Knowledge (XXG):Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 12

6305:, as above. I agree with the above two comments. People such as runners, Zola Budd and Abebe Bikila (that's the Ethiopean one!) are noteworthy. So is the fact that singer, Cesária Évora, appears on stage barefoot in homage to the poor people of her native country. Also, this is a sub-category of Human Appearance, which also includes categories such as nudity. Are we also to delete a category which contains people who are notable for being naturists? -- 4903:, and it was correctly pointed out that for much of human history, this is the only usable category, as formal ranks were non-existent. This needs to be properly populated, obviously (which will probably happen simultaneously with a massive cleanup of the other "military people" categories, when we get to it), but there's absolutely no reason to delete it. 1626:

For the reason I said: I don't have any problem with it. When given a room full of people and told to divide it into men and women, I don't become paralyzed by an inability to figure out what to do with the 15-year-olds. And if this were really a problem, a large portion of the population would never

4989:- Military leader and military people are in no way synonymous. Krill's analogy is more apt than you might think (maybe physicist is more apt though). Otherwise, Lyndie England and Alexander the Great could be lumped together in a merged Military people category, since no distinction would be made.-- 4942:

What does a dictionary have to do with it? The concept of a "general" didn't emerge until the 16th century (although "Captain-General" may have been used as early as the 14th); applying it to an Ancient Greek is anachronistic—and just plain wrong. (I'll admit that perhaps "quantum" wasn't the best

5649:

per nom & Chicheley. I agree with Mike Selinker, too. This was prompted in part by the William Shatner CfD. But I would like to see WP put together some criteria for when someone merits a category. Also, I am not sure what the folks over in Tolkein land are doing, but the 2 categories read more

3521:

Now, I realize I might be a little bias, as I'm from Saskatoon, but I don't think we need to move everything. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And it ain't broke. No one else want to use the Category:Saskatoon, so there is no point in moving it. The disambiguation page for Saskatoon lists two other

6857:

first raised public concerns over the Airbus 'fly by wire' technology and the Concorde accident in 2000 marked the beginning of the end of supersonic passenger transport. However, Urhixidur makes a valuable point in that the category title, 'French air disasters' is ambiguous and not very helpful

6094:

Okay, all that were in the old serie B category are now in a new current serie B category, which will actually end up being a little bit larger than the old one, before long. I'm also still working on updating all of the current serie a players into that new category. Unfortunately you can't just

1717:

I disagree with Mike. Colloquially, yes, one may use "women" to refer to women and girls, but I feel readers expect more accuracy from our categories. To put girls in the "women" category is unacceptably inaccurate. Colloquial use has nothing to do with it; category inclusion should be based on

6161:

Completely and totally unencyclopedic and impossible to classify. Description mentions that people listed "went barefoot in situation where others wouldn't"? I.e. if someone performed a concert barefoot once, they are in the "Barefooters" category? What possible encyclopedic value does this have?

2137:

One would expect for the original title only entries related to British rule, e.g. military it stations there, colonial governors. The suggested title would cover anything related to there when it was under British rule, related or unrelated to British rule, e.g. foundation of a Taoist temple,

6813:

It makes enough sense. It certainly wouldn't make sense to create more than one set of national disaster categories. Planes don't confine themselves to national borders, but if a French airliner crashed in Germany I would expect to find it in the French category as well as the German one.

1894:

If the category says "women", it should only have women in it, not girls. If it says "women and girls", then it should have both. I really don't care which way it winds up, it just shouldn't include incorrect articles. I oppose the colloquial use of "woman" for girls in categories.

5946:. Mareino is correct, this was not intended to be a serious category (obviously) and I have no issue with it being deleted outright. I would prefer to leave things as-is as far as my userpage is concerned, but if that is in any way problematic, it can be removed from there as well. 3458:

if it was necessary to disambiguate this from another Saskatoon. As it happens, there's only one thing in the world called Saskatoon that's notable enough to merit its own dedicated category, making disambiguation unnecessary. Accordingly, I'm of the opinion that the category should

3623:

Since FCU Politehnica Timişoara is a football (soccer) club, wouldn't the name "FCU Politehnica Timişoara footballers" be akin to the name "My Favorite Football Club footballers", i.e. doubling the use of "football" in the name...? If so, suggest reverse merge. Regards,

883:, which is itself a neglected corner of the category system. Adding the word "national" just doesn't add anything that justifies all the pitfalls that arise. What about leagues with a few teams in another country? What about leagues that aren't really fully national? 6476:(the ones that air on TV rather than the home releases). Some of the older video collections have only been released on VHS or other videotape formats while others have been released on VHS and DVD, so a new category name should incorporate both formats. I think 1973:. The question where you draw the line between women and girls is very compicated and subjective (biologically? legally? traditionally? in which culture/law?). I'm not sure the distinction is sufficiently clear-cut to be used as a category on wikipedia. -- 3522:

items: the Saskatoon (the berry) which is also known as the juneberry, and an old electoral district. Neither need their own category. Seeing as the only people that call the juneberry the Saskatoon are from Saskatoon, we could change the article name to

3211:

I disagree, only highways 2 and 6 in Israel are freeways, there shouldn't be a category just for them. Highways 1, 4, 5 and 20 are part-freeways also, but even that makes just 6 in total. There is nothing wrong with having them all under one category. --

2494:

Heh, good point... at one website I frequent, with users from many countries, the joking adjective "USian" has been coined to avoid calling U.S. citizens "Americans"... Who knows, maybe some day it'll catch on. ;) For now, American will have to do.

1698:

Why do we need to rename? Simply remove all articles on non-adult females from the category, create a category on Girls, and move them there. Problem solved. Of course, it can't remain as it is; it makes no sense to miscategorize girls as women.

5416:

does not give a reference of research at all. Time Team went to Manchester once, so what? Where did they dig? Why? What did they find? Far more detail is required - as it stands, we have the trivia without the encylopaedic detail. Saying that

2473:

American means so many things. There are two whole continents full of nations with citizens who can rightly call themselves American. Keep United States for specificity. We citizens of the United States don't have exclusive rights to American. -

2567:

As "U.S." seems to be Knowledge (XXG)'s standard abbreviation for "United States", maybe policy should specify that "American" means "(person) of the United States" on Knowledge (XXG)...? (Unless, I guess, "U.S." isn't policy...) Regards,

5715: 6565:. The movement calls itself the animal liberation movement. That is the most neutral term because some of the people and groups support the concept of animal rights, and some do not, but they all support the notion of animal liberation. 5430:

And hence a list should be used rather than a category, as a list can give supplementary detail such as the exact location, nature of the site and reference of the programme. Change it to a list and the community can complete the detail

1454:, so it is a well established category type. Ideally entrepreneurs should not also be in the parent category if they have only ever worked in their own businesses, but if there is some duplication I don't think it matters all that much. 2515:

is used for media. There is no reason for american's stuff to be unique. American and United States are both used depending on the standard for the category. Both are acceptable based on usage which in this case is American.

6845:: France was one of the first countries to have an aviation industry, and there have been a number of air disasters in France which are significant in the economic and technological history of civil aviation. For example, the 2844:

It's not a bad idea (quite a good one, in fact), but there are quite a few UK roads that would have to be categorized this way. If somebody could be persuaded to take this task on, then I'd have no complaints about it staying.

6858:(not least because the term 'disaster' is emotive and implies a PoV). Both the R101 and the Ermonville Forest DC-10 were disasters that took place on French soil but involved foreign-registered and operated aircraft; yet the 2484:

Then what is the correct adjective for the United States? "American" is the accepted naming convention at Knowledge (XXG) to describe the U.S. There are hundreds of categories that use it, so these should be no different.

1836:

I don't know what the motivations of those who originally created the categories were, but if they wanted them to simply indicate gender, they would have been more accurately named "Male Humans" and "Female Humans". Cheers,

4869:

This category is ignored. It was created in 2004 but contains 14 articles and zero subcategories. "Leaders" is vague, and the category is unnecessary as there are many other options for categorizing military people.

6748:

Disaster categories for major countries like France certainly require subdivision, as does the aviation disasters category. The meaning should be flexible; any air disaster with French involvement belongs here.

6260:

We're not bound by the current (very stupid) definition that allows Kelly Ripa, Julia Roberts, and other people who have been once spotted shoeless in. There should be a cat, however, for people who are/were

2449:

to be changed to that form, then all will have to be nominated for renaming. At the moment, 50 of the 51 categories do not have that form, so there is no reason this should be inconsistent with the others.

1483:

Tight call. It can be hard to distinguish the two. The really big question is: is it helpful for article-finding purposes to split the biographies this way? Will people end up looking in the wrong subcat?

1354:. Anyone who thinks this should be kept should write a full paragraph in support explaining the recognized significance of Irish-American models as a discrete academic topic. 23:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC) 3777: 6876: 5005: 2593:

That isn't the case at all. Some types of category take one form and other types take another. These categories take the adjectival form and the correct adjective of the United States is American.

5950: 6987:: Minor? Steven Blum is one of the most prominent anime VAs in the industry. How can you call anyone that voiced nearly hundreds of characters throughout his career "minor"? I say we keep it. 4783:. Adjective "Dominican" is very confusing as it refers to two countries in the Caribbean, Dominica and the Dominican Republic. This is the same situation as with the adjective "Congolese". - 5445:. It seems like the Time Team goes to already notable places, rather than making places notable by sheer virtue of visiting them. That means list rather than deletion or categorization.-- 967: 6991: 4896: 6179: 1476: 6974:

Where does one begin? Hype, self-aggrandizement, notability, the sheer impracticality and lack of usefulness in creating a category for every single minor actor's list of roles.

4158: 4655: 3034: 2970: 677: 42: 37: 4010:

Current wording does not have enough detail (it is a category for images) and is poorly worded. Proposed new name is precise, clear, and closely follows the wording format of

6341:

Kill it. There is no need to categorise by every hobby and pose and fashion choice and coincidental similarity. Indeed doing so could make the whole category system unusable.

5403:

This is NOT trivia. Time Team do make the effort to complete the archaeological documentation, hence this provides a reference of readily available archaeological research.

4379:

category dealt with issues like culture and experiences of the general population during the wars it would make sense to keep them separate. It doesn’t, so it’s redundant.

3193:- though while there aren't very many articles to be categorised yet, there should still be a distinction made between roads and expressways/highways (Ayalon vs Allon). -- 6862:

is not linked to this category, even though it was a French built, registered and operated aircraft. I would, therefore, suggest renaming it to 'Air accidents in France'.

4645: 3858: 5337:- those reading pieces that were included will find a lead back to something they might not have known about. And what exactly is the criteria for deletion being used? 3887: 1472:

and include all names. The difference between businessperson and entrepreneur is simply too niggardly and hair-splitting as to merit separate categories. Common sense.

6365:

and it doesn't help to put both of them in this category either. If it is necessary to qualify a category with "notable" or "famous" it is sure to be a bad category.

6166: 6321:

which is not appropriate as 1) barefoot is not a nationality, profession, religion, etc., and B) categories which start "Notable", "Controversial", etc., have a non-

4520: 3896: 6800:

I think this category needs to be kept but I agree with the nom. What exactly is this category for? Does it make sense for this to be a subcategory of "Disasters

4764: 4529: 5687: 3703: 5650:

like they are written to editors and encyclopedia users and I for one cannot necessarily draw the distinction they are trying to make with the 2 categories.

4773: 4501: 2512: 2436:. Developing consensus on Commons is to have "(subject) of (name of location)", and I think we should follow suit; eg "Magazines of the United States". -- 174:

Taking the liberty to combine these and add more. Yes, I love Hynden Walch's Starfire voice too, but these are terrible categories. They all need to go.--

1360:

per gender/race/sexuality classification guidelines; there's no recognized phenomenon of Irish-American modelling as a cultural topic in its own right.

5030: 6033:

There are clearly some structural issues here. Might it be an idea to work out the entire new category structure that is intended to be switched to?

5133: 21: 7148: 7136: 7116: 7104: 7092: 7080: 7068: 7056: 7044: 7027: 7004: 6004:

In the cat, expect Max Vieri, they all played in Serie A. Players only at Seire B in all-time usually not notable and no one create article. And

3905: 3672: 3635: 6393: 6381: 6369: 6345: 6333: 6309: 6297: 6285: 6252: 6240: 6228: 6216: 6204: 6191: 4659: 161: 4505: 3878: 2935: 6873: 6057:(if both include past and present players) , because many players played both. If players currently in Serie A, i think just put it in cat 5947: 5712: 5002: 4509: 3869: 3774: 2999:

Second thought: Category page's text states "These articles have been identified as high quality food-related articles by the standards of

2128:

Guess so. Seems to make more sense to me to make the subject of the category (in this case Singapore) the first word of the name. Regards,

880: 842: 104: 4050: 4035: 3977: 17: 4322:

the history of a country at war, basically; there's no need to have two nested categories here. It might be useful to create a standard

4285: 2404: 5584: 5593: 4755: 4235: 2903: 2887: 2871: 1998: 5570: 4516: 1640:

article. Any appropriate edits so that it can talk about the term as if its meaning were just "a female person", regardless of age??

6318: 6236:

per nom. At least some people in this category are not even mentioned as going barefoot in their article. Silly and unencyclopedic.

4676: 4636: 4589: 4525: 4429: 3854: 3605: 1233: 1229: 1207: 576: 5602: 5574: 5561: 3021: 149: 134: 129: 139: 99: 5588: 4585: 3434: 3415: 1962: 1450:

Entrepreneurs create and run their own businesses, but many business people don't do that. There are 16 nationality varieties in

6199:

per nom plus Barefoot also has other meanings, for example, a person who uses an unamplified CB radio is considered barefoot. -

5597: 4965:

has a plan and will populate it and start subcategories. There are plenty of historical military leaders who don't have a rank.

3883: 3569: 124: 6664: 6516: 5578: 3892: 3850: 3842: 144: 114: 109: 6937: 5223: 5606: 5565: 2791: 2367: 154: 6650:? Welfare can be construed as a dolist pampering of indolent indigent masses... or as genuinely humane respectful action... 5811:

But Can't sleep, clown will eat me *did* add himself to the category, as seen in his user page history. Quelle bizarre. --

5554: 3502: 3064: 2931: 2396: 2373: 838: 60: 4760: 2382: 2002: 1451: 391: 119: 6599: 6277: 6009: 5887: 5457: 3348: 2732: 2446: 2353: 2230: 2226: 1685: 1498:

There are two well established and separate hierarchies and any changes should only be discussed on an all-country basis.

1404: 923: 309: 6630: 6603: 6512: 4769: 1351: 963: 572: 6889: 6869: 6771: 6759: 6735:. It is also less clear what it means: air disasters over France, air disasters involving Frenchmen or French property. 6732: 6293:

as above. Should be defined to include people who are NOTABLE for going barefoot. Julis Roberts is not. Sandie Shaw is.

6095:

rename categories, they have to be moved then deleted, so whoever has power to, please delete the now empty category of

5772:

I would have said it was his private joke too, but he wasn't the one who created it. Still, he's the only member... --

5637:. At some point we should convene the people categories discussion so we're not playing catch-as-catch-can with these.-- 783: 738: 707: 697: 681: 6952: