Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 28#Category:Sydow

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)

Similar to :Category:Euler nominated on June 22, this has only two people. Is it agreed that WP:NOT a geneaology database? --ssd 29 June 2005 02:20 (UTC)

• Yes. delete. -- Visviva 29 June 2005 03:34 (UTC)
• Delete. The von Sydows are a prominent enough family to warrant an article/quasi-disambig page listing notable members (there are probably a dozen, including a Swedish prime minister who hasn't got an article yet), but there is no reason for a category, as the family isn't collectively important in some single field (as opposed to, say, the Rothschilds, which have their own category). (I think that is a reasonable guideline for when to create a category like this, but we should probably discuss this somewhere, as there are already quite a few subcategories of :Category:Families.) Uppland 29 June 2005 04:27 (UTC)
• Delete as per Uppland. / Alarm 30 June 2005 18:21 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)

Overcategorisation. There were originally four schools in :Category:Grammar schools in Slough, but they were actually the same school with different names in different periods, resulting in a higgledy-piggledy incoherent set of pages. I merged them into one, schools can be handled at the county level. Dunc|☺ 28 June 2005 20:40 (UTC)

:Do you mean to merge these two cats into :Category:Grammar schools in Berkshire? I ask because you say "merged" but I don't see any merging having been done. -Splash June 29, 2005 02:15 (UTC)

:Merge as Splash suggests. - Mustafaa 29 June 2005 05:40 (UTC)

• Merge, and given the size, consider upmerging to 'schools in Berkshire' rather than a subset thereof. Radiantmeta:mergist June 29, 2005 07:37 (UTC)

:*Merge However, don't upmerge to 'schools in Berkshire', as, regardless of size this is an important and informative distinction. Size shouldn't be preventative to good subcategorisation. Hiding 29 June 2005 07:59 (UTC)

:*I lean toward the upmerge, but think those Grammar schools should be added to :Category:Grammar schools in England (a pretty obvious fact). It is the fact that they are Grammar schools (a uniquely English phenomenon) that makes them special, rather than that they are in Berkshire. On the other hand, these schools are so rare now that those few still around in a particular locality are notable for that fact. -Splash June 29, 2005 19:10 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)

This category was created in times when :Category:Physics very big. After recategorization, it seems to have lost its purpose. See relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Category:Physics - general/basic/introductory concepts. Karol June 28, 2005 20:09 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. With the recatting that's been done in the light of the discussion mentioed, this cat has served its purpose. -Splash June 29, 2005 02:13 (UTC)
• Delete. I originally suggested the category to alleviate the overcrowding in :Category:Physics; now that the category has been properly reorganized, it's no longer necessary. See Category_talk:Physics#General_Physics_Topics_subcategory for a the full discussion. StuTheSheep June 29, 2005 19:26 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)

Bulk rename from :category:schools established in the $foo00s to :category:schools established in the ($foo+1)th century; you get the idea anyway, use 15th century rather than 1400s because 15th century refers to the years 1401-1500 wereas 1400s refers to 1400-1409. Dunc|☺ 28 June 2005 14:25 (UTC)

• Support, even though I doubt if anyone outside of Wikipedia has ever used "1400s" to refer to a decade. -- Visviva 28 June 2005 15:24 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1400s refers to the years 1400–1499. Yes, wikipedia has chosen to use that title for consistency in naming decades, but in any use, including in Wikipedia, the only way you get 1400s to refer only to a decade is to specifically limit it to such in some way or another.
  Note that because of all the confusion caused by zero as a number being totally unknown, at least in Europe, at the time when Denis the Little invented this year numbering system in 525 AD, and when Bede popularized it a couple of centuries later, and because of the confusing-to-many-people mismatch between the century number and the numbers starting the years of that century, some people just don't like to use "____ century" designations, and strongly prefer to refer to a century as the 1900s, for example. Gene Nygaard 28 June 2005 17:18 (UTC)

• Support — 1900s is already used for 1900-1909. And Gene Nygaard's explanation doesn't make sense to me. — Sebastian (talk) June 28, 2005 19:18 (UTC)
• : My reference to Denis the Little and the Venerable Bede refer to the usual one-year shift in the time period covered, for example, by the "1400s" vs. the "15th century", and also to giving short shrift to a couple of centuries, making them only 99 years long instead of 100.
  Note also that we end up with an inconsistency in Wikipedia decade-definition usage, with the decade 1400s being split up, partly in the 14th century and partly in the 15th century—little annoyances like that are one reason some of us like to avoid the "___ century" terminology. Gene Nygaard 28 June 2005 20:54 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia usage defnitely says that the "xx00s" means a decade rather than a century. We don't have in English a usage comparable to the Italian "cinquecento", and the standard way in English of referring to a century is as the "nnth century". rossb 28 June 2005 20:20 (UTC)
• :We certainly do have such usage in English. Like Visviva, I never see anybody using 1400s for anything other than a century, unless it is specifically made clear that only one decade, the first decade of that century, is being discussed. The Wikipedia naming conventions deal only with the consistency of the titles of the articles such as 1930s and 1900s. Gene Nygaard 28 June 2005 20:54 (UTC)

• Strong rename, change it to not cover only schools, but any public institutions or public buildings. Radiantmeta:mergist June 28, 2005 21:21 (UTC)
• : But, Whilst I agree that the categorisation, similar to people by year, could be extended to other articles such as companies, buildings, etc, I think it is important to keep the schools lumped together and any such categorisation like that done in parallel or in a one-higher category - there's just too many schools. Dunc|☺ 29 June 2005 19:38 (UTC)

• Rename per nominator, and extend per Radiant if that's allowed — this avoids any possible confusion over what the title of the cat refers to. -Splash June 29, 2005 02:11 (UTC)
• : Comment But—who's going be responsible for making sure that all of the schools get put in the correct category, so there is no possible confusion in that regard, since the old and proposed time periods are not the same? Gene Nygaard 29 June 2005 20:25 (UTC)

::Comment Each Wikipedian is responsible for ensuring correct categorization, its a judgement call and mistakes would most likely be corrected a short time after. <>Who?¿? 4 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)

:::No, the people making a move are responsible for making sure it is done right. There is no "judgement call" in most of these. It's simply that 1800 is in the 1800s, but it is not in the 19th century, etc. Whoever makes the move, if it is made, needs to make sure it is done right. Gene Nygaard 4 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

• Rename contents as suggested; isn't "Schools by year of establishment" easier to parse? Also, agree with Dunc that there should be a super-cat that contains "public sector organisations by year of establishment" or whatever. James F. (talk) 30 June 2005 23:14 (UTC)
• Rename as suggested by nominator. Also support further cat'ing suggestions by Radiant and Dunc. <>Who?¿? 4 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) (RFC?) --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)

• It's racist to make a subdivision on this one. Every person would be in a category for a race/ethnicity. It is bound to be a source for a lot of disputes: is this person white? Or is this person mixed? This makes it even worse than a gender subdivision. Race/ethnicity is not clearly defined. We do not want to add a race tag to every person with an article on Wikipedia. It would be even more racist to add such a category only to some people. This category must go, a.s.a.p. Gerrit ^{CUTED[http://topjaklont.student.utwente.nl/ H]} 28 June 2005 12:35 (UTC)
• Keep. There is nothing inherently racist about this. Waka47 28 June 2005 12:44 (UTC)
• Then at least we should add Category:White people to all white people with Wikipedia articles. Gerrit ^{CUTED[http://topjaklont.student.utwente.nl/ H]} 28 June 2005 12:49 (UTC)
• See also: Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Categorisation by race.
• Keep. This isn't inherently racist. Lots of people are categorized by ethnicity. This is real information that Wikipedia should provide. However, the current structure is horrible (White people? Black people?) and needs to be reworked carefully. -- Visviva 29 June 2005 03:53 (UTC)
• Delete, this is pointless categorization. Actually, I think we should unlist both this vote and the gender votes below, and take the matter to RFC; this issue is too broad to be decided on CFD. Radiantmeta:mergist June 29, 2005 07:37 (UTC)

:I support that suggestion. -- Visviva 29 June 2005 10:08 (UTC)

:I also support that suggestion. !!!!

::(history shows this comment was made by User:Karol Langner)

:I support the suggestion as well. Gerrit ^{CUTED[http://topjaklont.student.utwente.nl/ H]} 1 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)

:I support this suggestion. <>Who?¿? 4 July 2005 05:15 (UTC)

• Delete irrelevantly broad categorization. Categories like this are so sweeping they are non-encyc, IMHO, in a manner similar to the Women X's debates. I think going to RfC might be a good idea. -Splash June 29, 2005 18:57 (UTC)
• Delete, Although I don't find it racist, I think this is too broad categorization. this kind of categories aren't helpful, it may be hard to find what you're looking for because some people are regarded to be one race when they're technically mixed. RustyCale 29 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)
• Delete ill-conceived, too-broad category CDC (talk) 1 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. --Dr31 3 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
• Delete, POV to categorize by race and pointless for Wikipedia to allow it. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)
• Delete, in this instance, it is a dividing of peoples, unlike a nationality/pride cat'ding such as :Category:American actors & :Category:African American actors. As for "white" or "black" color of skin does not denote race, at the very least, mis-categoriztion with lack of respect to claimed heritage. <>Who?¿? 4 July 2005 05:15 (UTC)
• Delete. It's difficult to see the point of such categories. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.