Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 6 March 8 >

March 7[edit]

Category:Lists of Sierra Leonean media[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: soft delete. (I won't also place the member pages into Category:Lists of media by country, since they are in other sub-cats of that one by medium, e.g. Lists of newspapers by country.) – Fayenatic London 20:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Single item categories, not much likelihood of expansion soon. (Note: I created both categories in 2012, and that was a bad idea). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 7 March 2017 (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 mills in West Yorkshire[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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No obvious benefit from subdividing a category with a limited number of possible articles Rathfelder (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2017 (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:Polish people of the partition period[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 20:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant container category that doesn't fit in any established scheme, and the scope of the category almost coincides with its child Category:19th-century Polish people. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments of User:Piotrus. Valid category by historic period. Dimadick (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2017 (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:Pokuttya[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. There seems to be no appetite to delete or depopulate similar categories at the moment, e.g. at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_9#Voivodeships_of_the_Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth. – Fayenatic London 20:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles that already link to each other, and no realistic growth potential. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose:, no realistic growth potential is a personal opinion of the nominator that has no real foundation. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the content added. As it is about a historical region, the content should be about history and culture. It doesn't make sense to populate the category with current administrative subdivisions and towns. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2017 (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:List of mills in Kirklees[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 to merge, so rename to Category:Lists of mills in Kirklees. The main list List of mills in Kirklees identifies 3 sub-lists for Dewsbury, Holmfirth and Huddersfield, making 4 members now. – Fayenatic London 20:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge into Lists of mills in West Yorkshire. There are only two Lists of mills in Kirklees, and there will never be any more Rathfelder (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If @Rathfelder: has a suggestion on how to rationalise, ie which local government districts should be merged then I am content for him to take the lead- but it must be consistent across all districts. If we have only found two mills- then we need to try harder! Look at the article List of mills in Kirklees and you will see 261 mills. --ClemRutter (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – should be Category:Lists of mills in Kirklees. I don't offhand see why there couldn't be separate lists for the various towns in Kirklees. Oculi (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (renamed) or merge to West Yorkshire. Deletion should not be an option. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now. We can't predict if someone will actually split the article, but if that would happen we may reinstate the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2017 (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:Perth Link precinct[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Presumed to have been superseded by Category:Perth City Link precinct. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has already had a CSD tag against the empty page - this is a redundant nomination - it is CSD without discussion JarrahTree 13:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order: It wasn't CSD tagged when I raised the CfD, so the CfD wasn't redundant. In fact the CSD is incorrect because the CSD notice says "not currently in a deletion discussion, or was emptied outside of that process" and neither of those is true - the category was empty when I started the deletion discussion, and the discussion was current when the CSD was placed. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2017 (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:People from Alvarado, Texas[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) 06:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just two entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - even if we upmerged all the subcats of the target, we would only have 64 srticles there; we certainly don't need a subcat with 2 entries. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:59, 7 March 2017 (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.

Animal welfare organizations 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 all. With literally no oposition, with no comments for 4 weeks, and with the immense backlog at CfD, I'm closing it - despite being the nominator - since any admin who closes it would come to the same result. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming "Category:Animal welfare organisations in Foo" to "Category:Animal welfare organisations based in Foo"

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 7/Animal welfare organizations by country for full list

Rationale: Per the naming paterns in most of the Category:Organizations by subject and country subcats. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, let's all organizations consistently be "based" in some country. 18:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support − the parent is (eg) Category:Organisations based in Abu Dhabi and so the subcats should use 'based in' as well (and 's' or 'z' following the lead of the parent "Category:Organis(z)ations based in Foo" for the particular Foo). Oculi (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2017 (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:Sexual pseudoscience[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No evidence that "sexual pseudoscience" is a recognized concept, and no criteria for this category. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, since "Anti-LGBT Conspiracy Theorist Judith Reisman Tapped as Expert Witness in Jamaica". Southern Poverty Law Center. calls Judith Reisman a promoter of sexual pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But how is the Southern Poverty Law Center equivalent to a scientific authority? Is the term "sexual pseudoscience" a recognized term among actual scientists? If not, there certainly shouldn't be a category. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's called the demarcation problem: in general scientists don't discuss about pseudoscience, there are other experts who distinguish between science and pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard of the demarcation problem, thanks. Your comment is not an answer to my question. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Academic sources for "sexual pseudoscience": Martin Gardner (4 May 2012). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Courier Corporation. p. 242. ISBN 978-0-486-13162-7. and Sandro Segre (13 May 2016). Contemporary Sociological Thinkers and Theories. Routledge. p. 99. ISBN 978-1-317-16051-9. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unconvincing. Those are just a couple of examples of the use of a particular expression, and they do not suggest that it is an actual, recognized subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could rename the category to "Eccentric sexual theories" if you think that's more informative. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that. "Eccentric" is a subjective term. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that such theories exist and have been reviewed by WP:FRIND sources. So, would you suggest a better name? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a category that was created to contain a single person on the basis of a term applied to her by one critic. But given that it is not a recognized or well-defined concept that garners reliable source coverage or analysis about it at all, it cannot be deemed to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of her. As well, as of right now it's an empty category, and even if it were readded to Reisman it would still be a one-entry WP:SMALLCAT. If there were far more actual or potential content here, and/or there were an actual article about sexual pseudoscience to define and reliably source the scope and potential contents of the category, then it would be much easier to evaluate whether there was a legitimate basis for it or not, but something like this is not justifiable for just one article, and even less so for zero articles.
    Further, this is a potential minefield of WP:NPOV editwarring; there are, for example, people out there who believe that the entire concept of transgender is a "pseudoscientific" theory, that it isn't really a real thing and instead transgender people are really just suffering from a delusional mental illness no different from "person believes they are a rabbit" or "person believes they are Napoleon" — which means this category would set us up for constant POV-pushing attempts to file our entire category tree for transgender topics here too. And there are even people who believe that the whole concept of sexual orientation is "pseudoscience" meant to unjustifiably normalize deviant and unnatural forms of sexual behavior that should instead be restigmatized and recriminalized — thus setting us up for the entire Category:LGBT tree to get filed here by anti-gay POV pushers too. Accordingly, this is exactly the kind of area where we would need a head article about the concept of "sexual pseudoscience", clarifying exactly the scope of what reliable sources say about the subject, before a category for it would be justifiable. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2017 (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/2017_March_7&oldid=1075704964"