Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 16



Category:Longevity traditions

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Longevity traditions to Category:Longevity myths
 * Nominator's rationale: The main article here seems to be longevity myths. It's not clear to me where the distinction between this category and Category:Longevity claims is but that one I'm listing for deletion. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Partially Support Renaming Believe it or not, but I partially agree with Ricky here. A myth is by definition "an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true". The maximum human lifespan is believed to be somewhere in the 120-129 range . So all claims exceeding an age of 130(≥ 130) are to be considered as "myths". The others (< 130) should be considered as "claims", since they are still within the realm of possibility. 930310 (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment are we finally going to take that step to label biblical content as "myth" - as much of this category's contents are biblical and other faith-based accounts - I'm not saying that it's appropriate or not, but we ought think it through a little better than where this is headed. As WP tries to be super-sensitive to people's beliefs, labeling canonical ones (as opposed to non-canonical religious stories like Santa Claus) as "myths" seems a rather momentous step and not one to be taken lightly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should put them all under claims? Assuming we actually need a category at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename or Upmerge This name proposal would be an improvement. I also think upmerging to Category:Longevity claims (which appears unlikely to be deleted, below) would work. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alternative to split between Category:Longevity myths over 130 years old and Category:Longevity claims under 130 years old, per User:930310. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, longevity myths was merged here following a 2006 discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment -- 930310's definition of myth is its popular use. There is also a more technical one, which is about religious truths that may or may not have a basis in fact.  The fact that something is described as a myth does not mean that it may not have a factual basis.  Some longevity claims are the result of ages not being recorded.  If a person who was in fact 75 was described as being 100-years old and in fact lived to be a century old, they would be perceived to be 125 years old.  No doubt other causes of exaggeration can be found.  The further back from the present we get, the less birth dates were officially recorded, so that the room for error is much greater.  I wonder whether the best course might not be to merge with Category:Longevity claims, it is then for the reader to decide what is and is not credible, rather than us having an arbitrary cut-off at 130.  There may be some cases where articles need to be returned to a myth category, but cases of poor counting and exaggeration belong in "claims".  However Methusalah and the first Japanese emperor do perhaps belong in myths.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Even then, Methusalah is still a longevity claim regardless of whether or not it's a myth. Myth may be not neutral versus noting that all these people have claims of longevity. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Methusalah doesn't have proof of ever having existed in the first place, so he's a mythological being. 930310 (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Except his details are recorded in the Bible which is regarded by Billions as a historical document. It is a stronger claim then many of the more recent claims to long life have~with missing or non-existent documentation. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also regarded by many as a book of fairy tales. This "historical document" has stories with talking snakes. 969 years old? It's got no basis in reality whatsoever. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Take your anti-Jewish/Christian/Muslim bias elsewhere. Your post is truly offensive. Legacypac (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How about you take your anti-science bias elsewhere. What I find offensive is that you consider a claim to 969 from an ancient religious text to be more reliable than modern claims to 110-120. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I consider a claim passed down through a best selling book for thousands of years that many people believe to be true to be more reliable then most claims to living 120 years recently. Legacypac (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support renaming this category. Legacypac (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2015 (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:Longevity claims

 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 10:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting longevity claims


 * Nominator's rationale: This categorization is WP:OR, separating claims entirely on the lack of approval by a specific set of sources (namely Guinness or the GRG). We wouldn't have a category for "Greatest films not considered for an Academy Award" (an article maybe but not a category) so it seems like WP:SYNTHESIS to create a group of people (after a particular age, we don't have centenarians here) based on the fact that a particular reliable source hasn't stated something about them. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Deletion The GRG, IDL and Guinness are all considered as reliable sources that verify claims based on existing documentation. Undocumented claims are usually not mentioned by these organisations because nobody (except maybe they themselves) knows how old they actually are. There is an extremely remote possibility that their claimed ages, when it comes to people < 130, are actually true. Since their ages can neither be proven nor refuted they are still claims. One day documentation might be discovered that will tell whether the person actually is/was the age claimed. So for now the category should remain. 930310 (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep we are not passing on whether the claims are real or myth, merely that they are made and are notable, akin to Category:Self-declared messiahs and Category:Jewish Messiah claimants, the contents of which presumably cannot be all true (reminds of lyrics of Industrial Disease (song) where several folks at speakers corner claim to be Jesus, but I digress). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So would all the non-categorized people be claimants and then we can separate them based on the organization? We don't have a "World's Most Beautiful Woman" but categories based on which organization (Miss World, Miss Universe, etc) consider them as such. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You miss the point, it's not about what organization buy the claim and which don't. It's whether the claim itself is notable under the WP:GNG. If President Obama went on the air to claim to be 150 years old, every news agency would cover it - all would debunk it (except perhaps those needing to explain missing birth certificates, perhaps). But alas, the claim would be sufficiently notable to merit coverage and get categorized regardless if the birthers believe it or not or whether Guinness is among those to reject the claim. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep As noted above, the GRG, IDL and GWR are all considered reliable sources on the subject of longevity. The oldest age verified by these organisations is 122. Whereas many longevity claims are to ages 130+, most of which have absolutely no doumentation to support such a extraordinary claim. Hence, the Category:Longevity claims should be kept, to inform users as to which claims have supporting documentation, and those that are likely false, and used mainly to attract media attention.  Bodgey5     (talk)   18:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't do this for anything else. We don't take on certain statements and categorize them entirely on the basis of whether or not certain other "really reliable" source believe them or not. Further, there's no sources on those pages that the GRG, IDL or Guinness have expressly deny the truth of those claims. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For the millionth time, this is not about "reliable" and "really reliable" sources, it's about sources which verify claimants and are experts/authorities in the subject area, and those which are not. If Guinness World Records and the GRG recognise a 116 year old as the world's oldest person, and then a newspaper report comes out and says "person X is 117 years old", then we have conflicting information, don't we? So what do we do here, do we give both sources equal weight? WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV tell us more weight should be given to Guinness World Records/GRG in this instance. That particular individual should, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, only be considered a "longevity claim" (i.e. this source says they're 117 but they're not officially verified/recognised by an authoritative body). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep If I say "I'm 130", that doesn't make me 130. The very fact that organisations like the GRG and Guinness World Records have to verify longevity claimants shows that not all longevity claims are genuine. Where do you suggest we stop assuming that a claim is true? 150? 200? 1000? The point of Wikipedia is that it's based on outside sources, and outside sources exist (i.e. GRG and GWR, who are widely-recognised as authorities in this subject area) who verify claims. If someone claims to be 130 and no reputable body has verified that their age is true, then it should only be considered a claim. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What are all the sources that "verify claimants"? How many are there and does it have to be unanimous? If Guiness does but the GRG does not or the IDL does but the others don't, how do we resolve it? Best two out of three? Just as long as one approves, we're good? What is one approved it before but retracted it? Does that retroactively change it? The point is, this is all just guesswork as to who isn't a claimant. Technically, isn't every person a claimant? And we could have have categories for Category:List of people considered supercetenarians by the Guinness Book of World Records and the like? We don't have a category for "Best picture" but one for "Academy Award winner for Best Picture" because we identify it by the organization and don't just argue about facts. If no reliable sources support these claims, why are there here anyways? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and perhaps merge in the myths/traditions item (the next CFD above). A lot of the older cases are so ancient that absolute verification is impracticable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2015 (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:Piano rock 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: speedy delete per G4. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting piano rock songs


 * Nominator's rationale: Further creation of a discredited "genre" There is no "piano rock" genre. You can play rock on a piano, but you can also play it on any other instrument, too. Should any band/song that is generally styled as rock and contains a keyboard be classified as "Piano rock?" No of course not. Richhoncho (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * PS. Here's some previous delete discussions :-
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_8
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_24
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_7
 * A previous related category which covers 4 "Piano rock" categories:-
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_13
 * --Richhoncho (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2015 (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:Myanmar Buddhists

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Myanmar Buddhists to Category:Burmese Buddhists
 * I'm also nominating these related Categories for deletion as well


 * Propose merging Category:Rakhine Buddhists to Category:Burmese Buddhists
 * Propose merging Category:Burmese Buddhists by ethnicity to Category:Burmese Buddhists
 * Nominator's rationale: we rarely organize people by ethnicity and religion and it looks pretty irrelevant here. I don't know what ethnicity "Myanmar" referring to (I assume it's Bamar). Either way both the Bamar and Rakhine people are overwhelming Buddhist, I don't see how being Buddhist and Rakhine for example is notable enough to warrant a category. Such categories doesn't seem necessary at all (see Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality). Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support also because there aren't even Rakhine or Bamar parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2015 (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:Town halls in Melbourne

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Town halls in Melbourne to Category:Town halls in Victoria
 * Nominator's rationale: The town hall categories in Australia are split between by state and by capital city; the latter leaves out any notable town halls in regional areas (which exist in every state), and standardising it at "Town halls in state" allows for all of them to fit within the category structure. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Alternative, don't rename but create an overarching state parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Not being a local, I am not familiar with how many of these places are truly in Melbourne. We should certainly have  a Victoria category and the Melbourne one should be its sub-cat.  The Melbourne one (if everything properly belongs) is quite large enough to keep.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All the town halls currently listed in the Melbourne category are in Melbourne. Gatoclass (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't follow the nominator's rationale, and I can't see what's wrong with the current arrangement, which is to have the Melbourne category a subcategory of the other. Gatoclass (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for your info, the parent category Category:Town halls in Victoria (Australia) has been created after starting this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2015 (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:Town halls in Sydney

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Town halls in Sydney to Category:Town halls in New South Wales
 * Nominator's rationale: Two of the four states with "town halls" categories have it divided by state, rather than city, and New South Wales having a city rather than a state category leaves Newcastle (and any other subsequent ones) out of the structure; this is easily remedied with a rename to Category:Town halls in New South Wales The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Alternative, don't rename but create an overarching state parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The situation here seems to be identical to that for Melbourne (next CFD above). The difference is that fewer suburban town halls have an article as yet.  Why does this article need so many "populate" templates?  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Per my comment for the Melbourne/Victoria discussion above. Gatoclass (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2015 (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.