Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 13

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. Jafeluv (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim nuclear physicists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Nuclear physicists by religion? Doing this by nationality, as in Category:Nuclear physicists by nationality, makes far more sense to me. How would one write an article about "Muslim nuclear physicists"? Do they do nuclear physics any differently? Unlikely. Would we have Category:Christian nuclear physicists or Category:Hindu nuclear physicists? The only possible justification I can think of for this category is that it may be used to insinuate that these nuclear physicists have or would assist in developing a "Muslim nuke", which could be used for intimidation or attacks that would serve the interests of the Muslim world against Israel or the West. I think we probably want to avoid that insinuation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I'm not aware of any other intersections between scientific speciality and religion, and the only explanation I can see for this one is a highly-POV presumption that the religion of Muslim nuclear scientists is more significant than their nationality. Has the category creator been notified of this discussion, so that they can explain their own rationale? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yikes. Intimidation? Attacks? Insinuation? Highly-POV? I was doing category sorting on
  WP:NPP, and a redlinked category appeared. I thought, "Hm, OK", created the category, and populated it with ten or so from a quick search. I do that a lot on NPP. If you think this one's a problem, then please delete. But you could have made this process a lot simpler with a quick ping on my talk page. MuffledThud (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I didn't think you actually had that intent, that was just the only sort of justification I could think of. I don't think there's any rush to delete it, but I appreciate your comments. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination's insinuations about the supposed bad faith motivations in creating the category are themselves bad faith personal attacks. It's unfortunate that admins who have been entrusted to enforce policy will stoop to this level of incivility when all that was necessary was to address that the category was an inappropriate intersection. Alansohn (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alanasohn, one of the questions to be asked about an intersection category is what might be the significance or utility of that intersection? The nominator has already explained that he listed the only explanation he could think of but did not assume bad faith; he just said he can't see another explanation, leaving it open to the creator or anyone else to suggest another purpose. The only bad faith I see here is your attempt to characterise concerns about the category as a personal attack on its creator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)18:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought I had made myself clear in my follow-up comment to the creator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • So did I. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • MuffledThud, I've done some work in that project too. I'm sure you know that sometimes it's okay to just remove the redlinked category as silly or inappropriate. But just be aware that Wikipedia will drive you utterly crazy real fast if you take everything personally. I should know, I crossed that rubicon years ago. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true, Bearcat, you have been mad as a hatter for years....
      Sorry, that is entirely untrue, and Bearcat seems thoroughly sane, but I couldn't resist the opportunity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial intersection of small sub-division of physicists and religion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably delete in favour of Category:Nuclear physicists by nationality. Welcome to Cfd, MuffledThud. Please try not to be intimidated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- "nationality" is by far the best means of splitting this. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a
  non-notable intersection of occupation and religion. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep For some people this may be a trivial intersection, but for others these people may be a source of religious pride. For them, this is not trivial at all. Please consider this carefully. Compare Category:Jewish physicists. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at all five members, I think Category:Jewish physicists should be deleted. None of the members are described as "jewish" by their articles. Their is no information on how their "jewishness" (is that ethnicity, culture, religion?) is relevant to their notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as very problematic intersection. Pride (whether religious, nationalistic, or other) is an not an objective basis for categorization. Category:Jewish physicists should likely also be nominated for deletion. older ≠ wiser 19:56, 16 January 2010 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Lilongwe, Malawi to Category:People from Lilongwe

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match category and common naming for city categories.

TM 17:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename but note it has been at cfd
  talk) 20:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Tangential comment: Although I understand perfectly well why it's named differently than the others, Category:Monegasque people looks out of place in that category. Is there another option? Bearcat (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• talk) 10:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Isn't collaboration grand? Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- the previous CFD on Lilongwe produced a strong consenus against renaming. The previous one on this category produced mismay from those who thought people might not know where Lilongwe was, with a number of cotes for the present proposal, In the light of the stable name for the city-article and the city-category the people category should be renamed to match. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom; my arguments the last time still pertain. Bearcat (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match the parent category Category:Lilongwe and the head article Lilongwe. The city's name is not ambiguous, so there is no reason to add the country as a disambiguator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not oppose the rename per se, but do not think we should take on this type of nomination, because it is fine as it is. So procedural oppose. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What procedural grounds are those? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2010 (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 to Category:Authors writing in dialects from England. Let's see if this does a better job. While there was support for deletion, there was also support for a refocusing and a rename. This new category can be brought back here in the future for a rename or deletion if there is still a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geordie Dialect Authors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per

WP:OC#SMALL. Single-article category, which it doesn't appear to have much capacity for expansion, since the head article Geordie lists only one writer, who is already in the category.
Hopefully I am wrong, and there are lots more Geordie dialect authors, but I haven't found any; maybe a wider Category:Geordie dialect would be more use, since it could include performers etc? I will notify WikiProject North East England. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. It does seem a rather odd category, and "Geordie dialect" is a contentious one. Does this include Northumberland, County Durham, or even, dare I say Sunderland accents, for example? Also a bit undefinable - does it mean authors who use lots of dialectic words, or could it also include the novels of Catherine Cookson, for example? Bob talk 09:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – a straight delete would leave the poor lass in no author category at all. Whilst there may be be no other Geordie authors (which I would find surprising) it's not difficult to think of others who wrote in dialect. Perhaps something along the lines of 'Dialect authors' might do, but inclusion could be problematic. (Dialect seems to be the defining characteristic of
  talk) 09:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Some broad accents of English are nearly incomprehensible to those who do not speak the dialect. I cvompletely faield to understand a man from Peterhead in Scotland who visited me. The category should be limited to those who write IN the dialect, not merely those who speak with that accent. I recall a novel that won a major award a few years ago, written wholly in Glaswegian. A rename to broaden the category to Category:Authors writing in English dialects might be feasible, by way of providing the category with a broader scope. This would have to be limited to works entirely (or largely) written with orthography reflecting a particular dialect. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / Consider Rename to Category:Geordie dialect authors as this is one of the main defining characteristics of the category. No reason not to expect additional articles to further populate the category, with http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=geordie%20dialect giving a little flavor for the subject. Alansohn (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes, the category is indeed one of the main defining characteristics of the category; that tautology applies to any category, even if it is trivial. I don't think this one is trivial, and I'd happily say keep if it could be expanded a it, but I don't yet see any evidence that it can be expanded beyond one article., so
    WP:OC#SMALL applies. Your link contains lots of writing about the geoidie dialect, but I don't see other authos who write in the dialect. Can you point us towards any other possibly-notable geordie dialect authors who might be included in this category, even if they don't yet have articles?
    Unless there are more articles, it would make more sense to broaden the scope to Category:Authors writing in English dialects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• I would support
  talk) 00:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You will see from Category:Scots language that we already have 3 different categories for writers in different varieties of the Scots language. You'd better start building the barricades now if you are proposing to include any of them in Category:Authors writing in English dialects :) Any such name needs to be clearer as to whether "English" refers to the country or the language. Are Australians or people from Alabama allowed? Johnbod (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Category:Authors writing in English-language dialects the simplest solution to avoiding that problem? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Category:Authors writing in English-language dialects is a better name: less ambiguous. But even so, get a good asbestos suit before making Category:Scots language a sub-cat of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could get anything in that - all The Wire scriptwriters for a start. Category:Authors writing in dialects from England is the better way to go, I'd have thought. Johnbod (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right—then it's Category:English authors writing in English-language dialects from England. Broken down by century, of course. We'll have Category:22nd-century English authors writing in English-language dialects from England just to be prepared. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget Category:Male 22nd-century English authors writing in English-language dialects from England.
Seriously, though, we seem to be near consensus for some sort of category authors from England writing in a dialect of English. I'm sure we can find some title which is more concise than Category:English authors writing in English-language dialects from England. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been gathering material for an article on Eric Boswell, who would fit right into this category. He's just one of the easiest to add. Alansohn (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just what is an English dialect? Is American a dialect? Australian? RP? Is it politically correct to say that some forms of a language are dialects & others aren't? Peter jackson (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Repurpose into Category:Authors writing in dialects from England per above. Joking apart, this is the best solution. Note that Category:English dialects is rightly totally international. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support that proposal for Category:Authors writing in dialects from England. It's the suggestion way so far for labelling the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Johnbod's proposal of Category:Authors writing in dialects from England. I too agree that it's probably the best. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't answer my question: what is a dialect? Is "standard" English English [sic] a dialect or not? What will readers assume? Will they all assume the same thing? How about "Authors writing in English English"? Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, you convinced me. Delete would be fine too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 2 February 2010 (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, but leave a soft redirect. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Management journals to Category:Business and management journals

Nominator's rationale: I found this uncategorsed category, and added it to Category:Business and management journals, but can't find other suitable parent categories. Is it appropriate to split Category:Business and management journals in this way? Looking at the other journals in that category, I'm not sure whether a clear boundary can be defined. No recommendation myself, because I don't know enough about these publications. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have notified WikiProject Business and WikiProject Academic Journals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I think a boundary that would be easily understandable for all editors is difficult to establish and in addition, the number of entries is not that large either. --Crusio (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge At least two of the journals in that category would be better off up in the main category, which proves Crusio's point- it's a distinction that is open for misunderstanding by non-specialists. This is not a clearly defined "genre" like Business Law or Economics, which is appropriate for a subcat- the parent cat already explicitly contains journals on Management. That said, I would support keeping this as a category redirect, as editors unfamiliar with the category system would find it very easy to drop articles into this category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as closer examination of all of these journals indicates their subject matter is business management, so the categorisation as "Business and management journals" is bang on the money. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but with a soft redirect, to address Bradjamesbrown concern, that would automatically correct the category from Category:Management journals to Category:Business and management journals should a new page patroller or new editor not be aware (especially working with hotcats). Calmer Waters 07:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The distinction is not that clear, at the moment; there is nothing that prevents re-creation in the future, as more journals are started and become established (and others die off).--IJeCstaff (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds like an obvious upmerge. Debresser (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2010 (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 to Category:Philippine local government unit leagues per the usage in this government page. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Philippine LGU Leagues to Category:Philippine Local Government Unit Leagues

Nominator's rationale: to expand abbreviation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another thing that we should consider making a speedy criterion- getting rid of acronyms! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Philippine local government unit leagues as LGU does not appear to be an acronym of any sort. Alansohn (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. LGU is a widely-used acronym on the website of the Philippines Department of the Interior and Local Government. However, a search for the expanded name doesn't show many instances of it being capitalised, so I don't know whether capitalisation is appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • LGU is certainly an abbreviation, but not for anything that appears to require capitalization when spelled out. Alansohn (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2010 (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. In addition to the comments below that this rename matches the category to its parent article, it also matches it to all of the other existing subcategories in Category:League of Ireland. If there is an ambiguity problem, all of those categories need to be addressed as well. postdlf (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Football League of Ireland managers as Category:League of Ireland managers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Bring in line with Wikipedia naming conventions and consistency with all (bar one) of the other categories in Category:League of Ireland. Onetonycousins (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The category needs some way of indicating that it refers to football, and not to one of the many other entities called "league", such as the All-for-Ireland League. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename to match title of parent article. If any clarification is needed, it should be handled by renaming the article, not by creating a discrepancy between the article and the category. Alansohn (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Alansohn. Category titles should match article titles unless there's a good reason to do so. Jafeluv (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Seriously how pedantic is this? Leave it be. Everything doesnt have to conform. Use common sense. Also applies below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.235.141 (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Wow, what a great argument you put forward, random IP address/sockpuppet. One stupid question, one stupid statement and a few random clichés thrown in aswell. All completely missing the point. These categories contradict wikipedia naming conventions (common & official name) and common sense. They are the only such categories in Category:League of Ireland to do so. There is no benefit in leaving these incorrectly named categories as they are. I find it odd that two people would oppose such a routine and regulation improvement, using nonsensical opinion as their rationale. Strange! Onetonycousins (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Calm down son. All I'm saying is that life doesnt revolve around wikipedia. This is open for discussion for everybody so no need for the childish name calling. There is no benefit in renaming this category either. I find it odd how obsessed you are with this. Very strange! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.139.156 (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The only name I called you was "random IP address/sockpuppet". I'd explain to you how those terms aren't "childish name calling" if I thought you weren't familiar with them, but I'm sure you are. You must spend a lot of time on Wikipedia (life doesn't revolve around it you know) if you know of my obsession with the League of Ireland. Maybe you're even a registered user, who hides behind an IP address to vandalize discussion pages. Anyway, you need to get out in the world, calm down a bit and lose your easily offended personality. Oh yeah, and the word you were looking for was "Comment", rather than "Oppose". It looks a bit desperate writing "Oppose" twice. Onetonycousins (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wow that is some diatribe. Dont even want to know what a "random IP address/sockpuppet" is. This is an open discussion document and because there is a different opinion to you it is vandalism?? Have to laugh at your "get out in the world" comment considering your history here. Easily offended? That would not be me judging by your responses so far. Call it what you want if it keeps you happy. Judging by your misspelling of vandalise maybe you are an American? Hope you get better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.220.107 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2010 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Football League of Ireland players as Category:League of Ireland players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Bring in line with Wikipedia naming conventions and consistency with all (bar one) of the other categories in Category:League of Ireland. Onetonycousins (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The category needs some way of indicating that it refers to football, and not to one of the many other entities called "league", such as the All-for-Ireland League. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename. The article is at League of Ireland. I see no reason why the category would need to include "football" if the corresponding article omits it. Also suggest nominating Category:Football League of Ireland managers for the same reason. Jafeluv (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC) It's right above, d'oh Jafeluv (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename to match title of parent article. If any clarification is needed, it should be handled by renaming the article, not by creating a discrepancy between the article and the category. Alansohn (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, it makes no sense to have the category and article under different names. SchumiUCD (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2010 (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. There is no question that serving in the military was an important influence in the career of some of the categorized musicians listed here. However, grouping together all musicians who have served in the military, despite how small the influence the military career had on them, is effectively categorization by trivial intersection. No objective standard for restricting the category to the most prominent examples has been suggested. Someone did suggest listification; if anyone wants to create a referenced list of the people here, contact me on my talk page and I can provide you with the list of articles included. Jafeluv (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musicians who have served in the military (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another one for the

WP:OCAT "people who happen to have held two unrelated occupations at different times in their lives" file. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. It is a trivial and not a defining intersection, notwithstanding the argument that will likely be made that these musicians' war experiences inspired their greatest works of angst and anger, etc., etc. Similar categories for British footballers have been deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as a trivial intersection. Musicians great works made be inspired by many life experiences, and if started making categories for all of them we'd have horrible category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe more meaningful than our usual "trivial intersections", but the shoe still fits here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good Olfactory makes an excellent argument for retention, but there appears no evidence that their military service affected their musical career. Alansohn (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fancy that! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with nominator's rational under
  WP:OCAT and precedence brought up by Good Ol’factory Calmer Waters 07:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep This is not the usual trivial intersection. Sure, it will likely be that way with some of the musicians listed, but others such as Jimi Hendrix, Gilad Atzmon, and Lester Young are cited as being profoundly influenced by their military experiences. Others such as Elvis Presley may not have been as greatly influenced by their service, and yet their service did garner much attention. As for Glenn Miller, the military figured strongly in his career, not only in the theme of many of his compositions, or in his gigs, but also in his image and intended audience. And those are just the ones I know a little bit about.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply' Abie, it sounds like you have some good material there for a list or artricle, provided that you can find suitable references on the general topic of military influences on the careers of musicians. However, for the category to be retained we would need some evidence that serving in the armed forces has a general effect on the musical careers of all or most musicians, and I don't so far see any sign of that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Where did you get that quote, Bearcat? I read thru that page which you linked to at top (
      WP:OCAT), which is cited as the basis for this category's deletion, but I don't find any comfortable justification for deletion of this category. With some musicians, it's possible, the category might fall under "Trivial intersection", just as red-haired kings does, but I think that would be rare, as career shifts are consciously chosen and thus different and more reflective of defining personality than the happenstance of having a certain hair color and a job. I think the situation for the category in question is most reflected on the same page under the section "Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, and ethnicity", where it says:

      "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable to create one.

      As BrownHairedGirl suggested, a page could likely be created and thus I think WP policy calls for a Keep. I find it even more notable than categories such as Category:People from such and such city, or Category:Births by year.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk
      )
• Delete While Abie is right that military service has been cited as a profound influence by many musicians and critics (so that's why Elvis made all those awful movies!), in the end this falls under
  WP:OCAT#Trivial intersection. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I see where Abie the Fish Peddle is coming from, but I cannot deny what I view as the stronger arguments made by BrownHairedGirl on this matter. Because of that, I would have to lean more towards Delete than Keep. I do not feel very strongly one way or the other on this topic, though.
  talk) 04:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete this category. I encourage Abie the Fish Peddler to write up a List of musicians who have served in the military article, containing only musicians whose style or carreer was affected by the military service, and explaining the effects for each musician. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Abie has a valid point as to popular musicians who were affected by their military service. However, there are at least a couple of cases of classical musicians whose lives were profoundly affected by their military service. Most notable among these was Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, whose time in the Imperial Russian Navy may have helped inspire him to write Scheherazade and whose time as Inspector of Naval Bands enriched his abilities to orchestrate tremendously. More recently, American composer Samuel Barber was very affected by his service in the US Army Air Corps during World War II and even wrote his Second Symphony about it. Having an article discussing these things is a fair start, but what about having this discussed in the full context of these men's individual lives and careers within articles about them? Grouping these articles within one category for easy and quick access was what I thought the Wiki category system was designed for. Jonyungk (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think there's enough evidence to suggest that a military background has a significant impact on a musician's career (unlike the example of Footballers in the Military which was listed earlier). A Musicians who have served in the military article would demonstrate this point - maybe we should see that first before reaching any decision on this? David T Tokyo (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that there is any disagreement that military service has had a significant influence on some musicians and other artists who followed that path, but that's a different matter from assuming that all musicians who served in military drew musical inspiration from it, and if we create this category it will inevitably be populated with articles even where there are no sources describing that as a crucial influence. That's bad enough, but the precedent this would set is an even bigger problem: do we really want to start a series of intersection categories along the lines of artists-by-life-events-which influenced-their-music?
    how about Category:Musicians who grew up in poverty (e.g. Johnny Cash), Category:musicians who became drug addicts (Steve Earle and squillions of others), Category:musicians injured in road traffic accidents (Bob Dylan), Category:Musicians who were imprisoned (Steve Earle, lots of others)? If we keep this category, then the same rationale would also justify creating those categories and hundreds more, creating huge category clutter on articles.
    The category system can only work if it is used to categorise people by a relatively small number of defining characteristics; if we start trying to use it to categorise every aspect of human existence it will become unmanageable and unusable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always try and approach editing debates from the aspect of the user, rather than an editor. In this particular case the question is an easy one - would I personally click on that link? And no question, I would. However, having followed your lead about Dylan, I can say that I would never click on 90% + of the links at the bottom the page.

To my mind, there are two kinds of links. The first are database cross references (examples from the Dylan page: Living People (a prime candidate for the most pointless set of links anywhere on the Internet), or People from Duluth, Minnesota, Grammy Award winners and the loftily titled American Memoirists. All nice and tidy - but open them up and 99.9% of the time you'll find them as dull as ditchwater.

The second type of links are the interesting ones - the ones that you learn something from. I certainly wouldn't be averse to seeing a list of Musicians who grew up in poverty - it'd be fascinating and I'd certainly follow it through to the individual pages of the people listed there. And, personally, I think the list of people featured within the category for Actors who have served in the military - which does exist - IS interesting.

You say that "The category system can only work if it is used to categorise people by a relatively small number of defining characteristics". To my mind, the category system isn't working anyway - but that aside, assessing categories in terms of the number of defining characteristics is putting the system in charge of the information - and that's wrong. It's how we wind up seeing that Bob Dylan's name is on a list of people whose surname begins with "D" (and, no doubt, "Z"). The right approach needs to be assessing each category on its merits. So, the key questions are:

1. Is the category fatuous? (i.e. Musicians who have bought Le Creuset saucepans)

2. Are users likely to click on and be interested by what they see in this category?

3. how many people are likely to be featured within this category? David T Tokyo (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you have said is so confusing because you seem to use the words "list" and "category" interchangeably. They are not the same thing at all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I've gone back and made some corrections. Hope it makes better sense now. David T Tokyo (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David T Tokyo, all those comments on lists are not really relevant here: CFD is for discussing categories, not lists. The principle that categories are for defining characteristics is a matter of long-established consensus. If you want to change it, then I suggest that you start a discussion at

WT:CAT, because the discussion on this individual category is not the place to decide to ditch such a long-standing consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Canvassing notice. The last two editors to cast votes were
  canvassed inappropriately by User:Abie the Fish Peddler. He asking the users to comment on a category "which I see great use in". [1], [2]. He's asked a number of others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Note I got the same message from Abie, as did at least one person on my Watch list (we share an interest in Gilad Atzmon). Despite Abie's personal opinion, he was clear that we should "offer your opinion, either way, 'Keep' or 'Delete'". I considered it more of a friendly notice than a canvass. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two problems. The message should have (1) been more neutral by eliminating personal opinion, and (2) been posted somewhere more general, rather than singling a limited number of editors out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As one of the previously mentioned "last two editors", I'm feeling a tad miffed as the speed with which my opinion is being disregarded. Please don't jump to conclusions - I barely know Abie (seriously - that's an overstatement) and would have had no problem disagreeing with him on this page. The fact that I haven't is simply because I believe this Category IS relevant. David T Tokyo (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As the other of the previously mentioned "last two editors", I have to concur with everything David has stated. I was asked to give my opinion but was free to vote to keep or delete—there was no coercion whatsoever involved in stating what I did. Jonyungk (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Same here.
            talk) 05:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • You can feel miffed if you want, but no one is blaming any of you and no one is automatically discounting what you said. It's valid information that a closing administrator would want to know about and consider appropriately. It's a fairly clear violation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral to Keep - I received the same "canvassing notice" from Abie, and mine clearly states to "... offer your opinion, either way, 'Keep' or 'Delete'...". Seeking other opinions is "not" canvassing, and I don't feel obligated to agree with an editor based on his asking my opinion on a subject. We're not Abie's robots, bound to agree with him because he asked us to comment - and speculative accusations of
  WP:CANVASS are irritating at best. As for the issue at hand, I don't personally see the harm in this category, and I certainly don't see it along the lines of, e.g., "LGBT Nuclear Physicists". Then again, maybe I should let Abie speak for me, right? :P... Doc9871 (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The message which you received was not neutral, as required by

  WP:CANVASS. All of the "keep" !votes come from Abie or those canvassed by him; you did say "neutral to keep", but so far every !vote by an editor who was not canvassed is to delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I see what you're saying about the first sentence of the e-mail I (and others) received, and that this part might be inappropriate (the "...which I see great use in" part only). I must say that I, personally, did not feel obligated to vote one way or the other based on that statement any more than Abie's asking my neutral opinion. I believe he was seeking outside opinions, and that that one initial part has been construed as canvassing (and certainly not without good cause for questioning). I personally feel that it was not canvassing, but more of an honest misstep in wording the initial sentence, which should be the sole focus of any non-good faith assertions (and understood by Abie when seeking outside opinions in the future)... Doc9871 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just want to note that I was also asked by Abie to offer my thoughts on this matter, and pretty much voted "Delete."

    talk) 05:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

    ]

You might have a category for military musicians, those who performed or composed as part of their military service, e.g. John Philip Sousa & Glenn Miller. Peter jackson (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listify or KeepThere is definitely a subject that could be treated usefully.

talk) 15:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I see no problem with a list, provided that it is not

original research. But as a category, it's just one of many such intersections which could be created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)17:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment on the category AND the canvassing claims- :::My reason for alerting people to this discussion was to broaden it. My friend Salimi, who created the cat was not alerted of the discussion, and when I stumbled across it, it had already had five "deletes" along with that of the nominator's. I wanted to make sure that there was a broader discussion with various insights and perspectives, and thus I only asked editors who I knew would offer those, regardless of whether they matched mine or not. Actually most of the (14, I think) editors I invited have been on the opposite side of arguments with me. And, I'm glad I invited them, because they have shown me that this is not a no-brainer issue as I had originally thought, and at least two have voted "Delete". Most of the others seemed ambivalent, and the two or three who seem for keeping it, seem like they'd be just as content with a list. So, my thought is this, why don't we specify at the top of the CAT that the musicians' military experience must have profoundly influenced their career, and that such influence must be cited and referenced in the musicians' articles? In this way, I think everyone's issues are resolved, and this category will fit in nicely with similarly qualified categories like "Musicians who died in Nazi concentration camps", "Musicians who committed suicide (which has 5 subcategories to it), and "Musicians who died on stage" (which has one subcategory).--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abie, please just read
    WP:OC#ARBITRARY? We could have a great argument about whether the composer who made contacts in hospital after being injured belongs here (since the career boost was only indirectly from his military service), and so on for many others: adding a restrictive definition is a sure-fire means of creating POV disputes.
    Secondly, many editors won't see the category's restrictive terms when adding it using hotcat, so the category will require constant policing, again causing more disputes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Thanks, for referring me to the article on canvassing, BrownHairedGirl. I learned that alerting a "few" editors is fine, and that beyond that "the village pump" is a good place for mass alerting. I think my 14 or so may have been excessive, and so I will only alert one or two editors next time. But still, that doesn't explain why GoodOlfactory labeled my actions after two friendly notices. Seems a little kneejerk to me, especially when GoodOlfactory edited this CAT months ago, and never said anything, until BearCat nominated it.
      Moving on to the CAT issue, I already explained how we can define "profoundly influenced their careers", it's by qualifying up top that each musician's page must cite the "profound influence" and must be referenced. As for the policing of it, I would be happy to take on that responsibility.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Abie, please read
        WP:CANVASS before commenting further on it. "Neutrally worded notifications" are acceptable; yours was not neutral. By sending a partisan notice to 14 editors you engaged in vote-stacking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • BrownHairedGirl, I'm not open to suggestions to read articles which I've already read. I've already commented that I've learned to only canvas to a "few" editors, and that 14 is on the high end. As for your claim of impartiality, I think you're missing the difference betweeen someone who says "Hey, I need you to vote 'Keep' on this." and someone who says to vote either way on a category which that someone says seems important. The difference I see in that is, that when those editors come to the discussion they would immediately discover what side the inviter is on. The point of impartiality, as these good editors have noted, is that no coercion be employed. Now, will you kindly leave off this tangential discussion, and focus on the main? To continue with this, I hope you will be aware, is insulting not only me but to several other editors who've commented here, both which I've invited and who've come independently, and that goes against WP's policy of
          civility.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Abie, it's simple: an invitation which states your views on the merits of the category is not neutral, because it tells the editors concerned how you want them to !vote (either you express your POV, or you remain neutral, but please don't try claiming that you can do both).
            WP:CANVASS, but your claim now about "no coercion be employed" makes me doubt that: no coercion is possible here, so that's a red herring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• I have no problem with an editor not being aware of
  WP:CANVASS. Delete as trivial intersection. Debresser (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Nice. But what do you think of my proposal to qualify the Category at the top of the page, and for me to police it? Your reasons for KEEPing "Muslim nuclear physicists" ("For some people this may be a trivial intersection, but for others these people may be a source of religious pride. For them, this is not trivial at all. Please consider this carefully. ") makes me think you'd use the same logic for this CAT. How does it differ? In fact, I am not aware of, and can't imagine, a person's adherence to Islam influencing their work in nuclear physics, whereas I am aware of documented instances of a person's military experience influencing their subsequent work in the music industry.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivial intersection. While undeniable that military service might be significant for some musicians, possibly something to consider for a list article, but not appropriate as a category. older ≠ wiser 19:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what of my proposal above to limit the CAT to those "some musicians"?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (suggestion, you might want to make it clearer somehow where your proposal is -- I had to scan though the whole section twice before I saw it embedded within one of your many comments here.) Such a category would probably need to be renamed to something like Category:Musicians whose compositions have been influence by military service. older ≠ wiser 20:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like both of your suggestions. Thanks for your time. I wonder what everyone else thinks about a move to a more precise CATname.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As noted above, an "influenced-by" category such as that would fail either
          WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • True, but after that note above (by you), there is a note by me which you haven't responded to. It says: "Moving on to the CAT issue, I've already explained how we can define "profoundly influenced their careers", it's by qualifying at the top of the CATpage, that each musician's respective article must cite a referenced "profound influence". As for the policing of it, I would be happy to take on that responsibility. I would love to hear your honest opinion either way (i.e. not vote stacking or using coercion, just having a healthy argument.)--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Abie, as noted above, the problem is determining what constitutes a "profound influence"? Without a definition, it fails
              WP:OC#ARBITRARY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • I simply, but respectfully, disagree. For reference, see the pages of Lester Young and Glenn Miller which include complete sections detailing the notable intersection of their musical and military careers.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's typical of subjective categories like this. There will be some cases (such as those you identified) where everyone can agree on inclusion; others where everyone can agree that the articles do not belonmg in the category; and lots of cases in between where there is endless csope for legitimate dispute about whether the article belongs. That's why
                  WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE says "Adjectives which imply a subjective inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category": your suggestion of "profound" is just such a subjectoive adjective. --@BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                  • I'm almost with you, however, without examples of the "others" and the "many" which you refer to, your argument itself is subjective.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Not needed. The word "profound" is subjective. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep I'm leaning toward keeping it, as it seems likely such a significant and life-changing activity (military service) would be reflected in the music of many of them. I do think a list would be better in this case (though both can in general exist) as it would let us provide cites showing that the overlap wasn't trivial for that musician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is trivia, that someone who did one thing in their lives happened to also do another. To the extent that it editorializes a significant relationship between serving in the military and that individual's subsequent musical career, as some above have suggested, this is a point to make in each individual's biography if it is based on information in reliable sources. Everyone's occupations end up being influenced by everything else they did in their lives. We cannot and should not try to categorize every such supposed biographical causation. It's not a proper matter for categorization which will just equivocate unlike things, because the category cannot tell us what that relationship is or whether it is the same or similar for those included. The category is unable to distinguish between those who served prior to becoming musicians, in the midst of their career, or afterward; it does not distinguish between those who served in peacetime and those who served in conflicts; it does not distinguish between those who served in combat or in some other capacity; it does not distinguish between those who were drafted and those who volunteered. And perhaps most important, it does not distinguish between those whose music expressly references said military stint and those whose music does not. Nor is this category sensitive to time period, to place... So without any such context or distinction, none of which can ably be provided by categories, this is a meaningless and trivial intersection, a grouping based only on coincidence. I also have no objection to anyone trying to listify. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (a member of Category:Lawyers who went to art school)[reply]
  • I endorse Postdlf's comment as an excellent summary of the problems with this intersection, and with any other similar intersection. This one should be linked from
    WP:OC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Agreed. And for what it's worth, I did not intend to suggest that Category:Musicians whose compositions have been influence by military service was a good category. My point was more that the intended use Abie was proposing did not fit with the actual title of the category and would thus need to be renamed if the proposal were found to have merit. older ≠ wiser 18:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: Postdlf's comment that this is a "grouping based only on coincidence": But coincidence is the basis for most of the people-based categories on WP. Coincidence is the basis for the scores of categories based on people who happen to have been born within the same year, within the same country, state, and city, people who happen to have entered into the same occupation. How much less so is the coincidence when people happen to have served in the same two capacities? As for the lack of context in the category, rather than simply deleting or renaming, this problem could be more precisely solved by creating sub-categories, e.g. Category:Musicians who served in the military after their musical career; Musicians whose music references the military; etc. What do you think?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Abie, as above, the category sytem cannot be used to categorise every aspect of a person's existence. If categories we start creating categories for artists whose "music references X", we'll have squiilions of them: can you image how many there would be on Bob Dylan or Leonard Cohen?
        Your point about coincidence as the basis for people-by-city etc is not really true; those are shared attributes. What you are trying to do is to create a category based on the intersection of two attributes ... by your logic, it's the intersection of two coincidences. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • At BrownHairedGirl. Dylan and Cohen didn't serve in the military, but I think I understand your point. Are you saying that we should seek to limit categories to a few choice ones as opposed to "squillions" (great word by the way), and, that by keeping this particular category, a harmful precedent will have been made? Because if that's what you intend, I think WP is proud of its wide, but choice, breadth. I don't get the feeling that WP, or the internet, is running out of room for valid intersections. I point, for reference, to the prevalence of internal links on every page, which serve a similar purpose to that of categories. On top of that, the precedent for such categories has already been set by most of the people-based categories presently in existence (for reference see Category:Musicians who died on stage, Category:Musicians who died in Nazi concentration camps, Category:Musicians who committed suicide, among the infinite intersections). The way I'm looking at it, labeling certain attributes as coincidental/trivial, while labeling others as notable, is editorializing. Instead I suggest that by focusing on concrete requirements such as requiring that any categorized attribute must be referenced, or that every category must link to at least a set minimum number of pages, that would be an NPOV way of limiting categories. Thoughts?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Abie, categories are not articles: they are a way of navigating between articles, and to remain workable there need to be some limits on what categories are created. For many reasons, there is a long-standing consensus to limit the number of intersection categories. If and when (big IF), we get dynamic
            arbitrary inclusion criteria, which you seem to be ignoring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Yes, I think with your first point we finally reached the crux of the issue at hand. Wikipedia:Category intersection, I think, was the appropriate article to link to. Thanks for that. The proposal outlined there seems to provide room for this category which I have found so easy to get motivated about. But since I do not know enough about whether the proposal has already been implemented or not (or when, or if) I think I should refrain from commenting further. Do you, or does anyone else, know where I can learn more about the state of this proposal? Your second point, BrownHairedGirl, seems to be rendered moot if the proposal would be in effect. Yes? Are we on the same page? I hope I'm not too far behind you in knowledge on this point, so as to annoy. That would be the opposite of my intention.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, Abie Category intersection is not in effect. I'd have thought that was obvious from my saying " If and when (big IF)", but there we are.
                And even if it was in effect it would not "create" a category in the sense that you think of it now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong LISTIFY with references: This is clearly a
  WP:OCAT issue as so many others have explained above. Our category system is simply not equipped to deal with references or explaining the context of each entry. However, there is SOME pertinent information regarding musicians whose music career has been influenced by their military service, and this information is much better organised into a referenced list which documents in a few sentences HOW each artist was influenced by their military service. This will weed out the "trivial intersections" automatically by restricting it to those artists where the connection between military service and music career has been documented as such in reliable sources. This solution will serve the interested reader much better. For the same reason I don't support creating a narrower category, we need to have 2-3 explanatory sentences per entry which a category cannot do. Zunaid 06:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment If this category is deleted, I suggest adding "people who happen to have held two unrelated occupations at different times in their lives" to
  WP:OCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment My whole point in this discussion is to state that whether the occupations were "related" or "unrelated" is a subjective matter. Thus, if it is decided upon to "Keep" the Category, WP would simply be stating a fact.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we don't categorize people by intersection of unrelated facts, even if they are true. We only do this when the connection is clear, unambiguous, and objective. So if the connection here can only be subjectively related, why do we have it? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My reason is that by disincluding this category, WP is sending a message that a shared year or city of birth is more related and note-worthy than people who have shared the experience of the same two societal roles. To my thinking this category is less about coincidence than it is about conscious choice, whereas the scores of categories listing shared birth cities and shared birth years have it the other way around. But of course this brings us to the nature versus nurture argument, which could keep us here for eternity. Which is why I think we should simply "Keep" this category and let each user decide for that user's own self.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Au contraire. By deleting this category, WP will be repeating the oft-rapeated message that people will not be categorised by essentially trivial intersections of largely unrelated facts which may in some cases have a connection, depending on what subjective or abitrary judgements are made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Trivial"? Is the intersection of person and place of birth less trivial? The intersection of person and birth year?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Abie, those two examples are not intersections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • They seem to serve the same purpose. Both are internal links at the bottom of a person's article which a user can click on to see other people who share a particular attribute. The fact that two people might share a birth in a particular city I've been calling an intersection of attributes, albeit, coincidental. What do you call them?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Two people being from the same city is a shared attribute or characteristic, not an intersection. An intersection is an category based on the coincidence of two such attributes. --23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
                • You are ignoring the fact that being a person is an attribute, and thus being a person and being from the same city as another person is an intersection.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Abie, this will probably be my last reply to you. I have discussed this with you at much greater length than most CFDs, because I assumed that you were someone unfamiliar with the principles and conventions of wikipedia categorisation, and were keen to learn. However, you have now exhausted my ability to
                    assume that you are acting in good faith; it seems increasingly that you are playing word games rather than trying to understand the conventions of categorisation. We are discussing here the categorisation of people, and relevant point here is that being from a place is an attribute of a person; so is pursuing a particular occupation. Those are not intersections, but what you are proposing is the intersection of two such attributes.
                    At this point, I think you know that, and are just trying to waste everyone's times by playing games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
                    ]
                    • We are to assume good faith and nothing else. You are assuming a lot more about me instead of sticking to logic. We can any of us be wrong. Do you admit that? Anyway, I bid you a good day.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Abie, read
                        WP:AGF and you'll see that's not the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
                        ]
• Comment Keeping this category makes sense to me as it would go along nicely with the following well populated categories: Category:Actors who have served in the military and Category:Writers who served in the military.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of which you created and both of which are subject to the same concerns that have been expressed here about categories of trivial intersections. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respectfully disagree.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Judging by the comments above, I guessed you might. There's no disagreement that you created one of them, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very clever guess, Good Olfactory. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm smarter than I appear. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • My point in bringing up those two categories was not for you two to figure out who created them, but to explain that it is not a single category we are discussing here, but at least three. The other two having even more entries than this one. Unfortunately, it seems like these two editors, Good Olfactory, and especially BrownHairedGirl, have made this into a personal issue. Just look at the fact that instead of waiting to understand my point or waiting for the decision on this discussion, BrownHairedGirl nominated the other two topics for deletion. Does childishness rule on WP? This question comes to mind as I experience the process of category deletion.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Abie, I understand your point very well: that you created this category, you like this category, and you reject the consensus that an intersection between unrelated attributes makes bad categories. You also reject the suggestion of creating a properly-referenced list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not quite. I am currently working on a list, though as you know it's easier to categorize an article than it is to external link a list, so I keep trying to maintain this category. Not because I created it. And not simply because I like it. It's because I see a need in it. I see a relation between the two occupations, not inherently in either occupation but in the people who have engaged in both. I see a unique dynamic at work, which you simply aren't seeing. Oh well, I'm sure I don't see a lot of things you do.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note- Instead of sticking to the topic, BrownHairedGirl has nominated for deletion the other two categories I just mentioned. I question the purpose of such nominations, as I have mentioned other categories (e.g. Category:Musicians who died on stage, Category:Musicians who died in Nazi concentration camps, Category:Musicians who committed suicide) and these weren't nominated for deletion. Aren't these also trivial intersection by BrownHairedGirl's definition? As I have shown above, BrownHairedGirl proposes an arbitrary system for category retention, where all the ones BrownHairedGirl likes are retained, and aren't even labeled as intersections, while all other intersections are labeled "trivial" and deleted.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abie, if you don't want to get off the point, then don't use this CFD to discuss other CFDs. Back on the point, the problem is that you choose to label every biographical category as an intersection, so it's little wonder that you can't see the difference. And finally, I don't decide whether a category is retained: those decisions are made by consensus, and even after your vote-stacking efforts, there is a clear consensus to delete this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know as well as I do that some of the people I invited voted to delete, which I stated I was fine with. Your bandying around claims of vote-stacking just gets us off topic again.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even though hit didn't entirely succeed, your non-neutral invitation was a blatant attempt at vote-stacking, but I do understand that you don't want to acknowledge that. As to going "off-topic", you chose to complain about other CFDs rather than sticking to this one, so don't object to other editors replying to you.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Musicians who died on stage is rather different from the other 2 cited above, because their deaths could in that case be reasonably considered part of their musical career. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Musicians who died in Nazi concentration camps is not just a random intersection because Eastern European intellectuals of all sorts were systematically persecuted under the Nazis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • These rationales highlight the arbitrary nature of this nomination. Just as you say that Eastern European intellectuals of all sorts were systematically persecuted under the Nazis, can't the same be said about this category, that intellectuals of all sorts have served in the military? I think so.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Despite all of this discussion, this category does not appear to be anything more then OCAT. What does being in the military and being a musican have to do with each other? While in a few cases being in the military might have an influnce on a musician, I fail to see how it affects most of those included. Delete this and create a list for the few musicians where their military carrer has had a profound influnce on their music. Then the influnce can be documented and cited. This category is simply a collection of names from two unrelated occupations. I'll also add that this category is likely intended to show how some composers of music were influnced by their military service. If that is the case, then this is clearly not the category for that. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2010 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philips Sports Manager of the Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per

Wikipedia:OCAT#Award_recipients and consensus, the default or usual practice is to not have categories for awards, but to rather have lists. The recipients of this award are fully listified already at Philips Sports Manager of the Year (whereas the category only contains one article). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Another "Award winners by award" cat; doesn't seem to have the exceptional notability such a cat required- also note the more useful navbox. However, if kept, this thing sorely needs to be populated. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at most listify/templatify. Debresser (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Right Wing LGBT groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I believe we've been through this "intersection of sexuality and political ideology" rigamarole before and decided against it. If this were somehow critically necessary, it would definitely require a rename on both spelling and POV grounds to Category:Conservative LGBT groups — but I'm pretty sure it's really more of a delete. Note also that the most logical neutral grouping, Category:LGBT wings of political parties, already exists and everything filed in this recent creation is already in it anyway. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative is the American term for what we call right wing. What we call conservative is a bit more specific. Peter jackson (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Political ideology categories are dodgy at the best of times, because people don't fit nearly into boxes, and many of the terms used are highly subjective. In this case, that subjectivity has been combined with a largely irrelevant intersection to create a category whose contents will be the subject of repeated disputes. Note that Category:Right-wing politics does not contain any categories for groups others than far-right political political parties. Also, Category:Conservatives was deleted in December 2008, so a rename to Category:Conservative LGBT groups seems inappropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename A non-trivial intersection. I think having a link between these would be a helpful navigation aid. I think "politically conservative LGBT" or some such would be a better name per nom. Hobit (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Consider Rename as a defining characteristic of these organizations. It is the intersection itself that defines these organizations. Alansohn (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question.
    WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per nomination and previous discussions. Subjectivity is an issue whenever we talk about "conservative" or "right wing". What's "right wing" in one country is positively "left wing" in other countries like the U.S. The recent health-care debates in the U.S. is evidence enough of this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no objective way to determine what's "Right Wing" or "Conservative" --
  talk) 13:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and Rename Proposed rename to "IDU LGBT". Rhinomatt (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subjective and ambiguous. In looking at the articles, those that have an indication of right leaning are for center right and not right wing. So delete this category and if needed allow recreation of a more specifically defined category that does not have subjective inclusion criteria. Even the rename proposal have issues since suggestions like including IDU are totally ambiguous since that is a dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2010 (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.