Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 21 May 23 >

May 22[edit]

Wikipedia categories named after populated places in Ukraine[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 as per nom. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since these categories are hidden, administrative categories only, I don't think it's worthwhile or necessary to divide populated places into the different "types" of cities, towns, and villages. The purposes of the categories (which are limited) are best fulfilled if they are upmerged and kept all together in a general "populated places" category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 22 May 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:Arab nationalists[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: don't merge. While this is unique among the nationalists categories, editors argued that Arab nationalists are unique because they aren't associated with a specific country, but rather a whole region. This seems comparable to splitting a continent category out by country, which is routine. There wasn't any strong counter-argument to that. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 02:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Arab nationalists is excessively overcategorized. No other category for nationalists has anything like this. Only Arab socialists, Ba'athists and Nasserists are worth keeping because they're based in variants of Arab nationalist ideology. Just like Kemalists (Turkish nationalists) or Irish republicans (Irish nationalists). Charles Essie (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears we have a misunderstanding. I know that not all Arab nationalists are Nasserists or Ba'athists. I was trying to suggest that certain content (like the political party categories) go into the Arab socialists, Ba'athists, and Nasserists categories. But now that I think about it, much that content is already in those categories so never mind. Charles Essie (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the fact that no other nationalism category splits out per nationality is pretty obvious, most if not all other nationalisms are limited to one country anyway. So it's not a good comparison, hence not a good argument for merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at that category and I think those subcategories should merged as well for the same reasons, especially considering the fact that those subcategories include minimal content and many of these subcategories are also extremely small with incredibly limited potential for growth. They also overlap with one another significantly so even you don't agree with my argument that they should all be merged, you've got to admit that at least some of them should be. Charles Essie (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but isn't categorizing Arab nationalists as politicians or thinkers something of oxymoron considering that most of them are both? There are also no other categories for military personnel based on ideology. Charles Essie (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're getting somewhere! As a small variation I would rather delete the three occupation categories because (nearly) everyone in already in a nationality subcat as well, so by merging we would unnecessarily pollute the top category. I'm still not convinced of doing something with the (small or large) nationality subcats because of Hmains' concerns below, in particular because every "fooish Arab nationalists" subcat is currently also a subcat of "Arab nationalism in foo-country" and that structure would get lost by a merger. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I think we have a good compromise. Charles Essie (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose as written There is nothing stated here as to what is going to happen to ALL the parent categories of ALL the categories proposed to disappear. A merge discussion as with a delete discussion must account for the affects on all parents. Hmains (talk) 04:53, 25 May 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:Meatpacking[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. – Fayenatic London 23:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The issue of whether this category should also be merged was never really addressed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_5#Category:Meat_processing. At the very least, I think it should be renamed, per the main article, taking care to put a space between meat and packing. I'm open to any option - don't really care but we can't be spelling meat packing different ways in the same structure, I guess. If successful, Category:Businesspeople in meatpacking‎ would have to follow suit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 22 May 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:Novels based on Diablo (series)[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 to all parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All but one entry has been merged to List of Diablo novels thus making this category useless. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 12:45, 22 May 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:Lists of people by proposed medical condition[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 if only as redundant to Category:Retrospective diagnosis. This closure is without prejudice against a follow-up nomination of the latter category as possibly being too subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF, smallcat, and generally not a good idea, —PermStrump(talk) 10:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if you read the category description, it's apparently designed to address the concern that some of the people in lists at Category:Lists of people by medical condition might not belong on those lists. So any time inclusion is contested -- such as at List of people with epilepsy -- bingo, it goes into this category. There's a lot of speculative "retrospective diagnoses" in these medical lists and I daresay all them could end up here too. This is not the way to go about contesting inclusion in a list -- it's a really terrible idea that goes back to 2006, when it was created out of Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_3#Category:Lists_of_people_speculated_to_fit_a_criteria_to_Category:Lists_of_people_speculated_to_fit_certain_criteria. It was a Cfd where no one seemed to muster much enthusiasm for any solution. Anyway, it's a dumping ground for contested people by medical condition lists -- or so it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I originally wrote more, but was having trouble with twinkle and my explanation got shorter each time I tried to re-submit. The category was created in 2006, has been edited 5 times, and was last edited in 2008 and there are only 3 pages included in the list. I think the rational given on the talkpage basically boils down to: Lists exist for people with speculative diagnoses and these lists have a high abuse potential, so let's categorize them so we can keep an eye on them more easily. It seems to me if the list should reasonably exist, it should belong under Category:Lists of people by medical condition or Category:Lists of people with disabilities. If it doesn't belong in either of those, it's because the list's existence is probably a gross violation of the policies and guidelines. List of people with autism and List of people with ADHD were deleted at AFD a few months ago (the list of people with ADHD has been deleted twice under slightly different names). Presumably the same rational to delete those lists also applies to the pages in this category: Retrospective diagnoses of autism and List of people with bipolar disorder. This is essentially a category for lists that shouldn't exist. *I should mention that I'm the one who nominated the ADHD list for deletion and I'm planning to nominate the bipolar and retrospective autism ones too when I get around to it. I don't know what to say about List of people with epilepsy. I didn't realize that would be something to speculate about. —PermStrump(talk) 20:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. Except that only one is a retrospective diagnoses list -- the other two are regular people by medical condition lists that have some retrospective content. And in one, List of people with bipolar disorder, I don't even see any. And the list has a good description that warns people not to add names without good referencing. Maybe back in 2006 we were still categorizing people by "speculation" but this cat serves no useful purpose now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the previous description of List of people with bipolar disorder. I updated it recently. I didn't feel the previous description was appropriate, because it included recently deceased people with speculative diagnoses. I've come across quite a few recently deceased people in the list, most of whom died by suicide, so there was lay speculation in the press about what might have led to the suicide. As far as the long-time deceased people, so far all of the ones I've looked at were poorly sourced and/or the diagnosis was contested by the majority of mainstream sources. I've only made it through the Es as far for verifying sources. P.S. Apparently back in the day people used to accuse their opponents of having epilepsy to discredit them, so a lot of the people in that list are bunk. One guy, the only source is his own statement wondering if he had eplilepsy because his daughter did. —PermStrump(talk) 17:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We cannot keep it with this title. I think this is about retrospective diagnoses of diseases. If so, this is about speculative interpretation of events, for people who were not diagnosed. If this were about work by WP-authors, we would call it OR. However, I do not think this is much better. If they were diagnosed we might allow a category, but the autism and ADHD precedents suggest that we should not. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 23 May 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:Astronomical Societies in Louisiana[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. I could not identify any necessary merge targets, since the one article in the category was abundantly categorized already. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: a rather small category Rathfelder (talk) 10:13, 22 May 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:Laymen and statistics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is not a defining characteristic of the content of the category. No need to merge the whole category, most of the content is already somewhere in the tree of Category:Statistics except article Statistical literacy which may be moved to Category:Statistics and except for article Risk perception which doesn't really belong in the statistics tree anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 22 May 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:Development[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, but not all the contents, and convert into a disambiguation category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge in the spirit of WP:C2D, article Economic development is a main article of both categories while Development is merely a disambiguation page. Most content of this category is indeed of economic nature, though after merging some purging will be needed, e.g. to move out Category:Urban development. In yet other words Economic development and Urban development are a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 22 May 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:Political parties of minorities by country[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. – Fayenatic London 23:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Political parties of minorities and Category:Political parties of minorities by country. Charles Essie (talk) 02:14, 22 May 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:Political parties in Tuva[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 to Category:Politics of Tuva. Merging to Category:Political parties in Russia was not needed because the one article in the category was already in Category:Defunct political parties in Russia. This closure is without prejudice against starting a new Category:Regional parties in Russia. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Charles Essie (talk) 02:09, 22 May 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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_22&oldid=1138410147"