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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As falsetto is a type of phonation that can be produced by any vocal type, I don't think it is correct to categorize a person as a falsetto, and certainly not simply as a subcategory of countertenor. LadyofShalott 20:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Falsetto is a) not restricted to males; b) occurs not only in singing. Attempting to categorise people as falsettos is problematic and unhelpful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete singing in falsetto is a technique associated with many different types of singers, not a standard class of singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 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.
The result of the discussion was:merge to Category:Literary forgeries, but it's evident that more work might be appropriate here. In article space, if some distinction is eventually made between a literary forgery and a literary hoax, then perhaps the category structure could follow. There does seem to be a distinction between the two, though there is overlap. Whether it is a distinction worth recognizing via categorization is a separate issue that will need to be addressed if the distinction is drawn in the article space.Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Strange to see that both categories cite as its main article Literary forgery, which begins: "Literary forgeries (also known as literary mystification, literary fraud or literary hoax)..." I cannot see any reason for two categories, or how they meaningfully differ. Can't we just upmerge? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, literary hoaxes is the main category, while literary forgery is the main article. So yes I probably should have proposed the merge in the direction RevelationDirect prefers. Fine with me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait -- The target is a mess, to which we should not add. It includes forgers, as well as forgeries, in some cases pseudonymous authors. If the target is appropriately split, we might merge them, but I am far from sure that every hoax is a forgery or vice versa. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the nom "hoax" is certainly inappropriate for most of the contents, & I'm not sure "forgeries" is much better. Many medieval works were at some point attributed to better known authors than their actual ones, & we could do with a better term for this. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: If the work was misattributed to a more well-known artist, we could create a sister category to Category:Pseudonymous writers. I think we also need this category (under whatever name) though. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both categories seem such a mix-up they need a good sorting through. I'm open to adding some new categories, but the two we have - hoaxes & forgeries - seem pretty distinct to me, and should be kept apart. But I suspect many articles are now in the wrong one. At the very least we should go to Category:Literary forgeries and hoaxes, but I'd rather not do that. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both - *Brush up both - The scope is forgery OR hoax, which are completely different. Stefanomione (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per main article, with no objection against creating new child categories when appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 19 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:delete, without prejudice to a re-created organization under a different name. (I seem to be continually closing category discussions where users have complaints about User:Stefanomione, with comments like Johnbod's below, which suggest that Stefanomione is repeatedly creating problems. And now he's been participating in CFDs with a sockpuppet. Perhaps it's time that we address some of these category-related issues regarding the user.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The purported main article "discipline" is actually just a disambiguation page that begins "Discipline is the suppression of base desires..." The subcategories are a grab bag of things that have the word "discipline" in the title... and then just a bunch of fairly random stuff. I do see that Stefanomione has seized on this ill-considered main category to do his thing, and if this Cfd is successful, I suggest we attack those next. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do think that creating all this merely to house Category:Sport disciplines was not the way to go -- but now we'll see what the community has to say, SFB. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Containerize If Kept including removing the purported main article. I don't have a strong opinion on this as a parent category grouping, but it would not be worthwhile for loose articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a recently created parent category grouping that manages to violate both WP:SHAREDNAMEandWP:ARBITRARYCAT, from what I can see. Nor does it have a valid main article how the different uses of the word "discipline" come together as a single topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because at least in the case of say, your Category:Techniques category, "technique" is a common word for how to do something. Fair enough, there are lots of fields that require techniques. In the case of Category:Disciplines, once again, the categorized main article Discipline is "the suppression of base desires...," which has nothing to with Category:Academic disciplines, which is described as "academic discipline, or field of study, is a branch of knowledge that is taught and researched at the college or university level," which in turns has nothing to do with Category:Sport disciplines, which was rightfully deleted as a completely unnecessary way of saying, hey, these are different Category:Sports. And then there's a who lot of other stuff thrown in for good measure. Category:Performing arts, Category:Professional studies, apparently whatever one wants, arbitrarily, to toss in. The proverbial kitchen sink. And again, no offence to SFB, apparently created to try and preserve a deleted sports category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this groups stuff together that doesn't have any relationship with each other, while it's not clear on what basis they are grouped together. It is similar to Category:Types that we also do not have. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag as container-only, which is what it already is apart from an apparent main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a container for what, exactly? What is the definition of a "discipline" that belongs here? Is it just the two remaining things that have the word "discipline" in the category name -- or are all the other things "disciplines" too -- and just those things? No other occupations, pastimes, or fields? I'm genuinely curious as to the logic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shawn's nom and reply to Stefanomione. DexDor(talk) 21:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May I ask you a simple question? When you go to a major library and want to choose a book in the Psychology discipline, and a book in the music discipline, is it not the category of discipline crucial to finding a desired book in 5 min than an entire day in the 10,000 book library? Tpetrosi (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In most libraries, psychology (DDC 150) and music (DDC 780) are not grouped together - even if they are both a "category of discipline" (whatever you mean by that). DexDor(talk) 06:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a few related nominations are to be found here. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RenameUser:Stefanomione again! "Discipline" is just a confusing version of "subject" or "field of study" and we should rename the whole tree more sensibly. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then why the fuck have you proliferated a whole set of categories X by discipline which by your own admission now are misnamed? 17:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn in Montreal (talk • contribs)
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brijwood was closed as a non-notable neologism, and the category was populated by socks of the same editor who created the article (and whose user name coincides with the person credited with coining the term), so I believe the category should also be deleted. bonadeacontributionstalk 08:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per AfD. Amalthea 05:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nomination, and as the category page now links to the deleted article page. - Arjayay (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WE cannot have a category for every place where films may sometimes be made. Are they all made by one company? If so, possible we might repurpose the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 7 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: rename to 'common name', unclear why these categories currently have a name in plural. All similar categories like Category:Culture by country use singular. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC) (signed a couple of hours later)[reply]
support - I can see no reason why the plural should be used over standard singular for categories. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose plurals are standard for categories. Further, these are not about a single economy, or the topic area of economy, but economies of various places -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give examples of similar cases where plural is being used? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CATNAME -- categories use plurals not singulars. These are set categories. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It says topics should be singular. Economy clearly is a topic, just like history, music and football. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for nominating this category scheme, the proposed change being overdue. Apart from possibly some mountain villages or war-torn regions, few sub-country-entities have closed economies, and on a country level, North Korea might be the last example of a country striving for full autarky, though it never arrived there. Continents on the other hand don't have a homogenous economy. So while these are hybrid set-and-topic categories, for the overwhelming majority of cases the WP:TOPICCAT character is predominant, meaning these are discretionary, though not downright arbitrary subdivisions of Category:Economy. --PanchoS (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - These are collections of sub-categories which are themselves collections of articles about individual economies -- ergo they are without question "set categories" which need to be pluralized. It doesn't make sense to make them singular. Category:Economy is a very recently created category by an editor who very clearly had no understanding of what he was doing. It is not a suitable "topic category" -- for that we have Category:Economics. Cgingold (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is really strange to me. If it were a set category, hypothetically speaking, it would imply that one could count different multiple ecoonomies within one geographical unit. That is actually not the case, you can only have the economy of a geographical unit. As [Cambridge dictionary] puts it, economy is the system (singular) of trade and industry by which the wealth of a country or region is made and used. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eureka - Whew... I think I finally got to the bottom of the problem here. The source of the confusion is that there are two distinct meanings of the word "economy" -- and they're used very differently in terms of grammar. (Btw, your link was bad, Marco; here's the Oxford English dictionary.) The first kind of economy -- the kind at issue here -- always requires an article. Thus, we always refer to "the economy"; we never say "Economy isn't doing very well" or "Economy is a complex subject." In other words, it's NOT used in the same way as History or Culture.
The only way for "Economy" to serve as a topic category would be if we were talking about the 2nd variety, where it's a mass noun referring to frugality ("Sparing or careful use of something"). Needless to say, we're not likely to want a category for that topic (certainly not under that heading, at any rate).
In short, Category:Economy and the proposed sub-cats just don't hit the mark grammatically. The current names should be retained, with the exception of the head category, which should be renamed as I suggested above. Cgingold (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it (yet?), I don't see what the article has to do with it. The issue is whether economy is countable within one (e.g. geographic) context. Defining economy as "wealth and resources", as Oxford does, doesn't make it any better countable. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Economies" is the appropriate plural form for a set category. The nominator acknowledged here that English is not their first language. Would Marcocapelle like to reconsider whether their command of the nuances of English is sufficient to be a constructive participant in CFD discussions, which rely on a precision of language which may not be readily available to non-native speakers? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware this was a language discussion. In my perspective the question at stake is, is this a set category or a topic category? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a trickier issue than it appears.
If you accept that all categories must be either topic or set categories (and everyone here seems to, even though there's no reason why it has to be that way), then all the categories under discussion except for Category:Mixed economies and Category:Economy (BTW I agree the second one is problematic but that's another issue) are definitely set categories. Category:Economy by country could only be a topic category if Economy by country were a reasonable name for an article, which I don't think it is.
That being said, it does not follow that we must use "economies" in the plural. Those who think it's that straightforward should look at Category:Economies by country subdivision and ask themselves if they think it makes sense to change "Economy" to "Economies" for all the subcategories there, and whether they're comfortable with something like Category:Economy of California by county also using the plural. (California has 58 counties; does it have 58 economies?) Also, they might ask themselves why Category:History by topic and Category:History by country and topic aren't plural as well, especially since postmodernism would insist that there's no such thing as "history" anyway, just "histories." If you think postmodernist gobbledygook isn't relevant to how we categorize, consider that something like Category:Social history by country is listed under Category:History by topic and country and has 103 subcategories, and that Category:Women's history by country ought to be listed there too. How are these not "histories"?
If you still think economy and history are "similar" topics and therefore both must take the singular, reread the last couple of sentences; it's pretty arbitrary how we've decided that history is uncountable. If you're not convinced, try rationalizing the existence of Category:Art by nationality and Category:Arts by country. (Category:Albanian art and Category:Arts in Albania, really?) And those who assert that only one economy exists per geographic unit should consider that the informal sector or underground market are often considered separately from other economic activities – e.g. GDP, the standard measure of the size of an economy, does not take either into account.
Some things aren't easy. Analogies, dictionary definitions and your intuitive understanding of English are important but will only get you so far. Everybody means well here, but it's time for us "native speakers of English" to get off our high horse, while the consistency zealots will find their efforts more appreciated if they look for lower-hanging fruit. Cobblet (talk) 19:59, 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.
Delete - Not warranted for such a small town. Cgingold (talk) 22:31, 12 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: A non-defining category ("major"??? "modern-day"???). Also, creator wrote up a rather complicated "statute" of the category. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Categories with a six-point explanation are usually not clear. If they're not already somewhere in the tree, all these towns should be upmerged to Category:Ghost towns. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disseminate into sub cats of Ghost towns. I have no objection to a parallel split by date of abandonment, but it is not fair to ask the closing admin to do that (and probably not my solution either). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first article I found in here is Birao, which was burned in 2007. However in 2012 it had 10,000 people. The article does not give us a sense of how this compares to the pre-2007 situation, but it is not a ghost town.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 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.
