Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 2 February 4 >

February 3[edit]

Category:Protestant converts to Atheism[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. Kbdank71 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Protestant converts to Atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete People do not convert to Atheism SillyPhil (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That doesn't appear to be a reason to delete the category. Rather, let's change the wording to better suit the condition. How about "Atheist converts from Protestantism"? or "Atheists who were Protestants"? I see the same editor is emptying Category:Jewish atheists so I'm wondering if there is perhaps some larger issue here concerning atheism.   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - After looking at the 2 articles in the category, it appears that only one is properly categorized. The other, Jonathan Edwards (athlete), does not indicate that he's an atheist, only that he has experienced a very serious crisis of faith, and is probably better described as an agnostic. With only one valid article, this category may not be worth keeping, even if renamed -- although I leave open the possibility that it might be better populated. Cgingold (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religion is mutable and often not all that defining (is it in the first paragraph of most bios where the essentials are? not usually) or verifiable, and often not easily defined to pigeon-hole people as Cgingold points out in one example. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there is also Category:Orthodox converts to Atheism, or rename both, maybe to 'de-converts'. SillyPhil seems to have an issue with atheism. Most of the articles in Category:Jewish atheists he removed have external links to interviews in which they confirm they are atheist (eg David Sklansky). Some of the removed people are well known atheists (eg. Woody Allen). ROK (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at those de-categorized articles too, anticipating the worst. He only removed articles where it wasn't explicitly stated in the text, which is permissible, but certainly not ideal except in cases where the category is unequivocally wrong. However, I didn't know about those external links supporting the atheist categories. All that's needed in those cases is a simple statement in the text of the article, footnoted to the linked interview, and then the categories can be restored. Cgingold (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the articles and added some references. But surely it is not necessary to add to every person a statement like "He is an atheist", where it can be clearly read from the references. I thought a direct citation or quote would be needed only if there is a dispute? But for most of the people there, they are generaly self-professed atheists. ROK (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, glad to know you've taken care of that! Categories in general are supposed to be supported in the text of the article. With categories pertaining to faith or ethnicity, where the applicability can be questionable, it should always be stated explicitly in the text in some way, hopefully with a citation. Whenever possible, I try to work it into an existing sentence, or to say something interesting about it. A bit of an annoyance, but that's how this sort of deletion is best avoided. Cgingold (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2009 (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:North Texas alumni in the music arts[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 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:North Texas alumni in the music arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Editor's rationale: The College of Music at the University of North Texas, the largest music school in North America, has many renown alumni who are NOT musicians, per se. Some are purely educators, intellectuals, music critics, producers, and the like. The word "musician" implies performer, and, is not the best word for singers from North Texas, like Nora Jones, for example. The phrase music arts is a broad category that encapsulates the range of disciplines of a comprehensive music school that is both academic and vocational. Combining the two – North Texas Alumni and In The Music Arts – is akin to creating a category for a football team. North Texas was simply a short hand way of saying University of North Texas College of Music. What defines this category is the intersection" of graduates from a notable (no pun) music school and those who have done well enough to have been written up in Wikipedia.
Without this category, it would be difficult to link all North Texas Music School grads who have "made it."
Nominator's rationale: Delete Despite its size and mis-naming, it doesn't seem to be defining. Categorizing as a musician is defining, as is categorizing by what college they graduated from, but lumping the two together? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the intersection is not especially more defining than for UNT alumni in any other field, or former students of other institutions working in music. -choster (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete way OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2009 (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.

Bishops by century[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest rename Category:12th-century Christian bishops to Category:12th-century bishops
Suggest rename Category:13th century Christian bishops to Category:13th-century bishops
Suggest rename Category:14th century Christian bishops to Category:14th-century bishops
Suggest rename Category:15th century Christian bishops to Category:15th-century bishops
Suggest rename Category:18th century Christian bishops to Category:18th-century bishops
Suggest rename Category:19th century Christian bishops to Category:19th-century bishops
Suggest rename Category:20th century Christian bishops to Category:20th-century bishops
Suggest rename Category:21st century Christian bishops to Category:21st-century bishops
Nominator's rationale: Merge, "Bishop" originated as a term only within Christianity. There is little purpose in having saying Christian bishops. This also will match the parent and sib categories per the consensus of this CfM. --Carlaude (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and per previous cfd. Occuli (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, precedent, and common sense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Does it matter if the category picks up a few non-Christian bishops? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are other than Christian bishops regardless of how the term originated. See Category:Bishops by religion. Would it not be wise to leave these categories as they are to distinguish this fact? Westfieldme (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and per previous cfd. One does not need to be Christian to understand that it is fundamentally absurd to specify that bishops are Christian, when that has been the case for two millenia. Just because the Raelians have decided to appropriate that term as a designation for their clergy does not mean that "Raelian bishops" are truly the equivalent of Christian bishops. I think the absurdity becomes crystal clear when one considers a slight variation on that theme. Suppose that the Raelians had decided to designate their clergy as "Rabbis". Would we then feel obliged to DAB Category:Rabbis by century and all of its sub-cats to Category:Jewish rabbis by century, etc.?? Of course not. LOL! Cgingold (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, Cgingold et al and per previous cfd. Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The shorter form is better, by virtue of its brevity. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2009 (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:Paleontology in video games[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 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Paleontology in video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The scope sounds like overcategorization, but the actual use seems to be "video games connected to a dinosaur". Not sure what coloring or escaping a dinosaur has to do with paleontology exactly. Pagrashtak 19:35, 3 February 2009 (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:Pocket PC software[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. Kbdank71 16:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pocket PC software to Category:Windows Mobile Professional and Classic software
Nominator's rationale:
  • Rename.
  1. To match other standards for software categorization on Wikipedia. Other categories reference the operating system, rather than the hardware it runs on. For example: Category:Windows software rather than Category:PC software. Category:Windows Mobile Standard software has already been created.
  2. The term "Pocket PC" is being phased out by Microsoft, who defined the term as a specific hardware standard for an edition of their Windows Mobile operating system. The current naming convention specifies that the hardware standard defined by Microsoft is now known as either a "Windows Mobile Professional device" or a "Windows Mobile Classic device" depending on whether a phone radio is a part of the device.
  3. Other operating systems that run entirely different applications run on what many people know as the Pocket PC. Some examples of such are: Familiar Linux, Jlime, and Openmoko Linux. Therefore, it is inaccurate for one to use the term "Pocket PC software" as a synonym for "Windows Mobile software".
  4. As a reminder to editors, a decision to rename this Category does not mean a decision not to merge this category with Category:Windows Mobile Standard software to form one category as Category:Windows Mobile software. That requires a separate nomination, is a separate discussion, and is mutually exclusive.

-Brianreading (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:17, 3 February 2009 (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:Australian track and field athletes[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 16:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Australian track and field athletes to Category:Australian athletes by event
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a duplicate to Category:Australian athletes and appears to more of a 'by event' category similar to Category:German athletes by event. Waacstats (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in Aussie English, is T&F athlete the equivalent of "athlete"? Because it's not in Canadian or American English. But it is in British English. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2009 (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:Dolls by character name[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. Kbdank71 16:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dolls by character name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - not seeing the point behind this category. Categorizing on the basis of being named for something or by having a name adopted as a generic seems unsustainable. Otto4711 (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too wondered about the rationale for starting this category, after being asked to categorise an entry for Frozen Charlotte (2006 doll). It seemed absurd to categorise it as a doll, when it is just a self-contained character that is part of a doll line. However, as Frozen Charlotte (doll) is a specific type of doll in its own right, with no connection to(other than being part of the rather mixed bag of inspirations behind) the 2006 version, I felt it necessary to make a sub-category for dolls by character name. It just seemed absurd to note it simply as category:dolls, especially as the category could easily become extremely long. Providing a sub-category that would filter out the popular names/character names from the trademarks, manufacturers, or companies, seemed like a good idea.
For example, in the 1930s, the Shirley Temple doll by Ideal was the biggest selling doll of the decade, almost single-handedly helping the Ideal company through the Depression. So there would be a notability argument for "Shirley Temple (doll)" being a standalone entry, particularly as the doll is arguably now better known than the '30s child actor (plus how many people would know to look under "Ideal" for info?). If members of Barbie's friends and family have individual entries, surely there should be a list for doll characters by the name by which they are most likely to be recognised? I just thought it seemed to make sense to come up with a sub-category for trade and character names for mass-produced/widely produced dolls, rather than going by a manufacturer or brand-name that may not be widely associated with that particular doll. Anyway, all this came out of being asked to categorise an entry that seemed too narrow to categorise simply as "doll"
Also, there are examples of significant dolls in doll history that become known by a popular name, such as "Lord and Lady Clapham", the widely published 17th century wooden dolls (and significant fashion history documents) in the Victoria & Albert Museum. They are not a brand, they are one-offs, famous in their field, and published/referred to in many books on fashion and doll history. They are known as "Lord and Lady Clapham". Where do they go? Under dolls, yes, but what subcategory? Perhaps a better term than "character name" is required... Mabalu (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is somewhat muddled, I'll give you that (just realised (after some puzzlement over why I couldn't find a category called that!) that Tenpoundhammer isn't another category up for deletion!). I still think there must be some kind of categorisation to narrow down the list further, I mean, GI Joe brands have their own category, so perhaps I've let that order to categorise the page throw me too badly. So yeah, no problem with whether or not it's deleted, it was a bit of a "oh heck, it's asking me to categorise this, WTF do I do, I can't see what would fit?" panic thing. Mabalu (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopelessly muddled category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could support retention if it were consistently filled, and used to reduce the bloated main category, keeping only characters like Barbie who were also a range. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • :: Yes, I always meant to come back to this and work on filling it up more consistently, but before I could do so, it was marked for deletion, so I'm now sitting and waiting for the verdict. Mabalu (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see the point of this nomination. The category is obviously useful in navigating to dolls with personal names such as Sindy, GI Joe and so forth. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much every brand of doll has a "personal name". The category makes no sense and serves no useful purpose. Otto4711 (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2009 (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.

Ancient Greeks[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 all as nominated. I'm all for using BCE, but as of right now there is not consensus to change it. Get consensus at VP or MOS, and I'll happily add BC to BCE as a speedy criterion. Besides, if I recall correctly, wasn't there a big to-do about this awhile back that involved the arbcom? Kbdank71 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:1st-century Greeks to Category:1st-century Greek people
Category:2nd-century Greeks to Category:2nd-century Greek people
Category:1st-century BC Greeks to Category:1st-century BC Greek people
Category:2nd-century BC Greeks to Category:2nd-century BC Greek people
Category:3rd-century BC Greeks to Category:3rd-century BC Greek people
Category:4th-century BC Greeks to Category:4th-century BC Greek people
Category:5th-century BC Greeks to Category:5th-century BC Greek people
Category:6th-century BC Greeks to Category:6th-century BC Greek people
Category:7th-century BC Greeks to Category:7th-century BC Greek people
Category:8th-century BC Greeks to Category:8th-century BC Greek people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a follow up to some discussions fixing other problems. It was noted in that discussion, that we use two forms for naming Greek people categories and that we really should only use one. Later categories use the suggested rename target. Earlier ones use the other form. I will note that this usage seems to be restricted to subcategories of Category:Ancient Greeks by century and Category:Roman-era Greeks. Since these categories are grouped by these other subcategories, it seems reasonable to have the categories in this nomination follow the more common form. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the last two have speedy renames pending at the time of this nomination. I'll tag them once the speedy renames are finished. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest renaming all that use "BC" to "BCE" to diffuse Christian bias. Otto4711 (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BCE as in "Before Christian Era" :) ? BC is universally understood and used throughout WP categories, no need to complicate matters here.-choster (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, given the better understanding of BC and the fact that, I believe, BC is used over BCE in every category, I'd say please leave it alone. Now, if you want to try and make a change, you can do that as a separate group nomination that should be announced in a few places. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "BCE" might as well start; the Ancient Greeks' chronology before year 1 has little to do with Christ. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BC" IMHO violates naming conventions because it gives preference to the Christian notion of Jesus as the dividing point. Otto4711 (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The calendar was set by the Catholic Church. Changing the notation doesn't change the (inaccurately calculated) birth of Jesus as the basis for numbering. But I don't think this is the time or place to try to initiate a change from well-established WP convention.-choster (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then change policy. This is not the place to try and make a change that is against policy. This is a sensitive issue and should not be decided on in an isolated case like this. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. Changing to "BCE" is an interesting proposal, and one that I could perhaps support, but I do agree that this may not be the best way to start going about it. Not to say CfD couldn't be used to test the proposal—but I do think it would be better if it were approached by a specific test nomination on this issue on a category or categories that are more prominent than these. In this case, since the nomination tags on the categories do not include mention of the proposal to change to BCE, it's probably not a great idea to rename it to that and then use this as a precedent for future changes. I would welcome a test nomination specifically for the purpose of testing whether there is consensus to change "BC" to "BCE", though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I indicated my support for changing to BCE it was simply to go on record in favor of doing that, not with any expectation that it would or should happen as a result of this particular CFD. So I want to endorse Good Ol’factory's well-considered remarks as to how best to approach this issue. Cgingold (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since that change would be in conflict with the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions, it would probably be best to discuss this type of change there and then get consensus to change the policy. CfD is not the right place to change that policy. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom not BCE, which is a politically (in)correct term invented by those who wish to deny the existence of Jesus. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is used in scholarship not to deny the existence of Jesus but where Jesus's birthday is not relevant to the sequence of events. The more intriguing folks are those who believe that Jesus was Christ but purport to have him born in 4 BC - therefore before some other Christ, perhaps? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I for one don't deny the existence of Jesus. I have no idea whether the man called "Jesus" in the bible existed or not, nor is it relevant to this discussion. I deny the divinity of Jesus and object to the imprimatur that using a religiously-biased term gives. Otto4711 (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "substantial reason" is that BC favors a particular religious belief in such a way as to give undue weight to Christianity. Using BC is an endorsement of Christianity. Otto4711 (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Greeks seems better than Greek people being more succinct and the more common usage as in Ancient Greeks. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BC, neutral on "people". BCE is both "politically" correct and fails the principle of least surprise. The main year, decade, century, and millennia category before year 0 are "BC" rather than "BCE", so there's no real reason why these categories should be different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2009 (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:Pregnancy's under the age of 13.[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 to Category:Precocious puberty and pregnancy. Kbdank71 16:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pregnancy's under the age of 13. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Ignoring the spelling and punctuation issues, this category is interesting, but has a completely arbitrary inclusion criterion. Why under 13? Why not under 12?—list of youngest birth mothers only lists examples under 12. Why not under 11?—both articles about specific people would still be included in the category if it were under 11, since one was 10 and one was 5. The problem of an arbitrary cut-off seems to me to be one reason list of youngest birth mothers is far more appropriate for these purposes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I doubt there are very many articles that are about pregnancies by age, and GO's reasoning on inclusion criterion is correct. Otto4711 (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. Totally arbitrary inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename/move. Is it possible to just move the article to include proper punctuation and under 12??? I thought that it was the right thing to put the category under 13. And what if there is a case of a 12 year old getting pregnant??? That is why I put it under 13. And also I think it would help wikipedians to find the persons that were pregnant at ages under 12 by category b/c only two have actual articles. And there are many small category's. Or would a better solution be to recreate the category to say "pregnancy's under age 12"??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miagirljmw14 (talk • contribs) 00:48, February 4, 2009 (Please remember to sign your comments using 4 tildes)
The point about being "arbitrary" is that there's no intrinsically obvious age to use for the cut-off point -- so none of them are better than any of the others. In other words, there's no sound basis for making a choice of one age over another. Cgingold (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems that the 2 articles included are only notable for having given birth at young age (picking 13 is arbitrary, however). There may be some way to keep these together, but not this way; my suggestion would be to merge the 2 standalone articles into the list, the other 2 being redirects and delete the cat altogether. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment rename to Category: Pre-pubescent and peri-pubescent pregnancy ? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An interesting approach... just one slight problem: if you're pregnant, by definition you're not "pre-pubescent". And "peri-pubescent" doesn't denote or refer to age at all. But you got me thinking... and I found the term we want right there in the articles: "precocious puberty" -- there's even an article on the topic. Looking further, it turns out the we currently don't have a Category:Puberty -- only Category:Adolescence, which is a broader concept. However, there appear to be enough articles there to carve out Category:Puberty. So the question is, assuming I do that, do we want to take the next step and turn this one into a sub-cat incorporating the term "precocious puberty"? (Perhaps Category:Precocious puberty and pregnancy.) Right now we have 4 articles that could go there, I'm not sure what the potential for growth would be. Cgingold (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, renaming to something (see below). All the individuals are only notable for this, and the list is about this, and it is therefore clearly defining for them and they should have a category per WP:CAT:"An article's category or categories should reflect the topics and classes that are directly related to the subject. In writing an article, use the most likely categories in which the reader would look for, if they are not sure of where to find the article". Imo, very strong arguments need to be produced for what is the most obvious category for a group of articles to be deleted. It may be small, but is presumably very capable of growth. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom). As nominator, I think a rename to Category:Precocious puberty and pregnancy would be fine in this case. It certainly solves the arbitrariness problem and just recasts the category as an entirely different type. A good idea, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I agree, we should rename it to "Precocious puberty and pregnancy". Thanks for negotiating with me on this!!! --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone who wants to keep this explain why this is defining in periods of time when this was normal or for societies where this is normal? As I recall in the middle ages when life spans were short, this was the norm. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But it is unusual at this time. And also, I do not think a 5 year old getting pregnant was ever normal, nor a 10 year old. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 00:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that "precocious puberty" has ever been normal. In days past perhaps the (again, arbitrary) cutoff date for what we would call "precocious puberty" has changed, but I would think probably not by much. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By definition, precocious puberty is not and cannot ever be "normal". That's the whole point of the concept, which the article explains. The average age at onset of puberty varies somewhat over time, and from society to society. But anybody who has come to public attention for an unusually early pregnancy would perforce undoubtedly meet the definition of precocious puberty. Cgingold (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be absolutely clear about this, "precocious puberty" is the standard term used throughout the medical literature. Cgingold (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that according to the article, the "diagnostic criteria" include "Menstruation in girls before 10 years" and breast development before 7.5 I think. I would prefer "Early ..." Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you google "precocious puberty" you'll see that it is the preferred term in the medical literature. (And of course, our main article is at "precocious puberty", not "early puberty".) Why do you think "early" would be better? Cgingold (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was going by the current name, but I see the articles are all <10, though the list has 11 yo's, though I suppose most were 10 .... Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, given that this encyclopedia covers back to the 9th millennium BC I fail to see how current norms justifies this category. I'll add that the youngest birth listed in an article here is at the age of 5! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean by "how current norms justifies this category", VW. Precocious puberty is not defined by or limited to "current norms". Cgingold (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's better to include both terms as that makes for a broader category with a more substantial conceptual foundation. Cgingold (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has suggested that "pregnancy before puberty is possible". I suggest taking a minute or two to read through Precocious puberty. Cgingold (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand Peterkingiron's comment/reasoning above. Pregnancy before puberty is not possible, but it's not like puberty for girls is "supposed" to start at the arbitrary age 13. I think we've identified the proper medical terminology for this phenomenon, and I suggest we use it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2009 (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/2009_February_3&oldid=1074802166"