Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 6 December 8 >

December 7[edit]

Category:Religious law in the United States[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:United States legislation concerning religion. Assuming I understood the responses properly, it doesn't make sense to "merger" to a red-linked, non-existent category. That seems like a vote to rename instead and I think that's the consensus here and that would solve the merger issues along with the concerns over the merger expressed in the first votes. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge because this category is not about religious law but instead it is about public law regarding religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This Proposal These are specific legislative acts involving religion in the US and are part of the Category:United States law by issue tree. I understand you're trying to distinguish this from Jewish law, Islam law etc since these are from a secular government laws pertaining to religion but this nomination expands the scope. I'm open to a possible rename of the whole Category:Religious law by country tree though. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. The contents are not religious law, but laws that define government interaction with religion or specific religions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom - John Pack Lambert has it right. Neutralitytalk 06:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both but I do not like the name of the target: the principle of separation of church and state comes from the Constitution, but "state" has a different context in US: there are 50 of them. I would suggest that the merge target might be Category:United States law on religion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a good alternative, also satisfying the comments of earlier contributors to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2016 (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:Academic institutions currently affiliated with the University of Mysore[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 both. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We normally only categorize by permanent characteristics (with the exception of things like living people) so don't normally have categories with "current" etc in their name (example CFDs).
I'd also be interested in editors view on whether being an affiliate of a university is a defining characteristic of a college etc (e.g. Bose Institute) - if it's WP:NON-DEFINING then a separate CFD to delete Category:Colleges affiliated to universities in India and subcats may be in order (related CFD) DexDor (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 194 Colleges affiliated to the University of Mysore - so articles about any of these colleges or institutions would fit into this category (potentially 194 articles). Such affiliations may be permanent or temporary (usually initially the affiliation is temporary). Colleges in India without such an affiliation are basically unregulated and their degrees considered pretty worthless. Affiliation to a major university is perhaps one good criteria by which to judge whether an Indian tertiary education institute is sufficiently noteworthy for a WP article. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question In the articles I looked at, these affiliations didn't seem defining but the articles are pretty skimpy so maybe it's just not covered. What does this affiliation mean in an Indian context? RevelationDirect (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge we avoid current categories. Whether the intersection categorized here is defining can be considered later.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In India being affiliated to a well established University is what gives degree granting colleges legitimacy or accreditation. The University to which they are affiliated is supposed to ensure that these colleges meet various academic and other standards - it is an Indian form of accreditation. (see: Affiliation of Colleges by Universities) A college which is affiliated to a University which has a particularly good reputation and maintains high standards thereby also gains prestige. OTOH a degree or diploma from a college without any such affiliation (more or less the same thing as an unrecognised or unaccredited college) may be regarded as worthless or 2nd rate. So I'd say such affiliations might be considered defining. Chris Fynn (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I would be in favor of keeping the target categories though if they confer accreditation. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No reason to disambiguate between current and former affiliates. Dimadick (talk) 13:02, 9 December 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.

Spanish variants[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename (1) per name of parent Category:Dialects by language and (2) because "dialects" is clearer than "variants" or "varieties" and (3) for consistency's sake, almost every of the above categories has a different format. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 13:03, 9 December 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.

Peter Blakeley[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: procedural close. Nothing has been specified. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.179.238 (talk) 15:49, 7 December 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 Kingdom tax case 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: speedy delete per WP:G7. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to speedy delete. Thought this category was needed, but we already have Category:United Kingdom taxation case law. Hence the new category is otiose. --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:17, 7 December 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:19th-century male military personnel & 19th-century businessmen[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: Since this discussion has to end at some time, I am WP:BOLDly closing it. Upmerge Category:19th-century male military personnel to Category:19th-century military personnel and Category:19th-century businessmen to Category:19th-century businesspeople so as to conform to the general pattern of the category trees. Please be patient as much work is required to effectuate this closure. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Proposal to delete or upmerge the following categories (renominated from cfd of 22 November):

Nominator's rationale: Both business and the military are or have been largely male dominated but are not inherently male or female (some roles/occupations like actors or singers require males or females, hence have separate male and female categories). These two categories will either be grossly incomplete (businesspeople and military personnel are largely male occupations) or if complete would be large and unwieldy. Categories like Category:19th-century men should be container categories only. NB: As far as I can see, there are no corresponding categories for other centuries. The upmerged Category:19th-century businesspeople articles will require checking to move many into nationality subcategories eg Category:19th-century American businesspeople. Categories like Category:19th-century men should be container categories only. Hugo999 (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the first back to Category:19th-century military personnel. Female ones were so rare that we ought not to need a category. Keep the businessmen or rather reverse merge the businesspeople. That term is a modern neologism. There were some businesswomen, though far fewer than men. If we are to keep the women we should also keep the men. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you proposing to rename all the 16th century to 19th century businesspeople categories (including the subcategories by nationality) from businesspeople to businessmen? "Businesswoman" is not an exclusively 20th & 21st century phenomena. There were 18th and 19th-century businesswomen, like Marie Rée and Anne Catherine Hoof Green; although they tended to be family members who had inherited the business of their husband or family. PS: Yes, merge any 19th-century male military personnel (only 5) to 19th-century military personnel if they are not in a nationality subcategory already. Hugo999 (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the military personnel category which I suspect would include the vast majority of 19th-century personnel. Keep the businessmen category, since this seems to be a more reasonable gendered category. Dimadick (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the military personnel category and merge the businessmen category. These intersections of time, gender and occupation are not justified. They come to close to being universal especially in the first case to be useful, and while less so in the business category, business was too male dominated in the 19th-century, especially among those who are notable, to be worth having this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 10 December 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:Taxonomic articles[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:Plant taxonomies. – Fayenatic London 22:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's unclear what this category is meant to be and, in particular, how it's intended to fit into the wider category structure (it has been created with no parent categories). Its current contents are: (1) subcategories (e.g. Category:Taxonomic articles by quality and Category:Taxonomic articles with comments) which are for talk pages and (2) articles such as Taxonomy of Banksia. We already have Category:Taxonomy (biology) (for articles), Category:WikiProject Tree of Life articles (for talk pages) etc so it's unclear why a new category might be needed. DexDor (talk) 08:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Instead of deletion the current category (containing articles such as Taxonomy of Banksia and clearly a category for articles rather than a wikiproject category) could be renamed to something like "Specific taxonomies". DexDor (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I created this category on discovering that (a) there were all these categories such as Category:Taxonomic articles by quality without a parent to group them together, and similarly (b) no way of identifying articles similar to Taxonomy of Banksia, when it came to a discussion on how they should be structured. At present the only way to that is to do a search on Taxonomy which produces many many pages that do not fit those criteria. I take your point about parent category, and will remedy that. Thanks for the notification. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re "without a parent to group them together" - they were grouped under Category:WikiProject Tree of Life articles. If the mismatch between the project name and the names of subcats is a problem then rename the project/categories - don't create a new category that makes more of a mess. I see you've now put the new category under both an articles category and a wikiproject category - thus putting article pages under a wikiproject category and putting talk pages under an articles category ... DexDor (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Part of the problem is that the purpose and hence appropriate content of Category:Taxonomy (biology) is not clear. It and its subcategories seem to be a rag-bag of articles about taxonomy as a discipline; articles about taxa, including lists of taxa such as lists of families; and articles about particular kinds of taxa, such as monotypic taxa (why should they be categorized here and not say taxa with two members?). So a clearly defined category for "Taxonomy of TAXON" articles does seem useful to me, although the title "Taxonomic articles" isn't sufficiently precise. Perhaps Category:Taxonomy of taxa? But the current subcategories don't belong in such a category, since they are much wider in scope (and as noted above categorize via talk pages). Peter coxhead (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's often not clear whether a "foology" category is for articles about foos, articles about the study of foos or both. We even get cases (e.g. Category:Ornithology and Category:Birds) where each is/was a subcategory of the other. IMO the -ology categories should be for articles about the study (by humans) of the subject (and this should be clearly stated in the category text). So, Category:Foology should be a subcat of Category:Foos (and also a subcat of the higher level -ology) and should contain articles about foologists, foological societies, etc, but not articles about foos. Thus, IMO there should be some re-categorization of articles currently under Category:Taxonomy (biology), but that's a separate issue to this CFD which is about not mixing up articles with wp admin (wikiprojects and talk pages). DexDor (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The two sub-cats sound like pages belonging to a WP project: should they not be renamed and/or merged with the project? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe this is a good opportunity for reorganising the categories of taxonomy, in particular discriminating between articles about taxonomy as a discipline, and those that deal with specific taxonomies. Although I chose the title Taxonomic articles, I am not married to it, if someone has a better idea. As far as "mixing up" goes, if that is the policy then I would be happy with two separate categories, one for each type. But I do think both groups need a parent that keeps them together. When I said "without a parent to group them together" I meant a parent that grouped these types of categories together, not lost in some vague conglomerate, and many articles I found were not categorised to those anyway, so I subsequently did so with as many as I could find. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant category, the subcategories are already in Category:WikiProject Tree of Life articles and the articles are in the tree of Category:Taxonomy (biology). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, This category is now clearly a category for articles (e.g. it no longer contains talk pages). I'm happy for the category to remain, but it should be renamed (we normally only put "articles" in a category name if it's a category for talk pages of articles). If you concur could you update your !vote? DexDor (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per last anonymous comment it may be a good idea to merge all of them to Category:Taxonomic lists‎; even if the articles are not formally named Lists, they in fact are a sort of lists. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The categories may well already be in parent categories, but these are very broad, and intermediate categories are needed to group similar categories. It seems to me there are 3 options available. 1. Maintain the status quo, keep; 2.Delete; 3. Create separate parent categories out of the category under discussion for the two types mentioned above, and placed within the broader categories. I would favour option 3.
Therefore I propose that (a) articles dealing directly with the taxonomy of a taxon, e.g. Taxonomy of Liliaceae be placed within a parent category named Specific taxonomies (or alternative) and that this be a subcategory of Category:Taxonomy (biology); and (b) categories dealing with the "qualities" of articles such as Category:Taxonomic articles by quality be placed within a parent category named Taxonomic articles by type (or alternative) and that this be a subcategory of Category:WikiProject Tree of Life articles. This seems a reasonable and constructive compromise.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case we then agree that keeping Category:Taxonomic articles isn't a good idea. While I wonder if the proposed additional splits are really contributing to navigation, they are not part of this nomination. By the way, please also note that Category:Taxonomic lists‎ already contains a large number of "specific taxonomies". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: I had included all those, but I would point out that all those are actually lists (although not formally classified as such on their talk pages). --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Action: As an initial step to resolving this issue, I have removed all of the categories best characterised as Talk Page/Tree of Life, since they are listed on Tree of Life quite clearly, even if that might not be the obvious place to look for them. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Currently the only articles remaining in the category "Taxonomic articles", which was proposed for deletion, are those dealing with the specific taxonomy of individual taxa, and it is a subcategory of "Taxonomy (biology)". Therefore the only remaining issue is whether to rename it, since some feel the current name is insufficiently precise. "Taxonomy of taxa" as proposed sounds a little clumsy to me. As above I have suggested "Specific taxonomies" as one possible alternative. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Analysis: As usual the situation is a bit more complex than it appears at first sight. In terms of articles that might be captured by this category, there are pages with headings that start with both "List" and "Taxonomy" with a good deal of over lap. Some "Lists" are just that, such as List of Hippeastrum species, while others are highly organised and could be candidates for FL such as List of Narcissus species. Both are subpages of a parent taxon article and are captured under the categories of "Taxonomic lists (rank)" such as Category:Taxonomic lists (species), which in turn fall under Category:Taxonomic lists. But that category includes not only the List subcategories but also some of the "Taxonomy of" articles. Finally, that category then falls under Category: Taxonomy (biology).
    • Now turning to articles with the title "Taxonomy of.." as captued in the category under discussion here it becomes clear there are three different groups. Plain lists, such as Taxonomy of Croton, organised lists such as Taxonomy of the Orchidaceae, and actual articles about the specific taxonomy of a taxon such as Taxonomy of Banksia.
    • In summary there is a distinct lack of coherence, and there needs to be a lot of work to sort it all out and make sense. One approach would include renaming many of the pages, and providing guidance on the Project template as to what to title pages and what categories to place them in. Either way there are a lot of pages and categories that need moving. This requires further discussion. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: The situation has been further simplified, in that all articles with the name Taxonomy of ... that were actually lists, have been reclassified and renamed as Lists of... and placed in Category:Taxonomic lists. Therefore all remaining articles in the category under discussion are actual articles about the taxonomy of a taxon. All that remains therefore, I believe, is to decide whether there is a better title than Taxonomic articles. (Incidentally this also showed me how bad the taxonomy section is on many articles) --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Category:Taxonomic articles is a poor name anyway. I'm open to a better name, otherwise I think a merge to Category:Taxonomy (biology) would be the most appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd be happy with that merge, although the 6 articles currently in the category are already in categories such as Category:Plant taxonomy so after WP:SUBCAT is applied the merge would probably be equivalent to delete. DexDor (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Response: Interesting discussion to date. I am happy to accept that my original choice was probably suboptimal but have not seen a better suggestion. How about Plant taxonomies as a subcategory of Plant taxonomy? The issue you have pointed out that some of the articles in question have more than one home was easily fixed. 2 of 6 were there, there was a third which turned out to be a list and was removed. Now all Taxonomy articles are in Taxonomic articles, which is a subcategory of Plant taxonomy, where it is more suited. So what remains I think is choosing a name, my suggestion above or otherwise. Taxonomies of taxa is somewhat unharmonious. Then instructions on categorisation can be placed on the plant template --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • A rename to "Category:Plant taxonomies" is ok with me. DexDor (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2016 (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:Films with Larry Fine playing violin[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of, for example, Sweet and Hot. This could be listified to Larry Fine. DexDor (talk) 07:23, 7 December 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:NHK Kōhaku Uta Gassen songs[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 16:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An utterly random non-defining category. I noticed that the Russian Kalinka song was classified as a "Kohaku song". It looked rather weird for me. Songs are used in numerous events, sung by numerous singers. Are we going to put them in all these rather trivial categories? Imagine the Beatles' Yesterday classified as Category:Slavic Bazaar in Vitebsk songs (Gd frbid). - üser:Altenmann >t 03:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kōhaku is the Japanese "Year-end Song Festival". The category is thus for songs performed at it. Performacne categories norm ally means "performance by performer", which this is not. However, "performance by occasion" would be just as bad and generate appalling category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peterkingiron; song by show is a variation on performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 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_December_7&oldid=1074814562"