Category:American sportswomen of Asian descent[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.
Nominator's rationale: Specific gender of American sportspeople of Asian descent is not topic of study nor is it any more definitive of the person than the parent categories. A better, more defining, way of narrowing down the scope of this category is by sport or country of descent (which already has some categories). SFB 11:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you are suggesting triple upmerge, but that is not the usual way of expressing that. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose, sportspeople are nearly always separated by gender so deleting the gender category level doesn't seem appropriate. However, it would make sense to delete the (Asian) descent category level as a trivial intersection, i.e. to upmerge the nominated category together with its Asian siblings and its parent Category:American sportspeople of Asian descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete racial categories, not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. These are divisions a level too far.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 13 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Parent has no other categorisation scheme that requires this separation. SFB 10:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are two (or three, depending on how you treat the wife of a rabbi) non-occupation categories in the parent, so if you want to segregate the occupation categories from other categories, this would be the way to do it. Just move the other occupation categories into it. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. But then, if women by nationality and occupation is acceptable, why wouldn't women by ethnicity and occupation be acceptable? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete racial/religious category not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a category of categories though, not a category of articles. If it is not defining, then all the subcategories should be deleted first, as this would make a good holding category to see what is inappropriate categorization from the subcatgories contained within. So, keeping this particular, while we deleted the subcategories, we neatly segregate the bad categories away -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:33, 8 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.
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 parent categories. No straight deletion, because that would leave the article uncategorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains a single article and I don't see any possibility for expansion, unless one would categorize all journals that are accessible through Project MUSE here. That would not be correct though: Project MUSE is simply an access platform and being accessible there is not a defining characteristic of a journal (like the publisher is). Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I created the category, started to populate it, then emptied it, but forgot to nominate it. Rationale: I realized Project MUSE is more akin to JSTOR than, say, Open Humanities Press (OHP); so a journal merely being available at MUSE or JSTOR is not one of its defining characteristics (contrary to being published via OHP). Fgnievinski (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aptly showing why it is good to think things over first and only then act... --Randykitty (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Access portals available is not useful characteristic to require a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 4 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.
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 13:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, first, because because it's unclear why "modern" starts at 1875 as the header of the category states (and any other year might be equally subjective). Second, because the target Category:Hindu writersalso largely consists of "modern" Hindu writers. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- We have consistently not allowed current/past distinctions and the same objection relates to "modern", whose scope is an ill-defined POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Category:Writers on Hinduism which is what the category says it is. The religion of the writer is immaterial (as it ought be) but the topic is what counts and is being categorized. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I tend to agree with this rationale, I think it should be applied to the parent category, not to the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom If that makes the target too large more standard divisions (including possibly by century) can be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:44, 9 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.
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 into a new Category:Bibliographic databases and indexes. (Given that "indexes" and "indices" are both "correct" plurals according to OED and other dictionaries, I'm not going to change "indexes" to "indices" here. It could be discussed in a follow-up nomination, if desired.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I fail to see the difference between an "index" and a "database". Apparently, most editors do, too, because this cat contains several articles with "database" in their titles and the "database" cat contains several articles with "index" in their titles... Randykitty (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There is a difference: the indices (correct plural) were hard copy bound volumes. Databases are inevitably electronic. Most abstract series (which is what this is about) have gone electronic, so that, today, there is little difference. I nevertheless recall using Chemical Abstracts as hard copy over 40 years ago. However, possibly reverse merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, I remember going to the library every three (or two?) months to check the next issue of the Science Citation Index (something like 15 volumes the size of a large phone book, discarded at the end of each year when the annual version would appear)... In a sense, those indexes were printed versions of the database. And having maintained a personal literature database on index (sic!) cards for many years, I'm not so sure that being electronic is a necessary condition of a database :-). Guess I just gave away some clues about my age... I agree that the difference is trivial by now. Anyway, I don't object to "bibliographic databases" being merged into "bibliographic indices" (after renaming the current cat), as "indices" seems to be the more inclusive term. --Randykitty (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really agree that the name of a category has direct implications for merging articles or changing their titles, but merging bibliographic index and bibliographic database seems to make much sense in the light of the above discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 04:14, 5 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:Israeli people of Ashkenazi-Jewish descent[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 as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Ashkenazi" already implies "Jewish"; having separate categories for "Ashkenazi descent" and "Ashkenazi-Jewish descent" is redundant. Huon (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REverse merge -- The main article on this ethnicity is at Ashkenazi Jews, not Ashkenazim or such like. Nevertheless Ashkenazis are necessarily Jews, so that "Jewish" is redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ethnic/racial/religious category not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ashkenazi is accepted as a Jewish identity so it is redundant. LizRead!Talk! 15:07, 21 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.
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 12:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 biography and the category is not part of a large tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Urdu is the Muslim language of India. The one article refers to a person who started his education in a madarsa, which presumably means he was a Muslim, but his later work seems to have been published both in Hindi and Urdu. I suspect that primary publication in both will be rare. Accordingly, this is a classic case of a small intersection, to which the standard solution mis a full upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 4 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Although I list this under "deletion", I am actually at a total loss what to do with this cat. It has a note stating: "Not to be confused with Category:Academic magazines." How exactly it differs from that cat is beyond me. The latter cat has a remark: "See also: the categories Science and technology magazines and Works about academia." "Popular scholarship magazines" is a subcat of "Category:Popular scholarship, another ill-defined cat. Despite all the "not to be confused" notes, I admit to being terminally confused. Randykitty (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to a general category that does not involve a POV decision as to whether a magazine is or is not popular. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a category "scholarly journals", that's a redirect to "Academic journals" that you created just today. And I don't really have any idea what a "scholarly magazine" is (nor a "popular scholar"), I must confess. --Randykitty (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In main-space there was already scholarly journal redirecting to article academic journal, and in category-space there was a journal lost in a non-existing Category:Scholarly journals, so there you have it. And as for categorization methods, it's called inductive vs. deductive reasoning: you seem to like to start with a category definition and find members that fit in it (top-down approach); I prefer to find common traits among scattered articles and create a category around them (bottom-up), eventually deriving a definition a posteriori. In this case, "scholarly magazines" are non-refereed scholarly periodicals. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oppose This may be poorly named and described, but when you look at the subcategories (e.g. Category:Popular science magazines) it's plain that we're looking at periodicals which are intended to relate scholarly findings to a popular audience. I don't see how making a distinction between journals and magazines captures this. Mangoe (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Journals don't enter in this, as far as I am concerned, but I agree that Fgnievinski's preceding comments managed to make a muddled issue even murkier... --Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Refereed scholarly periodicals" = scholarly journals; "non-refereed scholarly periodicals" = scholarly magazines -- I'm starting to read your "murky" as if you thought "tl;dr". Fgnievinski (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recategorize content of category manually by focusing on the topic of the magazine (e.g. to Category:Science and technology magazines), while forgetting about ambiguous concepts like "popular" and "scholarly". Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this phrase original to Wikipedia? Because a google search shows our category as the most prominent use. If so, the category could use renaming. Dimadick (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I admit that I had never heard of "Popular scholarship magazines" before seeing this cat. Google indeed suggests that it is not a term in use anywhere until this cat was created. --Randykitty (talk) 20:19, 28 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.
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. MER-C 12:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one biography next to the epynomous article. No need to merge, both articles are already well classified. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a Hinduism category, since this seems to be effectively a Hindu sect or movement. That measn that we do not lose data. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 4 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:Establishments in the Italian colonial empire by year[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 as nominated. – FayenaticLondon 14:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree, as “colonial empire” is only used for the German colonial empire and the French colonial empire to avoid confusion with the French Empire and German Empire which refer to historic periods of the “mother country” (however not sure about Belgian colonial empire and Danish colonial empire?). See subcategories of Category:History of modern European colonialism. Hugo999 (talk) 14:12, 6 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.
