Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 1

Delete per arguments in 1988 marriages debate listed below (please feel free to reformat this nom!). Tim! (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - trivial non-defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no. I thought we had nipped this in the bud! By all means, Delete all per arguments below. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - utterly trivial non-defining characteristic. Occuli (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all clearcut trivia. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Johnbod, what makes a category "clearcut trivia"? If the data is available, we should use it. Probably we should set it up to be do automatically. DGG (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have enough 5% complete grand schemes rusting in the wikidesert as it is. How on earth would you do it automatically? Presently it can't even manage to find both notable partners in the years I've looked at. It is btw misnamed as it should be "people married in ...", not "marriages in". Otherwise, per Otto below. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the specific encyclopedic relationship between Mitt and Ann Romney, who married in 1969, and Judy Garland and Mickey Deans, who also married in 1969? Where are the reliable sources that indicate that the years that notable people choose to marry are in any way related to years that other notable people (absent those who marry another notable person) marry? In thinking about this further, there is also the undue weight given by these categories to legal marriage, a categorization scheme that either excludes the vast majority of LBGT couples or requires original research to label same-sex partnerships as the same thing as "marriage" and the constant POV battles that we will fight over such inclusions? Are we also going to set up categories for every iteration of legal same-sex relationships throughout the world? To give a specific example, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were married in 2004, had their marriage voided by the California supreme court in 2004 and re-married legally in 2008 and remained so until Martin's 2008 death. So they should be in Category:2004 marriages, Category:2004 marriages voided by court order, Category:2008 marriages and Category:2008 marriage ended by the death of a spouse? These categories are in fact actively misleading for this article, because the two were in a public partnership, with no legal recognition, starting in 1953. And for all I know they registered their partnership with the city of San Francisco and/or the state of California after such partnerships became legally recognized, which would necessitate as many as four additional categories. Otto4711 (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since categorization is usually done by defining details, whereas marriage dates are not defining. --Eliyak T·C 03:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. What year a person got married doesn't tell you anything meaningful about why they're in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Justus League members and affiliates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Justus League members and affiliates - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: The subject of this category, a non-notable hip-hop crew, saw its article deleted. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unpopulated, and the parent article is not notable. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nicolay albums

Category:Nicolay albums - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: The subject of this category, a non-notable producer, saw his article deleted —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports venues in Essex by locality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete per creator's request. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports venues in Essex by locality - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Not enough sports venues in the county to require a clarification of the district. Oneblackline (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – although as you created it, there's a quick way of doing this. Occuli (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1988 marriages

Category:1988 marriages - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This seems like a fairly trivial way to categorise people. It could also lead to a slippery slope: 1988 baptisms, 1988 university graduates, 1988 home buyers, 1988 amputees, and so forth. So I suggest deletion (along with, though I suspect that requires a separate nomination, the parent category, 1980s marriages). Biruitorul ^Talk 06:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - very trivial. (There is only one article so far: Sarah Palin.) Category:1980s marriages would then be empty and speediable. Occuli (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. I took the liberty of adding Category:1980s marriages, since they are in essence conjoined categories, created just one minute apart. As to the rationale, there are two other things worth noting. First, to the best of my knowledge, we don't actually have any articles that are, in fact, about particular marriages per se. (We do have a small number of articles about specific weddings, but that's a different matter.) Second, were we to categorize all bio articles by year of marriage, I submit that we would also be obligated to categorize all divorces by year. Speak of a slippery slope -- just imagine the category clutter on Elizabeth Taylor, for example! :) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a truly inspired thought: If we keep these and create whole category structures for both marriage and divorce by year, we would then be in a position to categorize by length of marriage -- using the same nifty software that automatically calculates age-at-death. Wow -- I just might do a 180 on this! :) Cgingold (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm trying to remember whether there's already been a prior AFD regarding categorization by year of marriage. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An entire category to include the marriage of a single person. Such spotlight categories should be avoided at all costs. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it and the other such cateogries can be done automatically. We should in general move towards structure of this kind--it is one of the facilities offered by a database. DGG (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because we can do a thing, automatically or otherwise, does not mean we ought to do it. As noted above, if this category structure were fully implemented, Elizabeth Taylor, already in 24 categories, would gain eight marriage categories and seven divorce categories, along with presumably one "marriage ended by death of spouse" category. Her category list is in no way served by being ballooned to 40 categories. Judy Garland, currently in 29 categories, would get five marriage categories, four divorce categories and one "marriage ended by death of self" category. Larry King would get seven marriage categories, five divorce categories and one "marriage ended by annulment" category, with the possibility of more. That would make two out of every three of his categories relating to marriage and divorce dates. This way madness lies. Otto4711 (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and since I haven't !voted yet, Delete - There is no encyclopedic relationship between Mitt and Ann Romney, who married in 1969, and Judy Garland and Mickey Deans, who also married in 1969? There are no reliable sources that indicate that the years that notable people choose to marry are in any way related to years that other notable people (absent those who marry another notable person) marry. There is also the question of undue weight given by these categories to legal marriage, a categorization scheme that either excludes the vast majority of LBGT couples or requires original research to label same-sex partnerships as the same thing as "marriage" and the constant POV battles that we will fight over such inclusions? Are we also going to set up categories for every iteration of legal same-sex relationships throughout the world? To give a specific example, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were married in 2004, had their marriage voided by the California supreme court in 2004 and re-married legally in 2008 and remained so until Martin's 2008 death. So they should be in Category:2004 marriages, Category:2004 marriages voided by court order, Category:2008 marriages and Category:2008 marriage ended by the death of a spouse? Such categories would in fact be actively misleading for this article, because the two were in a public partnership, with no legal recognition, starting in 1953. And for all I know they registered their partnership with the city of San Francisco and/or the state of California after such partnerships became legally recognized, which would necessitate as many as four additional categories. Otto4711 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Postal Service singles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. I know a good ophthamologist in Kingston, Bearcat. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Postal Service singles to Category:The Postal Service songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per naming conventions for the categorization of songs by artist. Wolfer68 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and convention. I need new eyes, just for the record; I misread the current category name as "The Postal Service shingles" and wondered what that could possibly be about until I blinked and looked again. Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and convention. Occuli (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.