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 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:rename all per nomination. – FayenaticLondon 13:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: During the 4th, 5th and 6th century the Sasanian Empire was the name of the Iranian Empire, and Sasanian people (rather: people of the Sasanian Empire) were just Iranian people. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the first Keep the rest (or reverse merge, if targets exist). We use Ottoman and Byzantine for periods in Turkish history. Using Iran for a period when there was not such country is an anachronism. We more usually categorise people by country, rather than ethnicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the first Keep the rest per Peterkingiron and precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English WP, not the Iranian one: we should be categorising people by the usual English name for their country. Thus we have German people, not Deutsch people. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, though Iranian people is correct English, in contrast to Deutsch people. In addition, Iranian peoples have lived on the Iranian plateau since late 2nd millennium BCE to early 1st millennium BCE. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge the first one. The standard for people of current countries is "FOOian people" (or "FOO people" where FOOian doesn't work well). I admit that this standard has not been applied consistently for people of former countries, and we have a mix. However, in this case, the nominated category is the older of the two, so pending the establishment of some broader consensus, we should keep the original one and merge the newly created one. I'm not right now sure about how to treat the by-century ones. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather keep the merge direction as nominated. There was a House of Sasan (a dynasty) that ruled Iran during some centuries, so if there would be any Sasanian people it would be just them. Let's take an analogy: we don't call Austrian people who lived under the Habsburgian dynasty 'Habsburgian people' either. We rather refer to them as 'people in the Habsburgian Empire' (possibly) or just 'Austrian people' (preferably). This analogy is actually a support to the nominated merge direction for all four proposed categories: not 'Sasasian people', rather 'people of the Sasanian Empire' (possibly) or just 'Iranian people' (preferably). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If all your proposals are accepted, I could agree to that. What wouldn't be good though is to rename the first and then have the by-century ones still use "Sasanian". Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:24, 12 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:Coulson Norman Mitchell nomination #3[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:Closed. We currently have two discussions already open that need to be combined. No reason to add a third. If this really is a valid option, it can be included with the consolidated discussion below (once that happens). Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:ROC This category should be merged into Category:Victoria Cross. This is very relevant content to the background of this Victoria Cross recipient that are several historical organisations and groups relevant to this high ranking notable British Canadian nobleman Lieutenant-Colonel Coulson Norman Mitchell VC MC CME RME. I will attest that many informative topics are currently being added to this category. Wikipedia will benefit by the merging of these categories.Gleeson.ThomasR (talk) 20:21, 29 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.
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 as empty. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Make clearer that this is a Wikipedia administration category - not a content category. Consistency with other Wikipedia administration categories. DexDor (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename per nom. This is not about condensed notes you buy at the bookstore. Administration categories should clearly be delineated from content categories -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The contents are general usage grammar notes by one user, posing as Wikipedia help pages. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia help pages. FYI - I'm nominating the articles for deletion here. SFB 19:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - the category is now empty so I'm withdrawing this CFD and will tag the cat for CSD. DexDor (talk) 21:52, 3 November 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.
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, taking care to keep lists and sub-cats in suitable national parent categories. – FayenaticLondon 15:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a reptile species (e.g. European pond turtle) is found in a particular European country is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that species. Note: we only have categories like this for 3 of the approx 50 countries in Europe. For info: Previous related discussions include Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_19#Category:Insects_of_Andorra. Note: Each of these categories has a list article (123) that should be placed in a by-country category. DexDor (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per much recent precedent. Or do the Alps and Pyranees constute sucfficient barriers to movement that the fauna are different? I think we may ahve made an excetpion for Spain on something else. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re "we may have made an exception": you may be thinking of Category:Fauna of the Iberian Peninsula. I've amended the nom to also merge to that category. Categorizing by geographical areas (as long as they are sufficiently large) is ok, but categorizing by (smallish) countries isn't (for one thing it leads to a plethora of categories for mini-states - e.g. see 3rd Sept. CFD). DexDor (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who determines what is "sufficiently large" and by consequence, what is too small? If you recall, several of the "fish of X" categories that you determined to be insufficiently large could have survived on their own merits if even just restricted to endemics (Greece had 22 endemic freshwater fish). Rkitko(talk) 02:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We determine what is sufficiently large by avoiding categorization by such small (on a global scale) areas that an article would (e.g. if the by-country tree was completed) be in a large number of categories (e.g. the European pond turtle, according to the map in that article, would also belong in categories for Portugal, Denmark, Ukraine, Liechenstein etc if such categories existed). Being endemic to a particular area (country or otherwise) is WP:DEFINING - this nom isn't proposing deleting any endemic categories. DexDor (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Category:Reptiles of Europe becomes excessively large then subcats can be created for turtles, snakes etc (like Category:Mammals of Europe has subcats for bats, rodents etc). That avoids an article being in dozens of by-country categories (especially countries that often aren't mentioned specifically in an article that says something like "found throughout southern Europe"). Note: When creating such categories it can be efficient to use category intersection to identify those articles that belong in the new subcat.DexDor (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC) (updated DexDor (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Merge All I respectfully disagree with Rhitko's approach because, while it might create more manageable size categories, it does so at the expense of placing each article in multiple country categories when the political boundaries aren't defining for wildlife. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all. I would like to point out that, if there were more of them, I would support creating Category:Reptiles of the Iberian Peninsula and merging the Spain category there; however, I don't think that category size currrently needs that. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:36, 13 November 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.
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: That a bird species is found in a particular (smallish) country is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that species. This sort of categorization causes some articles (example) to be in many categories. See related discussions at WikiProject Birds and at CFD. Note: List articles (e.g. List of birds of Suriname) should also be placed in the appropriate country categories. DexDor (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons I did at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 2#Category:Fish of Liechtenstein. Spectacled owl is a terrible example. The categories have been misapplied. That owl species is native to nearly all of South American and should only be included in the top-level category, Category:Birds of South America. That this article does not follow common practice to use the largest geographic region category that still accurately describes its distribution is not a reason to upmerge these categories. Birds with smaller distributions will use the smallest scale geographic categories, including these country or territory categories. Note that a previous discussion on a "Birds of Country" resulted in no consensus. Rkitko(talk) 01:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- I have cleaned up the categories at spectacled owl to be closer to the ideal. Here's a permalink to the edit before mine for reference. Rkitko(talk) 01:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way these categories have been used (which you call misapplication without linking to a page that defines inclusion criteria) means that most articles that are in one of these 3 categories are also in the other 2 (there are currently 187 articles in all 3). Another example - Barred antshrike is currently in 28 "Birds of ..." categories - they can not all be WP:DEFINING characteristics. DexDor (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And Volga River is in a dozen "Rivers of X" categories, but last I checked you had no problem with that. You already know this, but I'll repeat it for the closing admin -- we fundamentally disagree on whether a species' distribution is defining. I contend it is defining and given the varying range of species from endemic to small regions to distributions that cover several continents, the category hierarchy must allow for both to be appropriately categorized. So, just as in the "Rivers of X" example, it doesn't matter that the distribution of a species or course of a river is broken down by political boundaries -- the fact that a river flows through different countries is defining for that river and the fact that a species is native to several countries is defining, because the course of a river or species' distribution at large is defining. The small country categories is just how we manage overpopulated continent or larger regional categories. Rkitko(talk) 02:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way we categorize an individual fixed object (a river, a lake, a bridge etc) should be (and afaik is) suitable for such objects which are permanently located - either in a single country (most such objects) or several countries. Thus, categorizing them by the country/ies in which they are located makes sense. A closer analogy to species might be religions - and we don't have categories such as "Religions practiced in Italy". However, this is offtopic.
For a species (consisting of thousands/millions of individual animals) where it may not be clear exactly what the range is (e.g. if an article says a species is found throughout southern Europe then does that mean the article belongs in a San Marino category if such a category exists?) then categorizing by small (on a global scale) areas doesn't make sense. If a species is endemic to a particular area then that is a suitable characteristic to categorise by - and we have separate categories for that.
The distribution of a species is not generally a single binary piece of information - typically it is described using a map and may need extra information ("also occasionally seen in X", "now extinct in Y", "in Z only because of escapes from captivity" ...). The overall distribution may be a defining characteristic (but unsuitable for a category because it's not binary) and if the distribution is described using small areas (e.g. Suriname, Guyana, French Guiana) then they are not each individually a defining characteristic. As I've explained in the CFD above, there is a better way to subcategorize any categories that become overpopulated. DexDor (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you fundamentally don't understand the inclusion criteria for these categories. They include taxa that are extant and native to that region; extirpated populations are excluded, as are introductions outside of the native range. For our purposes, the native range of a species is as fixed as a river and in no way is a species' distribution more like "religions practiced in X" than "rivers of X". I don't follow your argument about the categories not being binary; as far as I know, there is no requirement that categories represent binary inclusion criteria. As for your last point, I'll explain above, but again I fundamentally disagree with subcategorization by taxon. First of all, reptile is paraphyletic doesn't make sense in taxonomy. I'd much rather see subcategorization by region or country for all fauna or flora than having it broken down by taxon. Rkitko(talk) 20:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "there is no requirement that categories represent binary inclusion criteria": either a page belongs in a category or it does not belong in that category - that's 2 options. For info: I've invited editors at WT:BIRDS to join this discussion. DexDor (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I am not sure if this goes far enough. The argument that this should be for extant, non-introduced species does not hold up to our requirements. There are wolves in Michigan today. If I went and killed all the wolves in Michigan, would that remove them from that category? In almost all cases if a category once applied, it should still apply. I see no good reason for these categories to cover extant species only. In the case of San Marino, what does that mean? What if all the species migrats out of San Marino for a time, and then comes back 5 years later? Being in a certain human political area is not defining for the species involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, for infrequent occurences we have the accidental category, for animals which have bred and had viable populations but no longer occur we have the category extirpated. Animals that have occurred artificially due to the direct or indirect influence of man and have sustainable breeding populations are considered introduced. Introduced species can become extirpated.....17:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Support I'm coming at this more from a bottom up article perspective, rather than a top-down category one. Click on Orange-winged amazon and take a look at the mess of non-defining country categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:37, 7 November 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:Novels based on Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri[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 as empty. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only three articles in this category, unlikely to be more. Two of the three existing items are redirects to the game the novels are based upon. Mikeblas (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Does it normally take so long to resolve CfD? The single member of this category has been deleted at AfD, and now the category contains only redirects. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This category is now empty. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:C1, category is empty and I'm assuming it wasn't emptied out of order. Note: I also tagged the category for speedy. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:40, 7 November 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:Coulson Norman Mitchell nomination #2[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Closed as a duplicate discussion of #Category:Coulson Norman Mitchell. All comments to be considered in the close of that discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON there are not enough topic associated with the eponymous subject to warrant a category. The articles to which it has been applied are linked to in the main article anyway. Nthep (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear-cut case of a completely useless category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no chance whatever of adding any valid articles to this category, apart from Coulson Norman Mitchell. Oculi (talk) 16:05, 29 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.
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.
Gathering more information still in process of discussion possibly merging with distinguished Victoria Cross recipients since the subjected individual Lietenant-colonel Coulson Norman Mitchell VC MC RCE MCE is indeed royal nobility and this individual royal subject should be categorized in his own category or merged with royal nobility category or Victoria Cross category and not swept away for deletion without proper critical study of the matter as above. . . Gleeson.ThomasR (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. And why on earth was this man "royal nobility"? Is this some sort of joke? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no chance whatever of adding any valid articles to this category, apart from Coulson Norman Mitchell. This is such a bad idea that 2 different editors have simultaneously brought it to cfd. Oculi (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note the user talk page was removed from the category since we do not categorize user pages in the encyclopedia name space. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as good faith effort by new editor who doesn't understand how categories work. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though he got the VC, we are never going to have more than one article in this category. Events in which he particpated would be a sort of perfromacen category, which we do not allow. This refers to the category. An article on a recipient of the VC should probably be kept (but with a rather shorter name). Peterkingiron (talk)
Delete. Obviously. What other articles could be put in this category? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 2 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.
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. WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Category doesn't add to what The Joy Formidable article already does. Articles on the band's songs and albums are already in more appropriate subject categories, which also link to one another. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The song and album categories are sufficient for navigation. SFB 19:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So every article on a band, and perhaps every article on any person, should be in a category for itself since they'd only be in hidden administrative categories? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:21, 10 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.
