Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 1 September 3 >

September 2[edit]

Category:Scientific phenomena by status[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; maybe this could be re-assessed if more than one valid subcategory ever exists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see a good rationale for having this category. It contains only a single sub-category (and no articles), and thus serves only to impede navigation. Unless somebody can come up with at least 2 other viable sub-cats it should be deleted. Notified Category creator using {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those categories you've added aren't "by status" (active/extinct etc) categories and shouldn't be categorized with the "Volcanoes by status" category. DexDor (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I interpret "by status" differently. I do not see it as "just" an active/extinct classification. By status means that it has been labeled with some sort of measure, whether it be active/extinct, F0 - F5, tropical depression - category 5 hurricane, etc does not matter, they are all statuses (A ... condition, position or standing relative to that of others.). Technical 13 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The key word here is "standing", which derives from the same root as "status". A phenomenon that can have a status ascribed to it has, in effect, been "standing still" long enough to so describe it. That is fundamentally different from the other kinds of parameters, such as magnitude. Cgingold (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are enough viable subcats of this sort, they could perhaps be placed in an umbrella category along the lines of Category:Phenomena by magnitude. But I agree that these new subcats are not actually "by status" categories, and should not be parented by this particular category. Cgingold (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless the cat can be populated with at least 5 subcats which genuinely fit. The 2 additions (Category:Earthquakes by seismic intensity‎ and Category:Tropical cyclones by strength‎) are both categories by magnitude rather than by status, so I will remove them both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, keep something, anyway. As the category creator, I am open to different forms of this category. I am simply suggesting that we ought to have something which groups sub-categories for various specific phenomena, as grouped by their magnitude, strength, or current status. the other alternatives mentioned above sound great as well. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said above, I have no objection in principle to having this category if other sub-cats can be found that actually involve status, as distinct from magnitude, etc. Cgingold (talk) 01:48, 10 September 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:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows[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) 21:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Upon further discussion with Technical 13, I have agreed to relist this for discussion. It has been relisted at 2013 SEP 13 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this DRV I am relisting this CFD to discuss a new argument raised by the DRV nominator. This cat was properly deleted after this cfd. As DRV closer I am neutral Spartaz Humbug! 20:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep as this particular category is already being discussed on Category talk:Wikipedians#RfC: Is this category and current subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia and this nomination segregates the discussion and resembles forum shopping, albeit unintentional on Spartaz's part. Technical 13 (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you didn't want this relisting you had no business raising this at DRV in the first place. Closing a DRV is never forum shopping and I'm sure most editors would have got that without your helpful comment. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 15:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, let's add some detail why this category (and most subs) should be kept. These categories are maintenance categories used by various WP:WikiProjects that exist and potential new projects that are trying to find the best way to encourage new user participation, as it helps them see what is available for users and what demographics could be improved. They are invaluable to multiple WikiProjects and needed for software development to empower the encyclopedic community with new tools. That being said, it should also be noted that there is a 22-0-4 (speedy) keep (SNOW close) - delete - comment only on the main survey for this category and similar categories on Category talk:Wikipedians#Survey. Technical 13 (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This deletion request is not necessarily duplicative of the RfC. As several commentators noted there, and as commmon sense dictates, one can potentially support the general "Wikipedians" scheme whild disagreeing with particular parts of it. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments at the DRV and WP:TROUT-slap the editor who CFDed the category without realising how it's used. DexDor (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment can those who want this kept please be specific about how this category (and its sub cats) will be used? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is characterization by a far too common character to be useful. Additionally, I as a user of windows never would think it was one of the ways to self-identify that I would categorize myself by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a trivial and pointless characterisation of editors here. WMF can discover which browsers and which OS's editors are using without this half-baked category, if that's what someone thinks this is useful for. Just out of interest, when this wasn't redlinked, how many editors used it? Right now there seems to be fewer than a couple of dozen editors using the template (and its child cats), albeit red. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is apparently useful to a few tool-creators and fits the general tradition of hte main Wikipedians category. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all, please provide evidence that this is "useful" to devs, I very much doubt it is even considered. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still waiting for an answer to Obiwankenobi's request for explanation of how this category (and its sub cats) will be used. Has it already been used in this way? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If such categories are going to be used for devs etc, then there should be a centralised discussion about it. There's no reason for this to exist however, WMF can determine the browser and OS we're all using if it decides to do so. This is just a vanity category which serves no real purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said in the Deletion Review, "... while MediaWiki core developers may not use such categories, WikiProject and usercript developers do." and a MWF developer responded "There's code other than core?!? I jest. You make a good point..." Technical 13 (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? e.g. in what situation would a category populated with 20 people who use MS windows be useful for some technical reason?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Philosopher. An active, good-faith user says he would find the category helpful and I take him at his word. No particularly pressing justification for deleting the category has been advanced. It's accepted that not many editors were using the category at the time of its deletion. This does not seem particularly relevant to the question of whether it should be allowed to exist. It's also accepted that neither the WMF nor most other editors would find the category helpful, but what matters is that there are some editors who'd use it for the maintenance of the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 21:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, this is pointless. One would imagine that several million users browse and edit Wikipedia using "Windows" yet this category attracts mere dozens. It's actually pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Contradiction is not discussion.—S Marshall T/C 07:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure it is, it's adopting an opposing position. This category is of no value. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, okay then, we can do that. The category isn't pointless. It has value.—S Marshall T/C 16:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The value is....? With a grand total of 20 or so editors in it? You do know that websites can determine what browser we're all using, don't you? This category is "fun" but not useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • One of us is deeply confused about this, and I hope it isn't me. I don't see any connection between the number of editors currently in the category and the potential value of the category to the encyclopaedia. I also don't see any connection between what browser we're using and what operating system we're using. Could you explain please?—S Marshall T/C 17:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You first. Explain the benefit of a handful of users claiming they use Windows, while (as I'm sure you're aware) any devs (for instance) can easily determine which OS (or, for instance, which browser) someone is using. This category is of no value, if it was of value, there would be several million uses of this category. Ho hum. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • If you know the browser, you know the OS. The OS is embedded in the browser string - it looks like this: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Avant Browser [avantbrowser.com]; Hotbar 4.4.5.0) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Well, this should be easy enough then. Imagine you're writing a third party application for use with Wikipedia and you need to test it. Could you please tell me what browser and operating system is being employed by User:S Marshall? If you can answer accurately then I will certainly grant you your point and withdraw my objection.—S Marshall T/C 18:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Yes, it's blindingly easy.
                          "S Marshall, you report a problem with the new application. Please can you tell me what browser and operating system you are using for this?"
                          even if I knew you were still in a category of Windows users, I would still ask the question, because you might have changed your own machine or be using someone else's, or an iPad etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just to be clear. This category is unnecessary and pointless because you can just ask me, correct?—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point that most of us are making is "what is the point of this category"? It's the same as "Wikipedians with a hedge" or "Wikpedians who use shower gel". You do realise that WMF (et al) can determine which OS and which browser is being used by all of us to view Wikipedia and as such, any argument that this kind of "category" is redundant for that purpose? Have you ever downloaded software updates from, say, Apple or Adobe? Perhaps not, but when you do, they already tell you which OS you're using.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Technical13's told you what the point of the category is and I wonder if I'm the only person who's been reading. For the sake of argument I'm prepared to accept that the WMF's knowledge of my computer is second only to that of the NSA, but that doesn't matter. Technical13's argument is and throughout this discussion has always been about third party developers.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have of course read Technical13's argument, and I'm afraid it's a very poor argument. Third-party developers would be very foolish to place any weight on the category. If they don't have access to a technical log, then the only solution is to ask the simple question I just asked you above, or invite the user to visit a webpage of the developer's, which can log the data.
        WMF can use the server logs to get a more precise answer than 90% of computer users can give. Why use a category which may or may not ever have been accurate, and may not be up-to-date, and doesn't even tell which version of Windows is being used? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • But that makes no sense to me either. When did we start to delete categories because they might be inaccurately or inconsistently applied, or because not everyone they might apply to was in the category? When did we start to delete user categories because you can ask?—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is basically WP:OR to assume that this category, which covers about 90% of computer users, is used by developers. How in any way shape or form is this defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not an assumption. At least one practical example of a developer actually wishing to use this category was cited during the DRV; otherwise I wouldn't be making this case so strongly. User categories need not be defining, they merely have to facilitate collaborative work on the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 01:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • You ask "when did we start to delete categories because they might be inaccurately or inconsistently applied"?
                But this isn't an encyclopedic category or a user-collaboration category. By your own argumnet, it has value only as a technical info category, where accuracy matters. As I have explained above, this category is useless for its stated purpose, because no competent developer would rely on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • The reason I'm arguing this with you all is because you seem to have missed the point that in previous discussions on this very topic it's emerged that third party developers do consider relying on it. Diff. Perhaps User:Graeme Bartlett will elaborate.—S Marshall T/C 17:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The explanations of a possible use for the category don't really add up. With less than 2 dozen category members, this is no use for the technical purposes outlined, and any developer who wants to test something with users of a particular operating system would be much better posting a request at WP:VPT.
    Even if the category expanded massively, it would still be of limited use, because the grouping which the techie editors are seeking is much narrower than "Windows users"; they want "Windows users willing to participate in software testing". Unless the purpose of the category is made clear, many of the users who add themselves to the category will have no interest in testing.
    I would be happy to support keeping any Category:Users of X who willing to participate in software testing, but that's not what we have here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly right. If this category has somehow been declared as a means of gauging Windows usage throughout WIkipedia (which is, of course, utter fantasy), then we should state that this is the purpose of the category. Otherwise, it appears, there's no reason for us to have such a category. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. There was nothing in the DRV other then the fact that the creator was not notified that caused this to be relisted, hardly an argument to keep. So far there is no substantial case showing why this should be kept other then WP:ILIKEIT which is not a substantive argument. Note that this was deleted without objection when nominated, so this discussion needs to make a case to overturn that decision. So far I'm not seeing anything close to making a case like that. I'm not considering the case that was presented that these are maintenance categories with the assumption that CfD can not delete maintenance categories. So far nothing here has made the case that there are in fact maintenance categories or that they serve any purpose as such. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not useful to create an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not useful to create an encyclopaedia. If script tool-creators want to find users, who use a specific OS, than they should check the transclusions of the userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Operating systems. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete completely unconvinced by keep rationales thus far. The argument that developers would somehow use this to find windows users is ridiculous. Want to find a windows user? throw a rock, you're guaranteed to hit hundreds of them - likely 75% of our users are on windows.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First, the low numbers of those claiming it show there is minimal need or interest in it. Second, who cares. Third, its not encyclopedic anyway. If we keep a category at all we should upmerge all the Versions to just Microsoft Windows. Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 8 September 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:Candan Erçetin[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:  Relisted at 2013 SEP 18 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although this category only has one direct member, it also has a subcategory with 14 members which is plenty of content for me. Technical 13 (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That one category should be enough to satisfy the categorization scheme per WP:OC#Eponymous. The 14 members are all in a albums category and sufficiently categorized per WP:NALBUMS and there doesn't need to be an eponymous category as well. It creates needless layers for minimal content. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:36, 3 September 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:People from Guin, Alabama[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 (only nominated category). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with only three entries....William 15:16, 2 September 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:Greek MPs 1923–1926[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The IV National Assembly, elected in 1923, was disbanded in September 1925 by the dictator Pangalos, and new elections were not held until November 1926. Constantine ✍ 12:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this category is in a series of categories between Category:Greek MPs 1920–1922 and Category:Greek MPs 1926–1928. Technical 13 (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably support -- The convention used by WP for UK Parliaments is to treat the MP as sitting until the election day, even though three may be a gap between the dissolution of one Parliamnent and the calling of the next. This is not much of an issue today, but may have been in earlier centuries. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to a general Greek MPs category. 5 of the six articles in this category are in at least 2 other categories (often 4 other categories). This leads to needless over-categorization of people. Splitting by parliament is not a good way to subdivide people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on rename, and oppose upmerger. In a case like this where there was a huge gap between parliaments, it may be clearer to have a category title which reflects the period until the parliament was dissolved. However, that depends partly on whether or not Greek constitutional narratives view the history as one of continuity.
    I oppose upmerger, because this is part of a series of similar categories under Category:MPs of the Hellenic Parliament by session; they should either all be kept, or all merged. It is mischievously opportunistic and disruptive of JPL to try to use a renaming discussion as a chance to remove part of a set, without any reason to differentiate it from other similar categories. Note that JPL has tried this sort of selective deletion before: see CFD 2012 May 22, when his arguments were rejected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Greek practice certainly does not view the MPs as continuing until the next election, especially given the very tumultuous nature of Greek political history. I am really surprised that anyone would suggest we pretend that a parliament sat until 1926, even if it had been legally dissolved and superseded by a dictatorial regime, because it would presumably be "neater". As to upmerging the categories, this is really not the place for such a suggestion, nor do I see the rationale for abolishing the distinction by parliament, which I for one find useful. Constantine ✍ 17:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, and oppose upmerger (changing my !vote). I am persuaded by Constantine's explanation that the new name more accurately reflects the category's purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 5 September 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:Australian television programs[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: Withdrawn by nominator. Technical 13 (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose renaming Category:Australian television programs to Category:Australian television programmes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per standard Australian spelling. Grutness...wha? 06:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions: Is "programs" not used at all in Australia? Can you show me where "programmes" is preferred? I don't doubt your claim, just would like to see a little evidence to support it. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. ABC uses "programs". Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm... I'm surprised to see that you're right. It seems Aussie English is a bit further removed from NZ English than I thought! Sigh. Consider this withdrawn... Grutness...wha? 00:34, 4 September 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.

New Kingdom-related categories[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. No consensus for an upmerge; if one is needed, it can be discussed in a new CfD.. Dana boomer (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: User:koavf recently created these categories to cover a specific event, the foundation of Antinopolis by Hadrian in 122. They are anachronistic, since the New Kingdom of Egypt actually covers the 18th, 19th, and 20th dynasties of Pharaohs or the 16th to 11th century BC. The period actually covered by these categories is Egypt (Roman province), or simply "Roman Egypt". Also he/she misplaced the year 122 in the 1st century, when it is actually part of the 2nd century. Dimadick (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename And thanks to Dimadick for being so helpful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support speedy rename. Dimadick has explained this quite well. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support speedy rename per above. Technical 13 (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:2nd century BC establishments in Egypt, which should become a subcategory of Category:establishments in Egypt and Category:2nd century BC in Egypt, a new subcategory of Category:centuries in Egypt. We do not need annual (or even decade) categories as most will remain for ever unpopulated. The boundaries of Egypt have varied from time to time, but its core has been an entity. We do not need millennium categories, as 50 or even 60 centuries will not overpopulate a category. "Roman Egypt" is as wrong as "New Kingdom". If we needed anything it would be a subcateogry of tegory:Ptolemaic Kingdom: see Ptolmaic Kingdom, which was not conquered by Rome until 30 BC. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Did you happen to read the nominators rationale? This isn't about the 2nd century BC but the 2nd century, and the event described occurred 152 years following the death of the last Ptolemaic rulers. Dimadick (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge One article for all these categories to Category:122 establishments where it will still be the only article, and then delete the whole lot of 8 categories that exist to hold one article. This is category overkill.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't know whether it's desirable or not to have the whole chain of categories for establishments (I'll leave that up to the category experts), but Category:2nd century in Roman Egypt probably has several potential members that couldn't be placed there until it's correctly renamed. Certainly Category:1st millennium in Roman Egypt could be populated, except that I'm not sure you can extend the periodization "Roman Egypt" past the 600s, and therefore wonder about the usefulness of the millennium category. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment again. This really needs to be fixed, for the reason that Dimadick proposed it. It's promoting a factual error that the creator of the categories also wants fixed. Whether or not all the categories are actually needed is not an urgent matter. Having an error in the encyclopedia of this kind does require immediate correction: as a periodization of Egyptian history, the New Kingdom did not occur in the 2nd century CE. This is easily checked as a factual matter in our own articles, or in a multitude of sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't believe this hasn't been fixed yet. Calling Roman Egypt "the New Kingdom" would immediately strand out as a flagrantly incorrect periodization to anybody even passingly familiar with Ancient Egyptian history. Like, I would have know this was wrong in fifth grade! Although I was kind of a weird fifth grader, I guess. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 00:46, 17 September 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:Perris Block[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:  Relisted at 2013 SEP 18 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize articles about geographic features by their underlying geology - especially when all/most of the articles don't mention the geology. For info: Many/most of the articles in the category are in the lists in the Perris Block article. DexDor (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I do not see why we should not categorise them like this. This is not in the nature of a performance by performer category, since this is a geological region. If we were categorising "granite mountain ranges", I would object that the granite was effectively a performer. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not a matter of perf-by-perf - it's about consistency of categorization. Most/all articles about geographical features specify what they are (hill, lake etc) and which state/county(s) they're in - hence those are good characteristics to use for categorization. Very few articles (and that includes the articles in this category) specify which lump of bedrock the feature is above. An article (e.g. about a region or a country) might mention which tectonic plate it's on, but AFAIK we don't categorize by that characteristic. DexDor (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The reason I categorized the Perris Block was that it is an ancient intact undivided actor in Southern California's geology that is little recognized. It has stayed relatively stable while all around it tilted, rose up or sank down. Its surfaces features that are more location identifying rather than active features. There are other blocks on either side of it that are major actors in Southern California's geology also that I was thinking of adding articles about.Asiaticus (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That the block is little recognized supports the view that it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Articles about geology are fine, but I don't think we want to extend categorization to have by-geology categories for articles about places where (for non-geologists) the geology isn't that important (when compared with things like which state the place is in and whether it's a hill/lake/river etc). DexDor (talk) 18:42, 5 September 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:Politics of Westminster[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 to Category:Politics of the City of Westminster. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To avoid ambiguity.
This category covers the politics of the City of Westminster, a local govt area in London. However, the word "Westminster" is widely used colloqially to refer to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which is housed in the Palace of Westminster. A Google search for "Westminster Politics" shows that the phrase is overwhelmingly used to refer to Parliament rather than to the borough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:24, 2 September 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:Wikipedians in North Korea[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As the Internet (nevermind Wikipedia) is not available in North Korea, if you were in North Korea, you would not be able to access Wikipedia, making this an impossible categorization. If this is to be kept, it needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians from North Korea and the meaning changed in that manner. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure restricted access is available for the elites. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As part of the bigger scheme of by country. Also this article states "Internet access is available in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), but only permitted with special authorisation and primarily used for government purposes", so some Wiki users could be contributing from there. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is clear that some Wikipedia users may be in North Korea. Probably not as high a proportion of the population as in China, South Korea or many other countries, but no reason to just delete the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the others. Also note that it's possible for a Wikipedian to be in North Korea even if not editing the 'pedia while there. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as is, it is implying someone in North Korea and editing Wikipedia, which makes them a likely North Korean intelligence and propaganda agent. If they are not, then this is flagging them for being tracked down by North Korean internal security, to be jailed. The associated template says "from North Korea", and not "in North Korea", so there's already a mismatch between the template and the category. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the others. If someone wants to identify themselves as being in or from North Korea, that's up to them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 6 September 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:Wikipedians in Pyongyang[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As the Internet (nevermind Wikipedia) is not available in Pyongyang, if you were in North Korea, you would not be able to access Wikipedia, making this an impossible categorization. If this is to be kept, it needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians from Pyongyang and the meaning changed in that manner. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As part of the bigger scheme of by city (compare Category:Wikipedians in Tokyo, for example). Also this article states "Internet access is available in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), but only permitted with special authorisation and primarily used for government purposes", so some Wiki users could be contributing from there. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Strangely, we seem to have one Mexican user, who claims to be from Pyongyang! Perhaps he/she works in the Mexican embassy. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if it was true that no internet access existed in NK (which seems to be untrue) being "from" a place, and operating there currently are not the same thing. If a person has lived most of their life in Pyongyang, but recently moved to London, they would fit this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the others. Also note that it's possible for a Wikipedian to be in North Korea even if not editing the 'pedia while there. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as is, it is implying someone in Pyongyang and editing Wikipedia, which makes them a likely North Korean intelligence and propaganda agent. If they are not, then this is flagging them for being tracked down by North Korean internal security, to be jailed. The associated template says "from Pyongyang", and not "in Pyongyang", so there's already a mismatch between the template and the category. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the others. If someone wants to identify themselves as being in or from Pyongyang, that's up to them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 6 September 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/2013_September_2&oldid=1138398822"