Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 27 December 29 >

December 28[edit]

Category:Athletics in Canada[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: merge to Category:Track and field in Canada.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Recently created WP:ENGVAR violation. It duplicates the previously created category Category:Track and field in Canada with a name that is too confusing, since "athletics" means all sports in Canadian English. University athletics departments cover all sports.[1][2][3][4] This category is therefore highly ambiguous, and not usable in the Canadian context, -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2012 (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:Puerto Rican athletes[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2013 (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:19th-century church buildings by denomination[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: merge into parent cat, keeping subcats in that cat. delldot ∇. 03:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This appears to be the only by century by denomination church building category. Upmerge to match all of the other categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This has 11 subcats, one of which has 256 articles. Particular denominations may have characteristics achitectural features. I suspect that there is a lot of work to be done in splitting the material in Category:19th-century church buildings by year and by denomination. The lack of equivalent categories for 17th 18th and 20th centuries is not reason for deletion. Since UK only allowed toleration of non-conforminsts in the late 1680s, and many other countries even later, a 17th century category might be rather slim. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But all of the other century categories already breakout the denominations. Is there really a need for this extra level of categorization? What does it do to assist navigation? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge while keeping the existing 11 denominational categories, so that (say) Category:19th-century Eastern Orthodox church buildings would be a direct subcategory of Category:19th-century church buildings without the intermediate “by country” category; this I think is the intended proposal (and would be as for other centuries). Hugo999 (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge this is an unneeded layer of categorization. The sub-cats should go directly in the parents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2013 (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:Nineteenth Century churches by decade[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: no consensus. delldot ∇. 03:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Across 2 millennium of church building categories, these are the only by decade categories. For buildings and structures, decades are not normally used since by century categories provide ample navigation. Also the parent category here has a spelling not used and does not follow the MoS. Normally this would be spelled 19th-century. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The nominator has a long-standing objection to by-decade categories, and it's a pity that he continues to pursue it in this piecemeal fashion, which leads to the same issues being argued repeatedly in multiple venues.
    By-decade categories serve two useful purposes: a) for categorising topics where the precise year is unknown; b) as a bridge with more general by-decade categories.
    If correctly organised, the by-decade categories provide no impediment to any method of navigation, so there is no reader benefit to offset the losses caused by their deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piecemeal? This is a badly spelled creation where the creator only created two subcategories and no one else saw the need to expand! How is deleting everything created piecemeal? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's piecemeal because you continue to pursue your campaign against by-decade categories through a long succession of nominations of small groups of such categories, rather than seeking a wider consensus for your goal of eliminating decade categories.
        If this set is incomplete, then WP:SOFIXIT rather than WP:DEMOLISHing it.
        If there is a misspelling, then just rename it at WP:CFD/S rather than WP:DEMOLISHing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:19th-century churches by year. The annual category that I checked is well populated, as is the parent, Category:19th-century church buildings, which has other subcats. My target cannot have more than 100 subcats, which can be adequately handled through a singel category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative target Category:19th-century religious buildings by year. We already have a tree with Category:Religious buildings completed in 1870 and other years. Perhaps we should merge the "church buildings" and "religious buildings" trees. Since most of the content is churches, it might be better to reverse merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2012 (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:Italian athletes[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: no consensus. This is nowhere near as clear as the North American-based ones above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Italian athletes to Category:Italian track and field athletes
  • Nominator's rationale As pointed out in the discussion of the Canadian category, in Italy the term athlete is used as a synonym for sportspeople. The current name of the category just leads to confusion, and the new name will make the matter much more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if delete this, delete all 228 of Category:Athletes by nationality. --Kasper2006 (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine by me. We should do that for almost all 228 of them. All of the non-English locality ones certainly. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think we should use "athletes" for competitors in athletics (track and field) when the word means that in the country in question. As far as I know, the only places where "athletes" doesn't specifically mean "competitors in athletics" is in the U.S. and its current dependencies, often in Canada, and possibly some former U.S. dependencies and colonies such as the F.S. Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau. In Italy, an athlete would mean a competitor in athletics, so I don't think there is a need to rename this one in isolation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could have Category:Italian athletes (track and field) instead, since Italy is a non-English locality, and highly ambiguous forms shouldn't be used for them if they're not local forms. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We could, but I would hesitate to do it to this one category in isolation of all the other categories for non-English-speaking places. Why pick only one out for change? If users are committing to nominate them all in the future, that's a different story. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I agree that Italians do not speak English, but nor are they Americans. Unless someone can provide evidcne that the equivalent Italian word has the same context as US usage, we should follow British usage. For exmaple they will take part in European competitions, which will be reproted in UK but probbaly not (or less) in US. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why in the world should British usage take precedent over American uage? That seems to bias the whole project towards being British. The fact that this usage as such confuses Americans should be taken into consideration.
  • New Proposal On thinking more about this I think we should rename it to Category:Italian athletes (track and field). As I said before this was a direct response to a claim on the Candian discussion. I am not sure what the best view is. What I am sure of is that accepting the British usage as standard and treating the American usage as wrong seems an unacceptable act of bias that violates the goal of having wikipedia not be written in a specific national dialect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me. I also second the sentiment that we should not just use British English for ambiguous terms just because is a few hundred miles from Britain. Ambiguous terms should not be used unless it is the local ENGVAR usage, since Italy doesn't have an ENGVAR, it should use unambiguous terminology to all varieties of English. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, after doing this you will have to do these Category:Australian athletes, Category:Austrian athletes, Category:Afghan athletes, Category:Albanian athletes, Category:Algerian athletes, Category:American Samoan athletes, Category:Andorran athletes, Category:Angolan athletes, Category:Anguillan athletes, Category:Antigua and Barbuda athletes, Category:Argentine athletes, Category:Armenian athletes, Category:Aruban athletes, Category:Azerbaijani athletes, Category:Belgian athletes, Category:Brazilian athletes, Category:Bulgarian athletes, Category:Bahamian athletes, Category:Bahraini athletes, Category:Bangladeshi athletes, Category:Barbadian athletes, Category:Belarusian athletes, Category:Belizean athletes, Category:Beninese athletes and other 200. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"American Samoan athletes" has already been nominated.
No, "Australian athletes" (and some of the others you listed) fall under ENGVAR consideration, so would have to be done separate from any non-English locality. All English-speaking/using localities need separate nominations to deal with ENGVAR, which is something you should have considered when you made a hash of American and Canadian categories. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*New Proposal Rename it to Category:Italian athletes (track and field, road and cross country running events). So it would be correct (but perhaps too long). Seriously, it would not be better to leave things as they are for all 226 countries. Do you want to make an exception for Canada and the USA, have it (although for me it is a non-sense), but what's the change today, the "status quo"? --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC) --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Then you should read WP:ENGVAR if it makes no sense to you.You shouldn't use ambiguous names for categories. So no, it is not "better" to leave it as is, it is in fact bad. Ambiguous names will collect stuff that don't belong. So are you going to patrol these categories and check for membership requirements for all 200+ categories to make sure random sportspeople don't get dumped into them by people who use "athlete" synonoymously with "sportsperson"? And patrol it in perpetuity (if it remains this way) ? -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:Italian athletes (track and field), for reasons given. Mayumashu (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2013 (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:Landforms of Queens County, New York[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge/upmerge No other borough has a "landforms" category and as stated below, Queens County, New York is but a redirect to Queens. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2012 (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:Geography of Queens County, New York[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: no consensus. Category:Geography of Queens was not nominated here, and fits in an established tree of geography categories for the boroughs.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge Queens County, New York is a redirect to Queens and this category is therefore a duplicate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2012 (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.

Football clubs in European football[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, but rename all "in Europe" categories to "in European football" per the parent category and the attendant articles. "Competitions" may or may not be too limiting, but the intent here is valid. The construction "in Europe" is wildly confusing for a country like Israel, so the best result is to eliminate the confusion. If anyone has a strong objection to this change, we can hash it out here in another nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ukrainian football clubs in European football[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Standardisation of categories in Category:Football clubs in European football. C679 15:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standardisation of categories in Category:Football clubs in European football. C679 15:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Israeli football clubs in European football[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Standardisation of categories in Category:Football clubs in European football. C679 15:45, 28 December 2012 (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:Oranje-Vrijstaat Gouwermentspoorwegen 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For some reason the "Move" option refuses to display today, so I went ahead and created a new category, in English instead of Dutch (and a little shorter). Similarly, the "Nominate for deletion" option is also AWOL, hence I'm doing it the hard way here. I created the Dutch category yesterday, but having slept on it, I realised that the Dutch title is not appropriate on the English Wikipedia.
André Kritzinger 14:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
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:Nederlandsche-Zuid-Afrikaansche Spoorwegmaatschappij 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For some reason the "Move" option refuses to display today, so I went ahead and created a new category, in English instead of Dutch (and a LOT shorter). Similarly, the "Nominate for deletion" option is also AWOL, hence I'm doing it the hard way here. I created the Dutch category yesterday, but having slept on it, I realised that the Dutch title is not appropriate on the English Wikipedia.
André Kritzinger 14:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
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.

Communities in Vojvodina with sizable ethnic minorities[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are strangely named categories, with the criteria set out in the category name itself. Setting the cut-off at 5% is somewhat arbitrary. I'm not sure if these can be otherwise renamed to fit in with some sort of broader categorization scheme of categorizing populated places by ethnic minorities. My first impulse would be to have these be listified instead; but perhaps this is defining for the places so categorized? Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Choosing a random province and then listing communities with minority populations seems WP:OCAT to me, and I wouldn't even listify. It just doesn't really have encyclopedic value. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, to be fair, Vojvodina is one of the most ethnically diverse parts of Europe, so I wouldn't suspect that it was chosen randomly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify since with the 5% cut off, you could have a place that would fit into all the categories. The lists would be useful, but the categories would be excessive. This is especially so since population is not fixed, although flux over time might not be that big in Vojvodina.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as arbitrary, and probably not navigationally useful. Anything that need sto be said can probably be said in articles like Montenegrins of Vojvodina. --Qetuth (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete arbitrary and hence subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Again, there's no objective definition of the category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2012 (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:New Zealand pediatricians[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In New Zealand, paediatrics/paediatrician is usually spelled in the UK English way. See, eg, [5], [6]. If renamed, a category redirect would be appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2012 (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:Suicides at MIT[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: upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category:Suicides in the United States generally breaks down by state, but it hasn't been taken much further than that. Category:Suicides in Cambridge, Massachusetts is a possibility, but narrowing it down to the MIT campus seems to me to be a step too granular. I suggest upmerging to Category:Suicides in Massachusetts, which is not so large that breaking it down further by city or other location would be warranted at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge the big problem with this plan besides only having two articles is that as a by place category it will be limited to people who killed themselves on MIT campus, which would exclude MIT studients who committed suiciede not on campus, which would possibly be an odd split.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2012 (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:People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent[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. I have ignored ad hominem arguments and arguments from contributors with no edits except to this discussion. A large portion of contributors feel that this is not strictly a religious categorization and is thus an ok way to categorize. I'm surprised that there's not discussion of the "British and Canadian citizen" category, which seems clearly problematic to me, but I can't say I see consensus here to do anything about it. Perhaps splitting and changing the "citizen" to plural could be dealt with in a separate discussion? delldot ∇. 04:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete? Not sure what to do with these ... we generally don't have categories for people by descent from a particular religious group, though I can understand that this particular one might be considered more of an ethnicity? If kept, perhaps a more succinct name could perhaps be found? The British/Canadian one obviously shouldn't keep Canadian and British people grouped together, since doing so is non-standard in categories. If the first category is kept, the British/Canadian one can be upmerged to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned earlier, to avoid any risk of polemics/confusion for lay readers, this category could be renamed « People of Levantine Greek Orthodox descent» = simply removing the word « Christian »... --B.Andersohn (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It is a consequence of the way the millet system worked in the Ottoman Empire (and perhaps mutual excommunication in the late antique period that Christian denominations in the Middle East became endogamous communities and thus quasi-ethnic. The same will apply to Armenian, Maronite, Assyrian and other eastern Christian denominations. We might drop the word "Christian" from this ethnic description. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete triple intersection: citizenship, ethnicity and religion; OCAT to the max. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Clearly Carlossuarez46 has no clue when it comes to Ottoman history and early 20th century immigration patterns to the United States ! « triple intersection » ?? I agree with Peterkingiron : this is a classic « formerly Ottoman » ethnoreligious group- just like e.g. Armenians, Assyrians or Alawis…. etc.
  • A more complete & more « academic » designation could have been : e.g. « People of Greek Orthodox (pertaining to Antiochite and Jerusalemite Patriarchal tradition) and Melkite Greek Catholic descent » but it’s far too long…. And the « Melkite » MENA Greek Catholic Church is itself an offshhot of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch… Levantine is clearly more elegant + more succinct & geographically clearer
  • Bottom Line : I suggest we keep it unchanged Or, if need be, replace it with « People of Levantine Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic descent» = adding just « Greek Catholic » + removing « Christian » --B.Andersohn (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have no clue and no manners, dude. These descent categories observe the one drop rule at WP, for better or for worse. There is no reason that someone who - way back when - had some ancestor (prove it - mothers' side only, since parentage on the father's side is ultimately speculation) who was a "Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent" has anything really in common with anyone else so "descended". So someone of Greek Orthodox is different than other Christian living side by side, but is it defining especially when we're not talking about the person's beliefs, but the alleged beliefs of his or her ancestor? C'mon, that's trivial overcategorization. And Greek Orthodox people from the Levant are different than anywhere else in the Greek diaspora, another really odd thing when we're talking about someone'e ancestors. It's trivial and you WP:ILIKEIT too much to see clearly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Dude”: You seem to be quite confused… This category has nothing to do with “religion” (as in “religious credence”) or “theology”: as mentioned by most qualified WP participants in this debate, this is first and foremost an ethno-cultural phenomenon re: the descent from a particular ethno-religious minority- well documented + patrilineal for all members of the category in question. Unfortunately, I’m fairly busy and thus won’t have the required time necessary to correct (where can I start?) your ABYSMAL IGNORANCE of BYZANTINE demographics (focusing specifically on the HATAY province of Southern TURKEY, SYRIA, LEBANON and their subtle palette of ETHNO-CULTURAL minorities), TURKISH-OTTOMAN MILLET LAWS and regulation, US IMMIGRATION PATTERNS at the turn of the 20th century (when the aforementioned provinces/countries were still part of the Ottoman empire) … etc….- not to mention syntax and courtesy. But, then again, you have been clearly out-voted by a rational WP consensus formed in favor of keeping the category in question: “I hold firmly to my original views. After all I am a free thinker.” said François-Marie Arouet. Have a nice day, --B.Andersohn (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned earlier, to avoid any risk of polemics/confusion for lay readers, this category could be renamed « People of Levantine Greek Orthodox descent» = simply removing the word « Christian »... --B.Andersohn (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing showing that mere descent from this group makes any difference TODAY from any other group similarly situated. Your striking your own strawman proves you cannot come up with one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we generally avoid designating people by religious descent. The fact is that many of these people are Eastern Christians of some kind and can be so designated. On the other hand if they are not part of any of the involved Christian denominations, it does not really make sense to categorize them by this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has nothing to do with "religion": it's an ethnoreligious group with roots in the Eastern Mediterranean... 'People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent' is perfectly fine. 'People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox descent' is also good. --M McLuhan (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I second M McLuhan! This ethno-religious group consists of Antiochian Christians as well as Lebanese,Syriac Orthodox ie. (Orthodox Christians of Arabic descent) who have nothing to do with ethnic Greeks, although these people refer to themselves as 'Greek Orthodox' due to the classification made by Ottomans in history. See= Rum Millet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BBm Evangelidis (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Because the Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian where historically a sub-nation (Millet) into the Ottoman Empire with for example a own Civil Law. Thus this category is not only based on religion, but also on national and cultural identity. A ntv (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I was asked to participate with the assumption that I was knowledgeable about these categories. In reality, I'm not much, but I was persuaded by the argumentation presented here: there is a pretty clearly-defined people group, so it seems worthwhile to have these. Does anyone have other CfDs that were comparable? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's nothing wrong with keeping these categories. George Al-Shami (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Category has to be "People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent" with Christian inside, which is particularly important since the group is formed as a Christian group with Eastern/Greek Orthodox branch of Christianity. Moreover, Greek Orthodox Christian does not imply to be of Greek ethnic descent. For example, Russians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians (Bulgaria and Greece are even neighbours) are all Greek Orthodox Christians but are clearly not ethnic Greeks. The Category has to be separated into "British people of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent" and "Canadian people of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent". Leerssways (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC) — Leerssways (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • You are using "Greek Orthodox" in a slightly odd way. I am pretty sure most Bulgarian would object to being classed as "Greek Orthodox". The Russians I am not sure it would ever work. The Bulgarians might have sort of worked 150 years ago, but with the creation of new patriarchs would not work at present. I think you have confused Greek Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox, which is generally not done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm… The last two commenters don’t seem to be experts in the field of Byzantine history and social anthropology! John Pack Lambert and Leerssways are actually both “wrong” here: but the point they argue about is a digression of sorts i.e. it’s not directly related to the category at hand = “People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox [Christian] descent”… but since that side-discussion was started, I will join and (try to) clarify succinctly: Most Bulgarians (a ‘Slavized’ Turkic group) and Serbians (a Southern Slavic ethnic group) are “Greek Orthodox Christians” = they belong to “Koine-Greek Orthodoxy”. Russians (an Eastern Slavic group), Ukrainians (also an Eastern Slavic group) and Romanians (a Romance/Latin ethnic group) are all “Russian Orthodox” Christian = they belong to “Slavonic Orthodoxy” …. “Koine-Greek Orthodoxy” and “Slavonic Orthodoxy” are the two main components of “Eastern Orthodoxy”- …. “Eastern” as opposed to “Oriental” e.g. Armenians (an Indo-European nation) and Ethiopians (clearly an African country) are both categorized as “Oriental Christians”…. etc… This early medieval terminology can be very hermetic to the 21st century layman- hence expressions such as “Byzantine subtleties”! ;) But, to come back to the real issue at hand: “People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent” refers to a fairly homogeneous & patrilineally delimitated ethnoreligious group with longstanding roots in the Eastern Mediterranean ('Antiochite and Jerusalemite “Melkite” Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic Christians of mixed Greco-Semitic and stock' to use a v. technical + v. long formulation)... As mentioned earlier, “People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox descent” is perfectly fine, as the Melkite “Greek Catholic” community is itself an offshoot of the original Antiochite and Jerusalemite “Melkite” Greek Orthodox community. --B.Andersohn (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, you are perpeturating an outdated verison of facts. With the national awakenings of the 19th-century, both the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church have cast off their Greek past. The article Greek Orthodox Church makes it pretty clear that only in Albania does in Eastern Europe does it work to refer to people outside of Greece as Greek Orthodox. The Middle East is an entriely different issue, but it would not be acceptable to refer to Serbians and Bulgarians as being "Greek Orthodox".John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • “Actually” you’re kind of confusing two distinct phenomena (that, ideally, should always be distinguished in a learned world where words have nuanced meanings): liturgical/linguistic sacerdotal tradition (it’s either Koine Greek or Slavonic/Old Russian- by definition, it can’t be “Bulgarian” or “Georgian” or Klingon!) and patriarchal autocephaly (or “national” auto-determination and self-governance)... This being said, you have a point: hypertrophied autocephaly and narrowly defined nationalism in Belgrade, Sofia, … etc. means that strict/traditional categorizations aren’t as “evident” for all those concerned… But as mentioned earlier, this is a digression... But I’m glad to see you that you (seem to) recognize that “Greek Orthodoxy” in the Antiochite and Jerusalemite MENA/“Rûm” context constitutes a particular ethno-cultural case: hope that means you’re finally reconciled with the WP category you wanted to delete! --B.Andersohn (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I still think this is a horrible way and an unrealitic way to categorize people. I do not think there is a good reason to categorize people by "religious ancestry".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • As mentioned repeatedly, this category has nothing to do with “religion” (as in “religious credence”) or “theology”: as argued by most qualified (as opposed to Boeotians to use a Koine word!) WP participants in this debate, this is first and foremost an ethno-cultural phenomenon re: the descent from a particular ethno-religious minority- well documented + patrilineal for all members of the category in question. As Professor Jean Buridan of the Sorbonne famously said, it’s quite difficult to argue with those who have closed their minds to logic! --B.Andersohn (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2013 (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:Mentally ill monarchs[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure what the criteria are for this category, but some of the monarchs who are included lived quite a long time ago, and it's probaably impossible to know whether certain monarchs who are included were mentally ill or not. Historians and doctors often make educated guesses about these sorts of things, but I don't think that means we should be categorizing by such guesses. There is no broader Category:Mentally ill people, either, since that is such a broad and blunt classification. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely to be defining, because most people have some form of mental illness at some stage in their lives. And as the nominator points out, applying such diagnoses historically is a matter of guesswork. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename To something less clumsy (maybe Category:Monarchs afflicted with mental illnesses or Category:Monarchs who suffered with mental illness. Saying it is "unlikely to be defining" is nonsense. WP:DEFINING states "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". Virtually all the articles in the category mention mental illness in the lead of those articles (Hantili I and Justin II being the exceptions). Infact, it's very defining in most cases, esp. George III (ever seen this film?) Most people have mental illness at some stage in their lives? Really? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For many of these persons—how do we know it was mental illness and not, for example, some environmental cause like a parasite or ingestion of poison, and so forth? Or even, for example, a brain tumour or something like that? Aren't we essentially categorzing "monarchs that someone in modern times has suspected had a mental illness"? I don't see how we do the category without it being either wholly based on speculation of others and/or based on our own original research. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a defining characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a defining characteristic. Plus mental illness is already difficult to diagnose when the subject is alive and sitting in front of you. For a psychiatrist or psychologist to diagnose and then define historical characters from diverse cultures based on written accounts, usually biased, is next to impossible (and I doubt that most reliably sourced claims of mental illness are based on a professional diagnosis). First Light (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mental illness is a continuum and hard to find whether all points on the continuum are defining for anyone? If someone (here, a monarch) has arachnophobia - a mental illness perhaps - does that mean anything defining? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have Category:People by medical or psychological condition and mental illness is probably equally or more defining than quite a few of its subcategories. Deleting this category would mean for example that George III of the United Kingdom could not be navigated to by way of mental illness through the category system, which I would find quite a surprising omission. Rename to Category:People with mental and behavioural disorders (per Category:Mental and behavioural disorders). Tim! (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Category:Monarchs with mental disorders, I would prefer to leave behavioural disorders out of this. There have been a number of "mad" monarch in European history. Since some were actually ruling, rather than mere constitutional monarchs, with was politically very significant. Examples inlcude George III of the United Kingdom, Henry VI of England, and a 15th century king of France. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How would we even prove this to be the case for a professional diagnosis? Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I made this category and I agree with Peterkingiron. If we have category in which are put names of homosexual kings and lesbian ladies, then why should not we have category for mentally ill persons? At least, let Wikipedia serve us to remove the discrimination from all aspects of everyday life and from history.--Miha (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—I see that we have a List of mentally ill monarchs, which at least has some RS backing up putting the members on the list. And, while categories and lists can co-exist where it is appropriate for them to do so, in this case the category contents are (currently) just a subset of the list. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2013 (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.

Speedy rename plant genera[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. In the absence of clear agreement, the article name should serve as a guide.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Despite the comment at WP:CFDS, these look like speediable changes to me. If the applicable main articles are moved at any point, then the category names by all means could also be changed to match. I don't see an exception to C2D having to be made here—we normally just match the category names to the article names as they exist and then the category name is changed as the article name changes. But plans to possibly change some of the article names in the future should not hold up implementation of the convention right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • 'Strong support clearly these are not the primary topic of their respective names. -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't see how "piper" or "Iris" was ever created at those locations, unless one were to wear blinders. And others such as orania clearly have other lifeforms with the same name -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Category:Piper and 9 of the other categories nominated above were created by User:Polbot, which was a bot that created hundreds of taxonomy categories back in 2007. In the past year I have nominated (for renaming) literally dozens of ambiguously named categories created by this bot. Some of its creations are truly bad. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per nominator. The categories should their respective main articles. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose some, support others. Just matching the category to a poorly disambiguated article isn't worthwhile since we'll just have to move the category once more when the page gets moved to the proper title. Why not fix all the problems first? (genus) is a poor disambiguator, some will indeed be the primary topic and need to be moved back. Also, I fail to see how the language in Wikipedia:Categorization#Topic category indicates that we must move these categories in line with the article title. All I see is "usually sharing a name..." - not a mandate if I ever heard one. My view of this is simple: if no other topic from the disambiguation page has a category that could be titled the same, there's no need to disambiguate the category. Why must the category and article be titled the same if there's no other competing category? The guideline doesn't say "always" or "should" or "must" but "usually" and that's precisely the case. When Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#C2D was constructed it didn't allow for exceptions and operates under the assumption that the guideline language reads as a mandate to have all categories match their topic article titles and that's something that should change for the occasional exceptions. Regardless, I argue for getting the appropriate pages disambiguated properly first (away from (genus) or (orchid) or (palm) to (plant)) and resolve at least the one primary topic discussion I thought should happen first on Iris, then discuss the moves so that we don't have to twice as much work on the categories. Makes more sense that way to me, at least. Rkitko (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do it this way? Because users always say they will "fix" all the problems, and one of two things often happens: (1) once they have blocked the category renames, they don't bother, or they forget, or whatever. The changes are never proposed. OR (2) they find that the "fixes" are not as clear-cut as they imagined, and they are unsuccessful in getting the changes made that they envisaged. Other users reject their reasoning and the changes are not made, leaving us exactly where we were in the first place. (For instance, it is far from obvious that your opinion that "(genus)" is "a poor disambiguator" would be be supported by a broad consensus.) That's why it's easier to do it this way. Match the category names to the article names. If users want to attempt to change the article names—go for it. If you are successful, the category names can be speedily renamed to match the article name changes that you were able to implement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The categories should indeed match their respective main articles. (The speedies should have gone through, speedily. Anyone who wants to change the article names should go through the usual options, and subsequent corresponding category name changes would again be speedies.) Oculi (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for Attalea. Although the main article is a dab page, the other article linked from the dab page (Antalya) doesn't even use that spelling - it uses Attalea and Attalia, but not Attalea. Granted, the dab page only exists because I was cautious when I created the article about the genus. But the issue of where the article about the genus actually resides, I see no need to create Category:Attalea (palm) when there's no reasonable expectation that anyone would ever create a category for a orthographic variant of a name no one appears to actually be using. Guettarda (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for Maranta. Although Maranta is also used as a surname (and is the name of a minor Dragonlance character), the genus is clearly the major use, and probably the only use for which we could reasonably have a category at present. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for Zea. The most widely grown crop plant in the world is clearly the dominant use and, again, is the only one we're likely to have a category for at present. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for Sequoia; again, this is the primary use. Things listed on the dab page named Sequoia (as opposed to Sequoyah, which is also included) are named after the tree. With this spelling, it's clearly the dominant use, and again, it's the only one like to have a category. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any case where no other category by this name exists. We don't make article - or category - names any longer than they need to be. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The cats should match the articles. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose Where a genus is large enough to have a category to itself (not all are), there will be many species articles placed in the category. Narcissus tazetta is part of the genus Narcissus not the genus Narcissus (plant). None of the other uses of "Narcissus" are likely to create categories with as many entries. There is no reason why the article and the category have to have precisely the same names. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blanket renaming. The "Georgia" example used above isn't helpful, because there are numerous other "Georgia" categories, including "Georgia (country)". There isn't one single category that starts "Narcissus...", for example, except for the Genus. If in future, "Narcissus" becomes the name of a U.S. state or a nation with categories, then it could be reconsidered. "Sequoia" is another that I would specifically oppose—because there is so little room for confusing the genus category with the Cherokee Sequoyah or with the few place names—along with Zea, Maranta, and probably others. First Light (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your opinion above goes directly against years of consensus w.r.t. naming categories! That's why the speedy criteria exists. Why do users think they can come along and adjust the conventions to their liking on an isolated set of categories rather than seeking to change the underlying conventions? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like Rkitko above, I'm failing to find where in the conventions it says that the category must be exactly the same as the article title. Common sense makes it obvious that some of these genus names, as categories, will not confuse the readers. Certainly we should give them some credit for intelligence. First Light (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course it doesn't say must—hardly anything in WP does because it's all subject to consensus. But the guideline states: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article." Normally suggests that you need a good reason not to conform to that convention. A good reason would be, for instance, not using Category:Tours for the city in France named Tours, since a category named in that way could be confused with music tours, etc. I haven't seen anyone present a good non-subjective reason not the conform to the guideline. One of the reasons that guideline exists is so that we don't have to debate "disambiguate the category or no?" for each and every case in which we have a disambiguated article that has a corresponding topic category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is a good reason. Organisms are classified in a hierarchy which at present matches the category hierarchy, which aids navigation. If the genus Narcissus is part of the subfamily Amaryllidoideae, then Category:Narcissus should be in Category:Amaryllidoideae, not Category:Narcissus (genus) or whatever. Peter coxhead (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • What hierarchy? Orania is also an animal, so why does the plant get priority? -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also Phoebe is both a plant and animal genus. And Calamus, Gaussia, Arachnis, Eucharis, Hypolepis. Your principal of genera taking undisambiguated names simply does not work, since these are all animal genera, yet you state that the plant genera should remain where they are. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wasn't saying, and don't say, that plants have priority or that no category needs renaming. We are considering a request for a speedy rename on the grounds that the category names don't match article names. I strongly oppose the blanket view that the names must match. Each case needs to be considered on its merits. Clearly where there are animal and plant genera of the same name, then at least one of the categories has to be disambiguated and neither plants nor animals should have priority over one another. However, I think there is a case for organisms using the non-disambiguated name if the other topics involved are inanimate. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you strongly disagree with the current convention, it suggests that you could make strong efforts elsewhere to change the convention rather than simply opposing its implementation in isolated cases of application. I disagree that the reason you have provided is a "good reason". In this case, it creates differences in naming between article and category, which is confusing and unhelpful to those who come at the scheme cold. You are proposing a system of naming that is completely new, highly subjective, and for those reasons, I think, has not been implemented elsewhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename these to match the articles now, and if the articles get moved, they can be speedy renamed later. Experience says Good Ol'factory is right on the mark with his comment that leaving the categories alone because the articles might be renamed later will as often or not remain for months/years as an unfinished job. Most of these, the article clearly does not belong at the disambiguated title, so the real argument is to delay in case we say move from (genus) to (plant) or something similar. IMO there may be occasional reason to disambiguate a category when the article is not, but there is NO good reason to do the reverse, and have undisambiguated categories for a disambiguated article. --Qetuth (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good reason. For plants and animals, the category hierarchy matches the classification hierarchy. Category:Narcissus belongs to Category:Amaryllidoideae and so on upwards, just as the genus Narcissus is in the subfamily Amaryllidoideae and so on upwards. None of the other disambiguated articles are involved in a comparable classification hierarchy. Peter coxhead (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not true: Check Orania for the first example I found. Anyway, all you are saying is that plant classification heirarchy should take precedence over everything else, including animal classification heirarchy, not to mention long-standing convention. I've still yet to see an actual reason why. --Qetuth (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply opposed to the view that category names must match article names. There are good reasons to try to use non-disambiguated category names for the scientific names of organisms (plants have no priority over others, I just happened to use a plant exampe). All I'm trying to argue is that there should be no blanket decision; each case should be considered on its merits, and where the name of one of the topics needing disambiguation is the scientific name of an organism, there are rational reasons not to disambiguate the category. Whether these should prevail should be decided case-by-case. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are these good reasons? I have just reread this entire argument and the only reason I see is that eg the name of the genus is 'Narcissus', not 'Narcissus (genus)' - an argument which could apply to ANY disambiguated title - there has not, after all, been a film called 'Narcissus (1983 film)' nor a mythological figure called 'Narcissus (mythology)'. The reasons to disambiguate categories, on the other hand, include so that a category is where editors expect it to be based on the article name, and so that a category doesn't collect inappropriate articles and require excess maintenance. These have a history of being seen as valuable reasons by the wider community. (It also, incidentally, helps prevent incorrect use of tags like {{Cat main}} which I notice most of these categories currently have). Another major reason to have such a wide convention is to save having to have the exact same argument over thousands of categories - ie, after it is decided there is no primary topic for articles, ask is there a primary topic for categories. The answer to this, in many cases, will change over time, so we are unneccesarily creating work, for what gain? --Qetuth (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are, for example, some 250-300 species of Iris. WP:PLANTS aims to have articles on every species. When someone writes an article on, say, Iris suaveolens, they would naturally expect to use [[Category:Iris|suaveolens]]. Requiring them instead to use [[Category:Iris (plant)|suaveolens]] makes extra work and increases the chances of errors. All I say is that cases should be decided on their merits. If a genus has few species and another meaning is likely to have more entries into its category, then do it one way. But if a genus has many species and none of the other disambiguated categories is likely to acquire many entries in its category, then do it the other way. I'm against a blanket ban and in favour of deciding each case on its merits. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused as to User:Peter coxhead's argument. Above, it sounded like he supported the convention but was arguing that there was a "good reason" to depart from the usual practice of matching category name to article name. Now here, it sounds like he is against the convention and in favour of deciding each individual case at CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose; unless the category name needs disambiguation (which is a separate issue from the article name, since not all articles spawn categories nor vice-versa), it shouldn't be renamed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have reconsidered this, and decided that pre-emptive disambiguation of a category serves a purpose when the article name is already disambiguated, but I'd rather see this encompassed in a guideline rather than handled on an ad hoc basis.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the category is not disambiguated, then it is by default containing anything that is available from the disambiguation page. Especially with mythological figures found here, such as Iris (mythology) and Phoebe (mythology), etc. so will end up with all the related mythology concerning these. And with "piper", that's a bird, and a profession, and a musician type, so will end up with plumbers, pipemakers, bagpipers, flautists, etc. Some of these are personal names and family names, so are equally eligible to collect all people with that name. Show the priority given to these plants over others. Such as orania being an animal, so you would expect that the animals should get priority over plants. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The moment any of those things happen, the category name must be disambiguated. But a blanket preventive request seems premature.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That just creates maintenance headaches, hence why generally, categories have been disambiguated, at the very least, by the disambiguated term on the articles, if not with more disambiguation, since categories are not articles. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the category names should match the articles names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's highly unlikely that Iris (plant) will be moved, so the category shouldn't either. Hot Stop (Talk) 06:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? The category is at Category:Iris, not Category:Iris (plant), because the anatomy of the animal eye is more likely. Clearly this means that the category should be used for animal eyes, not the plant. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't "clearly" mean that at all. How large is the category for animal irises likely to be? Very small compared to the category for the the plant genus Iris. This is a good reason to keep Category:Iris for the plant. Whether it's a good enough reason can be discussed on the category talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Size does not make a category take the undisambiguated form. We have many instances where categories with more contents are not at the plain form. WP:ASTONISHment ; the discussion seemingly indicative that the animal eye structure is a better primary at Talk:Iris (plant) yet here we're saying that more articles automatically makes things take the undisambiguated form. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming Category:Iris. There's a genus of praying mantis by that name. I just recently removed one from the Category page for the plant genus. Uporządnicki (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The discussion on the proposed move of Iris (plant) to Iris was closed: the article was not moved. See Talk:Iris_(plant)#Requested_move. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2013 (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/2012_December_28&oldid=1090390793"