Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 23

< October 22 October 24 >

October 23

Fort Lauderdale Strikers

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/delete as nominated. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 07:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is turning into a complete mess now. There's already a discussion similar to this one both here and here. There are two problems here. One, it's not following the primary topic. And two, this is a clear case of overcategorization. – Michael (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all - one club should have one category. GiantSnowman 08:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all - unnecessarily confusing, unclear how this overcategorisation would be helpful to anyone who was not already extremely familiar with the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all - "One club, one category" should be the principle. Each club could have a seasons category and a players category, but without any split for any change in franchise, unless relocated to a new city and with a new name. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI Comment Category:Washington Darts (1967-69) players and Category:Washington Darts (1970–71) players were create outside of process by recategorizing pages on Category:Washington Darts (ASL) players and Category:Washington Darts players respectively (which I had reversed). After that I closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 20#Category:Washington Darts (ASL) players and merged Category:Washington Darts (ASL) players to Category:Washington Darts players. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Philosophy academics

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. There is a broad agreement that there may be some redundancy in the categorisation of philosophers, but less agreement about what the effects would be of the proposed merges.
The nominator notes that the issues raised here apply to many other intellectual disciplines as they intersect with the categories for scholars, academics, and writers. The nominator hoped that this discussion would provide a model for how to categorise those other disciplines, but that has not happened. So I suggest an RFC to discuss the whether there is some systematic way to resolve the apparent redundancy in these parts of the category tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories seem redundant and Category:Philosophers and Category:American philosophers are the dominant categories. I'm presenting them all as one proposal but consider each one separately. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 15:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Philosophy is one where those who do it are the academics, or at least the line is fuzzy at best. This makes no more sense than having Category:History writers and Category:History academics. The common terms are historians and philosophers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of these duplications I hope to bring up over the next month. For example, we have "scholars" categories, "academics" categories and then categories for people in specific disciplines (i.e. scientists, sociologists, linguists, ethnomusicologists). But I'm still discerning what the distinctions are between these categories before proposing more mergers. Liz Read! Talk! 17:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge American category per nom. Merging the other two to Category:Philosophers should not do (save as a temporary solution), because it is a container category, at the head of a well-developed tree and with the instruction that all articles should be moved to sub-cats. For the moment we might merge Category:Philosophy writers into Category:Philosophy academics, because I doubt there are many non-academic writers. However in the longer term, the category(ies) should be emptied and then abolished. Perhaps the nest solution may be to merge per nom, and leave the project to distribute the contents. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Peterkingiron, that this decision would be greatly helped by input from Editors with WikiProject Philosophy. But I've posted a lot of CfD notices at different WikiProject's Talk Pages and it has not generated a lot of feedback. I'm not sure how active some of them are. I hope that some folks will come over here and give us their opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 17:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Philosophy is an area where there are a lot of pretenders (i.e. people who write on the subject matter with absolutely no formal education in the area.) The "writers" category served to distinguish between academically accepted writers and the pretenders. They certainly should not be merged in the least. Greg Bard (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What formal education in phylosophy did Aristotle have? I do not think wikipedia should be in a position of labeling people "pretenders".John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is completely moot. Aristotle is accepted as a philosopher by other academic philosophers. I absolutely think Wikipedia's WikiProject Philosophy should be in the business of designating who is and is not a philosopher, and by that I mean academically accepted as a credible source on the subject matter. This is what all WikiProjects do, and should do in their various subjects. You don't think WikiProject Mathematics rigorously and conspicuously identifies pseudomathematicians? Get a clue. Greg Bard (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I've been going through philosopher bios this week, I can see your point, Greg Bard. There are individuals who are categorized as philosophers who actually are, say, political scientists or who write about social causes. But I think that problem can be addressed by removing writers who are not actually philosophers (meaning they have published work in the field of philosophy) from the category.
Was it only the Writers category merge that you objected to? Liz Read! Talk! 17:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this category is merged, the only thing that is going to happen, is that all of these "philosophy writers" will be removed from the philosophers category. It won't be a merge, it will be an effective deletion. The category exists so as to keep these people separate from the philosophers. Greg Bard (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if writing about philosophy "legitimizes" a philosopher, prove it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. The existence of this category doesn't imply any legitimization at all. It's the opposite. They are in that category so as to keep them out of legitimate philospher categories. Greg Bard (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And who exactly are we do go around categorizing some as legitimate philosophers and others as not such? This seems to be inherently POV-pushing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't feel competent yourself to do it, then please do not interfere with those of us who do. You seem to have no regard for philosophy as an academic discipline as capable of even identifing who is a philosopher and who isn't. No other academic area has this problem, and there is no reason why there should be a problem in the philosophy department. That is, provided that people with no special expertice or education in the area of philosophy don't insert themselves into the discussion. I'm sorry but that really is the only problem in the philosophy department. Greg Bard (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In history, we do not claim that some people who write history are "not historians", we accept that everyone who writes history is a historian. Everyone who writes up a philosophy is a philosopher. As I said before, what academic training has Socrates?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about having academic "training," but rather academic acceptance. You are completely wrong about historians and philosopher, and I would invite you to have a discussion with some academics on these issues. That is, after all, where we should be taking our cues for all Wikipedia content. Greg Bard (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Regarding merging Category:Philosophy writers with Category:Philosophers, this seems wrong. Some people are primarily identified by themselves and others as a "Philosopher". This is not true of every writer who writes something that can be considered "Philosophy" but whose primary identity is not "Philosopher" and whose work is not primarily writings on philosophy. Ayn Rand is a good example. She seems primarily concerned with other issues such as political issues.
According to the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories". This seems like a good way for going forward. Before anything so drastic as these mergers is done, some thoughtful consideration is needed.
As far as merging Category:Philosophy writers into Category:Philosophy academics, what is the general practice? To me Category:Philosophy academics indicates those who are primarily scholarly writers associated with an academic department, publish in scholarly journals for example. However, in many fields e.g. Stephen Hawkings publish for those in his profession as well as writing for the general public. But I would not consider him as in Category:Public physicists Soranoch (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Please close this discussion as "no consensus." This was a bit of a "drive by" proposal by a prolific editor with no special relation to the subject of philosophy. While the vast majority of this editor's contributions in the area of philosophy were just wonderful, there were a few which were reverted. These categories serve a useful purpose in the philosophy category tree. There are some people who are notable philosophy academics who primarily teach at universities, but have not published any substantial philosophical writings beyond their thesis for their degrees. There are also nonacademic, nonscholarly philosophical writers who cannot be called philosophers. To lose these categories would be a substantial loss. Greg Bard (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not limited to contributions by experts, and the attempts to claim those with "no specific expertise in the field of philosophy" should bow to the elitist assumptions of those who feel they have an expertise and can define what philosophy is, is disturbing. We already decided we would not have a category for "pseudo-philosopbhers", this really feels like an attempt to recreate that category under a different name. If there is no pseudo-philosophy, than anyone who formulates a philosophy is by definition a philosopher.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be perfectly clear: you are absolutely wrong about the idea that just any person who thinks and writes is a philosopher. That isn't how it works. Not anyone who writes about history is considered to be a historian, and we look to the academic historians to say who is and who is not. It is true that any person can edit and make proposals on Wikipedia. That is why we need to be extra careful and have some standards, for the sake of the credibility of the project.

Greg Bard (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who writes a history is a historian. Wikipedia is not a place to enforce guild rules for professions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't the place where it is being done. It is done in peer-reviewed journals, and other scholarly and academic works. It is the proper role of Wikipedia to respect that. Terri Hatcher isn't a philosopher just because she wrote a book about her philosophy, and Bill O'Reilly isn't a historian just because he used his fame to sell books. Greg Bard (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Okay this has been here for a while and I am getting nervous. I am pretty sure at least one vote above was in support of merging the American academics only (with which I would be fine.) However, the writers and academics category should be left alone. Greg Bard (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Duke men's basketball season 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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 07:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:1995–96 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team
  • Category:2002–03 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team
  • Delete all because these are pointless. (1) No articles will ever be put in these categories. (2) Nobody searches for team seasons via categories. (3) They were clearly made in error by an inexperienced user. (4) It goes against convention to have these. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We have a seasons category. These are cat-redirects which are clearly unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:John Galea albums

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 per WP:CSD#C1 (the articles were deleted). Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:John Galea albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category - only two articles (both at AfD). If becomes useful in the future, it can be easily recreated. Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close – no need for a cfd. If either article survives afd, the category stays; if not the category is empty and can be speedily deleted after 4 days of emptiness. Oculi (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the fact that they are at AfD is simply an aside - no need for a category which can only contain two entries. Boleyn (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not an aside. There is no way Category:John Galea albums could be deleted at cfd if John Galea survives afd and one of his albums also survives. (Part of an established category scheme, Category:Albums by artist; "Please note that all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded".) Oculi (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:John Galea songs

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 per WP:CSD#C1 (the article was deleted). Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:John Galea songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category (only one entry, and that is at AfD). Not a useful category at present; can be recreated if it later becomes useful. Boleyn (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close – no need for a cfd. If the article survives afd, the category stays; if not the category is empty and can be speedily deleted after 4 days of emptiness. Oculi (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the fact that it is at AfD is simply an aside - no need for a category which can only contains one entry. Boleyn (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gondola lifts

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. Well it was nominated as a C1, but is not empty. Clearly could be a WP:SNOW close and finally the nominated category was not tagged. If anyone thinks this should be deleted, you are free to renominate after correctly tagging the nominated category and providing a valid reason. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not orphaned (what does that mean for a category?), it's not empty (WP:CSD C1) and it's not tagged. DexDor (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – a particularly bizarre nom. Oculi (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- well populated, not empty; and not orphaned. Clearly a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_23&oldid=1090391412"