Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 5 November 7 >

November 6[edit]

Category:Sportspeople from Sydney by gender[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. Note that Category:Sportsmen from Sydney and Category:Sportswomen from Sydney still exist after this nomination; they were not nominated and will simply be merged to become subcategories of Category:Sportspeople from Sydney. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need to divide the parent by gender as this is inherently a small container category. Dividing categories "by" something should only be done when it helps readers navigate separate sets of many categories. SFB 20:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. While men and women complete separately in most sport, there is little merit in splititng the target category by gender. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 15 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:Sportspeople from Sydney by sport[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need to divide the parent by sport as there is only two other categories (sportswomen/men) present in the category. Dividing categories "by" something should only be done when it helps readers navigate separate sets of many categories. SFB 20:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The effect wiil be that the sports sub-cats are directly in the Sydney category, which is sensible. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 15 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:Sportspeople from Melbourne by sport[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need to divide the parent by sport as there is only one other category (sportswomen) present in the category. Dividing categories "by" something should only be done when it helps readers navigate separate sets of many categories. SFB 20:04, 6 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:Bishops in Italy by diocese[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) 00:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've started a new Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Italy while not realizing that the nominated category exists. The reason I overlooked the old category was that it was poorly parented and poorly filled. Anyway, either the new or the old category is redundant.

Comment Please note that I'm neutral towards an alternative, namely to merging Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Italy into Category:Bishops in Italy by diocese because it is completely obvious that all bishops in Italy in a 'by diocese' category must be Roman Catholic. 12:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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:Converts to Sunni Islam from Sufism[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. – Fayenatic London 15:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a subtle attempt at POV pushing, taking advantage of the fact that most English-speaking Wikipedians are non-Muslim and are not familiar with inter-Muslim polemics. Sufism and Salafism are both sub-branches of Sunni Islam, though they both claim they are the only true Sunnis and the other movement is heretical and outside both Sunnism and Shi'ism. The category of converts to Sunnism from Sufism is a misnomer, as Sufis are already Sunnis, just like Salafis, Deobandis, Barelwis and a plethora of other sub-branches of Sunnism, all ironically declaring the others to be blasphemers. By creating this category, the editor implies that Sufism is separate from Sunnism. It's a categorically false assertion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if there weren't a POV issue to consider, we'd hardly need a category like this to contain just one entry. Bearcat (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the nominator explained it is a kind of POV pushing.Seyyed(t-c) 12:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see a POV being pushed here, but it's as much as non-issue as Anglicans to Episcopal or Lutheran faiths. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:21, 11 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:Caymanian law[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: reverse merge, leaving a redirect for clarity. – Fayenatic London 12:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplication. "Caymanian" is just the adjective for things from the Cayman Islands. Consisten with other countries propose merging under Category:Cayman Islands law using the full country name. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most countries in Category:Law by country seem to use the demonym but most territories use the entity name, especially in the Caribbean. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on different grounds. I don't think "Caymanian" is widely enough known to be helpful with reader navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. The nominator's rationale is somewhat faulty. The Category:Law by country tree uses the FOOian form by default, and the FOOian form for the Cayman Islands is Caymanian. The only ones that don't use the FOOian form is the ones for which there is no good FOOian form or ones for which there has been overall consensus to depart from FOOian for all categories of that country or territory. Here, we still use FOOian in Category:Caymanian people, Category:Caymanian society and the others in the Category:Cayman Islands tree. There is no good reason to change this one in isolation of all the others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No objection to a reverse merge if that is deemed more appropriate; my main point in making the merge proposal is that we need to reduce the number of categories from two to one. Category:Caymanian law works just fine for me. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- preferably as nom, as I am not sure that the demonyn is widely enough used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
  • Merge in one directionj, neutral on direction - we don't need both of these categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cayman Island, this is the more common term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why a non-reverse-merge is counterproductive. If "Cayman Islands" is used rather than "Caymanian", and no further changes are made to the category tree, sooner or later someone is going to notice that this category is out-of-sync with the other subcategories of Category:Law by country and the other "FOOian BAR" subcategories of Category:Cayman Islands, and if they are unaware of this discussion, the category will be speedily renamed back to Category:Caymanian law. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:09, 9 December 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:Božidara Turzonovová[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) 01:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very little content. Overcategorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main article and a filmography do not constitute reason enough to create a category. SFB 17:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No additional aid to navigation since the filmography and main articles link to and from each other already. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:53, 12 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:Moths of Cameroon[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 the 3rd group (regions of mainland Africa) and the 4th group (countries in mainland Africa). No consensus for the 1st group (moth types) or the 2nd group (islands off mainland Africa); the categories in the 1st and 2nd groups were not tagged for discussion in any case, so if users want to pursue those, they should be tagged and re-nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moth types
  • Islands off mainland Africa
  • Regions of mainland Africa
  • Countries in mainland Africa
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. In continents with a large number of countries, moths are not categorized by each country in which they have been found but rather by Category:Moths by continent --Kkmurray (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge of by-country categories - e.g. because for moths like Agrotis trux ("It ... is found along the coasts of France ... and the Arabian Peninsula. In Africa, it is found as far south as South Africa.") and Achaea lienardi being found in a particular country is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. However, oppose upmerge of Category:Owlet moths of Africa etc - afaics those are appropriate categorization. Suggest Kkmurray remove those from the nomination. DexDor (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also support upmerge of regions and islands categories. Moths-of-Madagascar isn't too bad, but NotWith-type editors are likely to see it as meaning that any offshore island should have a category (moths-of-Zanzibar?). Limiting this type of categorization to continents is the simplest option and avoids having an article in many of-place categories. Finer detail about the distribution of a species can be captured in an endemic category, in a list, in WikiData and (of course) in the text of the article about the species. DexDor (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a double upmerge, to Category:Fauna of Cameroon etc. There are various intermediate levels such as Category:Lepidoptera of Cameroon, Category:Insects of Cameroon, Category:Tetrapods of Cameroon, Category:Invertebrates of Cameroon which might well take up weeks of cfd. Oculi (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge of country ones only. Countries are not effective ways to categorise animals as they are not confined to national borders. The subdivisions by moth type are a superior way of dissecting the content from the main Category:Moths of Africa and should be retained. The parent category of Category:Snout moths of Africa is Pyralidae (the target of the redirect, which is simply another name for the same topic). I suggest expanding this categorisation instead of deleting it. (The moth type categories should have been nominated separately to be honest because the reason for/against the proposed categories have little in common with the country ones.) SFB 00:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All MainlandCountries/Neutral on Types/Opposed to Island Countries If you want to see what a mess this makes on each article, click on Pardoxia and take a look at the bottom. (If you think I'm cherry picking, just click on any any article in these categories at random.) RevelationDirect (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support countries per nom. Individual countries aren't a useful way to categorize plant or animal species, as they aren't easily confined by national borders, so this just results in unhelpful category bloat. Oppose on moth types, as that does seem like a potentially useful subcategorization scheme — if some are improperly named, they can certainly be separately relisted for deletion or renaming as a separate issue, but they're not really subject to the same problems as the country cats and shouldn't be bundled with them. Bearcat (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mainland areas and countries but not islands (per similar discussions about other areas of the world). Madagascar for instance is renowned for its separate species. I have taken the liberty of organising the list into 3 sub-sections. Oculi (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mainland countries, oppose islands and regions, neutral on types - big regions and types are plausably reasonable depending on category size. Countries are not useful (unless they cover big areas, which none of the African countries do); islands, on the other hand, are frequently populated by different animals than the mainland (you won't find South African giraffes in Madagascar, or lemurs in Mozambique). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with עוד מישהו. Madagasar, Mauritius and Reunion will have disticnt fauna of their own, different from Africa itself. I suspect that we could usefully have faunca categories for North Africa (defined as north of Sahara; Sahara; Sahel; perhaps West Africa (defined as south of Sahel), but defining other regions may be difficult. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 15 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:Fairview Alpha, Louisiana[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 (article is already in parent categories as well, so no merging of contents is necessary). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for an unincorporated community with one article entry (the community) and a redirect to that community. Very little potential for growth. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If we had five or ten articles we could file here, then I'd say keep, but if all we've actually got is the head eponym itself then we don't need it. Bearcat (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 02:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to county - or rather parish. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_6&oldid=1138399886"