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: These two categories are basically about the same thing. Either title would work. Charles Essie (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no Kurdish secession, is there? It is really about the independence movement. Perhaps the entire tree should be renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support proposal by Charles Essie. Oppose Stefanomione.GreyShark (dibra) 07:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with independence movement, because there would no doubt be separate categories for Kurdish secession (from or in?) Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Syria... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per original nom -- but leave it in the Secession parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2016 (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:Footballers from Barnet (London borough)[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: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category with just 1 entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- but only of you will also nominate the other 3 London Boroughs with 1 member. In contrast one borough has 9 and some others a couple of dozen. Is there an explanation for this? It could be that the problem that a split of the Greater London parent has been incompletely undertaken. In that case the answer is populate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2016 (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. Speedy close per discussion a month ago. czar 15:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per reasons at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_13#Category:Spy-Fi_films. An ill-defined genre category that does not provide any organizational benefits to the project. The way the category creator defines "Spy-fi" is as a sub-genre of "spy fiction" and "science-fiction" but this questionable. It is at best a neologism that was coined in 2004 (see Brittany (2014)), but "spy-fi" is more established as shorthand for "spy-fiction" with publishers (see Hastedt (2011), Ripley (2013) and Hood (1989)). Even if the term itself were not ill-defined it would still offer questionable organizational benefit since genres can be crossed over in many different ways so it is indiscriminate if it does not encompass a major body of work. Betty Logan (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure why we have to have this discussion all over again, given the discussion of a month ago. This is disruptive behaviour by the editor in question, and stronger steps should be taken beyond just the deletion of the category. - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all are empty except the main article Spy-Fi which can be categorised under Sci-Fi. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2016 (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: The problem is that diet creators and food fad creators are really two different things. Diet creators are persons who create scientifically and medically credible diets, at least by the standards of their time, whereas food fad creators act in a way that is contrary to science. Please see Talk:Vani Hari/Archive 6#Pseudoscience category for a discussion of how Category:Advocates of pseudoscience generates controversy on BLP pages; consequently, that category was made a parent category of this one. That solution has been objected to, however, [1], [2], for the valid reason that diet creators should not be categorized this way. Approximately 2/3 of the pages in this category would remain in Category:Diet creators and approximately 1/3 would move to Category:Food fad creators, based upon page content identifying them as pseudoscientific, and the latter category would differ from the former in having Category:Advocates of pseudoscience as an additional parent category. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Which category should "Dr Avocado" be put into? It would be a hugely subjective choice between their supporters ("The avocado diet is the greatest advance in medicine since the leech") and the detractors ("He bought his doctorate from Wikiversity"). Lumping them together at least lets us categorize what they do, without having to make a value judgement over its virtues. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that whenever there is ambiguity, the default would be the Diet creators category. There are, however, several pages where, if one looks at their current content, the pages already state very unambiguously that it is pseudoscience (a term that is determined by secondary sources – not by partisan supporters or detractors). I don't think anyone wants to mislabel a subject as a fad diet when it isn't. But even by your reasoning, we would have to rename this category as Category:Diet creators. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By way of perhaps making this proposal clearer, let me point out that the existing category places bona fide diet scientists such as Arthur Agatston and William Howard Hay in the same category as Kevin Trudeau and Jasmuheen. This is not a subtle difference. It is just not right to categorize all these pages as though they were a single category. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that "bona fide" is impossibly POV for us to work with. We have enough trouble already. Just look at the mess Jytdog is causing over the paleo diet tonight, misrepresenting robust sources and other editor's use of them, all to push a pre-judged agenda. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where would Vani Hari fit into this? She is unqualified, prone to nonsensical gaffes in basic science, accused of acting for profit from her specific affiliates more than promoting broader types of food based on its healthful benefits. Yet when it comes to specific diet advice, she promotes a pretty uncontroversial and well-accepted plan. As one of today's leading targets for criticism of "food faddism", is she a "diet creator" (Wikipedia says you are right) or a "food fad creator" (Wikipedia says you are wrong)? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Open to Rename I would not favor splitting this category into people we respect and those we don't. If there is a less subjective split or a rename for the single category, I'm open to change here. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly hear what editors are telling me. Let me ask then: how about a rename to Category:Diet creators? That way, the category name would at least have a neutral name, without any implication that some (unspecified) number of the pages are about faddists/"people we don't like". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename That has both more brevity and I think is really what the category is shooting for. (Note that this is my second vote.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Diet creators. Food fad is a pejorative phrase used to attack others work, but some would say those who pushed low-fat diets, and especially those who argued the benefits of low fat milk were pushing food fads that actually lead to rising levels of obeisity, but they did rigorous studies to reach their conclusions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2016 (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: Railway gauges are developed in local round numbers. Metric railways were built as 600mm gauge, 2 ft gauge railways were developed in imperial units. Nowhere invented "610mm" as a primary unit for describing its gauge. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Go for it. No imperial measure country built to 600mm gauge, they built to 2ft or 24in gauge. (As a matter of interest, South Africa (British heritage, imperial measure) uses 2 ft gauge, or 610mm. Neighbouring South West Africa (Namibia, German heritage, metric measure) used 600mm. During the SA administration of SWA, narrow gauge locos were frequently exchanged between the two territories without modification.) -- André Kritzinger (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, several railways in Britain (such as the Ffestiniog Railway and the Vale of Rheidol Railway) are not described as 2 ft gauge in sources but as 1 ft 11+1⁄2 in gauge or 1 ft 11+3⁄4 in gauge - these are the nearest fractional imperial measurements to the actual gauge of 600 millimetres (23.622 in). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So don't categorise them as 610mm then. I fail to see what relevance those have to the question here?
The FR and VoR are approximately two foot gauge railways, built to an imperial ruler, where the precise gauge was shimmed slightly to allow for better running, based on experience. Are you really claiming that they were laid to a metric standard? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Andre Kritzinger brought up the topic of 600mm. They also made the explicit statement "no imperial measure country built to 600mm gauge, they built to 2ft or 24in gauge", which is easily disproved. There was an article in The Railway Magazine some years ago about the construction of these and other Welsh railways, who at the planning stage brought in Continental engineers with experience of narrow gauges, these engineers naturally used the gauge that they were most familiar with - 60 cm, or 600 mm. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Ffestiniog brought in overseas experts from pre-existing railways? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There's no evidence that any of these locomotives were specified to a 610 mm standard, and indeed I see that other locomotives from the same railroads are put in the 2 foot category, and we don't even have 610 mm category. Mangoe (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Even if the gauges are specified as fractionally less, I do not think it helps to split hairs on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2016 (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. Category has remained empty. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Family demoted to subfamily level (Dasypodainae). Former articles now all in family category (Melittidae). Category not necessary for subfamily. M. A. Broussard (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, article Melittidae (still?) seems to suggest that Dasypodaidae and Melittidae are sister families, together with a third one. I'm not at all an expert in this field, so more comments about this would be very welcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well the source for the sub-families was published in 2008, the three families was published in 2006. However the 2008 link is a dead link, and I am not able to tell how recent scholarship they represent. It also may have been a disputed question within taxinomical circles. I have to say I only have a good grasp of sub-genus level classification among Mammals, and much of that is 25 year old notions, not just developed 25 years or more ago, but I have not really done much to update my understanding of them in the last 25 years. I do know in the last 10 to 12 years advances in genome mapping and the like have suggested that Chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than to Gorillas. I also have to admit I do not see why we can't have categories for sub-families.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been reading articles on various animals, and my main conclusion is that sections on changing scientific classification need to be written in ways that explicitly state what year new classification proposals were made instead of using fuzzy terms like "recently".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Melittidae article has been moved to Melittinae and updated to match current taxonomy, and a Melittidae article has been created with current information (Hedtke, 2013). This paper included far more melittid bees than other studies done to date, so its results are more robust and have generally been accepted by the scientific community. The subfamilies of Melittidae s.l. were only briefly elevated to family status with the Danforth (2006) paper, and the new data recommends a return to the historical view. M. A. Broussard (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2016 (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:Suburbs of Huon Valley Council, Tasmania[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 "Localities". (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 09:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Category Suburbs of local councils in Tasmania are open to review, due to the others created - as the earlier CFD's are still open to discussion, categories created after the CFD started belong in the same set - places identified as 'suburbs' are not suburbs, and the whole set of categories needs a centralised single discussion to resolve re-naming JarrahTree 02:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Await closure of the open CFDs and then close to match. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to localities. These aren't suburbs, either officially or in common usage, and the original mover only did so because he was really confused about the place naming structure in Australia. "Localities..." is correct. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to localities of ... as per the two earlier CFDs for suburbs of ... Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2016 (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.
Relisted at 2016 MAY 25 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
