Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 3 October 5 >

October 4[edit]

Musical families[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 all. If any categories are to small to stand on their own, they can be nominated for deletion separately. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand what is trying to be conveyed here, there's no such thing as a "musical family" : )

Following the example of Category:Osmond family (show business)‎ and Category:Boone family (show business)‎. - jc37 21:28, 4 October 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.

Centuries in East and West Germany[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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, because East and West Germany only existed within the time frame of the 20th century it is pointless to subcategorize them by centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the fact there is only one century applying for those entities doesn't automatically mean we need to delete it.GreyShark (dibra) 06:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply -- One member categories are a hindrance, not an aid, to navigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but we need to ensure that the target is appropriately parented. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The century categories are really container categories rather than direct navigation routes. If there isn't enough content (aka more than 1 century) they should be deleted. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:03, 12 October 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.

Centuries in German 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: merge. – Fayenatic London 22:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, there are only a 20th century and (mostly) a 21st century subcategory in each of the nominated categories and there is limited backward growth potential. For example, the establishment of a 19th-century category for Baden-Württemberg is highly unlikely because the 19th century is covered by Category:Grand Duchy of Baden and Category:Kingdom of Württemberg; the establishment of a 19th-century category for Brandenburg is quite unlikely as Brandenburg was part of Prussia at the time. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the fact there is only one century (or two) applying for those entities doesn't automatically mean we need to delete it. It is customary to have such categories.GreyShark (dibra) 06:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge most as nom but also to centuries in Germany. I suspect that we should keep the Brandenburg one, because it was a major state and ought to have subcats for earlier centuries, before the Electors acquired Prussia. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact all content is already in Category:Centuries in Germany so there is no need for this second merge target. About Brandenburg, currently there are not too many articles on the older history of Brandenburg, if you want to check you can find most of them in Category:Margraviate of Brandenburg. I'd say let's merge it for now with the possibility to recreate later if suddenly more content appears. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The German state histories are complex but this seems like an improvement over the current structure. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:05, 12 October 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:Germany after reunification[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 to Category:Contemporary German history for now and some clean up will likely be desirable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete for having a too broad scope. If kept, it should become a container category for Category:1990s in Germany, Category:2000s in Germany and Category:2010s in Germany but I don't quite see why we would need such a container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the last suggestion. This looks like an appropriate parent both the East and West German History categories, mentioned (as targets) in another discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 8 October 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:Methods and principles in archaeology[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:Methods in archaeology and purge of inappropriate articles. One weakness of the CFD process is that sometimes categories are nominated and the agreed-upon solution is not straightforward or easily achieved, simply because the category as it was originally named and populated was deficient, but not so deficient so as to justify outright deletion. This seems to be one of those cases. I will place this task at WP:CFDWM, and any user who wishes to take a crack at it can do so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Methods and principles in archaeology to article List of methods and principles in archaeology
Nominator's rationale: non-defining characteristic of many members, that are also used outside of archaelogy. fgnievinski (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Some archaeological methods may have applications in other disciplines, but that does not invalidate the category, which has a substantial population. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, the cat includes several non-archaeological methods that find applications in archaeology -- WP:NONDEFINING. fgnievinski (talk) 20:02, 4 October 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:Healthcare in the United Kingdom[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. I have restored Category:Health in Jersey as a parent to Category:Healthcare in Jersey, since it was emptied out of process by one of the participants of this discussion. For now, the healthcare categories are subcategories of the health categories. They can both exist until there is consensus to merge one way or the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per the result of a previous debate here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28#Category:Healthcare_by_country Tim! (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that as far as the UK is concerned, its quite possible to make a distinction between articles on health and articles on healthcare, and that the distinction is useful, particularly because healthcare in the UK is now quite different in the constituent parts of the UK. Health is not nearly so different. The same approach may not be helpful in respect to other countries. Rathfelder (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, however, that the distinction between "health" and "healthcare" is not unique to the United Kingdom alone — the same distinction applies equally to all countries, including the ones covered in the previous discussion. There may certainly be a case to be made that we should revisit the whole thing, and consider possibly spinning "healthcare" categories back out as a separate tree again — and I'd even support that argument — but there's no valid case to be made that the UK uniquely qualifies for a special exemption from the existing consensus that applies to everywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both UK categories. Healthcare is about the treatment of illness (in hospitals, etc). Health is more abstract. The empty Category:Health in Jersey might be redirected to the healthcare one. Jersey is not a large island and there i8s little merit in having a split there. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep both this discussion and this distinction between health and healthcare has been thoroughly discussed before. Read the parent categories and main articles. Hmains (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Related issue: Is it healthcare or health care?Rathfelder (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, but only temporarily. While I absolutely understand and actually agree with the argument that there's a distinction to be made between the health care system in particular and overall health more generally, and I was not at all happy with the conclusion of the previous discussion, there's no serious case to be made that the UK specifically qualifies for a unique exemption from the way health topics are categorized anywhere else, as if the distinction between "health" and "health care" were a uniquely UK phenomenon not paralleled by any other country. I would absolutely favour and support a larger consensus to reestablish a separate health care tree for all countries, but that would need to be handled as a much more comprehensive discussion than what's been put up for debate here — and since the distinction isn't a uniquely British thing, the UK should not get to stand alone as an isolated case while the previous discussion is still a binding consensus that applies to every other country on earth. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is not that the distinction is unique to the UK. It is that the nature of the articles about the UK is a bit different. Rathfelder (talk) 07:33, 19 October 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:Mythological cosmology[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: downmerge for now to Category:Mythological cosmologies. There is no consensus here. However, the nominated category now only contains one article Religious cosmology and Category:Mythological cosmologies, and the latter has no other parent categories. It appears from the discussion below that there were other contents here when this nomination was made, but I have not been able to trace what they were, so I cannot revert those removals. Therefore I will merge and redirect what is currently a redundant layer. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant with Category:Religious cosmologies. Editor2020, Talk 03:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a great disservice to classify mythology under cosmology. It wrongly lends the appearance of the credibility of valid scientific methodology to mythology. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per Peterkingiron; I don't seen a real difference in the two, but "mythological" seems the better adjective, because some cosmologies aren't "religious" as much as promulgated by religious entities, whether the cosmology is "religious" or "sacrilegious" is in the eye of the beholder. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be okay with this merge as well. It's obvious there is one redundant mythological category, and this merge solves that problem too. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The primary function of this category is to ensure that certain articles do not end up classified in the science category (I.e. physical cosmology). This alone is a worthy reason to keep the category. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't really convincing, because it should be parented to Category:Cosmology anyway. By the way, the other parent of Category:Cosmology is philosophy, which makes sense, also considering that religious cosmology is older than physical cosmology. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 7 October 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:Lime sodas[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
Originally there was 1 legitimate pineapple article and 0 legitimate lime ones. I found additional content to get each category up to 2 articles but there's little room for growth and the discussion with Category:Blueberry sodas (here) suggested that 5+ articles should exist for these soda subcategories to aid navigation. No objection to recreating either category if more content appears. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Marcus2 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding Tiky. The consensus has been that companies that make many flavors, like Lilt, shouldn't be added to each flavor category. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Lilt is originally and predominantly known as a pineapple and grapefruit drink, even though one variant remains. – Fayenatic London 16:51, 9 October 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_October_4&oldid=1076190440"