Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 26

< November 25	November 27 >

November 26

Category:Wiggers

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 16:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Slang-based categories now? I can see the point of having an article explaining the term, but not a category based on it. Vulturell 18:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not because it's "slang-based" (we have plenty of categories named after neologisms, like Category:Blogs, because sometimes neologisms exist that describe important concepts that no older words do), but because it's a POVed, inherently pejorative term (Ali G might not object to being labeled a "wigger", but Vanilla Ice most certainly would). And we do have an article titled wigger, where Ali G is already mentioned and Vanilla Ice easily could (and probably should) be mentioned. Also, the article has the advantage that we can add citations showing noteworthy people who have deemed Ali G, Vanilla Ice, etc. "wiggers", thus keeping Wikipedia from having to take a stance on the wiggerosity of various noteworthy individuals. Categories can't cite sources for their entries (though lists can), so this category is too contentious to exist. (Though I don't see why it would qualify for speedying.) -Silence 21:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Carina22 23:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too subjective. Herostratus 04:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously there is no way this could be NPOV. zellin t / c 05:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like this should have been a speedy as an attack. --StuffOfInterest 13:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Arab American Leaders

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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and put articles under Category:Arab Americans - Bad capitalization and imagine categories such as "Jewish American leaders" or "English American leaders". - Darwinek 16:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Leaders is too vague and there are too many ethnic cats. Carina22 23:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The content of this category is actually Arab American politicians.--Pharos 21:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Girls_in_war to Category:Children_in_war

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This new category (Nov. 25) came to my attention when the creator tried to add Joan of Arc to it. This was odd because she was already listed under Category:Women_in_war. Looking at the new category, two of its three listings are of females who participated in wartime resistance movements in their late teens who certainly would not have been classified as Category:Boys_in_war if they had been male. To avoid a double standard I suggest renaming the category to include all childrens' wartime experiences. Durova 16:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nominator. Carina22 23:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Durova 01:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify (and I speak as a female war veteran), I have urged the category creator to establish guidelines for inclusion based on age and combatant status. There's a delicate point to be made about honoring fallen combatants. When a "boy" of sixteen or seventeen goes to war and performs the duties of a man, custom accords him manhood. When a "girl" the same age assumes the risks of wartime service and dies, she is neither a victim nor a child. A different threshold might apply to noncombatants. Durova 01:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Joan of Arc is considered to be a girl by most, not a women. However, it is conceivable she may have been a girl when she started and a women later. However, I find it difficult to classify a girl of 19 as a woman. To rename the article Children at War is problematical, as the article would then be swamped with boys. Also older girls are hardly children. The classification was intended to include girls who have been harshly treated by war. They are so often the victims. An example of a Women in war is Margaret Thatcher, and she is rightly listed in that category. Wallie 20:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um. You clearly don't understand that the whole point of this nomination is that Joan of Arc is going to be removed from this category, since "girls in war" is too vague; "children in war" for especially young people and "women in war" for people Joan of Arc's age and older is much clearer.

Of course. This is why you wanted this category renamed, as you want Saint Joan left exactly the way she is. Anyway she is not in this category, as you called me a vandal, and forced me to agree to this. I am really annoyed that girls are so often the forgotten ones in war, and it looks like this will be no exception. Also Joan of Arc was the Maid of Orleans, not the Woman or Orleans! Wallie 19:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wally, I didn't write the unsigned comment. Durova 19:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, rename. A very good idea, and could make for a very interesting category once populated! -Silence 20:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nominator. - TexasAndroid 15:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Category:1990s TV shows in the United States are Gay XD LOL OWNAGE!

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 Speedy delete -- Rick Block (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious vandalism. CarbonCopy 15:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Carina22 23:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Pictures & Images

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 16:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misguided attempt by an IP editor. Such a category is too large to be of any use. Delete. (Also delete the redirect Category:Images and pictures.) Lupo 09:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate. Honbicot 13:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Films used for Kingdom Hearts

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 16:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category for Disney films that were incorporated into the Kingdom Hearts video game series. A list would be preferable, in this case. tregoweth 06:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not important enough. Honbicot 13:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A list has appeared elsewhere. Delete at will. --Apostrophe 05:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Canadian professors categories to Canadian academic categories - the rest

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all. Other professors cats have already been done away with in favour of this kind of merger. -Mayumashu 04:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/merge all for clarity and consistency. CalJW 10:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honbicot 13:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT are you sure all medical professors are medical researchers? 132.205.44.134 20:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i ve never heard tell of professors who don t do academic research in their field. -Mayumashu 15:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as proposed. Carina22 23:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/merge all. u p p l a n d 16:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Intercollegiate athletics to Category:Intercollegiate athletics in the United States

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to rename to Intercollegiate athletics in the United States. The articles in the category are mostly for American sports. Circa 1900 03:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. -Mayumashu 04:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support for clarity. CalJW 10:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support because that's what it is. there are other cats for foreign countries. Golfcam 00:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Mathematical model

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 16:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ This category was newly created by User:CarlHewitt, who has been populating it with what are standardly called theories, not models. The distinction between a theory and a model is extremely important in mathematical logic. A theory is syntactic (a collection of formal statements), whereas a model is semantic (it assigns meaning to the statments). The different sense of "model" in which natural scientists use the word might deserve a category, but Peano axioms, Set theory and Non-Euclidean geometry definitely do not belong in that category. --Trovatore 00:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Carl (and the category as well). —R. Koot 01:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update Carl seems to have taken my criticism to heart, and is now adding articles such as Axiom of choice and Continuum hypothesis on the grounds that the independence proofs for these results use mathematical models. That claim is at least accurate. However we already have Category:Model theory; the new category seems redundant for this purpose. --Trovatore 02:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete user and catagory per R.Koot DV8 2XL 02:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Trovatore the category has now been clarified and includes mathematical models as opposed to syntactic theories. Note that Category:Model theory (the study of sets that satisfy logical sentences) is a proper subcategory of Category:Mathematical model.--Carl Hewitt 02:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My main objections have bean dealt with and I'm withdrawing my delete vote in favor of abstention. If the category is kept, it should probably be renamed to Category:Mathematical models per precedent for categories. --Trovatore 02:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Trovatore that it should be renamed.--Carl Hewitt 03:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that this is a neologism. I'll retract this vote if there's an AMS subject classification for this (other than a model theory classification, which is something else again). linas 05:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we already have an article Mathematical model.--Carl Hewitt 05:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that article has little to do with model theory, or rather model theory has little to do with it. I think maybe the category should be kept (and renamed), but that Category:Model theory should not be a subcat of it. --Trovatore 05:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point. But a better solution might be to improve the article Mathematical model.--Carl Hewitt 05:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't see any common underlying concept. To a first approximation, I think they're just two unrelated things that happen to have the same name. Thus there's no point in torturing mathematical model to accomodate models in the math-logic sense. --Trovatore 06:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In common sense terms, the models of Model theory would seem to be examples of mathematical models.--Carl Hewitt 06:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no unifying concept. In the incarnation I saw earlier, it mixes models of Model theory with mathematical models. Why not mathematical economic models? Hey we could throw in mathematical super models. --CSTAR 06:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are mathematical models in the "dismal" science;-) --Carl Hewitt 06:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are models in economics; but why would it be convenient to lump a model of economic growth with models of arithmetic? See model_(abstract) where the two are compared.--CSTAR 14:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Model (abstract)#Abstract models vs models in mathematics gives the reason why Category:Model theory is a proper subcategory of Category:Mathematical model.--Carl Hewitt 22:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In comparing the two concepts, it says:

An abstract model, on the other hand, resembles more closely a formal (that is, uninterpreted) mathematical theory itself, including the machinery of inference to discover new facts.

However, I think that it pretty clearly states they are different, and moreover, one is not a special case of the other. --CSTAR 00:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In common sense terms and in terms of the examples in Model (abstract), abstract models would seem to be examples of mathematical models.--Carl Hewitt 03:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, mathematical models are examples of abstract models.--CSTAR 03:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to clarify the wording in Model (abstract) to explain the controversy. Please see what you think.

I am beginning to think that maybe neither concept subsumes the other.

Regards,--Carl Hewitt 04:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of your "clarification", you have obliterated the paragraph that made the distinction between Model (as in model of a formal theory) and model of some phenomenon.--CSTAR 04:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should carefully note Hewitt's recent tendentious edits to Model_(abstract).--CSTAR 06:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those interested can find the discussion here: Talk:Model_(abstract)#Recent_edits--Carl Hewitt 06:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DocOck 08:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's obvious the category exists and could be useful. Whether or not something is in it or out of it is orthogonal to whether the category should be deleted. Note that Trovatore, who first brought it up for deletion, has withdrawn his vote. Even if the category is ambiguous a general encyclopedia category need not be as narrow as a technical article. Montalvo 20:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point: Hewitt originally created this category as a hodgepodge of at least two unrelated notions (mathematical model and model aas in model theory) and moreover, during the course of this discussion has gone back and altered the article model_(abstract), in a way which I argue is highly controversial, so as to retroactively fit his actions. Don't you think this fits into the description bad faith? --CSTAR 20:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia is a place where we improve. As a results of the contributions of Trovatore (who originally moved to delete but has since withdrawn his recommendation to delete), the category Matematical model is now in good shape and should not be deleted (IMH0). In typical Wikipedia fashion our debate at Talk:Model_(abstract)#Dispute is continuing apace. Regards, --Carl Hewitt 21:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and read the model_(abstract) article before Hewitt changed it and the section on math v abstract models was confusing to me. Maybe there's something there but I couldn't tell what it was on first reading. See talk:model (abstract)#proposal for my (perhaps confused) understanding about what I take the distinction to be. If that's not it, please clarify the distinction so mere mortals can understand it.Montalvo 00:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've obviously stepped into a larger war that I'd have preferred to avoid (no one to blame but myself; I did know it was going on). My observations at this point:

I suspected at the time that there was an agenda behind Carl's creation and population of the category. Nothing that's happened has changed my view of that.
However, he does seem more willing than I expected to modify his stance when facts of which he may have been unaware are pointed out to him.
I think Montalvo has a good point. Properly populated, the category is fine. It should be limited to things that are standardly recognized as "models", in the sense of natural science, that are expressed mathematically. It should not include models in the sense of model theory; if Carl sees an underlying connection there that no one else does, it doesn't mean he's wrong, but he should publish it elsewhere. --Trovatore 21:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The argument that the models of Model theory are in common sense terms mathematical models still seems compelling to me. But I am certainly willing to be overruled. What do other editors think? Regards,--Carl Hewitt 21:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, while I appreciate these comments, I would like to point out that your actions (going ahead and changing a relevant article while this discussion was going on) shows something, possibly a lack of judgement on your part or worse. Since you stress collegiality (or the lack of it in WP) I think the appropriate action would have been to first put comments on the talk page of that article to start a discussion about the contested issues. As it is, now we have yet another dispute on our hands.--CSTAR 22:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CSTAR,

Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, it is difficult for us editors on the Wikipedia because our tools are so primitive. For example it would be nice to be able to put yellow stickies on articles for other Wikipedia editors. So it is always a judgment call whether to edit an article or put something in the discussion page. And my judgment is not always the best! It would be nice to have some guidelines when to edit an article and when to put something on the talk page.

Regards,--Carl Hewitt 22:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that model theory is close to the foundations of mathematics and mathematical models and mathematical modelling is regularly about the application of mathematics (in other sciences and in societal problems). And I think that it is not logical to put articles about foundation and application together in one categorie. On the other hand do I see perspective for a categorie mathematical modelling about the application of mathematics. --Mdd 18:30 29 november 2005 (CEST)

Thanks for your comments. Currently Category:Mathematical model has three subcategories Category:Computational models, Category:Model theory and Category:Neural networks. Also the article Domain theory is categorized in Category:Computational models. Regards, --Carl Hewitt 18:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. What I was trying to say is that:

* the Category:Model theory should be placed under Category:Philosophy of mathematics

* I prefer a renaming to Category:Mathematical modeling because this term can include the model and modeling.

* a Category:Mathematical modeling should be reserved for categories and articles about the structured application of mathematical methods and techniques in science and in society.

I think that, just like the Category:Scientific modeling, such a categorie can give an very interesting interdisciplinary view through the Wikipedia of all kinds of applications of mathematics. -- Mdd 14:57 30 november 2005 (CEST)

We're getting a bit off topic, but I don't agree that Category:Model theory belongs in Category:Philosophy of mathematics. Model theorists are mostly mathematicians, not philosophers of math. I suspect they're more likely to be interested in philosophy of math than mathematicians in general, but what they do from day to day is not philosophy. It does belong in Category:Mathematical logic (and it is there currently), and the latter is a subcat of Category:Logic which is a subcat of Category:Branches of philosophy, so model theory gets called philosophy by heredity, but this is a bug rather than a feature and should maybe be fixed. --Trovatore 16:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Religious professionals to Category:Religious workers

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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both categories seem synonymous to me. Ok, there might be some non-professional religious workers, but the distinction is too small. Mkill 00:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Rather a lot of non-professionals I would have thought, but that is a reason for the merger as it isn't very important whether these people were paid for working for their religion. CalJW 10:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge--Jondel 08:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.