Content deleted Content added
→Category:People born on February 29: reply to more pointless arguments from Otto |
|||
Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
*'''Keep''' as characteristic uniting the individuals in the category. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 20:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' as characteristic uniting the individuals in the category. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 20:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
:* Not everything that a set of people have in common is a defining characteristic of that set of people. Unless one is speaking of [[Selective Service System|the draft]], the date of one's birth does not unite one with others born on the same day any more than the color of one's eyes or the number of one's teeth. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] ([[User talk:Otto4711|talk]]) 17:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC) |
:* Not everything that a set of people have in common is a defining characteristic of that set of people. Unless one is speaking of [[Selective Service System|the draft]], the date of one's birth does not unite one with others born on the same day any more than the color of one's eyes or the number of one's teeth. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] ([[User talk:Otto4711|talk]]) 17:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
::*You see hardly anything as defining, unless it passes your arbitrary standards. Your examples of eye color and number of teeth are irrelevant as arguments, here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. You can do better in your next stab at efforts to have me abide by your arbitrary choices, perhaps after watching ''[[The Pirates of Penzance]]''. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 22:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' trivial; no more defining that people born on various holidays (Christmas, Easter, January 1, my birthday). [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] ([[User talk:Carlossuarez46|talk]]) 20:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' trivial; no more defining that people born on various holidays (Christmas, Easter, January 1, my birthday). [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] ([[User talk:Carlossuarez46|talk]]) 20:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment'''. Note also that we already have a list for this at [[February 29#Births]], which only emphasises the lack of a need for this category, since in deleting it will result in no net loss of information from WP. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 03:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Comment'''. Note also that we already have a list for this at [[February 29#Births]], which only emphasises the lack of a need for this category, since in deleting it will result in no net loss of information from WP. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 03:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:37, 14 April 2009
April 11
Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics
- Suggest merging Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics to Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue
- Nominator's rationale: This category states that it "is renamed to Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue" and yet remains extant with identical contents. Skomorokh 23:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. We did a rename to Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue and the only concern is that anything that points to the old cat simply be connected to the new one so if redirects work with categories then go for it. -- Banjeboi 11:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- The problem was with a template that needed updating. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp inmates
- Convert to article Category:Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp inmates to article Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp survivors
- Nominator's rationale: Most concentration camps cats in Category:Nazi concentration camps have a subcat with Category:Foobian concentration camp victims while a number have an additional subcat of Category:Foobian Concentration Camp survivors. Category:Auschwitz concentration camp, as far as I know, is the only one with a subcat of Category:Auschwitz concentration camp inmates, which branches out into Category:Auschwitz concentration camp victims and Category:Auschwitz concentration camp survivors. So my question is, what is the ideal format? Should we have an (ideally empty) Category:Foobian Concentration Camp inmates that branches into Category:Foobian Concentration Camp survivors and Category:Foobian Concentration Camp victims or should we just bypass the empty - except for two subcats - Category:Foobian Concentration Camp inmates. Alternatively, we can depreciate all Category:Foobian Concentration Camp survivors and replace them with Category:Foobian Concentration Camp inmates that can have one Category:Foobian Concentration Camp victims subcat. Anewpester (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Mauthausen concentration camp victims
- Propose renaming Category:Mauthausen concentration camp victims to Category:Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp victims
- Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent cat (Category:Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp) and parent article (Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp). Anewpester (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Boston Terriers ice hockey players
- Propose renaming Category:Boston Terriers ice hockey players to Category:Boston University Terriers ice hockey players
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category currently does not follow standard of other Boston University athletes categories (ie: Category:Boston University Terriers men's basketball players, Category:Boston University Terriers football players). This needs to be done to distinguish Boston University from Boston College, where we see Category:Boston College Eagles ice hockey players. – Nurmsook! talk... 19:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Songs by Harold Faltermeyer
- Propose renaming Category:Songs by Harold Faltermeyer to Category:Songs written by Harold Faltermeyer
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with other songwriter categories. Richhoncho (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Rename - good idea to sort out these somewhat ambiguously-named categories. Ditto all the similar ones below. Occuli (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Songs by Sam Coslow
- Propose renaming Category:Songs by Sam Coslow to Category:Songs written by Sam Coslow
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with other songwriter categories. Richhoncho (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Songs by Sonny Bono
- Propose renaming Category:Songs by Sonny Bono to Category:Songs written by Sonny Bono
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with other songwriter categories. Richhoncho (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Songs by Pat Ballard
- Propose renaming Category:Songs by Pat Ballard to Category:Songs written by Pat Ballard
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with other songwriter categories. Richhoncho (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Songs by Irving Berlin
- Propose renaming Category:Songs by Irving Berlin to Category:Songs written by Irving Berlin
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with other songwriter categories. Richhoncho (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Songs by Richard Adler
- Propose renaming Category:Songs by Richard Adler to Category:Songs written by Richard Adler
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with other songwriter categories. Richhoncho (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Songs by Stephen Foster
- Propose renaming Category:Songs by Stephen Foster to Category:Songs written by Stephen Foster
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with other songwriter categories. Richhoncho (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Songs by Gerry Goffin
- Propose renaming Category:Songs by Gerry Goffin to Category:Songs with lyrics by Gerry Goffin
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Gerry Goffin is a lyricist and with the rename will sit nicely with the other "songs with lyrics by xxx". Richhoncho (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Rename - good idea to sort out these somewhat ambiguously-named categories. Occuli (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Songs with music by A. Emmett Adams
- Category:Songs with music by A. Emmett Adams - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another bunch of categories with only one entry in the category and no main article about the songwriter. Also for the same reasons Category:Songs with music by Kurt Adams, Category:Songs with music by Shorty Allen, Category:Songs by George Campbell, Category:Songs written by Billy Mayhew, Category:Songs written by Chauncey Gray. Please note I have tried to expand the category and find enough to create an article on the songwriter without success. If anybody can expand/create the relevant article I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. Richhoncho (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete – I agree that these single article categories with a redlinked author are superfluous. Occuli (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Flora of the Isle of Youth
- Category:Flora of the Isle of Youth - Template:Lc1
- Category:Trees of the Isle of Youth - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Flora of Cuba and Category:Trees of Cuba, and delete. A small island of no floristic significance. Floristic significance isn't the only consideration here—people are also interested in the flora of political and geographical entities—but we certainly don't want a category for the flora of every little island or municipality in the world. We have to stop somewhere. In determining how, and how deeply, to categorise along political and geographical lines, we generally follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, a real-world standard that addresses this precise issue. The WGSRPD stops at Cuba, and so ought we. Hesperian 12:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Upmerge pre nom. Hm - the combination of category name and nominator's sig made me think of golden apples :) Grutness...wha? 23:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom - nothing to suggest that the flora and trees are so different on that island (this isn't the Galapagos vs. Ecuador mainland, which could remain distinct.). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Semimonthly-Fortnightly-Biweekly-Semiweekly magazines
- This is a dog to explain, please take a deep breath.
Propose merge and/or renaming, categories involved:
- Category:Semimonthly magazines
- Category:Fortnightly magazines
- Category:Biweekly magazines
- Category:Semiweekly magazines (red link)
- +
- Category:Twice-monthly magazines (red link)
- Category:Two-weekly magazines (red link)
- Category:Twice-weekly magazines (red link)
Preliminary definitions for a publication:
- semimonthly: 24 issues a year (twice a month)
- twice-monthly: 24 issues a year (twice a month)
- +
- fortnightly: *26* issues a year (every fortnight = every two weeks)
- two-weekly: *26* issues a year (every two weeks, existing synonym)
- biweekly-1: *26* issues a year (every two weeks, syn: fortnightly)
- +
- biweekly-2: 104 issues a year (twice a week, syn: semiweekly)
- semiweekly: 104 issues a year (twice a week, syn: twice-weekly)
- twice-weekly: 104 issues a year (twice a week, syn: semiweekly)
- Usage note
- "biweekly-1" is often thought of as the normal meaning but "biweekly-2" is documented (e.g. at wikt:biweekly by Wiktionary or WordNet via Google Define) because it is a widespread alternative-or-error (based on "biannual" that's twice a year). And biweekly is very often confused with "twice a month", as noted at Fortnightly. Actually, even the definition currently given on Category:Biweekly magazines is wrong ("published twice a month") and was even more wrong before this June 2008 edit from "twice a week". Basically, practically nobody gets "biweekly" right.
Problems:
- Problem 1: fortnightly and biweekly (1) are redundant, at the minimum.
- Problem 2: The ambiguous meanings of biweekly 1 & 2 spells endless trouble on a wiki.
- Problem 3: The additional confusion of biweekly and semimonthly adds more trouble.
Preliminary solutions suggested and why:
- Solution 1: Soft-merge Category:Fortnightly magazines into Category:Biweekly magazines by tagging Fortnightly with {{category redirect|Biweekly magazines}} (so as to let the bot move them and keep the useful soft redirect in place). The rationale is to keep the "normal" acception of biweekly and fold its more antiquated synonym into it. The con is that there are way enough people who believe in "Biweekly-2" rather than "Biweekly-1", or who confuse semimonthly/biweekly-1, to make the biweekly category be forever a mixed bag, so it solves only Problem #1 and not Problem #2 or #3.
- Solution 2: Assign Category:Fortnightly magazines as the main category for every-two-weeks (because it's a non-ambiguous synonym of biweekly-1), create and assign Category:Semiweekly magazines as the main category for twice-a-week (because it's a non-ambiguous synonym of biweekly-2), and deprecate Category:Biweekly magazines (tagging it as a category that should not be used and regularly emptied towards one of the two appropriate synonym). The rationale is to use non-ambiguous synonyms and avoid endless troubles from the unwashed masses with "biweekly". The con is to use the more antiquated Fortnightly and deprecate the common Biweekly. The pro is to solve Problems #1-3, though "Semiweekly" and "Semimonthly" may still confuse some.
- Solution 3: Same as Solution #2 but spelling it out loud by creating and using Category:Twice-monthly magazines (for 24 ish/yr, instead of semimonthly) + Category:Two-weekly magazines (for 26 ish/yr, instead of fortnightly/biweekly-1) + Category:Twice-weekly magazines (for 104 ish/yr, instead of semiweekly/biweekly-2). Basically because it would now be hard not to understand what these really mean, fully solving Problem #1-3, and potentially having less maintenance to do in the Category:Biweekly magazines sorting area (because the alternative names are easier to understand and use instead).
— The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
(other editors' discussions)
- Rename/merge to another - less confusing - solution: Create Category:Magazines issued twice per month, Category:Magazines issued twice per week, Category:Magazines issued every two weeks. If necessary, change Category:Monthly magazines and Category:Weekly magazines to follow suit. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment and question: Two problems and one note about your solution:
- The current system is based on how a journal is described in prose and infobox, i.e. "Foo is a monthly magazine of...", "Frequency: Monthly" (filed in Category:Monthly magazines), or "Foo is an annual magazine of...", "Frequency: Annual" (filed in Category:Annual magazines), etc. Changing the current naming scheme of "FREQUENCY magazines" will ruin this useful and practical parallel.
- The current system can sort categories in their parent category based on the name, i.e. people will look for "Monthly" at M, for "Annual" at A, etc. Where would "Magazines published every year" be filed with a DEFAULTSORT? At Y as Year, or A as Annual? And what about "Magazines issued twice per month", should it be at "M" as Month, or "T" as "Twice"? I'm not sure that would be intuitive for browsing the category.
- Last note: if a system similar to Grutness's proposal should be eventually adopted, the whole mirror hierarchy inside Category:Journals by publication frequency should be entirely renamed too for consistency. (And maybe the Newspaper hierarchy too.) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 14:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- A few comments on the comments:
- Re point one, I'm not quite sure how this is a useful and practical parallel. Given the initial complaint is that "FROEQUENCY magazine" is misleading or ambiguous in some cases, it must be equally misleading/ambiguous in the prose and infobox. If so, they too should be changed.
- Re point two, "Magazine published annually" would of course go under A, and "Magazine published monthly" would of course go under M (it would even if it was "...published every month"). Mind you' I'd be amenable to a defaultsorting by frequency (e.g., annually sorted as *001, monthly as *012, weekly as *052 and daily as *365). It would be more cumbersome to code initially, but far more intuitive to readers.
- Re point three, if they need to be changed, they need to be changed. An overhaul may be needed, but that all depends on the outcome of this discussion. Presumably, though, there are the same ambiguities in these systems as in the magazines one. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- A few comments on the comments:
- Comment and question: Two problems and one note about your solution:
- Rename Category:Biweekly magazines to Category:Biweekly magazines (every other week) or split into Category:Biweekly magazines (every other week) and Category:Biweekly magazines (twice a week)). Merge Category:Fortnightly magazines to Category:Biweekly magazines (every other week). I think this fixes the problem and likely keep the current convention for names. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:The Red Thread albums
- Category:The Red Thread albums - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Category is empty after the three (not independently notable) albums in it were merged into the band's main article, The Red Thread, a band for which AfD is the next step. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment – I have no idea whether the band or any of the albums are notable. However I think that if the band survives afd in its present form then Category:The Red Thread albums should survive with the 3 redirects for the 3 albums (with track-listings in The Red Thread article). See eg WP:CAT-R for categorisation of redirects (which seems appropriate in this case). Occuli (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - category not needed for three redirects to the same article. Anyone who searches for one of the albums will find the band article where the album information is located for all three. Useless for navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not if they are browsing Category:Albums by artist. And of course this objection applies to any album whatever, and to most categories. Occuli (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:People born on February 29
- Category:People born on February 29 - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. See: this previous discussion which resulted in deletion of similar categories. I don't need to add anything. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I believe that in the long term, the borths/deaths lists that we have in date articles (in this case, February 29), should be converted into categories like this. Categories are easier to maintain in this context, and can be more properly referened. Unfortunately, I've never had time to do it systematically, but I'm voting keep in hope that somebody else will see the wisdom in this approach. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 04:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no encyclopedic value in grouping people together who happen to have been born on the same day of the year. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Feb 29 birth date is not just a day of the year. It is the date some people celebrate their birthday only in every fourth year. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, that is a fact. Is it defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep And not just for this date, but for all dates. The Italian Wiki is doing this, so why isn't it done here? Lugnuts (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - trivial intersection, no encyclopedic value. Otto4711 (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly what is a "trivial intersection?Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Can anyone explain why this is defining for an individual? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Because they have a birthday only every fourth year. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Clearly that is not defining for the individual. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Because they have a birthday only every fourth year. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. People are interested in this stuff, and Digwuren is quite right that it is better and easier managed in categories than in lists. I really think that arguments of "no encyclopedic value" are essentially attempts to prescribe what people ought to find interesting, rather than accepting that stuff like this really is interesting to a lot of people. Hesperian 05:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- "Interesting" ≠ "Encyclopedic". WP is more than (and at the same time, less than) a general interest site. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- "The sum of all human knowledge", not "the sum of all human knowledge that Wikipedian editors consider encyclopedic, where encyclopedic is circularly defined as whatever Wikipedian editors want to include in Wikipedia." Hesperian 11:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Um, yeah. But it just so happens that we typically exclude trivia. If day of the year born is not trivial, then hardly anything would be. If we seriously keep any category that can be said to be part of "the sum of all human knowledge", I daresay we'd never delete anything. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have a hell of a lot of solid biographies on my bookshelf. One thing they all have in common is they all mention the date of birth if known. "Categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life", indeed. Hesperian 10:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's a good argument for including day of birth in an article, not one for categorizing based on the same. No decent encyclopedic work would even contain a list of people who were born on the same day of the month (even though WP does already), though of course any good work would include individuals' birth dates in the specific articles about the persons, as would a biography, naturally. So that's hardly a convincing argument. Also, notability is not the standard for categorization of people, which is a common error made here at CfD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have a hell of a lot of solid biographies on my bookshelf. One thing they all have in common is they all mention the date of birth if known. "Categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life", indeed. Hesperian 10:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Um, yeah. But it just so happens that we typically exclude trivia. If day of the year born is not trivial, then hardly anything would be. If we seriously keep any category that can be said to be part of "the sum of all human knowledge", I daresay we'd never delete anything. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- "The sum of all human knowledge", not "the sum of all human knowledge that Wikipedian editors consider encyclopedic, where encyclopedic is circularly defined as whatever Wikipedian editors want to include in Wikipedia." Hesperian 11:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- "Interesting" ≠ "Encyclopedic". WP is more than (and at the same time, less than) a general interest site. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Definitely non-defining and unencyclopedic. Falls into overcategorization. — Σxplicit 07:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as characteristic uniting the individuals in the category. Alansohn (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not everything that a set of people have in common is a defining characteristic of that set of people. Unless one is speaking of the draft, the date of one's birth does not unite one with others born on the same day any more than the color of one's eyes or the number of one's teeth. Otto4711 (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- You see hardly anything as defining, unless it passes your arbitrary standards. Your examples of eye color and number of teeth are irrelevant as arguments, here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. You can do better in your next stab at efforts to have me abide by your arbitrary choices, perhaps after watching The Pirates of Penzance. Alansohn (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete trivial; no more defining that people born on various holidays (Christmas, Easter, January 1, my birthday). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Note also that we already have a list for this at February 29#Births, which only emphasises the lack of a need for this category, since in deleting it will result in no net loss of information from WP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - not a defining characteristic. I think this sort of thing is better done with lists than categories, if at all. Robofish (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Afghan people by ideology
- Propose renaming Category:Afghan people by ideology to Category:Afghan people by political orientation
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change to match other subcategories of Category:People by nationality and political orientation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Military of Northern Ireland
- Suggest merging Category:Military of Northern Ireland to Category:Military of the United Kingdom
- Nominator's rationale: Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the UK and therefore doesn't have its own military. Furthermore, it has never been an independent country so the category is not useful for historical articles either. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- keep Each of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom has a 'Military of' category including, among other things categories and article on that part of the UK military establishment located in each country. No reason to target this one for deletion. Also needed as a parent category for its subcats involving military in Northern Ireland--none of which are being nominated for deletion. Hmains (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's not actually true - there is no Category:Military of Wales as a result of this discussion. It is reasonable for there to be categories for England and Scotland since these have, in the past, had their own militaries. As for the British military in Northern Ireland, that's not the same thing as military of Northern Ireland, so perhaps a renaming is in order instead? Cordless Larry (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I stand corrected regarding Wales. Category:Military of Wales was renamed to Category:Military history of Wales. That this was wrongly done can be seen from the current history subcategories that also include the current UK military establishment stationed in Wales--in no way 'history'. Hmains (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's not actually true - there is no Category:Military of Wales as a result of this discussion. It is reasonable for there to be categories for England and Scotland since these have, in the past, had their own militaries. As for the British military in Northern Ireland, that's not the same thing as military of Northern Ireland, so perhaps a renaming is in order instead? Cordless Larry (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep -- Many British categories are split by the constituent countries. UK army regiments have had a geographical area in which the recruit. The Ulster Defence Regiment and its successor are thus properly categorised as Northern Irish. "Military" should apply only to the army (not navy or RAF), but the incldusion of theri bases seems harmless. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Philosophical theories
- Suggest merging Category:Philosophical theories to Category:Non-empirical theories
- Nominator's rationale: The category was created as a distinction from scientific theories. However philosophical theories is not a term of note, and has has its own descriptive issues. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This should really be a "propose renaming" rather than "suggest merging". Beyond that, though, there are a couple of aspects which need covered in more depth:
- The proposed target name is negative and possibly unclear. Can this be addressed - for example is the category likely to be "moored" in a "Non-empirical theory" article? If not, does that indicate that an alternative target name would be preferable (and if so, what could that be)?
- The proposed target name also feels inappropriate for some articles in the category, for example Category:Pragmatism, Pragmaticism and Category:Economic theories - not necessarily "empirical" but are they all really "non-empirical"?
- These need to be addressed in assessing whether the proposed rename improves the current position. AllyD (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC
- Good observations and questions. I think "non-scientific" is more negative, and "non-empirical" is not so negative sounding. Furthermore "non-empirical" is really the concept behind the intention of the category, so how it sounds is the lesser priority. In the cases you mention, pragmatism certainly is a non-empirical theory. However, economic theories are not non-empirical. They do however contain some presumptions of a non-empirical nature quite often (this is the difference between hard and soft science.) Ones like economic theories which had been both scientific and philosophical, will now have to be entirely one or the other of empirical and non-empirical. I think this helps the organization. As far as its mooring is concerned, the philosophical theory has the same problem, however there does exist a "scientific theory" article, which I think, anchors the concept just fine. If you know what a concept x is, you know what not-x is (that's what it means to know a concept). Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose rename - I would disagree that 'philosophical theory' is 'not a term of note', given that we have articles such as Philosophical theory and List of philosophical theories. The word 'philosophical' should be kept in the name of this category, as most of its contents are clearly related to philosophy. 'Non-empirical theories' would be a bad idea, as some philosophical theories are empirical; this category also contains subcategories such as Category:Economic theories and Category:Political science theories, which are definitely empirical. Robofish (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The present wording is the commonly used one among ordinary people, and they are those for whom an encyclopedia is written. among the other possibilities, non-scientific is impossible, since it also means contrary to science, not outside the scope of science. DGG (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Vanessa Williams songs
- Suggest merging Category:Vanessa Williams songs to Category:Vanessa L. Williams songs
- Nominator's rationale: There's no reason for keeping two categories for the same singer. Funk Junkie (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Merge per nom and per Vanessa L. Williams (Vanessa Williams is a disamb page). Occuli (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)