[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 6 January 8 >

January 7

[edit]

Category:RIAJ Reco-kyō Chart number-one singles

[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:RIAJ Reco-kyō Chart number-one ringtones. Ruslik_Zero 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:RIAJ Reco-kyō Chart number-one singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A short running chart that tracked only ringtone downloads on a monthly basis that has since been replaced. Ringtones are not singles. Reaching #1 on a ringtone chart is hardly notable, only a small subset of sales, and not at all defining to the song itself. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The market for ringtones in Japan is massive, compare the ¥30.9 billion revenue for ringtones in 2007, compared to the ¥46.9 billion for the entire physical single market at the same time. Ringtones during this period can be attributed to a massive percentage of the revenue for popular songs, with the number of digital certifications for ringtones dwarfing that for full-length cellphone downloads and PC downloads, despite there not even being a gold certification tier. I don't agree with the notion that because a chart is no longer being published it should have its category removed, it's not like it makes sense to remove, say, categories for now defunct Billboard charts such as the Pop 100. --Prosperosity (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to categorize by any subsegment of sales data? You are attempting to categorize song articles as #1 ringtones. The songs themselves should be notable for being popular ringtones in the first place (not just on a chart), something like Crazy Frog's "Axel F", before any type of categorization of ringtones because at least then they've achieved a defining quality as a ringtone. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the RIAJ, an authoritative body on music releases in Japan, considered ringtone sales an important enough digital format to create a monthly chart for them, something they did not do for other digital formats, or anything else during this period. I'm not entirely sure what proof you're looking for in terms of defining the listed songs as notable for being ringtones, as the data used to create the category proves that the songs are notable for being ringtones. If we cannot accept the most authoritative body in a country as a source proving such notability, what exactly can we use? --Prosperosity (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the category should be renamed to Category:RIAJ Reco-kyō Chart number-one ringtones. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this move as well. --Prosperosity (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2011 (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:Old Edwardians

[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:Former pupils of King Edward VI High School for Girls, Birmingham. WP:JARGON and this recent CfD are compelling arguments for renaming, as is the argument that Wikipedia has a worldwide readership and users who live outside of the UK should be able to understand the category titles. Dana boomer (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Old Edwardians to Category:Old Edwardians (Birmingham girls)
Nominator's rationale: There are several Old Edwardian categories, so disambiguation is necessary. All the others are dabbed by town or city. There is already a Category:Old Edwardians (Birmingham) for the boys' school in Birmingham. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have voted again below. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when the category was being used for the Jo'burg school you supported renaming. [1]. A parent category would be misleading, as not all the schools are named after the same Edward, nor are they all part of the same foundation. A disambiguation category might work (I am not familiar with them). Merging t-with the boys' school seems wrong, as they are seperate schools (we don't have a single category for all the Woodard Corporation schools, for example). DuncanHill (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a mess - the non "Old Fooians" categories use a bewildering variety of formats whilst the "Old Fooians" ones for the most part use terms that are generally unfamiliar. Yes "Old Etonian" is known widely but that's not the case for virtually all the other schools where these terms are just jargon largely only known by the schools and former pupils themselves. Note that for the universities we don't use categories with "Oxonian" or "Cantabrigian" in them; instead we use terminology that has the widest understanding. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, for some reason we have allowed UK universities to use Americanisms which have only been in use at all in the UK since the advent of Friends Reunited ('alumni' was not used at all in the UK for about 99% of the existence of Oxford University, unlike Oxonian). The usual UK word for universities would be 'graduates', not 'alumni'. If you are going to cite UK universities, you should be supporting 'Alumni of Foo' - at least some schools do refer to their products as alumni these days: none call them 'former pupils' as children have been called students at secondary school since the 90s. Occuli (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alumni has taken off in the UK and there are a darnsight more universities than Oxford (who do use it). As for schools, alumni is rarely used and "students" not so much - I was at school in the 1990s and was never called a student nor were my contemporaries. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:People from the King Edward VI High School for Girls, Birmingham. Since the current title is WP:JARGON, and having nothing to do with the Edwardian period. All these "Old xxx-ian" categories for primary or secondary schools are hyper parochial. 65.94.69.242 (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposed Nothing wrong with "Old Fooians" if it is a recognised term for that school/college, with disambig eg "Birmingham girls" as required Hugo999 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Former pupils of King Edward VI High School for Girls, Birmingham per Timrollpickering and per WP:JARGON. The current name is not merely ambiguous, it uses a piece of internal jargon unlikely to be understood by the general readership for whom wikipedia is written, and the Manual of Style at WP:JARGON specifically warns editors to

    Avoid introducing too many new words for the purpose of "teaching the reader some new words" that are specialized to a field, when more common alternates will do

    The IP 5.94.69.242 is quite right to describe these terrms as "parochial"; the parish of people who went to English public schools or garmmar schools forms a tiny proportion of our global audience. The plain English descriptive title proposed by Timrollpickering is clear and unambiguous, even for readers who have not already familiarised themselves with the in-house jargon used by some schools in England. Jargon terms like "Old Edwardians" can be explained in used in the text of a biogrpahical article, though I don't recall ever seeing more than a tiny handful of biographical articles which used the cliquey jargon; editors rightly prefer to write that someone was "educated at Foo Bar school" than to bewilder readers by saying that someone was an "old FoorBargian". However, when used in a category name, these terms come with no explanation, and since they were not mention in the text of article, the reader is given no clue what they are about. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#General_naming_conventions deprecates the use of abbreviations in category names, even though most such abbreviations are expanded on first usage in the text ... and it's much more disruptive to readers to use a category name to introduce a chunk of parochial clique-speak which is not mentioned in the text.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say that insulting the intelligence of readers by dumbing down language (and in the course of it deliberately using wrong terminology) strikes me as unencyclopaedic in the extreme. I do not agree that it is disruptive to use the proper term - rather the opposite, that imposing the "former pupil" (an almost uniquely Scottish term) is disruptive. Was there not a mass rename nom a few years ago which failed? BHG is picking off cats one by one, using an unclear "consensus" to justify changing established usage. DuncanHill (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read what I wrote before accusing me of making a claim I didn't make. My !vote was made on the basis of wikipedia's naming guidelines, not on the basis of any consensus for naming categories such as this.
    My group nom was a) just over a year ago, and b) closed as no consensus. Even if it had been much more recent, and closed as "keep", it'd still be fine to make a fresh nom. However, I haven't made a fresh nom; I have responded to this one, and I am bemused by your anger at the objection to a "convention" for which there is no consensus.
    I am puzzled by your claim that "former pupils" is "an almost uniquely Scottish term". A google search throws up lots of English schools which use that term themselves, and it's used by about 10% of the sub-cats of Category:Former pupils by school in England, including two just like this one: Category:Former pupils of King Edward VI School (Lichfield) and Category:Former pupils of King Edward VI Grammar School, Louth.
    I seem to recall that you made the "dumbing-down" claim a year ago. Rather than just repeating the claim as an assertion, please explain a) how a readers' intelligence is insulted by not knowing the obscure in-house jargon of a school; b) why you want to use category names to introduce readers to a term which is not used in the text of the articles so categorised, and how this complies with WP:JARGON. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing obscure about "Old Fooians" - I have never encountered anyone in real life over the age of 10 who wasn't aware that the formula is used for Old Boys and Old Girls of a school. (I shall note here that I was educated exclusively at state schools, as were my parents and the great majority of my friends. I live in an area of great educational deprivation, and the "Old Fooian" form is well recognised by my neighbours). If the proper term for a school's Old Boys or Girls is not mentioned in the article about the school, then it should be. A defect in the content of an article is no reason to rename a category (frankly, I find it rather disingenuous to suggest it is). As you point out, about 90% of the English sub-cats on Wikipedia do not use the "former pupil" form - so the Wikipedia convention for English schools appears to be against you.
The Louth school uses "former students" on its website, not "former pupils", I am not aware of the reason for its category using a form which is neither that used by the school nor that used for most English schools on Wikipedia.
DuncanHill (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. It's one thing knowing that "old boys/girls" is a generic term for former pupils, but neither you nor anyone elee is advocating that the category be renamed to "old girls of King Edward VI High School for Girls". So that's a red herring.
Now, you say that "if the proper term for a school's Old Boys or Girls is not mentioned in the article about the school, then it should be". I presume that by "proper term" you mean the school's in-house jargon term, so I did some checking of its use in biographies.
  • This Category:Old Edwardians has contains 10 articles. Not one of them uses "Old Edwardian" anywhere other than in the category name.
  • Category:Old Wykehamists (former pupils of Winchester College) contains 505 articles, plus a list. I checked the first 20 articles: Not one of them uses "old Wykehamist" anywhere other than in the category name
  • Category:Old Rugbeians (former pupils of Rugby School) contains 362 biographies. I checked the first 20 articles "B" (Badwan too Booth) ... and not one of them uses "Old Rugbeian" anywhere other than in the category name
  • Category:Old Ignatians contains 13 biogrpahies. How many of those 13 use the term "Old Ignatian" anywhere other than in the category name? None
  • Category:Old Leysians contains 38 biographies. How many of those 38 use the term "Old Leysian" anywhere other than in the category name? None
  • Category:Old Monktonians contains 23 biographies. How many of those 23 use "Old Monktonian" anywhere other than in the category name? None
  • Category:Old Novocastrians contains 53 biographies. How many of those use the jargon-term anywhere other than in the categ title? I checked 20 beginning with F (Forster to Redhead) and ... yes, that's right: none
  • Category:Old Parkonians contains 32 biographies. How many use of those use the jargon-term anywhere other than in the categ title? I checked all 32 and found none
That's more than 150 articles, with not even one of them making one single use of in-house jargon term anywhere other than in in the category name.
So in every one of those 150 cases, the category name is being misused to introduce an obscure jargon term which the readers will not have encountered otherwise. There is clearly no appetite amongst editors to introduce this irrelevant terminology in biographies, and it is an abuse of the category system to use its titles in this way.
By all means, explain the term in the article about the school, along with other in-house terminology. But there is no reason to assume that the reader has reader the school article before encountering the category list on a biography, and no need whatsover to make them burrow to find out.
I really couldn't care much whether the categories are called "former pupils of FooBar" or "former students of FooBar" or even "alumni of FooBar", so long as the category name includes the plain English name of the school as used in the text of every article I checked. So far as I can see, what's been happening so far is that a small number of British editors have used CFD to promote obscure terminology rejected by those who edit articles, and that this has prevent the use of category names which conform with wikipedia naming guidelines. Enough, already: let's fix this one and then fix the rest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you point out, many articles are inadequate in their use of language. So far as I can see, what's been happenning so far is that because you failed with your group nomination you are picking up cats one-by-one to try to surreptitiously sneak the change through. I also object to your dishonest use of the word "jargon". "Old Edwardians" isn't jargon, it's normal English. Frankly, my heart sinks when I see poorly named education cats like this one, as I know that you will, rather than doing the honest thing and making a group nom (and properly tagging all the cats and informing their creators and maintainers) pick off a single case and then pretend that that represents the consensus for all and any future noms. That you repeatedly fail to point out the no consensus in your previous group nomination, while citing other single cases in support of you is evidence of your dishonest approach to this subject. DuncanHill (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DuncanHill, please stop telling lies.
I have not "cited a single case", and I have pointed this out to you before that my rationale has not cited any CFD precedent. I don't know why you chose to repeat a deliberate lie rather when its falsity is evident from the discussion above, but it looks like a distraction effort. Whatever your actual motive, DuncanHill, please stop telling lies.
You claim that I "repeatedly fail to point out the no consensus in your previous group nomination". When I mentioned it above, I spoecifically noted that it "b) closed as no consensus". DuncanHill, please stop telling lies ... it disrupts decision-making processes.
I am not "picking up cats one by one": I have challenged the jargon when it has arisen.
As to your claim that this is not jargon, see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jargon: #2 "the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group". That's we are looking at here: the technical terminology of a special group.
My heart sinks when I see readers time being wasted by categories given deliberately obscure names at the instistence of an editor who shows no interest at all in the fact these terms are not used in body text ... and my heart sinks when I see consenus decision-making being abused by an editor who prefers to just lie and lie and lie about other editors rather than addressing either wikipedia guidelines or evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The names are not "deliberately obscure" - they are not obscure at all. They are not jargon, as they are not technical terminology of a special group, they are normal English. I am not giving categories deliberately obscure names, I am endeavouring to disambiguate categories with potentially confusing names - I'm not the person who created these categories, whatever you might imagine. It is sad that you shew no interest at all in using good English in our articles and cateegory names. It is also sad that you have such a dismal view of the intelligence and abilities of our readers. I primarily use Wikipedia as a reader, and pretty much everything I have ever done in category space has been to enhance the utility of the encyclopaedia to readers. DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I am passionate about good English! As WP:MOS#Clarity says "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording."
WP:Plain English#Jargon_and_technical_vocabulary says "Jargon and technical vocabulary are inevitable in many fields. Whenever using them, explain them briefly or give a Wikilink to help the reader understand the word".
The Plain English Campaign defines Plain English succinctly as "writing that the intended audience can read, understand and act upon the first time they read it". Our readership is global, and there is no reason to suppose that a literate English-speaking reader in China will have encountered these jargon terms.
In this case jargon is not inevitable, as is demonstrated by the 150 articles examined above which say clearly and simply that a person was educated at FooBar School. They do not need to introduce a special term for that, because the meaning is conveyed with great clarity without using any special term. That's Plain English in practice: if the special term is not needed, then don't use it.
You say that these names are not obscure at all. Presumably, therefore, they are in any one of a number of readily-available dictionaries, so I put myself in the shoes of someone from a non-British culture who was happy to consult a dictionary for obscure words: I tried deriving the meaning of "Old Novocastrian", "Old Wykehamist", "Old Parkonian" and "Old Edwardian" from the dictionary entries.
First I tried "Old Edwardian". There was no entry in Merriam-Webster for the composite term, so I looked up old: it offers no various concepts relating to age, and "experienced" or "former". I discarded the latter two, because in Plain English, if we mean "former", we say "former"; and if we mean "experienced", we say "experienced".
There was no dictionary entry for Novocastrian or Parkonian, and Wykehamist is not in the free dictionary. So our Chinese reader has no idea what these category names mean.
So I tried Edwardian: 1) relating to, or characteristic of Edward VII of England or his age; 2) especially of clothing : marked by the hourglass silhouette for women and long narrow fitted suits and high collars for men
So the Old Edwardian is either an aged person associated with King Edward VII or his era, or an aged woman with an hourglass silhouette or an aged man with a long narrow fitted suit and a high collar.
None of those convey the purpose of the category. In the article King Edward VI High School for Girls, the term "Old Edwardian" is not mentioned in either the body of the article or in the infobox. It is just mentioned, without explanation, in the "further reading" appendix
All of this obscurity is easily avoided: "Former pupils of X school" takes the name of the school and wraps it in three words which clearly and precisely convey its meaning to anyone with even a basic, pocket-sized English dictionary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except, since the 90s if not earlier, secondary school children in England have been called 'students', not pupils. So pupils is just wrong, unlike 'Old Edwardians'. We've had this discussion before, many times: I've never heard David Cameron (or Boris Johnson) referred to as a 'former pupil of Eton College'. Occuli (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When using a descriptive category name, we are free to use whatever terminology best describes the category's contents to our readers. As above, "Old Edwardians" and (its equivalents) appears in the categ list of many hundreds of articles as a piece of obscure and unexplained jargon, which breaches the MoS. There is no need for it, and no requirement to use it: it is plain wrong according to our guidelines.
As to which plain English term to use, I have absolutely no problem with calling them students: whatever Plain English term is most acceptable to others is fine by me. I don't see why we need be bound by govt policy in this, but if editors want to follow Whitehall, I won't object.
The one exception that I am aware of to this is "Old Etonian", which is such a widely-used term that it does not present the obscurity problems of the others. So I would oppose renaming that category ... but in extensive checks I did before, none of the other "Old FooBargian" terms comes anywhere the ubiquity of "Old Etonian".
Please take a look at the stats above from the articles I checked today: the "Old FooBargian" stuff simply isn't used in articles. It's not a question of it being little used: it 160 biographies relating to 9 schools, it was completely unused except in the category names. It's quite unfair on our readers to bamboozle them in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As someone from North America, I expect this to be about the Edwardian era. As for the other categories that BHG pointed out, they make absolutely no sense. Categories should not be nonsensical, which is why abbreviations are expanded. As these are all pet names from the school and not some nationally prescribed vocabulary, they are nonsensical. 184.144.161.119 (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but not as nom -- The form "Old Booian" is commonly used for school alumni in Britain, particularly for "public" schools (for which the American equivalent is "Prep" schools - which refers to something different in Britain). "Old Wykehamist" and "Old Harrovian" should be as clear as "Old Etonian" to English people; probably also "Old Salopian" (which is what I am). It is pointless, non-British editors intervening in this debate, because this is ultimately a question of British usage. We do not seek to impose British usage on American subjects and we should not have that vice versa. The problem is that "Old Edwardian" refers to a large number of schools. The article will not say that a person is an Old Edwardian, but it may say that they were educated at King Edward School, Birmingham (or Lichfield or Southampton, or Stourbridge or etc). Any of these would make the person an "Old Edwardian". Accordingly, "Old Edwardian" should either be a dab-category or a parent category for categories for each school. The question is what the target for King Edward VI High School for Girls, Birmingham should be. I would be happy with Category:Old Girls of King Edward VI High School for Girls, Birmingham or Category:Former pupils of King Edward VI High School for Girls, Birmingham, but whatever is adopted should be a subcategory of Category:Old Edwardians, as should be Birmingham boys, and Lichfield, Southampton, Stourbridge, etc categories. There are probably dozens of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A lot of these terms are not well known in the UK outside of particular circles. People keep citing "Old Etonians", but that one is very much the exception in that it has achieved national and worldwide fame, largely because of the huge number of Old Etonians in positions of influence and power. But outside of the Old Boys networks and inter-networks many of the other terms don't have much recognisability, especially when they don't directly derive from the school's name. Amongst BrownHairedGirl's list above we have Old Wykehamists for Winchester, derived from the school founder's name, Old Novocastrians for the Royal Grammar School in Newcastle, derived from the Dog Latin translation of the city's name and Old Parkonians for Ilford County, derived from the school's former name. None of these conveys recognisability; they are certainly not as clear as Old Etonian. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will accept that some of these are obscure. I would suggest that those for the leading public schools, Eton, Harrow, Wykehamist (for Winchester), Harrovians, Westminsters, Salopians; also any where the name of the school is obvious from the school's present name (which would cover Harrovians for Harrow). However in most other cases where the name is derived from a founder or an obsolete name fro the school, the Old Booian should become a category-redirect to "Former pupils of [school]". If the school is still a single sex school, "Old Girls of ..." or "Old Boys of ..." (this capitalisation) would be an acceptable alternative.
BTW Novocastrian derives from Medieval Latin, not mere Dog Latin. Latin remained in use as a language of legal documents until 1733, just as Salopian from the Medieval Latin name for Shrewsbury, Salop remaining an abbrieviation for the county to this day. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Old Fooians" is an established format. If you want to change this format, a wider discussion is required. Within British schools and many non-American schools, the old fooians format is the more common. The proposed name Category:Old Edwardians (Birmingham girls) would be consistent with Category:Old Edwardians (Birmingham) for the boys school. Cjc13 (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2011 (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:Military operations currently ongoing

[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. It is subject to recentism and aging. There are also definitional problems. Ruslik_Zero 20:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Military operations currently ongoing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should only contain information that is not likely to become false, invalid, or meaningless over time.  Cs32en Talk to me  12:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The level of recentism is the same as Portal:Current events. The category also helps to manage what military operations has ended to keep them up-to-date. --Kslotte (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems about as important as one could get (?WP:Notable?) and also, as per 'keep' vote above, might indeed help keep Wikipedia up-to-date. As for 'Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should only contain information that is not likely to become false, invalid, or meaningless over time', how about e pluribus unum a company article update to reflect director appointments/latest profits etc? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far better dealt with a list; categories usually eschew "current" and "former" statuses. Also, there is often not a bright line point at which a military operation no longer "ongoing". Is it when "combat operations are over"? When "hostilities cease"? When a peace treaty is formally signed? What if there is an armistice but not final treaty or settlement, as in the Korean War? When one side is completely absent from the region? Who decides which standard to use? (Category creator seems to be at a bit of a loss as to how categories operate; also created was Category:Wars currently ongoing, into which was placed War on Drugs. (Like the rhetorical "war on drugs" is (1) even remotely similar to warfare, and (2) ever going to be declared "over".)) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • About War on Drugs; it will probably at some time in history end or change into different type/phase of warfare. I see nothing odd in having it as ongoing. The decision about what is ongoing and what is not is standard WP:BRD. --Kslotte (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course you don't—you're the one who added it! It doesn't even belong in Category:Wars. Calling it a "War" is a rhetorical device used by politicians, not an accurate description of what it objectively is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • 'Usually', not 'necessarily'. And, were there alternatively a list, this would have to be added to the 'see also' section for every article, and wouldn't maintenance then be harder? Having said that, might there usefully be a list as well - maybe a table along the lines suggested. I thought, like in Iraq, war is over when we are told it's over. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Usually" to the point of having to have a darn good reason to deviate from it. There is none here. "War is over when we are told it is over" is a nice sentiment, but totally ambiguous and vague. Told by whom? The invader country? The invaded country? The media? The civilian victims? NGOs? Historians? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Good Ol'factory, because of the definitional problems surrounding when a military operation ends. I can see how a category such as this could be a significant grouping by defining characteristic if the definitional problems could be resolved, so I'm open to changing my mind. So far, I see no sign of such a definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 17 January 2011 (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:Top 100 US Federal Contractors

[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Top 100 US Federal Contractors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category violates Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Published_list, which advises against categories for previously published lists. Lists for 2008 and 2009 are already found at Top 100 US Federal Contractors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. And, since this chagnes each year, it would require constant maintenance.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per nom: the 'published list' argument and link provided seems to relate primarily to 'subjective and somewhat arbitrary' magazine lists. This category is of US Federal Contracts as published on the US Federal Procurement Data System. I would suggest it is not 'trivial', 'opinionated', 'subjective', 'arbitrary', 'non-notable', 'narrow', 'small', 'overlapping', etc, some of the other criteria for deletion on grounds of 'overcategorization'. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also per nom: the 'main article' page you mention, the Top 100 US Federal Contractors article for 2008 and 2009 additionally shows industry of contractor and total value of contracts. As per the article discussion page, this article should probably at some point be renamed Top 100 US Federal Contractors - FY 2008 & 2009, and a new article Top 100 US Federal Contractors - FY 2009 & FY 2010 created in due course. I don't think this detailed article and the category are necessarily mutually exclusive. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the category says, this category relates to corporate entities appearing in current and prior year listings (though typically largely the same names recur). There are currently 110 pages in the category, from the 2009 and 2008 lists. Were the eventual consensus be to delete, on basis of name, how about renaming the category 'top US contractors?', but this is maybe a bit unspecific/lame, and the narrative cited above is presumably sufficient clarification. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note eg Wyeth, one of the pages in the category, has the category: 'Companies based in Rockland County, New York'. I have never even heard of such a place. Rather than such parochial listings, is not a listing that groups companies that are the largest recipients of US taxpayer funds more notable? Is this argument fallacious? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On maintenance, I volunteer to maintain when the next list is published, presumably towards the end of 2011, a once per year task of limited onerousness. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: I think the cutoff of the top 100 is the issue. There is a cat for Category:Defense companies of the United States. I'd be up for some government contractor cat under a better name, as long as it was companies that was the primary function. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining, as the "top 100" is arbitrary— what constitutes a major contractor may be a dollar figure or number of contracts that falls in the top 64, or the top 513, and would depend on what criteria for statistical significance are chosen. One hundred is simply the cutoff for this particular publication. The intent to capture "top US contractors" may be valid, but it would not be appropriate to use this list as a proxy.- choster (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and per WP:OC#TOPTEN. Arbitrary cutoff, arbitrary timeframe. The lists are valuable data, tho the list article Top 100 US Federal Contractors is at present little more than a re-publication of a primary source, and needs third-party RS to explain its significance and context; but presence in a published list is usually a bad basis for categorisation, and this is a good example of the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 15 January 2011 (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:Trinitarianism dichotomy

[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. Categories simply containing a thing that is and a thing that is not are more easily handled with a headnote, which I have added to the categories..--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Trinitarianism dichotomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Chalcedonian dichotomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete: These categories seem to have been created out of some notion of creating some sort of neutrality by putting the doctrines and their dissenters on equal footing. It's an artificial construct because nonTrinitarian theology is only meaningful as compared to the orthodox doctrine. Mangoe (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A "dichotomy" suggests at least somewhat that all Christian denominations can be classified as either Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian and either Trinitarian/non-Trinitarian. This is not the case, as there are many denominations that are neither Chalcedonian nor non-Chalcedonian in the sense in which the term is usually used. Really, it's just an unnecessary level of categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query. Which denomination, while claiming to be Christian, is neither Chalcedonian nor non-Chalcedonian? What is the third possibilty which user Good Olfactory seems to be hinting at that might exist? Which denomination, while claiming to be Christian, is neither Trinitarian nor non-Trinitarian? What is the third possibilty which user Good Olfactory seems to be hinting at that might exist? The categorisations are mutually exclusive and collectively exhausive. There's not many wiki categories that can claim this. Note: both dichotomies explicitly limit their scope to Christian (or self professed Christian) denominations. Other trinities (e.g. from classical Greece or Hinduism) are explicitly excluded from scope. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
discussion of meaning of "non-Chalcedonian"
    • We've been through this before Laurel. Non-Chalcedonian denominations are (quoting from that article) those that "accepted the First Council of Ephesus of 431, but, for varying reasons, did not accept allegiance to the Council of Chalcedon following it in 451". Chalcedonian denominations are those that accepted both. Therefore, denominations that emerged much later than 451, such as Mormonism, Adventism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. are neither Chalcedonian nor are they non-Chalcedonian. If you need to refresh your memory about this, we discussed it in depth at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses, where I and every other user who commented disagreed with your unique interpretation of the terminology. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: denominations described as "non-Chalcedonian" are always Nicene Trinitarian. Likewise there aren't Chalcedonian Unitarians because to accept the former council one must also accept Nicea and Ephesus as its prerequisites. It's a technical term, not an exercise in set theory. Mangoe (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not logically true. It is possible to be both non-Chalcedonian and non-Trinitarian. For example, Mormonism. It claims to be Christian as well which is sufficient reason for its inclusion. Had it claimed to be a branch of Hinduism, it would clearly have been inappropriate to include it. All non-Trinitarianism is non-Chalcedonian. But not all non-Chalcedonianism is non-Trinitarian. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Laurel, Mormonism is not "non-Chalcedonian". Mormons do not self-identify as "non-Chalcedonians" and you will not find any sources that refer to Mormonism as such. Mormonism rejects all the post-New Testament church councils. Since it is non-Trinitarian by definition it cannot be non-Chalcedonian. I realise this conflicts with you personal system of classification, but WP concerns itself with what is used in the real world, not with what you think it should be logically. As Mangoe says, it is a technical term, and as such it has a specific definition, which may not suit your logical thought processes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is an exercise in set theory. the category was created with that in mind. By the logic above, Anglicanism should not be permitted to call itself Chalcedonian (being a 16th centuary creation). Yet it does. It does not make common sense to apply a date to the definition. It is the theological stance of the denomination that is important, not the date at which it happened to adopt that stance. And the reason the category uses the terms ""accepted the First Council of Ephesus of 431..2 etc is because user Good Olfactory changed the desription of the article to match his own POV. Proir to his change, the description fell directly under the definitional scope of the dichotomy. What chutzpah to change the description and then criticise an editor for doing something that does not conform to the new definition! Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Laurel, I did not change the definition in the article. I changed the definition in the category to match the definition that already existed in the article, because you had attempted to create a new definition for non-Chalcedonian in the category that satisfied your own system of set theory logic, which is nowhere else accepted as the definition. Please get your facts straight when you are accusing others of chutzpah or malfeasance. (Anglicanism is Chalcedonian because it accepts both the First Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon. A denomination doesn't have to have been around at the time—the real question is which of the councils they accept, and it just so happens that many of those denominations that emerged in the second millennium AD rejected both.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the standard please Good Ol’factory? Up above, you have said that "Therefore, denominations that emerged much later than 451, such as Mormonism, Adventism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. are neither Chalcedonian nor are they non-Chalcedonian." When it was pointed out to you that the denomination Anglicanism dated from post 451, you brush that aside saying "A denomination doesn't have to have been around at the time". Please make a stand on one or the other. Personally, I agree with your second position. And you go go to say that "the real question is which of the councils they accept" which is a position with which I can also agree as it is meerly a re-statement of my sentence above ("It is the theological stance of the denomination that is important, not the date at which it happened to adopt that stance."). As both of these are good reasons for opposing the proposal, can you please supply a more cogent reason for your support of the proposal? The definition of Chalcedonianism, by the way, is adherance to the Chalcedonian creed, not adherance to the statement that suited your POV which you copied later. By this definition, Mormonism, Adventism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses are non-Chalcedonian as they do not subscribe to the Chalcedonian creed. But that's not the point here. The purpose of this discussion is to see whether or not the dichotomy is a good category. Membership of its children categories is a discussion for another day and should not be allowed to muddy the waters of this discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel, I didn't write the definition, as much as you wish I did. (For what it's worth, if I were to write it I would provide a definition that is much more detailed and nuanced.) I'm trying to explain the commonly accepted definition to you, but I can see clearly that you are choosing not to "get it". Your pattern of "tendentious editing", which I have witnesses in several other locations, is continuing here. Bottom line: No one cares or is interested in your own theories about how these terms should be defined, because they are clearly wrong and not supported by sources. And my opinion on the categories in question has been stated: no, I don't think the "dichotomy" idea is a good one, for the reasons I also stated. You don't have to agree with me, but please stop being tendentious. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My behaviour elsewhere is irrelevant to this discussion. Only "tendentious" behaviour here would warrant the rude comments above. Please stop personalising the debate and stick to the subject. Simply saying "no" is not an acceptable reason. When holes have been found in an argument, it's best to address them or to withdraw the argument. I note that you have not addressed the substantive points above. I await proof of that mythical beast - the Christian denomination that is neither Trinitarian nor non-Trinitarian. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read this but have concluded that further discussion with you is wasted effort. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2011 (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/2011_January_7&oldid=1089087512"