Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 13 February 15 >

February 14[edit]

Category:Sex- or gender-related stereotypes[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, align with parent Category:Gender and society and sibling categories therein. We do not have any other "sex or gender" or "sex and gender" categories, apart from the one nominated below. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2020 (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:Sex and gender in technology[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: manual merge as WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. this may be recreated if it can be made useful. – Fayenatic London 22:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually merge to parent categories, this is a container category with only two subcategories which is not particularly helpful for navigation. Note: most of the content is already otherwise in the parent categories, so it's not recommendable to have the merge implemented by the bot. If kept, rename to Category:Gender in technology per rationale of the nomination immediately above this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2020 (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:WikiProject Dubai templates[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: double merge. – Fayenatic London 19:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single member. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 14 February 2020 (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:WikiProject Delhi templates[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: double merge. – Fayenatic London 19:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single member. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 14 February 2020 (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:WikiProject Burundi templates[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: double merge. – Fayenatic London 19:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single member. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 14 February 2020 (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:Nobel laureates in Economics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22#Category:Nobel laureates in Economics

Category:Rulers of Gondor[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 07:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is small with no real potential for growth. Furthermore, Elendil's article will become a redirect page soon. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - being a ruler is defining in a fictional world, much as being King of Albania is in the real world (Zog I of Albania is good read anyway). Failing this, upmerge to all parents, not just one. Oculi (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has potential for growth, as we can recreate the articles on the other rulers. Dimadick (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If we followed your standards, then we would never delete a single category. Furthermore, those articles were deleted because their subjects are not notable. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, there are only 4 articles in this category and no other sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I think we could add two main articles Kings of Gondor and Stewards of Gondor to make 6 articles, which is just enough to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One of those articles was deleted. The other one is a redirect page. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Two of the three articles are already included in the parent the category as well, for whatever reason, and if three (potentially four if we include Faramir as a steward who assisted the rule of a reigning king) is enough then why not create a separate Category:Rulers of Rohan for the two articles we already have on that topic? (Actually, for a portion of the most famous of Tokien's stories, Saruman also presumably controlled a fair amount of the land claimed as part of the kingdom of Rohan, so we could theoretically include him as well -- we shouldn't, which is precisely why these fictional categories are not worth having. See also Faramir above.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Hijiri. Fictional categories should be used with caution. This is a clear case of overcategorization because there are not five notable entries. buidhe 20:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:847D:48E4:EAD7:A1CB (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per previous. Overcategorized. There's a chance Elendil could return with some heavy research, but there's no point in having this small of a category. I don't even think Category:Gondor exists anymore. Hog Farm (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2020 (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:Available gastropod names[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. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other categories (e.g. the parent Category:Obsolete protostome taxa Category:Obsolete animal taxa). Note: The category text may need adjustment after the rename. DexDor (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Updated DexDor (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello, thank you for your effort to make some category to be consistent with other. That is important thing. I would like to point some things: the category Available gastropod names is older than 10 years. It is not the strong argument, but it says that it has been considered useful for a long time. Available name is a terminus technicus, it is clearly defined, very clearly defined for the certain purpose. Available name does not mean "old", it does not mean "no longer in use;". On the other hand, the word obsolete name has no meaning in nomenclature. I have no idea what should have been in a category of such name. Names, names or articles and names of categories are crucial things on Wikipedia. If somebody would like to damage Wikipedia most, he/she would attack naming of anything. It is the category "Obsolete protostome taxa)" that needs definition what should be categorized inside and clarification what is its purpose. --Snek01 (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st article in this category begins "Apogastropoda was previously used as a major taxonomic grouping ...". It also says "this taxonomic grouping is no longer used .... It is out-dated ..... Apogastropoda was also rejected ...".  That fits the word "obsolete" fairly well.  Nowhere in that article is the technical term "available name" used.  Note also that we categorize things by characteristics of what they are, not by characteristics of their name. DexDor (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as the header says this category is meant for names which were used in previous classification systems, so they are obviously "obsolete". The word "available" does not reflect the historical aspect adequately. Whether or not the names can be used in the future is a matter of WP:CRYSTAL so this part of the header should be removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename; the current name is terrible. Just about every gastropod with a Wikipedia article has an available name; and most have multiple available names. I'm not a fan of "obsolete" though, which to me implies some finality, i.e. an obsolete name can never be used. I'd argued for "historically recognized" in a previous CFD that standardized names of these categories for animals (equivalent categories for plant are using "historically recognized"). Vermes (Linnaeus's taxon for "worms") is truly obsolete; there's no way to use that name in any modern classification. However, most of the articles in the "obsolete" categories represent names that aren't used in current classifications, but which could be used. "Obsolete" is consistent with equivalent categories, and I'm not attached to the wording "historically recognized", but I don't think "obsolete" is ultimately ideal. Plantdrew (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Snek01, DexDor, and Marcocapelle: please comment on Plantdrew's suggestion your use "historically recognized". – Fayenatic London 07:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak preference for "obsolete" over "historically recognized", the finality argument is a bit far-fetched and obsolete is simply shorter. But both are a significant improvement over "available", of course. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference is for "obsolete" (for consistency with similar categories for other animals). Getting the plants categories named consistently with animals etc could be a separate discussion. DexDor (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will comment it once more because of the request of comment. Rename all related animal taxa to include the term "available name".

The actual naming of categories is like this:

  • Category:Obsolete taxa
    • Obsolete eukaryote taxa‎
      • Obsolete animal taxa‎
      • Obsolete fungus taxa‎
      • Historically recognized plant taxa‎
    • Obsolete bacteria taxa‎
    • Obsolete virus taxa‎

This shows, that there is completely different approach within the plants. Why it is so different in plants? It is important question to resolve. We are talking about one category within animals. If there is at least small respect for the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature on Wikipedia, then we should use the term "available name" for all these categories of animals. We should also follow the spirit of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) (It is for articles, not for categories, but I think, we should to take into account this guideline too.) that speaks: "When what is the most common name in English, or the veracity of that most common name, is so disputed in reliable sources that it cannot be neutrally ascertained, prefer the common name most used (orthography aside) by international zoological nomenclature authorities over regional ones. When there is no common name or no consensus can be reached on the most common name, or if it isn't clear what taxon the common name refers to (as in the sardine example above), use the scientific name". --Snek01 (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2020 (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:People from Paradise Valley, California[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 17:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No such place. Category is used only in Bob Mosley. This GNIS search shows there are no populated places by this name in California. The article goes on to say he grew up in San Diego, so he was probably born in San Diego's Paradise Valley Hospital - apparently named after a river valley by the same name. MB 18:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, while Paradise Valley appears to be a valley in California [1] we do not categorize people by valley. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the above link is about a valley in a different part of California; it is another valley by this name. But Marcocapella's rational to this category is still valid. MB 17:15, 22 February 2020 (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:Wikidiaries[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: User:P.L.A.R.'s 2007 talk page comment that this category doesn't seem to actually contain what it seems to describe is as accurate today as then. There's a lack of description as to what constitutes a "wikidiary" and a lack of utility in actually categorizing such pages. Bsherr (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2020 (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:Everly (group) albums[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match main page Everly (band); not eligible for speedy renaming as the article was moved without formal discussion. – Fayenatic London 10:33, 14 February 2020 (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:Toadlets[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has text saying "Small amphibians with the common name toadlet." but we normally categorize things by what they are, not what they are called.
I've checked a sample of the articles in the category and all were in plenty of other categories. Some, e.g. Brachycephalus pombali make no mention of "toadlet". There is no article about toadlet.  Wiktionary says the word means a juvenile toad. DexDor (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2020 (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/2020_February_14&oldid=949585864"