Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 11 November 13 >

November 12

[edit]

Category:Set categories

[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: no consensus. This might be better discussed at WT:CAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are many tens of thousands of set categories; I would guess that probably half of our categories are set categories. I don't see a need to categorize them as such, however. As a tracking category, I don't see much value in categorizing something that is so common (the other common cats are Topic categories, and we don't have a category for those either). This category is placed by a template, which I've nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_9#Template:Set_category, so your input on both nominations is welcome. Two years after it's creation, this cat only has a few dozen members, so it's not a scheme which has taken off, and I don't think it adds much value (either the template, or the category itself). Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:48, 12 November 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:Named antennas

[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: rename per C2C. The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize things based on whether they are named (or numbered) etc. Also consistency with most other categories under Category:Individual physical objects. After renaming the category text should be changed. For info: The category creator wasn't entirely happy with the name when he created it. A similar previous CFD is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_6#Category:Named_cranes. DexDor (talk) 21:55, 12 November 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:Counties of the United States with Hispanic majority populations

[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) 14:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The ethnicity of a population of a town is not (over a long timescale) a permanent defining characteristic of the town. For info: There is a list at List of U.S. counties with Hispanic or Latino majority populations. For info: An example of a similar recent CFD is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_5#Category:UK_locations_with_ethnic_minority-majority_populations. DexDor (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that collecting facts to construct a list is really what categories are for. Are you suggesting a list in addition to the list referred to in the nom ? DexDor (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Latino is presumably wider than Hispanic, so that the list covers the same ground. A "majority" provides a robust basis for a potential category, so that this is potentially a legitimate category, but I would prefer it and the list to be aligned with each other. I am not voting as to an outcome as I am in UK. (unsigned comment by User:Peterkingiron [1])
  • Keep As an appropriate defining characteristic of these counties and an effective aid to navigation. Immutability of a characteristic isn't a requirement for retention nor its absence an argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what would the inclusion criteria for such a category be - places that have ever had a Hispanic majority ? places that had a Hispanic majority at the last census ? ... DexDor (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Counties where their status as having a Hispanic majority is a defining characteristic, as evidenced by reliable and verifiable sources. I happened to stop by the Category:Liberal democracies, a characteristic that is extremely visible on articles for several dozen nations, yet is one that does and is far more likely to change "over a long timescale" as you described in the nomination, yet is one that serves the community well. There is no requirement that a characteristic be immutable; what we look for are defining characteristics. A majority of all Wikipedia categories are for characteristics that are subject to change over sufficiently long timescales and we benefit by allowing navigation across articles that share this characteristic. As I write, Deaf Smith County, Texas is included in only three non self-referential categories: Category:Texas counties, Category:1890 establishments in Texas and Category:Counties of the United States with Hispanic majority populations. Sure, Deaf Smith County shares a great deal with other counties in Texas and a little bit with the one other place established in 1890, but it shares a very important characteristic with the 56 other counties (out of more than 3,100) nationwide with Hispanic majorities. It's hard to conceive of how readers of Wikipedia and its articles are better off by robbing them of the ability to use the category system to navigate across articles for counties that share this strong defining characteristic of having an Hispanic majority. Alansohn (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think a list is much better for these sorts of things; when someone says "Oh, have you been to county X"? Did you know that 51% of the population is hispanic? These demographic aspects just don't seem defining to me; you'll notice that they aren't covered in the lede of the articles in question (at least the ones I looked at).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you 100%. Categories suck. They can't have sources, they can't provide explanations or offer any other details. We should just get rid of the whole system. But that's an argument that applies to every single category. I think a list is better for everything, but WP:CLN specifies that categories and lists should co-exist in a synergistic fashion to allow navigation using different methods and to take advantage of the benefits of each method. Situated between cities and states, county articles in Wikipedia tend to be far less detailed than articles for other government, so the lack of detailed discussion is little surprise and can be remedied with tremendous ease. I am infinitely more likely to hear "Oh, have you been to Deaf Smith County? Did you know that a majority of the population is Hispanic?" in the context of its Hispanic culture, food and heritage, while I will probably be unlikely to ever hear "Oh, have you been to Deaf Smith County? Did you know that it was established in 1890?". I don't think anyone cares when a county was founded, but we use that as a basis for navigation. You are entitled to your opinion about what you think about demographics as a navigation aid, but why should your biases and opinions stand in the way of those who do? Alansohn (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because a county only has one date of establishment, and we (for some reason) like to categorize that way - I personally don't care for it, but whatever. OTOH, once you get into which-ethnicity-is-a-majority, you have hispanic majority vs african-american majority vs caucasian/white majority vs asian majority vs egyptian-majority vs german-american-descent-majority vs orthodox-jewish-majority - it's never-ending - one will always be able to make an argument that some particular majority of some particular ethnicity is "defining" - but I think it's just category clutter - we have to set a higher bar. And then you get into pluralities - I just think it goes too far. I agree, categories don't have to be things which are permanently defining, but liberal democracies don't just come and go, whereas every year the makeup of a county can change, and something that was once majority can shift. If we aren't going to categorize across all major ethnic groups, we shouldn't categorize based on this one - I will be nominating the native american and asian american cats once this one closes fwiw. Relevant older CFD here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_20#Populated_places_in_the_United_States_with_African_American_majority_populations. as BHG pointed out in the previous discussion, categories are binary - so we have a county with 49% hispanic (not in this cat), and another category with 51% hispanic (in this cat). That 2% difference can easily fluctuate between censuses, so the application of a category, as opposed to a list, requires a higher bar I think, and we are less likely to categorize on ephemeral or constantly changing scalars.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Counties and other municipal bodies often have multiple dates of establishment, depending on if the date first settled is used, data a charter is granted, date of incorporation, date that a new form of government is implemented, date that a name is changed and other assorted possible establishment dates, so it's far from being a fixed constant and I've seen edit wars and multiple dates assigned in multiple categories (see Maple Shade Township, New Jersey for an article I edited today that lists three different dates that could be considered establishment, two of them with categories; I could provide hundreds more examples like this or worse). As Hispanic ethnicity can overlap with other characteristics, it is possible to have multiple majorities, though as we don't categorize White majorities, the likelihood of more than two minority majorities is low and the damage in terms of possible clutter is minimal. Can anyone identify any race / ethnicities tracked by the U.S. Census Bureau where any one county has more than two minority majorities? Being a majority Hispanic is a rather well-defined characteristic, one that is far less ephemeral than being a Liberal democracy, just take a look at Egypt over the past few years. The argument that its arbitrary to have a sharp dividing line of 50% plus one to constitute a a majority is ludicrous. That's why we have dividing lines, and the place that's below the mark either increases its way to majority or doesn't. And the argument that we don't track each and every racial / ethic grouping is even more ridiculous, classic WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST, which gives veto power to all categories by deleting one. The basic question of how Wikipedia is better off without this effective aid to navigation has still never been answered. Alansohn (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is better off without this navigational aide because it is arbitrary. As categories are binary, they should be based on things which are clearly defining. 50%, while useful for voting, is an arbitrary cutoff for Hispanics in county x - the county with 49% Hispanics does not behave differently nor are people's lives different in those counties than those with 51%. We could create 'companies with majority female employees' or 'countries with majority females in parliament' but we don't because these are arbitrary ways to categorize. It may be useful to have a list of counties with different values over time and sources/etc, but a black/white list of these counties are in and these counties are not makes Wikipedia worse because it oversimplifies a complex topic. Otherstuffexists, or otherstuffdoesntexist is indeed a valid argument for deletion of a category scheme - because moreso than in article space, in category space consistency is appreciated. I thus vote to delete for schemes which should not be expanded, because I'm a completist - if we have a scheme of counties-by-majority-ethnic-group, in order to be neutral, we would have to do the same for religions, socio-economic status (eg counties with majority of population below the poverty line), and other demographic characteristics that people talk about - which again I think goes too far. I think we go overboard in categorizing by ethnicity in general, as I'm not convinced this sort of thing is defining in many cases. As to your argument about the founding date, you're missing the point - as long as we can agree on the metric to use for founding date, there is only one. That doesn't apply to demographic characteristics of a county or city, which are almost infinite in their variety. For example, one could start classifying not counties, but zip codes, by the majority population in those zip codes as of latest census. I think this is going too far. When schemes like this crop up, I thus think they should be expanded to their full reasonable extent, or removed entirely. The middle ground is just cause for contention and POV-pushing and systemic bias.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We live in a world where huge portions believe in majority rule, whereby 50.1% beats 49.9% or 49.99% or 49.99999999% or any number of nines after the decimal point. In this binary political world we live in, there are places where minority groups have faced not just the BS "systematic bias" we blather about on Wikipedia, but the genuine form of bias that involves systematic exclusion from the political process. The United States Department of Justice has an ongoing, decades-long process to monitor actions taken to suppress minority participation in the political process, a vestige of the Jim Crow politics in the Southern United States that has changed since the Civil Rights Era, but is certainly not gone. A county shifting to majority minority marks a well-defined transition point, one that anyone but the most pedantic can recognize with ease as marking an event of significance. It is this focus on applying inane all-or-nothing rules rather than focusing on a genuine effort of making navigation more effective across related articles that makes so much of the category world so useless. The real systemic bias here comes from those editors who refuse to recognize that there is a very sharp real world distinction between counties that are majority minority and those that fall just short of it. Sadly, Wikipedia includes too many editors who live in a non-existent fantasy world where the only acceptable distinctions are black and white, who are too ready to ignore the realities of a world that makes defining distinctions between Black and White and Hispanic. Alansohn (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Alan, I agree with some of the points you've made (e.g. that categorizing counties by date of establishment is unlikely to be useful and categorizing countries by type of government is non-permanent and subjective), although I'm not sure that those points are relevant to the discussion about this category. Aren't you being a bit contradictory by saying "We should just get rid of the whole [categorization] system", but then arguing that categories like this should be kept? Do you have any evidence that "there is a very sharp real world distinction between counties that are majority minority and those that fall just short of it"? DexDor (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, what specifically becomes different in a county once it crosses the threshhold? I also believe in majority rule, but how does that apply to demographics of a county? If it does apply, why wouldn't we also need majority African-American counties, other ethnicities, and why not religions or political affiliations or % below-the-poverty-line too? and also why wouldn't we do the same for states and zip codes and cities? Majority rule matters when people are voting in a decision, I don't think majority makes a big difference - eg 49 vs 51 - when talking about demographic figures which are constantly changing because of migration in any case. In the case of Hispanics, you also have inaccurate data because there may be some undocumented people who didn't fill out census forms, thus a county listed as 49% may actually be 51% in "reality". -Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This may be a defining characteristic of the place, but it is only such for a given time. There are many counties in the US that are such today that were not such in 1990. With current trends, we will have to change the category again in 2020. At that, there are probably some categories that ought to be in the category, but are not because we lack verifiable evidence that they crossed the threshold, but they actually did since 2010. Others would argue census under-counting of Latinos in some areas may mean that there might be a county that should be on this list that is not. Really the best we can have is List of Counties in the United States with Hispanic Majority population based on XXXX census, and we could run that from the 1970 census which was the first one that tracked this to today. These are the type of things best covered by lists because they change. My local library has a history of the U.S. state of Georgia published in 1991 in which they list the 1990 population of Georgia as having 0, yes zero, people who could not be classed as either white or black. That is not an accurate reflection of the actual census results of Georgia, but with Georgia's Hispanic population growing over 600% in the 1990s, it is a laughably outdated view of issues. However what do we do with a county that had an African-American majority in 1990 and a Hispanic majority in 2010? Are both defining characteristics of the county. This is the sort of thing best covered in census specific lists, not in categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 8 December 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:Camerini d'alabastro

[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) 14:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not sure that we need this parent category for one subcategory. If we do, the categorization is probably wrong since the main content would be paintings and not buildings and structures. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:04, 12 November 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:Albums produced by Don Fury

[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: keep. It should be noted I'm pretty sure the nominator has been cautioned about this before, but if not: having a "redlink producer" is not a reason for nomination of deletion for categories like this. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redlink producer —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 12 November 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:Universities and colleges in multiple states

[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 both per Black Falcon's plan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm not sure if these categories need to exist, but if they do, they certainly need to have "in the United States" added to the names for clarity and specificity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:30, 12 November 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:NZBiota

[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: speedy merge (category creator has agreed). Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Exact duplicate Stuartyeates (talk) 19:47, 12 November 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:Women who committed suicide

[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: merge to Category:Female suicides. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Related CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_15#Category:Female_suicides (closed a no-consensus)
Nominator's rationale: JPL's comment in another thread made me look this up, and I realized that we do have a "females" + "suicide" category, but this one is a duplicate. Merge accordingly. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. There are (at least) two types of article to consider here -
1) Articles about topics that are entirely within the topic of female suicide - Bra bomb, Female suicide bombers (if that was split to a separate article), "Suicide of <woman>" etc. If (theoretically) there was no such thing as female suicide there would be none of these articles.
2) Articles (biographies) about females whose cause of death was their suicide (where the suicide may or may not be their reason for notability).
For most/all causes of death we have articles of both types and we normally keep them in separate categories (with the category for biographies below the category for articles about the concept) - e.g. Category:The Holocaust and Category:People who died in the Holocaust. Otherwise the few concept articles are likely to be hidden amongst dozens/hundreds of bio articles.
Therefore, it would be better to merge Category:Female suicides into Category:Women who committed suicide (which is clearly for biographies) and then consider creating "Category:Female suicide" for articles such as Bra bomb. DexDor (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Female suicides is also clearly about biographies - see the inclusion criteria at the top. I've moved bra bomb to Category:Suicide weapons where it belongs; in general it is permissible however to have the head article mixed in with the bio categories. I don't think we should have a category for female-specific methods of suicide, we don't have enough articles to cover that yet. Bra bomb is pretty good where it is for now... I think "Female suicides" fits in better with other similar categories, like Category:Female lynching victims, Category:Female murderers, Category:Female serial killers, and doesn't have the "women are not girls" problem that women-titled categories have, since we do have suicides of children included, sadly. finally, Female suicides has been around a lot longer as a category. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
seriously? You yourself just made an edit calling them female. We have over 1,000 categories using the word female. 'woman' is an adult female, but sometimes young girls commit suicide and it's hardly appropriate to call them women. The term of art used by reliable sources is female suicides. The PC stuff has to stop.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Obiwankenobi: Huh? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[2] --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:19, 27 November 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:Gabriel's variety

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as "Gabriel's variety", and "geometric varieties" are not a concept, either. Paradoctor (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notified wikiproject mathematics of this discussion --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fish. What have I missed? Paradoctor (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emptying a category's contents before bringing it to CfD is a no-no. Leave the contents and nominate it. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Unless the change is non-controversial" Maybe I'm naive, but I don't envision anyone arguing to keep a category for a non-existent concept. This category wouldn't be any less meaningful if it's name was "Gabriel's gabbaflo☭owamatic". ;) Paradoctor (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This time with link: "Unless the change is non-controversial". As you implied yourself, this is a non-controversial case, so the edit was apparently appropriate. You think otherwise. What have I missed? Paradoctor (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, can you stop quibbling? Paradoctor, put back whatever was in the category; yes you can remove things which clearly don't belong, but if removing things that don't belong leads to the category being empty, then it's best to undo it, leave the contents as they were, and bring it here for discussion; its possible a renaming or rescoping is all that is needed, but if there is nothing left in the category to look at, its hard to have a discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly, as soon as you give reason to believe the category should continue to exist. To put it strongly: This category is fictional, WP:MADEUP, at best WP:OR. There is no literature, no nothing on either of "Gabriel's manifold", "Gabriel's horn manifold", "Torricelli's manifold" or " "Torricelli's trumpet manifold". Consequently, there is no way of determining whether an article belongs into this purported category or not.
As I pointed out below, when the category was created, the original description was in italian - as varieta geometriche --> meaning Manifolds. The user who created it simply mistranslated, so this was really intended to be "Gabriel's manifolds" - "variety" is a red herring. I think it was intended, as you can see from the inclusion criteria, to capture objects which have finite volume and infinite surface area. Perhaps there is no such thing as "Gabriel's manifolds", and perhaps there isn't even a better word b/c perhaps mathematicians don't talk about this stuff, but you have to give it the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith on the part of the creator. Again, I understand what you're saying, but regardless of how stupid or invented you think the category is, if it's brought here for discussion, it needs to have some members in it, and emptying it is a no-no, no matter what, do no pass go, do not collect $200. If you know of other objects that fit those criteria and have (or could have) wiki articles about them, please add them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"assume good faith": I do. I would be nice if you could AGF WRT me, too, especially as I did "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I never even mentioned him or her.
""variety" is a red herring.": If you read my previous reply, you'll see that I searched for manifolds, not varieties. To avoid confusion: It doesn't matter whether we're talking about "Gabriel's variety" or "Gabriel's manifold", the same argument applies.
"it needs to have some members": The category violates policy, empty or not.
"emptying it is a no-no": I quoted the only thing resembling a guideline WRT this matter above, with link, and argued that the exception mentioned there applies here. So far, nobody has given an argument that it doesn't.
Paradoctor (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paradoctor, it's obvious to me that no matter what anyone says to you, you believe you are right, so it's not worth discussing anymore. 3 separate people have told you it is bad form to empty a category. If you choose to ignore that, go ahead, but it doesn't make you right. I don't know if this category is original research - we would have to understand whether such a grouping was ever discussed in the mathematical literature; I agree it doesn't seem to have been called "Gabriel's manifolds" but it's possible there is another name for such objects that we just haven't come across yet, but again, if there are no other objects or concepts that would belong here, we should delete the category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"no matter what anyone says to you": I beg your pardon? I clearly stated the reason why I believe that my behavior was appropriate. Nobody bothered to reply to that, instead repeating the challenged claim. That is not appropriate. "In determining consensus, consider [...] the objections of those who disagree" Again: Why should the exception clause not apply here?
"whether such a grouping was ever discussed in the mathematical literature" The evidence in the form of a complete lack of search results makes an excellent case that it wasn't.
"it's possible there is another name for such objects that we just haven't come across yet" WP:CRYSTALBALL #2/#3
Paradoctor (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you stated your reason, and I (and others) have repeated that in spite of that reason, you should not empty a category before bringing it for deletion - even if you believe the category to be bogus. There's a difference between removing one element that doesn't fit from a 100-member category, and from removing the only element that was there. The exception "clause" doesn't apply because YOU REMOVED THE ONLY ELEMENT. This has been repeated to you, several times, but you insist on not listening, so I'm not going to describe it to your further. Secondly, we don't know if such a grouping is discussed in the mathematical literature b/c we don't know if it has another name - that is not crystal ball, it is simply not knowing. Crystal ball would be a prediction that mathematicians may someday collect these objects together; instead I'm saying that (a) you initially missed completely that this was supposed to be about manifolds (vs the italian varieties), and (b) no-one has provided evidence from either side that says people don't collect such objects together or discuss them as a group. The category creator has created several mathematics categories, so perhaps there is a grouping of "gabriel's varieties" in the italian literature, or perhaps not. If such evidence isn't found before this discussion closes, we should delete the category, but who knows, maybe someone else may wander in and say "Yes, there is a class of such objects, they're called "Fooian x-d-manifolds". For example, there is also a [Gabriel's wedding cake; the Pseudosphere also shares some of these characteristics. We need more assistance from mathematicians here, and less quibbling.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't shout. I'd prefer constructive discussion.
"The exception "clause" doesn't apply because YOU REMOVED THE ONLY ELEMENT" That's not what "Unless the change is non-controversial" says.
"This has been repeated to you" That is not true. You are the only one to claim that the exception doesn't apply because I emptied it. To wit:
  • The Bushranger: "Emptying a category's contents before bringing it to CfD is a no-no. Leave the contents and nominate it.": No reason given.
  • Jerry Pepsi "All we're saying is, don't empty the category before you nominate it.": No reason given.
"Crystal ball would be a prediction": The name for that bit of policy is slightly misleading, but the text is clear: " original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation [...]". The speculation here is "there might be papers on Gabriel's manifold's", despite clear evidence that there isn't. You haven't found any, neither did I. Please note that #2 also applies, because we can form any number of categories by combining arbitrary properties of manifolds.
"you initially missed completely": I don't speak Italian.
"no-one has provided evidence from either side that says people don't collect such objects together": "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" You are the one asserting that there could be sources. Please prove it.
"category creator has created several mathematics categories, so perhaps there is a grouping of "gabriel's varieties" in the italian literature" User_talk:Jianluk91#Undefined_categories Looking at Jianluk91's userpage and contributions, I could understand if someone thought Jianluk91 was not entirely up to speed on WP:OR and WP:V.
"who knows, maybe someone else may wander in" Speculation. WP:V, please, I beg you.
Paradoctor (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhooo, we did find papers that discussed these objects; see below - there are at least two. Admittedly, that's pretty small crumbs and we likely won't have enough for a category, but the point is, they are discussed, as a group, in academic literature. You will likely go to your grave believing you were right to empty-then-nominate this category, so good luck with that - but you may want to consider, when many experienced editors tell you something, they may be right and you just may be wrong. Obiwan-out.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • potentially rename to something - Manifolds ; "varietà geometriche" - which was the original description for the category in Italian translates to Manifold in english - so this was perhaps the desire of this category - to capture manifolds with finite volume and infinite surface area. I'm not sure if Menger sponge would qualify? (ack perhaps not since it has zero volume, hmm) - it all depends on the definition. I think this could be a workable category, it just has a bad name. Are there other named/notable mathematical entities which enclose finite volume with infinite surface area? Wouldn't a 3d Koch snowflake do the trick? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another one: [3] but not sure if this object is notable enough yet to merit it's own article. If there aren't enough named objects to fill the category, then the category could be deleted. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging this one up. If it doesn't pass WP:GNG, I'll add it to Gabriel's horn later. Paradoctor (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining the possible source of this. Renaming is equivalent to deleting and addingcreating a different category, I have no problem with that. I added itGabriel's horn to category:surfaces (=2-manifolds). As 3-manifold it is pretty uninteresting. Paradoctor (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - and a great find! However, by my reading, even Gabriel's horn wouldn't qualify as a supersolid, as it cannot be contained within a sphere of finite size. If there is a more general class of objects, that have infinite surface area but finite volume (even if unbounded), as long as we include fractals, there would be many - e.g. Menger Sponge would be one example; a 3-d koch snowflake would be another.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Thanks to David's article, I just came across this one: "Gabriel's Other Possessions" but I don't have the necessary permissions to read it. From the abstract: "Gabriel's Horn is a solid of revolution commonly featured in calculus textbooks as a counter-intuitive example of a solid having finite volume but infinite surface area. Other examples of solids with surprising geometrical finitude relationships have also appeared in the literature. This article cites several intriguing examples (some of fractal type), adds additional ones, and discusses how these topics can enhance a Calculus II or Real Analysis course..." I still don't know if we'll have enough to merit a category, but I am satisfied that at least some authors discuss such objects as a class of objects.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to Gabriel's horn, there is Gabriel’s Wedding Cake. Yummy. So it looks like there are a class of non-fractal solids and many fractal solids with finite volume and infinite surface area. There is a potential category here, but I agree there are not enough extant articles to support this or a Category:Solids with finite volume and infinite surface area category --Mark viking (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Viking, Eppstein - while there are multiple objects that meet this desired criteria, we don't have enough to merit a category and the literature is somewhat sparse, and most of those objects don't have their own wikipedia article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:40, 14 November 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:British sheriffs

[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: Rename to Category:Sheriffs in the United Kingdom. Please don't hang me if I got this wrong. Looks like there was a cleanup done on the contents and as a result of that, the last proposed name seems to have the consensus based on how the content is not organized. Given how old this discussion is, if this is wrong and there is a better name, please start another discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a hopelessly vague title. The problem is that British has at least four meanings. Inhabitant of Great Britain. Subject of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707—1801), Subject of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1921), Citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Northern Ireland (1921–current).

The lists of English counties take the form of "High Sheriff of ...." because by act of Parliament the office of Sheriff was renamed High Sheriff in 1974 (see High Sheriff). So for English lists it is not particularly a problem as the list exists for all phases of the meaning of British, but it is a problem for individuates the list take for example James Calthorpe (Roundhead) who was added to the category today and John Clarke (died 1681) another Sheriff of Suffolk. They were both Sheriffs in England but were Sheriffs before the state of Great Britain came into existence, so to call them British Sheriffs is misleading.

In the current category is an article called Sheriffdom, it explains that there will be lots of list of Scottish sheriffs who were sheriffs of Scottish places that stopped having sheriffs before the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland came into existence.

I am not sure what is the base structure to use for all the combinations but the current category of one amorphous lump is inadequate and if lots of biographies get added to it will become worse than useless. One possibility would be to have a category "Sheriffs of the UK" with a sub-category "High Sheriffs of the UK" which contains the lists of "High Sheriffs county" and sub categories for each of those lists broken down into High Sheriffs and Sheriffs. This would at least place the men (and more recently women) into categories similar to lists, it would also make it easier to place such sub-categories into other categories when needed. Such a structure could also contain whatever is used in Scotland with similar historical subdivisions. As to Ireland that will probably have to be discussed separately -- PBS (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Split We already have Category:High Shrievalties for the High sheriffs in England Wales and Ireland: any articles on them in this category should be purged out: "sheriff" is commonly a shorthand for high sheriff. The argument over English/British, implying a split at 1707 is unhelpful, because high sheriff is an office in England and Wales; also Ireland. This leaves us the sub-cats for sheriffs of English cities, which I would suggest should become Category:Shrievalties of English cities or better Category:Sheriffs of English cities: I think that only a few ancient cities (which were counties of cities, later county boroughs) have sheriffs; they are appointed by the corporation (rather than the crown). By this means the category should have been purged of all its English Welsh and Irish content. This should leave just the Scottish content, enabling the category to be renamed Category:Scottish sheriffs. The Scottish office of sheriff has a judicial role, which has long ceased in England. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split I agree entirely with Peterkingiron. Let's keep the High Sheriffs (or their predecessors) out of this and just sort out the handfull of city appointed and Scottish sheriffs as he suggests.Plucas58 (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to undertake this split, but am wary of doing so too soon, in case some one objects. Please remind me in a few days time. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As there have again been no further comments, I am undertaking a split along the lines indicated. I hope this is not regarded as too premature. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have purged the category of all non-Scottish content, except English city sheriffs, for which I have created a separate category Category:Shrievalties of English cities. If the closing admin removes this category from 4 categories and 2 articles (London, Nottingham, Canterbury and Norwich), the category could be renamed to Category:Scottish sheriffs. The two Suffolk cases had already been removed. I have thus removed one bio-article on a man who had been sheriff of Lichfield, as there is neither an article or category foir that, I have placed him in my new parent. We may need a new UK parent for Sheriffs in the United Kingdom, as a parent for my new category, Category:High Shrievalties and Category:Scottish sheriffs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing discussion
[edit]
Following on from your suggestion I created Category:Scottish sheriffs placing it into Category:British sheriffs and placed into it all the Scottish articles previously in Category:British sheriffs. I have also placed into Category:British sheriffs the category Category:High Shrievalties, so Category:British sheriffs now only has three entries all sub-categories. The only outstanding questions are
1. Should another subcategory exist for England to match the Category:Scottish sheriffs -- I say leave it until it becomes necessary.
2. Should Category:British sheriffs be renamed "Sheriffs in the United Kingdom" or some other name?
-- PBS (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Sheriffs in the United Kingdom. The office of sheriff in Scotland is so different from that in England and Ireland that it might be argued that this is an illegitimate category based on a shared name. I think that would be going too far, as they (and Amercian sheriffs) ultimately have a comnmon origin, though the English, Scottish and American offices have developed into completely different ones. The present name tends to imply similarity (which is unsatisfactory). Furthermore "British" should refer to GB (excluding Ireland), but the High Shrievalties includes those in Northern Ireland. The institution in Ireland also has a medieval origin, so that a UK category is appropriate. In the Republic, it does not seem to have survived partition, which again points in the same direction. I do not think we need an English category. If there is a problem, I would suggest that the answer is to upmerge High Shrievalties, which covers English, Welsh and Irish categories and seems an unnecessary level of categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:10, 26 November 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:Terrestrial communications cables

[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: rename to Category:Optical telecommunications cables. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with one entry Toddst1 (talk) 02:40, 12 November 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:Lunar human landing

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a doubly redundant category; it contains articles on manned missions that landed on the moon, already covered by Category:Manned missions to the Moon, and on the astronauts who walked on the Moon during those missions, already covered by Category:People who have walked on the Moon. The only outliers were Moon landing - already moved to Category:Missions to the Moon, the article's actual scope - and Moon landing conspiracy theories, which heads its own category that can fit under Category:Manned missions to the Moon. As wholly duplicitive and unnecessary, there's no reason for this to exist. The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 12 November 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.

Hot to Trotsky

[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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories seem a better fit for "in" instead of "of", as "of" implies being directly associated with the country (in many cases it would have likely been the exact opposite); this seems similar in concept to Category:Political parties by country, all of the subcategories of which use "in"; some of these have those as a parent, while others have subcategories of Category:Communist parties by country as parents - all of those also using "in". - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 12 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_12&oldid=1090391242"