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.
Oppose North Africa includes Egypt, which is completely different from Maghreb countries (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, and sometimes Libya and Mauritania). Rkitko, I don't know why you bother so much if this is a separate category, what's the harm? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@عمرو بن كلثوم: Yes, note that I said it overlaps almost entirely. What's the point in having categories that are nearly identical in scope? It's redundant and creates overcategorization. In constructing and using a regional category hierarchy for plants, a series of non-overlapping categories reduces confusion and category clutter. Some of the 43 articles in Category:Flora of Maghreb are also found in Category:Flora of North Africa, such as Cistus monspeliensis and most of the others have wider distributions that could be better described as North African. Rkitko(talk) 17:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while I do agree we should avoid overlap. Flora should be either in the North Africa parent category (if it occurs both in the Maghreb and in Egypt) or in the Maghreb category (if it doesn't occur in Egypt) or in the Egypt category (if it doesn't occur in the Maghreb). This way there is no overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having the North Africa category split into Maghreb and Egypt is an unnecessary complication in the category structure. Your interpretation ("Flora should be either in the ... parent category (if it occurs both [in both]) or ...") isn't the way everyone uses these categories (the of-Egypt category doesn't indicate that it has the inclusion criteria you propose). I expect the of-Egypt category to be deleted at some point in the future (e.g. see current CFD for Category:Birds of Turkey). DexDor(talk) 05:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strange comment. I mean, I don't consider it as my personal interpretation at all, this is just generally how we categorize things, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, whether or not an article belongs in a particular category (including its subcats) normally depends only on the inclusion criteria of that category - not on the existence of any other categories. Unless stated otherwise I (and probably the majority of other editors/readers) will assume that a category titled "Foos of Barland" is for any foo that's found in (or native to) Barland. Some categories state this explicitly - e.g. Category:Flora of France says "This category should include plants, native or endemic, found in France.", Category:Amphibians of the Philippines says "This category lists articles on the endemic, native and introduced amphibian species in the Philippines.".
I don't think I've ever seen a category with inclusion criteria of the type you appear to be proposing - "This category is for articles about foos found in A except those that are also found in B.". If we had categories of that type then how would we decide what B is - e.g. for Flora-of-Egypt why choose to exclude flora found in the Maghreb rather than, for example, to exclude flora found elsewhere in the Middle East? DexDor(talk) 06:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very different type of article. If you think there's a problem of an inconsistency with how we categorize an article about a species and how we categorize a "Foos in <area>" article/list then can you explain what the problem is? DexDor(talk) 06:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To me they seem to be very similar. A species that occurs anywhere in North Africa (including Egypt and Maghreb) seems to belong in a North Africa category, while a list of things that occur anywhere in West Asia seems to belong in a West Asia category. Perhaps I'd better have taken a different example than a list, but that doesn't seem to matter in this discussion, does it? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Introducing a "occurs anywhere in <area>" concept into the inclusion criteria of a category for species articles would complicate things even more; is any particular species really found "anywhere" (everywhere?) in an area? In contrast, a "Foos of <area>" article really does have a scope that covers the entirety of the specified area. An article in a of-Maghreb category is in a of-North-Africa category (assuming that's a parent category). A category such as "Lakes of <area>" is for articles about lakes that are (completely or partly) in that area; similarly, a category such as "Birds of <area>" is for articles about birds whose range is (completely or partly) in that area. DexDor(talk) 05:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it's "anywhere", not "everywhere", this applies to all geographical categorization, whether it's countries, regions or continents, and also whether it concerns flora or lakes (a lake is in a country category because it is anywhere in that country). But more generally, it seems that the type of reasoning about inclusion criteria, if applied too strictly, doesn't go well together with category structure. It would imply e.g. that articles about a epidemic happening in a whole country should be placed in every province category, just because it also matches the inclusion criterion of every province. I don't think that should be the way to go. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm not sure what you mean by "occurs anywhere in North Africa (including Egypt and Maghreb)". Is occurring just in Tunis sufficient? what about in both Tunis and Cairo?
Regarding your epidemic example: I would interpret category "Epidemics in <province>" (unless otherwise indicated) to mean "Epidemics completely within <province>" or "Epidemics mostly within <province>" - otherwise the article should be in a higher category (e.g. "Epidemics in <country>"). If anyone created a "Epidemics of <province>" category with inclusion criteria of any epidemic that has ever existed in that province (which is the equivalent of species-by-area categories) and started putting articles like 1918 flu pandemic into it then the category would be likely to be changed or taken to CFD. DexDor(talk) 22:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Oculi (talk) 12:23, 21 June 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:procedural close, nominator has not tagged any of the category pages or made any further attempt to progress or discuss this. – FayenaticLondon 21:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Prisencolinensinainciusol: thank you for your efforts here, but this is insufficient. In order to make a valid nomination, please also list the existing categories that you wish to rename, and tag each category page with {{cfr|new name|US City categories}} which will create a link to this discussion. Note that several of these have been discussed before, and have been rejected in order to avoid ambiguity, or have had no consensus e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 12#Category:Neighborhoods in Los Angeles, California. There are very many precedents to make all city categories in North America follow the pattern of City, State (or province/territory in Canada). – FayenaticLondon 22:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while the US has always had its own special rules for itself, the consensus and precedent for Canada has always been that a city category goes at the same level of disambiguation as the city's head article is at (i.e. "City, Province" if the article is at City, Province, just "City" if the article is at "City".) There's never been any consensus to align Canadian cities with USPLACE — we follow the same rules that pertain to England and France and Germany and everywhere else, not the ones that pertain to the US. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bearcat, I stand corrected. – FayenaticLondon 21:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unclear nomination (e.g. what about subcats?) and per FL. DexDor(talk) 21:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reason given to delete; these categories are valid and helpful. Softlavender (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is to rename the categories, not to delete them. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal here hasn't been very well communicated (witness the commenter above me who thought the nominator wanted to delete them entirely), raises a lot of followup issues (subcategories, etc.), and hasn't been properly structured (e.g. none of the categories proposed for renaming have actually been tagged as such.) The nominator would be better off taking each city one at a time, so that it and all of its relevant subcategories can be discussed as a unit, rather than doing a mass batch like this to cover 30 cities at once. While in principle I'm inclined to agree that the nominator has the right idea, there are too many problems with the process that's been undertaken here for me to support the nomination in its current form. Oppose, without prejudice against renomination under a better process and format. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 13 June 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:speedy close. Closing my own nomination as I only listed in order to make a record of this housekeeping action. – FayenaticLondon 21:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No category page has been created for this in English Wikipedia, but a few dozen user talk pages became members of it when a category was incorrectly included in a newsletter delivery (e.g. [1]), see https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Education/News#Category_got_transcluded . I propose that these pages should be de-categorised under WP:CSD#G6. Maybe I could just go ahead and do it, but it seemed appropriate to seek consensus before using a CFD bot for this task. – FayenaticLondon 19:52, 10 June 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.
Keep As defining as year of death. Most encyclopedias, including the German Wikipedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica have the place of death in the lede. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Y-o-d is WP:OTHERSTUFF and isn't a normal wp category (which would be diffused) anyway; it's more for administration of BLP etc than for navigation. Look at an article like Bob Birch - he is notable as a musician; not as a person who committed suicide by firearm in Los Angeles (and see WP:DNWAUC). DexDor(talk) 22:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong defining characteristic of any individual who has ever been the topic of an obituary or any real-world encyclopedia article. Alansohn (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—these places are not defined by who died there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People are not, as a rule, defined by the places where they died — for instance, if a person who had never lived a day of their life in Los Angeles happened to die while on a vacation or business trip there, then Los Angeles is in no way a defining characteristic of their lives. And if a person did live in Los Angeles, then they would already be in Category:People from Los Angeles, California anyway — and thus the fact that they also died there doesn't add anything substantively defining that the existing category doesn't already cover. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am very doubtful of the merits of the Port Harcourt categoey as having one article. However the LA one has quite a number, some of which are articles on violent killings. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete place of death is not defining, and we have never decided that place is ever a good way to categorize when not defining. Unlike year, place is too complex to be a basic biographical data point. Inherently place boundaries change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:02, 21 June 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:keep as a container category, but purge of articles about people who died in NYC. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently a large number of bios were added to this category, but the parent structure of this kind of categories makes it clear that this should be only a container for cemeteries, burials, suicides, organizations or companies connected with death, not people's death place. Kraxler (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support purge per nom; we should place a hatnote on the top of the category to this effect. Neutralitytalk 22:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As defining as year of death. Most encyclopedias, including the German Wikipedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica have the place of death in the lede. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment on CFD above (and, for that matter, on previous CFDs) re y-o-d. That, for example, Bob Marshall died in NY (if he did) is not a good way to categorize him - even if you do consider it to be defining (which I don't). DexDor(talk) 22:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support purge and adding inclusion criteria (which will also mean that the suicides subcategory will need similar treatment). DexDor(talk) 22:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong defining characteristic of any individual who has ever been the topic of an obituary or any real-world encyclopedia article. Alansohn (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Wikipedia:Defining then at an article such as Irving Berlin or Babe Ruth; the editors of those articles have chosen around 100 facts to go in the lead and place of death is not one of them. DexDor(talk) 06:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People are not, as a rule, defined by the places where they died — for instance, if a person who had never lived a day of their life in New York City happened to die while on a vacation or business trip there, then New York City is in no way a defining characteristic of their lives. And if a person did live in NYC, then they would already be in Category:People from New York City anyway — and thus the fact that they also died there doesn't add anything substantively defining that the existing category doesn't already cover. Support purge; this is a perfectly legitimate parent for its subcategories (burials, cemeteries), but should not directly contain individual people. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support purge, this doesn't concern a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is quite well enough populated to be kept. Place of death is commonly an indication of where a person lived their latter years, so that I do not see categorisation by place of death or burial (usually the same) as objectionable. However a person should not both have death in NY and burial in NY. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Purge per nom. The previous discussions have leaned towards using these as container categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:02, 21 June 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. I will create a list but notability will have to be tested. – FayenaticLondon 18:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As there is no article for Caucasus University Association it seems unlikely that membership of it is defining. Should an article be created, these articles could be listed there instead. Tim! (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are much better ways to categorize educational establishments (e.g. type, country/region). By contrast, being in a particular association is often non-defining, non-permanent and does not provide a comprehensive way to categorize such establishments - it's one of those cases where a list is much more appropriate. DexDor(talk) 22:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as we have with various other association memberships for universities. My guess is that the membership is all the univisities in a region that covers several countries (or part of them). TRhe appropriate category is thus by country. Listify, if we do not have a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 20 June 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.
