Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 17 November 19 >

November 18[edit]

Category:Muscat, Oman[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subject to rename this category into Muscat article as the primary topic after the RM discussion of 3 August 2017. This should include sub-categories. ApprenticeFan work 07:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- I cannot think of any other use of Muscat, which would need that we need a disambiguator. This is not a case like London, Ontario or Birmingham, Alabama, where there is room for confusion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the grape provides enough potential confusion to justify the categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the primary topic. A hat-note can be used for anyone confused with the place or the grape. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not broken. Plus the grape is probably more famous. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the word Muscat (disambiguation) is ambiguous, and so will not do for a category. Oculi (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a nominator, the word is more common to match within the primary topic, as the famous city has over 47M hits in Google, with the named grape has only a little than 419K hits. Let's support to rename by following to correspond within the primary topic. ApprenticeFan work 11:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think that Google Trends is a better indicator of what people actually search for. This link shows that there's not much difference between the two search terms. The city has a slight edge, but nothing worth talking about. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:19, 21 November 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:Fahrenheit 451[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only navigates three articles other the the main one. Upmerge where appropriate (e.g. main article can go directly into Category:Dystopian novels). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:23, 18 November 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:Phthisiatrists[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. ℯxplicit 05:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A rather small and obsolete medical speciality. Lacks a defining article and no obvious reason for a seperate category. Rathfelder (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; the article Édouard Rist explains that he specialized in tuberculosis research (phthisiology). This category is a sub-category of Tuberculosis and appears valid & useful for that reason. I have added an explanation on the category page. – Fayenatic London 22:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there are any pulmonologists any more who only study TB. Rathfelder (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, but the category is not just about the 21st century. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Once this was a very important specialty. Being obsolete is irrelevant, since WP has countless historical articles. No reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the articles it doesn't appear that there is really any distinction between Pulmonologists and Phthisiatrists. The Phthisiatrists almost all studied other diseases - and often TB appears to have been only a small part of their work. And many of those characterised as Pulmonologists worked on TB. Rathfelder (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the nominator care to explain why they are already depopulating this category, during an already-opposed discussion of it? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of them clearly were not Phthisiatrists at all. Rathfelder (talk) 23:19, 30 November 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.

Roman līmitēs 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: merge. ℯxplicit 05:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not counting Category:Saxon Shore forts and Category:Forts of the Antonine Wall‎ (which are part of other category schemes), the 'Roman Limes' category tree contains only 29 articles in total. Therefore, this is a narrow intersection that is not helpful for navigation. (Note: Category:Roman Limes is nominated for renaming below.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've spend a lot of time on this tree structure and I've come to the confusion that it not worth the effort. Should probably do the same with some other sub-categoies like legionary forts and auxiliary forts. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- These will tend to be small categories sicne there was only one border at a time. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective double merge, also to Category:Roman frontiers where appropriate. – Fayenatic London 21:38, 19 November 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:Roman Limes[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 4#Category:Roman Limes. ℯxplicit 05:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to Limes and wikt:limes#Latin, the plural form of "līmes" is "līmitēs". (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
speedy discussion
  • Support -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT 1 Rename to Category:Roman frontier fortifications. There was a long discussion on the Roman Limes talk page. I don't think that it went in a definitive direction. This is my current favourite. Not many people would know that limes is singular. One source says, "The word limes here does not mean 'boundary' or 'fortified line' and the context is one of conquest, not defence.". Also, as @Marcocapelle: wrote "...it may be better to seek consensus about a rewritten version of the article first.". Also @Narky Blert: makes a good point when he says "The multiple possible confusion in British English with Lime (fruit) and Lime tree settles the issue for me (not to mention Birdlime, Lime (material), Quicklime and Slaked lime, all often just called "lime"). Yes, you and I know that limes is pronounced differently in Latin. But, a non-specialist who has just come across "limes" probably does not – and he or she is Wikipedia's target audience. Not us.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with seeking an alternative, per WP:COMMONNAME. This rename is a good alternative, and another alternative based on User:Fayenatic london's comments in the speedy discussion is to disperse the content between the existing Category:Roman fortifications and Category:Roman frontiers. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no *of course!* solution to this problem. I stand by my comment quoted by User:Laurel Lodged. The best solution is the one which will best help the readers. Us editors, and pedantry, have to take a back seat.
    FWIW, I rather like Category:Roman frontier fortifications. Narky Blert (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Pedantically the nom is correct, but few people will know that limites is the correct plural. However in WP pedants usually need to give way to common usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    [F]ew people will know that limites is the correct plural You're right, of course, but few people will know that "limes" refers to frontiers and not the citrus fruit. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    [F]ew people will know that limites is the correct plural 'You're right, of course, but few people will know that "limes" refers to frontiers and not the citrus fruit.' Or, indeed, the species of tree under which you should not park your car. Unless you enjoy washing sticky gunk off your car. Narky Blert (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to Category:Roman frontiers and Category:Roman fortifications as appropriate in each case. I can't see the justification for using a foreign word with an ambiguous scope, except for WP:SHAREDNAME which is explicitly against our guideline about over-categorisation. – Fayenatic London 21:34, 19 November 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:Imprisonment and detention of women[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 by weight of argument (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category includes a main article of the same title, and a list of TV shows. The TV shows can be listed in the main article. Don't think that we need a full category for this. Thanks! PolarYukon (talk) 16:01, 18 November 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:Lawyers of Commonwealth of Nations member countries in the Caribbean[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 4#Category:Lawyers of Commonwealth of Nations member countries in the Caribbean. ℯxplicit 05:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For the life of me, I can't fathom a reason why this would represent a separate class of topic from the rest of the Caribbean and/or from Commonwealth of Nations member countries outside of the Caribbean. Are they some unique class of lawyer, radically unlike other lawyers, somehow? Bearcat (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a trivial intersection category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep -- There is a common Appeal Court for several islands in the West Indies, so that this category is potentially about those entitled to practise in that court. However I do not know who has rights of audience there. If this were about accountants or doctors, I would probably support deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 3 December 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 Mauritania[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 and keep a redirect (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not at all clear on exactly what the distinction is supposed to be here between being "Mauritanian" and being "from Mauritania". Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One category is for actual persons, the other category is for ethnic-based articles. PolarYukon (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A distinction that fails to accurately represent what's actually in the categories... Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect it does seem redundant. The reason I created it is that I am used to the phrasing "people from X." A redirect would help people who think as I do. Thanks for the heads-up, Bearcat. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now -- This raises a much wider principle. I think there is a precedent on this, but I cannot recall what it is. The outcome should be according to that precedent. My recollection is that it is to merge, but am not sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:43, 20 November 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:Boston Patriots broadcasters[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: relisted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of Category:New England Patriots broadcasters. Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree. Thanks PolarYukon (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not necessarily a duplicate. The Patriots were known as the Boston Patriots from 1960 to 1970. This category is for announcers from those years. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 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_November_18&oldid=1138411346"