Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 25 November 27 >

November 26

Category:Invertebrates described in 1896

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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Categories to be upmerged
Nominator's rationale: User:NotWith is back with a new zest for unnecessary categories. The majority of new animals each year are moths, followed by beetles, and then by other insects, which are already subcategorised. Putting intermediate category layers of Invertebrates and arthropods (with only a handful of articles at the intermediate levels) hinders navigation (and will take ages to set up, as there are animal categories annually from 1740). Let us nip this in the bud. Category:Animals described in 1890 is an example of the present set-up (a well-populated insects subcat with 2 substantial subcats); it is fine as it is. Oculi ( talk) 22:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • It is NotWith's idea (NotWith never discusses anything, or defends anything at cfd). NotWith will create a scattering of categories, add a few articles, and rush on leaving an indication of something that others may feel like doing properly. It's a real pain to tag everything, and the cfd process is taking months to finish these days. Delete one example, speedy the others. They are all newly created (since Sept) by the disruptive NotWith. Oculi ( talk) 12:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I have tagged the others. It was a pain in the vertebrae. Oculi ( talk) 13:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. User:NotWith is again mentioned as being disruptive and there are still no formal warnings that I saw on their talk page. Vegaswikian1 ( talk) 17:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support upmerging, on the basis that NotWith is engaged in a long unilateral history of creating categories with little likelihood of having much content (e.g. most of the WP:SMALLCATs in Category:Arthropods by country), then moving on to create further layers without consolidating their actions. I agree the additional layers of the category tree hinder easy navigation (personally I know what an insect, moth, beetle is, but not an arthropod). There seem to be very few arthropods that are not also insects (if there are years where many non-insect arthropods were discovered then sure, go ahead and categorise, but otherwise don't). Adding a "Invertebrate" layer also seems excessive at this stage of the "Animals described in... " process, unless there are plans to categorise by "Vertebrate" too (I sincerely hope not). Something needs to be done to stop NotWith's behaviour, or at least slow it down so it can be discussed and agreed amongst people who know what they're talking about. Sionk ( talk) 19:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support I actually question whether the year that a human cataloged an animal is defining at all, so I welcome one less of these categories. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • @ RevelationDirect: I think it can be a useful way of covering the development of the scientific field. I agree that it's less relevant for the subject directly, although it does indicate the closeness of the animal's relation to humans. SFB 18:52, 28 November 2014 (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:LGBT scientists from Austria

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: Dual upmerge. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Whatever your opinion of categorizing scientists by sexuality, these following categories very obviously seem to be completely unnecessary zealous overcategorization, per WP:SMALLCAT. The contents can sit perfectly happily in the parent category, until further scientists noted for their sexuality in these countries come to light. Sionk ( talk) 14:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to LGBT scientists and relevant Category:LGBT people by nationality and Category:Scientists by nationality categories. The addition of the location into LGBT scientists doesn't really add any more relevance than is gathered at the separate national and occupational groupings already. Modern science is typically not carried out in a nationalistic fashion, nor does a scientist's LGBT status usually have much of a profound affect upon their science, making this grouping a strange choice. A scan of articles like Ramchandra Siras, Franz Nopcsa von Felső-Szilvás, Fritz Klein (sex researcher) and Irena Klepfisz demonstrate this well. In none of those articles do the subjects' sexuality, scientific work and nationality combine to affect their work. In most of them, not even two of those qualities intersect to affect the subject's work. SFB 21:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Though a re-opening of the discussion about whether the category tree should exist at all should be carried out separately, rather than here (I hope). Sionk ( talk) 22:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all can anyone cite reliable sources that LGBT scientists do science differently than their straight counterparts? Nope. then WP:OCEGRS prohibits these and there seems no reason to deviate from a well hashed-out guideline here. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:36, 1 December 2014 (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.

Double, incorrectly named Category:User AF

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: speedy delete. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This should be Category:User af. Cycn ( talk) 10:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – it's empty, apart from an empty subcat (below). Oculi ( talk) 17:00, 26 November 2014 (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.

Double, incorrectly named Category:User AF-1

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: speedy delete. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This should be Category:User af-1. Cycn ( talk) 10:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – it's empty. Oculi ( talk) 17:00, 26 November 2014 (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:Telenovelas set in São Paulo

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 per nom. The other categories mentioned are in the trees of the target category. If additional cleanup on the parents is needed, feel free to make needed changes. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category is a duplicate to Category:Television shows set in São Paulo. NeoBatfreak ( talk) 08:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
If Upmerged, only to Category:Television shows set in Brazil instead.-- NeoBatfreak ( talk) 23:31, 1 December 2014 (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:Torso

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: self-withdrawn per discussion to focus on article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. Propose matching category to article Trunk (anatomy). With regard to the objection, which appears to be mainly focused on the article name, I would only say that WP:PRECISION has to always be read and applied in conjunction with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
copy of speedy nomination and objection
  • Oppose On basis that the move creates more ambiguity. That factor should take precedence in the category structure. I'm unsure why it isn't better to move the article to Torso instead, as that is a very common name for the subject, as opposed to the more scientific use of trunk. Tapirs also have trunks which are not torsos, so it's not just elephants. SFB 21:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per my speedy opinion. There are trunks that are anatomical features that are not torsos, such as found on elephants, etc, and which would be more likely from a lay audience to be construed as trunks instead of torsos. Thus the proposed name is highly ambiguous even with the parenthetical disambiguator "anatomy". The article itself is misnamed per WP:PRECISE, it does not precisely define its topic but uses ambiguous disambiguation instead. I will note that trunk (anatomy) was moved without a discussion away from "torso", so should probably be returned to "torso". -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 21:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • In the context of the article name, WP:PRECISION has to always be read and applied in conjunction with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, remember; there's a legitimate argument that the human trunk is the primary topic related to anatomy. Being an article issue, we don't necessarily need to debate that here, but I don't think it's as clear cut as you have stated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
      • From what's been going on at WP:RM, PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't deal with parenthetically disambiguated titles, since they are by definition not primary topic. Though, yes, we could move the page name discussion to a separate venue. -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 22:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
        • That's interesting—I would have thought PRIMARYTOPIC could apply just as well to a name with a disambiguation—kind of like a second-level P.T. Anyway, since I think we all agree that the article may the issue, I'm happy to have this discussion closed and move the focus to the article, if everyone is OK with that? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2014 (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:Society by island

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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not entirely sure what this category is trying to capture. The category is named quite broadly, suggesting that it could include any subcategories for the society of islands or island groups. But then a definition that has been placed on the category limits it to the societies of islands "that are not countries". This is not evident or obvious from the name of the category. The use of "country" is also a little unclear here. What exactly is meant? Sovereign states? Members of the UN? Or the more broad definition in country, which it links to: "a region identified as a distinct entity"? If the latter, then all of the subcategories currently in it should be removed, since all of them are about societies in countries, under this meaning of the word. (Countries are not necessarily sovereign.) If meant to categorize societies of non-sovereign dependent countries, why has it been limited to islands, thus excluding places such as French Guiana and Gibraltar? I have no objection to the category existing if either the definition is broadened, or the name of the category narrowed, but I'm just not sure if either approach would make a worthwhile category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – I can't see any good reason to collect these disparate subcats together. The assumption must be that there is something distinctive (defining) about Island society, which I doubt. Its subcat Category:People by island is equally dubious. (See eg Category:People by island in the British Isles.) Oculi ( talk) 09:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: As stated in the edit history, I split this from Category:Society by nationality, because it contained these many sub-cats for island groups that are not nations. Where else might they be held within Category:Society by location? I suppose they could simply be parented by the society category for the sovereign state of which they are a part. Alternatively, they could be merged back into Category:Society by nationality, if the broad understanding of "country" explained by GOF above can also apply to "nationality". – and if they can't, then others such as Category:French Guianan society should also be removed. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Note: Category:Society by nationality used to be named "society by country" until April, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 14#Category:Society by country. – Fayenatic L ondon
      • I don't understand why people from countries that are not sovereign states wouldn't be able to be said to have a "nationality" specific to their country or nation. There are many nationalities in the world that don't have corresponding passports and are somehow "attached" to a larger legal nationality. But to say that Puerto Rican, Niuean, and New Caledonian are not nationalities? Ridiculous. So I just think that these all should go in Category:Society by nationality (and they could have just as legitimately been in "society by country", too). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC) reply
        • Fair enough, but in that case why are you voting to delete rather than merge? The outcomes are not the same. – Fayenatic L ondon 23:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
          • They're already categorized in Category:Society by nationality, so merging would lead to a duplicate categorization on the individual categories. So in this particular case the results would be essentially the same. (And—I didn't want to introduce this added ripple to the discussion at the start, in case a particular user was in favour of deletion but not in favour of including the non-sovereign ones in Category:Society by nationality. So I just picked out the least common denominator of potential agreement. I was also open to a renaming to limit it or a definitional change of some kind; in all, a straight deletion nomination seemed like the least complicated.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete about as helpful as "society by humidity" or "society by elevation" or some other arbitrary criteria. WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:37, 1 December 2014 (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:Collective Consciousness Society

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) 04:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. Individual members could be split into Category:Collective Consciousness Society members but even then, we wouldn't need two categories for this group. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Koavf: Sorry, but I don't understand your reply. On the one hand, I asked three questions and you don't seem to have answered any of them. On the other, you provided a response that means nothing to me. Could you please make an attempt to respond to the questions I asked? With apologies, and with thanks in advance, Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Pdfpdf: There will be parent categories for these categories just like there are now. I'm not proposing removing all categories from Category:Collective Consciousness Society albums and Category:Collective Consciousness Society members. Eponymous categories are discouraged and generally not required for navigation. What I mean by "too little content" is what seems straightforward to me: there isn't enough material to warrant creating a parent category to contain them. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I have added "see also" links between the main article and subcats so that it will still be easy to navigate between them without a parent category. It would be appreciated if nominators so would do this regularly. – Fayenatic L ondon 00:02, 4 December 2014 (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:Muhammad and the Jews

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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category does deal with Muhammad's relationships with individual Jews, but it also deals with how Judaism regards Muhammad, how Muhammad regarded the religion of Judaism and other broad topics that go beyond "the Jews". I propose renaming it to match the parent Category:Islam and Judaism. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2014 (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:Cabinets

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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Cabinet is a disambiguation page. This category is a subcategory of Category:Furniture, hence the selected disambiguator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2014 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_26&oldid=1138399852"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 25 November 27 >

November 26

Category:Invertebrates described in 1896

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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Categories to be upmerged
Nominator's rationale: User:NotWith is back with a new zest for unnecessary categories. The majority of new animals each year are moths, followed by beetles, and then by other insects, which are already subcategorised. Putting intermediate category layers of Invertebrates and arthropods (with only a handful of articles at the intermediate levels) hinders navigation (and will take ages to set up, as there are animal categories annually from 1740). Let us nip this in the bud. Category:Animals described in 1890 is an example of the present set-up (a well-populated insects subcat with 2 substantial subcats); it is fine as it is. Oculi ( talk) 22:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • It is NotWith's idea (NotWith never discusses anything, or defends anything at cfd). NotWith will create a scattering of categories, add a few articles, and rush on leaving an indication of something that others may feel like doing properly. It's a real pain to tag everything, and the cfd process is taking months to finish these days. Delete one example, speedy the others. They are all newly created (since Sept) by the disruptive NotWith. Oculi ( talk) 12:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I have tagged the others. It was a pain in the vertebrae. Oculi ( talk) 13:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. User:NotWith is again mentioned as being disruptive and there are still no formal warnings that I saw on their talk page. Vegaswikian1 ( talk) 17:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support upmerging, on the basis that NotWith is engaged in a long unilateral history of creating categories with little likelihood of having much content (e.g. most of the WP:SMALLCATs in Category:Arthropods by country), then moving on to create further layers without consolidating their actions. I agree the additional layers of the category tree hinder easy navigation (personally I know what an insect, moth, beetle is, but not an arthropod). There seem to be very few arthropods that are not also insects (if there are years where many non-insect arthropods were discovered then sure, go ahead and categorise, but otherwise don't). Adding a "Invertebrate" layer also seems excessive at this stage of the "Animals described in... " process, unless there are plans to categorise by "Vertebrate" too (I sincerely hope not). Something needs to be done to stop NotWith's behaviour, or at least slow it down so it can be discussed and agreed amongst people who know what they're talking about. Sionk ( talk) 19:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support I actually question whether the year that a human cataloged an animal is defining at all, so I welcome one less of these categories. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • @ RevelationDirect: I think it can be a useful way of covering the development of the scientific field. I agree that it's less relevant for the subject directly, although it does indicate the closeness of the animal's relation to humans. SFB 18:52, 28 November 2014 (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:LGBT scientists from Austria

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: Dual upmerge. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Whatever your opinion of categorizing scientists by sexuality, these following categories very obviously seem to be completely unnecessary zealous overcategorization, per WP:SMALLCAT. The contents can sit perfectly happily in the parent category, until further scientists noted for their sexuality in these countries come to light. Sionk ( talk) 14:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to LGBT scientists and relevant Category:LGBT people by nationality and Category:Scientists by nationality categories. The addition of the location into LGBT scientists doesn't really add any more relevance than is gathered at the separate national and occupational groupings already. Modern science is typically not carried out in a nationalistic fashion, nor does a scientist's LGBT status usually have much of a profound affect upon their science, making this grouping a strange choice. A scan of articles like Ramchandra Siras, Franz Nopcsa von Felső-Szilvás, Fritz Klein (sex researcher) and Irena Klepfisz demonstrate this well. In none of those articles do the subjects' sexuality, scientific work and nationality combine to affect their work. In most of them, not even two of those qualities intersect to affect the subject's work. SFB 21:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Though a re-opening of the discussion about whether the category tree should exist at all should be carried out separately, rather than here (I hope). Sionk ( talk) 22:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all can anyone cite reliable sources that LGBT scientists do science differently than their straight counterparts? Nope. then WP:OCEGRS prohibits these and there seems no reason to deviate from a well hashed-out guideline here. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:36, 1 December 2014 (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.

Double, incorrectly named Category:User AF

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: speedy delete. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This should be Category:User af. Cycn ( talk) 10:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – it's empty, apart from an empty subcat (below). Oculi ( talk) 17:00, 26 November 2014 (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.

Double, incorrectly named Category:User AF-1

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: speedy delete. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This should be Category:User af-1. Cycn ( talk) 10:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – it's empty. Oculi ( talk) 17:00, 26 November 2014 (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:Telenovelas set in São Paulo

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 per nom. The other categories mentioned are in the trees of the target category. If additional cleanup on the parents is needed, feel free to make needed changes. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category is a duplicate to Category:Television shows set in São Paulo. NeoBatfreak ( talk) 08:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
If Upmerged, only to Category:Television shows set in Brazil instead.-- NeoBatfreak ( talk) 23:31, 1 December 2014 (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:Torso

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: self-withdrawn per discussion to focus on article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. Propose matching category to article Trunk (anatomy). With regard to the objection, which appears to be mainly focused on the article name, I would only say that WP:PRECISION has to always be read and applied in conjunction with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
copy of speedy nomination and objection
  • Oppose On basis that the move creates more ambiguity. That factor should take precedence in the category structure. I'm unsure why it isn't better to move the article to Torso instead, as that is a very common name for the subject, as opposed to the more scientific use of trunk. Tapirs also have trunks which are not torsos, so it's not just elephants. SFB 21:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per my speedy opinion. There are trunks that are anatomical features that are not torsos, such as found on elephants, etc, and which would be more likely from a lay audience to be construed as trunks instead of torsos. Thus the proposed name is highly ambiguous even with the parenthetical disambiguator "anatomy". The article itself is misnamed per WP:PRECISE, it does not precisely define its topic but uses ambiguous disambiguation instead. I will note that trunk (anatomy) was moved without a discussion away from "torso", so should probably be returned to "torso". -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 21:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • In the context of the article name, WP:PRECISION has to always be read and applied in conjunction with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, remember; there's a legitimate argument that the human trunk is the primary topic related to anatomy. Being an article issue, we don't necessarily need to debate that here, but I don't think it's as clear cut as you have stated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
      • From what's been going on at WP:RM, PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't deal with parenthetically disambiguated titles, since they are by definition not primary topic. Though, yes, we could move the page name discussion to a separate venue. -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 22:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
        • That's interesting—I would have thought PRIMARYTOPIC could apply just as well to a name with a disambiguation—kind of like a second-level P.T. Anyway, since I think we all agree that the article may the issue, I'm happy to have this discussion closed and move the focus to the article, if everyone is OK with that? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2014 (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:Society by island

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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not entirely sure what this category is trying to capture. The category is named quite broadly, suggesting that it could include any subcategories for the society of islands or island groups. But then a definition that has been placed on the category limits it to the societies of islands "that are not countries". This is not evident or obvious from the name of the category. The use of "country" is also a little unclear here. What exactly is meant? Sovereign states? Members of the UN? Or the more broad definition in country, which it links to: "a region identified as a distinct entity"? If the latter, then all of the subcategories currently in it should be removed, since all of them are about societies in countries, under this meaning of the word. (Countries are not necessarily sovereign.) If meant to categorize societies of non-sovereign dependent countries, why has it been limited to islands, thus excluding places such as French Guiana and Gibraltar? I have no objection to the category existing if either the definition is broadened, or the name of the category narrowed, but I'm just not sure if either approach would make a worthwhile category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – I can't see any good reason to collect these disparate subcats together. The assumption must be that there is something distinctive (defining) about Island society, which I doubt. Its subcat Category:People by island is equally dubious. (See eg Category:People by island in the British Isles.) Oculi ( talk) 09:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: As stated in the edit history, I split this from Category:Society by nationality, because it contained these many sub-cats for island groups that are not nations. Where else might they be held within Category:Society by location? I suppose they could simply be parented by the society category for the sovereign state of which they are a part. Alternatively, they could be merged back into Category:Society by nationality, if the broad understanding of "country" explained by GOF above can also apply to "nationality". – and if they can't, then others such as Category:French Guianan society should also be removed. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Note: Category:Society by nationality used to be named "society by country" until April, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 14#Category:Society by country. – Fayenatic L ondon
      • I don't understand why people from countries that are not sovereign states wouldn't be able to be said to have a "nationality" specific to their country or nation. There are many nationalities in the world that don't have corresponding passports and are somehow "attached" to a larger legal nationality. But to say that Puerto Rican, Niuean, and New Caledonian are not nationalities? Ridiculous. So I just think that these all should go in Category:Society by nationality (and they could have just as legitimately been in "society by country", too). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC) reply
        • Fair enough, but in that case why are you voting to delete rather than merge? The outcomes are not the same. – Fayenatic L ondon 23:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
          • They're already categorized in Category:Society by nationality, so merging would lead to a duplicate categorization on the individual categories. So in this particular case the results would be essentially the same. (And—I didn't want to introduce this added ripple to the discussion at the start, in case a particular user was in favour of deletion but not in favour of including the non-sovereign ones in Category:Society by nationality. So I just picked out the least common denominator of potential agreement. I was also open to a renaming to limit it or a definitional change of some kind; in all, a straight deletion nomination seemed like the least complicated.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete about as helpful as "society by humidity" or "society by elevation" or some other arbitrary criteria. WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:37, 1 December 2014 (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:Collective Consciousness Society

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) 04:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. Individual members could be split into Category:Collective Consciousness Society members but even then, we wouldn't need two categories for this group. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Koavf: Sorry, but I don't understand your reply. On the one hand, I asked three questions and you don't seem to have answered any of them. On the other, you provided a response that means nothing to me. Could you please make an attempt to respond to the questions I asked? With apologies, and with thanks in advance, Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Pdfpdf: There will be parent categories for these categories just like there are now. I'm not proposing removing all categories from Category:Collective Consciousness Society albums and Category:Collective Consciousness Society members. Eponymous categories are discouraged and generally not required for navigation. What I mean by "too little content" is what seems straightforward to me: there isn't enough material to warrant creating a parent category to contain them. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I have added "see also" links between the main article and subcats so that it will still be easy to navigate between them without a parent category. It would be appreciated if nominators so would do this regularly. – Fayenatic L ondon 00:02, 4 December 2014 (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:Muhammad and the Jews

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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category does deal with Muhammad's relationships with individual Jews, but it also deals with how Judaism regards Muhammad, how Muhammad regarded the religion of Judaism and other broad topics that go beyond "the Jews". I propose renaming it to match the parent Category:Islam and Judaism. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2014 (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:Cabinets

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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Cabinet is a disambiguation page. This category is a subcategory of Category:Furniture, hence the selected disambiguator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2014 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_26&oldid=1138399852"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE