Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 4 April 6 >

April 5[edit]

Category:Wiley-Blackwell academic journals associated with learned societies[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. MER-C 12:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intersection between Wiley-Blackwell academic journals and Academic journals associated with learned societies. Who the publisher is and whether or not a journal is "associated" with a learned society are rather independent qualities. Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I created that category. Discussion already happened in the context of Category:Elsevier academic journals associated with learned societies, as per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_26. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Some academic jounrals come from a learned society, which appoints the editors; others are purely proprietory. I do not think the difference is significant. Possibly a list might be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WB is specialized in publishing journals for/with societies. My guess is that at least three quarters of all journals that they publish are in some way associated with a society. Better to categorize them in "WB academic journals" and a society-related cat. --Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2015 (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:Political parties of Indiana, North Dakota[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: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 14:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I created this category, but accidentally used "of" rather than "in". The other categories of this sort use "in". KConWiki (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also, would someone be able to help me find the appropriate template to use to propose merging (rather than renaming) tjhe categories Category:Political parties of North Dakota and Category:Political parties in North Dakota? Thanks KConWiki (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Done for Category:Political parties of North Dakota (does Category:Political parties in North Dakota need a tag?). Re your own creations, with an error you can just put "db-author" within brackets "{{}}" on the category for deletion Hugo999 (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2015 (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:Political parties of Idaho[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: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 14:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I created this category, but accidentally used "of" rather than "in". The other categories of this sort use "in". KConWiki (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2015 (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:Affection video games[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 both as duplicates to the same editor's recent creation Category:Affective video games, which at least matches an article title. That editor has declined to comment despite a request at the related CFD linked below. – Fayenatic London 17:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization: category holds a single (inappropriate, IMHO) subcategory. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:51, 5 April 2015 (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.

Czech periods[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. --slakr\ talk / 03:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. While it may be acceptable in common parlance, technically there was no Czech Republic in those periods. Wikipedia:Category_names#How_to_name_the_country generally suggests using historical names in such cases. The History of the Czech Republic currently redirects to more general History of the Czech lands. Brandmeistertalk 09:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably not, as I would expect that we categorize these centuries by state, not by region. So Czech lands = (Duchy of, Kingdom of) Bohemia from some point of time in the Middle Ages until 1918. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Peterkingiron brought me to an alternative idea. Wouldn't the following make more sense from a contemporary polity point of view?
Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric Czech Republic to Category:Prehistoric Czech lands
Propose renaming Category:11th century in the Czech Republic to Category:11th century in Bohemia
Propose renaming Category:12th century in the Czech Republic to Category:12th century in Bohemia
Propose renaming Category:13th century in the Czech Republic to Category:13th century in Bohemia
Propose renaming Category:14th century in the Czech Republic to Category:14th century in Bohemia
Propose merging Category:15th century in the Czech Republic to Category:15th century in Bohemia
Propose renaming Category:16th century in the Czech Republic to Category:16th century in Bohemia
Propose renaming Category:17th century in the Czech Republic to Category:17th century in Bohemia
Propose renaming Category:18th century in the Czech Republic to Category:18th century in Bohemia
Propose merging Category:19th century in the Czech Republic to Category:19th century in Bohemia
Propose renaming Category:20th century in the Czech Republic to Category:20th century in the Czech lands
Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would require verifying whether Bohemia indeed applies to the categories' entire content. "Czech lands" just seems to be more embracing, with less headache. Brandmeistertalk 10:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the 11th to 15th century to start with and there seems no objection to it from that perspective. Either the articles explicitly refer to Bohemia or they just don't mention the contemporary polity but mention the name the city (Prague, Jihlava). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Bohemia; and purge what doesn't belong the "Czech lands" is unverifiable and subjective - borders have changed numerous times over the years. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all away from Czech Republic. Support Marcopelle on Bohemia. Czech Lands is problematic in that at times large %s of the population self identified as German, not just in Sudetenland, but also in Prague.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2015 (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:United States building and structure 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: no consensus. Valid but contradicting C2C arguments from both sides. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

and its subcats
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:United Kingdom building and structure 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: no consensus. Valid but contradicting C2C arguments from both sides. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

and its subcats
  • Rationalle: All structure categories (except for the UK and US) use the adjective forms, and the established adjective form for the UK is "British" (see Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs for an earlier discussion where this was accepted). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This opens a can of worms, according to how the term British is to be applied. Strictly, it only covers England, Scotland and Wales, not Northern Ireland, but the Unionist population of Northern Ireland would linch you for suggesting that they are not British, whereas the Republican population would do likewise for suggesting that they are British. Nevertheless, since this is an adminstrative category, United Kingdom might be contracted to UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The stub category should be consistent with the parent non-stub-specific category which is Category:Buildings and structures in the United Kingdom. DexDor (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that we generally use the "Buildings and structures in Foo" for the non-stub categories, and the "Fooian building and structure stubs" for the stub categories; my nomination is to fix these from "Foo building and structure stubs" to "Fooian building and structure stubs". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still oppose. Don't fix one "problem" by introducing a worse problem. DexDor (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the stub templates are not called "British" they are called "UK" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2015 (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:Lang Labor members of the Parliament of New South Wales[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Lang Labor" was a loose label applied to the followers of New South Wales Premier Jack Lang in multiple splits of the Australian Labor Party, occurring at different times and not necessarily involving the same people each time.
There is a project going on to recategorise Australian politicians by party, and everywhere else this has been done by actual party, not multiple parties hashed together as here. The editor who created it is doing a lot of the recategorising but has refused to participate in any of the actual discussion, and I'm a bit frustrated that this is the second time I've had to take a category to CfD that there wasn't consensus to create in the first place. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or split. This one I actually think is pretty fair, especially since the Category:Lang Labor politicians category has existed for years (and was established by consensus). The Lang Labor politicians category has always had a disclaimer at the top clarifying that it includes the various different parties. Alternatively this category could be split according to the relevant distinctions (i.e. Category:Australian Labor Party (Non-Communist) members of the Parliament of New South Wales). It also raises an interesting question about how we handle Lang Labor at NSW state level (I mean, technically that's everyone 1931–36, right?) but that's something we needn't get into here. Frickeg (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, this nomination is to split it: in every other state, we've grouped them all by actual party, and I don't see why we should group the various non-contiguous Langite splinter parties together. The previous discussion was extremely brief, and I think we've taken a different tact with parties in the seven years since then! The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created this following the example of Category:Lang Labor members of the Parliament of Australia. This is at least as important a phenomenon at the NSW as at the Commonwealth level. If it existence is to debated both should be included.--Grahame (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how to include the federal category but agree that the same applies in both cases - it would be nominated here as well except I hadn't noticed it sooner. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge both this and Australian Parliament child to the parent. The divisions by Parliament are not distinct enough to warrant creation. Overall, there is no dichotomy here, so it doesn't make sense to create that sense with a two-child-category structure. SFB 12:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was created as a result of an extensive discussion about a new category structure around categorising Australian MPs by party, which would get thoroughly broken if it were randomly upmerged in places. I would thoroughly oppose this, as would basically everyone else who contributed to that discussion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2015 (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/2015_April_5&oldid=1074814283"