Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Ukraine[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: Since these categories are hidden, administrative categories only, I don't think it's worthwhile or necessary to divide populated places into the different "types" of cities, towns, and villages. The purposes of the categories (which are limited) are best fulfilled if they are upmerged and kept all together in a general "populated places" category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ukraine has 460 cities, 886 towns and over 28,000 villages. If even a fraction of them will have categories, such a distinction in categories is much more useful than lumping them all together. Besides, this argument would imply that well-established categories such as Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities would need to be disbanded, since the category of Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities in Ukraine is bigger than most of the categories in there.--Sanya3 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, not many of them currently have nor will categories—they are especially rare for towns and villages. All together we have just over 100, which is not too many for one category to handle. Right now, I just can't see why we would want Category:Wikipedia categories named after villages in Ukraine when there are only two categories in it. Second of all, this is not a particularly useful distinction when we are dealing only with administrative categories that are hidden for the majority of readers. Thirdly, I do believe that Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities should probably be disbanded in favour of the more general ones for populated places. There are a lot of problems with this category tree; the purpose of this nomination is just to scale back some recent amendments which in my view have made it even worse. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does make some sense, but probably only if one cares to see it. Things are often done in a step-wise fashion at CFD, where one issue is resolved and then it is applied more broadly. I "targeted" these only because they were recently created subcategories that I regard as an unnecessary development. Note that there is no Category:Wikipedia categories named after towns or Category:Wikipedia categories named after villages, so the town category and the village category at least are unique and should be upmerged as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unless some one can point to a purpose for these categories. All the items appearing already seem to be in an appropriate city/town/village tree. In most places we merged those trees into "populated places", because there was no general robust way of distinguishing a town from a village and a city from a town. Is the distinction a robust one for Ukraine? The principle is that an item should be in both a parent and child category. This scheme seems to be leapfrogging some intermediate levels to put all in a Ukraine-wide category. Why? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the whole tree of Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities is going to be nominated for deletion, I will support the nomination too, it is too much duplication. For now, the merger makes sense since the towns and villages categories are too small to keep them separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue about the cities categories is a fair point. It is a reasonably extensive category tree right now. But I can't for the life of my figure out why we would need any cities categories within this "administrative" tree as subcategories of the parent populated places categories. If anyone has any insight as to how they might be administratively useful, I'd like to hear it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These categories have been driving me nuts for years, especially with the eponymous biography categories which are generally only in this invisible category tree. That being said, I'm not sure this is a good trial balloon. The (mis)perception of that Ukrainian categories are being selectively targeted is a distraction, and this nomination would not reduce number of visible categories in this tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support merge. One argument which did not yet featured in the discussion is that most users would not know the difference between cities, towns (which are actually not towns but urban-type settlements) and villages. I invested a lot of time in cleaning up the articles from the mess which was created by this misunderstanding, and it is definitely safer to merge the cats as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename'/Merge per nom. There is no reason for such fine differentiation in sepeating categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 5 June 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:don't merge. While this is unique among the nationalists categories, editors argued that Arab nationalists are unique because they aren't associated with a specific country, but rather a whole region. This seems comparable to splitting a continent category out by country, which is routine. There wasn't any strong counter-argument to that. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 02:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this way per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the proposed merge would lead to 4 categories with a large overlap in content. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nationalists is an appropriate parent. You can be a Nationalist and not necessarily a follower of Nasser, Ba'ath, or socialism. This is particularly inappropriate for the Ottoman category, which relates by definition to pre-1920, long before Nasser. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears we have a misunderstanding. I know that not all Arab nationalists are Nasserists or Ba'athists. I was trying to suggest that certain content (like the political party categories) go into the Arab socialists, Ba'athists, and Nasserists categories. But now that I think about it, much that content is already in those categories so never mind. Charles Essie (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the fact that no other nationalism category splits out per nationality is pretty obvious, most if not all other nationalisms are limited to one country anyway. So it's not a good comparison, hence not a good argument for merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at that category and I think those subcategories should merged as well for the same reasons, especially considering the fact that those subcategories include minimal content and many of these subcategories are also extremely small with incredibly limited potential for growth. They also overlap with one another significantly so even you don't agree with my argument that they should all be merged, you've got to admit that at least some of them should be. Charles Essie (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the small categories within the African category. However, coming back to the nomination, for example Category:Iraqi Arab nationalists has some 50 articles in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay with the nomination if you'd limit it to the smaller ones and if you would resolve Hmains' concerns below. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about the excessive overlap between the subcategories? Deleting only the smaller ones (which really needs to happen no matter what the outcome is) wouldn't solve that problem. Charles Essie (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but isn't categorizing Arab nationalists as politicians or thinkers something of oxymoron considering that most of them are both? There are also no other categories for military personnel based on ideology. Charles Essie (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay I see your point, but then you'd better nominate these categories instead of the nationality categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, how about this. We merge those and the smaller nationality categories. The rest can maybe be discussed another time. Charles Essie (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting somewhere! As a small variation I would rather delete the three occupation categories because (nearly) everyone in already in a nationality subcat as well, so by merging we would unnecessarily pollute the top category. I'm still not convinced of doing something with the (small or large) nationality subcats because of Hmains' concerns below, in particular because every "fooish Arab nationalists" subcat is currently also a subcat of "Arab nationalism in foo-country" and that structure would get lost by a merger. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think we have a good compromise. Charles Essie (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose as written There is nothing stated here as to what is going to happen to ALL the parent categories of ALL the categories proposed to disappear. A merge discussion as with a delete discussion must account for the affects on all parents. Hmains (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, it seems like we're both in agreement that at least some of these subcategories should be deleted or merged. I would like to discuss with you which ones. Charles Essie (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just making sure. I guess it's safe to say that this one is a closed book. Charles Essie (talk) 20:14, 1 June 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:rename. – FayenaticLondon 23:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The issue of whether this category should also be merged was never really addressed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_5#Category:Meat_processing. At the very least, I think it should be renamed, per the main article, taking care to put a space between meat and packing. I'm open to any option - don't really care but we can't be spelling meat packing different ways in the same structure, I guess. If successful, Category:Businesspeople in meatpacking would have to follow suit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 29 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.
The result of the discussion was:upmerge to all parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Diablo (series) and possibly other parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 23 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:Lists of people by proposed medical condition[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 if only as redundant to Category:Retrospective diagnosis. This closure is without prejudice against a follow-up nomination of the latter category as possibly being too subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if you read the category description, it's apparently designed to address the concern that some of the people in lists at Category:Lists of people by medical condition might not belong on those lists. So any time inclusion is contested -- such as at List of people with epilepsy -- bingo, it goes into this category. There's a lot of speculative "retrospective diagnoses" in these medical lists and I daresay all them could end up here too. This is not the way to go about contesting inclusion in a list -- it's a really terrible idea that goes back to 2006, when it was created out of Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_3#Category:Lists_of_people_speculated_to_fit_a_criteria_to_Category:Lists_of_people_speculated_to_fit_certain_criteria. It was a Cfd where no one seemed to muster much enthusiasm for any solution. Anyway, it's a dumping ground for contested people by medical condition lists -- or so it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I originally wrote more, but was having trouble with twinkle and my explanation got shorter each time I tried to re-submit. The category was created in 2006, has been edited 5 times, and was last edited in 2008 and there are only 3 pages included in the list. I think the rational given on the talkpage basically boils down to: Lists exist for people with speculative diagnoses and these lists have a high abuse potential, so let's categorize them so we can keep an eye on them more easily. It seems to me if the list should reasonably exist, it should belong under Category:Lists of people by medical condition or Category:Lists of people with disabilities. If it doesn't belong in either of those, it's because the list's existence is probably a gross violation of the policies and guidelines. List of people with autism and List of people with ADHD were deleted at AFD a few months ago (the list of people with ADHD has been deleted twice under slightly different names). Presumably the same rational to delete those lists also applies to the pages in this category: Retrospective diagnoses of autism and List of people with bipolar disorder. This is essentially a category for lists that shouldn't exist. *I should mention that I'm the one who nominated the ADHD list for deletion and I'm planning to nominate the bipolar and retrospective autism ones too when I get around to it. I don't know what to say about List of people with epilepsy. I didn't realize that would be something to speculate about. —PermStrump(talk) 20:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Except that only one is a retrospective diagnoses list -- the other two are regular people by medical condition lists that have some retrospective content. And in one, List of people with bipolar disorder, I don't even see any. And the list has a good description that warns people not to add names without good referencing. Maybe back in 2006 we were still categorizing people by "speculation" but this cat serves no useful purpose now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the previous description of List of people with bipolar disorder. I updated it recently. I didn't feel the previous description was appropriate, because it included recently deceased people with speculative diagnoses. I've come across quite a few recently deceased people in the list, most of whom died by suicide, so there was lay speculation in the press about what might have led to the suicide. As far as the long-time deceased people, so far all of the ones I've looked at were poorly sourced and/or the diagnosis was contested by the majority of mainstream sources. I've only made it through the Es as far for verifying sources. P.S. Apparently back in the day people used to accuse their opponents of having epilepsy to discredit them, so a lot of the people in that list are bunk. One guy, the only source is his own statement wondering if he had eplilepsy because his daughter did. —PermStrump(talk) 17:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We cannot keep it with this title. I think this is about retrospective diagnoses of diseases. If so, this is about speculative interpretation of events, for people who were not diagnosed. If this were about work by WP-authors, we would call it OR. However, I do not think this is much better. If they were diagnosed we might allow a category, but the autism and ADHD precedents suggest that we should not. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only appropriately descriptive title I can think of is "Lists of people retrospectively diagnosed with anything by literally anyone." —PermStrump(talk) 20:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it would have to be "retroactively diagnosed" instead of "proposed," which we use here to mean something else entirely. But then if there is only the one list uniquely devoted to retrospectively diagnosed autism, then the smallcat concerns raised in the nom kick in. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 23 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:Astronomical Societies in Louisiana[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. I could not identify any necessary merge targets, since the one article in the category was abundantly categorized already. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: a rather small category Rathfelder (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? -- Is there a US categoryas a merge target? POssibly also a scientific societies in Louisiana one too. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 23 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: delete, this is not a defining characteristic of the content of the category. No need to merge the whole category, most of the content is already somewhere in the tree of Category:Statistics except article Statistical literacy which may be moved to Category:Statistics and except for article Risk perception which doesn't really belong in the statistics tree anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 22 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.
The result of the discussion was:merge, but not all the contents, and convert into a disambiguation category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge in the spirit of WP:C2D, article Economic development is a main article of both categories while Development is merely a disambiguation page. Most content of this category is indeed of economic nature, though after merging some purging will be needed, e.g. to move out Category:Urban development. In yet other words Economic development and Urban development are a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tricky one, but I don't think downmerging everything is appropriate. For instance, Category:Community development has nothing to do with Economic development. Instead, I think we should manually sort all of the articles currently in Category:Development into existing subcategories (or remove them, if none fit). After that, Category:Development should be converted to a disambiguation category. I have no idea what that vote would be called, so let's call it "it's complicated". ~ RobTalk 02:00, 10 June 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 parties of minorities by country[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. – FayenaticLondon 23:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. What is proposed is less ambiguous.Rathfelder (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support normalization. Because of demonyms sometimes being the same as ethnonyms, this is also good for precision. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:58, 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.
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 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.
