denialist. (Orangemarlin) were refuted by Not all signatories to this document are evolution-deniers. (Powers). The statement signing the petition is indicative of a general rejection of Methodological naturalism and thus the scientific method (Hrafn) is answered by Deciding that the signing of this document means something beyond the signing of this document is original research which cannot be used to justify the category. (Otto4711). The fact that anyone is willing to sign it is a defining characteristic of any petition (Odd Nature) may be true, but that is speaking of the petition itself, not why the category is defining for the articles that are in it, A petition may or may not be defined by its signers but signers are not defined by petition (Otto4711). There were a few keeps which did not give reasons for wanting to keep other than "it's defining", and several more keeps which didn't address the nomination at all, such as Filll's assertion that deletion is viewed as a black mark, and Paul McDonald's argument to keep because the category is more than a list, it's a category. Couple these refuted and tangential arguments with the few "per so-and-so", and it points strongly to deletion of this category. This is not to say that the information cannot exist at all. As was pointed out, a list does exist, and in fact is easier to maintain because the list can be watchlisted to see who is added or removed whereas a category cannot. It can also provide contextualization, for example, to show who asked to have their name stricken; again, a category cannot do this. A list is also a way to see all of the people, notable or not, who have signed a common document (Mareino) (which according to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, there are over 700 signatories, but there are currently only 29 people in the category). . Kbdank71 19:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a defining characteristic. Already exists as a list. Powers T 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - actually this is a defining characteristic - it's a declaration that the signatory is willing to add their name to a list of evolution denialists. Categories are easier to maintain than lists - existence of one does not preclude existence of the other. Guettarda (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are not easier to maintain than lists because categories can't be watchlisted for changes. Lists can. Articles can be added and removed from categories without triggering any automatic notice but a watched list will notify the watcher that changes have been made. Otto4711 (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: as I said in the last CfD (closing overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 11), less than a year ago: "Being a signatory to this petition is a strong and verifiable indicator of affiliation to the Intelligent design movement. This is frequently "defining" as it tends to colour the signatory's views on Methodological naturalism, the Scientific method and Science." List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was created as a backstop when it last looked like this category might be deleted, and is (at best) erratically maintained. HrafnTalkStalk 05:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Addendum: I should have read my own addendum from the previous CfD more carefully. Otto4711 is correct that I later impeached my earlier opinion that it is an indicator, narrowly, of involvement in the IDM. But the second part of my statement still holds (and is in fact strengthened by this impeachment) -- signing the petition is indicative of a general rejection of Methodological naturalism and thus the scientific method -- which cannot help but be "defining" in a scientist. HrafnTalkStalk 12:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is being demonstrated on the Picard page, being a signatory to this petition need not be a defining characteristic in reliable sources. Your interpretation, while useful to me in understanding the motives behind this, isn't necessarily true, and is certainly overstated. Support of creationism might be a defining characteristic, but signing a mealy-mouthed petition is not. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the fact that every member of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab who has a PhD is a signatory is pure coincidence? You imply that my interpretation is in some way idiosyncratic, but on the occasions that a scientist makes anti-evolution claims they are almost invariably found to be signatories. HrafnTalkStalk 09:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you may be confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is neither necessary nor sufficient. It is however highly correlative, and thus has a high probability of being "defining". HrafnTalkStalk 10:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good, we're getting somewhere. Consider a situation in which X, a defining characteristic of a person implies Y. If, however, Z, a smaller set of characteristics, also implies Y, then we have a situation in which Y is correlated with a defining characteristic yet is not in itself defining nor is it a suitable basis for characterisation. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto4711 will please inform us how we can come to a judgement as to whether or not the category is "defining" without engaging in some form of what would be, if this was an article not a CfD, WP:OR. The chances of a WP:RS using precisely that language is slim. Can Otto4711 point to a WP:RS stating that the category is not defining? If not, then the 'not defining' position is WP:OR to the exact same degree that the 'defining' position is. HrafnTalkStalk 13:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except if challenged the case has to be made that is defining, not that it is not; after all, all our custom and precendents argue that the case has to be made for inclusion of material in articles, not exclusion. If you can't find any source on the subject, why should we accept your assertion, or anyone else's? --Relata refero (disp.) 13:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not suggesting that you find a reliable source that says that signing this document is defining of the signers. I am saying that your inference of what signing the document means regarding the signer's acceptance or rejection of the scientific method is original research and cannot be used to support the category. We do not have reliable sourcing that states that any or all of the signers hold the opinion about the scientific method, and even if we did, expecting people to intuit that this category carries with it that implication is a poor idea. I would tend to agree that rejecting the scientific method would indeed be a defining characteristic for a scientist, so if you have the sourcing to support the notion that any or all of these people do reject the scientific method I encourage you to add it to their articles and create the category I suggested above. Otto4711 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except I don't agree that signing the petition is necessarily indicative of a "general rejection of ... the scientific method". The problems with the petition are well documented, and there are apparently signatories on record as rejecting its implied premises. Powers T 14:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not necessarily a defining characteristic. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems very defining for a scientist to sign this. Also the category contains more people than the list, and per WP:CLT the 2 methods are complementary, not in competition. (It is certainly defining for Rosalind Picard's talk page.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - that a person signed a particular anti-Darwin paper is not a defining characteristic. The notion that this is a "strong and verifiable indicator of affiliation to the Intelligent design movement" is not supported by a number of comments at the previous CFD, in which a suggestion to merge this category to a category for ID advocates was rejected on the basis of a number of these signatories having no known affiliation with the ID movement. Supporters of the category can't have it both ways. Either these people are ID proponents, in which case they can be merged into an ID proponents category, or they are not, in which case their signature on this particular anti-Darwin document may not be considered as indicative of ID affiliation and the main argument in support of this category collapses. Otto4711 (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's a more generic statement of evolution denialism. Not all evolution denialists are ID proponents. Guettarda (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is why the person asserting this argument has now stricken it. Otto4711 (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong KEEP Why on earth is being a signatory being viewed as negative? This is ridiculous. And shows a terrible bias that we are supposed to avoid. This is handy as a navigation aid to help organize material on Wikipedia. It should not be viewed as a black mark or a slur. It is just a simple fact, nothing more, nothing less.--Filll (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one appears to be suggesting that having signed this is a "black mark," unless 'it colors their view on the scientific method' is being interpreted as such. Just because it's true doesn't mean that it should be categorized. All sorts of things that are true are not categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Many of the individuals listed are barely notable only because of their signature on this list. And in fact, there are a number of "scientists" who have asked to have their name stricken. This is truly a list of importance to determine who is or is not an Evolution denialist. If I'm reading an article about whomever, and I see that they're a member of the Evolution-denial group, it's clear to me that they're anti-science, and their ideas are fringe. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are notable only for having signed this document then they probably fail our notability guidelines and their articles should be deleted. The deletion of this category would not prevent you from reading the anti-evolution information in an article. If as you say a list of signers is important, then the existing list article serves that purpose and it could include a section on people who signed it and then asked to be removed, such as why they asked to be removed. Categories aren't lists and categories can't include contextualization. Otto4711 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a perfect example of why the category should be deleted: it causes readers to place undue importance on the act of signing the document. Not all signatories to this document are evolution-deniers. And please, if you know of any people in the category who you feel have articles only because they signed this document, let us know so that we can begin AfD discussions. Powers T 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not everyone who meets our notability guidelines has an article. The Rosalind Picard article would probably not exist if she had not signed the petition (look at the article history, it seems to be the reason the article was created). You can dig around for stuff and create an article based on their work (which should be the main focus of the article), but these people don't get New York Times coverage for their work, they get it because they signed the petition. We can use that coverage to craft a more balanced article, but the truth is that reliable sources exist because of they signed the petition. Sad but true. Guettarda (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that's not what Orangemarlin said. Orangemarlin said that the individuals are "barely notable" because of their signatures, not that they have articles because of the signatures (which is irrelevant). Powers T 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It sounds like what the defenders really want is a list -- a way to see all of the people, notable or not, who have signed a common document. If the signatory is not a zoologist or in a related field, then their position on evolutionary biology in general and Darwinism in particular is probably not a major aspect of their biography. But this Dissent does seem to be significant enough to get its own article containing or linking to a list of signatories. --M@rēino 17:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Geuttarda. The fact that anyone is willing to sign it is a defining characteristic of any petition. Odd nature (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A petition may or may not be defined by its signers but signers are not defined by petition. People can sign hundreds of petitions in their lives. Otto4711 (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's more than just a list, it's a collection and focal point (i.e. a "category") of articles centered in and around the topic of signing such a petition. It's relevant and useful to reference and coordinate one article to another.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument here pretty much boils down to "keep this category because it's a category." Otto4711 (talk) 18:49, 6 May 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:United States executive orders[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 subcats, keep parent. Kbdank71 19:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States executive orders to Category:United States Executive Orders

Category:Executive Orders of George H.W. Bush
Category:Executive Orders of George W. Bush
Category:Executive Orders of Jimmy Carter
Category:Executive Orders of Bill Clinton
Category:Executive Orders of Gerald Ford
Category:Executive Orders of Lyndon B. Johnson
Category:Executive Orders of John Kennedy
Category:Executive Orders of Richard Nixon
Category:Executive Orders of Ronald Reagan
Category:Executive Orders of Franklin D. Roosevelt
Category:Executive Orders of Harry S. Truman

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All of the subcats capitalize both "Executive" and "Order" (although obviously "Executive" is capitalized in the subcats because it's the first word). The question is whether the parent should have its capitalization changed to match the subcats or the subcats should have the "o" in "order" lower-case. I have no opinion either way, just so they match. Otto4711 (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they don't need to match. Executive orders shouldn't be capitalized. johnpseudo 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they shouldn't be capitalized, then they shouldn't be capitalized in the subcats either, thus making them match. =) Powers T 19:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the subcats so if consensus is to make lower-case we can change them per this nom. Otto4711 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to uncapitalized. Only specific executive orders use the caps. And yes, the parent and subs should match. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep original nominated cat, Rename Otto's additions to lower-case orders. Neier (talk) 03:40, 6 May 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:Commonwealth of Independent States Cup winners[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. Kbdank71 19:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Commonwealth of Independent States Cup winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: We don't have a category even for Champions League winners, so why have it for winners of this demi-forgotten tournament where the strongest teams play with their second squads? MaxSem(Han shot first!) 15:31, 5 May 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 assassinated by the Romanian Communist regime[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 and drawingboardify per the discussion. Kbdank71 16:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People assassinated by the Romanian Communist regime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is a POV contraption, and the terminology it uses is absurd. For one, a regime does not "assassinate" - organizations and people do. Secondly, the people it includes died in prison, where they were sent process of law, some by a number of causes (including natural factors), and a few others also executed by process of law (a segment which included the tried and shot WWII mass murderer Ion Antonescu, before I took him out; by the same definition, the serial killer Ion Rîmaru could be said to have been "assassinated by the communist regime", since he was executed at a time when communists were in power). Yes, many were in fact killed, and most of those who died in prison without being killed were also victims of the regime, as were many of those who were simply in prison. The regime was grossly unjust to these people, but the law was still the law in place. If somebody wants to reflect the one purpose of this category that could ever be salvaged, let him consider a cat on the Victims of Soviet repressions model. But this is a political statement, and the politics it stands for are alarming. Dahn (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we have this category (and I'm glad to have it), why shouldn't we keep the category People assassinated by the Romanian Communist regime ? It would be insulting to the memory of the victims of the communist regime. Concerning Antonescu: I agree that he was a mass murderer, but his trial was very controversial and it wasn't held in accordance to democratic laws. We can't compare Antonescu's trial with the trial from Nürenberg. It is very likely for Antonescu to get the death penalty even in Nürnberg. But I'm talking here about an abusive communist trial. Nothing more that that. --Olahus (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said: the Iron Guard was not a regime, it was an organization, and did not engage in, nor could it engage in, any form of legal process when killing people. Similarly, people killed by the Antonescu regime were not "assassinated" by the Antonescu regime, since the terminology cannot apply in such an individual-to-state relationship. Thus, aside from forcing one interpretation upon the reader, what the category you created does is to lump together people who simply died in prison (killed or not) with people who were executed by due process of a questionable law. "Abusive communist trial" (and I think you'll find that historians other than the ultra-nationalist core-group in Romania do not refer to Antonescu's trial as abusive, but merely question certain aspects of it, while most findings of the trial were validated by other national and international bodies after Antonescu's sentencing) does not equal "assassination", and, as much as I am inclined to believe that most of the trials were sinister machinations, we don't create categories based on one's POV. As for the "insulting to the memory of victims by not keeping the category", which I suppose is a mere "in yo' face" based on my comment that making the sentenced war criminal Antonescu part of a category on victims of anything, well let's just say I'd advise you to keep this discussion within the limits of rationality and avoid straw man arguments. Dahn (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would say the regime (or more precisely the Securitate) probably did assassinate people like Noel Bernard and his RFE colleagues Mihai Cismărescu and Vladimir Georgescu, and badly wanted to assassinate Ion Mihai Pacepa. The Bulgarian regime assassinated Georgi Markov, did it not? However, the RFE deaths' link to the regime is still unproven, so we need not speculate here. Let me also point out that Antonescu's execution took place under the monarchy rather than the Communist regime and that, as Dahn observed, the other members of this category died in prison rather than being "assassinated". After all, to be assassinated, one should be somebody (a beggar or a baker can't be "assassinated), and by the time these men died, they were former somebodies. Flueraş one could possibly say was "murdered", but "deaths in custody" covers that well enough. Biruitorul (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is, of course, a world of possibilities to reflect the situation in Communist Romania through categories. Though I'm not sure about the details of a category tree, one could easily create Category:Victims of repression in Communist Romania (no Antonescu and his henchmen, for chronological and moral reasons). That would in fact also cover people who were not killed by the regime, but were imprisoned for political reasons (as "repressions" would indicate) and were subject to what is, by any standard, immense suffering (Lena Constante, Corneliu Coposu etc., even the fascist activist Radu Gyr) But, as I have indicated in some discussion before, there are paradoxes to consider, particularly when noting that a number of people who enforced terror in Romania were also its victims - Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu, Eugen Ţurcanu, Vasile Luca, and perhaps even Ana Pauker. Either way, a different and NPOV sort of categorization can be imagined, but the cat we're discussing just doesn't work. Biruitorul does make a good point about Securitate assassinations (which, I maintain, do imply an organization being involved). If I got it right, Biru, you're not yourself saying that the category could apply to them; but since one may consider that this begs the question, I'll provide a short answer to that: the problem with creating a cat for people assassinated by the Securitate is that it takes us through a full circle back to Flueraş, who may have been purposely killed, and the killing may be pinned on the Securitate. And the cat would still need to be narrowed down, because its present use shows that it serves as a POV-push (equating "unfair trials" with assassinations), and, given its vague title, there is simply no way of doing away with the probability of such a rhetorical abuse. Dahn (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely - let's delete this and go back to the drawing board. The idea is not a bad one, but this first attempt was not executed too smoothly. (And you are correct - I'm not saying the RFE people or even Flueraş should be included here, due to the wider problems with the category and that the assassinations, despite obvious markers, remain unproven, just that the regime or, if you prefer, one of its organizations, did apparently carry out assassinations.) Biruitorul (talk) 17:17, 5 May 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.

Landforms of Achill Island[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. Kbdank71 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging:
Nominator's rationale: Achill Island is of course the most beautiful place in the entire universe, but there is no need for separate categories for all its features, and these two categs contain only two articles. There may be a case for creating a Category:Achill Island, but if so it doesn't need to be subdivided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 5 May 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:Balochi musician[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. — CharlotteWebb 22:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Balochi musician to Category:Baloch musicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename spelling to match parent Category:Baloch people. Tim! (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It should certainly be 'musicians' rather than 'musician', and Baloch seems to be the accepted term for the people with Balochi referring to their language. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per both. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Although the category only contains one article, there were undoubtedly more than one of the subject. Mastrchf (t/c) 20:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per both. --Soman (talk) 22:17, 6 May 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:Television shows running 10 or more seasons[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. Kbdank71 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Television shows running 10 or more seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary inclusion citerion Tim! (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author's Rational to keep Since when is "ten years" arbitrary? It's specific, it's measurable, and it's notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless, arbitrary, unencyclopedic trivia... they're all there. Dahn (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Useless? If that's the guideline, then we should delete all television-based entries--after all, it's only "entertainment" and what's the use of that? HOWEVER, if there is usefulness in tracking various television shows, why would there not be more use in knowing which ones have lasted over a decade? It's far more likely that a long-lasting show will have a higher cultural impact than a short-lived one.
Arbitrary? What's "arbitrary" about a specific ten-year period? Maybe "why not nine years" or "why not eleven years" ... I suppose...--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your choice of 10 years. Why not 5 or 9 or 11? This would be better as a list of long running TV shows. If you really want longest running, why not use 20 years? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic trivia? Having a concise category for the longest-lasting prime-time shows with the greatest social impact over an extended period of time is anything but "trivial" -- and if prime-time television shows belong in an encyclopedia, why should the longest-running ones not be categorized?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a case where a list makes much more sense than a category. As a category, this adds nothing to the article; by the time you've gotten to the bottom of the page, it's blindingly obvious to you that the article belongs in the category, and the article has so precious little in common with other members of the category that the reader is unlikely to find another interesting article by clicking and browsing. If anyone actually wants this information, they'll search for the list. --M@rēino 13:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a good reason to delete. The other's were just "I don't like it" arguments. You wanna delete on this reason, go ahead--fine by me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Convert to List - The idea from this category is great, but the format isn't. The information contained here could serve the project much better as a list that could be contained in the "See Also" sections of the articles that are currently contained in the category. Mastrchf (t/c) 20:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as arbitrary inclusion criteria. Shows that last 9 years generally differ in no major way than those that make it to 10. Listifying would be an OK idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 5 May 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:Limerick Vikings football[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. Kbdank71 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Limerick Vikings football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for one of two American football teams in Ireland. The only article is the one on the team itself, University of Limerick Vikings, and that article shows no sign of any other articles which could be included in the category.
The article is already in all appropriate categories, so there is need to merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 5 May 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:Albums produced by Bryan Adams[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. Per the discussion, "songs produced by foo" would be a better fit for the song or two that he has produced; "albums produced by" is misleading. On another note, categories are not used to give someone their due, nor should we be concerned with blows to anyone's self-esteem because there is no category about part of their life/career. And finally, the problem with the scheme pointed out by otto and seconded by roundhouse regarding multiple "album produced by" categories on a single album . Kbdank71 19:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albums produced by Bryan Adams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a redundant category of Category:Bryan Adams albums. It would be different if Adams had produced a number of albums for other artists, but those listed here are all his own. Wolfer68 (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite true, actually — there are also two Tina Turner albums and a Rod Stewart album in here. No vote, just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, those were added since the CFD request was posted. Although, I don't know how producing one track on an album considers one the producer of the album. --Wolfer68 (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the existence of a wider categorization scheme does not automatically make every one of its subcats "OK." I have no firm opinion here other than to express reservations at the notion that producing a single track means that an entire album should be added to the category. This actually points to a problem with this categorization scheme, as an album can have individual tracks produced by different producers and might end up listed in a dozen different "produced by" categories under this notion. Otto4711 (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bryan Adams has produced albums, ergo his due is a place in Category:Albums by producer filled by the albums he has produced. Otherwise his name would be missing from Category:Albums by producer, and one can only guess at the severity of the resulting blow to his self-esteem. (I share Otto's disquiet about albums with a multiplicity of producers.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 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:Hollywood's Rock Walk inductees.[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. Kbdank71 19:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hollywood's Rock Walk inductees to Category:Hollywood's RockWalk inductees
Nominator's rationale: There is properly no space between "Rock" and "Walk" as per the official website. Jjb (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment - Let's just say that I am very skeptical that this honor is sufficiently noteworthy to merit a Category (rather than a List in an article). I suppose it's possible that the fact that I don't even recall ever hearing of it merely reflects the fact that I haven't set foot in Hollywood in about 25 years. But surely something that important would have an entire article here -- not just a one-paragraph section at the end of an article about a chain of guitar shops. Am I missing something? Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - overcategorization by obscure award given by a guitar store. I don't think it ought to be listified either, because it's trivial. I wonder if the bands so "honored" even know that they have been? Otto4711 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The honorees certainly do know - how else could they have gone there to put their hands in the concrete? (And if you don't even know that much about it, how do you know whether the award is "obscure", and how are you qualified to weigh in on this?) Jjb (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the complete list seems to include nearly everyone - let www.rockwalk.com maintain it. Note that the legendary C.F. Martin, III and Remo Belli were listed in 1985, Elvis in 1990, and Eric Clapton had to wait until 2004. Mick Jagger, the Stones, the Who and Fleetwood Mac are still waiting. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt they haven't managed to find space in their diaries yet! But then what about Blair and his Congressional Medal of Honor? These Brits! Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining per all above. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 6 May 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:Nationalists by nationality[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. Kbdank71 19:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I cannot think of a vaguer term than "nationalist". The result of categorizing in this way will be meaningless or, at best, vague. What does one have to do in order to be a nationalist? By the broad definition, about three quarters of European politicians were nationalists at some point, and, in countries that had to undergo a conflict of national liberation, "nationalist politician" and "politician" are synonymous, and together they are almost synonymous with "fooian nationalist". Categorize these people by political movement: the fascists were nationalists (and they are categorized as fascists), the members of the Indian Congress Party were nationalists (and they are categorized as such) etc.; others categories we already have manage to pretty much fulfill the intentions behind this series of cats, without the inherent POV and unanswerable questions, and one could always create more on specific parties. Dahn (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the term is far too vague to mean anything - from Nick Griffin to Billy Bragg, from Boudica to Enoch Powell (and that's just in Britain). Do it by parties, or periods, or something adapted to local circumstances, but this type of sweeping category is not going to prove very useful. Biruitorul (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, while I'm not too clear on what constitutes Luxembourgian nationalism, the Italian category seems to contain people associated specifically with the Italian unification, the Ukrainian category contains people associated specifically with the Ukrainian unification movement during the period when the Ukraine was divided between Poland and the Russian Empire and was not at all an independent entity, and the only person in the Iranian category is the founder of the Pan-Iranist Party during the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran. So three of the four categories already have a clear and unambiguous context to them. And it's not at all true that in countries that had to undergo a conflict of national liberation, "nationalist politician" and "politician" are synonymous, and together they are almost synonymous with "fooian nationalist", either — there were plenty of non-nationalist politicians in all of these countries, too, and even to the extent that Dahn's statement is true it would only apply to the specific historical period during which a national liberation movement was actively underway. Apart from my lack of understanding of Luxembourg I don't really see the actual problem here. Keep, although review and rename the categories if necessary. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Actually, no. For starters, I don't think we could take the present characteristics of articles included in the category as an indication of what they will be used as. Yes, the definition could be restricted in some cases, but the category titled do not and cannot reflect that. Let's take Italy as an example. The two components of the title say "Italian" and "nationalist". Based on that, if the category does not include people other than those in the Risorgimento at the moment, there is nothing intrinsic preventing such an inclusion. Mussolini was an Italian nationalist; Berlusconi is an Italian nationalist; D'Annunzio was an Italian nationalist; most people who fought in the Italian resistance during WWII were Italian nationalists etc etc. In fact, depending on who's providing and applying the definition of "nationalist", most pre-1950 Italian politicians were nationalists. If one wants to restrict it to people who fought for the Risorgimento, why not call it "Risorgimento activists" or "Italian unification activists" (though the latter may also include 20th century irredentists and whatnot)? (Please revisit my original proposal about replacing this category tree with more specific and non-connected categories about specific contexts and movements.) Iran? Why not "Members of the Pan-Iranist Party" et al? As for the "nationalist" term itself: in most Anglo-Saxon cultures, it is synonymous with one of two seemingly incompatible things (a "positive" term like "patriot" and a "negative" term like "demagogue"); in other countries, the word is so overused and inconsistently applied so as to mean everything and everything. As for the countries that fought a liberation war, they include the a large percentage of the world's countries, from Mexico to Germany, from Indonesia to Bulgaria, from Namibia to China. The countries that were emancipated in some way or another from the rule of other countries are form the majority of the globe. Even during in this "limited" context the two centuries of national emancipation, the term has gone through shapeshifting, and was applied to incompatible things at the same time: [Pan-]Arab nationalism functioned alongside Turkish nationalism and, yes, Ottoman nationalism (the three of them in tandem with [Pan-]Islamism); Russian "Eurasian" nationalism alongside Panslavism, Austroslavism and eventually Prometheism; Pangermanism and the Bismarck solution clashed or complimented Austrian nationalism; Indian nationalism and Pakistani separatism were produced by the same nationalist struggle etc etc. Dahn (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to what Dahn said - you may wish "Italian nationalists" was limited to the Risorgimento era, but what exactly is stopping me from adding in this guy? Not even WP:POINT, as far as I can discern. You may wish "Iranian nationalists" was only for 1950s figures, but isn't he as much of a nationalist? You may wish "Ukrainian nationalists" stopped in 1920, but this lady is ready to go into the category as well. You see the problem? The "clear and unambiguous context" isn't at all so straightforward. Biruitorul (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or use sparingly where their business was nationalism, e.g. a politician / statesman.Red Hurley (talk) 18:44, 12 May 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:Descendants of Queen Victoria[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. Wizardman 23:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Descendants of Queen Victoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is overcategorization serving no purpose whatsoever. There is already a list (itself quite irrelevant) for the successors to the English throne. The cat contradicts the purpose of categorization, it overlaps with other categories for families, and does not appear to be limited by anything. Dahn (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, beyond the second generation, descent from Queen Victoria is generally a matter of trivia than one of encyclopedic relevance. Second, maintaining this is bound not to be worth the effort. Third, the slippery slope argument: why not categories on descendants of all other monarchs - which of course would tend to make such categories less and less relevant due to overlap. So just delete. Biruitorul (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per clear reasoning of Dahn & Biruitorul. Cgingold (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not really that hard to maintain a category like this... Morhange (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as Biruitorul says, decent beyond a couple of generations is basically trivia, and closer relatives will no doubt be fairly easy to reach via her article. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is notable and encyclopaedic that in the years following Victoria's death much of European royalty was related through Victoria and her dozen children. If there is some way of reducing it to descendants within a few generations, that would be enormously preferable.--Relata refero (disp.) 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment All royals were related to someone notable, but that doesn't mean we should start creating categories based on such relationships, no matter who the people were. Reducing it would be even more problematic, since it would send the message "These guys are relevant, these are not". Based on whose decision? Dahn (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I didn't explain properly. The interconnections based on Victoria were particularly notable as they were part of what it would believe would keep Europe from slipping into a great war. Which of course, failed. (See Great War.) About reducing it, I would think all royals in the period where the connections were still considered notable? Perhaps uptil the end of World War II? Those born before WWI ended? That could be a reasonable format for discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that is just adding more and more subjective criteria. First: who is "it"? The family itself? That may in theory be an interpretation on the policies at work before WWI, but it certainly doesn't mean much even for that period. Any sectioning of the category would be arbitrary, and it is not a matter of persuading others that "this point" in history is more relevant in history than "the other", just as it is not a matter of persuading others that "these connections" are more important than "the others".
  • Keep - this is a matter that is of interest, in view of the extent to which she was the grandmother of Euuropean royalty. The list of succession to the British throne only relates to living people, and so is different. However (conversely) qualifying for the category does not per se make a person notable. I would oppose equivalent categories for George III or Edward III. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we all know that grandmother cliche. Aren't there other grandmothers to consider for the same period, if not indeed throughout history, what with all the intermarriage thing (it takes two to tango)? I understand you would oppose another such category, but on what basis? That you don't think it is as relevant? Isn't that a matter of personal taste? And should, nay, can we let categorizing be based on that personal taste? I'm sure if we look closer, we will find another character just as important who was the ancestor of even more people (why not Hugues Capet? why not Charles Quintus? why not henry IV of France? etc) never mind that we already have categories for the noble houses that make navigation easy and reasonable (and for which this one is mostly clutter), but just stating that this criterion is not just relevant enough, but more relevant than others, is not, am afraid, an approach that could possibly hold ground. Dahn (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OCAT. This is a category without bounds and as such it simply grows and while being of interest, being a member does not make one notable. If someone wishes they should really convert this to a list where you can better illustrate how they are related. However I would not make that a condition of this deletion request. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - When Victoria has over 500 living descendants, creating an article might be a lot of work. I figured having a simple category would allow someone to see a list of Victoria's descendants (at least those with articles) Why not Henry V or some other monarch? Didn't think about it. Maybe doing an article on the descendants of both Victoria and Christian IX would be better, since they were considered the grandparents of Europe, and that might be of more interest. Morhange (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I would support creating lists of members of each royal family/dynasty/house/whatever if they do not already exist, but generally speaking a person who is descended from one monarch is likely to be descended from several, creating a distinct risk for clutter if this categorization scheme becomes popular, and I don't think we can objectively decide which monarchs are important or prolific enough for a category of descendants to exist. If kept, it should be renamed to "Category:Descendants of Victoria of the United Kingdom" to match the title of H.M.A. — CharlotteWebb 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as she was notable and most of her family too. If wiki has lists of barely-notable titled people, then some latitude can be given to the notable ones and it could be useful for idle journalists and fortune-hunters.Red Hurley (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Biruitorul. Not encyclopedia past a generation or two. A list would work better if really necessary (which I doubt) as it can show how they are related to QV. --Kbdank71 19:47, 12 May 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_May_5&oldid=1142606342"