Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 28 November 30 >

November 29[edit]

Category:Fauna of Navassa Island[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. MER-C 10:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having a "fauna of" category for such a small region causes overcategorization of articles such as Red-footed booby.  The endemic subcat should be placed under Category:Navassa Island.
Example previous CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_4#Category:Fauna_of_Bahrain. DexDor (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- but the endemic category should also go direct into the Caribbean fauna parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The merge target is below Category:Fauna of the Caribbean. DexDor (talk) 12:43, 3 December 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.

Academic journals by publication frequency[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. It is clear that the current categorization is not wanted. However there is no consensus (yet) for what to replace it. Therefore I will hold off executing the deletion until such a decision is made (they will be listed at the manual page). MER-C 09:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A follow-up discussion at Special:Permanentlink/931661965#Journal_frequency_categories was held regarding the execution of this decision. MER-C 10:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: a frequency other than quarterly, bimonthly, monthly, biweekly and weekly is not defining. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion which ended as 'no consensus' among others because it was a stand-alone nomination of just a single one of the above categories. @Tom (LT), Headbomb, Randykitty, Rathfelder, PamD, Tokenzero, Johnpacklambert, DGG, and Trialpears: pinging contributors of previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I don't think that publication frequency is a defining characteristic. Yes, if you take the extremes, there's a difference between annual journal and weekly ones, but I can't imagine somebody searching for a particular journal because it's, say, quarterly (let alone 49/year versus 50/year). As far as I am concerned, the other categories in this tree (quarterly, weekly, monthly, etc) can be deleted, too. --Randykitty (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all frequency is defining ([1], doi:10.5931/djim.v5i1.48), ISBN 9781107670747 [2]). That the difference between 9 and 10 times a year isn't as wide as 9 and 36 times a year is irrelevant. However, 8 times a year is special amongst the those, giving it's corresponds to the fairly popular semiquarterly frequency, as are the irregulars, given that makes them serials rather than periodicals. This applies to all periodicals, including magazines and newspapers, not just journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Insufficiently defining. Many long running journals have changed their frequency. Rathfelder (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that indicates a change in the operations of the journal! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and the other existing "frequency" categories in the hierarchy too: I refer you to the discussion a few months ago at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals#Biannual? during which it was established clearly that "bi-..", "tri-..." etc categories are ambiguous in practice if not in theory (and we are creating a practical encyclopedia designed to help readers). If any categories are of use it might be "Journals published weekly or more frequently" (with a gloss to say that, for example, a 51/year journal publishing a 2-week issue over Christmas would be included); "Journals published more often than annually but not weekly", "Journals published annually or less often" would be enough to categorise the basic distinctive kinds of journals: the weekly (Nature, New Scientist, ...), the "normal", the annual (including less frequent). Or we just scrap frequency as a categorisation, and leave it to infoboxes (avoiding there, please, the ambiguous "bi-" and "tri-" wordings). PamD 23:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And as an example, look at Journal of Aerosol Science, in Category:13 times per year journals. Looking at its website here it clearly usually has 12 volumes/year ... but in 2005 it published a "5-6", so only 11 issues though numbered as 12, and in 2004 two special issues might have increased the count to 14. I don't see any 13-issue years, though haven't checked them all. Not a useful group of categorisations. PamD 23:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the other title in that category, Annals of Surgical Oncology seems indeed currently to produce 13 issues/year (2 in October) - plus a couple of "supplementary issues" which may or may not count - but back in 1994-96 was producing 6/year, then 8/year, 10 in 2010, etc, so presumably might well suddenly move to 15, or 16, or ...? Does it matter? Who cares? Is this a significant "change in the operations of the journal" every few years? Is anyone going to update the articles to reflect this? PamD 23:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is wrong, then the solution is to fix the information in the article, not delete the category. Likewise, if the categories are ambiguous (they are not, and are explained at the top of each categories), they can be renamed, not deleted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create new scheme:
All the other journals can easily fit into this scheme with very little real loss of information. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revise perhaps as above. But in any case, 9, & 10 times a year are defining--these are usually journal published during the academic year only. 11, 50, and 51 are defining -- these are journals published every month or week throughout the year except at Christmas. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok we can then merge 9, 10 and 11 to monthly and merge 50 and 51 to weekly. Irregular journals, less than once a year and more frequently than weekly are plain cases of WP:OCMISC though. And creating a new category for more than 4 times a year is a case of WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all categories as currently named. These are unusually named; IMO not defining characteristics; and are likely to require a lot of maintenance. I would support a renaming as per Grutness as the next best solution —-Tom (LT) (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all listed, preferably by merging those that have some content to a neighbouring one. Anything in the range of about 48-52 is effectively weekly (missing a few weeks); 8-11 is close to monthly; anything just under 26 is close to fortnightly. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed new scheme seems a great improvement on what we have now. Most of the categories above 18 are empty anyway. The move into online publication means frequency is much less defining than it was once. Rathfelder (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: and others, how about categories like (1-6 times per year as is), then Category:Journals published between 7 to 11 times per year to cover the gap between "Bimonthly" and "Monthly", Category:Journals published between 13 to 25 times per year "Biweekly" (skipping 24 for the semi-monthlies), Category:Journals published between 27 to 51 times per year to cover the gap between "Biweekly" and "Weekly". Leaving a final tree that looks something like

  • Biennial journals‎
  • Annual journals‎
  • Biannual journals‎
  • Triannual journals‎
  • Quarterly journals‎
  • 5 times per year journals‎
  • Bimonthly journals‎
  • Journals published between 7 to 11 times per year
    • Semi-quarterly journals/8 times per year journals‎
    • 9 times per year journals‎?
    • 10 times per year journals‎?
  • Monthly journals‎
  • Journals published between 13 to 25 times per year
    • Semi-monthly journals‎
  • Biweekly journals‎/Fortnightly journals
  • Journals published between 27 to 51 times per year
  • Weekly journals‎
  • Journals more frequent than weekly‎
  • Continuous journals‎
  • Irregular journals‎
This would replace 40–42 weak categories with 3 better ones. Feedback of User:DGG here would be useful here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We clearly arent going to delete them all, so I'm happy that this is an improvement. Maybe we need to try and see how many entries there are in some off these categories? But I would be inclined not to include any journals whose frequency is not really fixed. Rathfelder (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rathfelder: This basically keeps all categories with ~50+ entries in them, and gets rid of those with ~20 and fewer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any use of "bi-" and "tri-" prefixes, as we know that they produce categories which are in practice ambiguous. Even though "biennial" and "biannual" have distinct meanings (often confused), few editors and fewer readers will be confident as to what "bimonthly" means: 6/year or 24/year? And so on. See Fowler, quoted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals#Biannual.PamD 18:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC) corrected 18:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • See universal modern practice amongst journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • See by contrast the evidence that our own editors find these confusing, so that it is likely that many readers will do so too. Let's help the readers by using terms which cannot easily be misunderstood. PamD 16:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My aunt thinks that jello is a chemical. That doesn't mean jello is a chemical. Each category clearly explain what frequency they reflect, e.g. "Category:Biannual journals: For academic journals published twice a year. Not to be confused with Category:Biennial journals, which are published once per two years". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But neither editors nor readers are likely to read the blurb about a category before using it - and if they need to read the blurb in order to understand what the category is (at the level of "6 or 24 issues a year, rather than fine details round the edges), then the naming of the category has failed. PamD 16:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From The Guardian style guide, a useful guide for clear current British English writing:
biannual or biennial?
As no one can agree which of these means twice a year, and which means every two years, it’s best not to use them at all; “twice a year” or “every two years” are unambiguous.
The same applies to bimonthly and biweekly: say “every fortnight”, “twice a month” or “every two months”, and so on. It’s remarkable that no one has sorted this problem out; nearly a century ago, HW Fowler was already calling it “a cause of endless confusion”
PamD 16:37, 7 December 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:Agrarian theorists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 8#Category:Agrarian theorists

Category:American pedophiles[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. MER-C 10:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Obvious WP:BLP magnet. This type of category has repeatedly been deleted because of editors placing people (including living people) into the category when they aren't or haven't been diagnosed as pedophiles. Child sexual abuse and statutory rape are not the same thing as pedophilia. We can see on the creator's talk page that the creator thinks that any adult sexual activity with a minor equates to pedophilia. I already removed Jared Fogle from the category. As for removing David Thorstad from the category? If he self-identifies as a pedophile, then maybe it could be legitimately retained. But we know that editors will not only use this category for self-identified pedophiles. And we already have categories such as Category:American sex offenders. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Elizium23, who commented on the creator's talk page about applying this category. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even with a reliable source, it's problematic because the media has a tendency to label people pedophiles when they technically aren't pedophiles. This was recently discussed here on an editor's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I have taken the liberty to add the French and Japanese categories to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (1) There is a problem with the spelling of the word: it derives from the Greek root pais, paidos, a child. (2) Due to libel laws, we can only have categories for people convicted of the crime. (3) Laws as to the age of consent vary from country to country. Though I deplore this, in some countries girls can marry as soon as they have passed puberty. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, pedophile is ill-defined and culturally dependant. Criminal conviction of sexual abuse is not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:01, 6 December 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.

Template:2019-album-stub[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. MER-C 10:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not discussed prior to implementation, and no other years have such tag. Jax 0677 (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the current by-decade split is working fine. No need for this one. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Created unilaterally as a sub-stub category for a parent that isn’t overly populated and, even if it were, there’s a by-genre scheme in place that can help depopulate it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I only moved this to the correct space a week ago because the user who created it is not a native English speaker and created it as Template:2019s-album-stub, but, like Starcheers has said, it should not have even been created as the parent category is not in need of splitting. Ss112 15:26, 30 November 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:Warhammer Fantasy locations[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. MER-C 10:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only a single article is included in this category; the other page is a redirect. I do not envisage any further articles being added. A category is not needed. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, though add the one article to the parent categories, otherwise it becomes orphaned. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 30 November 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:Warhammer Fantasy deities[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. MER-C 10:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only a single article is included in this category; the other three are redirects. I do not envision any further articles being added. A category is not needed. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, though add the one article to the parent categories, otherwise it becomes orphaned. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 30 November 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:Fascist parties and movements[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: diffuse. MER-C 10:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Fascist parties as a daughter of Category:Fascist movements, this category was created three weeks ago, by an editor apparently unaware of both (and eg did not add categories) but it now has 51 members. Le Deluge (talk) 11:24, 29 November 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:Site that can never be restored to its initial state[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 (which is equivalent to merging). MER-C 10:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Even if this was pluralized and/or reworded, I don't see how this could serve as a valid/useful form of catgegorization. (Both of the articles are fully categorized without this one.) Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per PeterKI. Subjective and ambiguous. Do we include Chernobyl? How about Doggerland? Or the Garden of Eden? Grutness...wha? 01:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Using pronouncements like "never" isn't very encyclopedic. With enough money, anything can be restored to any state.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:05, 1 December 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:Stargate spacecraft[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. MER-C 10:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, almost all articles in it have been removed. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, assuming that 'removed' means deleted per AFD. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 29 November 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_November_29&oldid=931662394"