Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 24
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
June 24
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 5 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)
New dubious cat by new anon user. Redundant with Category:Muppet performers, was used as a mixed bag of people with surname Henson, and puppeteers. Unneeded at the very least.
- Delete Fawcett5 23:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No real need to state why... -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:41, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vauge and of uncertain use. -- Infrogmation 15:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, though of course people who made Muppets but didn't "perform" with them wouldn't come under the suggested cat. James F. (talk) 23:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, though it's not a new user. tregoweth 00:41, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 5 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)
The page explanation says: Non-sovereign territories in North America, South America or the Caribbean. While these are technically "American dependencies" that term is likely to be interpreted as "Dependent territories of the Unites States". To avoid ambiguity I suggest that the category be renamed. Guettarda 23:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- While running across American dependencies, I must say I totally thought it meant "territory" or "dependency" of the United States. The US is often times known for going by the name "America" which in this case maybe somewhat un-related. I think, a name change of this category to "Dependent territories in the Americas" may- be much more appropriate to clarify everything as being in reference to the hemisphere of the Americas and not America herself. :-) I support the idea of this name change. I certainly can't see why not. CaribDigita 23:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- A perfect example, also, of why the term "American" meaning "pertaining to the United States" should not be used. The term is ambiguous and where possible the terms "United States" and "The Americas' should be used instead (which is a longwinded way of saying rename). Grutness...wha? 06:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Good point, Grutness. I will support the renaming if it is part of a program to eliminate all instances of the vague and potentially confusing term "American" from categories. If it suggested to remove just this one in a POV attempt to enforce one usage of the term as more "correct" than another, I strongly oppose. -- Infrogmation 15:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Rename. I will also support any similar proposals, as brought up by InFile:European tree frog.jpg.jpgmation. Just drop me a note on my talk page if I miss it. — Sebastian (talk) 03:47, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 page.
Category:Chicago Cardinals players, Category:St. Louis Cardinals (football) players and Category:Phoenix Cardinals players
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 5 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)
Duplicates of Category:Arizona Cardinals players. zellin 21:34, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I admit that they're empty (at least the Chicago & St. Louis ones are), but it's only temporary until we find Wiki entries on players who were in the NFL at the time and played for them... there's separate categories for the Los Angeles Rams, Los Angeles Raiders, Houston Oilers, etc... I created the separate Wiki categories to differentiate past players from current players. I'll work on finding articles of players from that era, and then they won't be empty, but don't delete them just because they haven't been filled yet. Keep.Anthony 22:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I must say, they weren't empty until I emptied them. There were no more than 3 articles on any of them, and since I read it was ok to blank duplicates, I did so. Players from all phases of the Cards franchise are already listed on the Arizona category. If someone will sort it out correctly I will say Keep, but otherwise Delete. Also, Delete Phoenix Cardinals regardless, since it was basically just a name change.
- I know the Phoenix was a name change, but it still represented a phase of the franchise... I've got Tennessee Oilers as a category, and that wasn't the team name for more than 2 years... I'm working on trying to occupy the cats to represent different times in the period of the franchise... for example, Jim Thorpe never played for Arizona, and Bill Gramatica wasn't on the team when they were called Phoenix. I saw from your user page that you're from the area... maybe you'd like to help me fill these cats (seeing as how it's your team?) I promise you I'm not doing this simply to create more categories or fill up space, I'm doing this to help refine the possibility of someone finding their favorite player or players from a particular era. I'm also in the process of working on the Pro Bowl articles and categories, and my goal is to (eventually) create as expansive a database on football as there currently exists on the baseball articles. Talk to me on my user page if you'd like to help out. Anthony 22:29, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - would it help if these were subcats of Category:Arizona Cardinals players? Categories for previous incarnations of baseball teams exist, see Category:Major league baseball players by team, and are not subcats of whatever the team is called now but it seems making these subcats of the current team would be a good idea. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be averse to including them as subcats, or at the very least linking them all from the Arizona Cardinals page, but I feel that deleting the cats and throwing all the players in the Arizona bin doesn't fit the spirit of what I was trying to achieve. That's all, I'm willing to work to a compromise (something I learned the hard way) if I just explain what it is I'm trying to do with the categories. Wiki's addictive as all hell (so is Sudoku), and I'm trying to make this a more comprehensive resource. BTW, many thanks to Zellin for the Barnstar... I'm honored, since I never thought a n00b like me would get one, lol. Anthony 00:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
- No problem! I change my vote to keep all by the way, since you are working on making them useful. Let me know if you need help, but I don't know how much I can be, since I'm just a wee lad :-). zellin 00:42, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be averse to including them as subcats, or at the very least linking them all from the Arizona Cardinals page, but I feel that deleting the cats and throwing all the players in the Arizona bin doesn't fit the spirit of what I was trying to achieve. That's all, I'm willing to work to a compromise (something I learned the hard way) if I just explain what it is I'm trying to do with the categories. Wiki's addictive as all hell (so is Sudoku), and I'm trying to make this a more comprehensive resource. BTW, many thanks to Zellin for the Barnstar... I'm honored, since I never thought a n00b like me would get one, lol. Anthony 00:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. James F. (talk) 23:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 5 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)
Should be renamed to Category:Wikipedian FIRSTers. -SV|t 21:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 5 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)
I love me some Mojo Nixon, but he don't need no category. SchmuckyTheCat 19:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I tend to agree, Shmuck, but maybe someones in process of doing a discography. And now I have to go Tie My Pecker to My Leg. -SV|t 21:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Get to writing an article for every disc then, unfortunately this category was created by a vandal. The effort isn't coming from there. SchmuckyTheCat 23:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. A category isn't really necessary in this case, especially not one simply named "Mojo Nixon". -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:42, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete silly category with bad name created by a user who's gone off the rails. User:Kmweber has also made Anti-Elvis (see the VfD) and been vandalizing articles related to that song. -Splash 14:52, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. James F. (talk) 23:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 5 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Squadron Supreme members for consistancy with other subcategories of Category:Superheroes by team - SoM 18:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Rename Concur, surprised I didnt catch it while sorting that area. Doh. <>Who?¿? 15:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Rename to maintain consistency as per SoM Hiding 15:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Rename —Lowellian (talk) June 29, 2005 18:12 (UTC)
- Rename. Didn't accure to me that that would be a better name. Opps.--Kross June 29, 2005 18:20 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 1 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)
This was protected for an RfAr that is now over. Articles belong in Category:Economy of the People's Republic of China. SchmuckyTheCat 18:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: There are many articles specific to the economy of mainland China, but the category was intentionally depopulated. — Instantnood 18:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- intentionally depopulated because there is no country named mainland China. the article, and category, are at Category:Economy of the People's Republic of China and there is no need for a parallel category. SchmuckyTheCat 19:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per my comment above. — Instantnood 19:48, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Question: Is Hainan part of mainland China? — Sebastian (talk) 09:56, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
- yes. mainland China SchmuckyTheCat 21:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Political POV category. --Calton | Talk 16:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep until we know which articles have been removed. I think I remember the cause for the RfAr [1], where I generally found Instantnood's position more convincing, sensible and trustworthy than that of his opponents. — Sebastian (talk) 22:26, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
- Keep. James F. (talk) 23:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The People's Republic of China is a special case because it uses One Country Two Systems. There are in effect multiple economies within the same country. Macau is part of the PRC but has a different economic system, for example. "Economy of People's Republic of China" is inaccurate when describing only the economy of the 22 provinces. Mainland China isn't a POV term, it's a neutral one, used by all three sides. The PRC and KMT uses it to avoid implying Taiwan is independent from China, the ROC uses it to avoid naming (and recognizing the existence of) the PRC, usage by Hong Kong and Macau avoids implying they not part of China. It's a term used for that piece of territory without making any statement over the actual political status of any of the parties involved, much like Greater China. It's used in both Chinese and as a commonly translated English term. And, as Instantnood pointed out, the term is also used in actual legal documents and laws.--Yuje 05:06, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Most neutral title. BlankVerse ∅ 09:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It would be nice to keep the thingie. Economy of Hong Kong (and Macau of course) and that of mainland China are definitely chalk and cheese apart under the principle of one country, two systems-- two systems namely capitalism and so-called Chinese-style socialism. But Hong Kong and Macau are just part of the PRC, aren't they, after 1997 and 1999 respectively? The category itself would be good enough to distinguish different economic systems within the Chinese territory. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have mentioned this before. No one doubts the fact that the HK and Macau economies are, by de facto, running quite independently from that in the rest of China. However, this is a categorising despute we are considering. It is not like there is a call for a dissolution of Category:Economy of Hong Kong and having all its entries chunked into Economy of the People's Republic of China. This is a dispute over some people's intentions of having this category replacing Economy of the People's Republic of China, as thou it has a place in Category:Economies by country. Do we have a country called "Mainland China"? I seriously doubt so. Instantnood once tried to justify this by saying the term "Country" has multiple meanings. Of coz, I am very much aware of that considering I am a geographer. But when that request is made by instantnood, then the whole thing needs to be examined under a microscope.--Huaiwei 29 June 2005 08:33 (UTC)--Huaiwei 29 June 2005 08:33 (UTC)
- My view with regards to the categorising dispute remains the same. The supposed "nuetrality" of the term "Mainland China" has already came under heavy attack, and the opposition hasent been able to defend it as stoutly as the way they promoted it. Nontheless, I am not too concerned over the outcome of this vote. I would vote a delete, as I mentioned before that it is creating an additional subcategory with not much of a logical reason. If it gets to be kept, I would just chunk it as a subcategory of Economy of the People's Republic of China. And since we are at it, Category:Economy of Hong Kong and Category:Economy of Macao should go under Economy of the People's Republic of China as well.--Huaiwei 29 June 2005 08:26 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 1 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)
As with topics like history and art literature is not neatly divided along political borders. The contens of this category clearly deomnstrates this. Several of the entries are for languages such as English literature, Latin literature, Serbian literature, and Spanish literature. Others are for continents such as African literature and European literature. It should be replaced by Category:Literature by nation or perhaps Category:Literature by culture. - SimonP 14:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Perhaps a cleanup is needed to remove continents, but the title matches the other subcats of Category:Categories by country which are "Foo by country". --Kbdank71 14:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP, many literary prizes are by country. And people do sociological studies based on the literature produced by a country during a period in history... 69.156.16.40 15:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I wonder if this anon. vote is valid. =) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 28 June 2005 05:58 (UTC)
- Delete. Largely redundant. Most countries are covered by the language already. For those that aren't it doesn't necessarily make sense, either. I'm German, and I see no sense in distinguishing between books published in Germany, Austria or Switzerland. Prizes, historical studies should be distinguished by country (or ethnic group, see below) though. Moreover, if we really need that distinction we should first categorize all books by publishers, and then publishers by country (where applicable). — Sebastian (talk) 10:07, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
- Keep. James F. (talk) 23:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Sebastian and reorganize into Category:Literature by language. Martg76 08:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep This category would be acting like a front page. Pretty useful -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Literature by country and literature by language should both be kept, as two different categorisation schemes. One would expect some differences between works published in Trinidad and Tobago and in Singapore, even though they're both written in English. Sociology would be another factor, as an anonymous contributor has suggested above. — Instantnood 14:45, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I can recall there are separate categories for newspapers by country and newspapers by language. — Instantnood June 29, 2005 14:57 (UTC)
- Keep by country, as above. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 12:21 (UTC)
- Keep, I look at this more from a cultural than from a political standpoint; the matter becomes a political one when the state utilizes a writer's nationality for purposes of the state (e.g. propaganda, international leverage). It's perfectly reasonable to consider writers of Russia, Spain, Greece, and Korea to have different cultural perspectives, and their segregation via this sub-cat set provides a facile way of accesseing those perspectives. Courtland June 28, 2005 23:59 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 page.
Category:Chicagoans, Category:Atlantans, Category:Nashvillians, Category:Seattleites, Category:New Orleanians
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 5 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)
This category should really be named Category:People from Chicago etc.., to match the current naming standards of every other "people by nationality" cat. Currently there is also Category:People from Los Angeles. It gets confusing trying to remember the large cities that have their own category, it makes it worse when it doesn't follow the same naming schema. <>Who?¿? 09:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Addtions to above I added all the other subs that should be standarized in naming, to their perspective city name. <>Who?¿? 05:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I concur, and while we're at it, the List of Las Vegans is misnamed at best and misleading at worst... makes it sound like the Rat Pack never drank dairy or ate meat... I'll vote to rename. Anthony 22:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep because they are shorter and because it is easy to find. (Anyone can naturally and intuitively go through the city category.) (This is more of a policy decision. Is there an actual policy in place? In that case, I guess I should change my vote.) — Sebastian (talk) 09:53, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
- Comment They are shorter, but I dont see how they are easier to find. To be quite honest, I didnt even know how to spell "Chicagoan" or "Nashvillians", much less know they were called that. I dont think shorter should have anything to do with keeping with the pre-established "people from" standards. <>Who?¿? 15:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Category:New Orleanians anyway, as that is common usage in New Orleans, Louisiana. (Note I reverted User:Who's nomination notice on that one, since it said "The suggested new name is Category:People from Chicago" which I took to be some sort of silly joke; as I see it was just an editing mistake, I'll put it back now). -- Infrogmation 15:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, those not from New Orleans, may not know its called that. See below comment. <>Who?¿? 17:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If this is part of an attempt to get rid of all demonyms in favor of a standard format of "people from ..." in all categories, I have no objection. Leaving those demonyms that have already been in use as categories as soft redirects would be nice though, IMO. -- Infrogmation June 28, 2005 14:12 (UTC)
- However, note that "People from New Orleans" would NOT be the same category as "New Orleanians". "People from" is inherently a more narrow category, excluding people who may be famous for living there most of their lives, but were not originally "from" there. "New Orleans people" might be an equivlent to "New Orleanians", but "...from New Orleans" would not be. -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 16:08 (UTC)
- If this is part of an attempt to get rid of all demonyms in favor of a standard format of "people from ..." in all categories, I have no objection. Leaving those demonyms that have already been in use as categories as soft redirects would be nice though, IMO. -- Infrogmation June 28, 2005 14:12 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, those not from New Orleans, may not know its called that. See below comment. <>Who?¿? 17:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Rename. WP:NC is official policy. It reads "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." While "Seattleites" and "New Orleanians" are more widely used and evocative, I don't think they can compete with "People from Seattle" and "People from New Orleans" for minimum ambiguity or easy linking. Dystopos 18:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as per Dystopos -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and make "People from Foo" as soft redirects. — Instantnood 14:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
- The only problem I see with this, all the other hundreds of cities don't have those types of names, yet. This would only create a plethora of redirects from a non-standarized naming schema, to the standardized. It may be a bit of work to fix all the articles affected, but a move, I feel is the better solution. <>Who?¿? 17:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Users don't tend to type in Category names and editors can copy/paste. Seattleites should be renamed to Seagros, but that's a battle for a different day. SchmuckyTheCat 15:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I dont feel I have effectively portrayed the point. Most users would not even know the locally given name of those who live in said areas, ie; "Seattleites", etc.. So how would they find them, much less add them to a new article. When a biography article is created, and I know the person is from Seattle, I would know to put "Category:People from Seattle", as I am not from there, I would NOT know those other phrases. <>Who?¿? 17:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Rename, confusing naming is bad. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 12:16 (UTC)
- Comment: Am curious to know if the same nominations like cities in the US would follow. :-D — Instantnood June 28, 2005 13:06 (UTC)
- Keep Not only is it more colorful, but a normal reader would assume "People from Chicago" refers to people born there rather than being important to the city regardless of where they were from. I definitely don't want a separate "People of importance to Chicago" when "Chicagoan" captures it perfectly. Jolomo 28 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see that as an issue, seeing they are notable already if they have an article. Also, we shouldn't categorize people for where they currently reside, but only where they were born. Except in the cases of "Category:Foo politicians", whereas they are important to the city itself. Although it not listed on Wikipedia:Categorization of people, I think it should be, otherwise we'll end up with people having multiple categories of where they've lived and born (btw already happens, I remove the lived and leave from). <>Who?¿? 28 June 2005 21:36 (UTC)
- It can happen that people achieve notability in association with a place in which they were not born, without necessarily being politicians. For example, Ted Turner is a prominent figure associated with Atlanta, and properly belongs in any list of noted Atlantans, even though he was born in Cincinnati. His association with other Atlantans is certianly more notable than any association with Cincinnati, and arguably more informative than his association with others born in 1938. Dystopos 28 June 2005 21:46 (UTC)
- This is a valid point, however, if you look at the current contents, you would find more "people from" than notable "figures of". If we were to remove all the "people from", it would leave the categories quite empty, and would probably come up on Cfd again. Notable figures who have made a significant impact on a city/region, should be included/mentioned on that city/regions, or similiar article. As it would not be fitting to have a cat with one or two articles in it. Which still leaves the point of having a locally given demonym that others would not know for inclusion. <>Who?¿? 28 June 2005 22:32 (UTC)
- It can happen that people achieve notability in association with a place in which they were not born, without necessarily being politicians. For example, Ted Turner is a prominent figure associated with Atlanta, and properly belongs in any list of noted Atlantans, even though he was born in Cincinnati. His association with other Atlantans is certianly more notable than any association with Cincinnati, and arguably more informative than his association with others born in 1938. Dystopos 28 June 2005 21:46 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see that as an issue, seeing they are notable already if they have an article. Also, we shouldn't categorize people for where they currently reside, but only where they were born. Except in the cases of "Category:Foo politicians", whereas they are important to the city itself. Although it not listed on Wikipedia:Categorization of people, I think it should be, otherwise we'll end up with people having multiple categories of where they've lived and born (btw already happens, I remove the lived and leave from). <>Who?¿? 28 June 2005 21:36 (UTC)
- Delete. That a person is from Chicago or Atlanta is far less relevant than if they did something that was relevant to that city or about that city. For instance, it is far more relevant that a writer composes about Chicago than that she composes in Chicago. The people in these categories should be merged into their city of origin if their lives are relevant to the history of the city in some way. Courtland June 29, 2005 00:03 (UTC)
- I'm going more on the policy of categorization of people, although it is not stated for this instance, it has birth year. I am going on the same concept, that they are categorized by year of birth and place, not when or where they became notable. As ones biography is not limited to the period of time that they were notable, but conists of their origins and history as well. These comments and discussion would be a good topic to clarify Wikipedia:Categorization of people, in the future. <>Who?¿? 29 June 2005 00:16 (UTC)
- comment Agreed, it would be a good topic of discussion there; I just visited the link you provided for the first time and see there's been a lot of careful consideration there. I also agree with you that the origin and living locations of a person shapes in part that person. The problem I have here is that a single visit to Chicago by a writer who has never visited a midwestern city (for instance, a person who has lived their life in Tokyo) can have as much impact as a lifetime in another city on what that person accomplishes in life; such is the nature of life events and experiences. Also, one's spending life in Waco, Texas and watching closely the years of the Branch Dividians (spelling's off probably) is a potentially major influence .. should we have a category for those people .. the obvious answer is no, it would be considered overcategorization. Therefore, we create categories based on the notability of the city in this case and not the notability of the influence that city has on person A, B, or C .. which leads back to the suggestion that if the people are key in this case, they should not be so labeled as it creates an intrinsic bias in highlighting notable people from notable cities while leaving notable people from non-notable cities behind the curtain. Courtland June 29, 2005 00:27 (UTC)
- comment. Another possible precedent is lists like List of Tulane University people which includes alumni, major benefactors, faculty, and non-graduating students. Their association with Tulane is of some note in the same way that Ted Turner's association with Atlanta is very notable. I think it's important to include people "notable from" in a category for Atlantans. The actual information is about the city more than about the classification of persons. I don't think looking at a list of people "born in" a city is terribly informative by itself. Of course, cities like to claim their native sons even if they moved away when they were 6 months old. What if we standardize around the name Category:Foo people and subcateogrize for [:Category:People born in Foo] ? Dystopos 29 June 2005 15:17 (UTC)
- Excellent point. It is important to note that "(Place demonym) people" is NOT equivilent to "People from (Place)", the latter being a much narrower category. -- June 29, 2005 16:08 (UTC)
- comment. Strongly agree with above about "not equivalent". A list is fine too, but the thing I like about categories is you can immediately get some info about a person by looking at the categories at the page footer. With a list you'd need to put a wikilink at the bottom of each page "For other Chicagoans, see List of Chicago people" where it seems the category mechanism achieves this goal completely. I would be on board for Category:Foo people as long as Atlanta doesn't get saddled with Category:Atlanta, Georgia (U.S. state) people which seems unbearably clumsier than Category:Atlantans to me. Jolomo 29 June 2005 17:06 (UTC)
- comment. Another possible precedent is lists like List of Tulane University people which includes alumni, major benefactors, faculty, and non-graduating students. Their association with Tulane is of some note in the same way that Ted Turner's association with Atlanta is very notable. I think it's important to include people "notable from" in a category for Atlantans. The actual information is about the city more than about the classification of persons. I don't think looking at a list of people "born in" a city is terribly informative by itself. Of course, cities like to claim their native sons even if they moved away when they were 6 months old. What if we standardize around the name Category:Foo people and subcateogrize for [:Category:People born in Foo] ? Dystopos 29 June 2005 15:17 (UTC)
- comment Agreed, it would be a good topic of discussion there; I just visited the link you provided for the first time and see there's been a lot of careful consideration there. I also agree with you that the origin and living locations of a person shapes in part that person. The problem I have here is that a single visit to Chicago by a writer who has never visited a midwestern city (for instance, a person who has lived their life in Tokyo) can have as much impact as a lifetime in another city on what that person accomplishes in life; such is the nature of life events and experiences. Also, one's spending life in Waco, Texas and watching closely the years of the Branch Dividians (spelling's off probably) is a potentially major influence .. should we have a category for those people .. the obvious answer is no, it would be considered overcategorization. Therefore, we create categories based on the notability of the city in this case and not the notability of the influence that city has on person A, B, or C .. which leads back to the suggestion that if the people are key in this case, they should not be so labeled as it creates an intrinsic bias in highlighting notable people from notable cities while leaving notable people from non-notable cities behind the curtain. Courtland June 29, 2005 00:27 (UTC)
- I'm going more on the policy of categorization of people, although it is not stated for this instance, it has birth year. I am going on the same concept, that they are categorized by year of birth and place, not when or where they became notable. As ones biography is not limited to the period of time that they were notable, but conists of their origins and history as well. These comments and discussion would be a good topic to clarify Wikipedia:Categorization of people, in the future. <>Who?¿? 29 June 2005 00:16 (UTC)
- Suggested course of action This pertains both to the Cfr and the notable peoples other than "People from".
- First: Deal with my above comments on "People from" as an interpretation of "Year born" from Wikipedia:Categorization of people. We categorize those people by birth and birthplace, as part of a complete biography.
- People from → Category:People from Chicago, etc.
- Second: I realize that many are still partial to the demonyms, however I still feel that is very confusing for those who do not know them. So, we place those of notable stature to their community in that particular existing category. And, although one may have made significant contributions to a locality, it does not necessarily mean they live, have lived, or are from there, so to label them as a Chicagoan, would be inappropriate.
- Notable peoples → Category:Chicago, Illinois.
- Third: Merging and deletion of demonyms, ie.. Category:Chicagoans, etc.
- First: Deal with my above comments on "People from" as an interpretation of "Year born" from Wikipedia:Categorization of people. We categorize those people by birth and birthplace, as part of a complete biography.
- This solves the problem of maintaining a standarized non-confusing naming schema, and places only those of great accomplishment and recoginition, in their prospective locality category. Then if no-contest or general consensus, we amend Wikipedia:Categorization of people for future reference. <>Who?¿? 29 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 1 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)
Delete. Contains only one article, and a cursory search reveals exactly one other article that would fit under this category. It is also redundant with the Category:Fictional parasites, (created by the same guy, containing the same single article) which would serve the same function, only have actual growth potential.
- Delete as redundant, and I'm not as yet convinced that 'fictional parasites' is useful. Oh btw please sign your nominations. Radiant_>|< 08:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I see no reason for this... -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:43, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete redundant, whether spelt properly or not.-Splash 14:54, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. James F. (talk) 23:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 page.
Hidden category: