Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 28

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

August 28[edit]

Category:Military history of ancient Gaul‎[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. Upmerge to the revised target is unnecessary as the only article in the category is already there. The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, only one entry in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment considering the amount of written military history of the Romano-Gallic Wars, there certainly is room for populating this catergory. (ie. Vercingetorix et al; Category:Gallic Wars, etc) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't think so because the category means to focus on pre-Roman Gaul, Category:Ancient Gaul‎ is succeeded by Category:Roman Gaul‎. The one article in category Category:Military history of ancient Gaul has actually been misclassified. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Wars of Julius Caesar precede Roman Gaul (ie. Vercingetorix would fit in Ancient Gaul under that division of time). Further, "ancient" in the context of Europe, the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia, means before the Middle Ages, so "Roman Gaul" should be a subcategory of "Ancient Gaul". And we still have a mass of Romano-Gallic warring prior to Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul, as Hannibal defeats Rome and allies in Gaul, long before Gaul becomes Roman. Not to mention Punic and Ancient Greek military endeavours in Gaul. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The first battle of Hannibal took place near current Piacenza, in Roman territory, so I agree with Peterkingiron below that it's unlikely we will be able to find many articles that precede Category:Gallic Wars. Agree that the category name Ancient Gaul may be ambiguous, maybe a (separate) CfD can be openened to rename it into e.g. Prehistoric Gaul. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We know little of Gallic war, otehr than with Rome. I therefore doubt if there will anything that cannot go in Category:Gallic Wars. At present we have an article on Roman governors, but that must be adequately categoirised elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Infobox philosopher maintenance[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) 02:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This "temporary" category has existed since 2011. It contains normal Wikipedia articles (e.g. Richard Aaron) that do not belong under Category:Wikipedia maintenance. There is no explanation on the category page or its talk page as to why this unusual category is needed. DexDor (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional domestic workers[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. In any case only the first category page (Category:Fictional nannies) was tagged, so the others would be kept according to procedure. – Fayenatic London 16:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
List of fictional butlers to List of fictional butlers and valets
Category:Fictional nannies to Category:Fictional governesses and nannies;
Category:Fictional maids to Category:Fictional maids and valets
Category:Fictional chauffeurs to Category:Fictional chauffeurs and coachmen
Category:Fictional domestic workers‎‎ to Category:Fictional domestic workers and household staff
  • Propose creating:
Category:Fictional governesses
Category:Fictional valets
Category:Fictional gardeners
Nominator's rationale: Being more inclusive is better then creating more categories. --172.251.77.75 (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Fictional child care occupations sounds like the jobs rather than the characters, so I'd prefer the alternative in the first nom. In the fourth nom, I think that Category:Fictional chauffeurs and footmen (plural) is grammatically better. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, verging on Oppose - I don't entirely agree with the nom's argument that fewer specific cats is necessarily better, but even if that's so, some of the suggested combinations are rather arbitrary. Category:Fictional butlers can stand alone, as could Category:Fictional valets, as there are plenty of both - and they are not the same. I can't see any sense in combining chauffeurs and footmen. Category:Fictional chauffeurs and coachmen would make better sense, but is it really necessary to push them together? And if footmen are to be specified but not as a separate cat they would probably seem to go more naturally either with houseboys & maids or with household staff. But I'd really rather have separate cats for most if not all of these. Jsmith1000 (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The first needs to be split: nanny (child carer) and governess (private teacher) are not the same. The rest are just about confusing the issue. Footmen are different from chuffeurs, though in small households they might to more than one job. It a person is both valet and coachman, he should have categories for both. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No good reason for creating such cross-occupational categories. Categories are made when there are contents, and it generally is not through this process. I would guess Sam Gamgee could help us start fictional gardeners.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:GasTerra Flames[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) 02:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The team isn't named GasTerra Flames anymore it is now officially Donar! H-Hurry (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This was a five-year title sponsor deal. Category should use the regular name. SFB 19:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ante-Nicene Christian saints[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. Number 57 17:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also: CfD Ante-Nicene Christian female saints, 27 August

Nominator's rationale: This is in order to close the gap with the next category Category:Christian saints of the Middle Ages‎ and Category:Christians of the Middle Ages. Ante-Nicene only goes to 325, while Ancient includes the 4th and 5th century as well and Middle Ages starts with the 6th century (at least it usually does so in by-century categories). Interestingly, the header of Category:Ante-Nicene Christian saints says: In some cases, saints from the time of the decline and final collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 may also appear. That seems like an extra reason for the proposed rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Which is wrong? The name or the introduction? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The naming is wrong, as two centuries (the 4th and 5th) belong to neither of seemingly consecutive periods. The introduction text tries to solve what the category name is lacking (by allowing to include 4th and 5th century articles after all, in contrast to the category name), also the actual categorization tries to solve what the name is lacking (by putting the 4th century in Ante-Nicene - that applies to female saints only - and by putting the 5th category in the Middle Ages, neither of which is quite appropriate), so the only good solution left is to rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would the problem be solved by the creation of Category:Post-Nicene and Ante-Schism Christian saints? A bit long-winded I admit. It's just that a secular period-naming structure does not fit the events of Christianity too well. The defining events fall outside broad secular time constructs. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer is yes, of course. At the same time I wonder if this distinction is really needed, since the saints and Christians categories neatly follow the secular periods starting with the Middle Ages. So why not follow the secular periods before the Middle Ages as well? I can see a point for history of Christianity to distinguish between before and after the edict of Milan in 313 (btw not so much for Nicene in 325), but for individual persons this is far less relevant. Also, on the side, I agree that this name is a bit long-winded; in the History of Christianity this has been solved by distinguishing Early and Late Ancient. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately it's not clear from these discussions how 4th and 5th century saints were dealt with at that time. While the latter is exactly the point of this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current naming has a very precise date based on a specific event. Ancient is ambiguous and should be avoided. If a time period is missing and needed, we can create a category like maybe Category:Post-Nicene and Ante-Schism Christian saints as suggested above to deal with the time gap. Given how long this is open, closing would allow further discussions if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Birds of the United Kingdom[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. – Fayenatic London 16:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This rename is to make clearer that the category is for articles about birds in the UK (e.g. Ospreys in Britain), not for articles about birds whose range includes the UK (e.g. White-faced storm petrel). See related discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_8#Category:Birds_of_Lithuania. Note: It might also make sense to rename this from UK to GB, but I suggest we leave that to a separate discussion. DexDor (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure that birds actually recognise this political boundary. Probably better to rename to GB, or possibly to Britsh Isles? Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A rename from UK to GB or BI should consider the 3 subcats (which fit into a by-country category tree). Hence, IMO a separate CFD discussion would be better (trying to do 2 things at once is likely to result in a no-consensus result). DexDor (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in that case rename to Category:Birds in the United Kingdom. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the nomination of the August 8th CFD. DexDor (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is that really clearer (for native English speakers)? If I had to guess I would say "Birds in the UK" equals birds observed in the UK, and "Birds of the UK" equals birds endemic to the UK. trespassers william (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about Category:Ornithology in the United Kingdom to emphasise that it is about the subject of birds, rather than the birds per se. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2014 (Uon TC)
  • Comment. It's a distinction without a difference, as the lawyers would say. I must agree with the comments above that it would make more sense to put birds in natural geographic regions, like "Britain" or "British Isles." Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner[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:Wikipedia uncategorized templates[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 all. These used to be populated by a template, but that was long ago, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_17#Template:Uncategorized_template. – Fayenatic London 16:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no instruction at Special:UncategorizedTemplates to use these categories and IMO it makes more sense to categorize templates directly in Category:Wikipedia templates or leave them so they show up at the special page. The subcats are described on the talk page as "pretty silly". I've checked these categories several times and found them all to be empty - that may be because someone continually empties them, but it's more likely that no-one places templates in them. Deleting these categories would be a (small) step in simplifying things. See related discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_17#Category:Uncategorized_redirect_templates. DexDor (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Such templates are better placed in the head category (e.g. Category:Wikipedia templates) if one is being lazy about it. Perhaps there used to be something in the software that placed the contents of Special:UncategorizedTemplates into this category? That page has a long list and it is actually a hidden away problem. Maybe changing the software to populate the main category would be actually a good outcome? SFB 19:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re uncategorized templates being "hidden away" - IMO fixing uncategorized articles/categories (pages that readers navigate to) is higher priority. DexDor (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but editors still need to find them in the first place - not so easy if they're not in any category. --NSH002 (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The last thing we want is crap templates being defecated all over an otherwise decent category such as Category:Wikipedia templates. The discussion linked above re redirects is not really relevant, as redirects do not need to be categorised, and in many (most?) cases shouldn't be (exceptions: {{Rcats}}, and sometimes it's appropriate to categorize a redirect in one of its target's categories) – in contrast to articles and templates, which should all be categorized. The Special Page is not very appetising (it only shows the first 3,000 cases, it doesn't give an overall count, and lacks structure). Not surprising that few people (nobody?) are working on it, and I suspect that few editors are even aware of its existence. It is indeed "hidden away".
Obviously it makes little sense to manually place templates in one of these cats, when with only a little extra effort a more suitable cat can be found. What is really needed is one or two bots: firstly something along the lines of DPL Bot, that will leave a message on the talk page of any user who saves a template without any categories, and secondly a bot that will either place uncategorised templates in some sort of category structure similar to these, or in some other place that is easy for editors to find and maintain. --NSH002 (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_28&oldid=1074812536"