Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 28

725:. A good suggestion, perhaps. But the standards for inclusion in such a category need to be rigid. (i.e. Discredited by whom? Entirely discredited or just partially discredited? Etc.) Basically, we can't let this be a subjective category guided by POV. We also have to be mindful not to let this become a Western-centric category insomuch as what the Western world may view as discredited may be considered very credible in the Eastern world. And I think this extends far beyond simply East vs. West. In essence, we have to set a standard for inclusion which doesn't rely on subjectivity. As of now, this existing category only includes one thing. As it is a pejorative, I still think it should be deleted for the time being rather then waiting until when a new category name can be agreed upon. Sound reasonable? -- 1611:+ they have Unitarian majority. The villages were converted with the overlord, to who they belong to. This part of Transylvania was Unitarian, Little farther Calvinists, further to the East Catholics (in Csik e.g. - there are no Calvinists and no Unitarians) in bigger towns there were settled also Pravoslav Rumanians, as officials, policeforce. Of course, the country is not officially Pravoslav and the villages are not Unitarians officially. But Ireland is not Catholics either officially, but you know they are in fact. So are Rumanians Pravoslav, Saxons Lutherans, Hungarians in Csik Catholics, in the Partium Calvinists and here Unitarians. Svabians also Catholics, Tatars Muslims, etc. -- 1797:). I also created a category to cover what can be rescued from your category, in a more wikipedia-like manner. Furthermore, if you start exploring the implications of the system you propose above, you will note perhaps that it is bound to be absurd (for one, just try and picture it for New York City or Paris). We have both stated our opinions about the article, you have insisted on questioning people's motivations. I and all others have shown good faith, and have since met all of the concerns you raised that were in any way relevant. As far as I'm concerned, continuing this discussion would merely take up space. 870:

make a case that the category is also somewhat redundant. We already have several overlapping categories for a number of shades of doubt as well as articles & projects for related material, that are constant magnets for attacking additions and ill-defined opinion. We already flushed this kind of Category last year with considerable time lost over 3 months, and added a contentious POV project. Existing categories, , ], , , ],, , , , among others, make this appear already redundant, too. Enough rotten tomatoes & crab apples - flush and forget,

783:

surviving remedies such as Vick's Vaporub and Geritol and Luden's cough drops which have not been discredited by the vast majority? I think it is problematic to label a bag of apples as "bad" when there may be some good apples in the bunch. I think the solution to such a problem is as easy as making the decision not to label the entire bag, but rather each apple individually (i.e. Snake Oil is discredited, whereas Geritol is not). In the meantime, can we have the pejorative category "Quack medicine" deleted? --

968:, "paradigm shifting science," wishes for the future, or other forms of OR. His reasoning violates very basic Knowledge (XXG) editing policies, and he thus seems to himself be "pushing a reactionary POV & agenda" by wishing Knowledge (XXG) would edit "ahead of the curve." This may come as disappointing news, but Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball and it will always be "behind the curve," as that is the only place where V & RS documentation exists. -- 2899:. Perhaps I've missed a previous precedent. I monitor the Lillix articles, and noticed Otto resorting the articles into "member" and "album" categories, where all Lillix articles used to be in the main "Lillix" category. I then find this, where he says this master category should be deleted because of overcategorisation? Wouldn't there be no overcat'ing if those subcats hadn't been made? I just find this unusual. -- 1185:

certainly "soothes the cough" as they say (these are my favorite cough drops because I like cherry). If someone is thinking that "quack medicine" might be a category to place phrenology and the types, then they would be better left under pseudoscience, or historical medical techniques. Regardless, this is a NPOV nightmare that will be hard to determine the reliability of verifiable sources. Too subjective. --

3875:. Etymologically, an Esperantist is someone who hopes. A person who speaks Esperanto is an Esperantist because speaking the language encourages its diffusion. However, Esperantists do not necessarily speak Esperanto or speak it well, as there are other ways to support the language besides speaking it. The term may also imply somebody disposed towards Esperanto without strictly implying a partisan of Esperanto. 1622:

to visit or imagine. The Churches are medieval, one part of UNESCO World Heritage. I do not think all non-Rumanian sites in Rumania are to be deleted, especially 1,4 million Hungarians living still in the country, and of which 80-100.000 are Unitarians. As Unitarian I created teh link, because I thought it useful to other Unitarians as well, not necessary is it to Pravoslavs. --

4062:. But indeed, this category should include people who have played a significant role in the Esperanto movement. It should definitely nót include people who just happen to speak the language, nor should it include politicians or other celebrities who've said something nice about the language in the past. The category itself, whatever its name, is definitely warranted. — 3319:. I don't see why British schools, no matter how ancient their traditions, constitute the sole exceptions to this approach. (I also think we will eventually want to decide whether the British categorization of "Alumni of (X school)" or the everywhere-else categorization of "(X school) alumni" wins out, but that can wait till another nomination.)-- 3457:. He also refers to "the British categorization of "Alumni of (X school)" ", by which he means (X college or university). The British use of the word 'school' doesn't include what the US refers to as 'college', and 'alumni' isn't a British use, either, it's a word hardly ever used in the UK. Most of these categories were renamed from 998:

current. That's all, I carefully differentiate the two, and I certainly don't confuse a certain partisan opinion site as a reliable scientific source. Also, historically, there outstanding legal cases that clearly demonstrate the economic and social relationships of some portions of "mainstream" medicine (and its associates), e.g.

1536:, just like villages all over the world, are not divided "by religion". Even if the population of those villages is 99% or 100% Unitarian, the villages themselves will not be "Unitarian" (and the same would go for any other religion, Orthodox, Catholic, or Buddhist). Furthermore, those "villages" are actually 2832:- each of these categories consists of some combination of the following subcats: albums; members; songs; (and in several cases no subcats) along with the artist's category and in some instances a discography article. Per precedent this is overcategorization. The only exception is LCD Soundsystem which has 1180:. Our probelm here is more that the term "quack medicine" refers to "compounds falsly advertised as cures for diseases". Already this leaves out phrenology, because it is not a compound. In this sense, medicine is a noun with "quack" being the adjective. Realistically, the name could be considered an 1698:. I think some variant of Jonbod's suggestion should be adopted. However, as Romania is, to my regret, an officially secular state, this category is foolish. Even if those communes are inhabited by 90-100% Unitarians, they are not Unitarian in any official sense, and such a category obscures that fact. 3711:

Hybrid names such as those suggested above are unecessary unless the category could be easily mistaken for something else (as with Citizens or Blues). Otherwise there is minimal amount of effort involved in clicking on the link and finding out what the category means. When it is necessary to do so, I

1849:

I have tried my best to fill in or streamline the Romania-related religion articles and categories of all creeds, but getting them all on the same level will likely take time, and the few people interested (me included) cannot maintain a constant level of interest. Especially since messy articles and

1770:

Why cannot you ceate collection of Maya towns in Mexico, Muslim villages in Bosnia, Basque villages in France, Aroumanian villages in Greece or Unitarian villages in Transylvania or Csango villages in Moldva? If the population of the place justifies it (you did not question this), 90% or more belongs

3993:

This appears to suggest that you think the speaking of languages is not suitable material for categorisation under any circumstances. I think this is going too far, and whilst I accept there are difficulties with verification etc, I think that this category avoids many of them. It is never likely to

3851:

Although the definition is indeed rather vague, the core meaning is clearly people who actually spoke or used Esperanto. The nomination is therefore misleading in bringing in "overcategorization on the basis of opinion or advocacy". I suppose we don't have many categories based on languages-spoken,

1621:

the villages have most one Unitarian Church, no other, populated by 90-100% Hungarian Unitarians with no other religion (apart from Rumanian policemen, to whom in some villages Pravoslav churches were erected in the 1920s). It helps users to e.g. from article Unitarism to find the physical places if

869:

Negative opinion driven, likely to be frequently pushing a reactionary POV & agenda, especially in science v medicine cases, since paradigm shifting science often leads medicine by several generations. Considering how often "mainstream medicine" does polar flip-flops (or belly flops), one could

4174:- this is a useful category for finding articles about Esperantists. The category bears some resemblence to national and ethnic categories, and deserves existence just like those categories deserve existence, despite of the obvious differences between belonging to a nation and being an Esperantist. 3877:

So an Esperantist can be someone who simply likes Esperanto. The Esperantist article lists John Paul II as an Esperantist because he delivered a single benediction in Esperanto along with dozens of other languages in 1994. It lists Pele because he once said that he thought Esperanto would be useful

3280:

as "Old Blues" could have led to confusion with Oxford and Cambridge Blues. To extrapolate from the Old Citizens and Old Blues discussions a general rule that such categories should include the school name if it's not obvious from the name of the category is to go too far. Any potential confusion

3624:

The phrase "Old (unfamiliar word)ians" doesn't convey anything to someone not familiar with the "old boy" system. Timrollpickering's suggestion is a large step to solving that, and it should be implemented in absense of a greater effort to bring these categories in line with the naming system that

1766:

I got irritated that someone just delete my entries, without any suggestion, and when I try to trace him, I see he is supporting any kind of justified separation movements except the one in his own country. For me in that moment it was similar to the billboard in Cluj (say welcome in 20 languages,

997:

That comment is confused or partisan. Not a crystal ball, a note about the acknowledged, significant time structure (often decades or never) and information lag between accepted science and mainstream medicine, that heavily regulated and commercially influenced medicine is often not scientifically

796:

I don't like the name either, really, but the concept certainly exists (as does pseudoscience, pseudoarchaeology, etc., which could be described as perjorative but have survived here, although I don't think that pseudomedicine is a term used in the real world) and the various keepers of the patent

1784:

Tamas, you begin with an explanation to nuance your position, which almost got me thinking that I overreacted. But then you end up with "Only who has national feelings agains would oppress this attemt", which again implies that all people voting "delete" here have something against a particular

1755:

Sorry, if you conceived hurt, it was not meant so. I come from Budapest, there in Szentendre there are Pravoslav Serbs. The word Orthodox for me it is an adjective, and my first association is Orthodox or Neolog Judaism. What I read from Euagrius Scholasticus or Socrates, they defined themselves

353:

Um, you would be correct if we spoke Greek. But English frequently disregards the rules of languages it borrows from, and, in fact, "octopi" is listed in more dictionaries than "octopodes". (And a dictionary is generally a more reliable source than, not to put too fine a point on it, Knowledge

3919:

I had wondered if her name would come up (although I will only ever refer to her as 'Awa'). If you don't mind, while I apreciate she didn't know the language other than a few odd bits she picked up with the band (which don't exactly count) I would apreciate it if you treated her with a bit more

1835:: the category is, I believe, valid - meaning that the articles on the communes themselves might not belong there, but at least three other articles do. It is also conceivable that articles on the churches themselves will be created at some point - for both the communes cited and places such as 1184:

because if it is quack then technically it is not medicine. Yes, several patent medicines might fit the category, but realistically, we would have to list them seperately rather than under one category of "patent medicines", because some don't advertise anything wrong, such as Luden's which

959:

notes his oft-repeated OR motivation here: "...since paradigm shifting science often leads medicine by several generations. Considering how often "mainstream medicine" does polar flip-flops (or belly flops), one could make a case that the category is also somewhat redundant." Knowledge (XXG)

782:

Excellent points. I am not sure about Phrenology, though I suspect that it is far and wide considered quackery by nearly the entire world. But with Patent Medicine you bring up an interesting point. Can we blanketly label Patent Medicine as "discredited" or "quackery" even though it included

4627:- Invites rampant mislabelling for POV reasons. We deleted a similar category several weeks ago (I think it was something like "Journalistic fraud", iirc). The problem is that the great majority of people don't make the necessary distinction between "fraud", "hoax" or "scandal", etc. and 1661:

religion) should perhaps be evident for holy places and the like, but places with an x majority do not become "x cities", unless this usage is validated by some other criterion than "what Vargatamas though is relevant" - in this case and most others, an objective one would be a law, but

354:(XXG).) The Knowledge (XXG) article is, strictly speaking, wrong. "Octopi" is not "technically incorrect"; it is technically linguistically malformed—but still correct. That said, "Octopuses" is, and should remain, the preferred plural, and should be used throughout Knowledge (XXG). 1681:

Note to those trying to decipher Tamas' screed: by "Pravoslav" he means "Orthodox", but anyway it's odd he uses that term, since the Hungarian equivalent is "Ortodox". No one is proposing that "all non-Rumanian sites in Rumania ... be deleted", so please relax and let's follow policy.

3895:. Being Polish, living in the birthplace of Esperanto, he would have been in a great place to pick it up when he was younger. He not only spoke the language, but advocated it. That being said, I think there are some people in the category that do not deserve to be there: For example: 1255:

POV pushing from the nominator. Since #1 hits on Google for medical information is invariably Knowledge (XXG), it is important that quack "alternative" medicine is listed as what it is--pseudoscience and unproven. The POV-pushing of pseudoscience on this project is unconscionable.

5431:

I think this category is a bad idea. This category was created due to a dispute between two editors over the proper usage of the word "documentary." One editor's opinion was that certain films should be called "reality films" and one editor provided sources that referred to them as

5441:

It's fun and sexy, unscripted and uncensored. It's The Real Cancun, the world's first reality feature film. Produced by the creators of "The Real World" and "Road Rules," this film brings together 16 people for eight days in a beachfront Mexican villa for the ultimate Spring Break

4190:

lists people who whether advocate for it or worked for or in Esperanto (writers, scientists, linguists, musicians, singers, actors, ...). It's as an overcategory for Esperanto writers, Esperanto actors, etc as we have categories for french writers or dutch musicians and so on.

4604:

subjective: a "scandal" by the category's definition is one that leads to the firing of someone. Since different media handle personnel matters differently (and have different standards of ethics or integrity), it is a somewhat random assortment of scandals. Notably, the fake

5525:

without resorting to our original editorial judgment. (Note: it would be almost as dubious to label some of these movies "documentaries," as partisans on the opposite side might wish, but that's a debate for individual articles; this category has no use at all.)

4012:: The ambiguity of the name seems to be a problem. The category page itself has no summary of who is to be included, but that wouldn't really solve the problem, as any editor could edit the summary. If there's an argument that we need a category for those who 1751:

I do not think that I am entitled to determine who is what. I honestly believe it is the ABSOLUTE right of the person to decide who he is. For Pravoslav, I did not meant to hurt, since majority of the subject religion defines himself, proudly, Pravoslav.

4635:(about the Dan Rather/George Bush/Vietnam War brouhaha) in this category, because that suited him politically. Which supports the inference that there was a POV agenda behind the creation of the category, IMO. (I just learned about this on his 3349:. If this multiple proposal is successful, then for consistency many more of the English school categories which now have succinct and unambiguous names should be renamed on the same pattern, making them more unwieldy than they need to be. See 3669:. Whenever possible, the general subject of a category should be apparent to all readers based on its title, and not require further investigation. In this case, we're able to make it clear that these are school attendance based categories. 1213:: both the practice of medicine and a medicinal compound are referred to as 'medicine'. This particular definition of quack medicine you're citing is centered on the compound concept, but quack medicine as a concept applies to both. 3625:

works for every nation outside the UK and Australia. I would embrace "graduates," "former pupils," "attendees," or any other phrasing that actually made the category names make sense to someone unfamiliar with the subject matter.--

3610:

as a deviation from normal British usage. Even changing "Old Citizens" was dubious, and the argument that the names are confusing is weaker in every one of these cases than it was in that case, including the three listed above.

4111:, the category is useful for compiling the list of eminent Esperanto-speakers. I am sure there is a plenty of those, who would like to have a look at such a list while reading the article about Esperanto or Esperantist. -- 3529:

You are not opposing the nomination, you are are opposing Mike Selinkers interjection, which ignores previous discussions & misses several points, as others are pointing out. (Parts of previous comment since removed)

1767:

except Hungarian, when 19% of the population, ca 60.000 people in the same city are Hungarians). and I assumed some malice. And on the other hand "List of Transylvanian Saxon localities" disturbs nobody for example.

3357:: "Except where other accepted Knowledge (XXG) naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". I regret 5826:

Aside from being quite broad (the category may well include every character in every comedy), it is difficult to actually prove that a character is a parody of someone else (real or fictional) without delving into

1649:. Although I'm non-religious, I too would fit under your definition of "Pravoslav" - you imply that I'm not "interested" in this subject, you imply that I'm biased, you imply that I'm hostile, and yet it was I who 3975:

speak no German, and many people who are from Wales speak little or no Welsh, and then we have some countries that have multiple official languages so what linguistic ability should be inferred from membership in

3920:

respect than to say she "really only parroted the language"; it's unnesesary, and could just as easily have been said as "She sang backing in Esperanto with Dolchamar, but doesn't actually speak the language."

853:). I am not opposed to renaming to a more objective title, if one is suggested (I don't support the above-suggested "discredited" and "defunct" versions, as it raises the question: "by/according to whom"?). — 4024:. There are tens of thousands of wikibiographies, and once you start categorizing all those people by the ability to speak (or not speak) certain languages, then you're in deep waters. If, on the other hand, 1762:

The worst thing is to press someone be different then he belives to be. And that is what was done to Transylvanian Hungarians in the recent past (fortunately it slowly changes with democracy in Rumania).

1788:

I have already answered why wikipedia does not accept subjective categorizations, as valid as they may seem to you (and all your answers here rely on personal assessments - in breach of policies such as

4144:

Ordinarily that is certainly the case; as I said above national & ethnic categories deal with these matters much better. But clearly Esperanto is a unique case, which does not create a precedent.

2926:, albums, songs and band members are sorted into categories and placed as subcategories of that structure. There weren't any for Lillix so I created them and placed the appropriate articles in them. 3361:'s comments: it seems the Brits should learn to do things the American way? If he were successful in his proposal, that would overturn at a stroke these three very relevant recent CfD discussions - 1601:

No, they aren't - not according to either present or past legislation, and the same goes for all other religions/communes. I don't even know if they all have Unitarian majority at the present time.

2939:

Gotcha. This is why I'm an article editor and not a category editor. Still, it seems less-than-useful for similar categories to not be tied together under a common theme, but c'est la vie. --

3689:, which is not the proper method for relieving the tension between maintaining the "old" (which I realise was confirmed in CfD) and the lack of clarity it causes. Yes, I also disagree with the 3331:

per nom for clarity. Also oppose use of the term alumni which is not used in the UK. Standardisation is one thing, but using the terms that the people concerned use should take precedence. --

4912: 42: 37: 4908: 3690: 3395: 3380: 3276:

led to the renaming of "Alumni of Watford Grammar School for Boys" as "Old Fullerians". Similarly, the Christ's Hospital category was previously just "Old Blues" and was renamed in

3273: 3223: 1870:

is a unique and enyclopaedic concept. At best, if there were some official regime of religious communities, a general category on the phenomena within the country might be in order.

3582:

I'd say that, as with many English words and expressions, they are clear once you know what they mean, although no doubt those three are less well known and less obvious than (say)

3453:: I'm afraid Mike Selinker is mistaken when he says "I don't see why British schools, no matter how ancient their traditions, constitute the sole exceptions to this approach" - see 5491:

and used the phrase "Reality film" as the title of his article -- not as an all-encompassing category of all the films he mentioned. Even if we accept New Line's Cinema claim that

4673:. And the name of the category is confusing. I initially thought the "Major" referred to "Major scandal" but apparently it refers to "Major Media", a phrase I'm unfamiliar with. -- 3891:

Otto, I think John Paul II would be someone that should be listed in this category. He addressed the 50th meeting of the international Catholic Esperanto union (IKUE) in 1997, and

3364: 3277: 3971:

tell us that the person speaks it at least that well; (c) it is not really defining. The ethnic and nationality categories are poor proxies for language abilities: many people in

1815:, in two para (all one edit). I'm neutral on the new category, but it might be questioned (partly on the grounds used against this one) so the info is now in the article anyway. 4451:. Doesn't meet the exception laid out in the guideline. Everything is for people associated with him in some way and are interlinked appropriately. If kept should be renamed to 850: 3511:- Oppose renaming as per Bencherlite. This change would detract from the correct usage - as long as the category has the school name on the category page this is sufficient. 1027: 1081:, where at least there's an opportunity to hash things out. And one more thing: I'm not even sure there are actually enough articles out there that would meet that test of 3967:

Response to Johnbod, categorization based on ability to speak a language is really unnecessary and unwise: (a) how well must one speak it to get so categorized; (b) what

5203:. Does not meet the exception laid out at the guideline and everything in the category is appropriately interlinked through the main article and elsewhere categorized. 3311:

This has always struck me as an unnecessarily twee exception to a generally useful rule of naming people in a neutral manner. We don't categorize alumni of Duke into

1842:

It is also conceivable that we will have articles on at least some Transylvanian Unitarians other than the founder, and they could be included in a subcat (as in

4469:

I have added the compositions cat as a sub-cat, thus expanding the category contents greatly. If kept should be renamed per nom. Not sure about keep/delete yet.

5835:

and when the character's creator explicitly states: "X is a parody of Y". Thus, I think that the inclusion criteria for this category are not objective enough.

3765:

delete, we should not categorize people by the language they speak, nor by opinion or advocacy. If necessary, there is already a list of speakers/advocates at

1168:

Seems pretty obvious per excellent reasons given by Levine2112 and many others. Appears to be mostly subjective and pejorative labeling in order to push POV.

4028:

is about the active advocacy of Esperanto, I have less of a problem with it, but then in my view the name of the category should be changed to reflect that.

1279:"...it is important that quack "alternative" medicine is listed as what it is--pseudoscience and unproven". And I am the one who is POV pushing? :-) -- 21: 4083:, and as an Esperantist myself, I agree that it should only be for people that knew or used the language. To speak Esperanto is to advocate for it. -- 5514: 1832: 1736: 1569: 114: 1030:

was still a new decision, not yet widely understood. That has changed, and now, pseudoscientific categories can stand on a solid ArbCom precedent.

3497:

proposal, this is not used in British English, and I understand that WP policy is to use British English when writing about British subject-matter.

106: 3234:. These categories are amongst the most confusing and should have the names modified to include reference to the school's name for consistency. 3085: 3193: 3097: 2109: 17: 2101: 97: 1982:- contained a bunch of stub articles for the various roasts which I've merged and redirect to the main article. No need for the category. 1637:

Vargatamas: you are mixing up nationality, creed and religion, and you seem not to be aware of the fact that, even though many categories

3133: 706: 494:

Not a category, seems to have been set up for the sole purpose of containing (promoting?) an article someone created about themselves. --

2092: 5435:

No sources have ever been provided that refer to any of the films in this category as "reality films", with the possible exception of

2833: 1509: 1501: 5683: 3109: 935:, attempting to incite uninformed admins into erroneous assumptions or actions, cause disruption, or to discredit my comments here.-- 710: 5691: 4640: 3594:

is unclear because its meaning isn't immediately obvious to most people, or because at first sight it could suggest something else.

3493:

for reasons of clarity, brevity, correct usage, consistency, and in accord with previous discussions as mentioned above. As for the

1843: 3439:, to avoid conflict with the names of other people or things), but that argument does not apply to any of the present nominations. 3404: 3227: 3205: 3181: 3145: 1645:. As a side note, ethnic Romanians are themselves many things (not just "Pravoslavs"), and bringing this issue up is equivalent to 2866:

has been linked here, but isn't listed above. If Otto4711 could confirm that he intends the same fate for the cat? BTW, I vote to

5495:

is a "reality feature film", that's still not quite "reality film" and this category would only have 1 article in it. Please see

3169: 3073: 3061: 1812: 1654: 1555: 1492: 5674: 3272:. Old Citizens was a special case because of the double-meaning of "Citizen". On the same day as the Old Citizens discussion, 1360: 3316: 3121: 3049: 845:. How do you add something to this category? Since "quack medicine" is not a clearly-defined term, we can rely only on whether 4871: 3436: 3354: 3350: 1368: 175: 5646: 3454: 4879: 4685:

without prejudice to recreation if we could articulate criteria which are not fraught with these problems of subjectivity.

4200: 3937:" means in Esperanto "one who sings in Esperanto, but doesn't really know the language". Sorry, no disrespect intended. -- 2344: 1351: 3369: 3231: 1771:

to the same group, declared who would oppose I thought? Only who has national feelings agains would oppress this attemt.

746:

You're throwing around bogus points already covered by Knowledge (XXG) policies in order to confuse matters. Not useful.

4862: 4823: 4631:, which is the more accurate term in most instances. Case in point: the creator of this very category placed the article 3821:- this seems like overcategorization on the basis of opinion or advocacy. Inclusion criteria, based on the definition of 3230:. Another category where the name of the Old Pupil doesn't immediately reflect the school name so clarity is provided is 2414: 1389: 821:

especially given it's scope and editors. Lets see what populates the cat before we start censorship and labeling things

148:

not defining, and a horrible precedent to set, we'll have dozens of these cats adding to the already cat-cluttered-bios.

4546: 4306: 3157: 2799: 2282: 1951: 329: 294: 5912: 5766: 5742: 5633: 5609: 5371: 5347: 5266: 5242: 5136: 5112: 5006: 4982: 4839: 4813: 4734: 4710: 4514: 4488: 4384: 4360: 4242: 4218: 3755: 3731: 3020: 2996: 2352: 2207: 2183: 2069: 2045: 1919: 1895: 1469: 1445: 1328: 1304: 1065:

per arguments of Levine2112 & TheNautilus. Although it would be nice to have such a category for those things that

600: 576: 482: 458: 265: 241: 74: 5897: 5879: 5867: 5855: 5841: 5832: 5782: 5729: 5667: 5594: 5576: 5564: 5552: 5535: 5503: 5387: 5334: 5282: 5227: 5207: 5152: 5097: 5077: 5022: 4967: 4949: 4935: 4923: 4900: 4855: 4798: 4778: 4763: 4750: 4695: 4677: 4661: 4647: 4617: 4594: 4530: 4473: 4459: 4400: 4345: 4327: 4313: 4274: 4258: 4203: 4178: 4166: 4148: 4135: 4115: 4103: 4087: 4075: 4054: 4032: 3998: 3984: 3954: 3941: 3928: 3914: 3886: 3856: 3843: 3829: 3774: 3716: 3703: 3678: 3645: 3629: 3615: 3598: 3577: 3546: 3534: 3515: 3501: 3465: 3443: 3335: 3323: 3299: 3264: 3252: 3238: 3036: 2981: 2963: 2945: 2930: 2905: 2887: 2878: 2856: 2844: 2335: 2223: 2168: 2150: 2136: 2085: 2030: 2012: 2000: 1986: 1935: 1880: 1854: 1819: 1801: 1778: 1743: 1723: 1711: 1702: 1686: 1674: 1626: 1615: 1605: 1594: 1576: 1561: 1544: 1485: 1430: 1412: 1396: 1344: 1287: 1271: 1241: 1227: 1217: 1196: 1172: 1160: 1148: 1136: 1114: 1089: 1055: 1006: 982: 939: 918: 905: 880: 859: 837: 801: 791: 777: 750: 733: 717: 697: 676: 665: 616: 563: 510: 443: 430: 418: 400: 380: 363: 348: 318: 281: 226: 214: 196: 184: 166: 152: 138: 90: 5798: 5298: 4904: 3685: 2840:

LCD Soundsystem and the two articles are interlinked through text so the category isn't needed just for his article.

2729: 2519: 1867: 2764: 2422: 2405: 5327: 5326:

I created this category, gave it an inappropriate name (capital P) and didn't realise there was an equivalent page

4554: 4537: 4498: 3790: 3306: 2923: 2239: 1959: 1942: 5038: 4575: 2449: 2379: 2274: 1568:

Yes, that sounds like a reasonable approach. One could also consider adapting the present-day categorization to a

632: 333: 5403: 4265: 3972: 3081: 2915: 2624: 2589: 2309: 526: 5911: