THC Science

< September 21	September 23 >

September 22[edit]

Category:Plants decribed in 1855[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 as a typo. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Plants decribed in 1855 to Category:Plants described in 1855

Nominator's rationale: Typing error, presumably. J Milburn (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Surely speediable. Occuli (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2010 (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:Lion and Sun[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:Heraldry. Dana boomer (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Lion and Sun to Category:Coats of arms

Nominator's rationale: Small, eponymous category, little potential for growth. No need to merge to both parents, as Lion and Sun is already categorized under Category:History of Iran. — ξ ^xplicit 16:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right idea, wrong category The heraldry categories are a bit of a mess, with the term being used there to cover symbols outside of traditional heraldry. In any case this is an emblem, not a coat of arms; therefore if we are merging into this structure, at present it needs to merge to Category:Heraldry. We really need a different structure for emblems other than arms themselves, but I'm reluctant to be the person who names that. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2010 (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.

Jazz Musicians[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 all. Dana boomer (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Contemporary jazz musicians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:Contemporary jazz musicians and its subcategories, which is almost as nebulous as the "Modern Creative" that we recently discussed (2010-07-28, 2010-08-06). Its main article, Contemporary jazz, is a redirect to Smooth jazz, which already has its own set of categories. But based purely on the names of this and Category:Classic jazz musicians (which I've also just listed), jazz music in its entirety could be roughly bisected into one or the other – "classic" or "contemporary" – and then we could fight about the cut-off date. (Both of these are, in turn, sub-categories of Category:Jazz musicians by genre.) Gyrofrog (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left notification at WT:JAZZ, where I had previously raised this issue. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query – given that Contemporary jazz redirects to Smooth jazz; and we have Category:Smooth jazz, Category:Smooth jazz musicians, Category:Smooth jazz musicians by instrument; doesn't a rename/merge of Category:Contemporary jazz clarinetists to Category:Smooth jazz clarinetists etc work? Occuli (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, none of those musicians are smooth jazz. That's part of the issue with these categories, and the term "contemporary jazz" itself: what does it mean? I'm not even certain contemporary jazz should redirect to smooth jazz, but that's another issue, and I think the bigger problem is this nebulous and ill- or un-defined categorization. But if it helps, all of the musicians in all of these "Contemporary jazz" categories are already in at least one other Category:Jazz musicians by genre subcat. They don't need to be placed in (or, as you mentioned, merged to) an additional category at this point (there were some that did and I've taken care of them). (Or in other words, they won't drop out of "Category:Jazz musicians by genre" if we delete "Category:Contemporary jazz foo".) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also added Category:Contemporary jazz ensembles based on the same rationale. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The redirect/article and these categories are just evidence of ill-defined multiple uses of the word "contemporary". (It does tickle my fancy to imagine Steve Beresford - an inhabitant of two of the categories in question here - finding himself in the vicinity of Smooth Jazz - one of the few genres with which he has probably not toyed?) These categories appear to be superfluous multi-categorisation, so no loss from their deletion. AllyD (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe I don't understand the nom, but - We don't understand it so we're deleting it? I'll admit to not knowing the definition of contemporary jazz either. However, a quick search suggests that this is a term used at least by radio stations and music sellers. (For example: this, this and this) And it would indeed seem that this isn't necessarily quite the same as smooth jazz. Now is it an actual genre, or just a way to market certain artists? I dunno, but then that could be said initially about easy listening, and other such terms, I suppose. - jc37 17:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, one could just as well ask "We don't understand it so we're keeping it?" Perhaps this will clarify the issue: "Contemporary jazz" can (and often does) mean "smooth jazz" and on Wikipedia the former redirects to the latter. However, "contemporary" also suggests "relevant to the present period," in which case "contemporary jazz" fairly much equates with "recent jazz" (which itself is indeterminate) The examples you cited further prove my point: The Concord Music - Contemporary jazz site suggests the former interpretation, i.e. "contemporary jazz" = "smooth jazz". Conversely, last.fm suggests the latter – "Jazz from late part of the 20th century and 21st century" – and the first 4 artists shown on that page are Esbjörn Svensson, Avishai Cohen, The Bad Plus, and Brad Mehldau – none of whom anyone would describe as "smooth jazz". What has happened, as far as "Category:Contemporary jazz musicians" is concerned, is that there is no main article, nor anything else, to act as a guidepost for placement in this category. (The category could just as easily be renamed "Skrzzlp jazz" and the articles therein would retain just as much relationship with one another.) The result is that we have a mixture of articles, some are related to smooth jazz, and some are not (as Ally D has also pointed out). Those that are related are also placed somewhere within "Category:Smooth jazz," and don't need to be moved nor merged. Those that are not related are also placed somewhere else within "Category:Jazz musicians by genre," and don't need to be moved nor merged. Thus, "Category:Contemporary jazz musicians" is superfluous. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nod, yes. If we don't understand, we should look to try to understand, else we become too near various inquisitions in the past, for my taste : )

And by the way, I appreciate that you're willing to discuss the references in relation to the question. I intentionally placed several that I thought could/should be discussed in this context.

Anyway, please see my question below. - jc37 19:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- though I am not a jazz fan, this is an obvious means of objectively categorising musicians. If they stick to one branch of jazz, there is not reason why they should not have that category as well. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's part of the point though - it's not quite clear whether 'contemporary jazz' refers to a particular branch of jazz or not. Munci (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can find in references, and from the discussion here and below, I think that the adjectival problem of whether the category is supposed to mean (contemporary jazz) musicians or contemporary (jazz musicians) is one that makes these categories inaccurate, and thus a hindrance rather than a help to navigation. No prejudice against better named categories if such is possible. Neutral on whether "contemporary jazz" should be considered a (sub-)genre or not. - jc37 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Classic jazz musicians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:Classic jazz musicians and its subcategories. There is no associated main article; Classic jazz is (and always has been) a red link. Presumably this is some variant of pre-1930s jazz and/or overlaps with Dixieland etc. (See [1], [2].) Yet it also suggests "classics", i.e. Kind of Blue, Time Out, Giant Steps etc. (We also end up with Mike Nock and Wolfgang Dauner in the same "Classic jazz pianists" category with Lovie Austin.) See also: Category:Contemporary jazz musicians which I've just nominated, as well. Gyrofrog (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left notification at WT:JAZZ, where I had previously raised this issue. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Category:Classic jazz ensembles based on the same rationale. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although redlinked, there could be an argument for Classic Jazz as a term better than Dixieland to denote pre-Swing polyphony: see Dixieland#Etymology. However, that article / apparatus doesn't exist here at the moment; instead we have a category tree whose imprecise definition invites unwitting intruders like Nock and Dauner; that suggests deletion is best. AllyD (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Early jazz" might be a more neutral (and certainly more clear and specific) term than "classic jazz". (Or how about "jass?" (joke)) As you suggest, we would first need a main article, but we can always bring that discussion back to WT:JAZZ. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Closer, please take my comments in the nom directly above into consideration here too - saves me from the copy paste : ) - And for links: this, this, this, and this last one is interesting at least. That said, I'm not certain if "classic jazz" isn't just a way to say jazz when talking about the "other" types of jazz (this for example). - jc37 17:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, my response to your comments regarding "Contemporary jazz" apply here, as well. Does "classic" mean "pre-Swing era" or "pre-rock era?" Again, I believe your example links prove my point: three of your links use "classic jazz" to refer to the 1920s (or generally, pre-Swing). But Last.fm uses the term very loosely, and the artists they show are simply the most famous names from throughout jazz history (Armstrong, Sinatra, Ellington). The Classic Jazz Guitar site lists musicians ranging from early in the music's history, such as Django, to those still performing in 2010 (100 years after Django's birth), like Jim Hall. Again, a vague and undefined category. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A potential problem with "time" and music categories (and not just these) is that there can be a confusion between whether the term applies to the artist or the music. Part of your argument seems to be that recent artists who play a certain kind of music shouldn't be grouped with other, earlier artists who play that type of music? (Please clarify.) - jc37 19:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree regarding time-based categories. As to the 2nd part of your comment, I'm not saying they shouldn't go together, but then why not simply use "Jazz musicians" instead of "Classic jazz?" The same can be said of "contemporary jazz." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can find in references, and from the discussion here and above, I think that the adjectival problem of whether the category is supposed to mean (classic jazz) musicians or classic (jazz musicians) is one that makes these categories inaccurate, and thus a hindrance rather than a help to navigation. No prejudice against better named categories if such is possible. Neutral on whether "classic jazz" should be considered a (sub-)genre or not. - jc37 19:47, 3 October 2010 (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:Detroit Tech football players[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. No name has been found for the team, so there is nothing to move it to at this point. Dana boomer (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Detroit Tech football players to Category:Detroit Tech (something) football players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This needs a team name. But I cannot for the life of me find the team name for Detroit Tech, which stopped playing football in 1951 (and stopped doing everything in 1982). Or, since it's a single-member category, it could also be deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If you don't know the real name of the team, than leave it be. The addition of "(something)" looks very obscure to me. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... I don't want "(something)" in the title. I was hoping someone on this board might have a way to find out the team name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh... Sorry, didn't know that, but don't change my !vote as long as the "(something)" part is not replaced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:17, 28 September 2010 (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:Hawaiian players of American football[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/no consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Hawaiian players of American football to Category:Players of American football from Hawaii

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Seems to have near-complete overlap. I think this is trying to match Category:American Samoan players of American football, but Hawaii isn't a territory of the U.S. Or it could be trying to match Category:African American players of American football, in which case... well, then I don't know what to do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category American Samoan was changed from Samoan by some to differentiate between Samoan football players from American Samoa and Samoa (formerly Western Samoa). However when we say Samoan--the one drop of blood rule generally rules. Meaning if you are part Samoan (ethnically, regardless of birth place or nationality). The American Samoan category now is made up of Samoans who play American football.

Hawaiians has to do with ethnicity--nothing to do with players from Hawai'i. Maybe it should be changed to Native Hawaiian football players. Bern Brostek was a former NFL player from Hawai'i--however he is not Native Hawaiian (indigenous). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makani808 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. We don't have similar categories for other sports, or even for sportspeople at all. Okay, maybe the right solution, then, is to keep Category:Players of American football from Hawaii and convert Category:Hawaiian players of American football to the less specific Category:Native Hawaiian sportspeople. Or, if that doesn't sit well with people, maybe Category:Native American players of American football is the way to go.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiians aren't generally considered Native Americans but descendants of Polynesian explorers. Personally I think the whole grouping should be deleted, but seeing as editors enjoy adding uncited ethnicity categories, I thin Native Hawaiian sportspeople would be best.--TM 17:41, 24 September 2010 (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:Files uploaded by Mlpearc[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 delete. Files are not categorized by users who upload them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. It seems to me that because categories like this have been deleted so many times in the past, there was some discussion of making these speedily delete-able on sight, but I can't remember or find if this approach was ever adopted by consensus. So for now I'm bringing it here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete asap. Occuli (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain why ? Mlpearc powwow 15:08, 22 September 2010 (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:Disturbed[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disturbed to Category:Disturbed (band)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Seems like a good candidate to be renamed to match the main article Disturbed (band), since if it were added to a bio article it could be interpreted as meaning the person is mentally disturbed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article and avoid disturbance :)--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match parent article and avoid confusion. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:34, 27 September 2010 (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:Resistance to the British Empire[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: Close. The category has not been properly tagged for deletion. Ruslik_Zero 19:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: delete another creation by User:Zuggernaut. This term is pure synthesis - a war was fought against British rule therefore it was "resistance against the British Empire". A gross oversimplification and loaded term (eg the American Revolutionary War was as much a civil war of loyalists vs revolutionaries as it was a war of independence yet this category gives the impression that it was one of many - more as Zuggernaut proliferates this category tag - gallant struggles against the tyranny of the British Empire.) As someone pointed out on the discussion re Famines in British Empire, it's just a way for him to add his POV to WP bypassing our policies on NOR and NPOV. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 09:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the nom is supposed to link to the category in question, Category:Resistance to the British Empire, so that we can scrutinise it and see that it is tagged (or not, as is the case with this one). This does seem too vague as almost any war or protest involving British forces in the last 400 or so years could be thus described. (It is surely not OR or synthesis to categorise the Mau Mau Uprising under 'resistance to the British Empire'. What else was it? A clumsy attempt to fraternise with the colonial power that was sadly misinterpreted?) Occuli (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I will skip User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's personal attacks and stick to the central point of the argument. That there was resistance to the British Empire is a universally known fact as is evident by the American Revolution, the Indian Independence Movement, Mau Mau Uprising, etc. Surely the category can have potentially "too many" articles but they can be further sub-categorized by geography, ideology or some other criterion. Having too many articles in a category is a weak argument for the deletion of the entire category. This category will add value to Wikipedia by allowing readers who are interested in the history of the British Empire to quickly locate and navigate the struggles the Empire was involved with. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This is a very problematic category that adds no value to wikipedia. This category could be added to every single country, empire, movement, war, battle, and individuals that have resisted the British Empire over many centuries. This has the potential to include 1000s of articles, and it serves no purpose at all. It was created by an editor who based on many recent edits seems to be pushing an agenda. He inserted some POV material but it got undone in articles, he then canvassed (breaking the rules) to try and help his position in the debates, now he is creating random categories that serve no purpose. This pointless category would be like if i created a category on Category:Countries with territory that was once part of the British Empire. I could create that category, and place it on many dozens of articles. It would not be inaccurate, but it would be absolutely pointless. Zuggernaut does not seem to understand that something being sourced or "right" does not always mean it is acceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Rebellions in the British empire which matches for example Category: Rebellions in the United States. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There should be no problems with a category like that, but somebody should explain how wp:or or wp:synthesis apply to categories. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Again Countries which were once British colonies would not be a bad category except with the above care regarding or or synthesis guidelines Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a category for Former British Colonies. The problem with this category is its so vague. It could apply to 1000s of articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Infers there was some sort of 500-year resistance movement. There were rarely any links between groups that opposed imperial rule and WP should not create things that did not exist to suit POV agendas. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wiki-Ed. Vague inclusion criteria. The inclusion of Chapekar brothers, for instance, leads me to wonder if the creator is pushing the POV that any violent action taken against an official of the British Empire constitutes a "resistance" against the Empire itself. I can see the POV and OR concerns here. Reso lute 14:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category not yet tagged Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Category:Independence struggles within the British Empire. Chapekar brothers does not fit this, but seems to relate to opposition to harsh measures taken to stop bubonic plague, involving (if I read a poor article correctly) the murder of the officer in charge. In the days before modern drugs, some very harsh methods were needed to control epidemics, so that the actions of the officer in question may well have been justified in the wider interests of public health. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the painstaking efforts of the editor, we have an article on the Chaphekar brothers who are locally honored and hailed as heroes by millions. Efforts of other interested editors can help improve the article even further. But this highlights why such categories can be helpful for the open-minded and inquisitive reader whose sole interest is in furthering his or her knowledge, keeping all prejudices at bay. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Mangoe. Similar categories already exist and are useful the way they are. The contents of the category can always be rearranged to fit the new description. Munci (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2010 (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:Eastern philosophers[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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Almost empty category which has one sub cat Category:Confucianists which could easily be included in it parents. The category was deleted by cfd in 2005, and recreated by a bot as is appears in the Simple English Wikipedia.Salix (talk): 08:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the unanimous keep in 2005. And add the many 'philosophers' categories in Category:Eastern philosophy. (Does Gregbard know he's a bot; and what happened to this category between 2005 and 2010? And what happened to Category:South asian philosophers, which survived the same cfd and contained Category:Chinese philosophers in 2005?) Occuli (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess they were merged to Category:Indian philosophers, which might be an appropriate subcategory here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If such a merge happened, I'm not sure it's the most accurate one. While Indian philosophy did influence other Eastern philosophies (Chinese, for example), they still have their own schools of thought. Just added the Pakistani Sufism to the category. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eastern philosophy is a popular subject in academia. The category has the potential to be well populated. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2010 (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:People from an unknown place of birth in Indiana[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:People from Indiana. — ξ ^xplicit 22:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be the only sub-cat that states "unknown place of birth in foo". I think this would be the begining of a slippery slope, if this standard was replicated for other states, towns and cities. Take the category Category:People from London - there must be hundreds of people who's precise birth place is unknown. Lugnuts (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:People from Indiana. We don't categorise by place of birth at all; it's not 'People born in London'. Occuli (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:People from Indiana per Occuli. What is really sad about this is, I looked at one article included here and the person was actually born in Auburn, Nebraska. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't categorise by place of birth at all - yes, that was what I was trying to type, but my brain failed ;-) Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the intent of the category was then "People from Indiana whose place of birth is unknown." postdlf (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as above -- Generally place of birth is NN. UNKNOWN parameters are usually for undiscoverable facts. MISSING would be appropriate if we needed this at all (which we do not). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2010 (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.

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Ruderalis

September 22[edit]

Category:Plants decribed in 1855[edit]

Category:Lion and Sun[edit]

Jazz Musicians[edit]

Category:Contemporary jazz musicians[edit]

Category:Classic jazz musicians[edit]

Category:Detroit Tech football players[edit]

Category:Hawaiian players of American football[edit]

Category:Files uploaded by Mlpearc[edit]

Category:Disturbed[edit]

Category:Resistance to the British Empire[edit]

Category:Eastern philosophers[edit]

Category:People from an unknown place of birth in Indiana[edit]

Leave a Reply