Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 13

< July 12 July 14 >

July 13

Category:Northern Irish accountants

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 to "XXX from Northern Ireland" form. Wrt questions over tagging, in the absence of particular controversy over the substance of the rename, I invoke WP:IAR, WP:BOLD, and all that good stuff as a blanket justification for going a little rogue... --Xdamrtalk 21:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish accountants to Category:Accountants from Northern Ireland
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per title of the head category and this discussion. Also include -


Vintagekits (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2009 (UT

  • All of the subcategories need to be tagged. Otto4711 (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per parent Category:People from Northern Ireland and previous discusssions. Occuli (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all these Northern Irish categories should be renamed from Northern Ireland. Northern Irish isn't an actual official nationality. However saying that, should all Scottish, Welsh and English be renamed from Scotland, England and Wales under the same understanding that they're not official nationalities (UK really is complicated.) Should be one rule for all, not pick and choose. Canterbury Tail talk 13:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is also that Northern Irish notable people have more often moved out of NI than is the case with the other categories, and certainly the English. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all (if tagged) per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all (even if not tagged, per wp:iar) :) Debresser (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the liberty of formatting the list properly in a collapsible box, for ease of use (particularly the closing admin's). BencherliteTalk 22:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged all their sub cats and all their sub cats as well.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are on the fiddle just as much so why not eh!? ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the mentioned discussion. Note that all official and half official administrative bodies use "of Northern Ireland" ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and so on) and that the term "Northern Irish" is almost as good as non-existent.
    ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 01:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These categories are not tagged correctly.
They all say "This category is being considered for renaming to Category:Accountants from Northern Ireland." Carlaude:Talk 07:33, 18 July 2009 (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:Climate change feedbacks and causes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Climate change. --Xdamrtalk 22:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Climate change feedbacks and causes to unknown
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not sure what the target should be, but the name is confusing and for me, ambiguous and POV. Also includes things like Fossil fuels which is not a cause of climate change, using them probably is. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2009 (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:Royal Conservatory of Music alumni

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:
--Xdamrtalk 23:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Royal Conservatory of Music alumni to Category:The Royal Conservatory of Music alumni
Suggest renaming Category:Royal Conservatory of Music faculty to Category:The Royal Conservatory of Music faculty
Nominator's rationale: Jesus, how many duplicates of this category do we need? Alansohn created the target category today. The source category has existed since August of 2007. I suggest merging to Alansohn's version because the "The" seems to be important to the title. But what I would really like us all to do is take a hiatus from creating more alumni cats for this place. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, I'm as guilty as anyone for my initial comment below suggesting that such a category could be created. Oh Bencherlite, can you help us out? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found quite a few faculty. Remember that their article has to mention the Royal Conservatory, which will not be the case for someone who stays for a few months. Occuli (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People with the name Hurricane

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. --Xdamrtalk 01:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People with the name Hurricane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by people who have 'hurricane' as part of their stage name or nick name. — Σxplicit 20:57, 13 July 2009 (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:Arbitrary detention

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. --Xdamrtalk 22:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Arbitrary detention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or Rename - the category is for people whose imprisonment or detention is considered by the United Nations to be arbitrary. There is some precedent for categorizing on the basis of being designated by a state or supernational organization (c.f. Category:Organizations designated as terrorist) but is every declaration of this sort such that it is considered defining, does this open the door for every such declaration to be categorized, and is that a road we want to start down? I have been unable to locate a list of those people whose detention the UN has declared arbitrary and so have no idea how many there are or the likelihood that a large number of them will become independently notable so this may implicate WP:OC#SMALL. If kept, it needs to be renamed because the current name does not accurately describe the scope and contents. Otto4711 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inclusion is a small category and the criteria would be based on opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2009 (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:Detention centres for extrajudicial prisoners of the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Detention centers for extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. --Xdamrtalk 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Detention centres for extrajudicial prisoners of the United States to Category:Detention centers for extrajudicial prisoners of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename - this is for centers for prisoners of the US and should use American English spelling. Otto4711 (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned up some of the people categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2009 (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:Alumni of The Royal Conservatory of Music

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, no point in dragging this one out. Duplicate category accidentally created, empty. BencherliteTalk 21:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alumni of The Royal Conservatory of Music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete: Nominator's rationale: Wait, this category already exists: Category:The Royal Conservatory of Music alumni. What a waste of time, for all concerned. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2009 (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:Cheeses named in Cheese Shop sketch

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. --Xdamrtalk 22:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cheeses named in Cheese Shop sketch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: We don't need a category to classify items mentioned in a single four-minute sketch. A list in the article itself will suffice. This category also runs afoul of WP:OC#SMALL. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's actually not that small, which is the point of the whole thing. But certainly an example of OC trivial, non-defining. And there's not much call for it around here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, whether it's small is debatable, I suppose, though it certainly has no potential for expansion. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given the laundry list of cheeses Cleese runs through, it's certainly not a WP:OC#SMALL issue. That it has little or no room for growth is also irrelevant, as we try to be all inclusive where possible and we've seen deletion arguments based on categories being incomplete. The relevant problem is that it's not a defining characteristic of the cheeses listed. I haven't checked, but I can't imagine any of the articles for any of these cheeses would mention its inclusion in the Cheese Shop sketch as a defining characteristic of the cheese. Nor could I imagine finding the required reliable and verifiable sources showing that any of these cheeses are defined based on their mention in the skit. Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cheeses are in no way defined by having been named in a comedy sketch. Otto4711 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and (more clearly expressed) Otto4711. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Alansohn. Occuli (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Cheese Shop sketch is one of the most famous comedy routines ever done. Just the wikipedia article alone (Cheese shop sketch) includes about fairly well-known 8 parodies and take-offs on the sketch There's 170,000 hits on Google for "Cheese Shop Sketch" The category is entirely factual, there is nothing phony, made-up or malicious about it. People who are interested in the Cheese Shop sketch might easily be interested in some of the 42 cheeses named in the sketch. Please note also that not only are cheeses named by the Hon. John Cleese there are a number of factual statements about the quality of the cheeses (e.g. Camenbert, Jarlsberg, Cheddar and Feta), and one of the funny things about the sketch is the juxtaposition of the accurate things Cleese says about the cheeses with the totally absurd ("Venezuelan Beaver Cheese?"). Worthy of a category to check out the factual statements in the sketch.
Cleese was reported to have actually visited a cheese shop to do research, and I think the list of cheeses is perhaps typical of what a good cheese shop ought to contain. If you wanted, you could print out the list and go down to your local cheese shop and see how they measured up. This would be a perfectly legitimate use of a category and really, the kind of thing I think Wikipedia should encourage.
Also, ALL of the cheeses are already named and described in the wikipedia article Cheese shop sketch. Seems like if its worthy of note to have an article which identifies and describes the cheeses, it's worthy of a category as well. Please note also that some of the cheeses (I believe at least Stilton and Wensleydale were also named in A Grand Day Out, which I guess saved Wensleydale from bankruptcy. A person who was conducting research on the effect of the mention of a cheese in a comic medium might find such a category useful. Or someone who wanted to have a Cheese Shop buffet. Either way, the information is factual, accurate, not malicious (it seems rather more helpful for a cheese to be named in the sketch), and potentially useful. A good reason for a category in my book. Mtsmallwood (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per OVERCAT and the above arguements, the list is contained in the main article and Monty Python simply isn't funny. Lugnuts (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal. Here's a website where a cheese afficionado tackles the task of finding all the cheeses named in the Cheese Shop sketch and gets other similarly minded people to blog about the same. This category would help these folks, and certainly this is evidence that in the popular mind, these cheeses are all linked as a result of having been named in the sketch. Mtsmallwood (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone interested in the cheeses can find a complete list in the article about the sketch. No information is lost by deletion. The question is whether being named in a comedy sketch, even a very popular comedy sketch, is a defining characteristic of the cheese. The standard for categorization is not notability; it's definingness. If you haven't, please read Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help, help, I'm being repressed! I read the category pages already, see nothing wrong here. Don't know what "definingness" is, wuz not on SAT when I took it in 1912. Why for example is Kielbasa defined as part of Category:Chicago Cuisine? There's nothing inherently "Chicago" about Kielbasa. What, does the Kielbasa sing songs from Chicago when the refrigerator door is shut? This is a definite, well-defined category compared to Chicago cuisine.Mtsmallwood (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that kielbasa shouldn't be categorized in a Chicago category, you are free to remove it (calling it "cuisine" is more problematic IMHO; do you know how they make kielbasa?). Regardless, the existence or use of one category has no bearing on whether another category should exist (WP:WAX). Otto4711 (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2009 (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:Alumni of The Royal Conservatory of Music

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Closed, no action needed. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Category:Alumni of The Royal Conservatory of Music Nominator's rationale: Varied mix of famous people have studied at The Royal Conservatory of Music Mjk17 (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question are you here to ask that a category be created? Because you can do that yourself. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've created it for you, but you can do this yourself. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2009 (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:First number-one singles for artist

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. ---Xdamrtalk 22:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:First number-one singles for artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-defining characteristic. Multiple charts and numerous countries in which an artist can have its first number one. Debatably, someone's third number one in the U.S. but first in the UK could be considered the first number-one single for artist and added to this category. Wolfer68 (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overly narrow intersection, loosely defined. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 09:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. difficult to define accurately. feydey (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OCAT by non-defining characteristic. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on! Get with reality! How can this not be defining! I thought that an artist's first number-one would be very important to categorize. What's the problem here exactly? The way i see this, Wikipedia needs a new heart transplant, preferably a heart to keep this category. There is not a prayer, or anything or anybody else in the world that can make me agree with this deletion. Na da! Ryanbstevens (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What is the difference between this and Category:Number-one debut singles which you created several months prior, each with the edit summary "this one can't fail"? That one was kept after an Afd. Why do we need this as a master catergory of that? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number-one debut singles is exactly what it says on the tin: debut singles which reached Number One, which was kept by consensus as a non-trivial intersection of Category:Debut singles and Category:Number-one singles. This category is for the first Number One for the artist in question, which may not always be their first single release, and is more of a gray area. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, got it. Support deleting this category, per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number-one debut singles is a category for debut singles that went to number-one. First number-one singles for artist is for number-one songs that come after a first few singles that didn't go to number-one. For example, Darius Rucker's "Don't Think I Don't Think About It" belongs in number-one debut singles, since it was his debut single, and it went to number-one. Jason Aldean's "Why" belongs in first number-one singles for artists, because it is not a debut single, but rather his "second" single, which went to number-one. If this category is deleted, then i want you all to at least understand the point of this category. I am not a stupid person as i may have become on here. Also, can we do a category called Category:First Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles for artist, which would be a category for first number-one singles for artist on that chart. Ryanbstevens (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you are trying to say about yourself when you write that "I am not a stupid person as i may have become on here," but thank you for taking the time to explain the intention of the category. My vote to delete remains the same. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody in this debate fails to understand what the intention was. But being an artist's first single to hit #1 is not a defining characteristic of the songs. It's not a meaningful or important point of comparison between Achy Breaky Heart and Whose Bed Have Your Boots Been Under?; it's just WP:TRIVIA. And it doesn't become better just because you add extra detail to the category name clarifying which specific chart, either. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this is a little over categorization here. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain the consequence of keeping this category. Are the four horsemen of the apocalypse going to come down if this category is kept? Ryanbstevens (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you're willing to take that chance, but I'm not! Delete to prevent the rise of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. Otto4711 (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia decides whether or not to keep a category based on Wikipedia policy and consensus around categorization, not based on whether or not it's going to bring on the apocalypse. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overly narrow intersection, loosely defined. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does deleting this category do, besides consensous being reached to delete? How will this be a problem to keep? What happens if we keep this category? What are the negatives that keeping this category will cause? Ryanbstevens (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It keeps the bottom of Wikipedia pages from being cluttered up with valueless links to valueless categories. It keeps editors from spending time navigating and maintaining valueless categories instead of using and maintaining valuable categories. Carlaude:Talk 12:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if one who uses Wikipedia finds this category useful? It isn't about wasting time. Deleting this category just to prevent personal stress on something that's only being "considered" useless? This category is being deleted just because the users are bored, and are in the mood to delete this category. The day will never come that i will agree with this deletion. I'll be a dead skeleton in the ground before i agree with deleting this category. What if this category is deleted, and that brings on the apocalypse? Ryanbstevens (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This, from someone who states on his userpage that he would like to be an administrator someday? Looking forward to your RfA. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least i have the courage to participate in this discussion! What i said above is what i said above, yeah, that from an administrator hopeful. That does not make me an idiot! By the way, a category categorizing number-one songs seems useful, doesn't it? Isn't it important to remember the first number-one singles for an artist on any particular chart? I certainly would think so. Uh oh, a meteor! Help! Ryanbstevens (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - leaving aside whether being the first No.1 single in a particular country of the song or the artist is defining, tagging a song as having been the No.1 single of some artist in some country imparts no encyclopedic information. "Oh, Dance My Boogie Off was the first number one single by an unnamed artist in an unnamed country!" does not aid anyone interested in researching number one singles in general, number one singles by country in general or number ones by artist by country. Otto4711 (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overcategorization and a loosely defined characteristic. — Σxplicit 18:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's gonna happen if we keep this category, is it gonna crash our (Wikipedia's) server? Ryanbstevens (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2009 (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:Bender

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Bender, Moldova. --Xdamrtalk 22:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bender to Category:Bender, Moldova
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To resolve ambiguity, since Bender is ambiguous. Article name was recently moved after discussion to Bender, Moldova, so this will also match the category name to the article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is obvious: Bender is a disambiguation, while Bender, Moldova is what I ment when I created the category. Speedy close, we two are the only contributors. Dc76\talk 04:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One opinion in 1 hour and 22 minutes does not make a consensus. Most discussions are open for 7 days. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match the title of the parent article, a rather simple standard to follow. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2009 (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:Faustnh biology categories

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 all. WP:SNOW - No sense letting this very deeply confused/hoax categorisation stick around longer than necessary. -Xdamrtalk 00:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Evolution as biological change adapted to environmental change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Creation of a large number of redundant and poorly-named categories by User:Faustnh. Delete please. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also include:
  • Category:Biological death, redundant with Category:Death
  • Category:Evolution as biological change capability itself, regardless adaption to environmental change - meaningless
  • Category:Death, genetic renovation and birth - mix of topics
  • Category:Organism complexity and the death-genetic renovation-birth process - mix of topics
  • Category:Pregnancy and birth, redundant with Category:Pregnancy and Category:Childbirth
Delete all per nom. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also wondering about Category:Ethology domiculture, Category:Knowledge domiculture, Category:Information domiculture, and Category:Perception domiculture.
I had no idea what those were for either, but I didn't include them in this set as they are out of my area of expertise. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all as either redundant or nonsense. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all and consider blocking this editor, who is adding a superior variety of gibberish to wikipedia. A complete list of new creations in the last few days is: Category:Animal domiculture, Category:Animal motility, Category:Animal technology, Category:Biological death, Category:Clothing technology, Category:Conditionality of animal motility, Category:Construction technology, Category:Death, genetic renovation and birth, Category:Ethology domiculture, Category:Ethology sharing, Category:Evolution as biological change adapted to environmental change, Category:Evolution as biological change capability itself, regardless adaption to environmental change, Category:Health technology, Category:Housing and building technology, Category:Information domiculture, Category:Information sharing, Category:Knowledge domiculture, Category:Knowledge technology, Category:Land domiculture, Category:Land technology, Category:Nutrition domiculture, Category:Nutrition technology, Category:Organism complexity and the death-genetic renovation-birth process, Category:Perception domiculture, Category:Perception sharing, Category:Perception technology, Category:Plant domiculture, Category:Plant technology. Category:Perception domiculture is a good example - it contains various child cats which are also parent cats and appears to be utter nonsense. Occuli (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domiculture = "The art of house-keeping, cookery, etc." what on earth does Category:Perception domiculture and the others mean? Tim Vickers (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of these, please. If any of them is actually useful and desired, then it can be recreated by people who know how to organize things properly. I'd note that they almost all have {{Wikipedia category}} on them as well, meaning that they're meant as internal project categories rather than articlespace categories, but are all organized and filed as articlespace categories — implying to me that Faustnh really doesn't know how we organize these things on here. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with user Tim Vickers's critics on those categories, although I won't try to give reasons for stopping any deletion. If you want to delete those categories and you can, just do it. --Faustnh (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and revert category changes Completely misguided. I stumbled on this after noticing some very odd category adjustments by User:Faustnh. Will someone please explain to the user that you need a lot of experience with the subject matter and with the organization of the categories on Wikipedia before you start happily "Quick-adding category [seems like a good idea] (using HotCat)". Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, please read this: I'm not going to edit categories any more, so you don't need to worry about this. Some people have asked me, as if they had any pesimistic thought about some possible strange intention of mine on category editing. I repeat: I'm not going to edit categories any more. --Faustnh (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this include not making edits like this where you added 4 more or less random parents to Category:Technology? Occuli (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spedy delete In fact, if that is possible, I suggest to archive Category:Evolution as biological change capability itself, regardless adaption to environmental change and Category:Death, genetic renovation and birth as prime examples of how not to name a category. Before creating any category, study very well the category tree, take a deep breath, close the computer and go to lunch, come back and write it on a sheet of paper, and don't touch categories for 2 days. If after 2 days it still all makes sense to you, then you might try. But if you forgot the exact name already during launch... For example, why not Category:Birth, death, and genetic renovation or Category:Birth through death and renovation, genetic :) Dc76\talk 06:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:SNOW, clumsily named. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 11:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, None of you has given a true reason, formally suitable, as well as objectively suitable, about why the categories I have edited should be dismissed, considering the context of all the current treatment given to categories in Wikipedia (which, certainly, is not accurate; just to add that, when I have made category circularities, it's been for indicating category equivalence, and always considering other worse cases seen by me in Wikipedia). All behind this nomination, is simply subjective immature stuff. The categories I introduced were urgently and seriously lacking; their introduction is very beneficial, and their deletion will be a harmful grotesque absurdity. But, as I have said, I'm not going to try to stop any deletion; I would not try to stop you, even if you said you were going to delete the entire Wikipedia. --Faustnh (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does even a single one of those categories you created have an actual articlespace article of the same name describing the concept? Every category (there are a few exceptions) should have an article corresponding to it as the "main" article for that category. Start there. If there is no article, then it probably isn't an urgent and serious loss at all. Each category should have a category description. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that criterion you say is not the best one to consider, according to current Wikipedia's structure. For example (and it is just a single example): "Health technology". I think there's not a specific article for "Health technology", although perhaps something on health technology is indicated in the article that treats Neolithic's technological revolution. Before I edited categories, nothing via categories reflected the fact that "Information technology" (or "Information domiculture"), "Health technology" (or "Health domiculture"), "Food technology" (or "Food domiculture"), "Clothing technology" (or "Clothing domiculture"), "Housing technology" (or "Housing domiculture") and general machine technology, needed to be considered under the parent category of "Technology" (or "Domiculture"; by the way: "Domiculture" = "Domination, Domestication" + "Culture"; don't consider the sense formerly referred). --Faustnh (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case it could help somehow, I've addressed a basic category outline here . --Faustnh (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia operates by consensus; in other words we need to understand what you are doing and then agree with it. I admit that I am none the wiser after reading the 'basic category outline'. What is the difference between Category:Information domiculture and Category:Information technology (another example where you have made each a parent of the other), noting that Information technology is an article whereas domiculture was not mentioned at all in wikipedia (except in Roger Cribb) until very recently? Occuli (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • I understand, and I see as a great thing, as well as a logical thing, that one of the fundamental operation principles of Wikipedia is consensus. Without consensus and standardisation capability, there's NOTHING about intelligent progress and all those things. I also think, and I know you will perfectly understand, that consensus and standardisation must revolve around, and must compass, knowledge contents themselves, so that consensus shouldn't change, destroy or simply ignore those contents. Many times I have noticed, as you'll also have probably done, that this question is latent in Wikipedia, and it would be great that, progressively, an appropriate balance between consensus and knowledge contents were reached. Of course I admit and realize that, for instance, the category edition I performed is criticisable, and if you have any critic, you are expected to express it. It is a necessary (and logical) part of the process. I edited those categories as a contribution, and at the time I did so, it was not for imposing anything or expecting that no critics or rejection would be done. Finally, just to let myself be consequent some times in Wikipedia, I've posted the basic category outline, with the same spirit of contribution and of acceptance and understanding of Wikipedia function. In case that any implementation of this outline were raised, I hope you appreciate it shouldn't need to be something like a traumatizing disturbing task. Be water. But I don't want to say things you all perfectly know. --Faustnh (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


After reading the "outline" I'm also none the wiser, and I'm not even better informed! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, Greg, Occuli. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all categories created by this user, whom I am now indefinitely blocking for disruptive editing.  Sandstein  20:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_13&oldid=1144513726"