Category:Psychiatric asylum buildings in 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:manual merge where needed, then delete. – FayenaticLondon 07:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I'm not convinced that being an called an asylum is defining especially based on the category introduction. Of the article I have checked, they are also in the Category:Psychiatric hospitals in the United Kingdom category. This appears to be categorization by like name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Manual merge to appropriate sub-cats of Category:Psychiatric hospitals in the United Kingdom, just in case any pages are not so categorised already. In practice, this means checking that they are all in the appropriate other category, and then deleting. – FayenaticLondon 10:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, Category:Psychiatric hospitals in the United Kingdom should not be limited to current ones. If the article covers the institution as a psychiatric hosptial, it could have been closed for 200 years. What else would we categorize something that was a psychiatric hosptial until it closed in 1814 as?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My fault - I did not mean to say that the categories should be restricted to current hospitals. There is an historic aspect which needs to be covered, either by a separate category, or probably better by a list. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:45, 5 July 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: Undersized - a quick scan found only 44 stubs which would belong on this category. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 18:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - All the stubs in this category are under the Canada Streets project (dealing with urban streetscapes) and not the Canada/Ontario roads project (dealing with long distance / provincial highways and freeways). Just a minor quibble since there are no stub or start articles left in the Ontario roads project. - Floydianτ¢ 06:19, 7 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.
Nominator's rationale There are multiple reasons to do this. 1-there is not much point in having only one sub-cat of a category. 2- To justify this subcat we should be able to create a more than list, referenced to reliable sources article on women in philology, I doubt we could do that, 3- even if we could, having this fine of categories is more than we are able to maintain. This category has existed for months with only two entries. These various women in the sciences, social sciences and humanties categories were massively created with little thought to what is sustainable by our editing force or what is really useful to readers over the last year. We can barely keep the very clearly a topic of thought and study Category:Women poets and its various sub-cats in good order. No one has ever fully built out the vast majority of say Category:Women historians, Category:Women sociologists, or Category:Women linguists. Until we have those parent categories well built, building daughter categories just creates a situation of needing to navigate between extremely small categories that is helpful to no one, and probably discourages both users who might gain information and editors from trying to improve the situation. With the present level of participation in category editing in wikipedia, having a category like this is not sustainable. This issue might change in the future, but for now we would be much better off to move up to top level field categories like Category:Women linguists and build them as much as possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category is just a little shy of being 4 months old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 3 July 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. I would upmerge it but the category is now empty, along with the occupational categories for Bahranis. This is at least in part due to the edits of AsimAlsadeh (talk·contribs) who I notice has de-categorised some pages as unsourced. – FayenaticLondon 23:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This categiry is governed by the following two paragraphs "This category exists only as a container category for other categories of women. Articles on individual women should not be added directly to this category, but may be added to an appropriate sub-category if it exists. Please note that categorisation by gender is acceptable in Wikipedia only in limited circumstances which are set out in Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. New categories by gender may be deleted if they do not meet the tests set out in that guideline." It should be noted that Bahrani people are an ethnic group in Bahrain, and evidently not all the people in Bahrain. If we had articles like Bahrani women, History of Bahrani women, or on other events and issues that related to these women as a whole, we could put them here, and if we had say Category:Bahrani actresses as a sub-category of Bahrani actors or Category:Bahrani female singers as a subcategory of Category:Bahrani singers we could put them here. However since we lack all of these, this category has no legitimate contents, and so should be upmerged for the present time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The denonym for people from Bahrain, is Bahraini. Thus Category:Bahraini women is a different category, and with 4 existing sub-cats, is a workable category. Whether all those subcats are appropriate is not material to this discussion and I will refrain from saying. I strongly suspect we should have an article Women in Bahrain or something like that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gender intersection with an ethnic category - the immediate children of Category:Women by ethnicity is for navigation, not for categorisation. Being a woman of a certain ethnicity in itself is no more defining than being a person of that ethnicity, since all ethnicities have men and women :) SFB 09:46, 5 July 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: "Dietary mineral" is an outdated term in any case, and should be replaced with "Dietary element". However, the members of this category are all metals. Not all dietary elements are metals, such as chlorine, iodine, and bromine, but I do not think people can get toxicity from these in the context of them being consumed in one's diet or even as dietary supplement treatment. Right now, this category is being used to mean "metal poisoning", and per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_11#Category:Toxic_metal_poisoning, this category should redirect to that one until someone makes a case for "dietary element toxicity" outside the context of metal poisoning. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to whatever name ends up being used, because it already is being used for both poisonings and toxicities. Kennethaw88 • talk 21:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New proposal Everything should go to Category:Toxic effects of metals, which is the official term used by the ICD and an established category which is overlooked. I already moved everything there. I move for this to be closed; there seems to be consensus for this and no voice against this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Hmm... those are not metals. I would not call them minerals, because that is an imprecise term and I am not sure those conditions were described as minerals in the past and I do not think they have been called that in years. Yes, this could be worth keeping, but I would rename it to "Dietary element toxicity" and have "metal poisoning" be a subcategory of that top level heading. We can see what comes up in addition to those two important cases you found. Those two should be in a category together and "dietary element toxicity" is the best way I can think to describe it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: for consistency, how about "Toxic effects of dietary elements"? – FayenaticLondon 20:15, 21 July 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, replace with {{atlanta-stub}} and {{LGBT-stub}}. The stub's creator does not appear to have done what was recommended. – FayenaticLondon 16:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't even have a US-level LGBT stub tag; we certainly don't need one for a single city in the US. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can add both.There is a need. tdempsey (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We don't have a stub-type and associated stub-type category for every non-stub-type content category that exists. If there's not enough stubs to support a US-level categorization, then the Atlanta-level categorization is overkill. An intersection between LGBT-stub and Atlanta-stub would handle this. If the articles are not written yet, then the creation of the stub-type is toosoon (per WP:WSS/P guidelines on how many stubs should exist before categories and templates are created. The proposed 24 stubs fails the minimums outlined at WP:WSS/P.) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there's a difference between “don't have” and “don't need”. I used WP:CatScan to find all stub articles under Category:LGBT in the United States, and it found 1242 articles. It seems that there are enough stub articles to be worth a US-level LGBT stub tag, and almost certainly sub-categories for some US states and some of the larger cities. It looks like the Atlanta editors are ahead of the curve on this one. Let's keep what's been built here, and give the rest of the US time to catch up, rather than tearing down one of the pioneering examples. Unician∇ 13:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that we need, come up with a list of at least 60 pages (usually through a category scan, which you can do uninng this tool), link to it and propose it at WP:WSS/P. If what you're saying is true, then you should be able to come up with lists for several US states. And this tag is misnamed - Atlanta needs to be capitalized, and probably first.
One important rule: You should generally try and build new category structures from the bottom up - that is, start with the most general categoiry in the scheme, and then go on to specifics. Before proposing a tag for a US tsate, you should go through the US and then the state in question (which, by the way, would be GeorgiaUS, to distinguish from the Asian country by the same name). עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 03:07, 13 July 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/rename. – FayenaticLondon 21:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just like other territories, these should be historically accurate. Idaho Territory existed from 1863-1890. Note that the single article for 1890 still belongs with the territory. I don't think there's a need to create centuries/millennium categories; Everything can just be left in Category:Years in Idaho and Category:Decades in Idaho, etc. Kennethaw88 • talk 01:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per accurate historical nomenclature. Personally, I think the "year X in Idaho" categories are a bit much and a bit of a dead-end: by decade categories are more than enough, if not too much already – if you upmerged all five subcategories of Category:1880s in Idaho that category would still only have six articles. I'm not really sure how any person could find these labyrinthine structure helpful. SFB 10:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these category structures have only been created in the last year or so, and I doubt they are complete. There are very likely many other cities and towns to populate these. Kennethaw88 • talk 00:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merge per nom. With some of these categories having over 10 articles, there is a strong argument to keep them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and keep up the good work. There must be a lot more of these to tackle. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 10 July 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.
