Knowledge (XXG):Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 11

1168:) - so anyone with the exception of politicians ought to be eligible and could be described as a celebrity. As I have already mentioned, only a small proportion of celebrities actually disclose their political allegiance - so in that respect, upkeep would not be a big problem either. If there is any doubt as to whether anyone is an actual supporter of a party, their name could be removed from the categories - but there are definitely people out there who definitely do strongly support political parties, such as 1744:- The term can be used to describe galaxies, but other terms ("giant elliptical galaxies" and "giant lenticular galaxies") are more accurate descriptions and more frequently applied. I would suggest moving this to "Category: Giant elliptical galaxies" except that the division between "normal" elliptical galaxies and "giant" elliptical galaxies is ill-defined. I therefore recommend removing the category. 382:- However, despite my comments above, since we deleted actresses, then this should be deleted. If we had kept actresses, I would have said keep these. The concept is very nearly the same (throughout history). If in the future actresses gains consensus, then so should these, and vice-versa (if these are kept than I propose that actresses should be re-created). - 2152:. Most of the 'Nationality' categories could well be renamed to be 'Country' categories, since they are at the legal country level, not at the sub-country or cross-country nationality level. On the other hand, there might be an argument that 'people' are to be categorized 'by nationality' while everything else is categorized 'by country'. This is not clear. 1043:

station). But I still think that even a list needs to start with some definition of what is to be counted as support. Is the list only for celebrities, or can my neighbour who's no celebrity but a lifelong cheerleader for the Conservatives, appear on it too? Unless those definitions are clarified at the outset, a list would probably make its way to

1028:- There are articles for supporters of U.S. Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps creating articles or renaming the category in some way would be better. Only a relatively small number of celebrities seem to reveal their chosen party and some are life-long supporters. I still think there's a case for keeping this information in some capacity. 1342:, Rename to more precise description. People who were born in Canada, hold Canadian citizenship, etc, might have been Royal Air Force air marshals (or air marshals in another air force). This renaming makes it clear on what basis the air marshals are being categorized and fits in with other air marshal categories (eg 1633:, we also (as noted above) need to use the "more common name". It's almost as if we need category disambiguation pages ("Thrushes:"). At the very least, we need some redirects involved. And an "index" somewhere on Knowledge (XXG) would be helpful as well. (Hoping to find out that one exists already : ) - 1870:

Section 4.3). Looking at Binney & Merrifield, it appears that cD galaxies are defined by a clear quantitative criteria; the galaxies light profiles deviated from a de Vaucouleurs light profile at large radii (i.e. the outer regions of the galaxy look brighter than normal). This means that they

418:

says "Use gender-neutral category names, unless there is a distinct reason and consensus to do otherwise. In that case, please specify the reason on the category page, and record the consensus on its associated discussion page." I think that deletion of the female actors category was a sad mistake,

1042:

It seems to me that a list would be an appropriate way of retaining this information, because it would allow a brief explanation of the nature of the support (e.g. X donated £100,000; Y appeared on a party political broadcast; Fred the taxi driver once gave his Liberal councillor a free lift to the

995:

I questioned the validity of these categories on creation, as individuals seem to move over time from one party to another as power shifts between parties. Hence, if some gives to two parties, do they sit in both categories - and what constitutes support of a party: £100, £5000, a positive media

1897:

As far as I know, the cD classification is not part of the de Vaucouleurs extension of the Hubble sequence. de Vaucouleurs introduced the r and s subclassifications for spiral galaxies. Except for the name, these classifications are unrelated to the de Vaucouleurs light profile for elliptical

926:

As far as I was concerned, the word "Supporter" can be defined in any way you like. I use the word in its broadest possible sense. We all interpret things in different ways. I don't seem to be having much luck creating categories! I will therefore not be creating any again. I'm sticking to

1567:

because I do not know what the scientific names refer to. If I want to look up thrushes, do I look in any of these categories? I would end up looking through all of them and getting frustrated with Knowledge (XXG)'s classification system. The astronomical equivalent would be if I created

1078:

It is my understanding that in the U.S. being a "registered" member of a party is quite a big deal because of the primary system, but in the UK party membership is a private affair and information on which non-politicians belong to political parties is not generally available.

1163:

is a classic example). Neither of these are an issue to me personally. To be honest, BrownHairedGirl, a person would have to be reasonably well-known to have an article in their name on Knowledge (XXG) at any rate (the only taxi-driver with an article I can think of is

431:

Gender is relevant here. In sound, song selection, history, and even where the person is placed in some choirs. Or what choirs they can even join. Granted gender or sex being significant has rarely stopped deletion before, but maybe now that trend has burned itself

1875:. This would be an acceptable alternative, but it becomes unwieldly to implement in Knowledge (XXG) (because of the lower case c), and the phrase is too technical (see the discussion on bird categories above). The alternative would be to rename the category 1595:

Because categorization of living beings is most practically done following their taxonomy,with optional use of common names (When I first categorized birds, I actually tried to use common names as much as possible, but they were later all renamed, see

635:). I also do not think that merging to another category is useful since, as pointed out above, it is unclear whether the article refers to writers, pencillers, inkers, letterers, publishers, salespeople, CEOs, comic book store owners, etc. 978:

But what exactly does that mean? Did he just hold Conservative views (which clashed with Dunn's Socialist views), was he an admitted Conservative voter, or even a member of the party, or did he campaign for the party/do fundraiser events?

413:

per musicpvm and Hoylake. This is not like a female bank clerks category, but one of the cases where gender has a very direct bearing on the nature of the job; it's not just a matter of range, but also of the gendered roles of singers.

1012:" would be useful because individuals have to register with the party (or whatever the British equivalent is), which is a clear criterion for inclusion or exclusion in the category. A category entitled "Supporters of the British 1135:

endorse the Democratic Party? Also, some of the problems with the above categories as well as some additional problems apply to this list. What happens when a celebrity switches party affiliations or dies? (I notice that

996:

comment, etc. And what happens if they have given support to a party, and then come out with a negative comment? I can't see these categories as a clear encyclopedic criteria for definition. Probably a good list. Rgds, -

490:- but the rationale (explained well enough above) should be made more visible on the category page, to forstall future nominations (I made such a nomination a while back; it was a mistake then, and it's a mistake now). 1796:

If it exists it should be a real category, and not a redirect. It's a subcategory of ellipticals, so it should not exist as a redirect. Categoryredirects should only be used for equivalencies not subcategorization.

1871:

could be clearly separated from ordinary elliptical galaxies in a categorization scheme. However, the term "giant diffuse galaxy" is not an accurate term for these galaxies; the category would need to be renamed

1863:

Yes, giant diffuse galaxies are classified as type cD (if I am correctly interpreting the intentions of the category's creator). However, these are a subset of elliptical galaxies (see Binney & Merrifield's

1916:

Yes, we are missing an article on cD galaxies, but because of Knowledge (XXG)'s problems with capitalization, I do not want to be the dork to create the article "CD galaxies". People would laugh at me at work.

1140:

is on the list.) What if a celebrity only endorses a single Democratic candidate? Moreover, what qualifies a person as being a celebrity? Does being a politician qualify a person as a celebrity? Does

1189: 1879:, but then this could contain galaxies that are not cD galaxies (see my earlier comments). It is probably easier just to delete the category until Wikipedians really demand the category. 42: 37: 1057: 1008:- "Support" is a vague term. Does this mean voting for a party, being a member of a party, donating money to a party, or something else? A category entitled "Members of the British 1572:, where would he or she look in these hypothetical categories? The scientific classifications would hinder the average user who has not learned the details of the Hubble sequence. 1127:

also has problems, and I would not want to see the list copied for other parties. The list is unreferenced, and I am uncertain as to whether to believe it. For example, when did

1568:"Category:SAbc galaxies", "Category:SABbc galaxies", and "Category:SBbc galaxies" within "Category:Sbc galaxies". If the average user is trying to find galaxies similar to the 1016:", however, is not as clear since several ill-defined criteria could be used to indicate that individuals belong in the category. These categories therefore should be deleted. 1604: 1601: 1769:

may be appropriate, although I do not imagine anyone recreation a category with this same name. People simply do not use the phrase "giant diffuse galaxy" very often.

2005: 2008:- Why delete a category when a rename will work? Nassau County probably contains some notable high schools, so the category will probably be populated over time. 1333: 1992:

I created this thinking it was a good idea and included an excess word in the category name. Now that I think of it, it should probably be altogether deleted.

562: 415: 349: 270: 1907:

Sorry, I meant we seem to also be missing de Vaucouleurs , in addition to Morgan/Yerkes. (... We seem to be missing an article describing cD galaxies ...)

1630: 393:

A bad call being done before doesn't mean we have to keep doing bad calls. Knowledge (XXG) is not consistent and never will be. Still I respect your vote.

2115:

instead, rename the other categories to '... by country'. 'Nationality' is an obsolete idea; 'country' is used throughout WP for other such categories.

1441: 114: 141: 106: 880: 21: 814: 603:

does not spell delete. As far as what occupations the cat covers, how about pencillers, inkers, letterers, colorists and editors, to start with?

872: 1343: 806: 781: 97: 773: 947: 863: 847: 839: 797: 158: 137: 17: 1986: 2084: 1244:. All included names would require citations. How about that?? Or can anyone think of a better word than "supporters" or "endorsed"? 939: 764: 310:

effectively splits by gender without using male or female as the criteria so the gender category is over classification and not needed.

1597: 2094: 1091:- "supporters/critics of x" categories, which require citations/references, which isn't possible to do in a category in this case. - 830: 577:

as a useful distinction in an industry that's still very male-dominated, not to mention, are all of the people listed even writers?

306:

Are you saying that gender is a better characteristic to use then instrument, nationality, range and style? I would also argue that

133: 1539:

I don't want to vote against consistency, but SOP seems ill-advised when it is to have names that only experts will understand.

1241: 1104: 2149: 2128: 899:

If someone says that party x is not quite as bad as the other bunch of {expletive deleted}s, does that make them a supporter?

740: 1265:- If anyone can think of a more appropriate word we could use instead of just deleting the categories, that would be great. 2058: