The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy rename, noncontroversial to meet the standard. The BushrangerOne ping only 02:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale men's and women's gymnastics teams are seperate units. The people are so identified because they were on a specific team, and the teams are gender specific. I have already split out to Category:UCLA Bruins men's gymnasts the males who were gymnats at UCLA. A rename would avoid miscategorization. I split out the men because that waseasier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 29 May 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:rename. -- Black Falcon(talk) 06:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current name of the category smacks too much of a "legal fiction", and it also sounds somewhat nonsensical in its current form without a qualifier, for all beings and living things are all in fact and indeed descended from antiquity, be they humans, other apes and primates, animals in general or otherwise, &c., etc.. The whole category might be in fact part of a certain few users' private "pet project" of sorts, related and connected of course to an, and a single, article, and that I am in fact amenable, if not open, to suggestions that the whole category be deleted all-together. — KC9TV 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep. It makes sense for the category to match the article; although it does seem to contain a jumble of articles. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only one that is an actual verified descent from antiquity is Confucius. All of the others are filled with Original Research. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match article. Could probably be expanded. The others may be filled with speculation & unverifiable facts, but there is nothing "original" to WP here; people have been at this game for centuries. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 2 June 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. These are categories for membership in Studentenverbindung, which are large German student corporations—kind of like North American student fraternities. Long ago we deleted the categories for student fraternities, and these German ones have popped up in the past year, created by the same editor, probably as a mirror to categorization that exists in the German WP. They are all non-defining and should be deleted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete if these are all just fraternities, I agree to delete/listify if necessary. --KarlB (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless I misunderstand, the significance of this in the 19th and early 20th century was very substantial, and might well have been defining to a greater extent than in the US. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Explain more. Given that membership in the fraternity is only rarely mentioned in the articles in question, I doubt their significance for the individuals. They are notable organizations, but membership in them is not generally defining for the members. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly listify or delete or keep, on a case by case basis, but I think more consideration is needed.
Listify and delete Broadly speaking, we have categorized people by affiliation or membership when the person's contribution to or identity with that movement or organization is notable. After all, any individual may belong to dozens of organizations over a lifetime from the Cub Scouts to the AARP, and the signal-to-noise ratio drops for each additional affiliation we identify. I am not convinced that membership in a studentenverbindung is demonstrably different from being a member of the Category:Freemasons, for example, who were extremely influential in the American revolutionary era but not consistently so since. See CfD 2007/Mar/4 Freemasons as well as CfD 2008/Apr/2 Bonesmen for similar discussions.- choster (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per precedent of previous fraternity cases. Mangoe (talk) 13:07, 1 June 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.
Category:American Geophysical Union publications[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.
Nominator's rationale: Cat contains journals only, this will bring the name in line with the others in the category "Academic journals by publisher". Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. As the creator of this category I support the move. The American Geophysical Union does publish a lot of books, but in fifteen minutes of searching I couldn't find any that were subjects of Wikipedia articles. If any are added, Category:American Geophysical Union publications can always be reinstated. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as isI do not see the problem with using the broader name to allow for additions DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 30 May 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.
Category:British Ecological Society publications[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.
Nominator's rationale: Cat contains academic journals only and this brings the name in line with other cats in the category "Academic journals by publisher". Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as isI do not see the problem with using the broader name to allow for additions. They have a number of other publications., including a boomk series and a popular magazine. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See comment under Category:American Geophysical Union publications, above. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Can we be sure that it never publishes anything else? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 2 June 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.
Category:University of Belgrade publications[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.
Nominator's rationale: All articles in this category are academic journals and the cat is a subcat of "Academic journals by publishers", where all cats have names like "Publisher name academic journals". Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I share the opinion with the nominator. Comparativist1 (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as isI do not see the problem with using the broader name to allow for additions DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See comment under Category:American Geophysical Union publications, above. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no reason to rename this in a way that might exclude some publications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The university may have other publications than journals that we do not know about yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears that the entire structure of the hierarchies of Category:Academic publishing would benefit from reexamination. --Orlady (talk) 22:20, 3 June 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The club, Al-Gharafa Sports Club, was known as Al Ittihad before 2004. No need for two seperate categories. Both categories are in the parent category Category:Al-Gharafa Doha. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:04, 29 May 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.
delete though without prejudice to listifying some of them, if an argument can be made that their gout was somehow important to the broader context of their biography - like List of people notable for having gout or something similar. --KarlB (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gout can be a serious and debilitating disease. It crippled or caused the death of the people listed in the category. You may read about this in these very same articles. --Eleassarmy talk 06:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gastritis and insomnia can be serious and debilitating too, but that doesn't mean we categorize by it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In exception circumstances it can be a defining condition DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gout was a debilitating disease during earlier times and has greatly influenced the persons categorized here--Lenticel(talk) 00:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is more defining than the other CfDs. Lots of royality/nobility have suffered with this condition and is well documented. Lugnuts (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is not really a truly defining characteristic, especially since many of the people will only have this condition long after they do all the things that make them notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete - judging from the description of the disease this category would be similar to "people with hangovers" or even "people with concussion". Unless some non-subjective way of deciding on inclusion is decided this could be unmaintable if extended to all notable persons who ever briefly had the condition. Perhaps "people with chronic gout" is what is actually intended here.?Oranjblud (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a remarkably ignorant comment! Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please let's not jump on editors who try in good faith to contribute and offer an opinion. There are ways of responding to others' comments tactfully without making them feel like a heel. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the article gout: "Without treatment, an acute attack of gout will usually resolve in 5 to 7 days." Having suffered from any disease for 5 days is not defining. But for some people, their experience with gout is perhaps defining. Hence listifying per KarlB is probably in order. LeSnail (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepNow it isn't serious (I have it myself), but before drugs it was - The HR Emperor Charles V probably abdicated because of it & is still often said to have died of it, though I'm not sure that's possible in the eyes of modern medicine. Without modern drug treatment it would often be defining. Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify typically not a defining characteristic. Exceptions can be highlighted through a list. Pichpich (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the discussion, it appears that there is agreement that for those that have it, the disease is significant. I believe that it is also clear that with drugs, the disease is no longer as debilitating as it was long ago. The problem is that drawing a line to make this clear will be difficult. Clearly the current name does not draw the line or even imply that a line is needed. Without a clear name and inclusion criteria, the category will never have a clear focus on what belongs there. Hence it will need constant maintenance. So delete and listify if anyone wants. However allow recreation if and when a more specific category name with appropriate inclusion criteria is available. I think DGG sums this up with the statement in exception circumstances. That point is not made by the current name and I'm not convinced that adding something like that would work since that would be subjective inclusion criteria, something we don't allow. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, all the people in the category are historical. When it is now so easily treated, it is simply not the sort of thing likely to be mentioned in coverage of contemporary people. It is in fact most unlikely to need maintenance. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mel Smith is a counter example. But this is expected when the category name does nothing to rule out including anyone who has the disease. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, we have to delete Category:People with cancer too, because its name "does nothing to rule out including anyone", and cancer is not always a defining disease. What's needed is a description on the category page, not a deletion. --Eleassarmy talk 08:42, 6 June 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.
