April 5
- 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.
>Radiant<
11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Roman Catholic journalists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Delete, as a
non-notable intersection by religion. --
Prove It
(talk)
22:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Religion usually has little impact on the careers of journalists. Therefore, this category is an arbitrary intersection of two unrelated characteristics, and it should be deleted.
Dr. Submillimeter
00:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Agreed with Dr. Submillimeter. I could see "journalists of Roman Catholic publications" but this amounts to a trivial intersection. —
coel
acan —
01:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Overcategorization.--
Keefer4 |
Talk
10:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- delete per nom.
Haddiscoe
12:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete agree with Coelacan. Might make sense if the category is reorganized for journalists whose catholic faith has been significant in their journalistic work. Otherwise useless.
Pascal.Tesson
16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
AshbyJnr
23:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Carlossuarez46
00:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I am sick of all these Roman Catholic categories being deleted for no apparent reason. Roman Catholic musicians, Roman Catholic entertainers, Roman Catholic comedians - all deleted! Why? Why no have a go at the Jewish categories or Muslim categories. I am putting an end to all this. I'll make certain this issue does not go un-noticed.
sl84
19:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC) STAMPING OUT ANTI CATHOLICISM ON WIKIPEDIA
reply
- Keep The bias in deleting Catholic categories was part of why I left last time.
Category:Hillsong musicians, musicians specific to the
Hillsong Church, is acceptable yet Catholic musicians isn't? There are Catholic newspapers and magazines so there are cases where the faith of the journalists is relevant. If you wish a retool to
Category:Journalists of Roman Catholic publications that might be better, but this "let's delete Catholics first and always" is irritating.--
T. Anthony
03:12, 10 April 2007 (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.
- 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.
>Radiant<
11:54, 10 April 2007 (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:Sigma Pi brothers
Category:Pro-choice movement
- 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.
>Radiant<
11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Pro-choice movement to
Category:Abortion debate
- (also
Category:Pro-life movement to
Category:Abortion debate)
- Many people hold intensely emotional convictions on both sides of the
abortion debate. Editors have already shown themselves to be prone to misrepresenting the abortion debate towards their POV, by categorizing only those articles that represent their point of view in
Category:Abortion debate, and neglecting to include those that represent the other side.
- Also an issue is the amount of crossover between these two categories. Are
Crisis pregnancy centers really only related to the
Pro-life movement, as they are currently categorized? A Congressional report was prepared by Senator
Henry Waxman (
D-
CA), finding that CPCs receiving federal funding provide misleading health information to consumers.
ref Rep.
Carolyn Maloney (
D-
NY) recently introduced a piece of legislation recommending a requirement that CPCs be held to
truth in advertising standards.
ref These actions make CPCs relevant to the
pro-choice movement. Many, if not most of these articles are relevant to both sides of the debate.
Clinic escorts only exist because of
pro-life activism such as
sidewalk counseling, yet the first is categorized in
Category:Pro-choice movement, the latter two, in
Category:Pro-life movement. They should be visible together.
- We have an opportunity to create a place where articles pertinent to both sides of the debate are accessible. It could increase understanding on both sides.
- Upmerge
Category:Pro-choice movement and
Category:Pro-life movement to
Category:Abortion debate. Support keeping the four categories for pro-choice and pro-life activists and organizations. --
Joie de Vivre
20:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Upmerge, exactly as nom suggests, keeping the organization/activist categories and making them direct subcategories of
Category:Abortion debate. It makes sense to categorize the organizations like that, but the various topical articles aren't "owned" by either side, and the reader can benefit from a much more comprehensive parent category that groups the topical articles together. —
coel
acan —
21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- This is an excellent summary.
Joie de Vivre
22:07, 5 April 2007 (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:Media of Cayman Islands
Category:Cayman Islands footballers
Category:Routes in Fairfield County, Connecticut
- 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.
>Radiant<
11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Routes in Fairfield County, Connecticut to
Category:Transportation in Fairfield County, Connecticut
- Merge, since the parent isn't exactly overloaded with articles, and
Connecticut state highways directly includes all routes.
NE2
15:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Neutral I took a break from creating the
Category:Transportation in Fairfield County, Connecticut category and found the notice for deletion when I returned about an hour later. I expected to add a link to "Lighthouses in Fairfield County, Connecticut" which I'd planned to create (11 lighthouses; some no longer used) and "Railroad stations in Fairfield County" (about 15). Railroad lines and railroad branches would also be added (add another four or five), and future articles on the Bridgeport ferry, planned Stamford ferry, major bridges would increase it a bit more. I don't have a strong opinion about merging all these into one category. This is part of a wider organization of articles I'm attempting for
Category:Fairfield County, Connecticut. It would be more efficient, it seems to me, to ask editors who know more about organizing than I do whether the approach I'm taking is the right one. Or is there a better forum for these questions?
- I created "Routes in Fairfield County" because
Category:Fairfield County, Connecticut was becoming too long at two pages (and growing -- at the present rate it will probably reach three pages sometime this year). First question: Is that too long or something I should not worry about?
- I've created subcategories by municipality for the larger municipalities (20-40 articles in
"Category:Bridgeport, Connecticut" (42 articles),
"Category:Stamford, Connecticut" (46 articles),
"Category:Westport, Connecticut" (30 articles)), but that can't be done for smaller municipalities (I may have stretched it with "Category:New Canaan" and "Category:Darien" -- how small is too small?) and I worry that people searching for, say
Bruce Museum may forget what town it's in, so this was the first step in adding thematic categories for the county (other themes would be high schools, lighthouses, train stations, museums, etc.). Second question: Was this the right solution (assuming there was a length problem)?
- As to specifically this category of Fairfield County routes, (third question)does the category make it easier or harder to find the article you want if you know what county the route is in but may not remember the specific route name? Or if it's easier, is it so much easier that it's worth having this more localized category? I'm unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards or consensus on this, but I'd appreciate knowing more, either with comments here, or on my talk page.
Noroton 19:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (self edit for clarity
Noroton 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)) (self edit to fix links
Noroton
19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC))
reply
- I have no problem at all with
Category:Transportation in Fairfield County, Connecticut; there's just not enough in there to split into multiple subcategories. I personally added city and county categories (though very few into a separate transportation category) to all of
Virginia's state highways. As for someone searching for a route, ideally
List of State Routes in Connecticut should have at least a simple description of each route.
- Just a minor note - you should use a
sortkey of either "Route 025" or "025", since Connecticut is not part of the name. You can see in
Category:Accomack County, Virginia how the routes are sorted under "State Route". --
NE2
20:46, 5 April 2007 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was:
WP:CfD is not the appropriate place for this discussion. I have no opinion about the inclusion or deletion of this user category, but it should be taken to
Wikipedia:User categories for discussion.
youngamerican (
ahoy hoy)
19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
Category:Cub Wikipedians
-
Category:Cub Wikipedians (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
That was very rude how I specifically said that I would respond in 8 hours, that it is late at night in my part of the world and, others having no respect for that, go ahead and continue the discussion without my explanation, and lack of information behind my reasoning, I am posting another long paragraph explaining this so please wait. -
Pat
Peter
15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Should you not have waited to post your rationale instead of just putting it up here and adding a template to the category? -
Alison
☺
15:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I just wrote two full dam paragraphs explaining my reasoning, and, forgetting to copy my work, just lost all of it, so if you let me edit instead of jumping the gun I will tell you my rationale. -
Pat
Peter
16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Alright, I came across this category while sorting userboxes (and I wish to petition my prototype Wikiprojects to become official, where might I do that?) and I found this category. I promise you this category only had three members and two sentences of text.
- At the time I did not know Categories for discussion existed, which I probably should have assumed but for lent I am trying not to make an @55 out of u and me, so I tried to speedy it, I also did not know that anyone could take off a speedy. Soon when I saw that it was no longer there and thought that an admin had taken it off without any consideration to my plea. Seeing that this had happened I took the three userpages out of this category to fight being rude with being rude, fire with fire, which I do not usually do, but that is why when I marked it again I put cheap admin powers and then changed it to no one in this category.
- Overall, I would like to know how many users are required to make a category (I was not allowed to make CG:User fr-0 and that category had at least 50 people in it), why it says that that category is a spin off of the
bears when there is no such category, and I will add more comments as I review all other comments shot at me. -
Pat
Peter
16:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Your fr-0 category was deleted as a
WP:CSD#G4 recreation of deleted content, the category and all 0-level language categories had already been discussed and deleted in these
two
discussions, not as underused but as useless. You weren't able to create the category again because it had already been decided to delete it, not because of the size. —
coel
acan —
17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I keep reading why all -0 level categories were deleted and I still don't understand, could yuo sum it up in a nutshell? -
Pat
Peter
17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- There is a pervading belief that it is not helpful to categorize Wikipedians by what they don't do. —
coel
acan —
18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Alright, I can understand that. -
Pat
Peter
18:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The Bear category was deleted for being empty. That category has no bearing upon this one, though, that argument is just a form of
WP:WAX. It's quite possible that no one feels like using the other category and some want to use this one. —
coel
acan —
17:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- That is what I thought I just wanted to know partially out of curiousity. -
Pat
Peter
17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- What you have not addressed is why you emptied the categories before trying to delete them, and then claimed they should be deleted because they were empty.
[1] This is an abuse of process. You have also not taken seriously the fact that your previous nomination was speedy closed because of this abuse of process, and your continued, repeated deletion nominations are becoming disruptive. I suggest another speedy close, with prejudice toward any further nominations of this category by this user. —
coel
acan —
17:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Wrong, I tried to delete the category before I emptied it, you obviously did not read my last post, that I did not know anyone could take a speedy off etc. etc. I'm going to save and read the rest of your posts. -
Pat
Peter
17:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I read your post. You fail to understand that you cannot empty a category before, during, or after proposing it for deletion. You removed people from the category while claiming that it was already redlinked.
[2] This is misleading if not deceptive. Either way it is not permitted. —
coel
acan —
18:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I know it is not accepted and I said I was sorry but I felt that at the time the deletion was disregarded or already in effect. -
Pat
Peter
18:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment you are the most observative person I have ever had the pleasure of arguing with. I good hardly contemplate being that good at arguing and presenting my case, though I put on the appearence that I am anyway.
- But back to the discussion at hand is there a necessary amount of people needed to make a category? As I said the maximum was ever only three. -
Pat
Peter
18:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment, also what time is it where everyone is? When do you all sleep? What do you do for a living (because you all are always on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia doesn't bring home the bacon)? Are you all always online? -
Pat
Peter
18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:History of the Kurds
Category:Roma history
Category:Bosniak history
Category:Basque history
Category:Khitan history
Category:Croatian history
Category:History of the Serbs
Category:Slavic history
Category:History of the Hungarians
Category:History of the Turkic people
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
10:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:History of the Kurds to
Category:History of the Kurdish peoples
- Propose renaming
Category:Roma history to
Category:History of the Roma peoples
- Propose renaming
Category:Bosniak history to
Category:History of the Bosniak peoples
- Propose renaming
Category:Basque history to
Category:History of the Basque peoples
- Propose renaming
Category:Khitan history to
Category:History of the Khitan peoples
- Propose renaming
Category:Croatian history to
Category:History of the Croatian peoples
- Propose renaming
Category:History of the Serbs to
Category:History of the Serbian peoples
- Propose renaming
Category:Slavic history to
Category:History of the Slavic peoples
- Propose renaming
Category:History of the Hungarians to
Category:History of the Hungarian peoples
- Propose renaming
Category:History of the Turkic people to
Category:History of the Turkic peoples
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for consistency. There is no sense of consistency among subcats of
Category:History by ethnic group. I am taking
Category:History of the Germanic peoples as a model. --
Cat
chi?
15:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Query: I notice that some categories are "History of the ___ peoples", and others are "History of ___ peoples" (without "the"). Is there some basis by which a reader or editor would know whether to include "the" when searching for, or adding, such a category? --
Ben
TALK/
HIST
03:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The "the" may or may not be included. I do not mind either way. Inconsistency was merely my carelessness. --
Cat
chi?
11:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
Comment: What are the "Hungarian peoples", the "Bosniak peoples" and the "Basque peoples" etc? As far as I know there is only one
Hungarian people, one
Bosniak people and one
Basque people etc. The situation cannot be compared with "families" of ethnic groups such as the
Turkic peoples or the
Slavic peoples.--
Domitius
12:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose Some of these might be appropriate, but other are not. This matter is too complex to be handled by a group nomination. Consideration may be given to renominating some of these separately.
Haddiscoe
12:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- That defeats the point of consistency. It is not complex at all. --
Cat
chi?
23:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose without prejudice to relisting separately. I think renaming some of these makes sense, but not all.
Lesnail
15:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- That defeats the point of consistency. It is not complex at all. --
Cat
chi?
23:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose It is complex.
AshbyJnr
23:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Support, I couldn't any complexity. If anyone claims that some of these are not appropriate, lets be more spesific; which one/ones?
Must.
T
C
10:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose per Lesnail etc. Never mind complexity, what about accuracy? More intelligent use and non-use of the terminal "s" might have saved this nom.
Johnbod
20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Is one letter the entire issue? We can rename it without the s. --
Cat
chi?
00:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- On relection I think each should be dealt with seperately, but they could be put up one after the other. I'm clear some should be singular; about others I don't know personally.
Johnbod
00:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Natives of São Paulo (city)
Category:Hamilton Bulldogs (1996-2002) 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: merge, see also
WP:OC.
>Radiant<
11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Hamilton Bulldogs (1996-2002) players to
Category:Hamilton Bulldogs players
- Merge, this was requested at the Help Desk by
User:Chesterfield99. It appears that the MergeFrom category is redundant. I am not really into sports, so it may be a different team. I hope I am following proper procedure here, this is the first time I have done this.
Luigi
Maniac
14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
Thanks Luigi,
It is the same team, is has been misrepresented as two teams - the players stats incorrectly divided. A previous wikipedia user chose to separate, but both the Team Records (Hamilton Bulldogs), and the League Records (American Hockey Leauge) recognize one consecutive team, with player stats being totaled. I have worked in sports for 12 years. Thanks,
Chesterfield99
18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Chesterfield99 has been depopulating the MergeFrom category before this has been discussed. I had one of the pages on my watchlist when I found him removing the category (without explanation). I don't know how many other articles are involved. --
Mel Etitis (
Talk)
10:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- No, it is to separate franchises. The latter (ex-
Quebec Citadelles) simply acquired naming rights from the former (became
Toronto Roadrunners).
ccwaters
12:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- ccWaters you are incorrect. Both the American Hockey League and the Hamilton Bulldogs recognize it as one franchise. In 2002 the Edmonton Oilers and Montreal Canadians, explicidly agreed that when Edmonoton put its affiliate in Toronto, and Motnreal put its affliate in Hamilton - that the Bulldogs franchise would remain 'un-interrupted'. There are numerous examples of other clubs changing NHL affiliates and ownership groups yet remaining one consistent club. In fact for one year the affiliation was shared. But dividing the two clubs you are changing history and are making a case inconsistent with the intentions of the Bulldogs, Canadians, Oilers and the AHL. I have been trying to merge the stats to reflect this reality
Chesterfield99
17:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I had this discussion over a year ago and actually referenced AHL press releases from that time frame (see
Talk:Hamilton Bulldogs, someone even acknowledges them). Since then league redid its web site and removed news prior to 2005. I tried looking for them. Ultimately, I'd love to skim through archives from the Hamilton Spectator when this happened.
- I'm fully aware of the differences between a franchise and an affiliation. The 3 AHL Binghamton teams in the 80ies and 90ies were in fact one franchise that changed its name twice. The Fort Wayne Komets moved to Abany in the early 90ies before folding. The Rockford IceHogs' name and trademarks were sold and will be used when the old Utah Grizzlies franchise comes to town next season. Off hand there's been 3 incarnations of the Peoria Rivermen name.
- Let me remind you that according to the NFL, the Cleveland Browns never left for Baltimore. The NHL ceremoniously declared the Ottawa Senators reinstated after almost 60 years. Things do get "revised" in the name of PR.
- And yes, much like you did here with the category depopulation, I thank you for your expedient article merger.
ccwaters
18:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- ccwaters. I agree with you in each of those instance your descibed (in Rockford it is in a different league, in Cleveland they took time off, for intance). Hamilton, however, is a different case to all the above: same name and logo, same league, same coach, same office staff, no time off, and even a joint affiliation during the transition. I agree that these true seemless transfers are rare, and pr often gets in the way, but not in this case, the Hamilton Bulldogs situation is legitimate.
Chesterfield99
21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Note: there's more thorough discussion at
Talk:Hamilton Bulldogs. 13:26, 7 April 2007 (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.
- 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: moved to article, now delete.
>Radiant<
11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Jewish Museum of Florida (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Delete, this is an article in category space. No objection to making it an article, but it needs cleanup and may have some copyright issues. --
Prove It
(talk)
13:57, 5 April 2007 (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:Nature reserves of Costa Rica
Category:Planned or proposed arenas
Category:Animal births by year
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Animal births by year (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
This category is heavily underpopulated and there's not enough famous animals born in the same year to make such a categorization useful. I suggest this category and it subcategories are deleted and that any articles in it are recategorized in the regular births and deaths categories.
Mgm
- I think that's a reasonable point. No need to promote systemic bias for humans, we may have dolphin editors at some point. Silliness aside, merge as overly small.
>Radiant<
10:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose Animal births should be kept separate from human births, just as are the "births" of books, buildings, albums and everything else that is not a person.
LukeHoC
12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Undecided All three options seem bad. Keeping these ridiculously small categories seems pointless. Merging to births of human beings isn't a great idea as it seems absurd to use the same cat for animals. On the other hand, I see no reason to delete the info completely... How about reorganizing the category (for now) by merging decades or even centuries (for the 18th and 19th century)? At least we get categories with more than a single entry...
Pascal.Tesson
14:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Considering that some animals live and die during the same decade, I think that such a wide category would fuzz the data and make it quite useless. —
coel
acan —
16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I really don't see what's wrong with merging birth years of non-human animals with human animals. It keeps the information, and when you're looking at a non-human animal's article page, you don't mistake them for a human, so there's no confusion here. Just go ahead and merge. —
coel
acan —
16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: The categories are small now because they are new. As time goes on, the categories will be populated and will be larger.
Q0
16:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep All articles that aren't about general concepts need a category that tags its year of creation. For people, it's year of birth. For works, it's the year the work was created. For events, the year it took place. And so on. Anything that has a specific identifiable year of origin should be categorized as such. In the case of notable individual animals, therefore, "Animals births by year" is the natural, obvious counterpart to "Births by year" (which is specifically for people).
Dugwiki
20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- There's nothing that says the "Births by year" is specifically for people. Animals are already categorized in the Category:Famous Animals (which is up for some form of renaming) or one of its subcategories so it's already clear they are an animal even if you put them in "1066 births". -
Mgm|
(talk)
21:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep There are lots of racehorses that could be added for one thing.
Haddiscoe
20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Racehorses seem to have their own categorization at the moment. Either they need to be lumped in with the rest of the animals into general cats (1990 animal births) or (if the racehorses keep their own cats) someone needs to show that those other categories can contain more than 3 entries. It's pointless to categorize if each category has 1 or 2 entries. -
Mgm|
(talk)
22:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, but the subcategories need to be renamed for consistency's sake. -
Sean Curtin
05:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, This category just completed a
Keep and Rename less than 2 weeks ago. --
After Midnight
0001
15:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Non-human animal births by year -- People are animals too, so as the category stands it would be appropriate to categorize
George Washington in it.
Lesnail
15:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, deliberately ignoring the PC point above.
AshbyJnr
23:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep There is a whole page of Presidential Pets that are famous, these all are candidates for this category, so that totally cancels out the "not enough animals" argument.
Mastrchf91
04:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep the human and animal articles separate - please. See
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MetsBot 8 and ask the people who use the people categories (such as
WP:BIO) whether they really want the animal articles mixed in with the people. There are also
WP:BLP considerations here. The year of birth categories are sometimes used to identify living people articles that don't have a WP:BLP template, and having animals in there messes this up, unless animals now have lawyers... (actually, that wouldn't surprise me for some pampered pooches).
Carcharoth
17:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Humans and animals absolutely have to be kept seperate. The whole point of the people category tree is that it contains people and only people, and the births and deaths by year are part of that category tree. Ending that principle would make the work of WPBio harder, in particular our automation efforts and our management of
WP:BLP. This is the status quo on Wikipedia and any change should be discussed at
Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people or
Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. That said, I don't proffer any opinion on whether these should be kept or not and certainly don't object to a higher level births/deaths category which is outside the people categories and which contains animal birth/deaths and people births/deaths. --
kingboyk
17:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Satellite Earth Stations in...
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Early Middle Japanese texts
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename all.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
17:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Old Japanese texts already exists. It is a category of texts written in
Old Japanese. Recently
Category:Late Old Japanese texts was also created. Texts for other linguistic periods needed a proper category. So I created
Category:Early Middle Japanese,
Category:Late Middle Japanese, and
Category:Early Modern Japanese. In my haste, I accidentally neglected to word "texts". Thus, the move proposal to bring them in line with the other two. The intention of each category is to sub-categorize the various texts into their appropriate linguistic periods. Without the "texts" suffix, the categories are fairly vague.
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, See above.
Bendono
03:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:United States Virgin Islander people