Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 1

< April 30	May 2 >

May 1[edit]

Category:Articles with example Assembly code[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete.--Wizardman 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a defining characteristic of the category members but of their article. Not useful as a maintenance category either. Pascal.Tesson 22:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This category would be relevant if wikipedia was an instruction manual, but WP:NOT an instruction manual. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This should be covered by some speedy criterion. Pavel Vozenilek 22:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Affairs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Affairs to Category:Scandals.

This category is apparently meant to be for scandals that happen to be known by the name affair. The scandals categorized here don't seem to have anything else in common. Categorization by name is not a great idea. Lesnail 22:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to scandals per nom Strike my previous remark, I misunderstood what the category was. Merge per nom. Dugwiki 22:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Johnbod 02:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Primates of the Chaldean Catholic Patriarchate of Babylon[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Primates of the Chaldean Catholic Patriarchate of Babylon to Category:Chaldean Catholic Patriarchs of Babylon

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, more exact (since the holders of this office are called 'Patriarch of Babylon'), matches List of Chaldean Catholic Patriarchs of Babylon, and the style of disambiguation used in other cases where multiple churches have a patriarch with the same title (see subcategories in Category:Church patriarchs). Mairi 19:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - The use of both "primate" and "patriarchate" in the category title is redundant. "Patriarch" is sufficient. Note that this is another category created by User:Pastorwayne, who created an entire category tree under Category:Primates (bishops) that should be examined further. Dr. Submillimeter 21:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and create (if necessary) the Patriarch cat, too. This Primate cat matches and makes easy comparison between other Primate cats (of other Christian churches, such as Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, etc.). The Patriarch cats should also provide for easy comparison. But to also call them Primates is not redundant. Rather, it is appropriate and helpful. Pastorwayne 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But "Primate of the Chaldean Catholic Patriarchate of Babylon" appears to be a term that occurs nowhere else (for that matter, "Primate of the Chaldean" returns only 2 google hits, suggesting that other terms, such as "Primate of the Chaldean Catholic Church" aren't used either). The title used is "Patriarch of Babylon", and there's no reason to invent a term for the category when an existing one will suffice quite well. Mairi 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer where "Primate" is not an "official" title (such as it IS in the Anglican and many other traditions), it IS still proper to call the leader of a church or major portion of a church a "Primate." This is done here to better equate the leaders of this denomination to those of others (where Primate is a regular title). See Primate (religion) for a fuller explanation. Pastorwayne 15:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I looked at this external link and this external link for the two people in this category. One refers to the person as the "Chaldean Catholic Patriarch"; the other refers to the person as the "Patriarch of Babylon". Since these websites (which have Catholic orientations) are referring to the position using minor variations of "Chaldean Catholic Patriarchs of Babylon", it would make sense to use the same phrase on Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 15:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The Patriarch vs Primates issue seems to only confuse things. Subcats do not need to be consistent where it makes sense. See the ones in transport vs. transportation for a good example. They can still roll up under an appropriate named category. Vegaswikian 02:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the other discussions Johnbod 02:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Primates of the Maronite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and the Whole East[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Primates of the Maronite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and the Whole East to Category:Maronite Patriarchs of Antioch

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, shorter, more closely matches the common title, the article List of Maronite Patriarchs, and other categories such as Category:Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch. Mairi 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - The use of both "primate" and "patriarchate" in the category title is redundant. "Patriarch" is sufficient. Note that this is another category created by User:Pastorwayne, who created an entire category tree under Category:Primates (bishops) that should be examined further. Dr. Submillimeter 21:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and create (if necessary) the Patriarch cat, too. This Primate cat matches and makes easy comparison between other Primate cats (of other Christian churches, such as Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, etc.). The Patriarch cats should also provide for easy comparison. But to also call them Primates is not redundant. Rather, it is appropriate and helpful. Pastorwayne 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per previous discussions. Vegaswikian 02:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename , per the other discussions Johnbod 02:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:University of Illinois alumni[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep.--Wizardman 01:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redundant category; the established category is Category:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign alumni. ShelfSkewed talk 19:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several campuses. Keep in mind University of Illinois at Chicago. Are you sure this is redundant. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of the other campus; it has its own faculty category. But I didn't notice at the time that the U-C faculty & Chicago faculty categories were subcatted under Category:University of Illinois faculty. I suppose, then, that the nominated category should be kept for a similar purpose and the individual articles in it (just two at the moment) recategorized to the correct subcat. --ShelfSkewed talk 20:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it could parent the other alumni cats, see for example University of California alumni. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prove It as a parent cat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a parent category (I have just added relevant children categories). — Jonathan Bowen 00:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Celebrities in fiction[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't work in practice, only houses a Bo' Selecta! subcategory.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This may serve as a better container for some of the articles currently contained in Category:Representations of people in popular culture and simultaneously encourage improvement in those articles by moving them out of the craptacular "...in popular culture" orbit. If that's not seen as viable or desirable then Delete. Note that the Bo' Selecta! category is also up for deletion. Otto4711 18:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, celebrity is another way of saying "notable" and if they have articles, they would already have to be sort of famous. Category:Representations of people in popular culture is a better category than this. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This may be more or less redundant with Category:Fictional celebrities. Dr. Submillimeter 21:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "fictional celebrities" is for fictional characters who are celebrities. "Celebrities in fiction" is for real people in fictional contexts. Just as a note, the fictional celebrities category is also nominated for deletion. Otto4711 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In that case, the category should be deleted because real celebrities appear in fiction frequently (such as when actors perform as themselves on TV shows). Therefore, this is not a defining characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter 23:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Real celebrities appear in fiction too frequently for this to be a meaningful category. Darn near every historical figure appears in fiction somewhere, and modern celebrities get figured in parodies all the time. Doczilla 06:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Years of the 17th century in the United Kingdom[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UK did not exist as a country in the 17th century. Tim! 18:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, all of the articles in the subcategories are "16xx in Ireland", so this category is wrong on several levels (was the creator trying to make a political point?). Category:Years of the 17th century in Ireland already exists as well, so delete. Cmadler 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Cmadler. The category creator was evidently a little confused about this aspect of the complex history of Britain and Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Abberley2 10:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No UK in 17th century, so no category needed. Beloved freak 15:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Villages of Teslić, Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge Category:Villages of Teslić, Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Villages in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Villages in Bosnia and Herzegovina, convention of Category:Villages by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merege/delete. This is incorrect classification. Pavel Vozenilek 22:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Opening season television episodes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, first episode of any season, as non-defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a bad idea that may make people believe that individual episodes of all TV series should have articles. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Doczilla 21:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's important to note. - Super48 16:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not important to categorize episodes from divergent series on the basis of having happened to be the first of a particular season. Otto4711 12:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Syncretic Faiths[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Syncretic religions, or Delete as subjective. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think that most religions may be described as syncretic (which in this context effectively means to synthesize different belief systems together to form a new belief system). The article on syncretism indicates that many major world religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Bahai) qualify, and I think that Buddhism qualifies as well. Since so many religions can be described as syncretic, this is not a defining characteristic. It therefore should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr_mm arguments. Pavel Vozenilek 23:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Musicians who had no.1 Billboard R&B hits[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Note that since the main objection to this category was category clutter rather than unverifiability, I have created a list to replace the category, at List of musicians who had no.1 Billboard R&B hits. If anyone feels that the list is inappropriate, you know where AFD is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as published list. This scheme could add dozens of categories to successful musicians. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC

Keep. This is not a published list as such - the information in it is obtained from Joel Whitburn's publication but it is NOT contained as a list in that book or elsewhere. It is NOT a subjective list - it is a factual statement of the artists who had # 1 hits on the Billboard R&B chart. It would NOT add "dozens of categories" to "successful musicians" - it adds one new category to musicians many of whom, as African-American artists, have been hugely influential in the development of popular culture and music worldwide over the last century but have NOT necessarily been "successful" in any terms, and who have been substantially under-represented in Wikipedia articles so far. In my view it is essential that Wikipedia contains articles which acknowledge the achievements and importance of artists such as - to name a few - Savannah Churchill, Larry Darnell, Buster Brown and The Charms - who contributed significantly to the world we live in today. The category does just that - as well as, obviously, including better known artists. Ghmyrtle 14:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorizing artists by chart position is over-categorization. I agree that we need articles on lesser-known musicians but that doesn't mean we need to categorize every aspect of the person's life or career. An artist like Whitney Houston could end up with dozens of categories for the various pop, dance, R&B, adult contemporary, etc. charts that she's topped around the world in the course of her career, leading to unnavigable category clutter. Otto4711 14:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the points raised by nom and Otto4711, categorizing by type-of-chart (i.e. R&B) is also overcategorization. I agree that we need more articles on influential but lesser-known musicians, especially those who are lesser-known because of race prejudice in the early and mid twentieth centuries. Every artist that would be in this category unquestionably meets WP:MUSIC. Nevertheless, the category itself is unnecessary and inappropriate. Xtifr _tälk 15:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Musisians with #1 hits should have this information incorporated by way of succession boxes. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This seems very similar to categorization by award, which is generally disliked in Wikipedia. Noting the achievements in lists is probably more appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 21:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary category. Doczilla 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete U.S. centric. Honbicot 10:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Little Red Riding Hood[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Small (two articles) and unlikely to grow much. Not useful as a navigational hub. >Radiant< 14:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd probably lean toward deletion, but I'm wondering what would be a good category for the subarticle Modern uses and adaptations of Little Red Riding Hood? At the moment it would be left in just Category:Fairy tales, which seems maybe a little inadequate. If you have a good category to put the other article, then I'm definitely ok with deleting this. Dugwiki 16:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Fictional works in popular culture? Much as I loathe most of the bloated crapfests that end up there, it seems reasonable in this instance. Otto4711 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. With that tag on that article I'm ok with deletion. Dugwiki 22:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category with little room to grow. Doczilla 21:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and move sub cat as suggested by Otto. Rgds, --Trident13 23:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Dominionist parties[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists only one party, but the party's article, National Restoration, does not make clear why it is a Dominionist party. --LC 13:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Law of the British Virgin Islands[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Law of the British Virgin Islands to Category:British Virgin Islands law

Nominator's Rationale: Consistency with all other entries in Category:Law by country. --Legis (talk - contributions) 12:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. Beloved freak 15:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Romantischen Opern[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Romantischen Opern to Category:German Romantic operas

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To use English. Reason for using German ("having it in German might be more likely to keep out interlopers" [1]) does not justify a name contrary to Wikipedia's ethos of openness and accessibility to all. Andy Mabbett 12:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please link to the discussion here about a week ago, which as I recall deleted Category:Romantic Opera. This appears to be a 1 day-old, more specific, recreation; maybe that's ok, but it needs explaining. Johnbod 12:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This appears to be a bad faith nomination and a possible infringement of WP:POINT resulting from this discussion here [2] (see comments towards the end of the debate referring to this topic). --Folantin 12:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is neither "bad faith" nor POINT, though your claims are a breach of WP:AGF. Andy Mabbett 12:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why the rename? Accuracy is more important than anything else: this is the term that was, I believe, used by the composers that composed these works for their works. We have other categories where it would be misleading to refer to the genre in anything other than it's native tongue, for example Category:Opéras-ballets. Additionally, the point of the "interlopers" comment is to help stop operas that don't fit into the specific genre being ill-advisedly added to the category. We also have plenty of articles in non-English titles...Orfeo ed Euridice, La Clemenza di Tito, and so on...Moreschi ^Talk 14:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reply to Johnbod, here is the link to the discussion on Category:Romantic Opera. I might add that User:Pigsonthewing quotes my remark about interlopers out of context: "interlopers" mean operas that are German and romantic (say, Strauss's Arabella) but which do not belong to the Romantic period. There is a definition of which operas fit into the new category on the Category's page, where there is a link to the relevant subsection of the German opera article. --GuillaumeTell 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. I take you all oppose the rename then? Johnbod 21:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. The current version is probably the best as it will avoid potential miscategorisation. --Folantin 21:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And a Yes from me, in case anyone's in any doubt. --GuillaumeTell 21:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, unless the article section linked to in as the lead for the category is renamed instead. I think it's really inappropriate to have different names for the category and lead. If this is about German Romantic opera, then the category should say so; if this is about Romantischen Opern, then the article should say so! If this is about accuracy, fix the article, and gain my full support for the status quo on this category. Xtifr _tälk 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is but bring article into line. Johnbod 02:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that is necessary as the article clearly explains what the subject is and so no confusion will arise there. It's not the same with the category. --Folantin 08:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Classical tubists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 10:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Classical tubists to Category:Classical tuba players

Nominator's Rationale: Rename; 'Tubist' is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as those who paint in style of Fernand Leger. The people in this category are tuba players, and should be categorised as such. See also proposal for 'Jazz tubists'. This rename proposal also applies to all or any sub-categories using the word 'tubist'. Smerus 08:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 31#Category:American tuba players, Category:Tuba players. Result was to move all to "tubists". — CharlotteWebb 21:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and all sub-cats, and also the parent categories Category:Tubists, Category:Tubists by nationality and Category:Tubists by genre. I have recently categorized "tubists" by nationality and genre, in line with the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization. As Category:Tubists existed, I followed that pattern, although if left to my own devices I would have picked "tuba players" as <OR> that's the phrase I'm more used to hearing in orchestras </OR>. Also, and more cite-worthy, the leading music encyclopedia Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (online version) returns zero hits for "tubist" compared to 101 for "tuba player" (including many biographies). Bencherlite 09:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, "it is generally considered civil ... to notify the good-faith creator, any main contributors of the category and the relevant wikiprojects that you are nominating the category. ... When notice is provided to creators, contributor[s] or wikiprojects, it is suggested that the nominator indicate on the nomination that notice was provided and to whom."
  I don't see where the creator of Category:Tubists has been notified. -- Rico 21:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - According to Merriam Webster Online, "tubist" refer to a tuba player. However, the dictionary entry also indicated that "tubaist" is an acceptable name for someone who plays the tuba. Dr. Submillimeter 13:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My very-quick-and-dirty research suggests that "tubaist" is more common than tubist (I've got one dictionary that doesn't mention "tubist" at all, and one that lists it second, after "tubaist".) Xtifr _tälk 14:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Zero Grove hits for "Tubaist" also. FWIW, a Google search (excluding WP) gives 145,000 for "tuba player", [3] ~~37,500 for tuba+tubist [4]~~ 62,400 for "tubist" (some of which are hits for software of that name) [5] and 25,100 for "tubaist" (not all front page hits relevant, tubaist would appear to be a Gaelic word too) [6]. I'm not saying that people are never called "tubists" or "tubaists", only that "tuba players" appears to be the more authoritative (Grove, and (says the nominator) OED) / more frequently used (Google) term. Bencherlite 14:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the other hand, this fascinating (though not-necessarily-reliable) article on just this topic strongly suggests that there is near-unanimity among scholars at Oxford for "tubaist" (along with a near-complete rejection of "tubist"). Not saying that "tuba player" isn't the common name-on-the-street, but "tubaist" seems to be more academically correct. Xtifr _tälk 15:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I saw that article too! Reliability is not impressive when the author says that "Oxford is the oldest university in existence". "Near unanimity among scholars at Oxford" is pushing it when, despite the graphic of the dictionary on the page, the author wasn't talking to people at the OED, but to professors in the English faculty (unnamed, & unknown expertise on the topic as opposed to, say, Wordsworth). In any event, the Oxford English Dictionary does not include either "tubist" (as nominator says) or "tubaist" (I've just checked the online version, via subscription access, for tubaist as well) - suggesting that these versions, which (as I said) I don't dispute are used by some, are of very recent usage. Bencherlite 16:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I obviously agree that the reliability is dubious (I said so up front), but if nothing else, I think it suggests that further research might be justified. Google is not a reliable source either. I'll put my "guy who went to Oxford to troll (in the fishing sense) for answers" up against "guy who went to Google to troll for answers" anyday. :) As for the OED (which I don't have), did you check under "Tuba"? That's the only place I found "tubaist" or "tubist" in my dictionaries. Xtifr _tälk 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And I obviously agree that Google isn't everything (I said so up front too, "FWIW") except as a very broad indication of the comparative popularity of actual use in web pages, subject to the limitations of Google searches. And, to confirm, the online search of the OED (300,000+ entries, according to the WP article on the OED and gradually being revised and updated) searches the full text of all entries and quotations, so if "tubist" (apart from "painting in the style of Leger") or "tubaist" was there even as an overlooked word in an unrelated quotation, it would have been found. The entry for "tuba" is silent on the topic (not even mentioning "tuba player", I have to say, but then again, why would it?) whereas e.g. "violinist" is mentioned in the entry on "violin" and has its own entry later. Bencherlite 08:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: It is not a "not-necessarily-reliable article." It is an absolutely unreliable, self-published opinion piece. The author, who is not named, begins by admitting that "a vote amongst the members of a neophyte T.U.B.A. established "TUBIST" to be correct." This Google search makes it absolutely clear which word they are using. -- Rico 20:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
        It is not self-published; it appeared in "Tubanews". How reliable a source that may be, I'm not sure. It is an opinion piece, but it is an opinion piece on nomenclature published in what appears to be an industry-related publication. It is clearly insufficient for a claim of fact, but for a claim of opinion among tuba players, I think it's quite adequate. And we may well be reduced to arguing over claims of opinion and appropriate weight, since reference to more reliable sources on nomenclature (like dictionaries) have not yet yielded a clear answer. (Honestly, I no longer think there is a clear answer.) Xtifr _tälk 01:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I do now wonder: is it a British-English versus American-English usage difference?. "You say tomato, and I say tomato player", and all that... Actually, joking aside, Google searches, using UK pages only (and subject to the usual caveats) make interesting reading, if you find any of this interesting: 11,400 for "tuba player" [7] but only 729 for "tubist" [8] and 874 for "tubaist" (including many Gaelic hits) [9]. Bencherlite 01:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I disagree that "for a claim of opinion among tuba players, ... it's quite adequate." It is adequate only for a claim of opinion of the one, anonymous author of the opinion piece -- who wrote, "I've spelled it 'tubist' along with everyone else for 30 years." This Google search establishes which term is being used in the TubaNews.com website. -- Rico 05:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I had wondered about that also. Johnbod 02:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose renaming this category in isolation, but would definitely support a rename of the entire tree, from Category:Tubists on down, to either Category:Tubaists or Category:Tuba players (no real preference between the two). Xtifr _tälk 14:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or Rename using "tubaists" I agree with Xtifr, whatever term is used should be consistent through the whole tree. "Tubaist" is highly preferable to "tuba player"; this is the way most musicians are referred to (vocalist, instrumentalist, guitarist, flutist/flautist, violinist, violist, celloist, bassist, bassoonist, trombonist, etc.), and I find that calling a musician an X player rather than an Xist can be a little insulting. Cmadler 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consider that the International Tuba-Euphonium Association began life as "Tubists Universal Brotherhood Association" Cmadler 17:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose renaming categories, "Tubaists". Very weak oppose changing the categories to "Tuba players"

Tubist means tuba player. It may also mean "those who paint in style of Fernand Leger," to some, but that is not a reason to change the category name.

"Tuba player" is more common, probably because not everybody is familiar with the term "tubist". Most people can assume that a person that plays the tuba can be called a tuba player, and that is probably why the expression "tuba player" is more common.
Most people assume that someone that plays the flute can be called a flute player -- and I assume people that are not familiar with the term "flautist", will probably call flautists, "flute players."
I assume we will not change the "Classical violinists" category to "Classical violin players." The Wikipedia article on Violin doesn't even recognize the expression "violin player," yet when I google "violin players," I get 75k hits. When I google "violinist", I get 921k hits. I suspect that the term "violinist" is more well known.
Will we change this section title to "Notable euphonium players," since not everybody is familiar with the term "euphoniumist"?
It has already been established that tubists call themselves "tubists". (I also know this from personal experience.)

The commonality of the term argues against changing the category to "Tubaist". People have already established that the term "tubaist" is relatively rare -- (this is the first time I've ever heard of it). -- Rico 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Rename to "Tuba players". Since neither Grove, nor the OED mention "tubist", I would recommend renaming the categories to a less troublesome name. (I am sure the both Grove and OED correctly include the word "flautist") Bluap 23:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- since you mention it, I've just checked: OED does include "flautist" (dating back to 1860) and Grove has over 500 mentions of the word (it stops counting after 500, so even "music" produces just 500 results!)) Bencherlite 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a tuba player in one of Washington's leading high school bands, I would like to say that I have never considered myself to be a "tubist". As such, I strongly support renaming the category to "Tuba Players". jr98664 06:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep practicing![10] -- Rico, tubist 05:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I never knew that a discussion on what to call people who play the tuba could be so controversial. I still have no strong opinions on this one. Dr. Submillimeter 09:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Jazz tubists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 10:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jazz tubists to Category:Jazz tuba players

Nominator's Rationale: Rename; 'Tubist' is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as those who paint in style of Fernand Leger. The people in this category are tuba players, and should be categorised as such. See also proposal for 'Classical tubists'. This rename proposal also applies to all or any sub-categories using the word 'tubist' Smerus 08:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 31#Category:American tuba players, Category:Tuba players. Result was to move all to "tubists". — CharlotteWebb 21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom etc, as I said above. Bencherlite 09:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose renaming this category in isolation, but would definitely support a rename of the entire tree, from Category:Tubists on down, to either Category:Tubaists or Category:Tuba players (no real preference between the two). In other words, don't leave out the parent Category:Tubists by genre or the whole Category:Tubists by nationality tree. Xtifr _tälk 14:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or rename to "tubaists". See comments in the CfD for "Classical tubists" above. Cmadler 19:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I also highly suggest that this debate be merged with the "Classical tubists" debate above, as I can think of nothing less desirable than to have different outcomes between this debate and that one. Xtifr _tälk 00:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (as their initiator) that the debates ought to be merged or synchronised. Moreover I am indifferent between 'tubaists' and 'tuba players' - but 'tubists' seems clearly incorrect (or the least correct) to judge by the above comments.--Smerus 07:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Dr. Submillimeter wrote, on May 1st, "According to Merriam Webster Online, 'tubist' refer to a tuba player," so I don't see how "'tubists' seems clearly incorrect ... to judge by the above comments." -- Rico 18:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  - If you actually check the link he provided, you'll find that both "tubist" and "tubaist" take you to the entry for "tuba", where both terms are listed, but "tubaist" is listed first. Not "clearly incorrect", but by that source, one could argue "least correct". Xtifr _tälk 01:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Two words are listed in a dictionary, but because one is listed first, the other is "least correct"? In the entry for "persuasive", both "persuasively" and "persuasiveness" are listed, but "persuasively" is listed first -- so "persuasiveness" seems clearly incorrect (or the "least correct")? So there are degrees of correctness, and the terms appear in order from "most correct" to "least correct"? -- Rico 05:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      - In general, yes, most dictionaries will list alternate spellings of the same word in order of preference (except in the rare case that there is no preference). Of course, your example of an adverb and a noun is not an example of spellings of the same word, which makes it both silly and beside the point. Xtifr _tälk 20:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well since we can't determine whether or not this is a rare case in which there is no "preference", have we abandoned the idea that "one could argue [that tubist is] 'least correct'," merely because M-W lists tubaist first? -- Rico 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I suggest that no further discussion takes place here and all discussion takes place above. No closing admin would do other than decide the two of these together anyway. Unless some passing uninvolved person would like to take on the task of merging the current two discussions? Bencherlite 08:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Love music albums[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an overcategorization that has no reason to exist other than music that shares the word "love". I love "Love", I hate the category. Delete. Samuel Wantman 07:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete undefined category. Doczilla 07:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated subjects with shared names. (Although at first, I thought this was Category:Love albums, which is a perfectly reasonable category.) Xtifr _tälk 14:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as used and as named useless. A category or list of albums with "Love Songs" in the title might be as useful as Greatest Hits. However this is not what we are looking at. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as undefined/trivia. No objection to a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with strong objection to a list. A list of albums that have nothing in common beyond a shared word in the title is IMHO a WP:NOT#IINFO violation. Otto4711 16:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Disney's Nine Old Men[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete

Delete - small category with no possible growth. The list article Disney's Nine Old Men exists and all of the Old Men are linked to it through their articles. Otto4711 04:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. They're already linked appropriately through the article. Doczilla 07:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main article for the Nine Old Men already works well enough as a navigational hub for the individual bios. Eponymous category isn't necessary. Dugwiki 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with a template Abberley2 10:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Albinos[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 10:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Albinos to Category:People with albinism

Nominator's Rationale: Rename: The term "albino" is generally (though not universally, even by albinistic people) considered offensive when applied to people. New name fits in with other "People with X" categories (e.g. Category:People with multiple sclerosis). However, Category:Albinistic people would also work, per Category:Blind people. I lean toward the former because it stresses that albinism is simply a medical condition, and not like a race or a religion. I'm tempted to say this should be a speedy, per criterion 4, but can't seem to actually find specific mention of either of these conventions, though both are easily observable in the categoryspace. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod 04:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency with other subcats of people by medical/psychological condition. Doczilla 07:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object this would appear to be unnecessary political correctness, unless you have citable sources of this alleged offensiveness? Our article albinism mentions it but this is not sourced. >Radiant< 16:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Regardless of the unsourced offensiveness issue, it is a medical condition and therefore needs to be categorized accordingly for consistency with other medical categories. Doczilla 22:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the same logic should Category:Hunchbacks be renamed Category:People with kyphosis? Or would that be too confusing?--T. Anthony 22:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about that logic, and I have thought about that one many times. You're right to be concerned about the confusion. Although I probably wouldn't oppose renaming the hunchback category, its name would become unclear because too few people know the term kyphosis. Renaming the albino category does not reduce its clarity. Doczilla 18:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply comment: It probably should be sourced in that article (I thought it was; perhaps it is at Albinism in popular culture instead), but this isn't really relevant. A number of the regular editors of the article are albinistic and have stated at the talk page there that they find the term offensive, as it is used as an epethet like "gimp" or "retard". That's enough. The peer-reviewed literature cited in the article also almost uniformly uses the more neutral phrasing (that which doesn't tends to date from the 1970s or earlier). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Sleep On It 21:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ("people considered albinos" anyone?) Prune it down to those albinos who have some historical notability and add such requirement into the category. The current collection of modern artists is next to useless. Pavel Vozenilek 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Fictional albinos[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 10:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional albinos to Category:Fictional characters with albinism

Nominator's Rationale: Rename: The term "albino" is generally (though not universally, even by albinistic people) considered offensive when applied to people. New name fits in with other "Fictional characters with X" categories (per parent cat. Category:Fictional characters with disabilities, as well as Category:Fictional characters with dwarfism, etc.). However, Category:Fictional albinistic characters would also work, per Category:Fictional blind characters. I lean toward the former because it stresses that albinism is simply a medical condition, and not like a race or a religion. I'm tempted to say this should be a speedy, per criterion 4, but can't seem to actually find specific mention of either of these conventions, though both are easily observable in the categoryspace. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod 04:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency with other subcats of people by medical/psychological condition. Doczilla 07:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object as above. >Radiant< 16:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Katsuhagi 21:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, invalid reason for rename, WP should not invent new things because someone does not like something. Pavel Vozenilek 23:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. We're not inventing a darn thing here. We're applying the appropriate medical term and going for consistency with other categories. After all, the main article for this category is Albinism in popular culture. Doczilla 08:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Disturbing tha Peace artists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Listify & Delete. --Xdamr^talk 11:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Disturbing Tha Peace artists, to match Disturbing Tha Peace. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete - per March 6 discussion. I've been meaning to pursue the notion of listifying and deleting these artist by label categories but didn't get to it. Otto4711 03:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non defining, many precedents. Pavel Vozenilek 22:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Organ transplant recipients[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 11:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - receiving a transplanted organ is so common as not to be a defining characteristic. Otto4711 02:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given the list of people in this category whom I did not know had received transplants, the procedure appears to be fairly common. Note, however, that some people may be notable as the first recipients of transplanted organs. However, it does not immediately appear that anyone in this category fits that description. If the category were to be used for the first recipients of transplants, I would recommend renaming the category anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 13:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete unless there are appropriate articles~~Keep but remove inappropriate articles I'd be ok with this category for people who actually have significant portions of their article talking about the organ transplant, such as an article about someone who was a "first recipient" or other groundbreaker, etc. Celebrities who just happen to have a transplant with little significance in the article shouldn't be included, and that seems to be most of the articles here. Dugwiki 16:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on my comment above, the article Philip Blaiberg appears to qualify as a notable organ transplant patient. So there's at least one article that would qualify, anyway. Dugwiki 22:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modified my recommendation to "Keep but remove inappropriate articles". Dugwiki 22:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could you please propose a rename so that not everyone who has ever had a transplant gets listed here? Dr. Submillimeter 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we have things like Category:Aviation pioneers (a name I'm not entirely sanguine about from a definitional standpoint) but for those "first of" transplant people something like that might work, and could also be used to categorize breakthrough researchers in transplantation medicine if that's thought to be valuable. Otto4711 00:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how 0-50 people, per million, could be considered common. At that ratio the average person would go their entire life without ever meeting anyone with transplanted organs. This category will never be overpopulated, and, taken in the context of all medical conditions that Otto has been targeting recently, organ transplant is among the rarest, and also the most well-defined. Compare it to bipolar disorder (certainly common, at an estimated six or more people, per hundred, but with high rate of diagnostic error in both directions, and even competent doctors often disagree), or "people treated for drug addiction" (which only raises more questions: What's really a drug? Who's really an addict? What really counts as "treatment"?) and you might find that organ transplant is the least problematic category in that set. — CharlotteWebb 21:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually, I think this is the first subcategory of the medical conditions category that I've nominated, so I'm not sure that the rather loaded word "targeted" really applies; might want to retract/rethink that since (unless you're suggesting that I'm doing something untoward) the nomination isn't really about me. If you think other categories, such as the treated for drug addiction category, to be problematic, then feel free to nominate them for deletion. But their existence and how "problematic" they may be in comparison to this one doesn't strike me as being particularly relevant or compelling. Otto4711 22:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I did that I would be violating WP:POINT. No thanks. — CharlotteWebb 23:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So...no apology then? Ah well. Otto4711 00:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The statistics at organ transplant indicate that 52 people per million per year receive transplants in the USA. The USA has about 300 million people, so about 15,600 people receive transplants per year. I am not certain of the lifetime of the average transplant recipient, but if it is approximately 10 years, then that means that the USA contains approximately 156,000 people with transplants. Given the large size of this estimate, I am not convinced that this is really a unique characteristic. Dr. Submillimeter 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a tiny fraction of a percent of the general population, which, when intersected with people who are famous for other reasons, yields only a few dozen. — CharlotteWebb 00:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the people are notable for reasons other than being transplant recipients, then this category conveys little information about their notability and just contributes to category clutter. I would advocate deletion in this case. A category would be appropriate for people who are notable specifically for being transplant recipients (as Dugwiki seems to prefer), but the category would need a name that is different from the current name. Dr. Submillimeter 09:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the name as is provided the category description explains what it handles. I might be ok with something like Category:Pioneering organ transplant patients, although theoretically there might be an article about someone who had an organ transplant that is notable because of something unusual (possibly bad) happening in the procedure. For example, you could have a person who made headlines because of serious systemic negligence in the transplant process. Such a person would be a notable transplant patient because of the revealed problems in the process, but wouldn't necessarily be considered a "pioneer" if the transplant was otherwise a routine one. Dugwiki 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an excellent subcategory. — CharlotteWebb 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up Sleep On It 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While having category for really important organ recipients (being the first or discussed in medical literature) may be useful currently there's no chance to keep it clean. Pavel Vozenilek 23:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could Category:Organ transplant test subjects or Category:Experimental organ transplant patients be used as an alternate name? I did not like Dugwiki's suggestion of using "pioneers", which does not quite seem appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also, if a category for the first people who received transplants is wanted, is it better to keep this category and rename it or just to delete this category and start over from scratch? Most of the people in this category are not like Philip Blaiberg, so most would need to be removed if the category is renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 09:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This strikes me as one of the more significant of the people-by-medical-condition categories, which we have otherwise been pruning. A transplant is not just a one-off procedure, but something with lifelong health consequences thereafter, including the possibility of rejection, so it does seem to me to be significant issue. In someone who is otherwise notable, a transplant is like;y to have gained significant coverage, and will usually be a notable aspect of their lives. Additionally, all the fears expressed above about the potential hugeness of the category seem to be unrealised (it currently contains only 35 articles), and it seems to me that CharlotteWeb is right when she notes the 52 per million transplant level and says "That is a tiny fraction of a percent of the general population, which, when intersected with people who are famous for other reasons, yields only a few dozen". I can't see this category sprawling in the way that Dr S suggests. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My concern is not with the category sprawling. My two concerns are that the people in this category are not necessarily notable for being organ transplant recipients and that being a transplant recipient by itself is not necessarily notable. This category could contain 5 or 50000 people, and my opinion would remain unchanged. Dr. Submillimeter 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Footballers from Birmingham[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Merge to Category:People from Birmingham, England/Category:People from Manchester and Category:English footballers per consensus and precedent. --Xdamr^talk 12:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:English footballers, as intersection by location, how is this different than Male models from Dallas? -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and per arguments in the related nomination of Category:Footballers from London and add Category:Footballers from Manchester. Otto4711 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, What purpose does this category serve? Each entry already has an entry (usually) according to their place of birth as well as several relating to their footballing activities, so this category is superfluous. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Merge into Category:People from Birmingham. Punkmorten 08:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:People from Birmingham, England and Category:English footballers. ArtVandelay13 11:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why should there be one for Manchester and not for the second city.RAMTONE 13:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom ~~x 2~~ ~~per ArtVandelay13 for consistency with the result at the related nomination for Category:Footballers from London, to which Otto has already linked.~~ (second thought) Consistency with related nomination = merge with Category:People from Birmingham, England (note that Category:People from Birmingham is a disambiguation category) but merging into Category:English footballers might produce some odd results for non-English footballers! WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't convincing in this argument either. Bencherlite 13:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, It is absurd to suggest that we should have a category for Manchester but not for the capital city London, or for the second largest city Birmingham. Surely the Manchester cat should also be considered for discussion.RAMTONE 13:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree consistency is needed. London: Category:Footballers from London was nominated on April 22 and the consensus was to merge it into both Category:People from London and Category:English footballers. Manchester: Otto4711 (above) has already proposed we do the same for Manchester, although nobody since has specifically commented on this, and I agree we should merge the Manchester category too into Category:People from Manchester. Bencherlite 14:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my arguments for keeping Footballers from London. In short if we really wanted to we could just have a category footballers and a category people from England. But why stop there? Why not just a catch-all category "People". What is the point of categorisation if it doesnt add significant extra meaning (in the form of meta-data) to the article? In this case, having sub-categories (if used effectively) can replace two categories with one. Pit-yacker 13:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - but your "why stop there?" argment works the other way - you could just as easily have Football (soccer) midfielders from Selly Oak or Arsenal F.C. players from Stechford. Neither this, nor what you're suggesting, is being proposed, merely the elimination of this level of categorisation. Footballers' articles are particularly prone to overcategorisation, and as this type of category is specifically advised against in the guidelines, it has to go. ArtVandelay13 10:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - I'll admit as much as there is a conflict here between good organisation and precedent. Precedent dictates that "footballers from <village name>" should be a valid category. However, as I discussed previously in a large city, with in some cases thousands under a people from category (I take people from categories to mean a poorly named "People who were born in ...") the category becomes essentially meaningless for any real purpose and having an extra level of categorisation at that point IMHO makes good sense. Pit-yacker 13:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cat People from Birmingham could become too populated and it is better to have a seperate category.GSR05 09:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:People from Birmingham, England and Category:English footballers GiantSnowman 16:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There should also be one for London, Liverpool. However there is a category for Manchester so common sense suggests there should be one for the big cities.Mackam 23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:People from Birmingham, England and Category:English footballers, and deal likewise with the Manchester category (which is also being discussed here, so arguments based on "why does it get a category" miss the target). The precedent has been set for London, and I see absolutely no reason why Birmingham and Manchester would have a footballer category when London doesn't. Further, I find the arguments presented in the London debate both relevant and compelling. This is overcategorization by excessively-trivial-detail-of-location. Xtifr _tälk 23:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above, into Category:People from Birmingham, England and Category:English footballers. As has been said, the London footballers category precedent was set, and there is no reason therefore why there should be categories for Birmingham and Manchester.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 16:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.