Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 22 September 24 >

September 23[edit]

Category:Socialist and social democratic parties in Germany[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: split to Category:Socialist parties in Germany and Category:Social democratic parties in Germany. – Fayenatic London 06:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories cover the exact same topic and overlap with one another. Charles Essie (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but remove the parties that are social democratic but not socialist. Not all social democratic parties are socialist. (I wonder if what was meant in the nominated category was "Socialist and democratic socialist parties", which would make more sense, since all democratic socialists are socialists.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep the name "Socialist parties in Germany" and create a separate subcategory titled "Social democratic parties in Germany". Charles Essie (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be one way to deal with it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Charles Essie as making more sense. Hmains (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support creation of "Social democratic parties in Germany" if enough content. SFB 21:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to avoid similar categories with overlapping scope. And support a distinct "Social democratic" sub-category, the current SPD and it's sister organizations should have enough articles to fill it. GermanJoe (talk) 23:02, 14 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:Peoples of the African diaspora[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 to Category:People of African descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In title, this category is pretending to be something else, but it is very clearly a category on black people. All North African material is excluded, as are Arabic African topics. The target category has previously been salted, but the concept of blackness has been extensively studied and widespread in culture.
  • I urge people to either support the move, or propose upmerge to Category:African diaspora and deletion as this serves no other purpose than to categorise only black people (not Africans). SFB 21:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- African diaspora is collecting articles by where people are from. This category is collecting them by where they have ended up. These are different. Category:African diaspora by origin/Category:African diaspora by destination might resolve this issue. However, "Black" does not, and it will not do as an equivalent, because Africans north of the Sahara are moistly not black. Furthermore, some Indians and aboriginal Australians are also very dark skinned. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron and Marcocapelle: This purpose is already served by Category:People of African descent. Note that the child categories of the proposed one are all parents to the respective "X descent" tree. I might propose to merge the "Afro-fooians"/"Fooians of African descent" categories, which are overlapping. I have created Category:People by African country of descent to split the country origin from the destination origin (which was indeed needed). Is there any reason to keep the category if a non-black-people basis is rejected? SFB 18:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for notifying us about this, a merge would be perfect and then we don't need this category any longer indeed.Marcocapelle (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose deletion. Though, we could consider renaming it "Peoples of the Black Diaspora". Calling it "black people" would lump in all of the black people in Africa and defeat the purpose of talking about the African Diaspora (as it is call in most articles on the subject.) futurebird (talk) 11:50, 22 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:Petersburg Census Area, Alaska[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/delete as nominated. Some clean up will be required, as set out in nomination. I assume that the questions raised were adequately answered (it all made sense to me, in any case). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: – The Petersburg Borough was incorporated nearly two years ago (January 2013) and the Petersburg Census Area subsequently ceased to exist. Change of this sort tends to happen at a glacial pace to begin with. In this case, only two categories have been created for the new subdivision (corresponding to the categories above requested to be deleted, rather than renamed), with the remaining categories reflecting the defunct subdivision. The only category redirects which exist for Alaskan census areas reflect hyphen/ndash issues, not former subdivisions, so precedent dictates eliminating categories referring to the census area. The boundaries of the two entities are different; 2010 Census: Hoonah-Angoon Census Area, Petersburg Census Area and Prince of Wales-Hyder Census Area, versus 2013 post-incorporation maps: HACA, Petersburg Borough and POWHCA, so this won't be as easy as just exchanging categories for every article affected. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's very hard for me to assume good faith when I see comments such as these, revealing that none of you actually read the rationale before commenting. I suppose I could just repeat myself, but when I repeat myself that many times, I tend to take on the tone of an adult talking down to little children. What part of "Category:Protected areas of Petersburg Borough, Alaska already exists" requires further elaboration? I make indirect mention of it in my rationale ("only two categories have been created for the new subdivision (corresponding to the categories above requested to be deleted, rather than renamed"), plus it has been linked repeatedly in this discussion. That it was created as a lone action as a "vanity category" to puff up an article created by the same editor, rather than created as a coherent piece of the category tree, is irrelevant: it exists, so there's no need to rename it or the other category for which an equivalent already exists. Now, to Hmain's concern. Why not just switch categories? Once again, I already covered this in the rationale. Portions of the former census area are in the current borough, but the western reaches were moved to the Prince of Wales – Hyder Census Area instead. Cleanup is the most important part of this, not merely having categories for the sake of having categories. This CFD is coming long after this TFD because I don't have unlimited time for this. The only comment made during the TFD was "no need to navigate by former subdivision". Really, this should be that simple, too. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:56, 27 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:Top-ranked article stubs[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't understand how this would even be possible. An article cannot truly be top-ranked while still remaining a stub. Anyone who would choose to tag an article with this template would make better use of their time by either removing all stub templates from the article (if it truly is a top-ranked article) or downgrading the article, if it truly is a stub. Dawynn (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unclear what is meant by "top-ranked" thus not definitive. SFB 21:53, 28 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:Developmental dyslexia[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. – Fayenatic London 07:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate category; the topic sometimes called "developmental dyslexia" is the same as the WP article Dyslexia. Developmental dyslexia is a redirect to Dyslexia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 23 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_September_23&oldid=1074814094"