Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 3 August 5 >

August 4[edit]

Category:Trains project articles needing maps[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 to Category:Rail transport articles needing maps. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: You don't have to be part of a WikiProject to tag an article (talk page) as needing a map. Consistency with Category:River articles needing maps and Category:Bus transport articles needing maps. Alternatively, rename to Category:Wikipedia trains articles needing maps as some subcats of Category:Wikipedia requested maps have a name beginning with "Wikipedia". DexDor (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • support for brevity and the reasoning given by the nom. But since many of the articles there are about railway lines, other railway infrastructure (such as bridges and tunnels) or railway accidents and not just passenger train services, a better destination name might be Category:Rail transport articles needing maps to match the overall category for rail transportation, Category:Rail transport. If a change is made, there will need to be a corresponding change made to the {{WikiProject Trains}} banner; articles are added to the category through the |mapneeded= parameter there. But since that's the only method that I've seen articles added to the category so far, it will make the task of updating the articles themselves trivial. I thought I already put it on Portal:Trains/Things you can do, but it looks like I haven't added it there yet, so I'll wait until the outcome of this discussion. Slambo (Speak) 22:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - nom adjusted. DexDor (talk) 06:11, 5 August 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:Incurable and invariably fatal diseases[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not medically defined -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • support should be deleted, not a reasonable article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's currently empty. Was it emptied out of process? I'm just trying to see what was the thought process behind this category (or was it just an WP:OR of random diseases). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I emptied it on account of it being OR, yes. Unless you count life there are no "invariably fatal diseases". It previously included Rabies, CJD etc. neither of which can be defined according to the terms used. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then delete it. From reviewing Special:Contributions/DN-boards1, I see it's a random assortment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's fair to say that life is the only "invariably fatal" disease. Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease is described as "invariably fatal" by the NIH[1] and many other sources. Sure, you could have CJD and still manage to die from a heart attack or in car wreck, but "invariably fatal" does not mean "immune to all other causes of death". There are a number of rare genetic conditions that have zero survivors past the age of five. "Incurable and invariably fatal" sounds like a very accurate and verifiable description of those conditions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could categorize diseases by how agencies categorize them (i.e. Diseases categorized as invariably fatal by the NIH) so that we have criteria that's concrete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the way that we do things like that is to give it the briefest name we can get away with, and then define the criteria at the top of the category page. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating category pages, starting with the words "Sometimes, a common-sense guess based on the title of the category isn't enough". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are much better ways to categorize diseases - e.g. Category:Diseases and disorders by system‎. Any precise definition (e.g. "zero survivors past the age of five") is likely to fail WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Also, as medicine advances would we remove articles from the category? DexDor (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This category was for diseases that have a case fatality rate of 100%. It is based on statistics, not on a random assortment. All the diseases in the category had CFRs of 100% according to List of human disease case fatality rates. DN-boards1 (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I have read African trypanosomiasis, recently removed from the category, and it is neither incurable nor invariably fatal. Articles should be categorised using defining facts in the article, not in an independent list. Oculi (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEFINING. What is incurable or fatal in 1800, or in present-day Haiti, or with someone without insurance in the US is different than what is fatal or incurable to someone with current healthcare. It doesn't seem like level of healthcare defines the underlying diseases from a categorization standpoint. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but there are still many diseases that are invariably fatal even if you have easy access to the best possible technology in the world. There has never been a survivor of non-mosaic Trisomy 16 in the history of the world, and there probably never will be. It is, without exception, "invariably fatal" (usually well before birth). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a good category. One person has survived rabies thus not invariable fatal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm the one who added rabies, when I removed several others. I had heard that there had once been a survivor, but thought that one person in history is not statistically significant. But then the creator of the category removed rabies, pointing me to an article that indicates that, with the best modern care, survival is now at ~10%. So yes, with advances in medical care, previously invariably fatal diseases such as recurrent glioma may be removed from the category. It seems like a useful category, as long as it's policed. Though we might want to restrict it to acquired or contracted diseases, as opposed to genetic defects. — kwami (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like Kwami, I think that it seems like a useful category, as long as it's policed. I can see it being of particular interest to fiction authors, who are often looking for diseases where death is guaranteed but hasn't happened yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire It is not invariable that any person who gets any disease will die of it. Also, categorization is supposed to be where possible based on permanent characteristics. Since as is shown with the discussion of rabbies, the level of treament and curing changes, this is based on a changeable situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no objective inclusion criteria for what defines "fatal" and "incurable". --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:52, 15 August 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:Iranian peoples[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: keep, but users are free to "purge" the category and to correct/revise the category definition. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. If you read the title and see the contents these are being used identically; the Iranian peoples is not limited to Aryan/Iranian peoples but include Turks, Jews, and anyone who happens to live on the territory of Iran, which essential in our scheme of categorization belongs at "ethnic groups in Iran", so merge. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a mess, frankly, with biographies (which are people not peoples), dialects (which are languages, not peoples), of various origins (ethnically, linguistically, historically, and geographically) - most of which articles have little by way of referenced source for inclusion in the category more narrowly construed and constituted. If you think it can be salvaged somehow, take a crack at it by being bold, but its more a jumble than it first appears. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge The headnote's attempt to be all inclusive is the problem here. There is an Iranian (or should be Iranic) group of languages, many of whom are in Iran (but not all). This needs to be the basis of the category. The rest probably belong in the target, but bio-articles need to be purged anyway. Perhaps it should be C:ategory:Iranic-language peoples. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on keeping and purging, and then also remove the headnote, replacing it by a Cat main tag referring to the eponymous article Iranian peoples.Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge This a linguistic group and the subcategories reflect that. I can see the need of including articles related to the groups, but the bio articles have to go. Dimadick (talk) 17:31, 29 August 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:Category-Epistemology/header[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: administrative close, no category nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. the category structure pretty much does what this template is doing. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@203.109.161.2: I think you're trying to list Template:Category-Epistemology/header. If so, this is the wrong location. You want TFD not CFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:22, 4 August 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:Sinhala 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: merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only subcategory here is the monarchy subcategory which contains the monarchs who led the kingdoms within the Sinhalese category. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:58, 4 August 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_August_4&oldid=1074814408"