Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 29 January 31 >

January 30[edit]

Category:Social Darwinist Wikipedians[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. I am also deleting User:BiggestSataniaFanboy89/User Social Darwinist per their request, so the category will be empty anyway. -- Tavix (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category just survived a big CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 15, but my basis for nomination is quite different. The previous discussion involved 150+ categories by philosophy, and it centred around whether having such categories is divisive or not. My rationale, however, is that this isn't useful as a category: it has no userpages whatsoever, except User:BiggestSataniaFanboy89/User Social Darwinist, which is actually a userbox that transcludes this category whenever it's used. The userbox doesn't have a single transclusion; other than this CFD, it has no links whatsoever, except a redirect that was created when the page was renamed. Who needs a userbox-only category for a userbox that isn't used at all? If a bunch of people suddenly add this userbox to their userpages, it can be kept of course; I have no argument with the basic idea of a category for Social Darwinist editors. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I've notified three users: the big CFD's nominator, the creator of the template, and the one person who mentioned this category at the big CFD. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in principle, in favour of listifying, do not delete/depopulate without first notifying all members of the CfD. However, Cfd is the wrong approach. Refer to WP:USERBOXCAT. Fix the USERBOX responsible. Ideally, find the autocategorising userbox template and fix that. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, read it. Irrelevant. Fix the userbox, this cfd serves no purpose except maybe to set a false precedent. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now the category has no contents at all; that's hardly a reason to keep it. I quote the top of WP:CFD: Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn’t empty a category, I fixed a USERBOXCAT non-compliant userbox. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Basically made when I didn't know what it meant and it shouldn't really remain there. The userspace should be deleted too. (That could just be my requesting its deletion tho.) The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 05:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While agreeing with deletion, procedurally this discussion sounds a bit odd. I would rather expect that the closing administrator would edit the userbox as part of the implementation of this discussion (if closed as delete, obviously). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile the edit of the userbox (hence the emptying of the category) has been reverted. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category violates WP:USERCAT in addition to the concerns the nom mentions. VegaDark (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUpport/Delete. However, I will say that I don't think that social darwinist wikipedians should exist as a category inherently as antithetical to the project. Just my thoughts,, though. ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 19:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like all the other usercats-by-ideology, it contravenes WP:USERCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my rationale in the "big CFD". No encyclopedic purpose, directly or indirectly, is served by having this category as-is. Could it be theoretically useful? Yes, but it isn't right now.--WaltCip (talk) 12:42, 12 March 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:Ivorian newspapers[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 as nominated. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standard naming format for newspapers-by-country categories is "Newspapers published in Country", not "Demonym newspapers". Of course, I'd prefer Category:Newspapers published in Côte d'Ivoire, because if it took us less than a millisecond to comply with Swaziland-->Eswatini then what the bloody hell is the problem here, but as long as we can't get consensus for that we have to stick with what the existing usage in the country's category tree actually is. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. And while at first this format doesn't look like good, I suppose it is; "Italian newspapers" could cover newspapers written by Italians in other countries or newspapers written in the Italian language, while "Newspapers published in Italy" is unambiguous. Not as big of an issue with Côte d'Ivoire (no Ivorian language, in particular), but it's a good convention. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom's reasons (and I agree about Côte d'Ivoire, though I think the other country mentioned should be at eSwatini) Grutness...wha? 00:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - and agree with other points. Oculi (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Ivory Coast. I am not letting the French destroy my good language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 7 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:Savoy Conference[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. The event is a really significant one in the history of the Church of England, entrenching the division from the nonconformists for a long period, which affected British life and educational system until the 19th century. And I don't see it as containing "too little". As far as I can see, it is performing the correct role in organising pages. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I found another couple of articles which belong in here, so it no longer has "too little content". Grutness...wha? 01:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the articles in this category (apart from the main article) are not about the Savoy Conference but merely mention it in passing. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 31 entries in the subcat, not too little content. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a very good reason to keep the subcategory, but the subcategory has not been nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:04, 10 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:Freshwater protostomes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer (currently just one subcat and 2 articles) using jargon ("protostomes") rather than "animals". See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_6#Category:Protostomes_by_location. DexDor (talk) 20:38, 30 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.

Natural history of California by region[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.. I had to think about this one overnight, because while there is clearly no support for the massive overcategorisation created by @Look2See1, it is unclear what else has been agreed. There certainly is no consensus for outright deletion.
Having re-read the discussion several times, there doesn't seem to be any clear agreement on how categories of this type should be structured, or how much localisation should take place. So I can't find in this discussion a consensus to do anything.
That doesn't make it a wasted effort. The nominator has clearly identified a problem, and the discussion threw up some promising approaches. So I am pinging all the participants — @Hyperik, Nyttend, Anomalous+0, and DexDor — to suggest that all or some of you start a centralised discussion somewhere on how best to organise the categories in topic area. Hopefully that process will provide a generic solution which can be applied to the mess here. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS Kudos to the nominator @Hyperik for listing and tagging all the categories. That seems to have been done manually, which is a lot of hard work. May I suggest next time making a request at WP:BOTREQ? There's nearly always some friendly bot-owner on hand to do this sort of task promptly and painlessly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional categories for discussion

...by region

...by county

Nominator's rationale: Categories were largely created by User:Look2See1 (blocked for disruptive editing; categorizing without consensus). Categories are currently populated primarily by organisms, most of which are overcategorized, placed in several of the listed categories and overlapping with similar categories.
The "Natural history of..." categories are largely duplicative of the existing "taxon X-of-location Y" system for flora, fauna, and other organisms (Category:Flora of California, Category:Fauna of California, etc.). Plants in particular have a specific categorization system at WP:PLANTS.
As parent categories, they seem redundant to the various "Biota of...", "Environment of..." and "Geography of...", and "Geology of..." categories.
Article space is more appropriate for detailing the composition/natural history/ecology of a habitat in a certain location, e.g. Ecology of the Sierra Nevada or California coastal prairie.
If these categories are retained, most of them will need to be almost completely emptied, as they should be restricted to categories and articles about the natural history of these locations. Species/Organism articles should not be directly categorized in any of these, but rather placed in their respective Category:Endemic flora of California or Category:Endemic fauna of California-type categories instead. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 01:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Example category tree
C:Natural history of California
C:Natural history of California by county
C:Natural history of Butte County, California
C:Geology of Butte County, California

some geologic feature in Butte Co.

C:Endemic fauna of Butte County California

some animal only found in Butte Co.

C:Endemic flora of Butte County, California
C:Natural history of Calaveras County, California

etc.

C:Natural history of California by region
C:Natural history of the Channel Islands of California

C:Endemic fauna of the Channel Islands of California

Wildlife of the Channel Islands of California

etc.

  • I support the phasing out of categorization of species articles by small regions (except where endemic) as it often leads to articles being placed in categories for non-defining regions (e.g. regions that are not mentioned in the article text). However, this CFD needs to explain why the proposed deletion (not upmerge) wouldn't remove any good categorization. For example Category:Protected areas of the Colorado Desert is in Category:Natural history of the Colorado Desert and hence in Category:Colorado Desert - deletion of the cat:nhotcd might (incorrectly) remove cat:paotcd from cat:cd (note: it wouldn't currently because there's some redundant categorization, but that may not be the case for all such categories). DexDor (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I endorse the the general goals of this nom, but I also agree with the concerns expressed by DexDor. On one hand, ALL of the county cats should be deleted forthwith, for all sorts of reasons. Most of the others should go, as well. But some should probably/possibly be retained. (e.g. Category:Natural history of the Channel Islands of California)
Has the nominator notified the relevant WikiProjects? I think their assistance could be very helpful. Anomalous+0 (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC) :@Hyperik:[reply]
WikiProject notification is done automatically - e.g. see Wikipedia:WikiProject California#Article_Alerts. It is also possible to put a note on each project's talk page, but in my experience the response rate to such notes is very low. It should also be noted that most/all bad/dubious categories are created without any prior wikiproject discussion. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, what I'm thinking is that they might help to comb thru the subcats and identify which are worth retaining. I take it the only Projects that get notified are those on the talk page -- but it's only listed with the California Project. What I had in mind was Projects where the editors are knowledgeable about Natural history.... (Environment, Biology, ???) Anomalous+0 (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Relisting comment, WP:BIOLOGY has been notified. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall a good idea, but I'm concerned about a mass nomination, because of the possibility of items that fit only in one county. Consider the Devils Hole pupfish, found only in one county (actually in a few hundred square metres) and thus appropriately placed in Category:Natural history of Nye County, Nevada. If a California county or region category has a similar situation, the category in question needs to be kept or upmerged. That problem aside, I'd fully support deletion. As noted above, chaotic categorisation against consensus and persistent overcategorisation at multiple levels on the same tree were two of the reasons for his enforced removal from Commons, as well as from here at a later date. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Taking that pupfish example - deletion (not upmerge) of the natural history category would still leave the article in 11 categories (one of which is a subcat of Category:Nye County, Nevada). In particular, it would still be in Category:Endemic fauna of Nevada (which only contains 14 articles so doesn't need to be split into county-level endemic categories). DexDor (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But you can't know that without checking carefully. It's fine that this article wouldn't be hurt by such a move, but that might not be the case with everything, so we need to be careful and not do a hasty deletion of everything that shouldn't be kept. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. DexDor (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Natural history of Foobar" categories should be restricted to articles specifically about Foobar.  For example, they can contain articles about animals endemic to Foobar, articles about geological features that are wholly within Foobar and lists specifically about Foobar.  They should not contain articles about plants/animals distributed over a wider area.  So, an article should not be in more than one "Natural history of <county>" category; instead it should  be moved to the parent "Natural history of <state>" category (and the same rule should apply at that level).  This may appear harsh if an animal is endemic to a small area (e.g. a small lake) that straddles a border of 2 counties, but would avoid articles appearing in many county categories.
  • The categories should have a note to this affect placed on them and then be purged.  After that we can reconsider deleting them (probably by upmerge). DexDor (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's really needed here is for someone to come up with an explanation/diagram of how the following categories (and others) should fit together (including whether any can be deleted as superfluous):
    • Environment of Foobar
    • Natural history of Foobar
    • Wildlife of Foobar
    • Biota of Foobar
This would apply worldwide.  For example, Category:Natural history of East Asia contains just one subcategory (and until recently was in a category loop) so doesn't serve much purpose. DexDor (talk) 15:55, 2 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:Victorian-era naval ships[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 was no support deleting the top category alone ... and while there was support for deleting some or all of the subcats, those subcats were never tagged. So they can't be deleted. And even though this discussion has been opened for 6 weeks since the nominator (@Nyttend) was advised to add the subcats, they were not added. So that's that.
A future nomination which lists and tags all the subcategories seems likely to have a very different outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a trial nomination; should it succeed, I expect to nominate the rest of the tree.

This category has two separate problems. For one thing, the Victorian era isn't a significant aspect for most of the category tree; even if it's a good way to categorise British ships and ships of the colonies, it doesn't particularly matter for other countries. Take France for an example; the French destroyer Rapière was launched in mid-1901, while the other three members of her class were launched in 1900. How does the death of Victoria of the United Kingdom (beginning of 1901) matter so greatly to France that one member of this class would belong in this category tree, while the other three wouldn't? And how does the life of Victoria matter one bit for the Dingyuan-class ironclads, built in Germany in the 1880s for the Chinese navy? The same is true for all other non-British ships, most of which (tellingly) aren't even in this category tree. For another matter, this 64-year-long era saw massive revolutions in naval design; both File:HMS Acheron (1838).jpg and File:HMS Pandora (1900).jpg depict Victorian-era ships that served in roughly the same roles (scouting and small-scale independent operations), but aside from using steam propulsion in some sense, they're completely different. How does an era of this length serve as a useful basis for categorising ships? I found only one other ship category named for a person, Category:Napoleonic-era ships, but that makes sense because it's tied into the Napoleonic Wars (definitely a useful era for categorisation), while this doesn't make much sense at all. The only way I could see this being useful is if it were part of a comprehensive categorisation system, but that would only be useful for UK-and-Empire ships, and anyway it's an isolated item, not part of a comprehensive system at all. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion of whole tree (but not deletion of the top category alone). Articles about ships that were outside this era (example) are not in any corresponding category. There do not appear to be by-century categories to merge into (assuming the ships are already categorized by year of launch which they probably are). DexDor (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion of the whole tree but not deletion of the top category alone, agree with nominator on deletion. The relevant subcategories to be added to the nomination are:
all subcategories
- Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I say This is a trial nomination; should it succeed, I expect to nominate the rest of the tree, my point is that we shouldn't delete just one top category. Should this close with "delete", I suppose it wouldn't hurt to hold off on deletion until the subcategories are addressed; it's hardly so harmful that it would need to be deleted immediately. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nyttend: Why so complicated? Let's just discuss all of them right now. All that yet needs to be done is adding a CfD tag to those subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feared that it would be a lot more work the other way — if the discussion concludes "no consensus" or "keep", we've spent a lot of time adding/removing CFD tags on everything, when instead a single-category discussion, if unsuccessful, would only require adding/removing a template on one page. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the list, there aren't really that many subcategories involved for adding the template, and I suppose a bot will remove them when the discussion is closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 31 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_30&oldid=887477172"