< February 13	February 15 >

February 14

[edit]

Category:KYTV (TV series) episodes

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:KYTV (TV series) episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains the main article on the series which is already categorised as a list of episodes. – Fayenatic London 23:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reason to have as a one entry category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT....William 14:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who wish Bish and Giano would come back

[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who wish Bish and Giano would come back (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is now redundant, because AFAICS both Bishonen (talk · contribs) and Giano (talk · contribs) are now editing again.

This category was previously discussed at CFD 2012 April 1, when there was no consensus. However, now that its objective hads been achieved, we don't need to retain what was described by the closer of the 2012 discussion as "a very suspect category concept". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Agree as prime culprit. It's served its purpose. --T-RexxS (rawr) 22:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete allowing category names like this created a horrible precedent, and was most likely the cause of some of our most objectionable and debated user categories over the last year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: It was very flattering; and I had no idea that BrownHairedGirl was a member of this category - that's even more flattering. In fact, I'm quite touched. Giano 07:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was also unaware that I was a member of this category, but anyway it's nice to see you back. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh BHG, you disappoint me so - how could you have been so cruel. I was fondly imagining you weeping for my return. My day is ruined. Giano 14:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't pining for you, but the welcome back is genuine. It's good to see a prolific content creator back in action. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm mollified. Sadly, I'm no longer prolific, just can't seem to find the heart, but I am looking after the pages I wrote; that's a full time job too. Giano 19:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per Bish and Giano. --Guerillero | My Talk 14:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Obvious common sense is obvious. — Ched : ? 22:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moyne-Templetouhy hurlers‎

[edit]

The result of the discussion was: moot - deleted per G6. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Moyne-Templetouhy hurlers

Nominator's rationale: this category contains a mis-spelling of a placename (Templetuohy) and is empty, with the new Category:Moyne-Templetuohy hurlers populated instead. Brocach (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominated category was in fact emptied out-of-process by User:Brocach, who has been warned before not to do this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to clarify for BHG's benefit; the misnamed Category:Moyne-Templetouhy hurlers was created just this afternoon by another well-meaning editor. The correctly named Category:Moyne-Templetuohy hurlers, which has existed since 2010, was completely empty. In the course of vastly extending the parent article Moyne-Templetuohy GAA I naturally checked the bio articles of notable hurlers from that club and directed them towards the correctly-spelled category. The total population of the category is, last time I looked, three articles. Would you consider supporting this eminently sensible proposal, or can you suggest why we should retain an empty and mis-spelled category? Brocach (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. Finnegas (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a misspelling.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as G6, since this was obviously a mistake; this also would have qualified under C2A, "Typographic and spelling fixes". Emptying a category is appropriate in cases such as spelling mistakes when the correct category already exists. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tipperary sportspeople

[edit]

The result of the discussion was: put it all back. Is it required that every discussion about Ireland categories turn into a wheelwar? Well, regardless, the discussion was poisoned immediately upon the removal of articles from the categories, so I looked solely at the merits. As far as I can read through the thicket, the counties exist now, and Category:Sportspeople by county in the Republic of Ireland exists to contain such categories. So it's staying for now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Sportspeople from South Tipperary and Category:Sportspeople from North Tipperary

Nominator's rationale: as per consensus achieved at Wikiproject Gaelic Games [1] Finnegas (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. Brocach (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose for 3 reasons:

If for whatever reason, these categories were inappropriate, then they should not be deleted; they should upmerged to Category:Sportspeople from County Tipperary.
The nominator appears to assume that Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) sportspeople are the only sportspeople from these areas, which is patently false. Even if GAA players are not to be placed in these categories, they are still appropriate for other sportspeople.
Hardly any GAA players should be directly in any of the 3 categories involved here (Category:Sportspeople from South Tipperary, Category:Sportspeople from North Tipperary and Category:Sportspeople from County Tipperary). All GAA players are categorised by the club for which they play, and all those by-club categories should themselves be subcats of Category:Sportspeople from County Tipperary. Some editors have chosen to ignore the basic principle that an article should not usually be in both a category and its parent category, and have flooded the 3 sportspeople categories with individual players. This miscategorisation should be fixed by diffusing the mass of GAA articles which have been flooded into these general categories.

Also, please note that both the nominated categories have been depopulated out-of-process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of out-of-process depopulation: [2], [3], [4]. This also appears to have been accompanied by removal from the articles of all mentions of North Tipperary and South Tipperary (e.g. [5]). Editors should not try to rewrite geography in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment re "depopulation": You might want to check who put "North Tipperary" into those articles (LL), when (a few months ago), and how long the article had been stable in referring to the county of birth by the traditional county name (Tipperary) rather than by the recently-created, soon-to-be-abolished administrative counties (five years in the cases you point to). These are sensible reverts to controversial, contra-consensus edits. Moreover, just as it would be nonsense to describe an 1880 birth as occurring in "Tipperary, Republic of Ireland", it is absurd to describe anyone born before 2001 (i.e., anyone notable) as having been born in a county created in that year. Brocach (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. North Tipperary and South Tipperary were not created in 2001. They were created in 1899 by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898, as the "North Riding of Tipperary" and the "South Riding of Tipperary", and that was their creation as administrative counties; both had previously been judicial counties. What happened in 2001 was merely that they were renamed by removing the words "Riding of".
    The minister announced a few months ago that he wanted to merge North & South Tipp (see page 8 here), but no legislation has yet been published, let alone enacted. We can deal with abolition if and when it happens, but in the meantime these counties continue to exist, and we have a category structure for both of them: see Category:North Tipperary and Category:South Tipperary. If editors want to nominate those two categories for merger, then feel go ahead and nominate the lot; but ripping out part of that structure makes no sense. There is no logic in deleting Category:Sportspeople from North Tipperary when we still have Category:Sport in North Tipperary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As long as those counties exist, they are worth to be mentioned in a category. Don't anticipate on what might happen, we are not a Crystal Bol (and I have seen more screaming U-turns of this government) The Banner talk 23:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and return the out-of-process removed articles. These are clear places that people are from.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These are 'places' in the sense that they are jurisdictions with corresponding areas, but they are not 'places' in the sense that people commonly refer to as coming from. RashersTierney (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Reply To BHG concerns':

If for whatever reason, these categories were inappropriate, then they should not be deleted; they should upmerged to Category:Sportspeople from County Tipperary.

Does not matter same result,no North and South Tipp categories

The nominator appears to assume that Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) sportspeople are the only sportspeople from these areas, which is patently false. Even if GAA players are not to be placed in these categories, they are still appropriate for other sportspeople.

The consensous was acheived on WikiProject GAA but affects all Irish sports articles.

Hardly any GAA players should be directly in any of the 3 categories involved here (Category:Sportspeople from South Tipperary, Category:Sportspeople from North Tipperary and Category:Sportspeople from County Tipperary). All GAA players are categorised by the club for which they play, and all those by-club categories should themselves be subcats of Category:Sportspeople from County Tipperary. Some editors have chosen to ignore the basic principle that an article should not usually be in both a category and its parent category, and have flooded the 3 sportspeople categories with individual players. This miscategorisation should be fixed by diffusing the mass of GAA articles which have been flooded into these general categories.

Also, please note that both the nominated categories have been depopulated out-of-process

If a person plays for a GAA club in Tipp it does not necessarily mean they are from(i.e born and raised in that county)in that county so x hurlers and Sportspeople from X Finnegas (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you refer only to the GAA as reason when there are far more sports played by people from north & south-Tipp? The Banner talk 00:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finnegas, you are wrong on a lot of points there:
1. There is a crucial distinction between deletion and merger. If a category is merged, all affected articles end up into the categories to which they are being merged. That does not happen with deletion.
2. You say that "the consensous was acheived on WikiProject GAA but affects all Irish sports articles". Not true; as notes in my reply below to Brocach, the relevant sections of the discussion are Proposal 4 and Proposal 5, both of which explicitly restrict their scope to the GAA.
3. You say If a person plays for a GAA club in Tipp it does not necessarily mean they are from(i.e born and raised in that county)in that county so x hurlers and Sportspeople from X.
  Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Residence, "the place of birth is rarely notable". The same guideline notes that People are sometimes categorized by notable residence, in the form People from Foo (not "Natives of Foo"), regardless of ethnicity, heritage, or nationality. So categorise people by notable residence, not by place of birth.
  An article should not usually be in both a category and its parent category, and there is no point in having all the hurlers from County X in both X hurlers and Sportspeople from X. Sure, if the hurler also has a notable association with County Y, then put them in both X hurlers and Sportspeople from Y ... but X hurlers and Sportspeople from X is just category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the outcome of the long discussion at WT:GAA (in which BrownHairedGirl participated), including the overwhelming rejection of a proposal that modern administrative counties should be used for categorising "Sportspeople from", was notified to WT:IMOS for further discussion. The discussion while under way at WT:GAA was notified to WT:WikiProject Ireland and WT:WikiProject Northern Ireland. No-one even commented, in the further long discussion at WT:IMOS, on the "Sportspeople from" issue, so it is reasonable to assume that the consensus was well established. My proposal for deletion (or merger, either would be fine) was in response to the closing admin's invitation to implement that consensus. The fact is that people in Ireland, if asked which county they are from, invariably answer with reference to the 32 traditional counties, not the 2001 creations now set to be abolished. (And "North Tipperary", "South Tipperary", "Fingal" etc. did not exist as counties under those names until 2001, so it is particularly inappropriate to classify sportspeople whose careers ended, and who in some cases died, before then as being "from" such places.) Brocach (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but there are more sports played in the administrative counties. Imposing only a GAA-discussion on those categories, is rather disrespectful towards everybody involved in soccer, rugby, athletics, swimming, golfing and so on. Unless you have brought the same discussion to the involved WikiProjects and got their agreement. The Banner talk 11:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing was imposed: the discussion at the GAA talk page re "Sportpeople from" was notified to the Ireland and Northern Ireland talk pages. While there are 30+ Irish sports categories, it would have been pointless to notify all their talk pages because they are all happily categorising their sportspeople by county according to the traditional 32 counties: if you check out the subcategories of Category:Irish sportspeople by county you will see that the one and only anomaly is the existence of North & South Tipperary categories, created by Laurel Lodged a few months ago, alongside the 32. I don't know of any sports that have leagues or championships organised in alignment with the council borders of North/South Tipperary - even the GAA's North Tipperary competitions take in clubs outside the local government area, and exclude some within it. Brocach (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Brocach, nothing was imposed at that discussion, but you are now misrepresenting that discussion to try to impose something.
      The relevant sections of the discussion are Proposal 4: Articles on people who have played on inter-county GAA teams should be categorised according to the county for which the player played and Proposal 5: In any of the above cases, the county in question should be the GAA county, not the "current administrative county".
      In both cases the scope is explicitly tied to the GAA, and it is clear enough to leave no room for confusion. It is sad to see an editor trying to misrepresent a consensus in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sadder still to see an admin who overlooks entirely the relevant proposal, Wikipedia_talk:GAA#Proposal_7, which was rejected. LL proposed that "Sportspeople from" should allow the creation of categories (two of which he had already created and populated off his own bat, needless to say without discussion) for modern admin counties. Two editors supported, the rest opposed. Did you really miss that part of the discussion? Brocach (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        To start with, it had the backing of three not two editors. And the proposal clearly refers to the GAA alone: The scope of the category structure "Sportspeople from County Foo" (e.g. Category:Sportspeople from County Galway) should be defined as "Notable sportspeople who were born in the Irish county of Foo". This structure to be independent of the GAA county structure. So a person can be born in one county but may play for a different (or multiple) GAA county (e.g. Tony Reddin). Furthermore, the structure to permit the creation of categories for all modern administrative counties (e.g. Fingal, South Dublin and North Tipperary) as well as the "traditional" counties. The Banner talk 01:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said just above, Proposal 7 was made by User:Laurel Lodged and supported by two editors, yes that's a grand total of three in favour of changing the long-established WP convention. As to whether the proposal "refers to the GAA alone", it explicitly refers to The scope of the category structure "Sportspeople from County Foo" (e.g. Category:Sportspeople from County Galway), so not a GAA-only proposal but one that takes in 30+ non-GAA sports sub-categories. The rejected proposal went on to note "This structure to be independent of the GAA county structure" and "the structure to permit the creation of categories for all modern administrative counties". So this is plainly NOT about the GAA alone; I actually opposed this proposal's inclusion in a discussion on the GAA pages, but was overruled, accepted that, and participated as did many others in the discussion there and the subsequent discussion elsewhere. The consensus that emerged was against categories based on new counties, not just for Gaelic games; it was therefore in favour of retaining the long-stable 32-county categories and getting rid of the anomalous Laurel Lodged categories for the two admin counties currently within County Tipperary. Brocach (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Brocach, before you suggest that I missed proposal 7, you should have noted that I was one of those who rejected it and was also commented at length on it. The rejected proposal 7 contained 3 separate points, and the rejection of that package cannot be taken as a consensus against each of the individual points. If you read the discussion, you will see that my objection was based on LL's proposal to categorise people by place of birth, contrary to Wikipedia:Category names#Residence.
        It has been disruptive to see several editors making a WP:VAGUEWAVE at WT:GAA without specifying which proposal they were referring to, and sad to see one who is now both misrepresenting the proposal and casting its rejection as support for its opposite. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note repeated depopulation. As noted above, the nominator depopulated these categories out-of-process before nominating them, in an attempt to create a fait accompli rather than waiting the outcome of a consensus-forming discussion. I reverted that depopulation, but now I see that the nominator depopulated them again: [6], [7], [8]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concede defeat Accept flawed rationale.Will now mention on Wikiproject Ireland and see can conseous be gained there. Finnegas (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sustain proposal for deletion: if Finnegas wishes to withdraw from the discussion, so be it, but the proposal was a valid one and I believe that the issues are clear-cut and can be settled here. Brocach (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issues are far from clearcut. The major issue prompting the demand for deletion of these category is the direct inclusion in them of GAA players, even though Tipperary GAA organises as one unit across North&South Tipp. There was a clear consensus at Proposal 5 that GAA players should not be categorised in this way.

However:

Nearly all GAA players are in one of the GAA-specific sub-categories of Category:Sportspeople from County Tipperary, such as Category:Tipperary Gaelic footballers and Category:Tipperary hurlers (or one of the 61 the by-club sub-categories thereof) ... so they should not also be in Category:Sportspeople from County Tipperary. Most of the "delete" !votes have come from editors focusing on how to do something which shouldn't be done anyway, and the problem will disappear when this overcategorisation is removed.
GAA sportspeople are not the only sportspeople from County Tipperary, and many other sports are not organised on a county-wide basis. A GAA-focused discussion on a GAA talk page has no business trying to make a decision about the categorisation of non-GAA articles.
Part of Brocach's opposition has been based on his false assertion that North Tipperary & South Tipperary were created in 2001, whereas they have existed since Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 came into effect in 1899, and were renamed in 2001: see Section 10(4)(a) of the Local Government Act 2001 and for a secondary source see Local authorities dump out-of-date titles under Act (Irish Independent, 24 December 2001).
In pursuit of this nonsense, he has even removed a track-and-field athlete from the category,--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note attempted repopulation. [9][10][11] Finnegas (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferred not to have to say this here. Having been slapped down for attempting to engage directly on BrownHairedGirl's talk page, I can only point out here that in her engagement in the WT:GAA discussion on "Sportspeople from" categories, referred on to and continued at WT:IMOS, she did not once object to those pages being used as the forum to seek consensus on Sportspeople categories, and in fact raised points herself relating to non-GAA sportspeople. I am utterly bemused: either (a) she wants "Sportspeople from" categories for all the current admin boundaries - Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal, Tipperary South etc. and the non-county local government units - including the 26 local government districts in the North - or (b) she thinks we should stick with the 32 traditional counties which are unchallenged in 31 cases, or (c) for some unexplained reason, she agrees with Laurel Lodged that Tipperary is a "special case" and needs to be split. There is no clue either in what she says, or in what she does; she advocates for the 32, accuses Laurel Lodged of being obtuse in promoting classification by current local government boundaries, then spends hours reverting changes that sought to undo Laurel Lodged's unilateral fiddling and implement the continuing and very long-established consensus in favour of a 32-counties classification. The ludicrous situation that we have now is that BHG is solely responsible for Tipperary standing alone as an anomaly in the "Sportspeople from" tree, with Laurel Lodged's unconsulted, unwanted and disruptive innovations reinforced and defended by a very active admin who has repeatedly claimed to oppose them. I really do not understand what is going on here. Brocach (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any better argument than your perennial "But Laurel Lodged did that"? The Banner talk 01:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brocach, you are making very hard going for yourself of a fairly simple issue. So I'll try again to summarise my position here. The reason I declined to do so on my talk page was to simply to centralise discussion per WP:MULTI.

The GAA organises itself on the basis of the 32 traditional counties, so GAA categories should reflect that structure. So it would be pointless to have a Category:North Tipperary hurlers.
Other sports do not organise themselves on the same basis, so it is fine to have Category:Sportspeople from North Tipperary as a subcat of Category:Sport in North Tipperary and Category:Sportspeople from Dublin (city) as a subcat of Category:Sport in Dublin (city).
Similarly I have no objection to Category:Sport in Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown containing a Category:Sportspeople from Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown, provided that the GAA county is not split in the same way.
My reply to LL was about LL's view that County Dublin and County Tipperary no longer exist, since they are no longer administrative counties. That's a long-standing view of LL@s, and a year or two I spent a lot of time undoing LL@s emptying of Category:County Dublin and Category:County Tipperary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing at the GAA discussion implied it would be applied to players of football, rugby, swimmers let alone to players of baseball, basketball and American football who may have been originally from specific places in Ireland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current South Tipperary cat has directly in it three rugby players and a jockey. I see no reason to not categorize them as being from South Tipperary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even if the counties are abolished, that would not imply we should abolish the categories. The Soviet Union collapsing does not mean we do not have Soviet categires. Since there are clearly people from South Tipperary, merging it with other places will not make it so there never was anyone from South Tipperrary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can not speak for others who participated at the GAA discussion, but I can say that my main objection to Proposal 7 was the attempt to limit inclusion in the proposed categories to being born in the county. There is a clear consensus that where a person is born is not alone notable, and it is even more clear that if someone was born in California but raised in South Tipperary they would be from South Tipperary. That was my objection, it had nothing to do with views on using administrative counties.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are obviously unaware of the fact that birth, death and marriage certs, as well as passports do not record the 'county' in question as 'North Tipperary', or 'South Tipperary', but simply as Tipperary or County Tipperary. These jurisdictions are generally not referred to as places one comes from, except on Wikipedia, for some peculiar reason. RashersTierney (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Be careful of using that sort of state documentation in this way; the state can be very slow to update its terminology. Land transfers in Counties Laois & Offaly are still recorded as being in "Queen's County" or "King's County". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am being careful. Planning applications also commonly use the old barony boundaries, but we are not talking about land, we are talking about people and where they identify as coming from. RashersTierney (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even if we were just talking about things rather than people, it has to be noted that the 1898 Act repeatedly cited by BHG established that the entirety of Tipperary remained one county for all purposes other than local government administration. Brocach (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Personal genome sequenced

[edit]

The result of the discussion was: delete. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Personal genome sequenced to Category:People whose genome has been sequenced

Nominator's rationale: Or "Individuals ..." or "Individual people ..."

Category names should provide a clear guide as to what goes in the category; the current title is confusing. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listify A list would be interesting, but this is quite non-defining. Mangoe (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a trait of a person that is worth categorizing. It is not defining for the people involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by John Pack Lambert. --Orlady (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—this is not what makes these people notable enough for an article. It's currently interesting, but will become boring as more and more people "have their sequence done". Experimental work with sequencing is currently being done in cancer therapy to allow for targeted medications. The researchers are notable, but the patients aren't for this reason alone. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments in the previous discussion, which was closed as "no consensus". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Property damaged by arson

[edit]

The result of the discussion was: keep "destroyed", delete "damaged". It looks as if someone has made sure that any "damaged" buildings which were actually destroyed are now in both categories. St Barnabas' Church, Erdington is an example of one that was not destroyed, and will be de-categorised; this seems a reasonable outcome. – Fayenatic London 18:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Property damaged by arson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Property in Canada damaged by arson
Propose deleting Category:School buildings in Canada destroyed by arson
Propose deleting Category:Places of worship damaged by arson
Propose deleting Category:Property in the United Kingdom damaged by arson
Propose deleting Category:School buildings in the United Kingdom destroyed by arson
Propose deleting Category:Property in the United States damaged by arson
Propose deleting Category:School buildings in the United States destroyed by arson

Nominator's rationale: - A building may have many things happen to it during its lifetime (cost overrun on construction, damage by earthquake, damage by waterleak, burglary ...) and if such an event is notable enough to have its own article then that article should be in the relevant category (e.g. Category:Arson), but for an article about the building (or in the case of many of these articles, a group of buildings) these are non-defining characteristics. From the titles of the articles in these cats it looks very unlikely that any/many of these articles are specifically about arson attacks - they are articles about buildings (or groups of buildings), but before the category is deleted someone (probably me) should check each article and if necessary place them in Category:Arson etc. The Schools damaged by arson category was CFDed yesterday. Category:Synagogues destroyed during Kristallnacht does not need to be in the arson category as it will still be in Category:Synagogues destroyed by Nazi Germany. DexDor (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Can the three destroyed by arson categories be split out to a separate discussion? I have a feeling that the comments on those could be different then the rest of those nominated. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed; I would say keep "destroyed", but delete "damaged". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete damaged and keep destroyed, per my comments here. Damaged is so vague, and is not defining in most cases. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete damaged and Keep destroyed. The method something was destroyed is important enough to be categorized by, that it was damaged in some way be something lacks any clear threshold. Anyway "property" is also a very problematic term. I think we should limit to the destroyed categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the "destroyed" categories with the corresponding "damaged" categories and Rename "Property ... destroyed..." to "Buildings and structures ... destroyed or damaged..." I confess that I like these categories, and congratulate their creator for finding an important defining characteristic and creating a category for it. I agree that "damaged" may not be as important a topic for categorization as "destroyed", but I submit that there is no bright-line distinction between "damaged" and "destroyed", and the fine distinction that exists may not be worth worrying about. When a large building is completely gutted by a fire and the interior is later rebuilt at great cost, the building was not totally destroyed, but the fire is still a significant -- and defining -- aspect of the building's history. (Also, buildings severely "damaged" by fire often sit empty for years until someone decides to "destroy" the ruins.) Combine "destroyed or damaged" into a single category and avoid hair-splitting over the definition. --Orlady (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep destroyed, delete damaged. It's analogous to Category:Deaths from fire; categorising by method of destruction is useful and has plenty of precedent. However, damaged doesn't have any clear inclusion criteria — you could add it for buildings completely gutted by a fire and the interior is later rebuilt at great cost, or you could add it for a building in which the arson was found and put out by a guy with a small fire extinguisher. We should restrict this category to buildings/structures that are completely destroyed by arson or that are demolished because of damage caused by arson. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, I'm finding buildings in the "destroyed" categories that weren't actually completely destroyed, but arguably deserve to be in a "destroyed by arson" category. Examples (several from my watchlist):

McMinnville Opera House - From this poorly sourced article, this building seems to have been a total loss, but the article doesn't say whether it was demolished.
Canaan Union Depot - Article says more than half of the building was destroyed.
New Rochelle High School - Article says that some buildings were destroyed. However, they don't seem to have included the main building(s), so the impact of this fire on the article subject probably wasn't as dramatic as in the case of the two previous examples.
Church of the Messiah (Toronto) - Main building was gutted (and later totally rebuilt), but not completely destroyed. Parish house was destroyed, but the article subject is the main building.
Texas Governor's Mansion - Building wasn't totally destroyed, but restoration cost US$10 million. That fire seems like a defining characteristic for this building!
Reichstag building - A famous fire; it didn't totally destroy the building, which was restored/rebuilt decades later. The fire definitely is a major part of its history. --Orlady (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the subject of an article (e.g. a building) was destroyed by arson then that may be a reasonable characteristic to categorise it by. However, I've just checked one of the "destroyed" categories - 4 of the articles in the category have a lead in the present tense ("Foo School is ...") (e.g. where just one building of the school was destroyed by a fire) and the 5th article is about a building that was destroyed 20 years after the college in it closed. I.e. none of these 5 articles is about a school that was destroyed by arson. The other categories may well be similar. DexDor (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one reason to recast the categories as "Buildings and structures destroyed or damaged by arson". In many cases, the building was destroyed (or for all intents and purposes destroyed), then rebuilt, so the article still describes it in the present tense. The "destroyed or damaged" name would make it less astonishing to find an existing building in these categories. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No that is a reason to purge the category. Damanged is an impossibly low standard. Buildings that currently exist should not be in the destroyed category, anymore than people who are currently alive should be in Category:Murder victims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep destroyed per the good reasons stated above. Destroyed means it was made unusable. The fact that that the building was later repaired/rebuilt is not relevant here. Buildings in good locations often get fixed after any kind of disaster. Hmains (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But these categories (e.g. named "Category:School buildings in <country> destroyed by arson") contain few, if any, articles about individual buildings; they are articles about schools. If a school was destroyed by arson then the "death of the subject of the article" argument applies and the article could go in a "Schools destroyed by arson" category, but these categories are being used on articles where the fire didn't destroy the _school_ - some don't even mention any fire (example). DexDor (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The category inclusion criteria states, for example: "This includes articles on schools in the United States with buildings having been destroyed by arson, whether reconstructed or not". This matches the categories' names. Your statement has no relevance. Hmains (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- You can't have it both ways; if the inclusion criteria include a school with just one building (of many) destroyed (as they have recently been changed to) then the cats should be deleted as overcategorization. However, if these cats are for schools that "died" due to arson then the cats may be OK (per the argument of Nyttend above), but most/all of the articles shouldn't be in them. There may be a grey area (that doesn't apply to the analogy with people) - a school could be destroyed by arson and then (possibly some years later) a school of the same name could be built on the same site and one WP article might cover both instances of the school, but I'm not aware of any such articles. DexDor (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)a[reply]
  - The names of the destroyed categories in question are 'destroyed school buildings' not 'destroyed schools' so your statement has no relevance. Hmains (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case, only articles on buildings destroyed by fire should be included. If a university for example had one of its buildings destroyed in an arson, an article on that building could go in the category, but the article on the univeristy itself should not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how the category structure works or has ever worked. Statement has no relevance here. Hmains (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. A (unfortunate) university might have one building destroyed by fire, another by bomb, another by earthquake etc. By your logic, a university article could be in many destroyed-by categories. That's not how categories should be used. DexDor (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete damaged and Keep destroyed for now based on the discussion here. If the discussion closes with a keep for the destroyed category, then they can be renominated after someone verifies the contents. If that happens, an upmerge of remaining articles could be better then outright deletion. If someone takes on this task, emptying of categories leading to their deletion when correctly done should not be viewed as an out of process deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all After looking at the articles that get put in the "destroyed" categories, I am not convinced most if any of them belong. In some cases it was the "libary" that was destroyed. It is not even clear that this was a seperate building, but even if it was, the school itself should not be in the destroyed category because of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Salisbury High School alumni

[edit]

The result of the discussion was: moot - sent to WP:CFDS as C2B eligible. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Salisbury High School alumni to Category:Salisbury High School (Pennsylvania) alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Multiple Salisbury High Schools. Needs to be disambiguated. JoannaSerah (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This category can likely be processed per speedy criterion C2B. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, sorry, didn't realize that. Will go through that process then. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I'll close this as moot then as it processes there. In the future, if you full-nominate a speedy-eligible cat, it can be left open here and an admin will close it at the speedy time if not objected to.

- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Noncombat internal explosions on warships

[edit]

The result of the discussion was: Split into Category:Non-combat internal explosions on warships and Category:Ships sunk by non-combat internal explosions. Jafeluv (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Noncombat internal explosions on warships to Category:Warships suffering non-combat internal explosions

Nominator's rationale: The current title of this category isn't very clear, as it implies that it is a category for articles on the accidents themselves; while there are indeed three, the majority of its contents are as described in the proposed title, which also better fits the parent Category:Non-combat military accidents. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This category is below Category:Non-combat military accidents and hence should contain only articles about accidents, not articles about ships that have had accidents. This category should be listified and purged - leaving only those articles that are about accidents (e.g. Iowa, Chicago and West Loch) and possibly the list. DexDor (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that, and that would be an acceptable outcome in my book. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first article I checked mentioned that the explosion was thought to be the result of sabatoge. I think the whole "non-combat" theory is too hard to define and we should just scap the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This category should be purged of ineligible articles (as I mentioned above), but there are at least 4 articles that are eligible (including the USS Princeton article) as being articles about a non-combat explosion and the category fits in Category:Non-combat military accidents so it shouldn't be deleted. DexDor (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, The Bushranger didn't mention Princeton because I added it a couple of hours ago. Nyttend (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split (I'm prepared to do the manual work of recategorizing affected articles) to Category:Non-combat internal explosions on warships (subcategory of Category:Non-combat military accidents, which contains articles about individual accidents) and Category:Ships sunk by non-combat internal explosions (subcategory of Category:Shipwrecks by type, which contains articles about individual ships). The former category should contain articles such as USS Iowa turret explosion and the latter should articles such as Japanese battleship Kawachi), although it needs to be pruned to remove articles about ships that were merely damaged but not sunk by explosions (such as HMAS Tarakan (L3017)). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split/Purge per Black Falcon. We should use cats only to categorize things that fit the wording of the category. It is better to have small correctly named categories than large categories that group together unlike things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split/Purge per Black Falcon. In effect this means moving some articles to a new "...sunk..." category (which can probably be done before the CFD is closed) and a trivial rename of the existing category from "Noncombat..." to "Non-combat...". DexDor (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]