Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 9 February 11 >

February 10

Category:Small scale industries in India

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 to delete; consensus to Rename to Category:Small-scale industry in India. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Small scale industries in India to Category:Small-scale industry in India
Nominator's rationale: At a minimum, this category needs to be renamed to Category:Small-scale industry in India, per Category:Industry in India and to hyphenate the compound modifier 'small-scale'. However, neither that title nor the current one accurately reflect what is being categorized: governmental or state-owned organizations. I don't know what title this category should have, or whether it should be merged somewhere (e.g. Category:Government of India) or deleted altogether, so I've bringing it here for discussion. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:51, 10 February 2012 (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:Animals by gender

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 under criterion G7: author consents to deletion. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:Animals by gender ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Male animals ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: These categories were created as intermediate layers between Category:Gender and Category:Men, perhaps with the intention of extending this new categorization scheme to non-human animals (see Category:Individual animals).
I do not think that animals-by-gender would be a useful subdivision. We do it for humans in limited circumstances when " gender has a specific relation" to some other characteristic of a person, but I can't foresee a similar situation existing for non-human animals. I suppose it would be possible to add a few articles, such as Bull and Rooster, but I don't think there are enough examples – for most animals, the male and female are covered within the same article about the species – to justify a new category tree. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:53, 10 February 2012 (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:Underpopulated people 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: Merge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Underpopulated people categories to Category:Underpopulated biography categories
Nominator's rationale: Categories of this type subdivide Category:Underpopulated categories by topic so that WikiProjects – in this case, WikiProject Biography – can more easily populate underpopulated categories within their scope. The underpopulated 'biography' and 'people' categories have essentially the same scope, and 'biography categories' sounds more natural (to me, at least) than 'people categories'. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:20, 10 February 2012 (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.

Obscure Old Fooians

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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename all to clarify their purpose for Wikipedia's general readership, to whom the current category names will be at best bewildering, and frequently misleading. ( Category:Old Dolphins suggests aged marine mammals, Old Waconians implies pensioners from Waco, Old Tridents indicates three-pronged spears or nuclear missiles, etc). These "old fooian" terms are very rarely used in the biographical articles which populate these categories.
The proposed new names follow a simple descriptive format which adopts plain English, avoids WP:JARGON and fits the convention of Category:People educated by school in England, which has been supported in numerous CfDs over the last year.
The Old Fooians format for former pupils is used by a significant minority of schools in England, but the relationship between the school name and Old Fooian term is frequently obscure even to those who understand the format, and those from outside England are unlikely to even know of the format (Wikipedia is written for an international audience, not an English one). The terms have reached common usage in the case of only a small minority of particularly high-profile public schools, such as Old Etonians for Eton College. If an Old Fooian term is used in an article, its usage can be explained, but a category name appears on an article without explanation; that's why descriptive formats are preferred in category names, and abbreviations deprecated. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply

WikiProject Biography has been notified. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Partly Oppose The idea to categorize people on the grammer school they visited sounds utter nonsense to me. Instead of renaming, I support removal of those categories. Partly Support the suggested names seem te be more neutral the the old ones, that give my the idea that they are designed for insiders. Night of the Big Wind talk 12:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. I find it decidedly comical that the means used by the anti-Fooians (and one of them in particular) to give the appearance of a consensus in favour of "People educated at..." was to create literally hundreds of new categories in that format based on obscure schools, many of which categories contained only one or two pages! Of course, even now the vast majority of biographies contained in one of this family of categories are in an "Old Fooian"-format category, as those are the most highly populated. Moonraker ( talk) 01:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I don't think anyone did that to "give the appearance of a consensus", and we should assume good faith. As far as I can see, no one is citing the ones that have been created with that name as evidence of a consensus. Users are pointing to former discussions that have taken place as well as to guidelines on naming. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    @NotBW, there may be a case to be made for deleting people-by-school-categories, but do you think that there is a specific reason why you consider this particular small set of categories to be less appropriate than the many other similar ones? Unless there is a particular problem here, the case for deletion would be best made wrt to all categories to which it applies. The appropriate mechanism would be a group nomination of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom and all its sub-categories, or even a wider nomination of Category:Alumni by secondary school and its sub-cats. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support - This encyclopedia should strive for a very wide readership, and many readers employ English as a second language. Thus, Category titles should be clear and jargon-free. The Category body text can explain alternative names. -- Noleander ( talk) 13:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Necrothesp ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ( diff). reply
    Questions Leaving aside the ABF allegation of disgruntlement, 1) How can hatnotes be visible when a category name is displayed at the bottom of an article? 2)What evidence do you have that these titles are "correct" per wikipedia's policy of WP:COMMONNAME? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    HotCat I think, increasingly, hatnotes are being factored less because they can't be seen within HotCat. That may be good or bad. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Votestacking. The following editors have been canvassed in respect of this and related discussions: ( Cjc13, Motmit, Necrothesp). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't see it as a problem. I happen to agree with your proposal, and clearly the two users you have indicated disagree, but I don't see what they are doing as canvassing. The language used is neutral and it was also (quite rightly in my opinion) posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Category:Old_Fooians_have_been_nominated_for_renaming_.28again.29. -- Bob Re-born ( talk) 20:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Bob, per WP:CANVASS, it is not acceptable to notify editors who have been selected because they are on one side of a discussion. A neutral notification to a carefully selected group can be a more effective votestacking tool than a partisan notification sent to a wider group, and given the relatively low number of participants at XfD discussions, a very small amount of canvassing can tip the balance.
Like you, I have no problem with WikiProject notifications, and I have myself notified WP:BIOGRAPHY. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The selective placement of notices on specific user pages does indeed fall under Canvassing. However, we should be explaining the policy to the editor placing those selective notices not disregarding the sincere input from those editors. Further, the selective notice on this topic that votes will not be factored in the outcome seems to be designed to discourage participation from those who may disagree with this nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. So what? Does that render our views irrelevant? That, clearly, is what the supporters of this proposal would like othe closing admin to believe. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support - By substituting a standardized set of names for the current idiosyncratic collection of "Old Fooians," the proposed renames would greatly simplify the work of contributors who add biographical articles into categories for the schools attended by the article subjects. -- Orlady ( talk) 21:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The Old Fooian format is widely used and an established format for categories in Wikipedia. The current names are commonly used names, as shown by their use by related societies and sports clubs. There is no conflict with other existing categories so there do not seem to be significant problems with the current names. (With reference to canvassing, the project schools page is on my watchlist so I would have been aware of the discussions anyway.) Cjc13 ( talk) 00:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cjc13 ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ( diff) reply
    • All that shows is that they're used by the schools themselves, by their former attendees and by the old boy inter-networks, not that they are used or understood by the wider public. Using terms that are incomprehensible to all but the few is the precise problem. Timrollpickering ( talk) 00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply
      • The societies and sports clubs operate outside of the school, eg having their own functions in other locations and playing against other teams in leagues. Thus the terms are more widely used than you suggest. The Old Fooian format is understood by the general public because it is used by so many schools, both in the UK and other countries. Cjc13 ( talk) 00:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Where a name gains recognition through being used for a sports team, that does not necessarily mean that those who know the name of sports team are aware of its relationship to a particular school. In any case most of these teams play in small local leagues which gain little recognition.
          Also, you still don't seem to be able to get beyond the assertion that the format is known. I don't believe that is true outside of quite limited English circles, but even if you are right about the format being known, how on earth is someone who knows the format going to figure out what an "Old Vigornian" or an "Old Verlucian" is without specialist knowledge? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC) reply
          • In sports teams Old in the name always refers to old pupils of a school. The format is used in other countries, as shown by the number of categories from many countries that originally used the Old Fooian format in Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia should reflect the actual names used by the schools and its societies. Cjc13 ( talk) 23:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply
            • You are misrepresenting the situation outside the UK. As you know, the term is used by only a minority of schools in England, and by a miniscule minority of schools outside the UK.
              Anyway, do you want to try giving the explanation I asked for above? If a reader assumes that "Old Fooian" means an old pupil, how on earth are they going to know which school is referred to by "Old Vigornian" or an "Old Verlucian"? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. No way to know what these categories contain without context. The connection between, for example, the words "Old Verlucians" and "Warminster School" are completely opaque.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 00:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to widely-understood name. Consider a category redirect from the current name to the new name and a note in the new category about the old name. Stuartyeates ( talk) 00:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename for clarity of meaning to those without prior knowledge of what 'Old Ilkestonians' etc. means;along the lines of when categories for people from places with what can be obscure demonyms were renamed. Mayumashu ( talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename none of these names even come close to suggesting the names of the school. I have no clue what is up with Old Vignorians. The Old Dolphins are the only ones where the connection is at all evident, but old Dolphins are not what the category is for. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we have ample precedent for grouping all people educated at a school and its predecessor institutions under one heading using the current name of the school. I could list a very large number of places where this precedent is used. I would also point out that Moonraker is misrepresenting the discussion we had a year ago that closed with no consensus. That discussion was as much about what to call the non-"old fooian" categories as what to call the old fooian categories. It basically closed with a determination to rename the other categories into a standard, and revisit this issue at a later time. A year seems to be long enough, and I see no reason to keep up categories that have no connection with the schools they designate. A Foleyan in no ways suggets Old Swinford Hospital to the mind (and the fact that the institution has old in its name just makes the whole thing more complexed.) I have cited a number of other reasons, such as not being applicable to people currently being educated there, that should cause us to be hesitant to adopt the "old" form. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I see the old boys network has again mobilized to stop progress. The fact that that is the term that Ephebi uses to speak of these categories in one of his communications suggests to me that the utter distain my suggest of "x school old boys" was met with was not as sincere as some want us to believe. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply
I think it means "implementing long-standing naming conventions, having taken a long time to reach consensus on which standardised format to use". It's a pity that some members of the old boys network are choosing to either assert "it's correct" or to just snipe, rather than engaging in a reasoned discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Although I support the use of the Old Fooian format, I would find the use of "x school old boys", or perhaps "x school old pupils" (as many aschools include both boys and girls), preferable to the "people educated at ..." format and this would be closer to the American alumni format. Another alternative would be "x school former pupils" but I would still like to keep the OLd Fooian format where appropriate. Cjc13 ( talk) 23:40, 17 February 2012 (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:Video games based on Fox network shows

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:Video games based on Fox network shows ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Not a meaningful categorization. The fact that a video game is based on a television show is important but there's nothing network specific about the nature of such games. If one is given a video game and asked to decide whether it's based on a Fox TV show or on an NBC TV show, I don't think it's possible do to much better than a coin flip so the network is not a defining characteristic. Pichpich ( talk) 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete per nominator. A truly trivial category that does not make a useful contribution to other users of WP. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 16:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply

There is a simlar category titled Category:Video games based on American Broadcasting Company network shows.-- TBrandley ( talk) 22:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply

That one deserves to go on the same grounds but I think it's best to see how this debate turns out before nominating the other one. Pichpich ( talk) 04:27, 11 February 2012 (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:People of British Isles 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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:People of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Algerian people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added 2012-02-14 23.54 UTC; newly created)
Category:American people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Argentine people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Australian people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Brazilian people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Chilean people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:French people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Italian people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mexican people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:New Zealand people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Peruvian people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Portuguese people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Russian people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:South African people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Spanish people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sri Lankan people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Uruguayan people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Venezuelan people of British Isles descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories serve little purpose. They pretty much just serve as container categories for the categories named "FOOian people of British descent" and "FOOian people of Irish descent". "British Isles" is not really an ethnicity we need to categorize descent by, if it indeed is really an ethnicity at all. It's really more of a geographical grouping based on historical national borders. But as far as I know, we don't categorize people by broad island group descent unless the island group currently corresponds to a single country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all - "British Isles" is transparent English Nationalist phrasing. The actual nationalities involved are: English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh. Many people are an admixture, which is why we use hyphens. Carrite ( talk) 17:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Calling it English IMPERIALIST phrasing is probably more accurate... Carrite ( talk) 17:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Moreover: the categories "BlahBlahBlah people of British descent" is little better. Carrite ( talk) 17:55, 12 February 2012 (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:Bibliographies of U.S. states and territories

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: Renamed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Bibliographies of U.S. states and territories to Category:Bibliographies of the United States and territories
Nominator's rationale: better description of the contents. If it grows a sibling Category:Bibliographies of the United States by state can be created. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 03:25, 10 February 2012 (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:Necessity

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:Necessity and sufficiency per the main article which is now at Necessity and sufficiency. Timrollpickering ( talk) 14:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Necessity to Category:Necessity (logic)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a category grouping articles about necessity in logic. It's not really anything to do with the legal doctrine, which is what Necessity is about. The category name therefore should be disambiguated so it is not confused with a category about the legal concept. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - ::Please stop proposing parenthetical titles, especially in the philosophy department (that includes logic, ethics, etc). Unlike many other fields of study, the terms which are perceived as "jargon" for some small community are NOT. In the absence of any articles or categories with the same parenthetical qualification, this proposal is completely unnecessary, and not helpful. Furthermore, if it becomes a sticking point, the article about necessity in the law should be moved to some parenthetical title so as not to screw up this category; not the other way around. Greg Bard ( talk) 02:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    It's not, I think, an issue of jargon but rather of ambiguity. For this particular category, however, I am inclined to agree that the logical concept, and not the legal doctrine, is the primary topic. It would be, better, I think, to move Necessity to Necessity (law); Necessary and sufficient condition to Necessity and sufficiency; and Category:Necessity to Category:Necessity and sufficiency. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    Why is a user trying to tell me what I should and should not propose to the community? The fact that I have done it more than twice for categories he has created should indicate that perhaps there is a recurring problem with such creations. But specifically here, Black Falcon is right in that this is not a matter of jargon, but rather one of ambiguity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    Making polite requests is perfectly civil O.G. Since you are making an issue of it, perhaps the whatever guideline you are acting on here should be re-evaluated. I don't really think people understand the consequences of taking perfectly nonambiguous terms and relegating them to parenthetical real estate. I would like for the reader to be able to get an intellectual understanding of things, and these moves only serve to put the reader father away from intellectual understanding. I wish I had all the time in the world to explain my comprehensive theories on Wikipedia content, but I don't. So, since I take you as a reasonable and experienced editor, I have asked you to please stop. Sorry about any offense. Greg Bard ( talk) 07:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    I think we fundamentally disagree on the ambiguity issue. You say the term is a "perfectly nonambiguous term", but I can't agree with that. When the name of the article doesn't match the usage found in the article of the same name, that's an ambiguity problem. As long as I run across these instances, I will nominate them. So I'm not going to stop. This isn't the philosophy-wiki, so we can't really create categories and other content based on a philosophy-centric theory of Wikipedia content. The readers and editors are just too diverse for that to work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong support highly ambiguous, and doesn't even match the usage of the article necessity, seemingly need a speedy rename. 70.24.247.54 ( talk) 06:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename – the word 'Necessity' is not restricted to philosophy (or law), and so it is essential that the category name should include some extra information to limit the scope of the category. Oculi ( talk) 12:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and populate -- I see no ambiguity. This is a common English word that is used in several contexts. The answer to the lack of linkage to Necessity is that that article need to be renamed to something like Necessity (legal defence). The article (as I have just noted on its talk page) is incomplete, because the defence exists in England and no doubt many other common law jurisdictions. The problem may be with parenting the category adequately to deal with its scope. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Necessity and sufficiency. I have moved the article Necessary and sufficient condition to Necessity and sufficiency and, unless the change is reversed, the category should reflect the name of the main article. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename - There is absolutely nothing in policy or guidelines prohibiting the clarification of a category with parentheticals if needed. However, I also think that necessity and sufficiency is still ambiguous - this could be a lifestyle choice as opposed to a logical condition as far as I'm concerned, and expecting any reader to know the difference is sort of like saying "don't read the topic unless you already know about it." I won't revert the change, but it seems like it could be contentious and should probably be discussed on the talk page of the article. I would suggest "Necessity in logic" as the cat title if parentheticals are seriously the only hangup involved. MSJapan ( talk) 19:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    The phrase 'necessity and sufficiency' probably could be applied to other situations and concepts, but I think the logical concept is the primary meaning. Also, we needn't consider this until we have an article on another meaning of necessity and sufficiency (which I think is unlikely) since we don't disambiguate preemptively. As for a title such as 'Necessity in logic' or 'Necessity (logic)', I would ask: why exclude the concept of sufficiency from the category title? By the way, I honestly didn't think of the change as contentious, but I'll be happy to discuss on the article's talk page if anyone disagrees. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:33, 11 February 2012 (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:Actors who died on location

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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:Actors who died on location ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category contains articles about actors who died while on location – i.e., while filming outside a studio set. This raises two questions:
  1. Is this a defining characteristic for actors? It is not, in my opinion. It's an interesting one, perhaps, but it neither is connected to the subjects' notability nor constitutes core biographical data (a la Category:Deaths by cause or Category:Deaths by year). Often, the death is not even tied to filming or to acting.
  2. Is this characteristic significantly different from an actor dying while filming on set? Again, it is not, in my opinion. In both cases, the death occurs during and affects filming; the difference is a technical one only that is relevant to the film's production and not the actor's life or role in the film.
I examined the fifteen articles that are currently in this category, checking whether the death was on location, occurred during the process of filming (but not necessarily caught-on-tape) and/or was related to filming. The article on Tyrone Power, Sr. does not provide this information, but the results for the rest are as follows:
  1. All fourteen died on location;
  2. Eight died while working (filming) and six – John Candy, David Carradine, Roger Delgado, Marty Feldman, Roy Kinnear, Kevin Smith (New Zealand actor) – died at another time; and
  3. Six deaths were filming-related ( H. B. Halicki, Jon-Erik Hexum, Jayan, Brandon Lee, Vic Morrow, Dar Robinson), two possibly were filming-related ( Roy Kinnear, Tyrone Power) and six were not filming-related.
In light of these differences and nuances, I propose that the category be deleted, possibly after being listified to List of actors who died while filming (inclusive of those who died on set). -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator as non-defining. It is also an arbitrary grouping, because if two actors are fatally injured in an accident on location, the one who dies on location is included but the one who survives for another week to die in hospital is not. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Listify and Delete - The information may be useful for those researching the encyclopedia. But I doubt that the location of their death is "defining" to the person in question. Also, a list can explain and clarify situations such as BHG notes above. - jc37 16:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support I agree that the category is poorly conceived as-is. Whether an actor died on set, or on location (or in the hospital for that matter) is not particularly relevant. Nor do I think it's relevant if an actor died of natural causes at his home vs. dying of natural causes while filming something. However, I do think a spin-off category for actors who died directly from a filming-related mishap is a potentially useful category. -- SubSeven ( talk) 04:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Steve Irwin is not included! Seriously, though, the definition of "on location" refers to the site of filming outside of a studio, not the fact that filming takes place outside of a studio. The category therefore has to be narrowed to be "those who died while filming on set outside of the studio" for it to fit into its own definition. The incorrect usage is an issue, but nevertheless, it means the underlying classification for the category is wrong. That leaves such a narrow field that it even cuts this very small category almost in half (to eight), and it really is a TRIVIA-type category in context; 14 people (liberally speaking) in over a century of film and television with a minor connection is not cat-worthy at all. MSJapan ( talk) 05:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - There are also a few potential entries at List of unusual deaths, but despite the list suffering from RECENTISM (more entrires for 2010-12 than for entire decades previous), there are still only a few actors on it out of the entire list, and the notable ones are here already. Therefore, I think that list article reinforces not only the lack of utility of this cat, but also indicates that there may be no real need to listify this cat. MSJapan ( talk) 19:11, 11 February 2012 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_10&oldid=1138396264"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE