< January 14 January 16 >

January 15

Category:Magicians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename. feel free to split at anyone's leisure. Kbdank71 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a lot of confusion with this category. It contains Wikipedian user pages, occultists, stage magicians, and also legendary magic users - radically different uses of the word magician. I'd like to propose splitting out the legends, occultists and the users and renaming this Category:Stage magicians. Separate caregories for legendary magicians, occultists and WP users could easily be created. As it currently stands, though, it's a mess. The four subcats indicate this quite clearly - three are for groups of stage magicians (which, if this is renamed, will also need renaming), the fourth is for occultists. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Camp Lazlo

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Camp Lazlo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unwarranted eponymous TV series category. Per extensive precedent, material is interlinked and elsewhere categorized, no need for this. Otto4711 (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Côte d'Ivoire biography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was Moved to WP:SFD - which is the correct venue for stub category discussions. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Propose renaming Category:Côte d'Ivoire biography stubs to Category:Côte d'Ivoire people stubs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per parent cat and considerable precedent. This is the proper venue according to the stubs for deletion page, despite what the instructions here say. kingboyk (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Abel Prize laureates

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was keep. Rationale: (1) Not a vote, but more comments favour keeping than deletion, and even the nominator agreed it was more notable than some other awards. (2) The prestigiousness of the award in its field has, I think on reading the debate, become clearer as the discussion has progressed. BencherliteTalk 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abel Prize laureates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Another unnecessary award category. This is a math award from the King of Norway; the 6 articles within it are all winners who are also already listed on the Abel Prize page itself. The category is redundant and overcategorization by award. Lquilter (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really from the King of Norway. He only presents it. It is really from the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and is high profile. I'm not up to date on why we have certain categories and not others. Could you explain why this award category is "unnecessary", "redundant", etc.? For example, how does this category compare to Category: Fields Medalists, Category: Wolf Prize in Mathematics laureates, Category: Fellows of the Royal Society, or Category: Members and associates of the United States National Academy of Sciences? --C S (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - my nom was hastily written & over-cursory. I've corrected and added cmt below. Agree that this is definitely more notable than many. I would still delete, but others' mileage may vary. --Lquilter (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This illustrates my argument that category deletionsits, especially Otto4711 and Lquilter should read and inform themselves about the issue in hand before either nominating or contributing to the debate. I feel you just getting a bit to trigger happy in your wholesale category deletion campaign.Billlion (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal comments that assume something about other editors, and simply address the specific arguments. If you don't like how things have gone over time at CFD, by all means get involved. --Lquilter (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hear you and agree that Category:Fields Medalists and this one are at the high-end of notability for awards & defining-ness. I still fall on the other side of the deletion fence but agree that it's much closer call.--Lquilter (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish I had a dollar for every time someone describes this prize or that prize as being almost as significant as winning the Nobel, only to find that the article contains nary a source that backs up the contention. Otto4711 (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you appreciated the vintage "Oscars equivalent" statement in the railway one below... Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Abel prize website says that a motivation for Abel in establishing the international prize was the lack of a Nobel prize in mathematics. I'll add that to the article, if it will make you happier.[1] — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it says that, since Abel had been dead for nearly a century. In any case what we need is people saying it is Nobel-equivalent, as in Fields Medal. Algebraist 15:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Abel was dead. Sophus Lie was the driving force for the failed 1902 version of the prize; if you look at the link I gave, it explains that Lie was motivated by the fact that Nobel had ommitted mathematics from his list of prizes. Here's another link, though: The Abel Prize is in many ways the Nobel Prize of mathematics... People like to compare things to the Nobel prizes, so I'm sure there are many quotes like that available. Here's another Abel Prize Awarded: The Mathematicians' Nobel — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion discussions are not based on whether other articles are well-written or well-sourced. Geometry guy 20:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the present state of consensus on this issue is: (1) There's agreement that non-defining awards should not be categories. (2) There is not consensus that very big awards (Nobels & Oscars are the examples always given) should exist as categories, but there is consensus that if there are awards as categories, it should only be for the very biggest awards. (3) The way I think of "defining" in categories works for me for awards: If I were giving an introduction of this person to a general audience, how would I introduce them? Scientists would invariably be described as winning the Nobel Prize, if they have done so. If it would be used to "define" someone to a general audience, then I think of it as defining. Does that help? --Lquilter (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for clarifying (although I don't necessarily agree with that consensus). But now that you've explained, I have no idea why you would insist on deleting this category. The Abel Prize was expressly invented for the purpose of having a big award to use to introduce these mathematicians to a general audience. In other words, using your terms, the Abel Prize's goal is to be a defining award. With the amount of prize money (one million US) and publicity they've been able to generate, it's fair to say they have largely succeeded. Every time Abel Prize winners are announced, it is mentioned in every major newspaper in the world. These distinguished mathematicians would indeed be mentioned as Abel Prize winners (and are) in any introduction to a general audience, as the general audience is actually less likely to know about prizes such as the Wolf Prize (although by now with these math movies and such they may know about the Fields Medal). As CMB pointed out, the mission of the Abel Prize is to fill the vacuum left by the absence of a Nobel for math. I really think it's likely, actually, that something like member of the NAS or FRS would be left out in a short introduction to a general audience, while Abel Prize would be mentioned for sure. --C S (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "insisting" on deletion; I'm proposing it, for purposes of discussion. Your input is helpful in shaping this discussion. FWIW, I tend to agree with you regarding honorary society memberships. --Lquilter (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Lquitter can I respectfully suggest that you take a break from proposing categories for deletion? You seem to be running a mass campaign across many subject areas and it seems that categories will get deleted before there has been an informed debate within that subject area. It seems to me a bit like mischief making. If you want to have a discussion about the use of categories in mathematics prizes, lets have the discussion in Wikiproject:Mathematics. Similarly other well developed areas of wikipedia. Of course category gardening might be useful in areas where spurious articles and categories pop up all the time like weeds, but that is not really the case in mathematics. There are plenty of useful things you could devote your time to in wikipedia! Billlion (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can suggest it, but your comment seems ill-informed. I've been working with the award categories for many months, cleaning them up slowly and carefully and working within consensus. Cleaning up the award-winners is the culmination of that work. --Lquilter (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing multiple award categories to CfD at the same time was not necessarily the most helpful way to culminate this achievement, however, unless you were hoping to get into Category:Recipients of ''The Most Categories By Award Deleted'' Prize :) Geometry guy 20:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think Vegaswikian or Otto4711 or BrownHairedGirl would give me a run for the money at that one. --Lquilter (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite helpful, actually. We don't do all awards, or no awards; we do some awards. So the more info we have about an award the better we can make that decision. --Lquilter (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Introduced as" is definitely just my personal test for "defining", not something that has policy support or is bandied about, so I hope that clarifies any inferences otherwise. It's worked for me so far. I'd be delighted to hear (off-list since this is off-topic) examples where you think it might not be applicable. --Lquilter (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of very few situations in which I'd list someone's birthplace or birthdate when introducing them for an academic talk, yet those are commonly considered defining. I think it highly unlikely that I'd introduce someone by stating that they're a living person. And yet, I think it is likely that, were I to introduce an Abel medalist, I'd mention it. For what it's worth. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the YOB/YOD fields I cabin off. But this is exactly the sort of info that, to me, makes me think that the Abel should be kept. I'm not a mathematician, and I know the Fields but not very familiar w/ Abel (obviously). So this is very helpful info. --Lquilter (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really useful tool & I'm delighted to know about it! Are you saying, though, that the Abel is less used than similar categories? Or that because categories are rarely used for navigation it doesn't matter? --Lquilter (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The raw number from this tool may be questionable, accurate data collection from server is tricky, and WikiChart[3] Seems to report figure 10 times these one. It does seem that categories are little used by reader, in a twelve hour period Category:Mathematics had only 79 views ranking lower that 1000 other mathematical main space articles. --Salix alba (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wholly agree that the Miss Teen Virginia is not the best example. I added a ream of examples -- all the award-related delete, keeps, etc., to Wikipedia talk:OCAT, so please join the discussion there to select better examples. --Lquilter (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:2008 Democratic National Convention

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was keep for now, pending cleanup. Kbdank71 18:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2008 Democratic National Convention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Overcategorization by nondefining attribute. This category included 5 articles; I had taken it out of two of them (Denver, Colorado and Democratic National Committee) before I thought to look at the category as a whole. This category is similarly overcat for the other 3 articles -- Pepsi Center, where the convention will be held, and Jenni Engebretsen and John Hickenlooper, two people involved with the convention. Note that the parent category, Category:Democratic National Conventions, has no other subcategories for individual conventions. --Lquilter (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Where in Wiki category guidelines does it say that 'Overcategorization by nondefining attribute' is a reason to delete a category? Thanks. Found it. Simon12 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I almost agree, except for one point -- that none of the other conventions have more than one article. That could be an accident of history -- wikipedia wasn't as big in 2004. It certainly does seem plausible to me that there could be multiple articles about this: An article about the convention, an article about delegates to the convention, an article about speeches at the convention, and so on. If we delete, it should be without prejudice to the recreation of a category if it becomes necessary to categorize those kinds of articles. --Lquilter (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2000 Democratic National Convention has a second article, 2000 DNC protest activity. The way Wikipedia articles have exploded, it wouldn't surprise me if we had an article for each day of the convention in 2008! Simon12 (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Avicenna Prize winners

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was convert to article. Kbdank71 18:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avicenna Prize winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete as overcategorization by award-winner, and article-ify -- Currently there's only one article in the category, no head article for the Avicenna Prize itself, and only two winners total for the prize. The article should be in Category:Awards established in 2004, Category:Science and engineering awards, and Category:Philosophy awards. Lquilter (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Date categories are their own thing. I agree that it's kind of funky but it's been that way for a while. I haven't even seen them come up for discussion in a long time. --Lquilter (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:John W. Kluge Prize winners

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John W. Kluge Prize winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete (already listified) as overcategorization by award. The 5 award-winners in the category are all properly listed in the John W. Kluge Prize article, which is the better way to handle this award. Lquilter (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Gerald Loeb Award recipients

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 18:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gerald Loeb Award recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify - Overcategorization by award. The category includes Time Magazine, a bunch of people, a TV station, and a financial company/website; these entities are not defined by having won this award. Unfortunately, the Gerald Loeb Award entry does not currently list award-winners. So they should be listed on the page, like other awards, but compiling the dates etc. will take some work (or digging through the page history). Lquilter (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, these rationales apply to any category even categories that are completely irrelevant, or, hey, false. How does this relate to WP:OCAT? --Lquilter (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having something in common is necessary, but not sufficient, to support a category. --Lquilter (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Bands with amazingly cheesy computer games made about them

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bands with amazingly cheesy computer games made about them (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as subjective and non-defining. -- Prove It (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Leslie Fox Prize for Numerical Analysis winners

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was listify. There is a lot of precedent for award winner categories. Also, with only three articles, the whole "which is easier to maintain" argument is pretty much moot, as they are both easy to maintain. Now, if there are 18 first prize winners, as noted, then an article or list would be appropriate, as it would convey all of the winners, even if they don't have articles. A category would not, because as it stands, according to WP, there are only three winners . Kbdank71 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leslie Fox Prize for Numerical Analysis winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify - category should be deleted as overcategorization by award. The 3 articles within this category should be listified as Leslie Fox Prize for Numerical Analysis (which should be categorized under Category:Mathematics awards and Category:Awards established in 1985) and then the category deleted. Lquilter (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Alas, it is not the case that categories are easier to maintain. They are easier to create, but much harder to maintain: There is no way to police them for inclusion or exclusion, for instance. (2) The fact that other math prize winners have categories is not a good argument for keeping this one (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Those others should be evaluated against WP:OCAT#Award winners, also. (3) I'm not sure what you mean by "too many redlinks"; there's no rule against redlinks in wikipedia, and even if there were, there's no rule that says that each person's name has to be linked. (4) You have probably already read WP:CAT, WP:CATFAQ, WP:CLS, and WP:OCAT, but if not, I encourage you to do so. (5) PS -- "Nomination is spurious"? Interesting edit summary. --Lquilter (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) If you see such a debate, I suggest you place a note about it on WP:CFD talk -- people will come and weigh in and try to create consistency among approaches. (2) A list would permit adding year, 1st/2nd place, listing folks who aren't notable, and so on. It can also be sorted by year as opposed to alphabetical by name, or by subject, or by any other metric desired. So there are lots of reasons a list is much preferred to a category for something like this. Moreover, suppose I went and deleted this category from all the articles currently in it, or added it randomly to a bunch of other categories. The only way an interested editor can police for such vandalism or good-faith errors is by literally opening up the category page and looking at it every day, and if it's big, comparing it to a list. The list can be watchlisted -- a category is much harder to maintain in an accurate state than a list. --Lquilter (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting point about policing such a list, and I take your point that Wikipedia does not provide a mechanism to check if a Cat has been added to, which seems to be a weakness of the software. That said it would take all of five minutes to write a cron job with wget to check a Cat you wanted to watch for changes, or use some other alerting software (eg in Mozilla bookmarks). Sounds like a big problem for wikipedia in general but not a problem we are likely to have for this particular case. I also understand that generally a award that is not notable dose not need a cat. But note that part of the reason I have not written the article is that it is mention on the Leslie Fox page and that the web site cited is pretty comprehensive so the need was not as pressing as other significant UK maths awards, rather than its lack of notability in the Numerical Analysis community.Billlion (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but it hasn't been done, and to be honest, a feature like that would need to be implemented in the software to be something we could responsibly base policy on. These kinds of considerations are what lay behind WP:CLS. It seems to me that your arguments suggest this award shouldn't even have an article. For my money, I like awards articles, because they help document the notability of award-recipients. Thus, in an AFD where most of the contributors have no idea how to evaluate a mathematicians, recognition by the mathematician's peers is quite helpful. This is particularly true with early career / young scientist-type awards, because they signal peer recognition that might not be otherwise apparent to a random assortment of wikipedia editors. Obviously there are awards that aren't "notable", but my personal view for academic/scholar/scientist awards has been pretty broad: awards by scholarly societies or endowed at / administered by universities are usually notable. Awards that accompany significant lecture series or have lasted a long time are also usually notable. (Umm, to make a long comment short: I don't believe that only the Fields-level awards should have an article, and there are significant benefits to including a list of award-winners in wikipedia.) --Lquilter (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently the award is described briefly in the article Leslie Fox, I had anticipated that this would split off as an article when it was bigger. In the meantime that article and the Category is the best solution. In the long term I agree with Bduke that an article with a list of winners, along with a Category is the right way to go. Also it is the usual way for mature articles on scientific prizes. If you think there is a precedent Otto4711 for deleting categories for scientific prize winners please tell us what they are. Here are some counter example to your claim Category:Abel_Prize_laureates, Category:Fields_Medalists, Category:Adams_Prize_recipients and many more. All prizes with articles (some with lists) and with Categories. Far from an "extensive precedent" this is standard practise in wikipedia.Billlion (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been dozens if not hundreds of awards categories deleted. Your back is up a bit about these categories because they intersect with your area of interest, which is fine, but it doesn't change the fact of the consensus as reflected at WP:OC#Award winners. That some awards have categories doesn't mean that every award should have a category, and that's especially true when the award has no article. Otto4711 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No the Cat will not give you all the winners, it gives those that have articles on them. They server quite different purposes.Billlion (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Billlion's point is that the category serves a purpose because it only shows the award winners that have WP articles on it, then I have two comments. One, that "feature" is more of a bug -- Basically, where there a category is a created for a finite set of something, it suggests completeness; where in fact the category might actually be incomplete for various reasons (failure to tag with that category, inadvertent removal of the tag, absence of the article because not enough people write articles about mathematicians, etc.). Where a category is about sets that are vague and not definite, discrete sets, it implies notability for the members, and more importantly, lack of notability for the non-members. This is particularly weird with award-winners, in my view, because the award-members might simply not be included in the category for trivial reasons unrelated to their notability. Two, and more importantly, that purpose can be (and is) met by a list -- either all the names are linked and the ones without WP articles are redlinked. Or only link the names with articles. --Lquilter (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The category header (basically a stub for a future article) has a link to a list of prize winners, on the award web site. I wonder if it is useful to duplicate this info on wikipedia as a list? Some prizes, such as the Adams Prize, there is no official list so it has to be painstakingly assembled from other biographical and news sources. It would be easy (copyright?) to copy the Fox Prize list but it would need to be updated each year. However as it is a prize for young mathematicians they do not usually become notable until later in their career. In that case it is interesting to see the notable (with a an article) numerical analyists who got the prize when they were young. Billlion (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not copyright infringement to copy factual information, like a list of award winners. Copyright in factual information applies to selection criteria, arrangement, and additional material added. Selection -- "all" is not copyrightable original expression. Arrangement -- anything unique or unusual would be original, copyrightable expression, but chronological and alphabetical sorting do not confer copyrightability on a list of facts. This is bedrock copyright law in the US. It's not even fair use; it's simply non-copyrightable expression. (See Feist v. Rural Telephone Service. --Lquilter (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a complete list of all winners exists then when someone creates an article for a winner the link in the list article will turn blue. There would be no need for anyone to track down the list article because all of the winners would already be on it. Otto4711 (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per an argument is fine, but with all due respect, !votes "in protest" are not helpful. It would be much more helpful to address the comments and arguments with which you agree or disagree. --Lquilter (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Lincoln Center Gala Tribute recipients

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lincoln Center Gala Tribute recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category as overcategorization by award. Meryl Streep and numerous others are all properly listed in the Film Society of Lincoln Center article's Gala section. Lquilter (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Railway Age magazine Railroaders of the Year

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was listify' all and delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway Age magazine Railroaders of the Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Railway Age magazine Regional Railroads of the Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Railway Age magazine Short Line Railroads of the Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete all three categories. Each of these three categories is overcategorization by a minor award. Each of the articles includes the list of award-recipients and that's the best place for it. Lquilter (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll strike "minor"; but it's irrelevant, because the problem is that these are not defining. Being used in advertising materials does not mean it is a defining award -- almost anything can be used in advertising materials. This is certainly useful information for the article on those companies, and it's useful information for the article on the award, but I don't believe it is a good candidate for categorization -- which is simply an automatic indexing by a very few key items. Can you explain why you feel this meets Wikipedia:OCAT#Award_winners? --Lquilter (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Slambo, but I'll take a shot at responding. First, Wikipedia:OCAT#Award_winners ought itself to win an award for vagueness. (What does "most notable" even mean? On Wikipedia, notability is a binary category.) Further, looking at the example given in that passage leads one to this rationale for deletion: Nominating this for deletion... category is for only a very small number of articles with little room for growth (only a small proportion of the winners will end up getting articles on WP). The role of this category is easily filled by the list of winners at Miss Virginia USA, and all are included in Category: Miss USA delegates which is the more suitable categorization. I've had a large role in editing these (and other related) articles and I do not believe this category is in any way necessary. To summarize that: (1) Most winners of this award are WP:NN; (2) all of them are included in a separate category that is more appropriate. Neither of those arguments applies here. So I don't really see how this is "overcategorization." --Tkynerd (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The language you quote is from one CFD; there have been scores or hundreds of other CFDs on award-winner categories. But it does suggest we might need a better explanation in WP:OCAT#Award winners if it's not clear to you. Try reading through the archives on the talk page where this was discussed extensively. (2) The rationale is that there are lots of awards in the world, and lots of awards given out by magazines and industry trade groups to businesses for this or that achievement. We don't categorize on the basis of each and every one of these; it would rapidly overwhelm the category system and make them completely useless. Awards received, organizations belonged to, places visited, people related to, and a lot of other pieces of information are very useful and interesting in an article, but not helpful for establishing a classification system. Categories necessarily rely on some other criteria than "worthy of inclusion in the article", because otherwise the system wouldn't work: They would be too numerous to browse at the bottom of an article, and the more categories there are, the harder to police exclusions & inclusions from the category. Thus, because of the way the category software features works, categories should be used only for "defining" attributes (see WP:CAT). It has been deemed over many, many CFDs, that winning an award is rarely a defining attribute. For non-defining but important information (such as winning an award), it is much better to put that information in the relevant articles, where it can be referenced, qualified, sorted, and annotated as needed, and where additions & subtractions can be policed, rather than to simply use a "category" tag. --Lquilter (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with this concept of "defining" attributes. Where does that come from? (I didn't find it at Wikipedia:OCAT, for example, as I expected I would.) That concept actually makes sense to me, but I'm not seeing any evidence from you that it enjoys consensus on Wikipedia. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with you, but I find your arguments so far rather unconvincing. --Tkynerd (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That language is at CAT. The nutshell says: "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." I was editing my response above to clarify and explain, and the more detailed version hopefully addresses your concerns. (I'm certainly not going to demonstrate consensus for OCAT#Award winners here -- that was already done at WP:OCAT. This discussion is only for consensus about this category.) --Lquilter (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting that from WP:CAT. Nor am I particularly satisfied with the language at the top of WP:OCAT or at WP:OCAT#Award winners; the general OCAT language refers to "existing guidelines and previous precedent" without documenting either, which I'm not really prepared to accept. A good-faith user like me, who is new to this subject, should not be asked to take this much on faith. I see this at WP:CAT: The categories to be included, which serve as classifications, should be the significant (useful) topics to which the subject of the article most closely belongs to as a member, and where users are most likely to look if they can't remember the name of the thing they are trying to look up. I buy that, but I think it leaves considerable scope for a category like this one, and I think your interpretation of the meaning of that passage is entirely too restrictive. You say this above: The rationale is that there are lots of awards in the world, and lots of awards given out by magazines and industry trade groups to businesses for this or that achievement. We don't categorize on the basis of each and every one of these; it would rapidly overwhelm the category system and make them completely useless. I ask: How does this "overwhelm" the category system and make them (I assume you mean "categories") completely useless? --Tkynerd (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) It's in the nutshell at the top of the page. (2) This isn't really the place to discuss the general policy. But just to answer your last question -- Look at Bill Clinton. He has certainly won dozens and dozens of awards of various sorts in his life. If they were all categories, at the bottom of the page, how could one possibly make any use at all of the categories there? It's already frankly too many for usability. So that's "overwhelmed" in terms of usability for the user page. --Lquilter (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Well, no, I don't think it is. As I said, I think your interpretation of WP:CAT is very restrictive, perhaps overly so. (2) I object to the idea that participation in CfD discussions requires abstruse knowledge that is not available on the relevant pages (here, WP:CAT and WP:OCAT). If the consensus is what you say it is, it should be adequately documented (with references to relevant discussions) on those pages. As for the Bill Clinton example, the categories are quite a mess there, but that's primarily a product of the fact that apparently no effort has been put into making the category display in our articles even minimally readable. Which is not a good reason to argue against the existence of a category. --Tkynerd (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I don't know how I can help you further than by telling you the language is in the "nutshell" box at the top of WP:CAT. There are two text boxes and the second is the "nutshell" and the second bullet point has the "defining" language that I have already quoted. (2) I'm not here to defend WP:OCAT. Do please feel free to make your points about needing better examples at the talk page there; I'll support you, because I agree they should be linked. I'm sorry if you think I'm implying extra knowledge; you're not happy with the guidelines I pointed out, so I pointed you to the supporting discussions. I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree as to the value of OCAT, but I'm not going to continue discussing it here. --Lquilter (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Many apologies. I totally missed those textboxes. (I'm not used to looking for "this page in a nutshell" textboxes, although I think I have seen one before.) (2) I'll bring up the same issues at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization per your suggestion. Thanks for your patience and guidance. --Tkynerd (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's an interesting usability issue, text boxes; I think you're not alone in missing things marked out in textboxes. --Lquilter (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I would still prefer the categories be kept, but my main concern that the information itself remains is addressed by keeping the list articles. I understand the reasoning behind the noms and cannot come up with anything that directly contradicts it, therefore I will not contest them further at this point. Slambo (Speak) 16:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this suggestion. In the wider context of Wikipedia as a whole, I'm not sure these awards are significant enough to warrant categories; I think a list is a better option. (I'm aware, though, that this is very much a subjective call and people can disagree.) --Tkynerd (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:E. H. Harriman Award recipients

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:E. H. Harriman Award recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category as overcategorization by award. The various American railroad companies are not defined by having won an award for outstanding safety achievements. Each are listed in the E. H. Harriman Award article. Lquilter (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being used in advertising materials does not mean it is a defining award -- almost anything can be used in advertising materials. Also, no offense, but whatever one may think of the Oscar-winners categories, actors are routinely introduced in unrelated events as "Oscar-winning actor So-and-so". The Long Island Rail Road, on the other hand, is going to be generally introduced as "a NYC-commuter rail"; I would be quite surprised to see it introduced as "Railway Age magazine's Railroaders of the Year commuter line Long Island Rail Road" at any time other than things directly related to this magazine or perhaps rail safety more generally. This is certainly useful information for the article on those companies, and it's useful information for the article on the award, but it's not a good candidate for categorization. Can you explain why you feel this meets Wikipedia:OCAT#Award_winners? --Lquilter (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My biggest concern for this and the nom above is that the information is easily accessible from any of the recipients' articles. I'll have to ruminate on your statements further before I can put together a well reasoned and insightful response. Slambo (Speak) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good. (NB: Your comment that the information is easily accessible from the recipient articles isn't going to be helpful one way the other! What would be helpful would be information that demonstrated that this award was defining -- as in, references describing the ways in which this award affects those receiving it. Please remember that the CFD is not in any way a critique of the award or the notability of the award. That's an AFD issue about the award. Here, we're not assessing the notability of the award; just trying to figure out whether the relationship between the award and the recipients is so strong and important that Wikipedia needs to dedicate an automatic index to it -- that's what a category is.) --Lquilter (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I would still prefer the categories be kept, but my main concern that the information itself remains is addressed by keeping the list articles. I understand the reasoning behind the noms and cannot come up with anything that directly contradicts it, therefore I will not contest them further at this point. Slambo (Speak) 16:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:HSBC Train Operators of the Year

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:HSBC Train Operators of the Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization by award. Category contains three articles, for instance, London Underground, which is not defined by winning the HSBC Train Operators of the Year award; each of these three (and others) are listed in the Train Operator of the Year article. Lquilter (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Recipients of the Right Livelihood Award

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete (listified in main article so not necessary). Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Right Livelihood Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category as overcategorization by award. This Swedish award category contains a wide variety of people and organizations, all of which should be (and are) listed in the Right Livelihood Award article. Lquilter (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Venues of the 2002 Winter Olympics

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. There is no consistent naming of Summer/Winter Olympics venue categories, so a more general nomination would be required. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Venues of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games to Category:2002 Winter Olympics venues
Nominator's rationale: Rename - To ensure consistency among other Winter Olympics article with this same category such as those shown for the 2006, 2010, and 2014 Winter Olympics. Chris (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Songs about fame

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs about fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I can't remember for what reason, but I previously created this category in November. It was nominated for deletion in 11/20/07, and there I said to go ahead and delete it, so it was speedied. Recreated earlier this month, I marked it for speedy as a repost, but since it wasn't actually deleted per a CfD, it was denied, so here we are. JuJube (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Private schools in the District of Columbia

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Private schools in the District of Columbia to Category:Private schools in Washington, D.C.
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent cat and all of the other children. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Embassies in Washington

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename Category:Embassies in Washington to Category:Embassies in Washington, D.C.. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Embassies in Washington to Category:Embassies in Washington, D.C.
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I believe that all of these are in the city and not the state. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Metalogic

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was keep. Kbdank71 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Metalogic to Category:Logic
Nominator's rationale: No explanation as to what Metalogic is, even in the article. Perhaps it could be merged to category:Mathematical logic, but I suspect the creator of the category would object to that even more. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the missing description (now fixed) is not the only problem with this category. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably the Mathematics Cabal again. I know they're always conspiring against me, and I'm nearly as wonderful as that category. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 03:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Usually the trend is to reduce big categories by putting their members in more proper subcategories. I am not against naming articles in both metalogic and logic categories, however it should avoid gratuitous duplication.
No one would claim that Physics belongs under Metaphysics. That's true. However, they are two different studies because of an accident of language and sequence of books in a series (i.e. Aristotle's next book "after Physics" was "Metaphysics.") In the case of metalogic, we are still using logical methods and principles, however we are applying them to logic itself.
I oppose the merge, however just in the spirit of compromise, I would be open minded to merge the two in one category named "Methodology of deductive sciences." The same is true for the articles, so long as any uniquely "metalogical" concepts are covered first. The best solution is to have all three articles. Since Tarski and Carnap (both major figures) disagreed on metalogic v metamathematics, I would assume that there is plenty of literature out there on the distinctions and the debate.
Hans, please forgive my entirely rhetorical defense of the category. Arthur has torn down my contributions many times before. In this case within the hour of its creation. That's called "riding someone's ass." He is hypercritical to a point that is not pragmatic in the general Wikipedia community. So when he nominated this category with the reason being "No explanation as to what Metalogic is, even in the article." I'm sorry Hans but the article's first three sentences are golden and this guy is a nut with a hard-on for me. Since I can expect him to harangue me further, I have no choice but to A) reserve my energy B) enact a strict "I-told-you-so policy" and C) make sure everyone knows how silly he gets so that this process will be easier for me in the future. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
additional note He now claims that he has problems with the claim "Logic concerns itself with the truths-of-logic." on the talk page of the merge discussion. So what do you do with a person like that? That's just making trouble. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do I do with a person like that? Agree, of course. It's either gibberish or incomprehensible philosophical jargon. In either case it has no place in the lede. And how do the other philosophy articles manage without these strange-and-pretentious hyphen constructions? But let's not discuss this here before some actual experts (i.e. people with a degree in philosophy) have arrived. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When juxtaposed with the subsequent hyphened term both of their meanings are crystal clear. Furthermore these hyphened constructions are well known and very common in Philosophy (in which I have a degree, so you need await no longer). It indicates that the phrase is acting as a single noun. Heidegger introduced many such hyphenated terms into the vocabulary. They (well maybe not the ones that Heidegger was using) are not only suitable, but necessary for explaining many advanced concepts. Your view of them as "strange and pretentious" is too bad. I am sorry to see you join in the nonsense. Be well Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several people, not just Arthur Rubin, have indicated that they don't know what this is supposed to mean. Apparently the clear-as-crystality has a certain leaves-something-to-be-desiredness. I have never understood more than 0.21% of any utterance by Heidegger, so perhaps that is not the most felicitous justification, and certainly not a licence for encyclopedic obfuscation.  --Lambiam 10:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate this. However, I think it may be a little harsh. I'm sure it was an innocent good faith advisory, not a slam. I felt I should jump in because I often use harsh communication, but I do not mean it harshly. In general casting aspersions about motivation are bad. I don't think a call to think is necessarily the same thing. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have offended you, Snocrates, and I am sorry for that. However, if you look at my post you will see that I have not voted. That's because I still haven't finished my own thought process (which tends to be much quicker on topics unrelated to philosophy) and I was interested in other people's opinion on what I perceive to be the problems here. I meant "you" in the impersonal sense, including myself. "One" would have been clearer in that sense, but it doesn't work in an imperative. By the way, judging from the irony I seemed to detect in the comment to your vote I already suspected that you had thought it through. I would be happy if you could comment on my questions. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not offended, merely resentful, and you've done a fine job of disindignating me. :) I realised you had not formally "voted", but your since your comment immediately followed my flippant and inappropriate remarks, I assumed they were directed specifically at me, and this assumption was obviously unwarranted. I'm sorry for that. Anyway, If the tone of your comments are to be taken in the spirit that you set out above, are you sure your questions are not rhetorical and food for thought rather than something that we should all be commenting on? But in any case, I'm not aware of any standards for when to create a category and when to not create one. I think that's determined by consensus, which is what we are doing here. I do agree with you that it would be helpful to have the comments of someone who can self-identify as an expert in the field. Snocrates 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did panick a bit when I saw 3 "keep" votes, only one "...Wait, what?" vote and no discussion on the merits. I changed my vote to make it clear it's not directed against you. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have insulted my religion! Just kidding. Well all of that seems quite reasonable. I have listed p and m theory under metalogic, and have removed any duplicates of which there were about 3. The metalogic cat is also under math logic which is fine with me. No member under mathematical logic was taken out from under it at any time BTW. Be well Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I learned some new things from Lambiam's statement, it is consistent with the fact that I, as a professional model theorist who joined Wikipedia in order to work on some of the articles that were moved into this category, had never heard of the term. It is also consistent with my initial impression that Gregbard read a book, got excited about it (rightly so; it's a beautiful subject), and then started article writing and categorising without really understanding the full context of the book. This is often a good approach, but in this case it led to an unfortunate escalation.
Currently a professional proof theorist is trying to find a reasonable definition of "metalogic" here. It is clearly not a well-established, generally known term. I will wait for the outcome of that, but then I will most likely vote for merging per Lambiam. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know it is a "subject" or do you assume it is, based on the current category description? CBM has posted the table of contents of Hunter's book on this "subject" here, and he writes about it: "It appears to me that, despite the terminology employed in various parts of the book, its main purpose is to present the basic results of mathematical logic from a different perspective." Are you sure what you have in mind isn't OR? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Devious question, Hans. I would claim that yes, I know it is a subject, but I'd have to resort to I think GW Roberts' definition of "to know" from a collection of essays about Russell, and I don't think that's up to date. I'll stand by my vote as mere opinion, and defer to Arthur Rubin. However, I urge the logicians to consider that not only do we want to represent logic well, we also want to be accessible to the general reading public. The beginning chapter in every logic book, which states undefined terms like "set", is metalogical and very difficult for many...including me, I really wish I could ask Joe Shoenfield about that chapter in his book, but it's too late. Pete St.John (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the first few pages of Google Scholar hits I seriously doubt that many of these results refer to "metalogic" in the sense of this category. I find it very hard to make any sense of the search results, because most cases are much less obvious than "metalogic of geopolitical thinking". — I have renewed Gregbard's invitation to the enemy cabal. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are two kinds of logic. One is practiced by philosophers, who call their kind "logic" and the other kind, or more precisely the part of it they more or less understand as having some relationship to philosophical logic, "metalogic". The other is practiced by mathematicians, who call their kind "logic" and the other kind "philosophical logic". When they want to make it explicit that by "logic" they mean the mathematical kind, they call it "mathematical logic". In a sense, the question here is who gets the naming rights for the categories of topics studied by mathematical logicians: the mathematical logicians themselves or the philosophical logicians. One thing that may upset mathematical logicians in having a category named "metalogic" is that that term is not at all current in their field; many have never heard the term before and have to guess from (to them) unclear descriptions what it is supposed to mean.  --Lambiam 22:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bit simpler, but also a bit more complex. Mathematicians, Computer Scientists, and Philosphers use pretty much the same symbolic logic as a method (deducing conclusions from premises) which can apply to anything, algebra, compiling, arguement. Each profession uses somewhat different language; "law of the excluded middle", "A or B implies A", "x := A || B" etc. But also, all three disciplines study logic itself; that is, logic is not merely the method, but the object of study. So Mathematical Logic is a field distinguishable from Algebra, even though a Boolean Algebra is an Algebra. CS studies Computability, distinguishable from computing. Philosophy has Epistemology. Then obviously, logic the tool can be appplied to logic the object. I think studying logic itself should be a broadly approachable topic, while model theories maybe are too technical for many readers. Pete St.John (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice story, but this is not the actual meaning of "metalogic" as it is defined by authors like Hunter and Hao Wang, just like "metaphysics" does not mean "physics the tool applied to physics the object". What they mean is just the mathematical study of formalized logic. Maybe other authors use it in this logic-applied-to-logic sense, but (judging from the Google search results) most occurrences mean actually yet something entirely different. Again, the term draws a blank for most mathematical logicians.  --Lambiam 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Someone asked for an experienced philosopher's opinion on this issue. Now, other experienced philosophers—a few of whom we may have here—may disagree; but this is my opinion and I am an experienced philosopher. "Metalogic," as a word, can probably be applied to various practices. However, as the "metatheory of logic," as it is characterized here, metalogic has a long and distinguished history going back to Aristotle and Ibn Sina. It has been engaged in by major philosophers such as Epictetus (in debate with the Pyrrhonic skeptics), Immanuel Kant, and W.V.O. Quine. So yes, metalogic is a distinct branch of philosophy with a long history. Is this sufficient to dissuade a merger? I don't know. I have casted my vote and leave the rest to you all. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give sources for the term "metalogic" being used in this sense going back to Aristotle? The sources cited in the article Metalogic refer to mathematical logic, a subject in which – to the best of my knowledge – Aristotle, Ibn Sina, Epictetus and Kant have not dabbled, and the articles now in the category Category:Metalogic, which deal with topics in mathematical logic, probably do not really fit this historical sense.  --Lambiam 08:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt Aristotle used the term, but I'd apply it to "...As there are in the mind thoughts which do not involve truth or falsity, and also those which must be either true or false, so it is in speech. For truth and falsity imply combination and separation..." in On Interpretation. If every article in the category is mathematical logic, I'd advocate expanding some articles. I might look at Kripke, for example. Pete St.John (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, the word "metalogic" has multiple uses. One of the more popular uses in contemporary academia is that found in Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica. While that book is concerned very much with mathematics, it is because the primary contention to be found therein is that mathematics is reducible to logic. In that sense, then, it is absurd for metalogic to be subsumed by either logic or mathematical logic, since it is theoretically prior to each. Furthermore, insofar as metalogic is the metatheory of logic—as stated in the article—the writings of Aristotle which form the basis of logic, as well as Ibn Sina's defense and refinements thereof (aptly summarized in his well known adage that "those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped") must all be metalogic. That the category is currently lopsided in favor of the Principia Mathematica usage is a problem to be addressed by editing, not merging. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Rex Breeds

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 18:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rex Breeds to Category:Rex cat breeds
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity. Snocrates 01:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 San Felipe

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename Category:People from San Felipe to Category:People from San Felipe, Chile. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from San Felipe to Category:People from San Felipe, Chile
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article San Felipe, Chile. There are a number of places with the same or similar names; see Saint Philip. Snocrates 01:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:LGBT in Anime/Manga

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete, empty. Kbdank71 18:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT in Anime/Manga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is redundant to the existing categories of Category:Yaoi and Category:Yuri, and also does not follow the standard naming convention for anime and manga categories. If there were more than just the two categories to group under it, then it might be worth renaming and keeping, but all the others (Category:Shōjo-ai, Category:Shōnen-ai as a minor theme, etc) are currently on the chopping block and look as if they will be deleted. This will also complete the cleanup of categories created by the somewhat overambitious User:TigressofIndia in the last couple days. --tjstrf talk 01:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Reading the article would generally clear that up for you, either the article of the series itself or the yaoi/yuri pages.
    That aside, you're saying we should merge the current yaoi and yuri categories to one with an English name? While I can see the appeal, if you look at the overall categorization trees for Category:Anime and Category:Manga, they use Japanese terms for all similar cases. Anime and manga themselves being examples, since they could as accurately be placed at English names such as "Japanese animation". --tjstrf talk 02:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification No, no, no. I'm not advocating renaming those two categories, which I'm sure are appropriately named for Anime/Manga culture, I was just thinking that a collective category as a sub under Category:LGBT might make it easier for people unfamiliar with specialist terms to find the articles. However, categories empty +72hrs are eligible to be speedied. Despite my "keep vote", I have not the background knowledge to fill in the category myself. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, now that might be worthwhile. However, a much faster method would be to simply create a new category for that which conformed to the overall naming standards, rather than the one under discussion, which doesn't. --tjstrf talk 02:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Ultra Mobile PC

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ultra Mobile PC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, Category contains only the main article Ultra Mobile PC. Snocrates 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:World Wrestling Entertainment model to appear in Playboy

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World Wrestling Entertainment model to appear in Playboy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Nominating deletion. There are naming issues ("model" is primary employment of none of the subjects, the title refers to people who will appear in Playboy in future - yet the subjects have already done so, the fact that Chyna and Rena Mero are no longer employees - title seemingly refers to current performers). Also I feel this to be a trivial intersection. I wouldn't object to the subjects being categorised as having appeared in Playboy, but just current/former WWE employees is being too narrow. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 01:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
More