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:United States legislation concerning religion. Assuming I understood the responses properly, it doesn't make sense to "merger" to a red-linked, non-existent category. That seems like a vote to rename instead and I think that's the consensus here and that would solve the merger issues along with the concerns over the merger expressed in the first votes.
Ricky81682 (
talk)
20:27, 22 February 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:Academic institutions currently affiliated with the University of Mysore
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.
Nominator's rationale: We normally only categorize by permanent characteristics (with the exception of things like living people) so don't normally have categories with "current" etc in their name (
exampleCFDs).
There are currently
194 Colleges affiliated to the University of Mysore - so articles about any of these colleges or institutions would fit into this category (potentially 194 articles). Such affiliations may be permanent or temporary (usually initially the affiliation is temporary). Colleges in India without such an affiliation are basically unregulated and their degrees considered pretty worthless. Affiliation to a major university is perhaps one good criteria by which to judge whether an Indian tertiary education institute is sufficiently noteworthy for a WP article.
Chris Fynn (
talk)
16:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Question In the articles I looked at, these affiliations didn't seem defining but the articles are pretty skimpy so maybe it's just not covered. What does this affiliation mean in an Indian context?
RevelationDirect (
talk)
10:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
In India being affiliated to a well established University is what gives degree granting colleges legitimacy or accreditation. The University to which they are affiliated is supposed to ensure that these colleges meet various academic and other standards - it is an Indian form of accreditation. (see:
Affiliation of Colleges by Universities) A college which is affiliated to a University which has a particularly good reputation and maintains high standards thereby also gains prestige. OTOH a degree or diploma from a college without any such affiliation (more or less the same thing as an unrecognised or unaccredited college) may be regarded as worthless or 2nd rate. So I'd say such affiliations might be considered defining.
Chris Fynn (
talk)
15:49, 8 December 2015 (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.
Spanish variants
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 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.
Peter Blakeley
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 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.
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 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:19th-century male military personnel & 19th-century businessmen
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.
Nominator's rationale: Both business and the military are or have been largely male dominated but are not inherently male or female (some roles/occupations like actors or singers require males or females, hence have separate male and female categories). These two categories will either be grossly incomplete (businesspeople and military personnel are largely male occupations) or if complete would be large and unwieldy. Categories like
Category:19th-century men should be container categories only. NB: As far as I can see, there are no corresponding categories for other centuries. The upmerged
Category:19th-century businesspeople articles will require checking to move many into nationality subcategories eg
Category:19th-century American businesspeople. Categories like
Category:19th-century men should be container categories only.
Hugo999 (
talk)
11:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge the first back to
Category:19th-century military personnel. Female ones were so rare that we ought not to need a category. Keep the businessmen or rather reverse merge the businesspeople. That term is a modern neologism. There were some businesswomen, though far fewer than men. If we are to keep the women we should also keep the men.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Are you proposing to rename all the 16th century to 19th century businesspeople categories (including the subcategories by nationality) from businesspeople to businessmen? "Businesswoman" is not an exclusively 20th & 21st century phenomena. There were 18th and 19th-century businesswomen, like
Marie Rée and
Anne Catherine Hoof Green; although they tended to be family members who had inherited the business of their husband or family. PS: Yes, merge any 19th-century male military personnel (only 5) to 19th-century military personnel if they are not in a nationality subcategory already.
Hugo999 (
talk)
01:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge the military personnel category which I suspect would include the vast majority of 19th-century personnel. Keep the businessmen category, since this seems to be a more reasonable gendered category.
Dimadick (
talk)
13:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete the military personnel category and merge the businessmen category. These intersections of time, gender and occupation are not justified. They come to close to being universal especially in the first case to be useful, and while less so in the business category, business was too male dominated in the 19th-century, especially among those who are notable, to be worth having this category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:17, 10 December 2015 (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:Taxonomic articles
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.
Update. Instead of deletion the current category (containing articles such as
Taxonomy of Banksia and clearly a category for articles rather than a wikiproject category) could be renamed to something like "Specific taxonomies". DexDor(talk)23:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: I created this category on discovering that (a) there were all these categories such as
Category:Taxonomic articles by quality without a parent to group them together, and similarly (b) no way of identifying articles similar to
Taxonomy of Banksia, when it came to a discussion on how they should be structured. At present the only way to that is to do a search on Taxonomy which produces many many pages that do not fit those criteria. I take your point about parent category, and will remedy that. Thanks for the notification. --
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
12:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Re "without a parent to group them together" - they were grouped under
Category:WikiProject Tree of Life articles. If the mismatch between the project name and the names of subcats is a problem then rename the project/categories - don't create a new category that makes more of a mess. I see you've now put the new category under both an articles category and a wikiproject category - thus putting article pages under a wikiproject category and putting talk pages under an articles category ... DexDor(talk)07:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Part of the problem is that the purpose and hence appropriate content of
Category:Taxonomy (biology) is not clear. It and its subcategories seem to be a rag-bag of articles about taxonomy as a discipline; articles about taxa, including lists of taxa such as lists of families; and articles about particular kinds of taxa, such as monotypic taxa (why should they be categorized here and not say taxa with two members?). So a clearly defined category for "Taxonomy of TAXON" articles does seem useful to me, although the title "Taxonomic articles" isn't sufficiently precise. Perhaps
Category:Taxonomy of taxa? But the current subcategories don't belong in such a category, since they are much wider in scope (and as noted above categorize via talk pages).
Peter coxhead (
talk)
14:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree. It's often not clear whether a "foology" category is for articles about foos, articles about the study of foos or both. We even get cases (e.g.
Category:Ornithology and
Category:Birds) where each is/was a subcategory of the other. IMO the -ology categories should be for articles about the study (by humans) of the subject (and this should be clearly stated in the category text). So, Category:Foology should be a subcat of Category:Foos (and also a subcat of the higher level -ology) and should contain articles about foologists, foological societies, etc, but not articles about foos. Thus, IMO there should be some re-categorization of articles currently under
Category:Taxonomy (biology), but that's a separate issue to this CFD which is about not mixing up articles with wp admin (wikiprojects and talk pages). DexDor(talk)07:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Maybe this is a good opportunity for reorganising the categories of taxonomy, in particular discriminating between articles about taxonomy as a discipline, and those that deal with specific taxonomies. Although I chose the title Taxonomic articles, I am not married to it, if someone has a better idea. As far as "mixing up" goes, if that is the policy then I would be happy with two separate categories, one for each type. But I do think both groups need a parent that keeps them together. When I said "without a parent to group them together" I meant a parent that grouped these types of categories together, not lost in some vague conglomerate, and many articles I found were not categorised to those anyway, so I subsequently did so with as many as I could find. --
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
23:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle, This category is now clearly a category for articles (e.g. it no longer contains talk pages). I'm happy for the category to remain, but it should be renamed (we normally only put "articles" in a category name if it's a category for talk pages of articles). If you concur could you update your !vote? DexDor(talk)14:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: The categories may well already be in parent categories, but these are very broad, and intermediate categories are needed to group similar categories. It seems to me there are 3 options available. 1. Maintain the status quo, keep; 2.Delete; 3. Create separate parent categories out of the category under discussion for the two types mentioned above, and placed within the broader categories. I would favour option 3.
Response: I had included all those, but I would point out that all those are actually lists (although not formally classified as such on their talk pages). --
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
21:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Action: As an initial step to resolving this issue, I have removed all of the categories best characterised as Talk Page/Tree of Life, since they are listed on Tree of Life quite clearly, even if that might not be the obvious place to look for them. --
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
21:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Currently the only articles remaining in the category "Taxonomic articles", which was proposed for deletion, are those dealing with the specific taxonomy of individual taxa, and it is a subcategory of "Taxonomy (biology)". Therefore the only remaining issue is whether to rename it, since some feel the current name is insufficiently precise. "Taxonomy of taxa" as proposed sounds a little clumsy to me. As above I have suggested "Specific taxonomies" as one possible alternative. --
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
17:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Analysis: As usual the situation is a bit more complex than it appears at first sight. In terms of articles that might be captured by this category, there are pages with headings that start with both "List" and "Taxonomy" with a good deal of over lap. Some "Lists" are just that, such as
List of Hippeastrum species, while others are highly organised and could be candidates for FL such as
List of Narcissus species. Both are subpages of a parent taxon article and are captured under the categories of "Taxonomic lists (rank)" such as
Category:Taxonomic lists (species), which in turn fall under
Category:Taxonomic lists. But that category includes not only the List subcategories but also some of the "Taxonomy of" articles. Finally, that category then falls under
Category: Taxonomy (biology).
Now turning to articles with the title "Taxonomy of.." as captued in the category under discussion here it becomes clear there are three different groups. Plain lists, such as
Taxonomy of Croton, organised lists such as
Taxonomy of the Orchidaceae, and actual articles about the specific taxonomy of a taxon such as
Taxonomy of Banksia.
In summary there is a distinct lack of coherence, and there needs to be a lot of work to sort it all out and make sense. One approach would include renaming many of the pages, and providing guidance on the Project template as to what to title pages and what categories to place them in. Either way there are a lot of pages and categories that need moving. This requires further discussion. --
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
15:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Update: The situation has been further simplified, in that all articles with the name Taxonomy of ... that were actually lists, have been reclassified and renamed as Lists of... and placed in Category:Taxonomic lists. Therefore all remaining articles in the category under discussion are actual articles about the taxonomy of a taxon. All that remains therefore, I believe, is to decide whether there is a better title than Taxonomic articles. (Incidentally this also showed me how bad the taxonomy section is on many articles) --
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
13:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Response: Interesting discussion to date. I am happy to accept that my original choice was probably suboptimal but have not seen a better suggestion. How about Plant taxonomies as a subcategory of Plant taxonomy? The issue you have pointed out that some of the articles in question have more than one home was easily fixed. 2 of 6 were there, there was a third which turned out to be a list and was removed. Now all Taxonomy articles are in Taxonomic articles, which is a subcategory of Plant taxonomy, where it is more suited. So what remains I think is choosing a name, my suggestion above or otherwise. Taxonomies of taxa is somewhat unharmonious. Then instructions on categorisation can be placed on the plant template --
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
21:19, 17 January 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:Films with Larry Fine playing violin
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 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:NHK Kōhaku Uta Gassen songs
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.
Nominator's rationale: An utterly random non-defining category. I noticed that the Russian Kalinka song was classified as a "Kohaku song". It looked rather weird for me. Songs are used in numerous events, sung by numerous singers. Are we going to put them in all these rather trivial categories? Imagine the Beatles' Yesterday classified as
Category:Slavic Bazaar in Vitebsk songs (Gd frbid). - üser:Altenmann
>t03:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Kōhaku is the Japanese "Year-end Song Festival". The category is thus for songs performed at it. Performacne categories norm ally means "performance by performer", which this is not. However, "performance by occasion" would be just as bad and generate appalling category clutter.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:41, 7 December 2015 (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.
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:United States legislation concerning religion. Assuming I understood the responses properly, it doesn't make sense to "merger" to a red-linked, non-existent category. That seems like a vote to rename instead and I think that's the consensus here and that would solve the merger issues along with the concerns over the merger expressed in the first votes.
Ricky81682 (
talk)
20:27, 22 February 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:Academic institutions currently affiliated with the University of Mysore
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.
Nominator's rationale: We normally only categorize by permanent characteristics (with the exception of things like living people) so don't normally have categories with "current" etc in their name (
exampleCFDs).
There are currently
194 Colleges affiliated to the University of Mysore - so articles about any of these colleges or institutions would fit into this category (potentially 194 articles). Such affiliations may be permanent or temporary (usually initially the affiliation is temporary). Colleges in India without such an affiliation are basically unregulated and their degrees considered pretty worthless. Affiliation to a major university is perhaps one good criteria by which to judge whether an Indian tertiary education institute is sufficiently noteworthy for a WP article.
Chris Fynn (
talk)
16:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Question In the articles I looked at, these affiliations didn't seem defining but the articles are pretty skimpy so maybe it's just not covered. What does this affiliation mean in an Indian context?
RevelationDirect (
talk)
10:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
In India being affiliated to a well established University is what gives degree granting colleges legitimacy or accreditation. The University to which they are affiliated is supposed to ensure that these colleges meet various academic and other standards - it is an Indian form of accreditation. (see:
Affiliation of Colleges by Universities) A college which is affiliated to a University which has a particularly good reputation and maintains high standards thereby also gains prestige. OTOH a degree or diploma from a college without any such affiliation (more or less the same thing as an unrecognised or unaccredited college) may be regarded as worthless or 2nd rate. So I'd say such affiliations might be considered defining.
Chris Fynn (
talk)
15:49, 8 December 2015 (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.
Spanish variants
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 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.
Peter Blakeley
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 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.
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 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:19th-century male military personnel & 19th-century businessmen
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.
Nominator's rationale: Both business and the military are or have been largely male dominated but are not inherently male or female (some roles/occupations like actors or singers require males or females, hence have separate male and female categories). These two categories will either be grossly incomplete (businesspeople and military personnel are largely male occupations) or if complete would be large and unwieldy. Categories like
Category:19th-century men should be container categories only. NB: As far as I can see, there are no corresponding categories for other centuries. The upmerged
Category:19th-century businesspeople articles will require checking to move many into nationality subcategories eg
Category:19th-century American businesspeople. Categories like
Category:19th-century men should be container categories only.
Hugo999 (
talk)
11:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge the first back to
Category:19th-century military personnel. Female ones were so rare that we ought not to need a category. Keep the businessmen or rather reverse merge the businesspeople. That term is a modern neologism. There were some businesswomen, though far fewer than men. If we are to keep the women we should also keep the men.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Are you proposing to rename all the 16th century to 19th century businesspeople categories (including the subcategories by nationality) from businesspeople to businessmen? "Businesswoman" is not an exclusively 20th & 21st century phenomena. There were 18th and 19th-century businesswomen, like
Marie Rée and
Anne Catherine Hoof Green; although they tended to be family members who had inherited the business of their husband or family. PS: Yes, merge any 19th-century male military personnel (only 5) to 19th-century military personnel if they are not in a nationality subcategory already.
Hugo999 (
talk)
01:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge the military personnel category which I suspect would include the vast majority of 19th-century personnel. Keep the businessmen category, since this seems to be a more reasonable gendered category.
Dimadick (
talk)
13:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete the military personnel category and merge the businessmen category. These intersections of time, gender and occupation are not justified. They come to close to being universal especially in the first case to be useful, and while less so in the business category, business was too male dominated in the 19th-century, especially among those who are notable, to be worth having this category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:17, 10 December 2015 (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:Taxonomic articles
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.
Update. Instead of deletion the current category (containing articles such as
Taxonomy of Banksia and clearly a category for articles rather than a wikiproject category) could be renamed to something like "Specific taxonomies". DexDor(talk)23:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: I created this category on discovering that (a) there were all these categories such as
Category:Taxonomic articles by quality without a parent to group them together, and similarly (b) no way of identifying articles similar to
Taxonomy of Banksia, when it came to a discussion on how they should be structured. At present the only way to that is to do a search on Taxonomy which produces many many pages that do not fit those criteria. I take your point about parent category, and will remedy that. Thanks for the notification. --
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
12:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Re "without a parent to group them together" - they were grouped under
Category:WikiProject Tree of Life articles. If the mismatch between the project name and the names of subcats is a problem then rename the project/categories - don't create a new category that makes more of a mess. I see you've now put the new category under both an articles category and a wikiproject category - thus putting article pages under a wikiproject category and putting talk pages under an articles category ... DexDor(talk)07:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Part of the problem is that the purpose and hence appropriate content of
Category:Taxonomy (biology) is not clear. It and its subcategories seem to be a rag-bag of articles about taxonomy as a discipline; articles about taxa, including lists of taxa such as lists of families; and articles about particular kinds of taxa, such as monotypic taxa (why should they be categorized here and not say taxa with two members?). So a clearly defined category for "Taxonomy of TAXON" articles does seem useful to me, although the title "Taxonomic articles" isn't sufficiently precise. Perhaps
Category:Taxonomy of taxa? But the current subcategories don't belong in such a category, since they are much wider in scope (and as noted above categorize via talk pages).
Peter coxhead (
talk)
14:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree. It's often not clear whether a "foology" category is for articles about foos, articles about the study of foos or both. We even get cases (e.g.
Category:Ornithology and
Category:Birds) where each is/was a subcategory of the other. IMO the -ology categories should be for articles about the study (by humans) of the subject (and this should be clearly stated in the category text). So, Category:Foology should be a subcat of Category:Foos (and also a subcat of the higher level -ology) and should contain articles about foologists, foological societies, etc, but not articles about foos. Thus, IMO there should be some re-categorization of articles currently under
Category:Taxonomy (biology), but that's a separate issue to this CFD which is about not mixing up articles with wp admin (wikiprojects and talk pages). DexDor(talk)07:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Maybe this is a good opportunity for reorganising the categories of taxonomy, in particular discriminating between articles about taxonomy as a discipline, and those that deal with specific taxonomies. Although I chose the title Taxonomic articles, I am not married to it, if someone has a better idea. As far as "mixing up" goes, if that is the policy then I would be happy with two separate categories, one for each type. But I do think both groups need a parent that keeps them together. When I said "without a parent to group them together" I meant a parent that grouped these types of categories together, not lost in some vague conglomerate, and many articles I found were not categorised to those anyway, so I subsequently did so with as many as I could find. --
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
23:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle, This category is now clearly a category for articles (e.g. it no longer contains talk pages). I'm happy for the category to remain, but it should be renamed (we normally only put "articles" in a category name if it's a category for talk pages of articles). If you concur could you update your !vote? DexDor(talk)14:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: The categories may well already be in parent categories, but these are very broad, and intermediate categories are needed to group similar categories. It seems to me there are 3 options available. 1. Maintain the status quo, keep; 2.Delete; 3. Create separate parent categories out of the category under discussion for the two types mentioned above, and placed within the broader categories. I would favour option 3.
Response: I had included all those, but I would point out that all those are actually lists (although not formally classified as such on their talk pages). --
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
21:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Action: As an initial step to resolving this issue, I have removed all of the categories best characterised as Talk Page/Tree of Life, since they are listed on Tree of Life quite clearly, even if that might not be the obvious place to look for them. --
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
21:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Currently the only articles remaining in the category "Taxonomic articles", which was proposed for deletion, are those dealing with the specific taxonomy of individual taxa, and it is a subcategory of "Taxonomy (biology)". Therefore the only remaining issue is whether to rename it, since some feel the current name is insufficiently precise. "Taxonomy of taxa" as proposed sounds a little clumsy to me. As above I have suggested "Specific taxonomies" as one possible alternative. --
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
17:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Analysis: As usual the situation is a bit more complex than it appears at first sight. In terms of articles that might be captured by this category, there are pages with headings that start with both "List" and "Taxonomy" with a good deal of over lap. Some "Lists" are just that, such as
List of Hippeastrum species, while others are highly organised and could be candidates for FL such as
List of Narcissus species. Both are subpages of a parent taxon article and are captured under the categories of "Taxonomic lists (rank)" such as
Category:Taxonomic lists (species), which in turn fall under
Category:Taxonomic lists. But that category includes not only the List subcategories but also some of the "Taxonomy of" articles. Finally, that category then falls under
Category: Taxonomy (biology).
Now turning to articles with the title "Taxonomy of.." as captued in the category under discussion here it becomes clear there are three different groups. Plain lists, such as
Taxonomy of Croton, organised lists such as
Taxonomy of the Orchidaceae, and actual articles about the specific taxonomy of a taxon such as
Taxonomy of Banksia.
In summary there is a distinct lack of coherence, and there needs to be a lot of work to sort it all out and make sense. One approach would include renaming many of the pages, and providing guidance on the Project template as to what to title pages and what categories to place them in. Either way there are a lot of pages and categories that need moving. This requires further discussion. --
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
15:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Update: The situation has been further simplified, in that all articles with the name Taxonomy of ... that were actually lists, have been reclassified and renamed as Lists of... and placed in Category:Taxonomic lists. Therefore all remaining articles in the category under discussion are actual articles about the taxonomy of a taxon. All that remains therefore, I believe, is to decide whether there is a better title than Taxonomic articles. (Incidentally this also showed me how bad the taxonomy section is on many articles) --
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
13:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Response: Interesting discussion to date. I am happy to accept that my original choice was probably suboptimal but have not seen a better suggestion. How about Plant taxonomies as a subcategory of Plant taxonomy? The issue you have pointed out that some of the articles in question have more than one home was easily fixed. 2 of 6 were there, there was a third which turned out to be a list and was removed. Now all Taxonomy articles are in Taxonomic articles, which is a subcategory of Plant taxonomy, where it is more suited. So what remains I think is choosing a name, my suggestion above or otherwise. Taxonomies of taxa is somewhat unharmonious. Then instructions on categorisation can be placed on the plant template --
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
21:19, 17 January 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:Films with Larry Fine playing violin
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 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:NHK Kōhaku Uta Gassen songs
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.
Nominator's rationale: An utterly random non-defining category. I noticed that the Russian Kalinka song was classified as a "Kohaku song". It looked rather weird for me. Songs are used in numerous events, sung by numerous singers. Are we going to put them in all these rather trivial categories? Imagine the Beatles' Yesterday classified as
Category:Slavic Bazaar in Vitebsk songs (Gd frbid). - üser:Altenmann
>t03:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Kōhaku is the Japanese "Year-end Song Festival". The category is thus for songs performed at it. Performacne categories norm ally means "performance by performer", which this is not. However, "performance by occasion" would be just as bad and generate appalling category clutter.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:41, 7 December 2015 (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.