Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 11 January 13 >

January 12[edit]

Category:Dáil constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic)[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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. They are nested for good reason, which the nominator (@Iveagh Gardens) has evidently not examined.
Category:Dáil constituencies (historic) has two subcats: Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic) and Category:Dáil constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic), plus 4 head articles.
The RoI and NI constituencies have a different historical status, and different parent categories.
The nominator's proposal as listed would have the effect of removing all the historic constituencies in the 26 counties from the Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic), which would be a patently absurd outcome.
That could in theory be resolved by a dual merger to Category:Dáil constituencies (historic) and Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) ... but the result would be to dump an undifferentiated group into Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) and to increase the category clutter on each article.
That would both impede navigation by readers, and increase the maintenance burden on editors.
The reality is that the island of Ireland has a complex Parliamentary history. In the last 500 years here have been at least 4 parliaments on the Island of Ireland (up to I think 8, depending on what you include), plus at least two Parliaments outside the island of Ireland in which Ireland was represented. There have been at least five different de facto states, with several more which could be included in the tally.
The current category structure is a little complex, but only insofar as is needed to provide clear navigation through the complex reality of Irish history. Ripping out chunks of that structure at random makes it harder to both navigate the categories and to maintain them.
Many people wish that the history of Ireland was a lot less complicated, but our wishes cannot rewrite the actual reality of that history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your response, @BrownHairedGirl. I am well aware of the historical basis and reasons for the the nesting. I just happen to disagree with it, and believe a note on the category page a sufficient approach. I would have all constituencies used for Dáil elections from 1918 to the present in Category:Dáil constituencies (historic), except for those for Northern Ireland constituencies in 1918 and 1921, and delete the separate Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic). Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic) would remain as a subcategory of Category:Dáil constituencies (historic). Because the geographical area of the constituencies used in what is now called the Republic of Ireland continued to be the basis for Dáil constituencies, to my mind, they naturally fall within Category:Dáil constituencies (historic), where Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic), because while they were claimed by the First and Second Dáil, they didn't survive there as Dáil areas.
I do understand the logic of your case, and indeed did so before reading your response. There's no one right way editorial stance that will stand for all time, but I'm content to let it stand if no one else contributes here. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Iveagh Gardens, there is a lot I coud reply to there, but I will just take one point for now.
Why on earth do you want to delete Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic)?
That provides a single container for all the historic parliamentary constituencies within the territory of a sovereign state. That is a significant grouping of the political history of Ireland across four parliaments. How would the deletion of that grouping assist navigation, or assist readers to understand the political history of the state?
I agree that there are different ways of viewing things, but I really do wonder what you are trying to achieve here. It seems to me that the only effects of your propose changes are to make navigation harder and to obscure the history. Why do you want to do this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your response, @BrownHairedGirl. The pages currently in Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) would be in Category:Dáil constituencies (historic). That would then contain all the historic parliamentary constituencies within the territory of the sovereign state of Ireland. However, I would have Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic) as a subcategory of this page.
I understand the complex constitutional nature of the beginnings of the Irish state, and it is certainly not my intention to obscure this.
This is where I'm coming from. We have Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Ireland (historic), which includes among its subcategories Category:Dáil constituencies (historic), Category:Dáil constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) and Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic). Category:Dáil constituencies (historic) in turn has both Category:Dáil constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) and Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic) as sub-categories. I don't see what part of the constitutional history is obscured by having all the pages currently in Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) in Category:Dáil constituencies (historic) directly, while maintaining Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic) as a subcategory. These pages already have notes explaining that they include pages used for the First and Second Dáil. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Iveagh Gardens: I see what you are trying to do; I just don't see why. I still don't see any gain whatsoever from this proposal. I do see a loss of clarity from losing the clear separation between the two states.
And you have not explained why you want to delete Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic). How on earth does that help readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Essentially, I got lost navigating the subcategories myself. Not so lost as I wasn't able to find my way within a click or two, but enough to consider whether there is a simpler way of organising the categories.
I don't believe my propose does elide the distinction between the two states. The Northern Ireland Ireland constituencies would remain within their own category, which would be, as it is now, a subcategory of Category:Dáil constituencies (historic). I don't see how my suggested reorganisation would lead anyone to mistakenly think that there are not two separate states at present, or from 1922 onwards. The NI constituencies are a separate special type of Historic Dáil Constituency, whereas the standard for the bulk of those is that there are within the current Irish state. I think the common name format of Dáil constituency is a better-titled category for something like Dublin South-East.
Anyway, if it's just the two of us in this discussion, there's probably not any benefit it going back and forth again on this. Unless there are any contributions from others within the week of my suggestion, I happy to accept that we have different approaches as to what would convey the historical and constitutional situation in the clearest way and let this stand as the status quo. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd. I presume that you have some reason for wanting to delete Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic), or to remove Dail constituencies from it ... but you still haven't explained what that reason is.
I undestand that there may be difft approaches, but it's no clearer what yours actually is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if amidst all the explanation of the mechanics of the move, I didn't adequately explain my reasoning for the proposal.
We have a category titled Category:Dáil constituencies (historic). That is a natural place for the predecessor constituencies to the current constituencies in the Dáil, so a neat counterpart category to Category:Dáil constituencies. That would be the natural division, a constituency is either current or historic. However, there are of course a set of constituencies which were constituencies in the First and Second Dáil which were not predecessor constituencies to those of the current Dáil. So it makes sense to categorise them separately, in Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic). But that fact alone shouldn't be enough that a constituency like Dublin South-East also needs to be in a subcategory of those in the Republic of Ireland, rather than simply using the category of Category:Dáil constituencies (historic). The vast majority of constituencies in question fall into the Republic of Ireland category, and to put all of these into that category, rather than simply the Category:Dáil constituencies (historic) category almost privileges the Northern Ireland Dáil constituencies, which were used in only two elections and were not predecessor constituencies to any later Dáil constituency.
That is my reason for my proposal, which whatever your instinctual response, was in fact carefully examined.
The one argument I see against me is that Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) currently has two subcategories, Category:Dáil constituencies in County Dublin (historic) and Category:University constituencies in the Republic of Ireland, which my proposal would then seem to present as equal subcategories with Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic). That I concede could cause confusion. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Iveagh Gardens: I really cannot make sense of why you think this is a good idea, nor do I see evidence that your proposal was carefully examined.
You say that Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) currently has two subcategories, Category:Dáil constituencies in County Dublin (historic) and Category:University constituencies in the Republic of Ireland. That is simply not true; neither of those two are direct subcats.
Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) currently has three subcategories (not as yous ate, two: Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) by county, Category:Westminster constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic), Category:Dáil constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic).
You proposal would either:
  1. remove the set of article currently in Category:Dáil constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) from Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic), which makes no sense, or
  2. require require dual categorisation of the current contents of Category:Dáil constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) in both Category:Dáil constituencies (historic) and Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic). which adds category clutter, cinfuses naviugation, and maintenance harder;
You claim that putting the ROI & NI constits of Category:Dáil constituencies (historic) in separate subcats almost privileges the Northern Ireland Dáil constituencies is bizarre. How on earth does having them both in separate cross-linked subcats "privilege" one over the other?
Your notion of predecessor constituencies also seems to me to a bit simplistic. Each constituency review draws up a new set of consituencies, with whatever borders it sees best suited to its criteria. Names may be unchanged, but boundaries are rarely unchanged: if you look for example at Sligo–Leitrim (Dáil constituency)#Boundaries, it has at various times included chunks of counties Donegal, Cavan, Roscommon, and at some points almost none of County Leitrim. The Dublin constituencies are even more complex; many of the names used have at times referred to areas which were wholly excluded from other incarnations of the same name. Any idea of successors and predecessors is either a grossly misleading simplification, or far too complex to be represented other than in some sort of v sophisticated evolving map.
So I'm sorry, but the counterfactuals you present and your repeated failure to spot what Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) actually does looks to me like something other than a carefully examined proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: for clarity, I made a mistake in my last post. What I had meant to write was that Category:Dáil constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) currently has two subcategories, Category:Dáil constituencies in County Dublin (historic) and Category:University constituencies in the Republic of Ireland. Apologies for my copy-and-paste mistake in that regard.
Again, for clarity, my use of the term predecessor constituency was not so we could start referring to Dublin South-East as the predecessor constituency of Dublin Bay South, or anything like that. I was referring to the whole set of historic constituencies in the area of what is now the Republic of Ireland collectively being predecessor constituencies of those currently in use.
My proposal was to move the set of articles at Category:Dáil constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) to Category:Dáil constituencies (historic). I would then make Category:Dáil constituencies (historic) a direct subcategory of Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic). I state that not to re-open the discussion. I have no wish to do this, but so that you have clarity about what precisely we are disagreeing about.
As you can gather from edits and additions on other pages, I am not ill-informed on the electoral and constitutional history of Ireland. Similarly, from your work on these articles over many years, I can say the same of your own knowledge. In that circumstance, we should probably now each take the good intentions and diligence of the other for granted and let this one rest, unless you have a specific comment based on my clarifications here. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Iveagh Gardens: thanks for the friendly response and the clarification. You say that you proposed to make Category:Dáil constituencies (historic) a direct subcategory of Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic). However, that would have the effect of making Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic) a sub-subcat of Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) ... which it simply shouldn't be. Preventing that sort of thing is why the ROI/NI category split was made in the first place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: You are correct, that elision should be avoided. While I had examined the reasons for the split, I hadn't looked at every part of the tree and how they would fit into my proposal. This discussion can now be closed. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2019 (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:Israeli revolutionaries[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. Per John Pack Lambert, no merge is necessary. The rename suggestion of the target category is noted, but it would need its own nomination, as that category wasn't nominated. ~ Rob13Talk 01:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry - Menachem Begin. I'm not sure he'd be counted as a revolutionary, but even if he was, he and his associates were not Israelis when they were fighting, because it didnt exist then. Rathfelder (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree. I created this category, but the change seems reasonable. Hmains (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and question is this category needed as such in this form? "Jewish rebels‎" seems very broad and could list everyone from Begin back to Jesus. Begin is already categorised in Category:Irgun members - perhaps it would be better to make a parent category for that and similar categories (e.g., Category:Palmach fighters) called something like Category:Jewish revolutionaries in Mandatory Palestine? Grutness...wha? 11:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's quite difficult to categorise rebels by nationality or geography, because if they are successful nations or boundaries may change. This seems a reasonable solution for this particular situation. And there are issues about the difference between rebels and revolutionaries. I think rebels are fighting for a change of control in the place where they live. Revolutionaries generally have wider aims. Rathfelder (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the current category name wrongly suggests that it is about revolutionaries against the state of Israel. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Jewish rebels in Mandatory Palestine or something similar. If the scope is Mandatory Palestine, we need to make this clear, not to include any Jew who has been a rebel or a revolutionary anywhere any time, such as Trotsky, the Maccabees and Jacob Pereira. Place Clichy (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2019 (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:Elections not won by the popular vote winner[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following a dispute over the scope of the category a discussion took place at WP:WPE&R where most editors felt it was too ambiguous and confusing and open to interpretation. Obi2canibe (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Blatantly subjective POV-pushing on a topic which can be analaysed in many different ways. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite apart from the subjectivity angle, I cant see why anyone would find such categories useful. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, delete all. This category itself has no value. Perhaps a List article could instead be generated which could have its terms fully explained to the reader? Categorization ought not be used for a political or even debatable goal. —GoldRingChip 21:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Far too subjective to be dealt with by a category. Number 57 23:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not neutral. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What happened to the idea for replacement categories / lists such as mentioned at the given discussion? I actually found the category useful. Master of Time (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also found the category useful but since everyone else disagreed I considered it better to delete. You are welcome to try to come up with a replacement that isn't ambiguous.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These categories would imply that the popular vote winner is clear without a doubt for these elections, however this can, in fact, never be the case as it is open to many interpretations (e.g. plurality vs. majority). The only way to break this ambiguity would be for an official election authority to declare who the popular vote winner is, but that cannot be the case in most circumstances, precisely because they are in the business or declaring the actual winner. Also, the word not in a category title is usually a clue for problems coming, a bit like the word and. Place Clichy (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, this is a thing that happens sometimes, as an accidental or intentional byproduct of how electoral systems are actually organized — but it's not a defining characteristic of the elections for the purposes of categorizing them, because the popular vote isn't necessarily always even intended to be the controlling factor in elections in the first place. List articles might be acceptable, but it's not a useful point of categorization. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the US case which I understand, the problem is that before the US Civil War (1861-1865) South Carolina never had a popular vote, its electors were chosen by the state legislature. 1876 has the issue of major fraud and voter intimadation by the KKK which makes it next to impossible to say that anyone was a legitimate winner. In 1824 South Carolina was not the only state that lacked a popular vote, so talking about who won that popular vote really does not make sense. The nominations processes it makes even less sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too vague and subjective to be of any value as a category. Drdpw (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2019 (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.

Bridges by city in Ukraine[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) B dash (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, there are only 1 or 2 articles about bridges in these cities and just a few dozen of articles about bridges in Ukraine as a whole. Note that Kiev has not been included in this nomination, most articles about bridges in Ukraine are obviously about bridges in Kiev. The bridges do not have to be merged to Category:Bridges in Ukraine because they are already in a subcategory of Category:Bridges in Ukraine by traffic. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the nom doesn't explain why the articles should be removed from Category:Transport infrastructure in Dnipro etc. DexDor (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to all categories which are currently small. It is for cats which "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
I don't see any of these categories fitting that definition.
The nom's statement that most articles about bridges in Ukraine are obviously about bridges in Kiev is bizarre. It is highly unlikely that in a country the size of Ukraine, the majority of notable bridges would be in one city. If that is the current state of en.wp articles, it indicates that that our coverage is woefully underdeveloped.
Also, strongly WP:TROUT @Marcocapelle for opening this discussion while his earlier group nomination is still open and contested. The same principles apply here, and it is disruptive to have the same issues debated simultaneously in multiple locations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is very likely that there is also a coverage issue here. One may expect that the more distant a country is to Anglophone culture (e.g. Ukraine), but also the more rural a region within a country (e.g. regions of Ukraine apart from Kiev), the fewer editors will contribute to en.wp (or even to uk.wp since Wikipedia as a whole, regardless of language, is part of Anglophone culture). But the question is how likely it is that this coverage issue will be resolved. And the next question is, should we keep pretending that the issue will somehow be magically resolved? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "the issue [to be] resolved" that you are referring to? DexDor (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to the issue of a skewed coverage. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DexDor: I mean there may well be many more bridges in the countryside of Ukraine that theoretically could qualify as notable but for which articles aren't created because few editors have an interest in smaller place in Ukraine. The Ukrainian population is about 2/3 of the UK but it's coverage is of course way lower, not just for bridges but for any topic. The consequence is that is far less likely that we will get decently populated in Ukraine than in the UK. The problem is that editors keep creating tiny categories as if it realistic that the coverage may be at par some day. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not seeing any skewed coverage (as in phrases like "The media's coverage of the election was skewed"). If the article/category ratio is a bit different in Ukraine from in UK that really isn't a problem. DexDor (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reasonably good likelihood that someone will do that, because no research is required. Deleting the en.wp Category:Bridges in Kharkiv reduces the likelihood of that being done, because it removes any direct link to the Ukrainian-language category.
This is yet another example of the lack of WP:BEFORE done by the nominator, who has flooded CFD with many similar nominations open at the same time, and in each case has left it to others to do the research which is the nominator's responsibility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I partly agree with Laurel Lodged - enwp may never have so many articles about (for example) bridges in Ukraine that these categories are necessary (i.e. perhaps they've been created unnecessarily/prematurely), but as they do now exist there is little/nothing to be gained by deleting such categories - especially when the "cost" of the CFD is considered (editors time in nomination/discussion, watchlist noise on articles, risk of getting something wrong etc). DexDor (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting comment because meanwhile I have seen many small "people from" and "mayors of" categories been upmerged without any discussion about the cost of CFD (in fact, nearly without any opposition). What difference is there between bridges and people? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: For me, the difference is that in these cases we have the data to see that expansion is readily possible. That's a big difference from the flurry of Category:People from some tiny and declining town in Wyoming which William is so good at tackling.
And I agree with @Dexdor that it wasn't a good idea to create these categories just yet. But now that they are here, and since a degree of easy expansion is evidently posisble, why delete? Better to be eventualist about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:40, 15 January 2019 (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.

Buildings and structures by city[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Buildings and structures by city

Category:Recreational sublabial drugs[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Various similar categories have been deleted in the past on the grounds that "recreational" is hard to define, and we generally don't classify drugs by how they are taken. Le Deluge (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I made this specifically because I couldn't find the information in any logical way. I was researching and trying to find exactly this across multiple cultures: "What things across time/place cultures did people 'chew'?" The argument falls flat that "we generally don't" when users come looking for a useful organization and we've deleted the information they want. Both recreational and sub-labial are easy to define by the same inclusion criteria the rest of the project uses: by citable sources. If the article text can cite that a drug is used recreationally, and article text can cite methods of use, then it seems very obvious that users should be able to organize and navigate by those criteria. A secondary argument that these criteria are trivial, but since the classifications and methods of use are essential as defined by NGOs, medically and legally. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment: The current category name doesn't seem to reflect the intention described by SchmuckyTheCat, which is the cultural practice of chewing certain substances, rather than contemporary drug culture. "Sublabial" is also quite misleading. Not quite sure though what a better name would be. Maybe something that would also include Chewing gum? In any case, Khat is missing from the category. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete e.g. as it doesn't make much sense to have this category when there isn't even an article on sublabial drugs. DexDor (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Masticatories. This should be the word we're looking for. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Le Deluge, SchmuckyTheCat and DexDor, what do you think of the renaming option? --Paul_012 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there an article about masticatories? DexDor (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not on Wikipedia, but having an article has never been a requisite for having a category. There is an entry on Wiktionary, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • There may not be a guideline explicitly saying that, but most categories use word(s) that match article(s) (or at least a redirect to part of an article that defines the topic). DexDor (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Masticatories is a less bad name than the original, but I still struggle with the idea that there's a real connection between the members of the category, it feels like categorising grass and treefrogs together because they are both green. The fact that we've got to 2019 without an article about masticatories strongly suggests to be that this is a grouping with no great links between them, so it's not WP:DEFINING. I'd suggest to User:SchmuckyTheCat that the way ahead would be not a category but a list article that can be filled out, lists generally work better for these kind of things where the grouping is a bit debatable. For instance, people chew sugarcane for pleasure, does that count? What about steak? Categories should have clean boundaries as far as possible. Le Deluge (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not opposed to a rename, it's probably the word I was looking for. And it's not like the color green. Chewing things is a curious thing that humans do. Why isn't there an article? As to boundaries: Use reliable sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both masticate and mastication point to Chewing, we don't have masticatory but we do have masturbatory so maybe we should make a new redirect? Anyway, "things you chew" is not the same thing as "(1) recreational (2) sublabial (3) drugs". I don't think you chew sublabial drugs (or maybe not all of them), I think they're supposed to dissolve under the lip. I say delete for three reasons. "Recreational" is too subjective/broad to be a meaningful limiter. There are sublabial pharmaceuticals that some people take as medicine and other take recreationally (like marijuana and pain killers in liquid form). Every drug is recreational, if you ask me or Hunter S. Thompson. "Drug" is also too subjective/broad to be a meaningful limiter, as it includes heroin and coffee and aspirin and everything in between. Finally, while in the medical context, sublabial means "under the lip" and refers to one's mouth, in the context of "recreational drugs", there could be some confusion about using the term "sublabial", given how some illegal drugs are used recreationally (or so I've heard). Anyway, too ambiguous of a name for a category, though "Masticatories" sounds like it would work as a category name (as long as we're careful not to make typos when creating it) for "things people chew", and "Sublabial medication" might be the category for pharmaceuticals administered through sublabial administration (as opposed to "Sublingual medication" for sublingual administration). Levivich? ! 07:45, 24 January 2019 (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.

Architecture 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 per revised proposal. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Extended content

Propose splitting: Per the below discussion, I'm amending the proposal to drop the split part. The suggestion is now to rename the following as with the above.

Extended content

Nominator's rationale: The Fooian architecture format can be confusing, as it may imply a cultural or traditional connection rather than a primarily geographical one. Architecture of Foo would be much clearer, in addition to helping avoid unfamiliar demonyms. It would also agree with the majority of by-country articles, which currently use the format Architecture of Foo, reflecting their scope covering all architecture within a country, not just the architecture "belonging" to that country's people.

I have made this a split nomination for some of the categories, where it may be desirable to distinguish between treatment by geographical location (Architecture of Foo) and the country's architectural tradition (Fooian architecture). These are mostly cases where historical traditions overlap with current country boundaries (e.g. Serbian architecture, which contains the subcat Category:Serbian architecture outside Serbia), or where styles have spread overseas, warranting separate categorisation (e.g. the Spanish Portuguese categories due to their colonial influence). I hope this addresses the objections previously raised at the March 2010 CfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS See also relevant previous discussions for Category:Architecture in Turkey and Category:British architecture. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm not !voting yet because I'm not sure, but I generally support moving Fooian architecture to Architecture of Foo to include architecture styles in the country of Foo. I'm not sure, though, that I support splitting or creating categories of Fooian architecture to include architecture styles from the country of Foo.
Example 1: Creole cottage is a creole architecture style in the United States, that stems from French and Spanish architecture. Creole cottage belongs in Category:Architecture of the United States. But does it belong in French architecture, Spanish architecture, both, or United States architecture (because that's where the style is from)?
Example 2: Neoclassical architecture in Category:Greek architecture, Category:Ancient Greek architecture, or Category:Roman architecture?
Example 3: Georgian architecture is named for British monarchs George I–IV, based on the neoclassical style (both Greek and Roman), popular in the 18th century across the British Empire (which means in many different countries today). In the 19th century in the US, this style gained popularity and was called Colonial revival. In the early 20th century, it came back to Britain and was called Neo-Georgian style (Great Britain). So, are these categorized as British architectural styles, American, Greek or Roman? And besides all of that, you'd have a "Georgian (country) architecture" category meaning architecture from the country Georgia, which would have nothing to do with the Georgian style.
Example 4: California Bungalow, which originated from British officers who built Bungalows inspired by houses they saw in Bengal, which includes India and Bangladesh. It then became popular in the United States in California, which created its own style (California Bungalow), and that style then became popular in Australia, which calls (I believe) all bungalows "California bungalows," even though a "California bungalow" in Australia looks different than a bungalow in California, and there are uniquely-Australian styles of California Bungalows. So is "California Bungalow" an Indian, Bangladeshi, British, American or Australian style?
I'm not sure that you can categorize many architectural styles as "belonging" or "coming from" one nation or another. There is so much borrowing, the borders of nations have changed over time, and I imagine there would be many arguments over whether something is French or Spanish, Greek or Roman, etc. etc. I'm familiar with the western styles, but I also imagine you'd have similar problems with Chinese architecture, Ottoman architecture, and elsewhere. So for now, I agree with "Architecture of Foo," but I'm not sure it's a good idea to have anything called "Fooian architecture", as opposed to just handling the individual architectural styles individually, without trying to categorize them by the nation from whence them originated. Alternatively, it's possible that this problem I raise only applies to certain styles but not others; I'm aware that the overlap issue may be more pronounced in western styles than elsewhere; and maybe this can be solved simply by including styles in more than one Architecture of Foo category. Looking forward to reading others' comments. Levivich (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I don't think all architectural styles do or should fall under a country parent—just a few would, though you do raise valid points regarding the difficulty we'd having drawing the line. Of your four examples, the latter three probably don't need to be categorised under a country-of-origin parent, and aren't affected by the split nomination. The Creole architecture article, however, is currently already under Category:French architecture via Category:French Colonial architecture and Category:French architecture outside France, so we'll have to deal with it some way. If we dropped the split suggestion and simply renamed the category, Category:French Colonial architecture would fall under Category:Architecture of France. Would that be acceptable? (I'm considering this—see below.) Or should Colonial architecture be treated as a style in and of itself, and removed from the country tree?--Paul_012 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the intention is great, the splitting part of the proposal has some drawbacks from the perspective of a person not-knowledgeable in architecture. As an amateur, had I not come across this discussion, I would not have been aware of it, and some content could be categorized such that I may never be aware of it. So, while the distinction in terms are precise and would make perfect sense to someone knowledgeable in the field, I'm not sure that this would improve the usage of WP in this area of content. A really paranoid android (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I previously mentioned at the Architecture WikiProject talk page that the specific example that prompted my concern was how to categorise Category:Chinese architecture in Thailand. Having Category:Chinese architecture and Category:Architecture of Thailand would solve the problem. I'm reconsidering, though, whether the distinction is necessary. Perhaps we could treat Category:Architecture of China as covering both architecture geographically located in China and of a style originating in China. (The distinction would be needed if the proposal was to split between Chinese architecture and Architecture in China, but the proposal here uses the preposition of, which could mean both.) This would best reflect how the categories are currently used, and help avoid the need to manually clean-up the whole tree. It's not "clean" in terms of categorisation, though, and doesn't address the opposition from the previous discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving Fooian Architecture to Architecture of Foo. @Paul 012: Yes, I agree completely with the hybrid meaning of "of" in "Architecture of Foo", which is what you've proposed all along, and also what was proposed in 2010. And, indeed, these very points we're discussing were discussed then as well. Re-reading that thread just now, I really don't see any serious opposition to what you are proposing. The oppose !votes in the 2010 thread seem to oppose "Architecture in Foo" (they use the word "in" in their oppose !vote comments), not Architecture of Foo. Because "of" can mean "in" or "from", it's the right choice of word. And, it follows the formats of the article titles. Frankly I disagree with that 2010 close as being no consensus. Is it too late to delrev? :-D On the basis of this, I support the proposal. Levivich (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving as proposed by original poster. Comment: Architecture belongs to a "style", "period" or "movement" not nations and states, not even to any of the ethno-religious groups. Therefor, I don't exactly understand why is this even a problem, as academia recognized this kind of differentiation since time immemorial ? However, one should be careful in moving every and all of the categories for two reasons: first, because sometimes styles are grouped and than named upon some social and/or political entity, not just movement, etc - "Ottoman", "Moorish", "Austria-Hungarian", "Persian", "Mughal", etc.; and second, although it is a true that, for example, "Bosnia and Herzegovina architecture" actually doesn't exists as a distinct style, we can still say that "Architecture of Bosnia and Herzegovina" include "Ottoman", "Austria-Hungarian", "Modern" and "Brutalist-Socialist", etc., and than be careful to understand that it also include "Bosnian traditional architecture", "Herzegovinian traditional architecture", "Dalmatian traditional architecture" and even "Illyrian traditional architecture", all of which don't belong to any artistic school or movement but are very distinct "vernacular architecture" still in use today, and more importantly for this issue, still nameed upon ethno-religious and/or geographical label. The "top" category should be "Architecture of ...nation/state..." and not "...nation/state... architecture". --౪ Santa ౪99° 13:30, 12 February 2019 (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:Georgian opera singers[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 25 January 2019 (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:Portuguese-language Brazilian telenovelas[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 to Category:Brazilian telenovelas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category; all Brazilian telenovelas are in Portuguese. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would still remove them from Category:Portuguese-language telenovelas. DexDor (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2019 (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:Geologists from 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: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misnamed duplicate of Category:German geologists. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is now an empty category and can be deleted via CSD. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 14 January 2019 (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/2019_January_12&oldid=893404597"