Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 24 February 26 >

February 25[edit]

Category:Crosiers[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 per nom. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a technical nomination, as requested at this earlier discussion. I am neutral, and pinging the previous discussants: @BrownHairedGirl, Grutness, Johnpacklambert, Marcocapelle, and Peterkingiron:. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:08, 25 February 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:Wikipedian developers[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. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word "developer" has multiple meanings, and not all of them specific to computer science. At a minimum, therefore, the category name is ambiguous. More generally, however, this is an unnecessary intermediate layer between the parent and child categories. (Pinging User:Lsandre as the category's creator) -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the same rationale I gave here. Rename per nom if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a too poorly populated container category, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:34, 1 March 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.

Years and decades in Luxembourg (until 1800)[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 but instead of the nominated targets for Europe, the first and fourth are merged to Category:1658 in the Habsburg Netherlands and Category:1795 disestablishments in the Austrian Netherlands respectively. – Fayenatic London 22:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly just one article per category. This is follow-up on a previous nomination that was supported in principle but considered to be too broad so that country specific details could not be discussed. So here is another separate nomination by country. By the way, in the previous nomination there was no specific discussion about Luxembourg. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: Thanks for spotting this. For 1684 and 1795 (disestablishments) you are absolutely right. On the other hand 1658 is an odd one: since it is pretty strange to have the Spanish king involved in a coalition against his relatives in Austria, even stranger that it would be just in his capacity of duke of Luxembourg, I checked German Wikipedia where participation of Spain/Luxembourg was not mentioned and found a German-language source in which this participation was not mentioned either. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 19 April 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:Ancient and medieval individual animals[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 all to Category:Ancient individual animals or Category:Medieval individual animals, as specified. Fish+Karate 08:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in every of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ​ The vast majority of categorisations by year of birth & death are human, so it would be disproportionate to rename them all e.g. "1066 deaths" to "1066 human deaths". – Fayenatic London 20:05, 2 May 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:Philanthropic organisations based in Namibia[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: not merged. There may be a case to be made for batch-merging all "philanthropic organisations" categories into "non-profit organisations", but there's no consensus to single Namibia out for special treatment in this regard. Also, the number of articles present in a category is not in and of itself a deletion rationale; if there are subcategories, which there are, then it's not empty and not automatically invalid just because of the lack of articles. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No actual articles in the category. Rathfelder (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nom gives no rationale for deletion, as we have thousands of container categories. Oculi (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this category should be nominated together with its siblings and other categories in the tree of Category:Philanthropic organizations in a batch nomination. Nominator has a point though, we now have three category layers, for non-profit organizations, for philanthropic organizations and for charities, that is a bit overdone. A downmerge to charities may also be considered. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Even if the rationale was valid, I see no reason to single out Namibia from Category:Philanthropic organizations by country.
    Drawing on @Marcocapelle's comment, I suggest that before tagging lots of categories with a proposed change, it would be a good idea to have an RFC. There are several types of related organisations in this sphere: non-profit organizations, philanthropic organizations, charities, grant-making foundations etc, with overlapping roles and with terminology and legal frameworks which vary by country. It would be a pity to get stuck into details before clarifying the big picture. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy, as usual, to agree with BrownHairedGirl. I'd suggest that we could cope with the articles from undeveloped countries like Namibia with many fewer levels than are need for the USA. There are also issues about geography - many such organisations are establish in one place in order to do good in another place. Rathfelder (talk) 10:23, 8 March 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:Places named after terror victims[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) 06:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Feels like WP:OC, although with a bit more notability than some examples. 12 articles, but I'm uncomfortable that they are all settlements on the West Bank... Le Deluge (talk) 19:12, 25 February 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:Music memes[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 is no objection against creating a songs subcategory first. Perhaps, after that has been created, there will be more clarity with regard to the future of the nominated category. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Keyboard Cat is a music-based meme. The Hampsterdance Song is a song based on a meme. Most of the rest are songs used in memes.

At the very least, the category needs a heading explaining what the category is. On a practical level, I think we need to figure out what the category should be and title it appropriately. SummerPhDv2.0 22:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 25 February 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:Ophthalmology organizations[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). There is no objection against creating new categories Category:Optometry organizations and Category:Eye care organizations. Possibly later, if they become very small indeed, there may be a clearer consensus for merger. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To include Optometry organisations Rathfelder (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 25 February 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:Non-commercial use only images[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer that conflates files tagged for speedy deletion with legitimately used non-free files. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:25, 25 February 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:Deuterostomes of Scotland[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) 06:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining (e.g. for Hippasteria phrygiana which doesn't even mention Scotland).  Some articles could be upmerged to Category:Fauna of Scotland, but we generally don't categorise by such small areas (unless endemic).  For info: Neither of the previous editors of this category (now both blocked) appears to have had much clue (one put this category in redlink categories) and the other put it in invertebrates. DexDor (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the articles mentions Deuterostome (the presence of a category on an article has to be justified within the article). Oculi (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, although the articles don't use the word "deuterostome" they do specify the type of animal (e.g. powan is a fish), so if you know what a deuterostome is then you know that the subject of the article is one. However, I would argue that "deuterostome" (unlike, for example, "fauna") is a word that editors/readers of that article can't be expected to know and the fish article doesn't use that word. DexDor (talk) 06:49, 1 March 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.

Austrian Empire years: early years[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. – Fayenatic London 23:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Austria was not established as a state until 1919. Prior to that, it was part of Austria-Hungary, the Austrian Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. There was also the Duchy of Austria which was a state of the HRE. For the nominated years, it is ahistorical to speak of "Austria". For those years, parts of the Habsburg lands that were loosely described as the "Archduchy of Austria" did not find their way into the modern state (e.g. South Tyrol). For example, the Battle of Novara (1849) took place on Italian soil, not Austrian. See below and yesterday's nominations. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment: @Laurel Lodged: that's now 3 discussions you have opened in 2 days covering exactly the same issue: Austria was not established as a state until 1919, so merge to Austrian Empire. Anyone who wants to comment now has to do so in 3 separate places, which badly disrupts consensus formation. Per WP:MULTI, please close the 2 discussions on this page, and add the categories to yesterday's nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually glad that the nomination has been split in three, I've added three different comments in each of the three discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I don't see any different issues of principle arising in the 3 cases. Having 3 interlinked CfDs significantly increases the burden both on editors discussing the proposal and on admins closing it.
There is a reason why WP:MULTI is long-standing guidance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In general I agree, of course. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And in this specific case too, I hope. Apart from the extra burdens on both on editors and on admins, we risk the substantive mess of having difft outcomes in the 3 discussions, creating a big mess. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose merging Category:1804 in Austria to Category:1805 in the Austrian Empire – target would be non-descriptive of contents. Thincat (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, since the large amount of articles are about battles and politics, a merge to Austrian Empire is justified. However, the Austrian Empire should remain parented to Category:19th century in Austria. Someone who is interested in the History of Austria should be able to easily navigate through the history of Austria categories, without gaps. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. This nomination makes no suggestions about or proposes any alterations to existing linkages to Category:19th century in Austria. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Au contraire, it does alter existing linkages : it removes events and {dis)establishments from Category:19th century in Austria. That's a big alteration, which puts a gap in the history of Austria categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It requires a broader view, but then also in conjunction with earlier centuries. Imho we wouldn't need any individual year categories for Austria throughout its history, until 1918. Medieval, 16th-century and 17th-century year categories don't exist, 18th-century categories should be renamed to Habsburg Monarchy and 18th-century establishment categories should be merged to a single century category. Only centuries should remain as a continuous series and the years will not exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with @Marcocapelle: above. Can @BrownHairedGirl: make any suggestions as to how I could change my nominations to give effect to this? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Laurel Lodged and Marcocapelle: I don't see any way way of fixing this mess without withdrawing all 3 noms and starting again with one consolidated nomination which covers the whole of the intended scope, and includes all of the intended actions.
e.g. Marcocapelle says we wouldn't need any individual year categories for Austria throughout its history, until 1918. That's a perfectly reasonable argument, but if that is what you want to achieve, then:
  1. why nominate only a subset of the 19th century, rather than all pre-1918 cats? What's the purpose of deleting this lot and keeping e.g. Category:1745 in Austria, Category:1802 in Austria, Category:1902 in Austria?
  2. Why nominate the years separately from the establishments? That creates the possibility of one discussion deleting the years, but another keeping the establishments? Why create that possibility?
  3. Marcocapelle proposes that 18th-century establishment categories should be merged to a single century category. But the nom of 19th-century establishment categories does not merge them to a single century category. Why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a lot of work. Because it was a trial run. If I get some help, I'll draw all 3 together. Would also need to bring in the decades cats. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: trial runs don't work for this sort of set. They cause extra work, confusion, and inconsistency. Either do the lot, or leave it be. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The key reason for opposition if I understand User:BrownHairedGirl correctly is that we shouldn't create gaps in the category structure. And I agree with that principle. That does not imply that we have to solve everything in one nomination, but we should at least start nominating the oldest year categories, in this case the 18th-century year categories, in order to avoid gaps. Renaming/merging 18th-century categories may be sensible even if 19th-century categories aren't renamed/merged, but the opposite does not hold. So it's a one-way dependency. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: yes, a subset which is complete up to a given date would be workable. Making gaps don't make sense, and merging years but not (dis)establishments (or vice versa) also don't make sense. (I'm still not entirely sure that abolishing year categories pre-statehood is the best move. My scrutiny stopped when the is-this-workable phase started saying "no", and I didn't get as far as underlying principle.)
@Laurel Lodged: I know it's frustrating to put a lot of work into a big goup nom which doesn't work out. I got many of those t-shirts, and Marcocapelle has collected a few too. But most times there are useful things to learn about makes big nominations workable. Good luck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 26 February 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.

Austrian Empire disestablishments: early years mergers[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 in principle, although the first one is currently empty (one former member was Habsburg Monarchy, removed by Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) [2] which appears a valid action). – Fayenatic London 21:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Austria was not established as a state until 1919. Prior to that, it was part of Austria-Hungary, the Austrian Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. There was also the Duchy of Austria which was a state of the HRE. For the nominated years, it is ahistorical to speak of "Austria". For those years, parts of the Habsburg lands that were loosely described as the "Archduchy of Austria" did not find their way into the modern stae (e.g. South Tyrol). See also yesterday's nomination for establishments. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support while in general with disestablishment trees there is some reason for discussion, in this particular case there is only one disestablishment article in these two categories and the article clearly refers to the Austrian Empire as a whole, so this is a merge beyond any doubt. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.GreyShark (dibra) 14:03, 16 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_25&oldid=871693470"