Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 23

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

July 23[edit]

Category:Animal charities based in Scotland[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/deleted as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated categories, the first likely WP:SMALLCAT due to the small number of notable animal charities, upmerge to Category:Animal welfare organisations in the United Kingdom. Delete the intermediate Category:Animal welfare organisations in Scotland, as empty after the merge. QueenCake (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're quite right. Added to the nom, though there is only one article affected. QueenCake (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I do not think there are enough in the UK to merit a split by country. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 26 July 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:1892 establishments in the American colonial empire[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 for now following name of lead article, i.e. as

– Fayenatic London 22:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This seems like an unnecessary level of abstraction. It really wouldn't gain a ton of organization to have the territories separated from the US establishments categories rather than just putting them into the US categories themselves. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We class other colonies as different from the base country. I can demonstrate that the places involved her were essentially treated as colonies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically are you thinking belongs there? I find it odd to call the past US territories as "colonies" but maybe you're thinking of something else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to support as the term "American colonial empire" is probably not being used to denote the past US territories that have become a state. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I thought this would contain the Philippines and Canal Zone but it has Oklahoma and Arizona. What do we mean by "colonial" and "empire" here?.RevelationDirect (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand the obsessiveness of all of the year-by-year "establishment/disestablishment in X" categories which are inevitably tiny categories. Is it significant whether it was in 1907 vs. 1906 vs. 1908? I'm generally in favor of categorization in order to make articles easier to find but the tens of thousands of almost empty establishment/disestablishment categories are a category tree looking for a problem to solve. Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly agree with this comment. I would suggest using decades or centuries for this kind of establishments categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter seems to be a fair compromise in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Delete / Consider Rename These are appropriate for categorization, but the term "American territories" (which corresponds to a parent Territories of the United States) would be a far better choice than "American colonial empire". Alansohn (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. For one, the American colonial empire is not a term used on Wikipedia. Second, this just creates an additional layer between YYYY establishments in XX Territory and YYYY establishments in the United States. Because the territories are sub-national entities on the same level as the states, there's no reason to remove them from those categories alongside the states and DC. kennethaw88 • talk 04:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Territories are not subnational entities on the "same level" as states. They have outside governors appointed who have little interest in the good of the colony. Multiple people have written convincing analysis of such places as Utah Territory as a colony.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I mean is that on the government hierarchy, they are one level below the federal government, just like states and DC. Because DC is listed alongside states in the YYYY establishments in the United States, I don't see why territories can't also be listed there. kennethaw88 • talk 01:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unorganized territories were generally placed under federal agencies. So, the District of Alaska was under the US Army, which was under the Secretary/Department of War which was under the President. How they were handled was not at all consistent though across territories or across presidential administrations. Until the 23rd Amendment, DC's government was really a Congressional committee. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who defines an American colonial empire and its extend? The closest thing we have is an article on American imperialism which itself seems to have an ill-defined scope. Dimadick (talk) 10:23, 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:Organizations based in the Bahamas[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. MER-C 13:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename, as British spelling is predominant in the Bahamas. The second of these was declined at the Speedy page due to the inconsistency in the hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 20:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It makes sense to use the terminology of the location as long as it is easy for all readers to understand. Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- We use orthography appropriate to the country in question. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 26 July 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:Guinea-Bissauan people[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the result of Talk:List of Bissau-Guineans#Requested move 15 July 2015, the correct demonym for someone from Guinea-Bissau is "Bissau-Guinean," NOT "Guinea-Bissauan." I also want this discussion to apply to all of the sub-categories and the relevant sub-categories at Category:Guinea-Bissau. -- Tavix (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you need to tag all the subcats and add them to the nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If you are considering extensive renaming, you have to list the categories that are involved because it is likely a bot will have to take care of the renames if your proposal is accepted. Liz Read! Talk! 19:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I have a bot help me tag and add the subcats to the nom? It's a fairly extensive process as there are several that would apply here. -- Tavix (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. These are the 95 I've tagged:
Extended content
Alakzi (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now I've had to fix the rename target of all 95 because I'm a bit of an idiot. Alakzi (talk) 13:00, 10 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:Indo-European mythology[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:Proto-Indo-European religion. If any of the Fooian mythology sub-cats are purged from this, they should be added to European/Asian mythology instead. – Fayenatic London 17:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is actually a bit broader than its name suggests: it includes several articles on sacrificial rituals as well as mythology. I would also like to add Fire in ancient Iranian culture to it, which too focuses on ritual rather than myth. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This would certainly match the main article, but does the whole thing have enough coherence to make a worthwhile category? There are Indo-European language speakers who have been Buddhist, but does that make Buddhist mythology belong here? Likewise the mythologiues or religions of many other places. At worst heavly purge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative rename to Category:Proto-Indo-European religion per main article and heavily purge accordingly. Indo-European (without Proto-) is way too broad, as is clear from the current content of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Rename to match Proto-Indo-European religion main article. I have no opinion about whether the article is well named but the category should blindly follow unless there is some specific issue with the category space. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:33, 24 July 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:2001 establishments in Iraqi Kurdistan[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. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Iraqi Kurdistan isn't a formal country but a region within the country of Iraq. The general organization for Category:2001 establishments by country is for countries and there's not enough articles at Category:2001 establishments in Iraq to justify splitting this (or the remainder of the establishments in Iraq into a separate Iraqi Kurdistan organization. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:13, 23 July 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:Albums articles needing expert attention[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) 17:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Assuming this isn't meant to be "all WikiProject Albums articles that require expert attention [regardless of the category of expertise required]", this seems like a strange categorization for the need for expertise. Unlike the other categories at Category:Music articles needing expert attention, it's not requesting someone who would have expertise in the "real world" that could be useful here but essentially for someone who gets what WP:ALBUMS requires (I don't know what else an album expert would be) and that's sort of circular to me. If the issue is about the album classification then I'd say Category:Music genres articles needing expert attention is a better category than this one. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is populated by Template:Expert-subject, which is designed to allow any WikiProject to be named. The template's sub-page Template:Expert-subject/catcheck checks whether a category such as this one exists, failing which it puts the article into Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention – rather than a more generic category such as the Music one suggested above. Therefore the outcome must either be "delete" or "keep", not "merge". I imagine that the editor who added this tag to the current member page was insufficiently confident about notability requirements to tag the page for deletion, but I have just done so. – Fayenatic London 11:31, 30 July 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_July_23&oldid=1074814932"