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. – FayenaticLondon 23:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There are no other categories for number-one album categories as they have been deleted over and over again by consensus. It has been deemed that lists such as Lists of UK Compilation Chart number-one albums are sufficient as to not lead to category clutter. While reaching #1 is a nice achievement, it's hardly a defining aspect of most albums, and even less so for compilations. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:47, 6 May 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:Television series by Fox Television Studios[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 13:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Why is this category named after Fox Television Studios instead of 20th Century Fox Television, anyway? Aside from that, it was announced in December 2014 that the actual company known as Fox Television Studios would be merging with Fox21 to create Fox21 Television Studios because both studios were focusing on the same market: Cable TV. Also, Fox TV Studios is (was) a smaller company that 20th Century Fox TV. (I initially nominated this category for renaming last February, but it turns out that I didn't tag the category, and that old entry is already closed.) Jim856796 (talk) 22:50, 6 May 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 delete. See the linked discussion for full details. --BDD (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This category redirect is being discussed at RfD. Though there's no clear guidance on the subject, category redirects are often discussed here, as they're not true redirects. This one already has participation at RfD, so I won't move it over; please comment there, not here. This is a notification only. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 6 May 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, by weight of argument. The category is non-standard and largely non-defining. – FayenaticLondon 09:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Western Asia, as defined by the WGSRPDUpmerge. The Levant is a historical geographic term without clear boundaries. Our regional categories for categorizing plant distributions follows the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions (WGSRPD) and this category is not recognized by that categorization scheme. Further, the Levant category is largely redundant to Category:Flora of Western Asia. It should be upmerged. Rkitko(talk) 15:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Western Asia is an immense geographic region with variable climate, latitude, and altitudes, giving it widely variable flora. In the meanwhile, the Levant (or Greater Syria if you wish) is unique, different and has clearly defined geographic boundaries (Syrian desert to the est, Taurus mountains to the North, Arabian Peninsula to the South and the Mediterranean to the West). The biodiversity uniqueness of this area for botanical studies and classification is witnessed by late Dr. George Edward Post who says in the introduction of his milestone work Flora of Syria, Palestine and Sinai: "The region covered by this Work is unequalled by any of the same size on the globe, not only for the thrilling and important events of human history of which it has been the theatre, but for its unique geological structure, its great diversity of surface and climate, and its remarkable fauna and flora. It is the meeting point of three continents, and, as such, a link of connection between them all. It is marked geographically by two mountain systems parallel to one-another and to the coast, and extending from the Taurus to the latitude of Ras Muhammad...." Another quotation from the same introduction says: "As a result of these conditions the district covered by our Work contains 126 Orders of phsenogams and acrogens, 850 genera, and about 3500 species. The significance of these figures will appear if we recall that our region is only about as large as England, or as the State of New York."
Having said that, I think the flora of this area are unique enough to merit their own classification. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Geographical categorization of species should be by well-defined areas that are large enough (on a global scale) that articles don't appear in dozens of geographical categories. If the Levant is about as large as England then that's just 0.1% of the Earth's land surface. DexDor(talk) 22:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is an adeqately defined subdivision of a continent. West Asia would include Siberia, which is quite different. The Arabian Penninsula, dominated as it is by desert is differnet again. I therefore consider that this is a division that we should encourage. In Europe with have recently been merging species by country categorisation inot a continental or subcontinenttal one, and we should encouragfe that here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment, it would be helpful for the outcome of the discussion if someone would be willing to assess the amount of articles in the nominated category that are exclusively related to the Levant i.e. not related to the remainder of Western Asia. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure all articles here are relevant to the Levant.
I've checked a couple of additional articles that weren't in the above list and these were either, again, Mediterranean (including Levant), or occasionally they were Levant-only. Anyway it's clear that the category - in its current state - is not meaningful. But it's also clear that the Levant actually belongs at least as much to the Mediterranean as it belongs to the rest of Western Asia in this respect. So neither keeping nor merging to Western Asia is an ideal solution. Maybe a better idea is (1) to split the content of the Levant category between the Western Asia category and the Mediterranean category - and (2) to parent the Mediterranean category also to the Western Asia category. In that scenario the Levant flora should be categorized as Mediterranean flora by default, unless if it has no spread in the rest of the Mediterranean then it should go in the Western Asia category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to follow the WGSRPD, but (assuming flora should be categorized to smaller regions than continents) it's probably the best scheme there is - it's comprehensive, non-overlapping and it avoids categorizing by jurisdiction (Category:Flora of Moldova etc). If we use WGSRPD region categories then categories for other regions (Med, Levant, Maghreb etc) probably have costs (extra complexity of the category structure, more chance that articles are not placed in all applicable categories etc) that outweigh their benefits (especially if, as with the Med, the category overlaps several WGSRPD regions and doesn't fit into the Category:Biota by continent structure). Sure, there may be some plants for which "Mediterranean" is a defining characteristic, but we don't have to categorize by every defining characteristic; that could lead to thousands of categories (e.g. Flora of Greece and Turkey...). Remember also that articles/lists can be created for other areas - e.g. Mediterranean_woodlands_and_forests#Flora or even "List of flora found in Foobar Forest" (if it meets GNG). DexDor(talk) 18:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put, DexDor. Ultimately this is about competing hierarchies. The existing categories already largely followed the WGSRPD, the remaining overlapping categories like the Levant, Maghreb, Mediterranean, Category:Flora of the Great Lakes region (North America), and many others just add unnecessary complexity. Rkitko(talk) 21:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure it makes life so much more difficult and it surely doesn't need to be competing. Assuming the Mediterranean category has been or will be parented to West Asia, North Africa and Southern Europe, then an article about a Mediterranean plant will automatically be in the tree of West Asia, North Africa and Southern Europe. It's mostly a matter of clever parenting. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Perhaps in a perfect Wikipedia with editors who were aware of the clever parenting, such a system that allowed overlapping regional categories could well work, but in reality the default position of most editors is to either add no distribution categories or all of them that could apply to that plant, which is why having an overlapping Mediterranean (or Levant, to keep it on topic of the CfD) category just results in overcategorization. We don't have enough editors who gnome this kind of material to keep it under control. This problem is solved by a hierarchy of non-overlapping categories. The WGSRPD provides such a system in great detail, a system that is already used by other reliable sources where such information on the distributions can be retrieved. Cheers, Rkitko(talk) 00:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine that the problem of category maintenance would be any bigger in this tree than it is in other trees (while most other trees don't make use of an external classification system). 22:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, as I mentioned above, this area is unique in its flora, and the 4 or 5 entities within have so many plants common to all of them. I have compiled a list of Levant (or Greater Syria) plants that includes 3300+ plants so far on the Arabic Wikipedia, and the vast majority (may be 80%) of these are plants that are common (native) to two or more countries (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, and southern Turkey). The flora of the Mediterranean would be much wider, as it would include flora from different climatic regions like the Alps, or the Balkans, which is very different from the Levant flora. The same thing applies to the Anatolian Plateau, and the Black Sea area of Turkey. Those would have more similarities to Europe or Central Asia than to the Levant area. Furthermore, this area used to be one political entity at several points in history. I am OK with changing to category name to Greater Syria, if you wish. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a good idea to create and populate a child Category:Indigenous flora of the Levant so that we better know what we're talking about. That would be a very defining characteristic for sure. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I would (still) split the content of the nominated category between the West Asia category and the Mediterranean category, parent the Mediterranean category to the West Asia category and (in addition) I would parent Category:Indigenous flora of the Levant both to the Mediterranean category and to the West Asia category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All you've accomplished is the creation of a category with only 5 articles in it and is wholly redundant to Category:Flora of the Levant, which is already understood to only include native (another word for indigenous) flora. We don't have any other flora categories titled that way and we don't include flora that are not native to a region in its introduced range categories. Once again, both the Mediterranean and Levant categories are poorly defined (what's the boundary of the Mediterranean? 200 km inland? Bordering countries?) and overlap the better-defined WGSRPD categories that are better suited to regions with similar flora. A well-defined hierarchy and non-overlapping category scheme for flora categories is absolutely necessary; the alternative system where we consider what is or is not defining for single regions that overlap existing categories only creates an incentive to overcategorize and causes category clutter.
Some of the articles in the Levant category may need to be categorized in Category:Flora of Southeastern Europe or its constituent categories in addition to being upmerged to Category:Flora of Western Asia, but never should the Mediterranean category be a subcategory of Western Asia; not all of the flora of the Mediterranean is also found in Western Asia -- there is a good reason why Category:Mediterranean is not a subcategory of Category:Western Asia, while Western Asia does have a Mediterranean coastline, it is a distinct and separate region. Again, this is why non-overlapping categories are essential for this categorization scheme. Rkitko(talk) 14:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understood earlier, Category:Flora of the Levant wasn't containing indigenous flora at all, but instead it contained a lot of general Mediterranean and general European and general West Asian flora that is also found in the Levant. If that earlier understanding is still correct, I'm in favor of having the Levant category disappear except for when it's really indigenous to the Levant which is now in a separate category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it contains indigenous flora. Indigenous just means native, plants that grow in that region (and also others) without being introduced from somewhere else by humans. I think what you mean is endemic, and we do have categories for Category:Endemic flora, but we don't have endemic flora categories for regions not recognized or used by the WGSRPD. Rkitko(talk) 18:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge such categories should be broad, not narrow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 31 May 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 (rather than delete). – FayenaticLondon 14:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom implies (rather than plain delete). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 12 May 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:Religious movements founded in the 21st century[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. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh this is true, my mistake. I will delete this category to save time. Ormr2014 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: All pages have been placed in the category "Religious organizations established in the 21st century" and I have added a CSD G7 Speedy Deletion tag to the category. Ormr2014 (talk) 16:58, 6 May 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:Rename - Due to programming required, I'm not implementing: I'll drop a note with Martin and Anomie. - jc37 20:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if this rename happens I'll need to adjust AnomieBOT to match. It's an easy change. Anomie⚔ 21:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditionally support I'm in favour of clarity but to be consistent I think you should also rename {{edit protected}} to {{edit fully-protected}}, among others.. I suspect there's a handful of other templates, page names, categories, etc, that suffer the same ambiguous naming. — MusikAnimaltalk 06:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per nom, this clarifies what the category is for. --OrduinDiscuss 19:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not closed within a couple of days, I'm planning to IAR and move it myself. The corresponding template has recently been moved and there is no opposition here. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anomie, are you ready to make the required change to the bot's code? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:00, 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.
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 rename/merge. – FayenaticLondon 21:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:C2D, acilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. No idea if the article is named correctly, but the category should blindly follow. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:33, 6 May 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.
