Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< February 12 February 14 >

February 13

Category:Gaelic games county team navigational boxes

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:Gaelic games county navigational boxes. – Fayenatic London 18:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To exchange "teams" for "boards" as the contents refer to the county boards which field several teams (i.e. Kilkenny, Cork, Tipperary). There is a possibility of confusion with individual teams (i.e. Template:Kilkenny Hurling Team 2012, Template:Cork Football Team 2010, Template:Tipperary Hurling Team 2010). 86.40.203.135 (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: these boxes are about more than the teams, and indeed the boards, they cover a wide variety of topics not all officially connected with the GAA (Donegal has songs, for example). A better move would be to "Gaelic games county navigational boxes" or "GAA county navigational boxes". Brocach (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Gaelic games county navigational boxes per Brocach, as a more inclusive title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 18 February 2013 (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:Ancient Christians

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: relisted at CFD 2013 February 25. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming
Category:Ancient Christians to Category:Ante-Nicene Christians
Category:Ancient Christian female saints to Category:Ante-Nicene Christian female saints
Nominator's rationale: Per the rationale and precedent of February 2nd. Match with Category:Ante-Nicene Christian saints. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2013 (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:Step by Step (TV series) episodes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains one list which is in two appropriate categories. – Fayenatic London 20:37, 13 February 2013 (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:Drama Desk Award winners

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. This debate was evenly split. The issue at stake seems to be the significance of this particular award, but sadly neither side offered any evidence either way (although there were several assertions). There are currently 17 awards categorised under Category:Theatre award winners, but there was no agreement on how this fits in the hierarchy of theatrical awards. Editors may wish to consider starting a wider discussion at WikiProject Theatre, where more evidence could be gathered on which theatrical awards are defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Drama Desk Award winners
  • Nominator's rationale The opening setance in this category describes them as "one of the major" award. By this very sentance they are only one among many, not the preeminent award. We have way too many theatre award categories, considering some people are in this category and two other ones. This is not considered the preeminent award in American theatre, let alone on a grand international scale. We heavily discoarage award categories, and I see no reason we should have this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete -- as we usually do, according to
    WP:OC#AWARD. Lists do the job much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted from CFD February 6
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified WikiProject Theatre and WikiProject New York City. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There aren't all that many theatre award categories, and if elimination of some is required (an argument I don't necessarily agree with), this is not the one to start with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the kind of award that is what should be retained based on the level of distinction of the recognition. Alansohn (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. An award that's "considered one of the important American theater awards" isn't one of the "few exceptions" of
    WP:OC#AWARD . DexDor (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2013 (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:Lists of Billboard Hot Latin Tracks number-one hits

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 (C2D). The Bushranger One ping only 04:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Thought it would be best to bring this in line with the main article, Hot Latin Songs, which the chart has been called since April 30, 2005 (at least according to print archives). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:16, 13 February 2013 (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.

States and territories disestablished before 1000CE

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 to century categories. I leave it to BHG to deal with the details.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
or
Nominator's rationale. This is a followup to CFD Feb 3 discussion on the 970s categories in which it was agreed to merge Category:States and territories disestablished in 971 to Category:States and territories disestablished in the 970s, etc.
The by-year categories in this period are tiny, so I agree that they are pointless. Upmerging to the by-decade categories would be a big improvement, and the first set of listings would achieve that.
However, even the resulting by-decade categories would be tiny. So I am inclined to prefer merging them all to the century categories, and the second list would do that.
AFAICS, these categories are populated through {{
Infobox former country}}, which uses a sub-template {{Infobox former country/autocat}} to do the categorisation. That template will need to be altered to implement either of these changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Upmerge to decades
Upmerge to centuries
Note. The nomination is long (over 35KB), and that's too much to have in an editbox. So I have created a separate sub-section below for discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
States and territories disestablished: Discussion
WikiProject Countries has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Years has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Former countries has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to the by century categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge; it's rare to find oneself in a position to be able to argue with BrownHairedGirl on such matters. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to century levels. Tim! (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: {{
    Infobox former country}} automatically adds these categories to articles, so the merging will be...complex. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reply. That is actually noted in the nomination :)
      Before making the nomination I spent a little time studying {{      Infobox former country/autocat}}, and I am confident that with a little template trickery, it is doable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I know how you will respond, but I'll ask anyway. Since the template needs to be modified, would you object to just categorizing these into the by year categories with those being categorized into the by century ones? This would allow one uniform structure for any century where we have a disestablishment and by extension, establishment. It would leave the thinly populated by year categories which may be problematic. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not entirely clear what you are suggesting, but it appears to be to keep the States-andterritories-disestablished-by-year categories and the States-andterritories-disestablished-by-centuries categs, but get rid of the intermediaate decades categories.
          If I have musinderstood you then please correct me ... but if I have got that right, then I wouldn't support that. The centuries-decade-year hierarchy is an established structure, and I don't hold with ripping the middle out of it. Sure, let's get rid of the lower levels if they are underpopulated, but so long as we have by-year categories we should retain the decades. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I did indeed miss that! I shouldn't be up sometimes when the birds say "nope, too early." - The Bushranger One ping only 04:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to decades definitely. Centuries perhaps, but given the current divisions it's hard to see exactly how it would all look in decades. CMD (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to decades at least, probably centuries. (not least because I'm looking at a ton of nnn in politics and nnn in international relations categories that won't have to be created if this goes ahead. <g>) Le Deluge (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2013 (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:Jews in Rock'n'Roll and Rockabilly music

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: listify and delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There's no denying that a number of Jewish musicians had an impact in the history of rock and roll but that would be true for just about any musical genre emanating from Western culture. Categories shouldn't be arbitrary intersections of two characteristics (such as rock and roll musicians and Jewish people) and the present category only makes sense if these individuals had some sort of coherent and specifically Jewish influence on rock and roll. I just don't see that. In the case of Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel it's even hard to find influences of Jewish culture in their own music and I've never heard anyone describe the Wall of Sound as rooted in Jewish musical tradition. This reminds of recent discussions on American musicians of a specific national origin (such as this one.) Pichpich (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to the category per se, but I'm having a hard time seeing Art Garfunkel and Neil Sedaka under "Rock'n'Roll" when we've instead excluded Kinky Friedman, presumably for being too country. "Musicians" works, but this is a split too far to be implementable. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one who populated the category but my guess would be that Kinky Friedman was excluded for not being a sufficiently significant figure in the history of rock and roll. (I think the sentence "Jewish contribution to the development of original and contemporary Rock'n'Roll and Rockabilly music" is intended to restrict the scope to the most influential musicians but maybe that's the wrong interpretation) Pichpich (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know if this is the right way to add a comment, so please forgive/instruct me how to do it. The point of this category is not to determine "Jewish" (musical/cultural etc) influences on R&R, but rather to document the participation of Jews in the shaping of early Rock, hence: "Jewish contribution to the development of original and contemporary Rock'n'Roll and Rockabilly music". The category is populated with songwriters, record label owners, music businessmen etc. The Jewish participation, especially in early Rock, is significant on a sociological and historical level, not only/simply from a strictly musical point of view. IMHO it is different from the "Swedish" category as early Rock/Rockabilly was significantly shaped by American Jews (Songwriters, indie record owners, artists etc). Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel started as a R&R duo ("Tom & Jerry") in the late fifties and are therefore included. For more information please see Michael Billig's "Rock and Roll Jews" (Michael Billig is a Professor of Social Science at Loughborough University), as well as Steve Propes' "What Was the First Rock and Roll Record". Film documentaries showing the strong participation of American Jews in shaping Rock music include for example "Girls Groups" or "The House That Ahmet Built". Feel free to include Kinky Friedman - I am particularly interested in Swing and early R&R, and don't know much about contemporary Country music. Memphisflash56 (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't want to deny that a number of Jews influenced rock and roll but I think it's fair to say that the Jewish contribution to the history of rock and roll is nevertheless somewhat limited and not particularly connected to Jewish culture. The Swedish example I used is somewhat misleading because there aren't that many Swedish Americans but I'm sure one could find dozens of Americans of Italian descent or Irish descent that had a significant impact on rock and roll. That still wouldn't be a good basis for a category unless their national origin influenced their contribution. Pichpich (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is significant that many of the important owners/executives of indie labels, music publishers, songwriters in early rock who were instrumental in the transition from Swing, Blues and R&B to R&R and making African-American music part of the mainstream are Jewish Americans: Miriam and Herb Abramson, (Atlantic label: Ray Charles, Ruth Brown...), Jerry Wexler (Atlantic), Alan Freed (DJ, popularized the expression "Rock'n'Roll"), the Chess brothers (Chess label: Muddy Waters, J.L.Hooker, Chuck Berry...), George Goldner (Gee label), Leiber and Stoller (songwriters: Coasters, Elvis, Drifters...), just to name a few. Having researched this topic for many years, the main non-Jewish name that comes to mind is Sam Phillips, the owner of "Sun records" who discovered Elvis, Johnny Cash, Roy Orbison. As a historian I think this is historically meaningful and interesting. It opens possibilities for scientific research ranging from how ethnicity impacted networking and business practices to choice of lyrics or musical elements. Memphisflash56 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't want to belittle the contributions of the great Alan Freed or the Chess brothers but come on, the only truly significant non-Jewish figure in the history of rock and roll you can come up with is Sam Philips? This is a serious case of tunnel vision. Pichpich (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps Listify If we're talking about impact and influence, I'd suggest an article or list rather than a category, so this "influence" can be properly sourced. I don't think that can be well-defined for a category that wouldn't cause some disputes regarding inclusion. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too think that an article is necessary - I just don't have the time to write one. I also don't think that one necessarily excludes the other. A category is a really helpful tool, and is easy to create (as compared to writing an article). Memphisflash56 (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete besides what has been said by others I think the fact that it is Rock and ROll and Rockabilly just makes this an unworkable mix of things in one category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete music genre by religion or ethnicity seems a trivial intersection, surely in this case. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think researchers in music history would tend to disagree with this statement. Memphisflash56 (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is too overly specific a cat with too broad a musical scope, and I think there's some miscat as well. Neither Carole King nor Jay and the Americans come to mind as rock or rockabilly musicians; Jay was a pop act for sure. Phil Spector and Morris Levy are producers, and didn't just do rock stuff. The Chess brothers ran a record label that specialized in what were called "race records" at the time, and that is what became R&B, which influenced rock, but wasn't rockabilly either. Actually, at this point, Weiser looks like the only legit entry - everyone else did things outside of these genres at some point in their careers. All of the entries here should already be in music or producer cats, so I fail to see the value added here. MSJapan (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't think that there's really any reason to have half these people in here in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSJapan (talk • contribs) 22:31, 17 February 2013 (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:Military equipment by conflict

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: keep. I closed this nomination as a delete, but that doesn't mean this is flying. Even if limited wars shouldn't have equipment categories, world-spanning wars can have such categories, and those need something to contain them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See recent discussion per Boer War / Gulf War. As the original nominator notes, this is an attempt to delete everything. If so, we should nominate and delete everything. Doing it piecemeal, smallest and weakest target first, is not an open, collegial process. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a container category. Deleting it would simply isolate the sub-categories, and impede navigation without altering the categorisation of any article. I understand Andy's concerns, but this is not the way to address them. If Andy wants a keep-them-all-or-delete-them-all discussion, then the way to do that is to nominate them all.
    Doing it piecemeal is appropriate if the nominator believes that there may be grounds for keeping some categories but not others. Sadly that does not appear to have been the case with these Military equipment by conflict categories, which is why I have opposed these deletions so far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it has. At least in my case. Picking the "low-hanging fruit", as it were, in cases where it's clear nothing is defined by its service. Massive bundlings sometimes draw opposition simply because of the bundling. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose for now, as valid sub-categories have not been tagged; stating "Also delete..." does not count. Note to nominator: if you do tag them, please use the parameter to link to this discussion, {{cfd|Category:Military equipment by conflict}}. – Fayenatic London 19:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there is only one item of low-hanging fruit, then nominate it alone. But what has been happening he has been multiple separate nominations of categories, with no argument that there is anything to distinguish them. That has led to a series of essentially duplicated discussions, which impedes consensus formation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, please provide links to previous discussions. – Fayenatic London 20:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    This nomination (if taken to include all the subcats) would (amongst other things) include deleting Category:Military equipment of the Cold War (and subcats) which would remove a lot of articles from Category:Military equipment by period. The previous nominations of categories under Category:Military equipment by conflict (example) have been careful to avoid any such collateral damage. DexDor (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Listify all everything should be contained in various lists. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone have a 'bot that will nominate all the subcats? It's a hell of a job otherwise by hand. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2013 (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.

Semi-autos by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all as nominated, using "South Korea" where appropriate. – Fayenatic London 18:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. All of the subcategories of Category:Semi-automatic pistols by country are also subcats of Weapons of Foo and (where they exist) Firearms of Foo or Handguns of Foo; "Weapons of Foo" is also a very significant majority "X of Y'. The "X of Y" naming format is defined by the tree; these categories' current "Y X" naming format is an outlier. Note that similar categories "Rifles of Foo", "Shotguns of Foo", "Grenade launchers of Foo", "Machine guns of Foo" and "Submachine guns of Foo" exclusively or speediable-majority use "X of Y". These may be speediable under C2C as estabished by their parent cats, but I brought them here to be sure. The Bushranger One ping only 10:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator per convention of similar categories, and to avoid using of the adjectival form of country names. These adjectival forms are in some cases either non-neutral (e.g. "British") or ambiguous (e.g. "Afghan") or both. In other cases they are non-existent, leading to the abominable use of nouns as adjectives (e.g. Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo media).
    No objection to making these speedy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to x semi-automatic made in y. The "of" is just too open to misinterpretation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2013 (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.

Revolvers by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all as nominated, to be followed up by the nominator in the case of Czech weapons. – Fayenatic London 18:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. All of the subcategories of Category:Revolvers by country are also subcats of Weapons of Foo and (where they exist) Firearms of Foo or Handguns of Foo; "Weapons of Foo" is also a very significant majority "X of Y'. The "X of Y" naming format is defined by the tree; these categories' current "Y X" naming format is an outlier. Note that similar categories "Rifles of Foo", "Shotguns of Foo", "Grenade launchers of Foo", "Machine guns of Foo" and "Submachine guns of Foo" exclusively or speediable-majority use "X of Y". These may be speediable under C2C as estabished by their parent cats, but I brought them here to be sure. The Bushranger One ping only 10:25, 13 February 2013 (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.

English cricket seasons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all. The Bushranger One ping only 05:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Propose upmerging
Nominator's rationale: While the main article is “19XX English cricket season”. most sports categories are 19XX in English cricket or similar for sports seasons within one year (northern hemisphere summer sports or southern hemisphere winter sports), and “season” is used only for sports seasons that span two years eg "2010-11 season”. 19XX English cricket season” is used mainly for the 20th century, not the 21st. But have one category only for each year of English cricket, whatever it is called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject England has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Cricket has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Particularly in the 2000s categories, there is a subtle distinction between "xxxx English cricket season" and "xxxx in English cricket". "xxxx English cricket season" refers solely to matches played in England (and Wales), both domestic and international fixtures, and not necessarily incorporating English teams—for example, Australian cricket team against Pakistan in England in 2010 is included in Category:2010 English cricket season, even though it involved no English teams. "xxxx in English cricket" incorporates matches played by English teams touring overseas. I'm not sure how useful this distinction is, but it could probably be made clearer. IgnorantArmies 13:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. What exactly is the purpose of having a sub-category of English cricket which excludes overseas matches by the England cricket team, but includes matches in England which involve no English players? It seems to me like a very odd way to construct a grouping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no idea :) I assume the categories' creator(s) saw some sort of logic in it. IgnorantArmies 13:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I wasn't trying to shoot the messenger, tho unfortunately my comment does read that way :(
          I was just wondering whether anyone knew if this was some reflection of a wider distinction made within cricketing culture, or just a novelty invented on Wikipedia. I should have made that clearer, and hopefully someone from WikiProject Cricket can clarify this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I certainly didn't take it that way. I tend to edit a lot of cricket-related articles, and the project's system of categorisation often makes little sense (not that that's anything exclusive to WP Cricket). I really can't comment on this specific instance—the distinction (if one exists) doesn't seem to be particularly useful, in any case. Support change. IgnorantArmies 14:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in favour of change, a more inclusive name for category. DjlnDjln (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all following upmerge where necessary. Categories such as
WP:BOLD bit and create one-off "initiatives" such as these. The standard CRIC categorisation was created several years ago on the basis that it must provide logical and easy navigation for the readers. It has stood the test of time. Hugo, well done for spotting this. ----Jack | talk page 07:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
After further thought, creating new categories called "ccyy in English cricket" doesn't help either so I'm proposing that all of the ccyy English cricket seasons are deleted after a check has been made to ensure that all relevant articles are in a parent category, which I think most already are. There are already parent categories covering the whole span of recorded English cricket since the early 18th century and there are two in particular, Category:English cricket seasons from 1946 to 1968 and Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000 which adequately encompass all season/tour reviews in the period from 1946 to 2000. We do not need additional interim categories for that period especially as no one will ever bother to create a similar category for every single season since 1725. As it happens, we have got a full "recentist" set covering every season from 2001 (including those mentioned in the nomination above) for which the parent category is actually Category:English cricket seasons from 2001 but we can leave those alone as there is a lot more material per year in the 21st century due to the expanding number of international competitions.
What has happened here is a mess of the "ain't broke so don't fix" syndrome. All of these category suggestions should have been referred at the outset to WP:CRIC. The existing categorisation system works extremely well and we do not need all sorts of interim categories that are never going to be created consistently right across the full span of cricket history. ----Jack | talk page 14:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is enough material for a category "19XX in English cricket" by year in the 20th as well as the 21st century, from domestic club seasons and international tours. Looking at the category by year for cricket Category:Years in cricket; from 1726 to 1858 there is just one article per year called “XXXX English cricket season”, and from 1859 to the 1940s 4 or 5 (max 7) articles per year for cricket. But from the late 1940s the number of articles increases enough to justify an English cricket by year category for appropriate years. Hugo999 (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. Take your views to
WT:CRIC and challenge the accepted standard there. You are attempting to create additional interim categories willy-nilly with no thought about how the present system works and has worked for the last six years or more. At the end of the day, you are confusing the readers by fouling up an efficient navigation system. Why not ask the people at CRIC who devised this system instead of creating a new category when you see one article that needs to be recategorised? What is the point of creating literally hundreds of new categories that will contain only three or four entries apiece when a long-standing method clearly works that combines entries into manageable numbers? ----Jack | talk page 02:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
See also: 15 Feb cricket categories. ----Jack | talk page 04:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The comments above by BlackJack about the existing categorisation system don't quite add up. BlackJack has not described this system, so AFAICS it consists solely of a series of categories under Category:Seasons in English cricket, such as Category:English cricket seasons from 1969 to 2000 and Category:English cricket seasons from 2001. The latter contains 22 articles, plus a further 147 in the by-year sub-categories. So we have about 160 articles covering a period of about 13 years, which an average of about 12 articles per year. That's a size at which by-year categories are a real help to navigation, forming usefully-sized groupings out of a long list.
Blackjack says that the existing structure "as worked for the last six years or more". Maybe it has, but over the number of articles has grown in that time, and as categories grow, some subdivision may be appropriate.
A bit of investigation is required to see how far back the by-year categories should usefully go, but that can only be determined by populating them and seeing what's there ... which doesn't work if editors to disrupt consensus-formation by depopulating categories which are under discussion.
A further point to note is that categories such as Category:2006 in English cricket are triple intersections, in that case of Category:2006 in English sport, Category:2006 in cricket and Category:English cricket seasons from 2001. If these categories are to be upmerged, they should be merged to all parents and not just deleted (or, as Blacxkjack did [6] [7]), merging them to Category:2006 in England. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 15 February 2013 (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:1955 or 1956 births

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 to Category:1950s births and Category:Year of birth missing (living people)/Category:Year of birth missing. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too vague to be useful. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) "Too vague to be useful" is like saying that the set of square roots of 9 is too vague to be useful, because there is more than one element in the set.  "Too vague to be useful" is like saying that mathematicians can avoid using square roots, because two is too many roots.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. We have a long-settled hierarchy of categories for births: by year, by decade and by century. Adding random subsets in between those established layers is an impediment to navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The previous argument is mathematically flawed, as there are no random subsets.  What would introduce randomness is to flip a coin to decide which of the two years to use.  This would allow us to use the existing structure, but would not satisfy WP:OR.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category system is not an exercise in mathematics. Per
      WP:CAT#Overview, it is a navigational device, and it works by maintaining a consistency of structure. In the case of births, we have a consistent structure of births-by-decade, with sub-categories by year. That applies for every decade and every year. If we don't know the precise year, we categorise people in the next-highest category in which they do fit. That's the same approach as we apply for other categories: For example, if we don't know that someone if from one or other of two places in Ireland, we don't create a Category:People from A or B; we just put them in Category:Irish people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • (edit conflict) So your argument is that Johnny Prill is the only biography on Wikipedia that has a person's age and not a birthdate/birthyear?  (Answer: I'm aware of another one, else I wouldn't have made the category.)  Unscintillating (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The proposal for the MergeTo category has a point, but I think the reason for these categories is because editor's can agree that if you know a person's age at a specific point in his/her life, you have information about the person's birthyear.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (
    WP:Other stuff does not exist argument, which doesn't address the issue of why we should delete something that is mathematically based and solves a problem.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What is the square root of 9?  It doesn't work to answer that the exact root is not reliably known.  As I recall from high-school algebra, a "function" is a relationship in which each input has one and only one output.  The point is that we have reliable information, and that we are working with a mathematical relationship that is not a function.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment  My edit comment in creating the category was, "for cases in which we have an age but not the birth year".  I haven't seen the creation rationale addressed in the initial comments.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Test results on a semi-random sample of five  I have run a test by picking the last five names on the first page at Category: 1950s births.  The result of this one sample indicates that 60% of the 600 articles, or 360 articles, in this category are of the form of having an age at a given point in time as the basis to determine a birth year.
Unscintillating (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still want to merge. Unscintillating's proposal would create twice as many categories as we now have. Well almost. We would go from 11 categories within Category:1950s births to 31. We would need Category:1957 or 1958 births and then Category:1958 or 1959 births. I do not think this is a good idea, especially since most of the categories will be very small, and often with a little more research the person can be put in a precise year category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an example it only took a quick internet search and locating his obituary in the New York Times to find an exact birth date for Donnie Andrews who had been in the 1950s births cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think the sampling of five articles gives us a good sense of what is going on. Thomas M. Bell (Ohio politician) is a person who is only even borderline in the 1950s category, all we know for sure, at least from the present article is that he was "in his early 20s" in 1973.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sampling did not identify any people like Bogaletch Gebre, who the article only will say was born in some year in the 1950s, nothing more exact can be determined.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is Lydia Gould who we are told was born 1952-1957.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the confidence level for a sample of 5 for a population of 694? A sample size of 5 can be treated mathematically and can provide statistically significant results.  I found a website that provides statistical analysis at [8].  With a sample size of 5, a population size of 694, and a percentage of 60%; the calculator shows that we can have a 95% confidence level that the confidence interval is 42.82%.  Summarizing for the test, the result for the population of 694 articles is 416 articles predicted with a margin of error of plus or minus 149 articles.  I.e., the test tells us that we can be 95% confident that between 267 and 565 articles in the 1950s category have this issue.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. We do not categorise beyond decade in cases where the birth year is unknown, we don't need categories that are inherently
    weasel-worded which is what this is. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment  An [appeal to common practice] as per our article "is a common fallacy".  As explained in the article, (1) "In actuality <the old way of thinking> may be false—the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds", and (2) "In actuality, the circumstances may have changed; <the assumption that past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present> may also therefore be untrue."  Unscintillating (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Given a person's age and the year they had that age, here is the set of possible birthyears: 

    { (year-age), ((year-age)-1) }

      Unscintillating (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the second sentence, I hadn't been thinking about the category syntax, and I agree that it is not defining.  But it is worth considering: Category:1955/1956 births.  I think it makes it easier for editors, and therefore readers, working with this issue to see the same format in the article, infobox, persondata table, and in the category.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all it is relevant because the discussion here is in regards to "cases in which we have an age but not the birth year".  Since your goal is cloture, if there is anything to be said on the topic at hand, it needs to be said for the record.  As for the specific issue, previously it has been argued that "often with a little more research the person can be put in a precise year category".  My personal experience over the last couple of days is that if the original editors could have found the birthdate, the information would already be in the article.  With the government pressure to actively suppress birth dates, and my personal evidence that doing so requires considerable effort and finds numerous dead links, it is not realistic to expect resolution of this issue in most cases while the person remains alive.  As for the relevance of birthdates potentially being legally protected, it is something to consider when seeing that a birthdate is not verifiable, and especially when a birthdate has been recently added without verifiability.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to "1950s births" but use "Year of birth missing (living people)" when necessary. Really, any combination of years is possible (why stop with adjacent years?) and I don't see this as being any more useful than, say, hypothetical
    Category:1893 or 1897 births. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete  Editors participating here still don't get it that this is a specific problem with likely a thousand articles affected.  In no case have the merge opinions explained why Category:1949 or 1950 births must be replaced with Category:20th-century births, while Category:1950 or 1951 births must be replaced with Category:1950s births.  A delete result is best because Category:1955 or 1956 births should use the pattern established at Template:Birth based on age as of date, and be replaced with Category:1955/1956 births.  It is also desirable because this discussion has not produced resolution for the simple fact that no knows what is going on.  Merge would be undesirable because it would sweep the issue under the rug without providing direction to editors in how to handle the various issues.  The arguments that this category is "vague", "not useful", and will have "very small categories", have been profoundly refuted.  Other points to be made, Category:1955/1956 births is not a union of does not (should not) intersect with Category:1955 births and Category:1956 births, so there is no sacrifice to navigation to add such a category.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  For future reference to those finding this discussion, I have added a parameter to Template:Birth based on age as of date such that it will print just "1955/1956".  Unscintillating (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say her that I unilaterally oppose Unscintillating's plans. I hope he does not try creating Category:1955/1956 births without widespread support, because I am sure if he does we will have another discussion and decide to upmerge. Year of birth cats are enough, it is easier for navigation to gather all the not fully sourced to a specific year cats into one larger by decade cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. Reading this discussion, the 0's categories should not have any articles. If the birth date is unclear it should be in the missing category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry

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 to Category:Freemasons. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename - Current category is overly narrow and restrictive. Renaming will allow expansion of category to include Freemasons who are notable simply for being members of the fraternity without necessarily contributing to it. Note: this is a step in a broader clean up of
WP:Categorization of people#General considerations tells us to "Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable: Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (in particular year of birth, year of death and nationality) an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the persons notability." The current Category:Freemasons is too often applied to people for whom membership in the fraternity is trivial to what makes them notable. The proposed rename would give us a more appropriate category that would comply with the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, the idea is to go in the opposite direction... to (eventually) merge Category:Freemasons (and its various sub-cats) into the proposed new category. There are people who are primarily notable for their membership in the Freemasons (Albert Pike, James Anderson (Freemason), William Morgan (anti-Mason) immediately come to mind, but there are others). Far too often Category:Freemasons is added to bios where the person's membership in the fraternity is trivial (ie not "the reason for the person's notability"). That makes the broad category problematic. The new cat will clarify the situation, and give us a target that will better indicate who should and should not be categorized. Note: Notable people who are Freemasons, but not notable for being Freemasons (ie where their membership in the fraternity is a trivial characteristic) would continue to be listed at List of Freemasons. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a trivial, wordy categorization and
WP:OC#OVERLAPPING. Actually all aforementioned persons are notable for other reasons as well, not just because of being Freemasons. From what I see there is no other "notable for..." category of persons, so there is no need to single out Freemasons as something special in my opinion. Brandmeistertalk 16:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Then let me ask the underlying question: Can we come up with a better way to conform the categorization of Freemasons to the guideline?
WP:Categorization of people#General considerations says "...an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the persons notability" (bolding mine for emphasis). But this is not the case with the majority of people categorized with Category:Freemasons (and its various sub-cats)... that cat if full of people who were/are freemasons, but where membership in the fraternity is not the reason they are notable (and in many cases is trivial to their notability). Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm thinking of categorization by notable ranks here, which looks like a more suitable solution for me, such as Category:Masonic Grand Masters or Category:Masonic Lodge Officers. Brandmeistertalk 18:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about people who are notable for their membership in the fraternity, but who never were officers? (Such as
Franklin Roosevelt who's membership in the fraternity is central to several conspiracy theories, and thus (arguably) might be notable "for being a Freemason")? Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It is possible to categorize them by nation, such as English Freemasons, French Freemasons, etc. William Morgan is known for his anti-Masonic activities, as the article indicates, and Roosevelt certainly is not notable for being merely a Freemason. Brandmeistertalk 19:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree on FDR... but I wanted to give a borderline case (it can at least be argued that he should be in the cat). As for national cats... We currently do have various "by nation" Freemasonry sub-categories ... and they have the same problem that the main Freemasonry cat has... most of the people categorized at the moment are clearly not notable for being Freemasons (much less being notable because they are English, French, American, etc. Freemasons). Those cats encourage nonconformity to
WP:Categorization of people#General Considerations. (They also create other problems ... we get lots of arguments over how to categorize someone like James Anderson (Freemason) - by ancestry he would be a Scottish Freemason, but as it relates to his Masonic ties he would be an English Freemason). Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Do we have a chronic problem with people adding inappropriate bios to
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or perhaps OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST]] has never been a good argument. My guess is that this issue is somewhat unique to the Freemasonry cat. There would be no need to rename any other categories (unless they faced the same chronic problem). Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, we absolutely do! How many of the articles in Category:Dentists are are about people who are notable because they are dentists for for their role in dentistry? Surprisingly few. It's a chronic problem everywhere, with hundreds and hundreds of categories. It's a systemic problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GO is right. My favourite example of that is Category:Irish schoolteachers. There's hardly anyone in that category who is notable as a schoolteacher; most of them are sportspeople or politicians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the Freemasons categories "attract" articles about people who are not notable because of Freemasonry then the first line of defence should be category text explaining the scope of the category and referring to
    WP:COP. Neither of the categories referred to here currently have such text. DexDor (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
OK... but then again... how many of the people categorized in Category:Dentists are primarily notable for something other than dentistry? (I took a quick look, and it seems there are a few, but not many.) Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the Category:Dentists example if you aren't convinced by it. I honestly just chose it randomly. It remains true that there are dozens and dozens of categories in existence in which people are primarily notable for something entirely different than what they are being categorized as in that category. The entire Category:People by religion tree alone is overflowing with examples. We just don't make categories with the phrasing "People notable for ..." because it is supposed to be a redundant way of naming a category. Of course, it is not in practice, but that's the problem I'm trying to highlight, and it's not unique to this topic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The various Religion cats are not good comparisons ... Religion is accepted as being a standard biographical detail... and standard biographical details are discussed in the instructions at
WP:Categorization of people#General considerations
as being "Apart" from other cats). Membership in clubs and fraternal groups, however, is not a standard biographical detail.
You are essentially saying that we should keep a category name that causes problems, and reject one that is clearer and would resolve the problem... because the clarification seems redundant? Doesn't make much sense to me... but if that is consensus I'll follow it. Blueboar (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your statement that religion is a "standard biographical detail" to which the normal rules of categorization do not apply.
The relevant guideline adds a little nuance to that and makes religion different than just birth year or death year. But putting that aside, how many comparisons do you want? You don't like the examples provided thus far, but I could throw out as many as you want, and you'll find problems in them. What I am saying is that other approaches should be used to attempt to deal with the problem—such as category definitions. The problem with the proposed rename/clarification is that it is one that could also be applied to hundreds of other categories that have the same problem. I just think it's narrow-viewed to say that the rename should apply to one category in one particular area but not in all the others that are problematic for exactly the same reasons. You've precisely hit on the issue that resulted in the categories for Freemasons being deleted in the first place. The categories are back; the problems are the same. I'm not saying that the categories should be deleted, but I am saying that having them and maintaining them properly can be a major pain, as with many other categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
So is there nothing that can be done to resolve the issue, other than time consuming policing of the category? We have a guideline that makes a clear and unambiguous statement - an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the persons notability. I am beginning to think that I should withdraw the proposed renaming... The current Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry is at least in compliance with this guidance. The problem is really with the broader Category:Freemasons. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't categories wonderful? We can provide a clear category definition or inclusionary criteria. We can "police" the category. We can try to brow-beat editors into complying with (I mean kindly remind them of) the guideline. As I said, it sucks, and I think it's one of the (if not THE) central problems with categories right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning oppose I'm not sure what the right answer here is, but we need to make some distinction between people like Albert Pike who had a significant input into what freemasonry looks like and people George Washington who are known to be members of masonic organizations but whose influence in shaping the organization was minimal. (My apologies if I'm understating Washington's influence, but I hope people will get the picture.) My gut reaction is that if we have to have Category:Freemasons, it should be expected to contain the second type of person simply because naive biographical editors are going to put those people in that category without thinking. So it seems to me that we need another for the first group of people, which would be something along the lines of the category under discussion. I'm not sure I like the idea of "notable for being freemasons" because I doubt it will be possible to keep people from confounding that with just "are freemasons"; naive editors are going to be sloppy and eventually someone will propose merging the two categories. MAybe a better name is in order for the category under discussion, and maybe Category:Freemasons should go away, but at present my inclination is to give a more succinct name for this category. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Category:Freemasons. If their contribution has been special, they need to be categorised according to what that contribution is. If it is for holding a particular office, we should categorise them for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people in the cat are known for changing Freemasonry in some way... most of them are founders of various Masonic sub-groups, or of the fraternity itself (Example: James Anderson wrote the first Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England which significantly change how Freemasonry was organized, and Albert Pike reworked the rituals of the Scottish Rite into something quite different than it had been before). They are not notable for holding some specific Masonic office, but for their impact on the development of the fraternity, as it evolved into its modern form. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This discussion was originally listed at
WP:TROUT myself for omitting my usual check that the category was tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Freemasons. That category is probably used over broadly, but the solution is not to create this category, but for an editor to try to apply general imclusion rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category was created specifically to differentiate "simple membership" (Cat Freemasonry) from "people who had a major impact on Freemasonry" because there was an issue at the time with excessive "Freemasons by country" cats where many of the additions were unsubstantiated. However, this is an overly specific category, and there's no reason to upmerge it. As for tagging, nobody reads the cat before adding it anyhow (if they even have any proof of membership), so that's not going to solve the problem either; I can't even begin to count how many times I've removed certain Presidents and entertainers from the cat - it's well-documented, for example, that Gerald Ford was the last President, but somehow, Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama keep reappearing. MSJapan (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between "simple membership" and "people who had a major impact on Freemasonry" is an important one, however. The people who are listed in Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry are different from other Freemasons... in that they are people who changed Freemasonry in some significant way (some, like Albert Pike and Thomas Smith Webb are significant for re-writing its rituals, others such Rob Morris (Freemason) were significant for starting up various masonic sub-bodies, others, like James Anderson (Freemason) were influential in creating the original Grand Lodge of England and changed the way the entire fraternity was structured). They also tend to be the few people for whom involvement in Freemasonry actually is the primary reason why they are notable... Freemasonry is what "makes" them notable (indeed for most, their involvement in Freemasonry is the only reason they are notable). If we are going to keep the broader Category:Freemasons (and the various national sub-cats), then we need something to set these particular Masons apart from other Freemasons. I agree that the current "title" and criteria for this category might be overly narrow... (which is why I started this CfD in the first place) but I think the solution is to rename it and broaden the criteria slightly... not to completely empty or delete the category entirely. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I know that
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and that is generally a poor argument. In this case, it's important to note the complete text of the guideline being quoted, in particular that it leads with: "Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (in particular year of birth, year of death and nationality) an article about a person should be categorized in terms of occupation only by the reason(s) for the persons notability." I contend that there are other types of categories, including organization memberships (like Category:American Freemasons), which are part of the standard bio data, and would be empty if they only contained people notable for their membership, since I doubt simple membership would qualify as notable. The bolded part of the guideline should be expanded to include the other types of categories that currently are used in this way. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The problem is that there are people who are notable because they were Freemasons (ie their involvement in Freemasonry is the primary reason they are considered notable). So... if we use Category:Freemasons (or the various "by nation" sub-cats) for non-notable, or less than notable simple membership (which it seems people want), then we need a special sub-category for the people who really are notable for Freemasonry. Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry attempts to be that... but has issues. So how do we set things up properly? Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a Freemason is trivial; if it were a purely and publicly hierarchical (say, as the Roman Catholic Church), we could categorize its leaders as such, but alas that data is beyond us. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are arguing to delete the broad Category:Freemasons (correct me if I have it wrong) ... would you comment on the narrower Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry? Blueboar (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstand. List of Freemasons seems properly in your straw-man category - if this characteristic "contribution to Freemasonry" is notable surely a list could be constructed of those and placed in the Freemason's category; if not, don't bother - but the category at issue ought to go either way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • An observation... It may be instructive to look at how categorization is dealt with for other fraternal groups... for example, I note that we do not have a category for people who were members of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, and while we do have a Category:Odd Fellows, it only includes a few people who were influential in the fraternity itself (founders and leaders). Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actrually Category:Odd Fellows contains only one biographical article, on the founder. There is a reason why many of us supported the deletion of the Mason categories. However, since we have them, these people should go in them, and probably some people in them should not be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2013 (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:German guns

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to its parent cat/merge target. This is the only case where an "Artillery of Foo" subcategory of Category:Artillery by country has a seperate "Guns of Foo/Fooian guns" subcategory of its own, creating a needless and redundant layer of categorisation. Upmerge to the parent, consistent with all other subcats of Category:Artillery by country, is called for here, I believe. The Bushranger One ping only 09:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "gun" is highly amorphous. The restrictive definition used in this category is not indicated by the name of the category itself, so would easily collect handguns etc due to the vague naming of the category. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, having seen rationale in 15 Feb entry. --Marco (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I also have to note that nothing currently says this is limited to anything less than the total span of the article gun so unless we do something this will probably soon have articles on pistols.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2013 (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:Sequenced genomes

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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a species has had its genome sequenced isn't a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of the species. There are list articles such as List of sequenced eukaryotic genomes. DexDor (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep while sequenced genomes may or may not be a defining characteristic of a species, being sequenced is a defining characteristic of a genome, one that geneticists and molecular biologists very much care about. --Mark viking (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands the category is applied to species (and more worringly genera) rather than just strictly genome articles like the
    ✰ 10:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I'm not sure that distinction is relevant when considering categorising things like
    ✰ 20:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
While sequencing of human genomes is becoming cheaper, if not more accurate, assembling a genome ab initio for a new species is a good deal harder, because there is no reference genome to compare against. The list of species with sequenced genomes will grow over time, but the putative one week, 1K$ genome will be reserved for species whose genetics we already know quite well. --Mark viking (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a valid descriptor. One might as well delete Category:Domesticated animals. The list articles are hopeless messes. Also, there is a reason each species' genome is interesting to scientists. They are not being indiscriminate. Abductive (reasoning) 04:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being a domestic animal is clearly a trait of the animal and central to the article. Having a genome that was sequenced is neither.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2013 (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:Schools damaged by arson

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That (a building at) a school has at some point been damaged by arson is not a defining characteristic of that school. For example few, if any, of the articles in this category mention it in the lead. If this category is kept then it needs to be moved out of Category:School fires for which these articles do not meet the inclusion criteria (these are not articles about disasters). If this category is deleted then other categories below Category:Property damaged by arson should also be examined. (This category was mentioned in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_12#Category:21st_Century_attacks_on_Jewish_cemeteries) DexDor (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - arson is very definitely a major event in the life of a school and typically gets wide media coverage. A school that burns down (in whole or part) is long-remembered for that event so I would argue that it does become a defining characteristic of the establishment. Assuming that each school article has properly sourced information about the crime then it is reasonable that it should be included in a category grouping it with other schools that were similarly damaged. --Bob Re-born (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As non-defining and the vaguness of "damaged". If one door of the school is a little scorched, should that be included? Sounds very trivial to me. Now, schools destroyed by arson could be defining. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this could be a very useful category for researchers. Even if the individual articles are not well written, someone who needed information on arson fires would find the category helpful and could follow up with the references in the individual articles.
As for moving it out of Category:School fires, I see the nominator's point, but think instead that the Category:School fires should be broadened to include fires that caused either major structural damage or forced large operational changes due to the damage. --Arg342 (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This is one of 3 subcats of Category:Property damaged by arson. Some good arguments have been made for why "damaged by arson" is a poor characteristic for categorisation, but no reason has been offered for why this is an inappropriate way to categorise schools, while other forms of property will continue to be so categorised.
    Either keep them all or delete them all, but don't cherrypick. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEFINING states "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". Virtually all of the articles I check do not mention this in the lead. They do mention it in the body of the article, but most only in passing. Therefore, this is not defining. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Maybe true. But that doesn't answer why you are prepared to delete this category but keep Category:Property damaged by arson. Your "if one door is scorched" argument could a be applied equally well to museums, office buildings, houses, pubs or whatever ... so why single out the schools?
If this category is deleted and its parent kept, then the schools can be added to Category:Property damaged by arson. That loses specificity for no gain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that category
isn't up for deletion, so that arguement is redudant. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
This category is particulary bad because it places articles about schools under
Those category's may well have similar (but not identical) issues, as may the categories the next level up (i.e. the parent and "aunts/uncles" of this category) and so on... However, "lumping them together" into one nom risks complicating the discussion (like the Elementary maths CFD). If a typo appears several times in an article then an edit that corrects one of them isn't reverted even if it "leaves the article inconsistent" - why should categories be any different ? DexDor (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Au contraire, my argument is relevant solely because the other categories are not part of this nomination. The deletion of one such category because of a characteristic shared by its retained parent category is pointless disruption.
Linking to
WP:OTHERSTUFF is silly. That's about articles, which can stand independently of each other. This discussion is about categories, which form part of an interlinked hierarchy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't refer to categories specifically, but it includes a reminder to read the introduction of that page - and that states "The following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen in deletion discussions for templates, images, categories ...". DexDor (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Sounds like the simple solution is to nominate the other categories. There are problems there. Take the case of
Knox & Kane 58 which was in a building that was the target of arson. So it is listed in this tree. To take that to the extreme, if there is arson in a museum then every damaged painting could be included here. Probably better to torch the whole tree and if a good name and objective defining criteria are identified allow recreation. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Done - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_14#Category:Property_damaged_by_arson. DexDor (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the big problem with this category is that over time many schools get damaged by arson. If this was limited to "destroyed by arson" it might be worth while, but with only damaged it seems to be gathering all sorts of not defining incidents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subjective! I'm sure that there are probably hundreds of schools that have arson fires every year that cause minimal damage and are not defining in the long run for the school. This will be sourced from the local news paper so there will be a reliable source for the material to be included in the article. How much damage does the fire in the garbage can need to cause to be included in this category? As of now, it appears that simply lighting that fire qualifies. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or listify minor arson is not all that notable, since students set fire to things in schools all the time. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify what can be sourced, then delete most arson is not defining for schools. Why not Category:Schools closed by snow or Category:Schools where kids were killed on field trips or Category:Schools quarantined for disease, and other tragedies and impediments to the functioning of schools.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't jump the gun Generally I find the plethora of categories a waste of space. Last night I had to revert one of the silliest deletions I have ever seen from
    Abraham Moss Learning Centre- deleted on the grounds it was not a building! The site plan and photographic evidence obviously were not enough. The criteria are no-doubt woolly, but a fire that causes 8m UKP of damage and a visit by the prime minister is defining in the life of the school. 30 fire engines failing to save the building is notable if supported by a reference. As it stands, the cat is useful to the head and governors of any future school who need rapidly to locate previous victims, and assimilate their experiences before making life changing decisions that will result in spending or saving millions of pounds.--ClemRutter (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The learning center is a school that consists of multiple buildings. 1 of those buildings was not effected by the fire. As the category is named really you should only but articles on the specific buildings destroyed by the fire, not an article on a school complex that included a building not destroyed by the fire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_13&oldid=1136102816"