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.
Nominator's rationale: Standard categorisation is to assume those groups not in the defunct version of the category are not defunct. Tim! (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Big bands. We don't have or need a 'defunct musical groups' scheme. Oculi (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per Oculi. __meco (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the "inactive" and "active" categories. Distinguishing active from inactive is helpful because, among other things, active bands can get lost in the trees, given that the heyday for the big band era was in the 1940s. Defunct is sometimes presumptive because many big bands, such as GRP, are not technically defunct. That band can (and probably will), at any moment, regroup and cut another award winning album. Big bands, nowadays, tend to be composed of professional musicians who have several jobs (as educators, studio musicians, symphony members, Broadway pit orchestras players, and the like). Technically, there are are less than 10 full-time big bands in North America. If one looks at the Grammy category for large instrumental group (jazz), one would see that those bands are not full-time, fully-dedicated bands. Yet, those bands produce some of the finest big band jazz ever. Finally, the only way one could conclusively determine whether a modern-day big band is "defunct" is to find a dissolution of a incorporation — something that is not likely. I highly recommend keeping the categories "active" and "inactive." — Eurodog (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It is maddening for me, and I presume others, to hunt for active big bands, live, when the universe is dominated by big bands, particularly territory bands, of yesteryear. — Eurodog (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Merge. I don't have strong conviction on this. — Eurodog (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your question, "Why do some organizations have a defunct category and some do not?," from a policy perspective, I know not. But from a practical perspective, when lists are long, sub-categorizations can be useful. With respect to big bands, I would categorize in other ways as well (i.e., Sweet bands such as Lawrence Welk & Guy Lombardo; vs. Swing bands such as Buddy Rich, Glenn Miller, GRP). The usefulness of having a defunct (or inactive) category for big bands is high for some people. From my view, it’s less about the inactive bands and more about the active ones. The "active" category pulls currently relevant bands out of the Dead Sea. It’s frustrating to see the "Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra" get lost in a sea of inactive/defunct big bands.
The "We don't have a need" comment (above), I presume, represents a subset that does not include me. Nonetheless, as I said earlier, I do not have strong conviction on this. — Eurodog (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any example of where consensus has changed? Because it seems a pretty extensive category tree to me. (Even larger when one considers its parent Category:Former entities.) Tim! (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all recent discussions involving "current" "former" "modern" etc. end in deletion or merging on the grounds of we don't categorise that way. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link please? Tim! (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's lots of "former" "defunct" and "modern" discussions - admittedly "defunct" does seem to be acceptable sometimes, but here's a few that point otherwise: one example, another, another. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, very helpful :). The position seems to be we have defunct organizations, but not current organizations. When it comes to people, there is no division at all between current and former careers. Tim! (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Now if only the search had an easy function to sort by date... - The BushrangerOne ping only 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Big bands. This is a present/former breakdown of a category, that is general is discoraged. There are some defunct categories we do, but we do not have Category:Defunct musical groups so there is no reason to have subcats of that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2012 (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.
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 WP:BLP issues. - jc37 21:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Many of the subjects populating the category, while having notable gambling habits mentioned in their respective articles, are not called "gambling addicts" in sources. — AjaxSmack 05:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-defining and POV with potentially serious BLP issues. - The BushrangerOne ping only 06:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I carefully picked all gambling addicts. If it does not fit, then simply remove it. Also you did not notify me... Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gambling addiction sounds amateurish but it is a serious illness which requires special treatment. I picked all real gambling addicts which I found in lists on reliable sources. I don't understand how it is "POV with potentially seriuos BLP issues"; we have a lot biased categories but they are still here with a negative tone. --Kürbis (✔) 09:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notify anyone but I proposed renaming, not deletion. The problem I have with the category is inclusion of people like Dostoevsky where there is no mention of gambling in the article except for an unsourced line in the intro saying "he struggled with money issues due to a gambling addiction". Maybe he liked to gamble and spent a lot of money on it but translating this into an addiction seems to be original research without (preferably contemporary) sources citing an addiction. Likewise, Larry Fine's unsourced "serious gambling addiction" made him eligible for this category.
I stumbled on this category when Chu Ke-liang was added to it. Although the man had serious problems resulting from gambling that are recounted in the article, the article's sources did not specifically refer to an addiction. For Wikipedia editors to call it an addiction without sourcing is original research. If this category is necessary, maybe a title such as Category:Notable gamblers would be better. — AjaxSmack 17:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of sourcing, this isn't sufficiently defining. We could presumably produce a category "People who worked for McDonald's in high school" and populate it with people whose McDonald's employment during their teens was in reliable sources, but that wouldn't really be important enough for their biographies. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Addiction to gambling is certainly a serious problem. The question is whether BLP issues and issues of when enjoying gambling becomes addiction to it must mean this is one that to will be difficult for us to keep. I do not think we have Category:Drug addicts or Category:Alcoholics: I expect that we have had them and they have been deleted. However, we could merge them to Category:Gambling people or Category:Gamblers, which are currently container categories, and then distribute them by game and nationality, according to the scheme of the category tree. This avoids the POV issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, as most do not self-indentify with this illness... It should be kept as is without changing anything. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 07:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point of citing those previous discussions is that we don't categorize people with addictions unless they themselves have gone public with it. So it's either "self-identifying as" or delete. __meco (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the issues involved in substance addiction are different than the ones brought up with behavoral addiction. Behavioral additiction is not central enough to a person to be worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Anyway, that was just a rhetorical question. But I do question that assertion. __meco (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serious BLP issues. How can we prove someone has a gambling addiction? Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2012 (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.
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 all but withdrawn Arab. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT - No need for these small communities to be broken out from the people-by-county categories, as they each have only one Wikinotable person and little chance of there being more. The BushrangerOne ping only 04:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all but People from Arab, Alabama per nominator. Why not Arab? It's a town of 8,000 that straddles two counties. Where do I put the one person in the category or others who aren't categorized but found eventually?...William 10:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all but People from Arab, Alabama per William. Arab does straddle 2 counties and it is unlikely that a biog will specify which of the 2 counties a resident is from. Oculi (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all except the Arabians. Categories like these county-level ones shouldn't be split except in cases of ambiguity, which is true for the four Arabians, or in cases of excessive size, which these aren't. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2012 (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.
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. Contents have been moved to Commons, leaving the category empty; WP:BURO. The BushrangerOne ping only 06:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are simply images of Indiana State Highway termini (note the spelling error); there's no good reason that these must be separated from Category:Images of Indiana. At any rate, they're all free images (and presumably all other images of Indiana state highway termini on Wikipedia would also be), so there's no good reason that these need to be categorised on Wikipedia at all, because they should be at Commons. Finally, note that all images in the category have been here for several years; if we move them to Commons, the category likely will be empty permanently. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2012 (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.
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
