Category:Universities of Science and Technology in Bangladesh[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.
Agree - with the renaming proposals. - Rahat| Message 04:18, 4 November 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.
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. If the contents of the category does not grow in the future, a re-nomination may be appropriate. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category has only two articles per WP:SMALLCAT. The rest of other Edmundston related categories are good nothing to bite at. This category Category:Culture of Edmundston that I am worried about. For an example, On the Roman Catholic Diocese of Edmundston article, It's just an organization. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Edmundston article should put Category:Organizations based in New Brunswick and the city's category that's Category:Edmundston, No need to add the Category:Culture of Edmundston category, that is way too specific. The two articles are only Baryon and Foire Brayonne are not enough in this one small category per WP:SMALLCAT. It should be deleted and split into two categories Category:Culture of New Brunswick and Category:Edmundston in order to be solved. Steam5 (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creators rationale:Keep. This category in no way falls in the definition of WP:SMALLCAT in my opinion as here is the definition and I quote . "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country. Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time. The last section by definition allows for small categories that have potential growth. This is a city in Canada. I highly believe that this category will grow especially since it only was created a few weeks ago will grow as we discover other events, religious buildings, and other articles that will fall into this category as "Culture in" is a common category in other cities around the world. The fact that it only has 2 or 3 articles currently as defined above has no bearing to the WP:SMALLCAT per above.12:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Edmundston is a small city with a population of just 16,000, and cities of that size very rarely have enough related articles on Wikipedia to justify as many "Thing of city" subcategories as major cities with between 10 and 500 times Edmundston's population might have. There is no blanket rule on Wikipedia that all cities automatically get "Culture of City" subcategories regardless of the category's actual size; rather, I've spotchecked about 20 random North American cities in the 10-20K population range, and none of them have "Culture of City" subcategories (some, in fact, don't even have eponymous "City" categories at all.) So this isn't an "overall accepted subcategorization scheme", and the mere fact that it is a city is not in and of itself a good reason to create every category for Edmundston that Toronto or New York City or London or Tokyo have — dedicated "culture of city" categories live or die on how many articles can actually be added to them, and are not a thing that all cities automatically get just because they exist.
Which means that the only real question here is about the category's prospect for growth — but you need to be able to provide evidence that the prospect for growth is real, not just theoretical. You need to be able to provide evidence that there are things that could be added to the category and just don't have articles yet; it is not enough to argue that maybe there might be other discoverable things out there. (And religious buildings, by the way, would go in Category:Buildings and structures in Edmundston rather than Category:Culture of Edmundston anyway.)
So in the absence of a real, documented prospect for growth, a category like this shouldn't be created until we have at least four or five articles that can be added to it right off the bat. Upmerge per nominator; no prejudice against future recreation if and when a few more relevant articles actually exist.Keep per Hogie's provision below of other potential article topics. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good points Bearcat I will look for more articles to add to this area. I think the thing that really got me was the fact that it was originally sent to be deleted without any discussion. I understand that not every sections need to be categorized, but I guess I am trying to understand where to draw the line? I mean Looking in the Category:Media in Edmundston Category:Media in Edmundston which you bearcat created only has 2 articles also. Should that be deleted also? Not that I want to, but I thought that wikipedia is suppose to allow for expansion and Creativity with reliable sources and categories. I just don't see the point in deleting work that people worked to create where it really makes no sense to delete it when it falls into wikipedia standards and policies, not to mention makes sense? But good points Bearcat, I will continue to look for articles to add to this category. Here are some other articles that would be added here in the future once created, Du Reel au Miniture, Fortin du P'tit Sault Block house and Madawaska Historical Museum, from List of Museums in New Brunswick, also several events that could and probably will be created from http://edmundston.ca/en/notre-ville/evenements-majeurs perhaps, I guess the bottom line this category has potential for at least 10 articles in the future. Hogie75 15:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Re: Category:Media in Edmundston, just for the record, there are different size standards in different situations. The fact that a category with just two or three entries might be valid and useful in one part of a tree doesn't mean it's necessarily valid or useful in another — and I'm also quite sure that there used to be at least one other entry in the category (a newspaper maybe?) which maybe got deleted later on, and I wouldn't actually object to the category's upmerging now if somebody felt strongly enough about it to nominate it. But there's no blanket minimum size requirement that applies across the board to all categories — there are some situations where even a one-item category is appropriate and acceptable, and others where you need a lot more than one to start. It all depends on the context.
But thanks for those examples, by the way; they are indeed pushing me much closer to switching to a keep. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome Bearcat, also to note that in the Sites and attractions on http://edmundston.ca/en/notre-ville/sites-et-attractions and Heritage and Culture sections also store a lot of potential for this category. Not to mention several historical churches not mentioned also.
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:Wikipedia categories named after separation barriers[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. Wizardman 05:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per many long discussions on the talk page in April 2013, removed was a great deal of WP:OR material in Separation barrier renaming everything from the Great Wall of China to the Berlin Wall to fences between game reserves in Africa as "separation barriers". There were no references supporting such uses for most of the entries. Reliable sources overwhelmingly apply this phrase to Israeli separation barriers; the other uses currently listed and referenced by WP:RS are trivial. This category was formed in April 2012 before this discussion. It's very meaning is unclear to me. It should be deleted. User:Carolmooredctalk 04:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and also because the entire "Categories named after Foos" structure is silly. If you have a bunch of categories named after Foos, then put them in Category:Foos. There's no Earthly need for a parallel Category:Categories named after Foos on top of that. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per all above arguments. "Separation barrier" is a dubious euphemism to begin with but "categories named after" is the apotheosis of shared names miscategorization. Seyasirt (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that applies when there is only one category in there now that WP:RS show belong under this (as opposed to the rest of the categories whose articles do not mention the term.) And that one relevant category already is in Category:Separation barriers. User:Carolmooredctalk 20:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that, but to clarify my comment - I was responding to the 2 delete !votes which say things like "the entire "Categories named after Foos" structure is silly". DexDor (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a logical subcategory of Category:Separation barriers. If the nominator has a problem with this terminology, they should nominate that category for renaming instead of picking off for deletion a derivative category that is named after it. It looks problematic all around, since Category:Separation barriers has been manually de-populated instead of a nomination made. Of course, if deleted, the contents would need to be merged to the parent Category:Wikipedia categories named after fortifications. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't even understand the purpose of "Wikipedia categories named after separation barriers" and I'm sure any reader looking for category:separation barriers and finding that also would be very confused.
All the Israeli barrier articles are relevant for that category. I don't know who removed them from the relevant articles. Feel free to put them back. User:Carolmooredctalk 14:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find "I don't understand, therefore delete" a particularly weak argument. If you don't understand the purpose, you could read some user comments on this here. I don't really agree with the rationale, but it's logically consistent and has had consensus in the past (not so much in this particular discussion, I see). Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete we don't need this grouping of eponymous categories; also "Separation barrier" is a very strange terminology - why not call these "walls"?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, except for a few trivial examples from WP:RS, Separation barrier is one of the main terms used for Israeli walls separating self from Neighbors or especially Palestinians. An attempt to rename everything from Great Wall of China etc "separation barriers" was squashed as OR by a number of editors this year. So this issue remains really just is this particular category - established when there was all that OR content - really need to exist at all. User:Carolmooredctalk 19:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the very model of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, with nothing in common among these articles other than their shared naming. P.S. Anyone have any explanation for why the Western Wall is a separation barrier? Alansohn (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean why it is used as one by the Israelis? (If it is?) I don't think the Separation barrier article claims that. Of course, there is a little separation barrier I can see photo of in Western Wall article between males and females. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean in what way is the Western Wall used in any way that corresponds to the definitions at either Border barrier or Separation barrier? Nor is the Western Wall listed in the laundry lists in either article, nor is it described as such at the article for Western Wall. A divider near the wall doesn't meet the definition either, nor would that make the Western Wall a separation barrier. As such, the category has been removed from Category:Western Wall. Alansohn (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed it was in the category and would have removed it myself if noticed, given there's no WP:RS saying so. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This continues to attract an odd hodge-podge of categories applying a term in an ahistorical way, that is still largely a neologism. Seperation barriers as applied to things erected by Israel might work, as applied to Hadrinas Wall, it is just not how any reliable source refers to things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that WP:OR a number of times from this category and Category:Separation barriers but people pushing this neologism keep putting it back. Having one less category to have to patrol would be helpful. This is more than a month old and the trend is pretty obvious. Can we close this? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:57, 8 December 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.
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, default to keep. This looks like a likely candidate for a future CfD nomination. Any such nomination should address the question of ambiguity and whether there are differences of meaning (possibly regional) between "health centers" and "clinics". – PhilosopherLet us reason together. 19:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The main article appears to be clinic. Health center is a redirect to community health center which clearly states that it is a clinic with certain staffing. I suspect that this is more of a grouping of liked named organizations with the current name. So better to create the broader category and then subcategorize as needed in the future. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Despite the article merger, I am not sure that the two are quite identical. Different counties may use the terms in slightly different ways: in some clinics may be a subset of health centres; in others, vice versa. Before a merger can take place, someone needs to check that all the articles fit the target. I would also be happier if both of these were primarily cintainer categories with the articles moved down the trees to more spoecific categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we really do have national differences, then the best approach would be to have the top level category match the main article and then allow sub categorization by national differences. Otherwise I'm not sure which would be the parent and which would be the child one. Also clinic avoids all of the issues with healtcare, health care, health center, health centre and so on. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not all clinics are healthcare clinics. For example, in the US, football clinics are very popular. Surely there are other "clinics" also that are not related to healthcare. Soranoch (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the objection is that clinic is ambiguous. There are limited options in my opinion. Rename the category as proposed to match the main article. Since we don't have an article on football clinics this concern is somewhat WP:CRYSTAL. Rename to Category:Clinics (healthcare) to address the specific concern raised by Soranoch. Or maybe some other option. I don't consider leaving it where it is since the current name is not correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am against such renaming. Not all health centres are clinics. In french, a clinic is private, usually for profit. As far I know, this nuance exists also in english, at least in british english. --Nnemo (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you have an issue with the main article? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Healthcare clinics" or similar. "Clinic" is unquestionably ambiguous and even if there's currently no article for football clinics or whatever there likely will be. Might as well disambiguate this category now and save the inevitable CFD later. Category names don't always have to exactly match the lead article. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the nominator's proposal, because it creates ambiguity. The current title might be improved on, but there are WP:ENGVAR issues with any possible title. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 5 November 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Eponymous category with only two subcategories which already are appropriately categorized by its content (albums and songs). The only thing left is the main article and a discography, and thus unneeded per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am against the deletion of this category. This is ridiculous, this cat is not eponymous ! Some people should learn the meaning of this word. This cat has two very well populated sub-cats. It is useful. The requester is wrong about “the only thing left”. Wikipedia itself is “unneeded”. --Nnemo (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (By the way Nnemo: Eponymous: "of, relating to, or being the person or thing for whom or which something is named") --Lexein (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another small eponymous category. Contents are linked through the lead article and there is also a template. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What's the policy- or guideline- based rationale for deleting this cat? Link to it, please. I see such cats for most major artists, because categories are an alternate navigation method for indexing albums and songs. The existence of a template does not preclude such a cat, because the cat links to more than the template does. I'm unable to determine if the nominator fully read WP:CFD#HOWTO and WP:EPONCAT and its discussion of notability. --Lexein (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is linked in the nomination, the guideline advising against eponymous categories. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant counterguideline is WP:EPONCAT which apparently advises for eponymous categories for notable people. This was my point. --Lexein (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two guidelines are complementary. EPONCAT advises that 'by person's name' is one way that articles can be categorized. EPONYMOUS advises that those categories should be restricted to instances where there is a large volume of material. EPONCAT doesn't mandate categories nor does EPONYMOUS forbid them. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, what are you declaring as the required count of subsidiary categories to keep an eponymous category? I think that's what this is boiling down to... --Lexein (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't simply count up sub-categories by rote in formulating my opinion. I look at the totality of the circumstances. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's vague. I still wanna know the "keep" threshold. --Lexein (talk) 08:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's something somewhat fishy about this deletion nomination IMHO: removing cats from an eponymous cat, then CfD'ing it and calling it "small", should have been accompanied by some clearer, and more accurate, explanation from the actors in edit summaries, or in discussion, before CfD.
From the cat Edit History of Category:Joan Baez ("CJB"), it was the subject of some subcat edit warring. Nnemoadded the full suite of article categories to the CJB, and removed them from article Joan Baez ("JB"), leaving the article with just the eponymous cat. Then Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars reverted the additions to the ep.cat with only "overcategorization" as the reason without linking to guideline. Nnemo reverted, then Star nominated the ep.cat. for deletion. Then Xezbeth reverted Nnemo's revert without much of an explanatory edit summary. And here we are.
My personal opinion? I think Nnemo's actions were in good faith, a bit too gung-ho, perhaps without deep knowledge of the appropriate guidelines. But hell, I've been here a long time, and I can't make out what the appropriate thing to do from those verbose and poorly written guidelines. I don't want to hide cats from direct view in articles, or make them one level deeper than necessary - that's just a bit too "thread the needle" and "one step removed" to me, and weakens the alternate navigation scheme that categorization provides. On the other hand, a wall of cats is rather intimidating and seems excessive. But in the Joan Baez case, all those cats seem appropriate.
Question: is it the case that eponymous cats must only contain subcats which only refer to the subject of the ep.cat? That case is not made at either guideline linked above. If it's not the case, then why not move the article cats to an eponymous cat?
The number of categories in which a nominated category is housed is not relevant to the nomination. What matters is what's housed in the nominated category. "Small" refers to the category's contents, not its parents. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's housed in the nominated category is quite a bit less than what was housed in the nominated category just before the nomination. Did you even look at the history? --Lexein (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did look at the history, which shows nothing at all about what was or was not tagged with Category:Joan Baez so I have no idea what you're twitting on about. However many categories that the nominated cat was put in or taken out of means exactly dickie bird to whether the category should be retained and your entire observation is completely meaningless. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's meaningless to you, just say that, and stop. No need for any more words.--Lexein (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the guideline WP:EPONYMOUS, the eponymous article and the eponymous category do not get categorized within the same set of categories because the categories within the article do not apply to the contents of the category. Joan Baez is in Category:American pacifists because she is an American pacifist. Categorizing Category:Joan Baez the same would imply that all her songs and albums are also American pacifists. There is some such categorization that has been deemed acceptable through consensus and development of a scheme (see Category:George Washington - it's in Category:Presidents of the United States and Category:Washington family, but not the 30+ other categories that George Washington is in). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete We don't need epon cats for every artist who has article + records + songs - eponcats are really reserved for cases where there are many related articles about the person - see Category:Ernest_Hemingway for a good example of same. Star-tldr is right, that eponymous categories normally aren't added to as many categories as the article itself - in fact, they are usually in many fewer categories. It seems there was some edit warring about adding this cat to certain parent cats, but that really has no bearing - if the cat is deleted, its parents don't matter, and if it's kept, well editors can sort out the correct parenting later.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:01, 11 November 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Red link record label.???uest(talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 11:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also an empty category. Was this prematurely emptied out of process (in which case it should be repopulated so that its usefulness or lack thereof can be evaluated properly), or was it already empty at the time of nomination (in which case it would qualify for a speedy deletion instead of requiring discussion)? Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 3 November 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.
Agree - with the renaming proposals. - Rahat | Message 04:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)----
talk 04:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)