Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 1 November 3 >

November 2[edit]

Category:Deprecated templates from January 2008[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 action without technical discussion. -There is unanimous agreement in spirit that this would be a good idea for deprecated templates. However, the nominator @SmokeyJoe does not appear to have considered before nomination how these cates are populated, or how this impacts on wider of {{Monthly cleanup category}} system. As noted by Black Falcon, this is part of a much wider system of monthly tracking categories, in which the month parameter are added by a variety of tools and bots (e.g. AnomieBOT).
Any change such as this needs to be considered as part of that wider system. So I will untag the nominated categories, and suggest that @SmokeyJoe start a centralised discussion (e.g. at WP:VPT) about what technical changes would be needed to implement this, and whether the added complexity is justified. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS it turns out that Category:Deprecated templates from January 2008 was the only one of the 55 nominated categories to have been tagged. With such inadequate notification, there is no way that this discussion can be considered as remotely capable of reaching a consensus, so I have struck my closing summary above. This was simply an incomplete and invalid nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
:* Propose merging Category:Deprecated templates from January 2008 to Category:Deprecated templates from 2008
Nominator's rationale: These categories, Category:Deprecated templates from MMMM YYYY are all very small, many are empty. They are too finely slicing for efficient review of template deprecation. Upmerge all to Category:Deprecated templates from YYYY, categorise by year. This is intended to cover 2008–2017 and ongoing.

These categories are all in Category:Deprecated templates They are:

The targets are:

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – excellent idea. Oculi (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree it's a good idea organizationally from the Deprecated templates standpoint, merging would remove these categories from the monthly clean-up tracking categories, such as Category:Clean-up categories from January 2008, and would prevent or at least complicate the use of {{Monthly cleanup category}}, which provides a number of helpful tools. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in spirit but per Black Falcon I would want to ensure that those concerns are addressed before, or at least in conjuction, with this change being enacted. VegaDark (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. It may be that the current year may be useful to keep by month (I do not know). These should not make too large annual categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 5 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.
Post-close comments[edit]
  • If this gets re-opened in modified/complete form, I'm generally in support of the idea, because this isn't the sort of thing that needs monthly tracking, and subdividing it that thinly is probably an impediment not a help.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:BrownHairedGirl, I read your amended close as particularly unhelpful. If your intention is to !vote "sounds like a good idea in spirit but is not worth the trouble of actually doing", that at least would make sense, but it would be supervote veto of the discussion. You appear to have said that reaching a consensus is impossible unless a few dozen bot-created never-viewed category pages are tagged? That to me says "tedious process for absolutely no purpose but to follow process". If there is an easy way to tag them all, I don't know it. Thinly divided maintenance logs don't make a sense, but maybe they are no harm. The cost came in trying use them to look for deprecated templates, needing to look through over a hundred month logs, the majority containing zero or one entry. If your intention is to be completely unhelpful, I suggest you revert your close and leave it alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SmokeyJoe, I resent the pile of ABF in your last sentence, and urge you to withdraw it. I did not supervote; I weighed the arguments. If you disagree with the weighing, you know where WP:DRV is.
      Tagging the cats manually should only take minutes, but if that's too much then there is a v easy way to tag lots of categories: ask at WP:BOTREQ. And if you disagree with the requirement to tag cats, you can take that to DRV too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi BrownHairedGirl. "If your intention is to be completely unhelpful" is ABF? No, more sarcasm, I'll admit to bad sarcasm, of course that is not your intention. For that I apologise, and withdraw. Supervote? As if you would supervote a personal bias on something as uninteresting as a deprecated template maintenance category? Sorry, sometimes when I am in idle humour I err on the side of provocative in my comments. I admit some frustration in trying to work out what was driving some of your emphasis in the close. I read you telling me that I am completely incompetent, and I do not agree that my incompetence is complete. I thought yearly logs instead of monthly logs would be trivial to implement. I tagged one category with twinkle, and do not know how to tag the others. I think if I tried twinkle it would produce a separate discussion for each category. I suppose I could try reading the instructions at WP:CFD. No, there will be no going to DRV over a little effort to tidy something, that would be extremely counter productive to the initial intention. I would wave a trout at someone else who did that. Anyway, like I said, the categories were bot-created and until I looked into them and listed them CfD they had on average zero page views. Do they really need to be tagged? I notified the first non-bot creator, and I think I notified the bot owner. Maybe I am not meant for cleaning things. Maybe your could re-interpret yor close for me into actionable statements? Unless of course, fiddling with these things is more trouble than it is worth? Everyone else seemed to think it was a at least sort of a good idea. Do you? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @SmokeyJoe: the "actionable statement" is already there in the close, as plainly as I can say it: suggest that @SmokeyJoe start a centralised discussion (e.g. at WP:VPT) about what technical changes would be needed to implement this, and whether the added complexity is justified.
          Is any of that unclear? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Years and decades in Guatemala[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/delete as nominated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, until around 1800 there is mostly just one article per category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle -- However, I just wonder whether some of the earlier items should have a Maya civilisation target, no doubt combining with other parts of Central America, including Mexico, rather than going straight into a continential category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Guatemala categories that predate Guatemala as anachronistic. I think it was established sometime in the early 19th century. 165.91.12.65 (talk) 06:12, 14 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:Defence Forces (Ireland)[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 as nominated. – Fayenatic London 17:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In 2006 I proposed the merging "Military of the Republic of Ireland" into "Irish Defence Forces" (what is now "Defence Forces (Ireland)") and the consensus was "Kept, with delayed reverse merge", on the basis that (a) yes there was so much overlap that a merge was appropriate but (b) the category name "Military of <Country>" was standard and so should override WP:COMMONNAME. The "delayed reverse merge" never happened, so I'm proposing it again. (Personally, I still think commonname should override WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but a single category with a suboptimal name is still far preferable to a pair of duplicate categories, so I'm willing to have "Military of the Republic of Ireland" as the target of the merge rather than the source.) jnestorius(talk) 18:22, 2 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:Family physicians[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, without prejudice to any purging which editors feel is appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap. "Family" is a little misleading, in that these people deal with single people, not just those with families. Primary Care is a more widely used term in the rest of the world. Both terms seem to be used in the USA, but without any clear distinction. Rathfelder (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge of any non-Americans (Rajakumar is not now there), then Merge as nom. They seem to be much the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge and merge per Peterking, though note that the target is also slated for upmerging (and this is good). These are not types of doctors, but roles/markets general practitioners may be filling.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, we can't discuss this merge while the target is also up for merging, because the net effect may be that Category:Family physicians is going to be merged to Category:Physicians without that being explicitly discussed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meanwhile the other discussion has been closed as no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we rename it American family physicians for the time being? I don't want people adding doctors from other countries to it. Rathfelder (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Family doctors or Category:family medical doctors. This clearly represents the common usage. People in the US refer to these people in common speech as doctors, not physicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would that include Category:American primary care physicians‎ in the same category? Whatever we call them it needs to specify that they are American. Rathfelder (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add American in the category name, either by means of the proposed merge, or by means of the alternative rename to Category:American family physicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion of Category:American primary care physicians has concluded, and the category is still there. Can we now agree to combine the two categories? Nobody seems to be suggesting that there should be two separate categories. Some of the articles use the term General Practitioner, which is what is used in many English speaking countries. Rathfelder (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • support with the caveat that there are a lot of members who primarily notable for something else and probably should be merged directly into the parent physicians category. Mangoe (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2018 (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:2016 Lahore suicide bombing[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, no need to merge since the eponymous articles is in the parent categories already (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No other article to categorize. No need for such category. Störm (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category unlikely to expand beyond one entry. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to all parents -- WE have one (main) article and are unlikely to populate it further. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 5 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:Church music in Germany[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 to Black Falcon's alternative proposal. -- Tavix (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to clarify the scope of the categories. While the music in these categories comes from a certain country, it may well be performed in other countries, so it doesn't need to stay in the original country. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of alternate proposal. Pinging Tim!, Peterkingiron, and ToThAc.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 06:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer present names, but would not oppose the alternative, the second item becoming "British". However this has a problem in that it is a mixture of choirs "in UK" and hymns (musical pieces), which are "from UK", as they may be used elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative version proposed, as more concise and less awkward.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:42, 5 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_2&oldid=1138411362"