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.
I obviously disagree since I created the categories. The article Linux Foundation exists, many of the members have own articles in the WP, what the point in NOT having the category? Lack of space? "Trivia", why is this an argument? User:ScotXWt@lk16:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the member categories for deletion, not the article about Linux Foundation. All major companies support or are members of all kinds of foundations and things, and having categories for all kinds of memberships in all kinds of foundations or whatever would clutter up the articles. If you want a list of members, see if you can add it to Linux Foundation. Thomas.W talk16:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is over categorization. Being a Linux Foundation members is not a defining characteristics of the members much less separate levels of members. DreamWorks isn't going to stop operating if they drop their membership in the Foundation. This is similar to an awardee situationSpshu (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2014 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: To conform to naming in the rest of the "journals" tree (e.g. "history journals", not "historical journals", "geography journals"/"geographical journals"). Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The originally category name was based on other subcategories of Category:Finance. Some use the phrasing start with "Financial" (e.g. Category:Financial software) while others use the phrasing "Finance". Current review shows that one associated with literature or academics using the phrasing "Finance X" (e.g. Category:Finance books. It makes sense for journals to conform.Cander0000 (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2014 (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.
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.
@Peterkingiron: The category's contents are overwhelmingly about England, so an English categ is justified. As noted in the nom, my intention is to recreate the current title as be a parent category for the English and Irish sub-cats; the Scottish page can also go in that re-created cat. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: but if this is to proceed, something must be done about the Scotland list. I do not know how complete that list is. There may be an issue over Welsh lists and how to deal with houses such as Wigmore Priory, which were in Marcher lordships (hence medieval Wales), but are now in England. Similarly the status of Cumberland in the 11th century may casue difficulties, since it was not part of England then. I have no objection in principle to and England category. I just think that a category for GB and another for Ireland will be much simpler, even though GB was not politically united until 1603. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2014 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: AI, ML and PR are hard to distinguish and often overlapping domains; making separate categories is not maintainable and will yield high redundancy. I am aware that this is an overly long / clumsy category title, unfortunately; but every researcher prefers a different name for his domain. Chire (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I do find the new name a bit long. I'm fine with having ML/PR conferences in the AI confs cat, or their own cat, or the CS confs cat for that matter: the supercategory isn't extremely large and I rather dislike the tendency to overcategorize on enwiki. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is that it declutters the Category:Machine learning (and AI) when the conferences can sit in a subcategory of machine learning, instead of toplevel machine learning. Cat:ML used to have 300+ entries, now is down to 141 by having classification algorithms, software, companies etc. in subcategories. Using Cat:CSconf means that all these conferences will continue to be tagged as CSConf+ML.
Scopus All Science Journals Classification (see tab "ASJC Code List" in [1]) puts "Artificial Intelligence" (1702) separate from "Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition" (1707). So I think it should be "AI+ML" and "CV+PR". Fgnievinski (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft Academic has "Machine learning and Pattern Recognition" as one subdomain, DM and AI separate... it's not really well defined, but I would consider PR to be more of a ML thing than a CV thing; and I would just put conferences that actually have a large CV focus into a second category Cat:CVConf. But Category:Conferences in artificial intelligence and machine learning is fine with me. How about Machine Learning (journal)? Should we just put it into the conferences cat anyway? --Chire (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2014 (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:International Organization for a Participatory Society
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; I note that the article, which still exists, contains a list of notable members, so there was no need to listify to retain the information. Good Ol’factory(talk)04:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As far as I know, we have categories for things like members of a national academy of sciences, where the membership means a great distinction. We don't have categories for, say, members of the Society for Neuroscience, because it just means that people have paid their dues. --Randykitty (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We should not be categorising people by membership of a society, or even of its interim committee. That will leave morew than a main article and its subject, which would be better included in a category on the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all categories of people serve the purpose of marking 'a significant element of notability or a distinction'. The people included here are all notable already precisely because of their publicly taking political positions, and the fact of their being members of a revolutionary organization is therefore highly significant. It is definitely not the case that 'all the members having articles here' are included in the category, but only those who are widely known because of their political viewpoints. Full disclosure: I am the editor who created the category. Lambert Meertens (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Basically what you are saying is that inclusion or not into this cat will be decided upon some not-well-defined subjective criterion. This cat basically serves as publicity for the organization ("look which important people are members!") --Randykitty (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is a fair description of what I'm saying. There are other important people who are members. However, they are notable for other reasons than their political activism—with Chomsky being exceptional because he is notable equally for his contributions to linguistics and his political analyses. The fact that the notability of these people is based on their political viewpoints, and not, for example, on their artistic or athletic achievements, is not that subjective. And the criterion that they are all members of the IOPS consultative committee is completely objective. As I see it, the membership of IOPS and its consultative committee is an important aspect the otherwise quite diverse lot of people in this category share, and as such worthy of being categorized. Does this serve as publicity? Many, if not most, people will not agree with the political viewpoints of the people in question, in which case the category obviously does not function as (positive) publicity. But if you think it does serve that purpose for the minority of people who truly identify with these revolutionary viewpoints, you may be overestimating the publicity power of the category. Lambert Meertens (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think I get it right, your argumentation is a perfect example of synthesis. Being a member of this organization is just a minor thing for these people, but it's important for the organization. That's not what cats are for. --Randykitty (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention they all are also signatories of an open letter, published in various media on the left, calling upon people to join IOPS. That is not the kind of thing they do routinely all the time. Lambert Meertens (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2014 (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.
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.
Many/most of the articles in those categories are for things (airfields, cemeteries etc) that exist because of a war and hence for which the war is a defining characteristic. DexDor (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename -- Battlefields and sieges should certainly be included; concentration camps (subcat) probably. However Tugela River does not even mentioon the war and should be purged (unless expanded to explain its inclusion. We probably need a headnote to explain its scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If we have a "battles of", any battle articles could go there; but one would have thought that London was a place where much related to the Boer War happened... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2014 (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.
