Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 19



Category:Gifted people

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * gifted people


 * Nominator's rationale: How is being gifted supposed to be objectively measured? This is a POV and OR magnet. Dismas |(talk) 16:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - this is a hopelessly subjective concept, inherently unsuitable for a category.  Cgingold (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. cf38  talk  18:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, could be applied to anyone with any above average skills or qualities. Which is probably true of most people who merit articles...  Postdlf (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, somebody is gifted which has an IQ Above 130. In the category Gifted are a lot op people plus articles related to the subject gifted. This is a way to organize this (gifted) category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freek Verkerk (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining the discussion, Freek Verkerk. (please remember to "sign" your comments with 4 tildes: ~ ) The problem is that there is no single, simple definition of "giftedness". Having an IQ above 130 is one definition, but it's not agreed upon by everybody. That leaves it wide open for editors to use any definition they like -- which is why I said that it was "a hopelessly subjective concept, inherently unsuitable for a category". I hope that helps. Cgingold (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment but people have gifts, though have low IQ, idiot savants for instance. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Totally not well-defined. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In every day language, being gifted is not well defined; it can refer to a sportsman, musician or whatever, but in this wikipedia the definition is clear. And giftedness is very well defined; an IQ of 130 or more.The people in this category where first in the category giftedness which has the same problem with how well defined the category is. The people in this category are mostly well above the level of 130. I made this category to make a division between the gifted people in the Giftedness category and the other articles Freek Verkerk (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just change the title of the category to something less subjective? People with 130+ IQ is inappropriate, but maybe you can come up with a solution? Biologicithician (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Even the accuracy of IQ scores is not universally accepted though. Dismas |(talk) 02:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if we accepted the idea that gifted people have an IQ >= 130 idea, this would be impossible to verify. These (confidental) records are not published... and it would be a matter of people claiming they have such an IQ... even if that information could be found. -- Carlaude (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The inclusions in this category seem to imply POV and we don't really have criteria on who to exclude. This category serves as a random collection of bios. Dimadick (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete POV category, random assignment. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Undefined, POV, could mean anything! -Duribald (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- inclusion or exclusion would be pure POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom complete violation of our NPOV policy. JBsupreme (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:C-Class Indian music articles of unknown-importance

 * 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 (currently empty). Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * c-class indian music articles of unknown-importance


 * Nominator's rationale: The C Class is not used by Wikipedia Indian music project guidelines and template. VasuVR  ( talk,  contribs ) 09:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete per nom. LegoKontribsTalkM 01:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:2000s New Wave revival bands

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:2000s New Wave revival bands to Category:Post-punk revival music groups.
 * Nominator's rationale: The genre these bands belong to is referred to as Post-punk revival on Wikipedia, and as this movement started in the 2000s, there is currently no need for decade divisions. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename The nominator's rationale makes sense, keeping to naming conventions in other music entries. BookhouseBoy (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:St. Paul Apostles players

 * 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 as empty; change to Category:St. Paul Saints (UA) players already made. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:St. Paul Apostles players to Category:St. Paul White Caps players
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Bring into line with team page at St. Paul White Caps. Dewelar (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename - Retrosheet.org and MLB.com have them named as the St. Paul Saints, baseball-reference.com has them as the Apostles or as the White Caps, and baseball-almanac.com have them named at the White Caps. 19th century baseball team names are all over the map, even when using "official" reliable sites such as these.  To me, using either St. Paul Saints or St. Paul White Caps would be better uniform than the current Apostles. My preference would the St. Paul Saints as it is used by both retrosheet.org and MLB.com, but either way, uniform is best.Neonblak (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would have no objection to the renaming of both the category and the team page to Saints, if someone were so ambitious to undertake it. -Dewelar (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is no objections, I can move both to Saints, since I'm the one that created the bad category name to begin with. When I created it, I only used baseball-reference for a source.Neonblak (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed everything over to St. Paul Saints, so this category St. Paul Apostles can be deleted.Neonblak (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Category content has been moved. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:FBI agents convicted of racketeering

 * 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 and upmerged to Category:FBI agents with criminal convictions; Category:People convicted of racketeering. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * fbi agents convicted of racketeering


 * Nominator's rationale: Only one article is a part of this unnecessary category. Ipsenaut (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for now, and upmerge article to both parent cats.  Cgingold (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete one-article intersection category. --Soman (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and remember as a great example of overcategorisation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unfortunately it isn't overcategorisation. Someone uses the category to spotlight a case he finds interesting and never bothers to check if anyone else fits. Such one-note categories should be avoided. Dimadick (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.