Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 19



Category:People by drama school in 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: Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * people by drama school in the united states


 * Nominator's rationale: This should be deleted as WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION, as well as its subcat. It is the only "People by (school type) in the United States" type category and I think it is a bad precedent to set. Tavix | Talk  22:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The nominated category doesn't appear to serve a purpose at the moment, but its subcategory Category:Alumni by drama school in the United States is part of the Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States structure, and looks okay. - Eureka Lott 13:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – and find/create the respective 'People' categories for the various schools (the companion to 'Foo alumni' is 'Foo faculty'). Eg Category:Juilliard School people, which was at large. Occuli (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a strong possiblity for Category:People by medical school in the United States and Category:People by law school in the United States.  What we really need is a general ruling on whether all people should be split out from the various school cats into people cats.  That needs to be done urgently in some cases if school cats should not contain people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2011 (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:People from Tuvalu

 * 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. We don't split country categories this way. In our categories, country residents are all "(X) people," and lower-level administrative division residents are "People from (X)." I'm not sure we have a compelling reason to do it this way, but if we're going to change it, it likely won't be started with Tuvalu.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Tuvalu to Category:Tuvaluan people
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge I can see how one might perhaps make a distinction between Tuvaluan people in Tuvalu and members of the diaspora but Category:Tuvaluan diaspora already exists. Pichpich (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Completely redundant to Category:Tuvaluan people. Merge is unnecessary since all the articles are already categorized in appropriate subcategories of Category:Tuvaluan people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Creator's rationale: Category:Tuvaluan people implies the person is either born in Tuvalu or is a citizen of Tuvalu (entitled to a Tuvaluan passport). Category:Tuvaluan diaspora addresses Tuvaluans who live in other countries. In my opinion Category:Tuvaluan people is not appropriate for nationals of other countries (palagi) who live/lived in Tuvalu. The use of “Immigrants to __” has a specific connotation, which may not be appropriate. The use of ‘from’ is a neutral term that, in my opinion, does not imply nationality or intention to migrate.  I created the category because I noticed that “People from __” categories existed in relation to other Pacific countries.  The use of a category of “People from __” allows both Category:Tuvaluan people and other people who live/lived in Tuvalu to sit in the same category. MozzazzoM (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But all of the people in are apparently of Tuvaluan nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * People who lived for some limited time in Tuvalu yet weren't born there or never acquired citizenship can't reasonably be considered as "from Tuvalu" anyways. Pichpich (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Creator's rationale: permanent residence in a country (without being born there or acquiring citizenship) can reasonable qualify a person to be described as "People from _". While all of the people currently in are of Tuvaluan nationality, there are other categories of "People from_" that list nationals (islanders) and Europeans (palagi) who, at some point in time, were permanent residents on a Pacific Island. MozzazzoM (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2011 (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:Scientists of Medieval Islam

 * 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, though delete the empty chemists category. I'll close this as something of a continuation of my earlier close in this regard. There does not seem to be enough desire to overturn this at this time, though certainly there's room for more debate on this name. Deletion doesn't seem likely to be endorsed, though. (The "rename" proposal below endorses the concept of these categories, but argues for "of the countries of medieval Islam," which is something that could easily gain traction. Or maybe, "of medieval Islamic countries.")--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Category:Scientists of medieval Islam, Category:Astrologers of medieval Islam, Category:Astronomers of medieval Islam, Category:Geographers of medieval Islam, Category:Mathematicians of medieval Islam, Category:Chemists of medieval Islam (added later)
 * Nominators Rationale. This category has a tendency to have Jewish and Christian scientist in it who do not belong.  It is much better to keep the old categories by nationality plan, and avoid these almost but not quite religious categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I found one person who was a Jew born in Barcelona more than 200 years after the Christian reconquest of that place. The creator of these categories seems to be POV pushing for Spain to be considered part of "Medieval Islam" even long after areas were under Christian kings.  The notions behind these categories are suspect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Jewish person you are referring to is Abraham bar Hiyya. Contrary to your claims, the medieval Islam science categories were not introduced by me, rather the article was already tagged with Category:Islamic mathematics and Category:Islamic astronomy. My only work was to replace those with Category:Mathematicians of medieval Islam and Category:Astronomers of medieval Islam.
 * Besides, these categories contain hundreds of scholars that lived in a scientific culture that spanned many centuries across great regions so I don't think using the debatable categorization of one person as a valid argument for the claim that it's a "POV pushing" agenda. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This was discussed fairly recently (Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2). The categories may need cleanup and may lend itself to POV pushing. But they're not and shouldn't be understood as quasi-religious: they refer to a specific and fairly long period of intense and transnational intellectual activity in the Islamic world. I'm more than ready to listen to alternative names for the categories but deletion is not an option. Pichpich (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2. Islam here does not refer to the religion. —Ruud 15:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep "Scientists in Medieval Islam" = "Scientists in Medieval Islamic civilization" as used by scholars of the field. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If this means "Scientists in Medieval Islamic civilization" than we should name the category "Scientists in Medieval Islamic civilization".John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep the Islam referred to is Islamic civilization, not the Islamic religion. The category names are consistent with corresponding article names.-Aquib (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an unjustified use of Islam, Islam refers to the religion. This is a confusing and not easily justified method of categorizing people.  This is especially true because medieval culture in Timbuctu and Delhi is very different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename per the "Proposal to reach consensus" in the Cfd on Category:Physicians of medieval Islam, which also affects these categories. (I have also added a further category (Chemists) to this discussion, as indicated above.) Davshul (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Al-Andulusi went and deleted the Cfd banners from all these categories. This is part of a consistent set of actions that violate wikipedia policy on his part.  I would also note that the "keep" vote above my last comment is unsigned.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If we do keep this category we ought to at least rename it so it is obviously not limited to people who are Muslims if that is the intent. Even Al-Andulusi admits that the category means something that can be expressed more correctly in another phrase.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * delete there are far too many of these categories William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by too many of these? Your comment suggests merging to some target but what would you suggest? Category:Scientists of medieval Islam is also nominated for deletion so I'm guessing this is not what you favour. Pichpich (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * comment I just removed a living person from one of these categories. When exactly does "Medieval Islam" end?  These categories seem to be not well defined.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Islamic mathematics and Arabic mathematics are modern historical terms for the mathematical sciences in Islamic civilization from the beginning of Islam (A.D. 622) until the 17th century." That you are ignorant of its definition does not mean it is ill defined. —Ruud 22:25, 25 May 2011 (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:Danish Ministers of Clime and Energy

 * 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) 02:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Danish Ministers of Clime and Energy to Category:Danish Ministers of Climate and Energy
 * Nominator's rationale: typo -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename. Typos can be speedied. Neutralitytalk 23:55, 19 May 2011 (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:French rock

 * 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:French rock music. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * french rock


 * Nominator's rationale: Already covered by Category:French rock music groups and Category:French rock musicians. doom gaze   (talk)  15:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:French rock music, subcat of Category:Rock music by nationality, parent of the above named and possibly others (cf Category:Canadian rock music). Occuli (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename sounds ok but Category:Canadian rock music should most definitely not be thrown in there. This is a "by nationality" category, not "by language" and this is also the focus of the article French rock, i.e. rock produced in France and mostly but not necessarily in French. There are French bands who sing in English (e.g. Stuck in the Sound). Pichpich (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I merely meant that Category:Canadian rock music is a well-developed examplar. Occuli (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean I wrote all that for nothing? :-) Pichpich (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment this needs more renaming, since it is unclear that this is not about French-language rock or French-ethnic rock, rather than French-national rock. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The current system is to distinguish these categories using the French/French-language distinction. For instance Category:French films versus Category:French-language films and this is also true of Category:English films versus Category:English-language films. I don't think it's a problem so long as the intro sentences of the category explain the distinction. Pichpich (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The current system promotes ambiguous names. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2011 (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:Jessica Lange

 * 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) 08:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * jessica lange


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Per numerous precedents, there's no need for an eponymous category. (See the relevant guideline) Pichpich (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and not likely to b populated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2011 (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:Famous body parts

 * 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:Body parts of individual people. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Famous body parts to Category:Notable body parts
 * Nominator's rationale: Comparing the recent debate in Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_12, the issues are that "famous" is an ambiguous term. Curb Chain (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Honestly, both choices are bad. I don't know who thought of the "Individual animals" solution but I thought it was a fairly clever way around the problem. Of course Category:Individual body parts doesn't really work. I'd love to have a third option but if we need to choose between "notable" and "famous", I think the latter is closer to the intended meaning. Pichpich (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Famous is a culturally loaded term: I don't think that would work at all.Curb Chain (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Notable is just as loaded though. Pichpich (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No it is not because notable means that it has be discussed in secondary sources. Famous means that certain person(s) considers it better than others for some reason.Curb Chain (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're confusing the Wikipedia meaning of "notable" with its actual definition. They've become quite different (notably different) but 99% of our readers, if not more, have never read WP:GNG. If anything, famous is more objective than notable: you can sort of hope to measure how well something is known but establishing that something is remarkable inevitably requires subjectivity. Pichpich (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Our wikipedia culture does not use the word "famous". Notable is more common than the word famous; thus, renaming it to notable is more hamonizable than the other world "famous".Curb Chain (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is precisely my point. The last thing we want is to start naming categories based on common usage in the Wikipedia namespace. Using a specific term because it makes sense to Wikipedia insiders is a particularly bad idea. We're building this project for readers, not longtime editors. Pichpich (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But like I said, famous is cultural, notable means there is something that has been noted, not pandering to a specific culture.Curb Chain (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Alternative suggestion. What about Category:Body parts of individual people? Neutralitytalk 23:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Body parts of individual people sounds good to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a stretch to say that it sounds good but I could live with that. I still have a slight preference for the status quo. Pichpich (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The "to me" part of that sentence makes it not a stretch at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this suggestion if notable does not pass.Curb Chain (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * GO's suggestion is best here; otherwise keep. I've removed Darwin's tubercle. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2011 (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:Wikipedians on Mars

 * 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: Speedy deleted on creator's request (non-admin close). Pichpich (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * wikipedians on mars


 * Nominator's rationale - Delete - Joke category, which violates our policy for user categories. VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per wp:not.Curb Chain (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Author's delete I never understood that joke categories could be created! I'm sorry if this caused any confusion. Jaguar (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2011 (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:Wikipedians of Swedish descent

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * wikipedians of swedish descent


 * Nominator's rationale - Delete - "Wikipedians by descent" category, which were all previously deleted here. VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as cruft.Curb Chain (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2011 (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:Matiene

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * matiene


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one article after nearly three years. Mike Nassau (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2011 (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.