Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 15 August 17 >

August 16[edit]

Category:Diet advocates[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. There has been a little bit of complication regarding the name of the combined category since diet is ambiguous. I've noticed there hasn't been much objection to using diet food, so the combined category will have the name Category:Diet food advocates. -- Tavix (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This proposal would incorporate two parts: first, merging Category:Diet creators with the newly created Category:Diet promoters, and secondly, renaming the merged category as Category:Diet advocates. Obviously, there actually is a logical distinction between creating and promulgating a diet, but in practice, this is a matter of WP:OVERLAPCAT. Anyone who is notable for having created a diet will also have played some sort of role in promoting it (or we would not have heard about it and it would not have become notable), and anyone who has promoted a diet has also, to some extent, taken credit for devising it. This becomes obvious when looking at the pages in the categories. It is just not useful to have separate categories. The name "Diet advocates" covers both existing categories, and it also is slightly more neutral (non-judgmental) than "Diet promoters". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment on "creators" and "promoters" versus "advocates", but use "dieting" instead of "diet". "Dieting" is unambiguous, but "diet advocate" and "diet promoter" sound like terms for a lobbyist who works with the Imperial Diet (Holy Roman Empire) or the National Diet of Japan. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an interesting point, although the parent categories for both of these categories are Category:Diets and Category:Diet food writers. And "dieting creators" sounds like creators who are on a diet. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps "Creators of diets/dieting", "Promoters of diets/dieting", and "Advocates of diets/dieting"? Or just throw "food" into the title, i.e. "Diet food creators", "Diet food promoters", and "Diet food advocates"? Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of those, I think "Diet food advocates" works pretty well, and I have no objection to it, although I don't really think it's necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • The word "advocates" does not seem like a neutral word. QuackGuru (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm puzzled by that. To say that someone "advocates" for something seems to me to be an entirely neutral word, whereas to say that someone "promotes" something carries an (albeit small) implication that they are in it for commercial gain. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposal above. The proposal below works better for our readers. The word "advocates" is like the word "proponents". A promoter of a diet is far more neutral. QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support combining the two nominated categories in some fashion. For purposes of categorization, I don't think we need to distinguish between creators and promoters. In many cases, creators will also be promoters. Category:Diet advocates or Category:Diet food advocates seem to be OK to me. I don't think we have to have the "food" in there necessarily, but I could go with either. (If there are objections to "advocates", we could just combine them all into "promoters", since mere creation of a diet that becomes notable in some fashion is a form promoting that diet. I don't see a terribly significant distinction between the two in terms of neutrality, though.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You wrote "In many cases, creators will also be promoters." That means you know there is a difference between creators and promoters and not in all cases creators are also promoters. What can be done when there are diet creators that are not diet promoters and do not fit under the cat "Diet promoter"? They can stay under the cat "Diet creator". Since there is a distinction between the two they should remain separate. QuackGuru (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course there is a distinction in the real world that can be drawn, I just don't think it's worthwhile maintaining the distinction in Wikipedia category space since they are so closely related to each other. As I mentioned above, creators could also be called "promoters" or "advocates" in their own right, which is why I support merging them both into the new category named "advocates". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • They are related, but there is an obvious distinction in the real world. Wikipedia should follow the real world. How are our readers going to find the diet food creators if they are merged? There will be readers who will want to read articles specifically about the diet creators. Merging the cat will make it very difficult for readers to find the diet creators. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think the category system is always the proper forum in Wikipedia to draw certain fine distinctions. This is a case where the two characteristics are so closely related I don't see a benefit to distinguishing in categories and doing so seems to me to have more drawbacks. The details of what every particular individual has done to create and/or promote a diet is appropriately done in the articles, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • A co-founder (creator) of Wikipedia is very different than a promoter of Wikipedia. There is also a co-founder named Larry Sanger who is not promoting Wikipedia since he left Wikipedia. A promoter of a diet cannot be put in the category creator if they never created any diet. There are also diet creators that are not diet promoters. Wikipedia is not a vote. I think I have made overwhelmingly strong arguments for keeping the cats separate. QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging. While reading through the articles, it seems like very few people in the creators category are known to have created one particular diet. Atkins is quite an exception but we shouldn't have a category particularly in his honor. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
list of all articles in category
    • A
    • Arthur Agatston
    • Robert Atkins (nutritionist)
    • B
    • Samm Sinclair Baker
    • William Banting
    • BistroMD, Inc.
    • C
    • Jenny Craig (entrepreneur)
    • D
    • Pierre Dukan
    • F
    • Stuart Fischer
    • Joel Fuhrman
    • G
    • C. Joseph Genster
    • Max Gerson
    • Sylvester Graham
    • H
    • William Howard Hay
    • J
    • Jasmuheen
    • K
    • John Harvey Kellogg
    • M
    • Ian Marber
    • Judy Mazel
    • Gillian McKeith
    • Michel Montignac
    • O
    • George Ohsawa
    • P
    • Henry Perky
    • Nathan Pritikin
    • R
    • Seth Roberts
    • S
    • Barry Sears
    • Ian K. Smith
    • Irwin Stillman
    • T
    • Herman Tarnower
    • Z
    • David Zinczenko
    • Over two dozen people are listed under "Diet creators". That is more than a "very few people". They do not have to be widely known as a diet creator to be in the cat. QuackGuru (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think everyone knows how to look at the category page in order to see the pages that are currently in the category. The editor to whom you replied, however, was clearly not talking about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's right, I specifically disagree on "They do not have to be widely known as a diet creator to be in the cat." That view contradicts WP:DEFINING. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then you also disagree with including the ones that are not widely known as a diet creator/advocate in any of the cats? If it contradicts WP:DEFINING then you can go ahead and remove them from the cats. QuackGuru (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's correct. Though that can be done after closing this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is irrelevant whether they are widely known or not widely known as food creators. If a person is a food creator then the cat is appropriate. It appears you might want to delete the cat "Diet creators" and remove the cat from many articles and not replace it with another cat because they are not widely known as food creators. Correct me if I am wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The line between who is a creator and who is just an advocate can be extremely fuzzy. Many people will be advocating for things that are very similar to what others have advocated for, but may or may not be close enough for them to count as a new creator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge creator and advocates are different people. Dr. Oz on tv advocates and promotes every new diet because that his job. Just like we have politicians and political surrogates. One creates ideas, the other promotes them in the media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I see politicians promoting stuff all the time. Oz may perhaps be someone who does very little in the way of diet creation, but it is almost impossible to find a diet creator who has not also been heavily involved in advocacy or promotion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the readers who want to find only the diet creators? QuackGuru (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I infer from your question that you mean diet creators who are not involved in advocacy or promotion, and as I just said, they are pretty much absent from persons who have biographical pages on Wikipedia. As for finding diet advocates who have done promotion, but who also have created original diets, yes, such persons exist. But for purposes of categorization, that becomes a matter of WP:NONDEF and WP:OVERLAPCAT. By the way, I wish that this discussion would be closed already. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not mean diet creators who are not involved in advocacy or promotion. I mean there are readers who want to read articles about the diet creators. The readers will not be able to find just the diet creators when they are mixed in with the diet promoters. The cats are supposed to benefit the reader. Merging both together makes it more difficult for our readers to find the diet creators. QuackGuru (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you've said that before. It comes down to making a judgment about WP:OVERCAT. One can always argue that splitting categories into smaller categories provides additional information. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not overlapping categories when creators and promoters are different people. QuackGuru (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that completes a circle. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is like merging two different articles. QuackGuru (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal[edit]
  • Propose renaming Category:Diet creators to Category:Diet food creators
  • Propose renaming Category:Diet promoters to Category:Diet food promoters
  • A creator or developer of a diet is someone like Barry Sears who created the "Zone diet".
  • A promoter of a diet is someone who promotes dieting. These are two different cats for two different purposes. There is a meaningful difference between a person who wrote a book that promotes dieting and the creator of a diet. It is easy to find a list of "Diet creators" or "Diet food creators" for our readers when there is a separate and distinct cat. Both cats should remain separate. I reject the proposal to rename them both "Diet advocates" or "Diet food advocates". If all were lumped into one cat then it would be difficult to find who are the diet food creators. There is no benefit to our readers to merge them both together into one cat. QuackGuru (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming in that way, basically per my proposal at the top. Also, a "diet food creator" is someone who created the diet food (such as a cook), not someone who created the diet. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "South Beach Diet" is a diet. Arthur Agatston who developed the diet is listed under the cat "Diet creators" for a reason. We should make it easier for our readers to find what they are trying to find. Not make it harder. If they are all listed under "Diet promoters" then it would be time-consuming to try to find who are the diet creaters. Numerous people can promote dieting or sell their diet cookbooks but they did not not create a diet such as the "Atkins Diet". QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose keeping the categories separate. Per my comments above, I support combining the two. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per my comments above, I support combining the two. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:14, 24 August 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:Political philosophy by politician[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: Renamed to Category:Eponymous political ideologies Miniapolis 00:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose renaming Category:Political philosophy by politician to Category:Political ideologies by politician

Nominator's rationale: The categories content are ideologies, not philosophies. In Political philosophy we read: »In a vernacular sense, the term "political philosophy" often refers to a general view, or specific ethic, political belief or attitude, about politics, synonymous to the term "political ideology"«. In Ideology we read: »Ideology refers to the system of abstracted meaning applied to public matters, thus making this concept central to politics«. The category is a logical subcategory of Category:Political ideologies, and renaming it would reflect this. It is the more precise word. CN1 (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update :* Propose renaming Category:Political philosophy by politician to Category:Political ideologies named after politicians 12:05, 22 August 2016

CN1 (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with "ideologies", while "by politician" may be replaced by "named after politicians". Note that "by politician" would suggest that subcategories and articles would be of the form [[Political ideologies of <name of politician>]] which is not the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go with "Political ideologies named after politicians" or "Eponymous political ideologies" or something like that; "by politician" doesn't work here, and implies something different, like putting Capitalism in a subcat called "Political ideologies [or philosophies, whatever] espoused by George W. Bush", and so on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Eponymous political ideologies because not all these ideologies are named after politicians. Charles Essie (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal updated according to inputs CN1 (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal updated according to inputs CN1 (talk) 20:11, 28 August 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:Metropolitan school districts in Indiana[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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell, there's no significant legal distinction between MSDs and other Indiana school districts. Indiana Code 20-23-7 governs MSDs, but I can't find anything there that distinguishes the districts themselves from other districts. Title 20 of the Code comprises the state's education law (including 20-23-7), but after reading through it all, I found primarily passing references (e.g. "This section shall apply to school cities, school towns, metropolitan school districts..."), and the only distinctive feature that I could find for MSDs is that they're exempt from the authority of the township trustee. Woo hoo! There's nothing distinctive about the territories of the districts; several MSDs are among the largest in the state (search for "MSD" on {{Largest School Corporations in Indiana}}), but several of the largest districts aren't MSDs, and the Metropolitan School District of Warren County serves the most sparsely populated county in the state, with a total population (all ages) that's just 25% of the student enrollment of the state's largest school district. So as far as I can tell, there's no substantial difference between MSDs and other Indiana school districts, and we have no reason to categorise them separately. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There are several types of school districts in Indiana. The Practitioners Guide to Bargain and Impasse on the in.gov website states the term "school corporation" includes any: school city, school town, consolidated school corporation, metropolitan school district, township school corporation, county school corporation, united school corporation, community school corporation,..." If you look at Category:school districts in Indiana, you'll see entries for various school districts whose names indicate they are one of types other than metropolitan school district, and none of those other types have its own category. As far as I know, the differences have to do with the structure of the school board and perhaps some differences in taxing authority and legal responsibilities. However, they're all just schools and those differences never seem to become a topic of public discussion. Indyguy (talk) 01:42, 17 August 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:Orthopaedic eponyms[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: delete. -- Tavix (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category (with the exception of the two lists which should be upmerged) are not articles about eponyms; they are articles about medical conditions, medical procedures etc and should be categorized as such. E.g. this category contains the article Intramedullary rod (presumably on the basis that it is also known as a Küntscher nail), but that article is about an implant, not about a name. We don't usually categorize things by characteristics of their names (for a number of reasons - e.g. some things have many names, it may mean recategorizing if an article is renamed, origin of names may be unclear, it's not a defining characteristic, categorizing by name may mean that if the article isn't categorized by topic then this isn't noticed). DexDor (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to DexDor for the ping. I only acted on the request at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 12#Template:Orthopaedic Eponyms. Pinging the other contributors at that discussion... LT910001, Frietjes, & SMcCandlish. for (;;) (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: There is a big difference between a template and a category. This decision will surely have ramifications for other anatomical / medical categories. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any other medical terminology categories based on whether they condition is named after a person. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keeping this category is a very interesting way of keeping track of these articles and I'm not sure if any other resource has the potential to replicate what we do here. "Defining characteristic" is tricky. A lot of instruments can be described by their characteristics, but then again many variant instruments, tests and signs are so similar they are in practice identified and defined by their eponymous name. I suppose if others think this is reasonable, we could just whack all the contents into list articles and be done with it, but we offer a unique resource that I think satisfies our defining characteristic test, so vote keep.--Tom (LT) (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We already have categories based on the topics of the articles (e.g. Category:Orthopedic implants, Category:Musculoskeletal disorders, Category:Musculoskeletal examination) - just like we have for any other topic. Having a separate categorization based on characteristics of the/a name is unnecessary and may well lead to articles not being placed in a topic-based category (as is often seen with "terminology" categories). Re "many ... are so similar they are in practice identified and defined by their eponymous name - we identify things by their name, but that applies to any topic - not just orthopedics. DexDor (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with cleanup: Everything in there should be one of a) a list article of eponyms, b) an article the title of which is an eponym, or c) a redirect that is eponymous, to [a section at] an article that doesn't have an eponymous actual title. Similar cleanup needs to be done on the whole Category:Eponyms tree, and more "Category: Foo eponyms", "Category: Eponymous foo", etc. categories should be located and properly put under that parent category. The naming of these subcats needs to be made sensible and consistent; some of the current ones are confusing and weird, e.g. Category:Name reactions, which should probably be Category:Eponymous chemical reactions or simply Category:Chemistry eponyms (there's no reason to constrain it to reactions in particular). At the TfD, I had earlier written 'Doesn't work as a category, either, since "being named after someone" isn't a defining characteristic of any disorder.' However, on second thought, it often is a defining fact about a disorder, disease, or treatment, and we have a whole category tree for this stuff, which may very well be of interest to readers, students, etc., for multiple purposes (some of which we might not immediately think of, e.g. a paper on what percentage of eponyms in chemistry or orthop[a]edics are named after [insert criterion here]). Having the categories is not incompatible with the TfD decision to listify the navbox that was at issue there; lists of such eponyms per field would include verifiable but non-notable entries, and be the {{catmain}} article for the category. Nav templates are for primary/major navigation needs, while categories and lists are more flexible.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your 1st sentence, but "Everything in there should be ..., an article the title of which is an eponym, ..." appears to suggest categorizing by characteristics of an article's title (rather than, or in addition to categorizing by the topic of the article). That isn't how we normally use categories - for example, the article at BBC isn't categorized as an abbreviation; it should be in exactly the same categories as if the article was at British Broadcasting Corporation (as it's the same subject). It looks like what you are proposing is attempting to create a list using the category system. Re "categories should be located and properly put under that parent category" - many of these categories have previously been deleted (example CFD) and have you seen the text of the parent category (e.g. "... many ... things have been named after people, these are not included in this category, as ...")? Re CLNT: the CFD nomination makes no mention of any template. DexDor (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote my first sentence to be clearer (the category contents should each be one of three things, i.e., the things that don't fit because they don't have eponymous titles should be replaced by the redirs that do, and otherwise they'll already either be articles with eponymous titles, or list articles of eponyms). It has nothing to do with "categorizing by characteristics of an article's title", but categorizing by the meaning and history of proper names of things (which sometimes do not match our article titles due to WP:COMMONNAME, etc., but using redirects that from less common eponymous names makes it clear when a particular entry is in the category – people do not have to hunt through an article to find out why it is in the category). The analogy to BBC and abbreviations doesn't work because abbreviation is just a convenience we do, and does not innately have historical significance and meaning. When something is named after someone, it generally does, and that meaning and significance are often of encyclopedic interest, and it's consistently present enough that it can be categorized. There's no meaning or significance to "there is an abbreviated version of this name". Re: template – please read the the discussion before expressing confusion about it. ;-) The related TfD is mentioned and linked in the first comment after the nomination.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Morton described Morton's toe from looking at toes but Gaenslen invented Gaenslen's test for identifying problems with the lower back. I'm scratching my head to figure out what reader would want a quicker pathway between these two articles covering two areas of the body, a test that is unrelated to the condition, all because they were named after doctors that didn't work together and don't have their own articles. RevelationDirect (talk)
Your edited comment still says "Everything in there should be one of ... an article the title of which is an eponym" - i.e. categorizing by characteristics of the title rather than characteristics of the topic. You then say "categorizing by the meaning and history of proper names" - again making clear that you propose categorizing by characteristics of the name (or one of the names) of something rather than (or as well as) categorizing by what the thing (that the name refers to) is. Are you suggesting that Osteopetrosis should not be in this category, but if it was renamed to Albers-Schönberg disease it should be in? The point of the BBC analogy was that if there are several (synonymous) names for something then which name we choose as the article title shouldn't affect which category/ies the article is in. DexDor (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re template: I was well aware (from the edit that created the category) that there was a connection to TfD, but that does not affect the reasons for deletion in the CFD nomination. DexDor (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I decline to re-re-re-explain something no one else seems to have trouble parsing and which only you want to willfully reinterpret into a straw man position. This sub-discussion is over-long as it is, and it appears that consensus so far is leaning toward delete, so it wouldn't be time well spent.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NONDEFINING and the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME. This is grouping different medical conditions not based on anatomy or medicine, but on how the article is named. This topic might be WP:NOTABLE for a list article but is not defining for these articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NONDEFINING and the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME as above. Some medical conditions are named after people, others are not, for reasons which are nothing to do with the condition. Oculi (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge -- The characteristic is that the disease is named after a person. That does not apply to osteoporosis or the other osteo- items. The root here is Greek? for bone, not Mr Ost. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the things in this category (e.g. Osteogenesis imperfecta) have several names. In your scheme would the article belong in the category if any one of those names is an eponym - or only if the name that's been selected as the article title is an eponym? DexDor (talk) 22:10, 17 August 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:Economic institutions[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT, holds only two subcategories. Besides the term 'economic institution' is not very clear, e.g. the following [1] is a very broad definition of economic institutions such that we might put the entire Category:Companies and Category:Government into this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep, and define some inclusion criteria: Is it really hopeless to attempt to set some inclusion criteria? A variant of the nom's rationale could be applied to eliminate Category:Social institutions, on the basis that, as incorporated entities serving a function among people, all institutions are social. Perhaps the article institutional economics can help point to inclusion criteria. Or maybe it's simply enough to require that it be something that could qualify for Category:Social institutions and which has economics as its main focus, or a major aspect of its mission/activities.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this is a helpful change - whatever the numbers of entries it may contain Category:Social institutions is a hopelessly broad as SMcCandlish ☺ says. More generally, I think that if you want to replace a well-thought out system of categorization (that of the Journal of Economic Literature) with one of your own devising, you should develop and propose a comprehensive alternative, rather than making piecemeal changes which will inevitably end up in a chaotic mess. JQ (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making piecemeal changes is the very nature of WP, and afaics we don't have a mess in other academic disciplines where we do not adhere to any existing categorization system. So I don't share your concerns. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the subcategories for Category:Sociology as an example I'd have to disagree. There's a subcategory with a partial list of subfields, but it doesn't seem to be comprehensive or much used. Do you have an example of a discipline with well-organized categories, or is this a case of Not Invented Here JQ (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no less than 15 direct child categories, some 30 articles (that are not in the child categories) and over 20 interdisciplinary grandchild categories, all with subfields of sociology. That's quite a number, isn't it? Of course, if you know any subfields that are missing, you're more than welcome to add them. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The presence of direct child articles in a category of subfields is a bug, not a feature. This is the kind of category that should contain other categories not child articles. Instead, you have some subfields with categories of their own, some as child pages of the subfield category and some a mixture of the two. That's the natural consequence of making random adjustments.JQ (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all, it just means that there are a number of subfields in sociology that haven't generated any further WP articles beyond the eponymous article. That may be a pity but the problem is not in categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:55, 26 August 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:IPad Mini[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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:IPad Mini is currently restricted to the articles of the four models of iPad Mini and the general iPad Mini article. All other iPad-related articles, including companion devices, software, and accessories are listed in Category:iPad. The current convention for Apple products is to have one general category for the product line (in this case, iPad) as shown for all iPhone and iPod articles, not categories for each separate variation of the product. The iPad Pro also follows this convention and does not have a separate category, but is included in the iPad category. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 04:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. We don't need micro-categories for every variant product sub-line by every company.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – Per above, unnecessary subcategorization. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:09, 19 August 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:Tanzanian airport stubs[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: upmerge. -- Tavix (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Significantly below the threshhold of 60 - only 52 articles in the permcat, of which only 39 are stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; the fewer stub categories and templates we have, the better. I think they should all be eliminated that do not correspond to a wikiproject, or taskforce/workgroup of one, to keep track of and work on them, down to some baseline level of "this is a major topic for which we don't have a project". We really just do not have any need at all for categories like "Tanzanian airport stubs". Intersections of only two topics (airport, Tanzania) produce only two stub tags, which is permissible and not excessive in any stub article, so the intersectional mutual stub categories and unique template serve no purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Tanzanian airports are the only country under Category:East African airport stubs to have a subcat. Perhaps at one time Tanzania had a lot of airport stubs, but I don't see any reason why it should be distinguished from other countries based on just 39 articles. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions @Od Mishehu. Isn't the threshold of 60 for creation of stub categories? If a stub category exists then what benefit is there in deleting it? DexDor (talk) 06:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we had 52 stubs for this category, I wouldn't have made this nomination. What I said is that there are 52 articles in the permcat, and only 39 stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but still the 60 is about creation, this discussion is about deletion/merging. What benefit is there in deleting this category? DexDor (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note there are currently three simultaneous discussions about application of WP:SMALLCAT to stub categories, here and here as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 1 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_16&oldid=1146512475"