Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 25 November 27 >

November 26[edit]

Category:Canadian Football League lore[edit]

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 Category:Canadian Football League lore to Category:History of the Canadian Football League. --Xdamrtalk 20:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canadian Football League lore to Category:History of the Canadian Football League
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In this discussion we renamed/merged the "sports lore" categories into appropriate "History of" categories, since saying something is "lore" is subjective and kind of a form of puffery. Suggest we start a "History of" category for this league to hold these articles. More could probably be added. (NOTE: This category was created in Feb 2009 while the "sports lore" CFD was ongoing.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get where "Lore" is POV or carries the meaning of legendary or "high-faluting" or whatever made it unacceptable in the previous discussion. Of the articles listed under CFL lore only 3 would count as history, the others belong to the ongoing facts and traditions of the league which is what "lore" means in my dictionary. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that it's basically a judgment call as to whether or not something in a sport is "lore". What would be the inclusionary criteria?—I think any definition would be essentially arbitrary, since there is no widely accepted definition of what is sports lore. I don't see a problem with any of the articles in the current category being in a CFL history category. I think this would be more suitable for an article, though I note there is no general article about sports lore. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it a judgement call? Lore is not a new, made-up, fuzzy word. It has a definition: oedm-wwikt:lore traditions and knowledge gained through study and experience. I definitely disagree that most of the articles currently under this category would fit under "history". If a category is desired for History, fine. If you dislike the word "lore", fine but do not pretend that this is a simple rename. Upmerge this category and create a new history category, for which I see a maximum of three of these articles belonging: History of African-Americans, Canadian Football Act, and, weakly, Touchdown Atlantic. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any of the "annual matches" articles can go in a history article, since they happen every year and are therefore historical. Lore is not a made-up word but the name alone does not provide very clear criteria for inclusion. "Traditions and knowledge gained through study and experience"? Deciding when that applies to an article and when it does not is as clear as my grandma's cataracts. For instance, how long does something have to have been done to be a "tradition"? On the other hand, even if something has only happened once, we don't need to worry about that because it can be said to be "history". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The annual matches are ongoing, they are not historical; they are a tradition. Just as anything else, if we can write a separate article about it and it can be sourced as being a tradition, then I would say it is a tradition. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, I do see a problem with that. We are not foretelling that it will become historical. It was probably a result of the previous move. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, "history" just means stuff that has happened in the past. It doesn't mean "stuff that has happened in the past that has no ongoing relevance today". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and these things are not only still relevant, they are happening now. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Lore" and "History" are essentially synonymous and the decision making process for what is lore and what is history are identical. In the articles included in the category "lore" is probably more accurate. Why waste our time? Alansohn (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For consistency in the category scheme. If all the rest use "history" and it is true that there is no real difference between the two, we may as well change this one to conform. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I agree with Good Ol’factory. Consistency is a crucial ingredient of the category system, making categories easier to use for both readers and editors. Categories should only break a consistent naming scheme when here is some very pressing reason, but I see no such good reason here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not say they are synonymous; at best History could be a subset of lore. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. For consistency, as GOF points out Mayumashu (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:History of the Canadian Football League and Category:Canadian Football League traditions putting articles into appropriate categories. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2009 (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:CAMs[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:CAMs to Category:Cell adhesion molecules
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expansion of ambiguous acronym. DH85868993 (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I know nothing about the subject, but expanding an acronym is usually a good idea in category names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 26 November 2009 (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.

St Helens, Merseyside[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename, adding the suffix "Merseyside" to conform with parent Category:St Helens, Merseyside and head article St Helens, Merseyside.
See also separate nomination below for one category which needs a further change, as well as the addition of this suffix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2009 (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:Modern English people[edit]

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 (or merging to Category:English people by century: the result is the same as noted by BHG). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Modern English people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, arbitrary and unnecessary grouping of categories by century, of English people from the 16th through the 21st centuries. All included subcategories are already included (and numerically sorted) in Category:English people by century, and I doubt anyone would have a problem picking out the most recent centuries within that category. This is apparently the only category of its kind. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:English people by century. The grouping isn't entirely arbitrary, because the "modern era" is often taken as beginning with the Reformation in the 16th century, but this category does nothing to help navigation. We don't have a broader Category:Modern era, so this is just a single-parent subdivision of Category:English people by century, and it serves no useful purpose. Note that I recommend merger rather than delete, just in case the sub-categories are removed from Category:English people by century before this discussion closes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given that the century-based categories exist, I don't see what this intermediate category adds for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Closing admin should check that the children are appropriately parented. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's why merger is better than deletion for situations like this, because it avoids the need for manual checks. Our closing admins are usually very thorough, but when a bot can do the job without error, why not let the bot do it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Debresser (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2009 (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:Government in St Helens[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Government in St Helens to Category:Local government in St Helens, Merseyside
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per convention of Category:Local government in England ("Local government in foo") and per parent category Category:Helens, Merseyside. Related nomination to follow for other St Helens categories, adding the ", Merseyside" suffix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2009 (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:Vermilingua[edit]

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. — ξxplicit 01:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Vermilingua to Category:Anteaters
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Anteaters" is a well-known and unambiguous common name for these animals, and it agrees with the title of the main article. Similar moves have been performed recently (Category:Gundis, among others). Ucucha 19:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2009 (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.

More locomotives, part 2[edit]

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: Speedy Rename per nom - WP:CSD#C2 No.4. --Xdamrtalk 14:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominators rationale: as per recent discussions to use the "Locomotives of XXX" form. Iain Bell (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2009 (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.

Hammersmith and Fulham[edit]

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 all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are all sub-categories of Category:London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, and should follow that convention, as well as the format of the head article at London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Plus, we don't do ampersands in category names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 26 November 2009 (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.

Barking and Dagenham[edit]

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 all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are all sub-categories of Category:London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, and should follow that convention, as well as the format of the head article at London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. Plus, we don't do ampersands in category names.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 26 November 2009 (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.

Kensington and Chelsea[edit]

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 all per nom. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are all sub-categories of Category:Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and should follow that convention, as well as the format of the head article at Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Plus, we don't do ampersands in category names.
Note that there is also Category:People from Kensington and Chelsea (district), but the disambiguator looks unnecessary. If this nomination is successful, the people category should be renamed to remove the disambiguator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I had spotted Barking & Dagenham, but not Hammersmith & Fulham. Will see if I have the energy to do them too.
    i take your point about the people category, and am glad I omitted that one from this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • FYI a full list of London categories is available here. I have advised WP:London of the nomination; it also impacts on WP:London Transport. I have no objection to changes as long as we maintain some consistency. Hopefully, the changes can be achieved by bot! Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I never got round to studying MySQL data base (as used by WP), but I suppose you mean if it were possible use the substr_replace( ) function in a script that would limit itself to only to the London Categories. Then we would only need to agree that it should search out for every occurrence of an ampersand that appears in ‘any’ London cats and automatically substitute it with ‘and’. It could save a lot of work and we could be sure that non have been missed. Afterwards, the same bot may be of use to other editors or maybe someone has already written one.--Aspro (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2009 (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:Breathe albums[edit]

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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Breathe albums to Category:Breathe (British band) albums
Propose renaming Category:Breathe songs to Category:Breathe (British band) songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate from Category:Breathe (New Zealand band) albums. The nominated category should be a disambiguation category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case rename the 2 categories likewise. Occuli (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse renames to avoid ambiguity and kudos to Ucucha for moving the band to a less ambiguous title. J04n(talk page) 20:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2009 (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:Hitler's secretaries[edit]

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 Category:Hitler's secretaries to Category:Secretaries to Adolf Hitler. --Xdamrtalk 16:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hitler's secretaries to Category:Secretaries to Adolf Hitler
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Include full name per main article Adolf Hitler and Category:Adolf Hitler. The other subcategories of Category:Secretaries seem to use the form "Secretaries to FOO" rather than a possessive, but Category:Adolf Hitler's secretaries is also an option that could be selected. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence While you are right re the secretaries cat, under the Hitler category you'll see that there is a Hitler's family subcat, which would serve as a counter-style, as well as there being pages with names such as Hitler's private library and Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations (ie without the 'Adolf'). Whatever change is made should be consistent with both the secretaries and the Hitler cats, which could mean rather a lot of changes to other pages (although many are at the moment inconsistent). Ericoides (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations is about a book of that title. Category:Hitler family follows the convention of other family categories, as seen in the other subcategories of Category:Austrian families. It similarly makes sense for the secretaries category to follow the convention of other secretary categories. If you think any articles (Hitler-related or otherwise) should be renamed, then feel free to move those pages or discuss it on a relevant talk page, but that really has nothing to do with this. What we name categories intended to group certain kinds of articles may or may not also be a good name for certain articles, and obviously a CFD cannot make binding decisions as to title changes in article space. postdlf (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In keeping with the other Hitler categories, this one should also have "Adolf Hitler" instead of just "Hitler". It could be renamed to either Category:Adolf Hitler's secretaries or Category:Secretaries to Adolf Hitler; this is currently the only category for secretaries to a specific person (others are for secretaries to the U.S. President etcetera), so there is no real precedent for which one to use. I have a slight preference for Category:Secretaries to Adolf Hitler because it is more consistent with other remotely comparable categories (Category:Failed assassins of Adolf Hitler, Category:Personal secretaries to the President of the United States), but I have no problem with choosing the other possibility, which is a bit shorter. Ucucha 01:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a rule, I think that we should use "secretaries to office" instead of "secretaries to person" categories. In almost all cases, the fact of being a secretary to the holder of a particular office is more significant than being a secretary to a particular officeholder. Hitler could be one of the few exceptions to this rule, but I would like to express my hesitation about expressing a general acceptance of "secretaries to person" categories for every politician, businessperson, or celebrity. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:26, 30 November 2009 (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.

More Locomotives[edit]

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: Speedy Rename per nom - WP:CSD#C2 No.4. --Xdamrtalk 14:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose for discussion:
Nominator's rationale: Found listed in Category:CfD 2009-10. Apparently intended to form part of the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_24#Category:Locomotives_of_Foo which, after relisting for more discussion , settled on the general form Locomotives of XXX. I suggest for your consideration renames which follow the general form recently established. (Which I suppose means that this can be closed as a Speedy No.4 in 48h time - barring objections)
Xdamrtalk 00:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "locomotives of X" is the better form. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and Xdamr, and per linked precedents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom; and my apologies for tagging them and omitting them to include in the big long list I submitted to CfD. Iain Bell (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2009 (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:Mutualism[edit]

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: Keep. --Xdamrtalk 19:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for further discussion from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_18#Category:Mutualism. --Xdamrtalk 23:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mutualism to Category:Mutualism (movement)
Nominator's rationale: In line with the article (to be created) and to not confuse it with Mutualism multichill (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the moment. I agree that something has to be done to move away from the biological term, but this seems premature as the related article does not yet exist, so the respective roles of the several possible categories are unclear. In particular, is Mutualism (movement) proposed to be distinct from Mutualism (economic theory)? Which name should ultimately contain historical and contemporary Proudhonist movements and which should contain historical insurers and contemporary LETS schemes etc? (Depending on proposed content, it may be better to avoid the "-ism (foo)" and opt for "-ist foos" in the article/category naming?) AllyD (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The parent article should be established first. This category collects together a group largely of weak and stub class articles that collectively with this category constitute original research. I have little doubt that this is a worthy subject, and a categorisable subject, but we need to building this encyclopedia starting with good sources first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not clear how Mutualism (movement) is different from Mutualism (economic theory). I don't know if there's a need for a mutualism category within the biology articles, but that would seem to be the crux of the issue. Perhaps there should be a definition and disambiguation at the top of the category's page for those looking for mutualism in biology. That said, Category:Mutualism is sparsely populated at this point and there seems to be a lot of overlap with Category:Cooperatives. I would be against moving the page to Category:Mutualism (movement) since there is no parent article and since I'm not sure how it would be different from the cooperative movement. Gobonobo T C 17:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to match category contents to those of the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite, the parent article is about the biological concept, while the articles in this category are economical. The most logical thing to do would be to rename to Category:Mutualism (economic movement), but apparently the economic theory may not be exactly the same as what is categorized here (?). In line with SmokeyJoe's reasoning, it may also be a good idea to just delete the whole thing. Ucucha 04:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Mutualism (economics), so that it can include mutualist thinkers as well as institutions, practices etc. Mutualism is an important concept in socio-economic theory, going back at least to Proudhon, and there are plenty of articles which could be categorised under this heading. It will probably need several sub-categories, e.g. one for institutions such as building societies, one for thinkers, one for practices such as barn-raising ... but those choices don't need to be made here. What matters at CFD is that we not should remove a whole school of socio-economic thought from the category system.
    Note that economic mutualism has close intellectual ties to biological mutualism, as set out in Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. So once this category has been renamed, I suggest creating a new Category:Mutualism as a parent for both. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, there is already a category for institutions such as building societies, Category:Mutual organizations. I think that cat is quite well defined and well maintained. Some of the articles here should really be there, so I will add them now before this cat gets deleted and forgotten. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Mutualism (social science). Many of the article that seem to belong here seem to be not about theory or movements, but about social and economic phenomena. Since economics is a branch of social science, I propose that we keep the name quite general. Though I think a general name would work best for readers, I would also support a rename to Mutualism (economics), Mutualism (movement) or Mutualism (economic theory). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Hroðulf, I think we are on a similar track, but I think that it is inappropriate to apply the label "social science" to articles such as Meitheal, Barn raising or Bayanihan. Those are not social science, which is the theoretical study of society; they are practices developed by communities in response to practical issues in their lives. However, that has prompted me to suggest what I think is a better overall solution, which I'll outline below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changing my !vote).This has been a useful discussion, but thinking again about it all I reckon that we are over-complicating matters, and it seems to me that there is a much simpler solution available if we dislodge biological mutualism from its inappropraite place as the primary topic:
  1. Rename the article Mutualism to Mutualism (biology), and if necessary create a Category:Mutualism (biology) for related articles. Create a disambiguation page at Mutualism.
  2. Subdivide Category:Mutualism with more sub-categories as needed, so that Category:Mutualism itself contains only the head articles on different forms of mutualism.
Sorted! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Influenced by your response above, I would be fine with this too. (As an aside, and in the spirit of simplicity, I think a disambiguation topnote would serve readers more quickly than a disambiguation page. If someone types in Mutualism, they likely want one of 2 things - Proudhonism or biological mutualism - mutuality, mutual organizations, and mutual aid, are easily found if they are needed.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A hatnote is fine for readers but it doesn't help with misplaced links. Creating a dab page at mutualism ensures that any links to mutualism get picked up the bots which work for WP:DPWL, and be easily fixed using popups. Without the dab page, that job is much more difficult. Plus, I see no reason to claim that biological mutualism is the primary usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All true. However Wikipedia main namespace is for readers, not for we editors. I don't really mind which of the two Mutualism articles ends up with the prime spot, but I don't like readers experiencing extra reading, clicking and downloading. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on hatnotes is academic really. I see now that Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_page_or_disambiguation_links? has changed to oppose my view. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages are a great help to readers, both directly and indirectly. They help directly, by providing a simple short page saying "you could be looking for one of two or more similarly-named things"; and they also provide a huge help indirectly, by facilitating the disambiguation which allows editors to ensure that links are directed to the intended article. The concept of a primary topic is greatly overused on wikipedia, and other publications such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography wisely avoid it altogether ... but if there isn't a clear primary topc, it makes no sense to arbitrarily select one or the other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and adjust the article naming as proposed by BHG. (As she says, it isn't clear which is the primary usage - and I note that the biological article has See-Also to Kropotkin, so perhaps all come together in a, dare I say it, mutualist way.) AllyD (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BHG's suggestion made at Talk:Mutualism#Move_article_to_Mutualism_.28biology.29. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_26&oldid=1144513973"