Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

July 28

Category:European Games archers by country

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/delete as specified. MER-C 12:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The combination of games, nation and sport is too narrow a category for the European Games and does not aid navigation. There are practically no entries in the games+nation categories, which are more useful to built first. The categories should be merged with their competitor parents (e.g. Category:European Games competitors for Belarus). The by sport idea is better catered for through the "by year" structure of the tree at Category:Archers at the 2015 European Games, which groups a more manageable and well-connected group of athletes, as compared to a country-based one. NB: this is the same structure already in effect for the lesser games such as Pan American and Commonwealth Games. SFB 23:39, 28 July 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:European Games medalists by nation

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/merge as specified. MER-C 12:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The top level designation used in this structure ( Category:Competitors at multi-sport events by country) is by country, not nation. Country should be standard for the tree given its broad meaning and the presence of places for which nation is a less adequate description (e.g. San Marino). SFB 22:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy per WP: C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- "Country" is better, becasue a few of the countries that compete separately at international level (such as Hong Long and Macao) are not strictly nations, but the less specific country can be used for them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:15, 29 July 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:Pan American Games medalists by medal

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. Note: (up)merging silver and bronze categories, being discussed below, will require a new nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent, which is sparsely populated and can easily contain the three categories that this container category will only ever consist of. SFB 22:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It looks like this is modeled after Category:Olympic medalists by medal. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I looked at the European games. The target leads to 4 branches - by medal (level), sport, nation and country. The last two ought to be merged as identical. These are no doubt all alternative routes to the same set of articles. The question is how useful it is to have all the bronze medallists in a single category, with separate cats for silver and gold. However, if we have those three cats, we need this one as a parent. I thought we had recently decided that we would only allow this scale of categorisation for major international games, usually at continental level. I do not think that Maccabiah Games (which are for of Jewish people) meets that criterion, so that the whole tree on them should be felled. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • @ Peterkingiron: The nation and country categories are already nominated for a merge. I don't understand why the presence of three similar categories necessitates a "by medal" structure when the original parents are so sparsely populated (e.g. Category:Asian Games medalists) The structure is to aid navigation and adding another layer to avoid a parent category of potentially only five categories (in the aforementioned case) seems overly narrow in design to me.
    • In terms of the medalist tree, I do not think silver and bronze medals are distinctive enough in their own right to really warrant separation – I would prefer only "gold medalists" within a broader all "medalists" parent. It is a minor point in common that athletes won a minor medal of the same colour, whereas the concepts of most distinction is their (a) having won a medal, and/or (b) having been champion. I find it hard to believe that people see Category:Olympic silver medalists for Belarus as a genuinely disctintive group that is very different from Category:Olympic bronze medalists for Belarus (the gold medalists certainly are though). SFB 12:31, 1 August 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:Royal Australian Navy aircraft

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. MER-C 12:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Aircraft (and, for that matter, any other mass-produced item) should not be categorized by which countries use them as it is generally a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. The Skyhawk and Seahawk articles are not in any other operators categories. DexDor (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- Unless the aircraft (or other equipment) is used by one (or a few) armed forces, it should not be categorised for any of them. This is a variety of performance category WP:OC#PERF. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk was only used by a few armed forces (RNZAF & RAN). However, if we categorized aircraft types in that way we would have huge debates about the definition of "few" and there would be anomalies such as if an aircraft type is exported to a 3rd(?) country then it would become ineligible for its existing categories. DexDor (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support deletion aircraft by user catagories have been deleted in the past, we cant add a category for every user it just doesnt work (and the Douglas C-47 Skytrain would need a few hundred categories!). MilborneOne ( talk) 16:05, 3 August 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:Wikipedia title cleanup (sorted by template)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Created yesterday without prior discussion. Redundant to Category:Wikipedia title cleanup. It is completely not accepted practice to make a new category page for another way to sort the same pages. Debresser ( talk) 12:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment It is always possible to add a sort key to Category:Wikipedia title cleanup, but in view of the constantly low number of pages in this category (~50 at present), even that seems unnecessary. Debresser ( talk) 13:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's not redundant as it has a different sort order. Sure it's not absolutely necessary; none of these "title cleanup" templates are absolutely necessary, as they are redundant to WP:RM. It's a harmless added convenience allowing editors and readers to easily see which of the four templates is populating the category. Splitting this to four separate cats would be unnecessary diffusion. My question is, what harm is done by keeping this category? I created it as the nominator previously objected to my using these sort keys on Category:Wikipedia title cleanup. In other words, what harm is done by using sort keys here? See User talk:Wbm1058 § Undid and User talk:Wbm1058 § Warning for more of my rationale in support. Wbm1058 ( talk) 14:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I am not proposing to delete the templates as redundant, just the category page. Debresser ( talk) 14:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I understand that, though an argument could be made that four templates serving the same basic purpose are somewhat redundant. Note that you have reverted my template edits which did nothing more than populate this category, in spite of advice at WP:CFD not to do that. I'm asking you to revert your reversions of my edits so that a fair discussion can be had here. If the consensus here is to delete this category, then of course reversions to template edits populating the category would be appropriate at that time. Wbm1058 ( talk) 15:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
My edits to the templates do not affect this discussion and its fairness. Mind you, it is the edits to the templates which drew my attention to this category. Debresser ( talk) 23:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Now don't go implying that I tried to do this behind your back. Your were PINGED. Wbm1058 ( talk) 01:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I never saw that. In any case, my argument is more substantial, not about being notified or not. Debresser ( talk) 08:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This maintenance category appears to be useful to at least one person and harmful to no one. Why does it need to be deleted? Alakzi ( talk) 23:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I contend it is not useful to anybody and has not place in this project (Wikipedia). That is what we should ask ourselves. Being perceived as useful by one editor is not a good enough reason to have anything on Wikipedia. Debresser ( talk) 08:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
It's useful to me because it saves me the effort of doing four separate "what links here" in article-space on each of the four templates populating the category. It shows all of the articles tagged with each specific "title cleanup"-related template, on one convenient category screen, thus automating the work of determining that manually by doing four separate "what-links-here" investigations. The only issue with that is it fails to note which articles are redundantly tagged with more than one of these title-cleanup templates. Wbm1058 ( talk) 09:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
There is nothing useful in what you describe. And even if there were, that is no reason to have two separate category pages. If this were a useful idea, which it is not, it could be done on the existing Category:Wikipedia title cleanup page. Debresser ( talk) 10:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. W's rationale that this is useful (to them) seems reasonable and D has not provided any substantial reason for deletion. Would D prefer there to be 4 separate categories? Note: D's attempt to empty the category by reverting the edits to the templates (without any explanation [1]) does not help their case. DexDor (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
DexDor I undid the edits to the templates before I even noticed that this was actually a new category.
Don't tell me this nonsense "doesn't help my case". It doesn't help, and it doesn't detract either. Your revert of my edits to the templates didn't hep either and was just a waste of time and resources.
We don't make new categories just because one editor wants to sort the very same templates in another way. Debresser ( talk) 18:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
That's ignoring the main point - that the benefits of keeping the category may outweigh it's costs (extra complexity). If this was a category for readers then I'd prioritise simplifying the category structure over being useful for (an) editor(s), but it isn't - it's a category that only editors are expected to look at. DexDor (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 25 § Template:Disputed title for past background discussion and the consensus to populate this category with four templates. Wbm1058 ( talk) 19:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT. I'm neutral towards the actual use of this category, that is, if this is really a relevant distinction in four categories then it can be simply be solved in another way namely by creating four child categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • WP:OVERLAPCAT kind of misses the point. Creating "child" categories exacerbates the problem I'm trying to solve. So perhaps there really isn't a relevant distinction between the four templates. I would support merging them into a single template as a compromise solution. Merge the other three into {{ Cleanup-articletitle}}, with the template message covering all rationales, e.g. "The name of this article may be improper for Wikipedia, or disputed. It may not accurately describe the article's subject matter. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." – Wbm1058 ( talk) 21:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
That is an even worse idea. :) Debresser ( talk) 22:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Whatever the discussion about the templates, I would conclude from this latter development that creator of the category no longer has a strong inclination to keep the nominated category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
? @ Marcocapelle: What "latter development" are you referring to? I'm puzzled by your conclusion. Wbm1058 ( talk) 19:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm referring to your contribution of 21:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC), as you start doubting the relevance of the four templates there is no longer a reason to keep the category either. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
If it's so important to use four different templates to post a notice in article space that there is an ongoing discussion or dispute about the title being conducted on the talk page, then we should organize the category by that distinction. Really the reason(s), whether it's "POV" or something else should be explained and discussed on the talk page. All the template on the article should do is point readers to the talk page for clarification. But, yeah, I'm feeling pretty worn out by this impasse; at this point it's probably a better use of time to focus on handling the backlog of items in this category. Wbm1058 ( talk) 19:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes! Which, actually, is not a trivial job at all. You would earn much appreciation by working on that. Debresser ( talk) 18:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Debresser: Thanks for your appreciation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:51, 22 August 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:Clergy from Kingston upon Hull

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge as it seems this is a trivial intersection between occupation and city of birth. We do not have any other English categories like that and only very few clergy from city categories in other countries, e.g. Category:Clergy from Paris and Category:Clergy from Montreal. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- We ahve a container category Category:Clergy by city of which this is part. If we get rid of this, I would have thought the target should be Category:Clergy from Yorkshire or East Yorkshire (=East Riding). English clerkgy much be an enormous category. This category has about 10 articles, which should be enough to keep. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • As mentioned, it's not a large established category, on the contrary, and I strongly doubt if it's meaningful to go in that much detail. For a clergy category (or any occupation category, for that matter) it's more important where clergy serves than where clergy comes from, but clerics may serve at many locations so that might lead to category clutter. The most logical subcategories are by denomination and by century, the former is being applied reasonably well already, the latter needs more elaboration for lower clergy. Also, within English clergy, there are a lot of different types (?) of clergy mentioned, such as divine, rector, etc which may or may not be meaningful for subcategorisation. @ Peterkingiron: Your reaction on this issue would be very welcome. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
It is a well-established principle of "From <place>" categories that a person can be "from" where they now live, where they were born, or other close connection. In this case, I suspect (without checking) that many of the people will have ministered in Hull, rather than being born there. I am opposed to splitting Anglican clergy into whether they are rectors or vicars, as the distinction is largely hisotrical. "Divine" is not an official title. Canon and Prebendary refer to having a position (mostly nominal) in a Cathedral and are largely honorific. The main split should be by denomination with subcategories for Anglicans usch as bishop, dean, and archdeacon, but there is no reason why we should not have a geopgraphic one too. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Since only 10 cities in the world feature in Category:Clergy by city, and Rome apparently has only ever had 3 clergy, let's kill off all this hopeless scheme now. It will never be comprehensive enough to be useful. Johnbod ( talk) 13:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or rename to Category:Clergy from Yorkshire. Being clergy in a city is more useful than being clergy from a city. But it does no great harm. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge This is too much specificity. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per Peterkingiron, whose argument is that this is a standard (11 article) part of a category tree, which IMHO is always one of the strongest arguments for a keep. Debresser ( talk) 15:59, 16 August 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:Rectors of St Magnus the Martyr, London Bridge‎

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. MER-C 12:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge as it seems this is a random clerical position, not quite defining. We do not have any other "Rectors of church" categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge as nom. Even though this church has had about 7 notable incumbents, I do not think we ought to encourage such categories. If we had an article on Church of St Magnus the Martyr, London Bridge‎, we migfht listify them in it, but we do not seem to. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge No reason to seperate out by this particular church. Considering how clergymen at times move from Church to church, to keep lots of these categories would lead to category clutter on some articles. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:31, 14 August 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:Bishops of Harare‎

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. MER-C 12:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge as all three categories concern the same diocese, see Anglican Diocese of Harare. The name of the target covers the other two names well. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Based on the article that assumption should be correct. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:09, 28 July 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:Wikipedian admin coaches

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The associated program, Wikipedia:Admin coaching, is marked as historical, so presumably this means that no one is currently involved with it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That would be a fair characterization. I'm not opposed to deletion. MBisanz talk 11:46, 28 July 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:Zimbabwean clergy

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 to Category:Zimbabwean religious leaders. If desired, Category:Zimbabwean Christian religious leaders could be created as a subcategory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, it's all Christian. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for notifying about the tagging! We do not need these separate categories for this particular (modestly populated) country, it's just that these categories are part of larger established trees. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:58, 28 July 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:Clergy of the Tudor period

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/rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename in order to clarify that it's English, and to have a similar format as sibling Category:17th-century English clergy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support, but someone may need to purge anyone who is wholly pre-1500 or post-1600. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support, but someone may need to purge anyone who is not English. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:32, 6 August 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:1900 establishments in Hawaii Territory

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus here on which should exist, so we default to the older of the two, which is Category:1900 establishments in Hawaii (January 2015 creation for the target category vs. July 2015 creation for the nominated category). This is without prejudice to a nomination for renaming, but luckily here confusion is unlikely in either case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Although the Territory of Hawaii was the proper category for 1859-1959, we seem to be using Category:Establishments in Hawaii by year. Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose We use Territory for every place that is not yet a state. There is no reason that Hawaii should be different. It is the other categories that should be changed, not this one. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- Some of the 19th cnetury US territories were considerably larger in extent that the successor state of the same name, so that there is a diambiguation issue. I mean that there were places in (say) Arizona Territory that are now in states other than Arizona; I may have my detail wrong here, but not the principle. That issue does not apply to Alaska or Hawaii: theri extents as territories were the same as the presetn states. The categories for Puerto Rico (whihc is still a territory) are under Category:Puerto Rico not Category:Puerto Rico Territory. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Technically Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, not a territory. Plus, more imporatantly the article Puerto Rico is about the commonwealth, the article Hawaii is about the state, not the entity that existed in 1900. Montana Territory and Alabama Territory had the exact same boundaries as the modern states for their entire existence, yet we have categories using those territory names. Nor do I think anyone would support rneaming Category:1890 establishments in Utah Territory even though it had the modern boundaries. Nebraska, Missouri and Nevada have all expanded since becoming states, while Virginia, North Carolina and Massachusetts have all had other states split off from them. These name changes are not so much about changes in boundaries as about changes is the fundamental government of the place. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - per Johnpacklambert. GreyShark ( dibra) 09:09, 13 August 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:Wine regions of Turkey

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. MER-C 12:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The pages in this category are not about wine - e.g. Ankara Province doesn't mention wine. DexDor (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Please check List of wine-producing regions#Turkey. In the meantime, I'm gonna add text about wine poduction in the said articles. The rationale, "the articles in the category are not wine regions" does not qualify the category's deletion at all. -- CeeGee 05:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • What about the more than 20 categories for various countries under the Category:Wine regions? Do you intend to delete tham all as well? -- CeeGee 09:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support This category tree works best when it categorizes articles specifically on wine regions, like with Category:Wine regions of Chile. Presumably these are wine growing areas in Turkey and you could add a one-sentence reference to that in the articles but it still wouldn't be defining to these general geography/region. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I see the point now. However, how must we name a district like Şarköy, which has 27 villages and 22 of them are growing grape and producing wine? Maybe a "list of wine regions in Turkey", similar to List of Bulgarian wine regions will be suffient to stop the deletion. -- CeeGee 11:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I think a Turkish-specific list article would be great and is much needed. I'd hold off on recreating this category (assuming it is deleted) until if and when there are several Turkish articles specifically about wine regions though. RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you. I will start to do it.-- CeeGee 05:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ RevelationDirect: The category has been deleted now although ı'd recently created List of Turkish wine regions. I guess in the beginning this would be sufficient in accordance with the Bulgarian example. It seems that nobody cared your above comment. -- CeeGee 16:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This works better as a list unless we have antirlces like Wine production in Ankara Province. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- This is a misuse of the category system. It should be categorising article on wine producing regions, such as Ankara wine region, or at least articles with a section on its wine production. Otherwise, this is a variety of category clutter, ratgher too like WP:OC#PERF producing wine being the performance and the place the performer. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Peterkingiron; next we'll be categorizing all cities, districts, provinces, states by all the crap they grow, manufacture, or mine. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 06:42, 29 July 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:More Female Architects on Wikipedia

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one of the pages currently in this category is actually specifically about the "More Female Architects on Wikipedia" project. If kept, this category needs a clearer definition of what characteristic the pages in it have (and a parent category). I'm not quite sure what the category creator is trying to do, but a page such as "Wikipedia:More Female Architects on Wikipedia" might be a better place to list pages of interest to this project. DexDor (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or rename to a name more appropriate to a WP project-owned category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment are these architects more female than what? Unless we can figure out how female architects do something differently than their male counterparts, any segregation by sex is unwarranted. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 06:43, 29 July 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:Places illustrated on Turkish banknotes

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. MER-C 12:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:NONDEFINING. Mount Ararat and Ephesus are notable places in Turkey and that's why they appear on that country's currency. They're not notable for being on the currency. This category really reverses the causality of why they're notable with a trivial intersection. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified CeeGee as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Turkey. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
If you think the rationale is weird and not solid then please explain why you think so. DexDor (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The said places are located inside Turkey, and these not since yesterday. The rationale doesn't say anything whether the category is useful or not. But claims about its members. That's weird.-- CeeGee 08:24, 28 July 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:Academic journals by country of publication

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Category:Academic journals published in Australia
Category:Academic journals published in France
Category:Academic journals published in India
Category:Academic journals published in the United Kingdom
Category:Academic journals published in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Country of publication is not a defining feature of an academic journal per se, as it may be published by a commercial company on behalf of its owner/sponsor -- and it's not uncommon for the two to be located in different countries. Furthermore, major publishers are multinational corporations nowadays. If necessary, create Category:Academic journals associated with universities by country, Category:Academic journals associated with learned societies by country, or Category:Academic journals by publisher country. Fgnievinski ( talk) 01:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The subcats are not included in the nomination. DexDor (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the reminder; now they are. fgnievinski ( talk) 00:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete main cat and subcats. "Nationality" is rarely a defining property of an academic journal. Academic publishing is a thoroughly international enterprise nowadays. One can find journals with, for example, "British" in their title that are edited by a researcher in another European country and published by a US publisher. Not to mention authors from all over the world and an international editorial board. Large publishers like Wiley have offices all over the world, but which one publishes a particular journal is almost never public information (and because it can change at any moment, not very interesting information either). Country-specific categories for journals were deleted years ago and only relatively recently re-created. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't think persons (authors and editors) should be considered, as it changes often and it's hard to quantify and source properly. Fgnievinski ( talk) 16:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Per DexDor; it's also of relevance to know under which legal regime a journal has been published, regardless if where the titular "owner" is located. The misleading titles mentioned by Randykitty make categorising by the actual pale of publication all the more important. The proposed "Category:Academic journals by publisher country" is merely a synonym for this one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It is almost impossible to obtain information about the "legal regime" that a journal is published under and the location of the publisher, even if known (see above) may not be the same anyway. Many large publishers have offices all over the world and their journals may be legally based at any one of them (or even altogether a different country). If the info is available from a reliable source, it can be mentioned in the article. It has nothing to do with "journals published in Foo country". -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The legal regime is a triviality for this type of category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep For lots of academic journals the country of publication is defining, and this was more true historically than it is today. Does anyone really believe American Historical Review would be the same if published outside the US? Like all other created matierlas (moview, etc) journals are influenced by their country of publication. On the other hand, like all other created materials they can have more than one country of creation under the right circumstances. A book can be written by a national of Spain and a national of the US in cooperation (or any other two countries, or more in fact) but that does not mean we should not categorize books by country. There is no reason a journal can not have more than one country of connection. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Your explanation is an excellent reason for deletion -- exactly the kind of loose categorization criterion that is impossible to apply consistently. Fgnievinski ( talk) 20:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Nation of publication often a significant factor. The details of ownership or whatever, the national affiliation often matters, though a nod to a few exceptions. Montanabw (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Given the comments posted above, it would be helpful if you could explain 1/ how this is "often a significant factor" and 2/ how we can reliably determine under what country to categorize a certain journal. As to the last point, I would point to the comment by Peterkingiron, who mentions that Economic History Review is published by WB, an American owned company, in the UK. Problem is, that it is basically impossible to know whether that is correct, as this is not normally information that these companies make public (my guess is because they don't think it is important enough to put on their websites). -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment AHR The editorial offices of the American Historical Review are in Indiana. I have yet to see any proof that the fact that the Oxford University Press publishes the journal means that it is "published outside the US." Oxford University Press has operations in New York City. I think we need to disconnect this from publishing and more focus it on editing, although I think these terms are more interchangeable than some here claim. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: An apt demonstration why this country thing is undesirable. Editors and publishers have different, albeit sometimes overlapping, functions. So while the journal is edited in Indiana, it's published in Oxford. Academic journal publishing is intrinsically international nowadays, with the humanities perhaps a partial exception. As an aside, I think that it is unfortunate that you didn't wait until the end of this debate, adding more such impossible to define categories. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • And even then things are not clear-cut at all. The Society for Neuroscience used to be an American society, but since a number of years it is international. Its newest journal, eNeuro, while published from Washington DC where the society is headquartered, is edited by a French researcher working in Marseille. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The point is that even for societies the "country" thing is difficult to define and bound to change over time. Categorizing beyond "Academic journals associated with learned societies" is bound to be unclear and difficult to define (and "associated with" is already fuzzy enough). -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Self-description suffices: if it has "American", "British", etc. in its name -- as often it does -- then that's what it is, for nationality of a learned society. I'm almost accepting defeat in my original nomination for deletion -- consensus seems elusive. fgnievinski ( talk) 01:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • "Associated with" is clear more often than not: normally it's self-declared in the journal's about page, as "it is the official journal of Y", "sponsored by Y", or "journal is published by X on behalf of Y". Historically for journals, even publisher tends to be a more ephemeral relationship than sponsor. fgnievinski ( talk)
  • Comment If this cat is deleted we should also remove the country parameter from the journal infobox template. Everymorning (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Let's have that discussion after a decision is made about the cats... -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • For the sake of expediting closure, I'd agree to leave {{ infobox journal}}'s "country" fields (thus "publisher-country" and "sponsor-country") outside the present CfD. fgnievinski ( talk) 14:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The fact that similar journals-by-country categories are created every so often indicates there's a popular appeal in such a categorization. Instead of playing wack-a-mole in repeated and lengthy nominations, we could provide a categorization that would satisfy the reader's intuition while being minimally correct, technically defensible, and internally consistent. Nationality of sponsoring institution (learned society or university) is more definite than that of transnational publishers and a more permanent characteristic than that of editors (who move across borders and are substituted every few years). fgnievinski ( talk) 01:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Thanks for pointing out to Category:Medknow Publications academic journals -- it was a treasure trove: the vast majority of their journals is indeed associated with a learned society or non-profit organization (most Indian, a few African and in the Middle-East). fgnievinski ( talk) 02:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Another updated issue originally discussed in the archived nomination indicated above was this: Many journals have the name of a country or region in their name. For example, the European Journal of Neuroscience. Should we categorize this one as a "European journal"? Well, the European Journal of Neuroscience is associated with the Federation of European Neuroscience Societies, so yes, it'd go in Category:Academic journals associated with European learned societies; many journals previously associated with national learned societies had merged into pan-European journals, e.g. European Physical Journal and Category:ChemPubSoc Europe academic journals. I do agree with this caveat though, that journal title alone is not sufficiently meaningful: apparently India-based publisher names its journals "American" or "British". In summary, I don't think that we should take the branding of a journal as criteria to include it in a country-specific category. fgnievinski ( talk) 04:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Yet another demonstration of why these country-related categories are a bad idea for academic journals, whether society-related or not. Where they are published is simply only rarely a defining characteristic of an academic journal. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Let's examine that claim. For journals, " definingness" implies both a long-term relationship and a strong degree of association. About the first implication, sponsoring organization changes less often than the journal's publisher. About the second implication, we don't have much hard data showing the percentages of occurrence; assuming the majority of journals have a weak association with their sponsoring organizations will harm journals that do have a strong association, which I assume is actually the majority. fgnievinski ( talk) 14:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I'm afraid the unwillingness of editors to compromise is preventing consensus to be reached; although I started the deletion nomination, now I'm more inclined to rectify the categorization in a meaningful way: journals-by-country requires finer granularity in the published-by relationship. fgnievinski ( talk) 14:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Sure, let's add Category:Academic journals published in the Netherlands to all Elsevier journals. As you yourself argued above, categorizing academic journals by country is unnecessary, almost impossible to do correctly, and not defining. And determining consensus is the job of the closing admin, who will weigh the different arguments (and in the case of categories, the argument that a characteristic is not defining is a very powerful one). At this point, I don't see any reason to withdraw the nom and there's time enough to think about alternatives once the CfD is closed, if the decision would be too keep these accursed cats. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • You're distorting what I explained at length above: "published in Z country" is meaningless without disambiguating what type of publishing relationship is involved, some of which are both correct and defining (as in the proposed journals by country of sponsoring organization). It seems that you've decided that "categorizing academic journals by country is unnecessary" as a matter of principle. fgnievinski ( talk) 14:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Please stay on topic, all these digression just muddle this debate. This CfD is about the category "Academic journals by country of publication" and categories named "academic journals published in [country name]". Anything else can and should be decided elsewhere. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:50, 16 August 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_28&oldid=1076190422"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

July 28

Category:European Games archers by country

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/delete as specified. MER-C 12:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The combination of games, nation and sport is too narrow a category for the European Games and does not aid navigation. There are practically no entries in the games+nation categories, which are more useful to built first. The categories should be merged with their competitor parents (e.g. Category:European Games competitors for Belarus). The by sport idea is better catered for through the "by year" structure of the tree at Category:Archers at the 2015 European Games, which groups a more manageable and well-connected group of athletes, as compared to a country-based one. NB: this is the same structure already in effect for the lesser games such as Pan American and Commonwealth Games. SFB 23:39, 28 July 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:European Games medalists by nation

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/merge as specified. MER-C 12:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The top level designation used in this structure ( Category:Competitors at multi-sport events by country) is by country, not nation. Country should be standard for the tree given its broad meaning and the presence of places for which nation is a less adequate description (e.g. San Marino). SFB 22:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy per WP: C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- "Country" is better, becasue a few of the countries that compete separately at international level (such as Hong Long and Macao) are not strictly nations, but the less specific country can be used for them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:15, 29 July 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:Pan American Games medalists by medal

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. Note: (up)merging silver and bronze categories, being discussed below, will require a new nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent, which is sparsely populated and can easily contain the three categories that this container category will only ever consist of. SFB 22:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It looks like this is modeled after Category:Olympic medalists by medal. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I looked at the European games. The target leads to 4 branches - by medal (level), sport, nation and country. The last two ought to be merged as identical. These are no doubt all alternative routes to the same set of articles. The question is how useful it is to have all the bronze medallists in a single category, with separate cats for silver and gold. However, if we have those three cats, we need this one as a parent. I thought we had recently decided that we would only allow this scale of categorisation for major international games, usually at continental level. I do not think that Maccabiah Games (which are for of Jewish people) meets that criterion, so that the whole tree on them should be felled. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • @ Peterkingiron: The nation and country categories are already nominated for a merge. I don't understand why the presence of three similar categories necessitates a "by medal" structure when the original parents are so sparsely populated (e.g. Category:Asian Games medalists) The structure is to aid navigation and adding another layer to avoid a parent category of potentially only five categories (in the aforementioned case) seems overly narrow in design to me.
    • In terms of the medalist tree, I do not think silver and bronze medals are distinctive enough in their own right to really warrant separation – I would prefer only "gold medalists" within a broader all "medalists" parent. It is a minor point in common that athletes won a minor medal of the same colour, whereas the concepts of most distinction is their (a) having won a medal, and/or (b) having been champion. I find it hard to believe that people see Category:Olympic silver medalists for Belarus as a genuinely disctintive group that is very different from Category:Olympic bronze medalists for Belarus (the gold medalists certainly are though). SFB 12:31, 1 August 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:Royal Australian Navy aircraft

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. MER-C 12:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Aircraft (and, for that matter, any other mass-produced item) should not be categorized by which countries use them as it is generally a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. The Skyhawk and Seahawk articles are not in any other operators categories. DexDor (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- Unless the aircraft (or other equipment) is used by one (or a few) armed forces, it should not be categorised for any of them. This is a variety of performance category WP:OC#PERF. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk was only used by a few armed forces (RNZAF & RAN). However, if we categorized aircraft types in that way we would have huge debates about the definition of "few" and there would be anomalies such as if an aircraft type is exported to a 3rd(?) country then it would become ineligible for its existing categories. DexDor (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support deletion aircraft by user catagories have been deleted in the past, we cant add a category for every user it just doesnt work (and the Douglas C-47 Skytrain would need a few hundred categories!). MilborneOne ( talk) 16:05, 3 August 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:Wikipedia title cleanup (sorted by template)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Created yesterday without prior discussion. Redundant to Category:Wikipedia title cleanup. It is completely not accepted practice to make a new category page for another way to sort the same pages. Debresser ( talk) 12:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment It is always possible to add a sort key to Category:Wikipedia title cleanup, but in view of the constantly low number of pages in this category (~50 at present), even that seems unnecessary. Debresser ( talk) 13:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's not redundant as it has a different sort order. Sure it's not absolutely necessary; none of these "title cleanup" templates are absolutely necessary, as they are redundant to WP:RM. It's a harmless added convenience allowing editors and readers to easily see which of the four templates is populating the category. Splitting this to four separate cats would be unnecessary diffusion. My question is, what harm is done by keeping this category? I created it as the nominator previously objected to my using these sort keys on Category:Wikipedia title cleanup. In other words, what harm is done by using sort keys here? See User talk:Wbm1058 § Undid and User talk:Wbm1058 § Warning for more of my rationale in support. Wbm1058 ( talk) 14:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I am not proposing to delete the templates as redundant, just the category page. Debresser ( talk) 14:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I understand that, though an argument could be made that four templates serving the same basic purpose are somewhat redundant. Note that you have reverted my template edits which did nothing more than populate this category, in spite of advice at WP:CFD not to do that. I'm asking you to revert your reversions of my edits so that a fair discussion can be had here. If the consensus here is to delete this category, then of course reversions to template edits populating the category would be appropriate at that time. Wbm1058 ( talk) 15:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
My edits to the templates do not affect this discussion and its fairness. Mind you, it is the edits to the templates which drew my attention to this category. Debresser ( talk) 23:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Now don't go implying that I tried to do this behind your back. Your were PINGED. Wbm1058 ( talk) 01:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I never saw that. In any case, my argument is more substantial, not about being notified or not. Debresser ( talk) 08:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This maintenance category appears to be useful to at least one person and harmful to no one. Why does it need to be deleted? Alakzi ( talk) 23:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
I contend it is not useful to anybody and has not place in this project (Wikipedia). That is what we should ask ourselves. Being perceived as useful by one editor is not a good enough reason to have anything on Wikipedia. Debresser ( talk) 08:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
It's useful to me because it saves me the effort of doing four separate "what links here" in article-space on each of the four templates populating the category. It shows all of the articles tagged with each specific "title cleanup"-related template, on one convenient category screen, thus automating the work of determining that manually by doing four separate "what-links-here" investigations. The only issue with that is it fails to note which articles are redundantly tagged with more than one of these title-cleanup templates. Wbm1058 ( talk) 09:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
There is nothing useful in what you describe. And even if there were, that is no reason to have two separate category pages. If this were a useful idea, which it is not, it could be done on the existing Category:Wikipedia title cleanup page. Debresser ( talk) 10:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. W's rationale that this is useful (to them) seems reasonable and D has not provided any substantial reason for deletion. Would D prefer there to be 4 separate categories? Note: D's attempt to empty the category by reverting the edits to the templates (without any explanation [1]) does not help their case. DexDor (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
DexDor I undid the edits to the templates before I even noticed that this was actually a new category.
Don't tell me this nonsense "doesn't help my case". It doesn't help, and it doesn't detract either. Your revert of my edits to the templates didn't hep either and was just a waste of time and resources.
We don't make new categories just because one editor wants to sort the very same templates in another way. Debresser ( talk) 18:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
That's ignoring the main point - that the benefits of keeping the category may outweigh it's costs (extra complexity). If this was a category for readers then I'd prioritise simplifying the category structure over being useful for (an) editor(s), but it isn't - it's a category that only editors are expected to look at. DexDor (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 25 § Template:Disputed title for past background discussion and the consensus to populate this category with four templates. Wbm1058 ( talk) 19:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT. I'm neutral towards the actual use of this category, that is, if this is really a relevant distinction in four categories then it can be simply be solved in another way namely by creating four child categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • WP:OVERLAPCAT kind of misses the point. Creating "child" categories exacerbates the problem I'm trying to solve. So perhaps there really isn't a relevant distinction between the four templates. I would support merging them into a single template as a compromise solution. Merge the other three into {{ Cleanup-articletitle}}, with the template message covering all rationales, e.g. "The name of this article may be improper for Wikipedia, or disputed. It may not accurately describe the article's subject matter. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." – Wbm1058 ( talk) 21:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
That is an even worse idea. :) Debresser ( talk) 22:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Whatever the discussion about the templates, I would conclude from this latter development that creator of the category no longer has a strong inclination to keep the nominated category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
? @ Marcocapelle: What "latter development" are you referring to? I'm puzzled by your conclusion. Wbm1058 ( talk) 19:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm referring to your contribution of 21:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC), as you start doubting the relevance of the four templates there is no longer a reason to keep the category either. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
If it's so important to use four different templates to post a notice in article space that there is an ongoing discussion or dispute about the title being conducted on the talk page, then we should organize the category by that distinction. Really the reason(s), whether it's "POV" or something else should be explained and discussed on the talk page. All the template on the article should do is point readers to the talk page for clarification. But, yeah, I'm feeling pretty worn out by this impasse; at this point it's probably a better use of time to focus on handling the backlog of items in this category. Wbm1058 ( talk) 19:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes! Which, actually, is not a trivial job at all. You would earn much appreciation by working on that. Debresser ( talk) 18:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Debresser: Thanks for your appreciation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:51, 22 August 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:Clergy from Kingston upon Hull

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge as it seems this is a trivial intersection between occupation and city of birth. We do not have any other English categories like that and only very few clergy from city categories in other countries, e.g. Category:Clergy from Paris and Category:Clergy from Montreal. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- We ahve a container category Category:Clergy by city of which this is part. If we get rid of this, I would have thought the target should be Category:Clergy from Yorkshire or East Yorkshire (=East Riding). English clerkgy much be an enormous category. This category has about 10 articles, which should be enough to keep. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • As mentioned, it's not a large established category, on the contrary, and I strongly doubt if it's meaningful to go in that much detail. For a clergy category (or any occupation category, for that matter) it's more important where clergy serves than where clergy comes from, but clerics may serve at many locations so that might lead to category clutter. The most logical subcategories are by denomination and by century, the former is being applied reasonably well already, the latter needs more elaboration for lower clergy. Also, within English clergy, there are a lot of different types (?) of clergy mentioned, such as divine, rector, etc which may or may not be meaningful for subcategorisation. @ Peterkingiron: Your reaction on this issue would be very welcome. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
It is a well-established principle of "From <place>" categories that a person can be "from" where they now live, where they were born, or other close connection. In this case, I suspect (without checking) that many of the people will have ministered in Hull, rather than being born there. I am opposed to splitting Anglican clergy into whether they are rectors or vicars, as the distinction is largely hisotrical. "Divine" is not an official title. Canon and Prebendary refer to having a position (mostly nominal) in a Cathedral and are largely honorific. The main split should be by denomination with subcategories for Anglicans usch as bishop, dean, and archdeacon, but there is no reason why we should not have a geopgraphic one too. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Since only 10 cities in the world feature in Category:Clergy by city, and Rome apparently has only ever had 3 clergy, let's kill off all this hopeless scheme now. It will never be comprehensive enough to be useful. Johnbod ( talk) 13:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or rename to Category:Clergy from Yorkshire. Being clergy in a city is more useful than being clergy from a city. But it does no great harm. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge This is too much specificity. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per Peterkingiron, whose argument is that this is a standard (11 article) part of a category tree, which IMHO is always one of the strongest arguments for a keep. Debresser ( talk) 15:59, 16 August 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:Rectors of St Magnus the Martyr, London Bridge‎

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. MER-C 12:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge as it seems this is a random clerical position, not quite defining. We do not have any other "Rectors of church" categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge as nom. Even though this church has had about 7 notable incumbents, I do not think we ought to encourage such categories. If we had an article on Church of St Magnus the Martyr, London Bridge‎, we migfht listify them in it, but we do not seem to. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge No reason to seperate out by this particular church. Considering how clergymen at times move from Church to church, to keep lots of these categories would lead to category clutter on some articles. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:31, 14 August 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:Bishops of Harare‎

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. MER-C 12:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge as all three categories concern the same diocese, see Anglican Diocese of Harare. The name of the target covers the other two names well. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Based on the article that assumption should be correct. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:09, 28 July 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:Wikipedian admin coaches

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The associated program, Wikipedia:Admin coaching, is marked as historical, so presumably this means that no one is currently involved with it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That would be a fair characterization. I'm not opposed to deletion. MBisanz talk 11:46, 28 July 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:Zimbabwean clergy

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 to Category:Zimbabwean religious leaders. If desired, Category:Zimbabwean Christian religious leaders could be created as a subcategory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, it's all Christian. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for notifying about the tagging! We do not need these separate categories for this particular (modestly populated) country, it's just that these categories are part of larger established trees. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:58, 28 July 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:Clergy of the Tudor period

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/rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename in order to clarify that it's English, and to have a similar format as sibling Category:17th-century English clergy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support, but someone may need to purge anyone who is wholly pre-1500 or post-1600. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support, but someone may need to purge anyone who is not English. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:32, 6 August 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:1900 establishments in Hawaii Territory

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus here on which should exist, so we default to the older of the two, which is Category:1900 establishments in Hawaii (January 2015 creation for the target category vs. July 2015 creation for the nominated category). This is without prejudice to a nomination for renaming, but luckily here confusion is unlikely in either case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Although the Territory of Hawaii was the proper category for 1859-1959, we seem to be using Category:Establishments in Hawaii by year. Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose We use Territory for every place that is not yet a state. There is no reason that Hawaii should be different. It is the other categories that should be changed, not this one. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- Some of the 19th cnetury US territories were considerably larger in extent that the successor state of the same name, so that there is a diambiguation issue. I mean that there were places in (say) Arizona Territory that are now in states other than Arizona; I may have my detail wrong here, but not the principle. That issue does not apply to Alaska or Hawaii: theri extents as territories were the same as the presetn states. The categories for Puerto Rico (whihc is still a territory) are under Category:Puerto Rico not Category:Puerto Rico Territory. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Technically Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, not a territory. Plus, more imporatantly the article Puerto Rico is about the commonwealth, the article Hawaii is about the state, not the entity that existed in 1900. Montana Territory and Alabama Territory had the exact same boundaries as the modern states for their entire existence, yet we have categories using those territory names. Nor do I think anyone would support rneaming Category:1890 establishments in Utah Territory even though it had the modern boundaries. Nebraska, Missouri and Nevada have all expanded since becoming states, while Virginia, North Carolina and Massachusetts have all had other states split off from them. These name changes are not so much about changes in boundaries as about changes is the fundamental government of the place. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - per Johnpacklambert. GreyShark ( dibra) 09:09, 13 August 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:Wine regions of Turkey

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. MER-C 12:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The pages in this category are not about wine - e.g. Ankara Province doesn't mention wine. DexDor (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Please check List of wine-producing regions#Turkey. In the meantime, I'm gonna add text about wine poduction in the said articles. The rationale, "the articles in the category are not wine regions" does not qualify the category's deletion at all. -- CeeGee 05:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • What about the more than 20 categories for various countries under the Category:Wine regions? Do you intend to delete tham all as well? -- CeeGee 09:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support This category tree works best when it categorizes articles specifically on wine regions, like with Category:Wine regions of Chile. Presumably these are wine growing areas in Turkey and you could add a one-sentence reference to that in the articles but it still wouldn't be defining to these general geography/region. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I see the point now. However, how must we name a district like Şarköy, which has 27 villages and 22 of them are growing grape and producing wine? Maybe a "list of wine regions in Turkey", similar to List of Bulgarian wine regions will be suffient to stop the deletion. -- CeeGee 11:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I think a Turkish-specific list article would be great and is much needed. I'd hold off on recreating this category (assuming it is deleted) until if and when there are several Turkish articles specifically about wine regions though. RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you. I will start to do it.-- CeeGee 05:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ RevelationDirect: The category has been deleted now although ı'd recently created List of Turkish wine regions. I guess in the beginning this would be sufficient in accordance with the Bulgarian example. It seems that nobody cared your above comment. -- CeeGee 16:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This works better as a list unless we have antirlces like Wine production in Ankara Province. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- This is a misuse of the category system. It should be categorising article on wine producing regions, such as Ankara wine region, or at least articles with a section on its wine production. Otherwise, this is a variety of category clutter, ratgher too like WP:OC#PERF producing wine being the performance and the place the performer. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Peterkingiron; next we'll be categorizing all cities, districts, provinces, states by all the crap they grow, manufacture, or mine. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 06:42, 29 July 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:More Female Architects on Wikipedia

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one of the pages currently in this category is actually specifically about the "More Female Architects on Wikipedia" project. If kept, this category needs a clearer definition of what characteristic the pages in it have (and a parent category). I'm not quite sure what the category creator is trying to do, but a page such as "Wikipedia:More Female Architects on Wikipedia" might be a better place to list pages of interest to this project. DexDor (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or rename to a name more appropriate to a WP project-owned category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment are these architects more female than what? Unless we can figure out how female architects do something differently than their male counterparts, any segregation by sex is unwarranted. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 06:43, 29 July 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:Places illustrated on Turkish banknotes

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. MER-C 12:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:NONDEFINING. Mount Ararat and Ephesus are notable places in Turkey and that's why they appear on that country's currency. They're not notable for being on the currency. This category really reverses the causality of why they're notable with a trivial intersection. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified CeeGee as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Turkey. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
If you think the rationale is weird and not solid then please explain why you think so. DexDor (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The said places are located inside Turkey, and these not since yesterday. The rationale doesn't say anything whether the category is useful or not. But claims about its members. That's weird.-- CeeGee 08:24, 28 July 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:Academic journals by country of publication

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Category:Academic journals published in Australia
Category:Academic journals published in France
Category:Academic journals published in India
Category:Academic journals published in the United Kingdom
Category:Academic journals published in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Country of publication is not a defining feature of an academic journal per se, as it may be published by a commercial company on behalf of its owner/sponsor -- and it's not uncommon for the two to be located in different countries. Furthermore, major publishers are multinational corporations nowadays. If necessary, create Category:Academic journals associated with universities by country, Category:Academic journals associated with learned societies by country, or Category:Academic journals by publisher country. Fgnievinski ( talk) 01:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The subcats are not included in the nomination. DexDor (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the reminder; now they are. fgnievinski ( talk) 00:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete main cat and subcats. "Nationality" is rarely a defining property of an academic journal. Academic publishing is a thoroughly international enterprise nowadays. One can find journals with, for example, "British" in their title that are edited by a researcher in another European country and published by a US publisher. Not to mention authors from all over the world and an international editorial board. Large publishers like Wiley have offices all over the world, but which one publishes a particular journal is almost never public information (and because it can change at any moment, not very interesting information either). Country-specific categories for journals were deleted years ago and only relatively recently re-created. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't think persons (authors and editors) should be considered, as it changes often and it's hard to quantify and source properly. Fgnievinski ( talk) 16:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Per DexDor; it's also of relevance to know under which legal regime a journal has been published, regardless if where the titular "owner" is located. The misleading titles mentioned by Randykitty make categorising by the actual pale of publication all the more important. The proposed "Category:Academic journals by publisher country" is merely a synonym for this one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It is almost impossible to obtain information about the "legal regime" that a journal is published under and the location of the publisher, even if known (see above) may not be the same anyway. Many large publishers have offices all over the world and their journals may be legally based at any one of them (or even altogether a different country). If the info is available from a reliable source, it can be mentioned in the article. It has nothing to do with "journals published in Foo country". -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The legal regime is a triviality for this type of category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep For lots of academic journals the country of publication is defining, and this was more true historically than it is today. Does anyone really believe American Historical Review would be the same if published outside the US? Like all other created matierlas (moview, etc) journals are influenced by their country of publication. On the other hand, like all other created materials they can have more than one country of creation under the right circumstances. A book can be written by a national of Spain and a national of the US in cooperation (or any other two countries, or more in fact) but that does not mean we should not categorize books by country. There is no reason a journal can not have more than one country of connection. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Your explanation is an excellent reason for deletion -- exactly the kind of loose categorization criterion that is impossible to apply consistently. Fgnievinski ( talk) 20:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Nation of publication often a significant factor. The details of ownership or whatever, the national affiliation often matters, though a nod to a few exceptions. Montanabw (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Given the comments posted above, it would be helpful if you could explain 1/ how this is "often a significant factor" and 2/ how we can reliably determine under what country to categorize a certain journal. As to the last point, I would point to the comment by Peterkingiron, who mentions that Economic History Review is published by WB, an American owned company, in the UK. Problem is, that it is basically impossible to know whether that is correct, as this is not normally information that these companies make public (my guess is because they don't think it is important enough to put on their websites). -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment AHR The editorial offices of the American Historical Review are in Indiana. I have yet to see any proof that the fact that the Oxford University Press publishes the journal means that it is "published outside the US." Oxford University Press has operations in New York City. I think we need to disconnect this from publishing and more focus it on editing, although I think these terms are more interchangeable than some here claim. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: An apt demonstration why this country thing is undesirable. Editors and publishers have different, albeit sometimes overlapping, functions. So while the journal is edited in Indiana, it's published in Oxford. Academic journal publishing is intrinsically international nowadays, with the humanities perhaps a partial exception. As an aside, I think that it is unfortunate that you didn't wait until the end of this debate, adding more such impossible to define categories. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • And even then things are not clear-cut at all. The Society for Neuroscience used to be an American society, but since a number of years it is international. Its newest journal, eNeuro, while published from Washington DC where the society is headquartered, is edited by a French researcher working in Marseille. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The point is that even for societies the "country" thing is difficult to define and bound to change over time. Categorizing beyond "Academic journals associated with learned societies" is bound to be unclear and difficult to define (and "associated with" is already fuzzy enough). -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Self-description suffices: if it has "American", "British", etc. in its name -- as often it does -- then that's what it is, for nationality of a learned society. I'm almost accepting defeat in my original nomination for deletion -- consensus seems elusive. fgnievinski ( talk) 01:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • "Associated with" is clear more often than not: normally it's self-declared in the journal's about page, as "it is the official journal of Y", "sponsored by Y", or "journal is published by X on behalf of Y". Historically for journals, even publisher tends to be a more ephemeral relationship than sponsor. fgnievinski ( talk)
  • Comment If this cat is deleted we should also remove the country parameter from the journal infobox template. Everymorning (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Let's have that discussion after a decision is made about the cats... -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • For the sake of expediting closure, I'd agree to leave {{ infobox journal}}'s "country" fields (thus "publisher-country" and "sponsor-country") outside the present CfD. fgnievinski ( talk) 14:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The fact that similar journals-by-country categories are created every so often indicates there's a popular appeal in such a categorization. Instead of playing wack-a-mole in repeated and lengthy nominations, we could provide a categorization that would satisfy the reader's intuition while being minimally correct, technically defensible, and internally consistent. Nationality of sponsoring institution (learned society or university) is more definite than that of transnational publishers and a more permanent characteristic than that of editors (who move across borders and are substituted every few years). fgnievinski ( talk) 01:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Thanks for pointing out to Category:Medknow Publications academic journals -- it was a treasure trove: the vast majority of their journals is indeed associated with a learned society or non-profit organization (most Indian, a few African and in the Middle-East). fgnievinski ( talk) 02:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Another updated issue originally discussed in the archived nomination indicated above was this: Many journals have the name of a country or region in their name. For example, the European Journal of Neuroscience. Should we categorize this one as a "European journal"? Well, the European Journal of Neuroscience is associated with the Federation of European Neuroscience Societies, so yes, it'd go in Category:Academic journals associated with European learned societies; many journals previously associated with national learned societies had merged into pan-European journals, e.g. European Physical Journal and Category:ChemPubSoc Europe academic journals. I do agree with this caveat though, that journal title alone is not sufficiently meaningful: apparently India-based publisher names its journals "American" or "British". In summary, I don't think that we should take the branding of a journal as criteria to include it in a country-specific category. fgnievinski ( talk) 04:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Yet another demonstration of why these country-related categories are a bad idea for academic journals, whether society-related or not. Where they are published is simply only rarely a defining characteristic of an academic journal. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Let's examine that claim. For journals, " definingness" implies both a long-term relationship and a strong degree of association. About the first implication, sponsoring organization changes less often than the journal's publisher. About the second implication, we don't have much hard data showing the percentages of occurrence; assuming the majority of journals have a weak association with their sponsoring organizations will harm journals that do have a strong association, which I assume is actually the majority. fgnievinski ( talk) 14:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I'm afraid the unwillingness of editors to compromise is preventing consensus to be reached; although I started the deletion nomination, now I'm more inclined to rectify the categorization in a meaningful way: journals-by-country requires finer granularity in the published-by relationship. fgnievinski ( talk) 14:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Sure, let's add Category:Academic journals published in the Netherlands to all Elsevier journals. As you yourself argued above, categorizing academic journals by country is unnecessary, almost impossible to do correctly, and not defining. And determining consensus is the job of the closing admin, who will weigh the different arguments (and in the case of categories, the argument that a characteristic is not defining is a very powerful one). At this point, I don't see any reason to withdraw the nom and there's time enough to think about alternatives once the CfD is closed, if the decision would be too keep these accursed cats. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • You're distorting what I explained at length above: "published in Z country" is meaningless without disambiguating what type of publishing relationship is involved, some of which are both correct and defining (as in the proposed journals by country of sponsoring organization). It seems that you've decided that "categorizing academic journals by country is unnecessary" as a matter of principle. fgnievinski ( talk) 14:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Please stay on topic, all these digression just muddle this debate. This CfD is about the category "Academic journals by country of publication" and categories named "academic journals published in [country name]". Anything else can and should be decided elsewhere. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:50, 16 August 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_28&oldid=1076190422"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE