The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per
WP:SMALLCAT, it's not meaningful to keep a category for one prince.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge -- I do not think we need a category for every fragment of Brunswick.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:51, 4 October 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:Arrow characters
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.
Comment The usual course of action is to merge all the character articles into one list article, converting the individual ones to redirects (or simply deleting them). While we still have a lot of substantive articles on characters, we need a category. However the category should ultimately be deleted.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:54, 4 October 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:Arrowverse characters
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.
Delete per nom; at least this doesn't suffer from the ambiguity of the other one, but small graces doesn't save it from uselessness.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 18:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment The usual course of action is to merge all the character articles into one list article, converting the individual ones to redirects (or simply deleting them). While we still have a lot of substantive articles on characters, we need a category. However the category should ultimately be deleted. If this is in fact duplicating
Category:Arrow characters, one should be deleted now, as a duplicate
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:56, 4 October 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:Male Singers by Nationality
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I declined speedy deletion on this category. But given that it is populated with a sub category related to Pakistani male singers, it appears to be of limited utility.
Safiel (
talk) 19:23, 30 September 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:17th century in the Netherlands
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. —
ξxplicit 07:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, similar merge as for 18th century in the Netherlands which was discussed earlier in
this discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. The Netherlands are a 19th century establishment, not 17th century.
Dimadick (
talk) 16:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge -- Netherlands is ambiguous, as it could refer to the Spanish Netherlands.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge The Dutch Republic is the preferred name used by historians for this polity at this time.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:52, 16 October 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:Main topic classifications
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.
Question@
The Transhumanist: To what end? I take a pretty hands off approach to WikiProject categories on the Category talk pages, but this is on the actual Category pages so it should aid readers in navigation. Is this more of an administrative category for editors?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 18:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
It's not a WikiProject category. It's the top-tier of Wikipedia's overall classification system (which is comprised of the several navigation systems mentioned above). Every knowledge classification system has a top level (the main branches of knowledge). Wikipedia is no different. Wikipedia's major classifications are "Culture and the arts", "Geography and places", "History and events", "Health and fitness", etc. Those are the major subjects that Wikipedia breaks knowledge down into. Even the index of categories at
Portal:Contents/Categories applies that standard. Note that each of the classifications are subject pairings (a main plus an example, for most of them), so to put them in categories you need to break those apart:
Category:Culture,
Category:Arts,
Category:Geography,
Category:Places,
Category:History,
Category:Events, etc.
The Transhumanist 20:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
In practice, all of these categories have parent categories (not counting this one), so they're not the top of the hierarchy from a categorization perspective. They are however conceptually top knowledge areas for some important navigation in portals outside of the categorization structure. Is that a fair summary?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 23:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Considering its entire structure, the category system doesn't have a "top", because it is a network rather than a hierarchy (hierarchies are
tree structures and don't have cross-links). But there are several hierarchies embedded into it, including this one. Their tops provide significant entry points to the category system.
The Transhumanist 01:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Move to Talk Pages & Rename Rename to
Category:WikiProject Outlines main topic classifications and move to the category talk pages. This vote is meant to be helpful to maintain The Transhumanist's fine work in that project while not cluttering navigation for casual readers. If this compromise is unacceptable, then Delete.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 23:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
But it is not part of the outline WikiProject. The standard table of contents classifications are used to classify topics throughout all of Wikipedia's contents systems, from categories to glossaries to portals to indices ,etc. See the Table of Contents (which is repeated) in each of the pages in the top row in the menu bar below. The subjects in the bottom row are the mains from the topic pairs included in that Table of Contents (and mentioned above).
The Transhumanist 01:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - This category should consist exclusively of academic divisions. This way it compliments the fundamental categories. I would propose a division such as Humanities and fine arts, Natural sciences, Behavioral and social sciences, Applied sciences, Professional studies, and Communication and education. This is based on the model of a typical university, whose mission is similar to Wikipedia's: to find and identify all of the substantial forms in the universe. None of these vague subcategories should be allowed like "information," "knowledge," "structure", or "world."
Youknowwhatimsayin (
talk) 09:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree. Those subjects listed in the menu bar above (second row) are academic, or at least formal (in the library science sense). And these subjects include all other topics in the encyclopedia.
The Transhumanist 01:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep entry point into the category heirarchy system that complements the other Wikipedia (and not WikiProject) navigation --
70.51.202.113 (
talk) 05:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks@
The Transhumanist: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. We still disagree on the usefulness of this in the category space but the background was helpful.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 10:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The category has been cleaned up. It doesn't look much like it did when this discussion started.
The Transhumanist 19:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - I think that the inclusion criteria is rather clear now. - jc37 20:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. I don't see how deleting this would help our readers. -- Ϫ 07:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Keep the category and limit it's members to academic areas.
Youknowwhatimsayin (
talk) 08:58, 7 October 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:Four species
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 on deletion, therefore rename. There is no Jewish ritual called "Four Species", therefore rename to
Category:Four species (Sukkot) which matches parent
category:Sukkot. –
FayenaticLondon 16:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Category is not needed. Four Species is an item, the corresponding Wikipage about the Four Species contains all the links currently in the category page.
Yossiea(talk) 15:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose, but rename clearly That's not how categories work! That "the corresponding Wikipage about the Four Species contains all the links currently in the category page" is no reason to delete, given there are a deal more than 4 articles in the category - currently 9. Please list for Jewish-related deletions. Should be renamed something like
Category:Four species (Jewish ritual).
Johnbod (
talk) 15:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete the fact that certain species are integral to one religious rite is not what makes the species notable. Thus, trivial. Not unlike creating a category
Category:Bell, Book and Candle from the notable movie and including
bell,
book, and
candle.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 18:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:Sukkot As far as I can tell the only thing the category is doing is setting out someone's opinion of which varieties of
citron are suitable for use as the etrog of the feast. Indeed, the category is somewhat misleading because one needs to read the article to understand how the Torah passage is interpreted to mean these specific four plant parts. Some of these entries (but not, I think, the various citron variety articles) need to be in the Sukkot category, but I'm dubious about it as a separate category.
Mangoe (
talk) 18:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
REname per Johnbod. Their relation to Jewish ritual makes this a valid category, but it needs better description to make it clear that they are not a random selection. my reaction (before I looked) was trhat it was going to be about the four living creatures of Ezekiel and Revelation.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Being one of the four species used by a small sub-group of Jews is not defining to
Citron. This is all the more clear since the article also mentions that in China Citron is widely used in offerings to the Buddha, but no corresponding category for
Category:Plants commonly used in Buddhist ritual exists. Not every detail that will appear in an article needs to be categorized by, only those that are defining, and this is not defining to the plants involved.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per Carlossuarez46. A non-defining characteristic and gateway to a possibly horrendous precedent. —
ξxplicit 07:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per Carlos and Explicit. I agree that this is non-defining for those species that are so categorized. The point about their use in Sukkot can easily be made in the relevant article text.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename per Johnbod.
CN1 (
talk) 20:54, 17 November 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:Food grains
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Contested at CFDS. Following an RM decision to make this the primary topic again, the category should be moved back to where it was pre-2014. The target title redirects here anyway.
Jenks24 (
talk) 13:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy worth keeping the clarification. That grain actually only means food grain is dubious.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
It is bizarre to me that the category gets moved from
Category:Grains (which still redirects there) to
Category:Food grains per C2D, but when the article gets moved back apparently C2D shouldn't apply. Why should C2D only apply in one direction?
Jenks24 (
talk) 17:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That was an odd move discussion, & sometimes categories need to be extra-clear. The complicated OED entry on "grain" does not support the idea that grains refer only to edible types. That may be the primary meaning, which might be enough for an article, but category names need to be clearer.
Johnbod (
talk) 01:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Johnbod: what are some articles that could theoretically be categorized as
Category:Grains but we would not place in
Category:Food grains? Not snark or trying to make a point—sincerely wondering what sort of article is in question here and if there would be a practical difference in terms of WP categorization.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That's really the wrong question, although the OED doesn't define grain as restricted to food. The right one is "What might people think
Category:Grains covers?", and given the range of uses in material science etc, I think there's potential for confusion. It should not be speedied anyway. See below.
Johnbod (
talk) 04:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Silly Johnbod, there are no wrong questions. Thanks for your quick response! (I agree it should not be speedied when users object on reasonable grounds—speedies are for non-controversial issues or issues that perhaps were controversial but have been at least temporarily settled by consensus.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Object to CFDS renameGrain (disambiguation) shows the ambiguity in this. There are many prominent topics in unrelated areas --
70.51.202.113 (
talk) 04:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose Please copy the CFDS duiscussion here, per usual. Reasons given there.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't think there's any onus on the proposer to do that, I've clearly mentioned it was contested there if anyone wants to go see what was said.
Jenks24 (
talk) 16:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I've added the speedy discussion. Right now there's no "rule" that it must be added, but if users want it present, I think it's OK to just copy it in without asking.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename, keep a redirect. I don't think there's a very large risk of any confusion here. "Food grain" is the overwhelming primary meaning of "Grain", which is why the article is now at
Grain. I think we're safe in following the main article in this case (especially since the category was at
Category:Grains for many years until the article was (temporarily) moved to
Food grain).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename Once again, the opposition to a speedy rename to match the article amounts to disagreeing with the article move. The article rename may be ill conceived (I have no opinion) but this isn't the forum for rehashing that. The category name should almost always blindly copy the main article name.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 18:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Support category:Grains per WP:PRIMARY and Good Olfactory. Plural form is not ambiguous,
etymology shows history of word used to describe seeds and from that other small particles generally, and though other definitions follow in short order, use to describe food grains being the most common. This is what dab pages are for, grain of salt, grain of sand, wood grain, etc. Also "factor of least surprise" is at work here,
google hits has food-related pages primary for quite a while, occasional wood grain references pop up.
Montanabw(talk) 22:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Support. Keep consistent with the article. While there are some specialized uses, food grains are by far the most common.
older ≠
wiser 22:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Support grains -- I suppose that a grain of sand, but I doubt we will ever need a category to include them. Perhaps that objection can be dealt with by having a headnote defining the category as relating to food grains and placing an "otheruses" dablink on the page (yes I know that leads to articles, not categories). And populate -- I did not see wheat, oats, barley, rice, millet or maize in the category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:09, 4 October 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:Old Saxon language
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.
Object to CFDS speedy rename that article carries a hatnote leading to the people, the Saxons of yore, instead of the people of Saxony. So this would result in an ambiguous situation as to which we are referring to, particularly since their category is called
Category:Old Saxons, and only Wikipedia convention makes the difference between using plural and singular, and not actual English-language differences between the two positions. --
70.51.202.113 (
talk) 05:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)reply
rename per nom The language was moved five years ago; the category never caught up.
Mangoe (
talk) 13:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, also I do not precisely understand the objection as mentioned in the CFDS discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The choice between using singular form and plural form is purely a stylistic choice in the case of the people category, an Old Saxon or the Old Saxons. The category itself relies solely on Wikipedia convention two distinguish between the two. That isn't a real world distinction, since a person and the language can both be called "Old Saxon", thus making the category for the language highly ambiguous with one for persons that are Old Saxons. --
70.51.202.113 (
talk) 03:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
If you create a bot to automatically move non-language articles into the ethic category, you run into the situation where a modern Old Saxon speaker appears vs an ethnic Old Saxon one would categorize in one, the other in the other. But that bot will then mistransfer such biographies to the wrong category. So it is better to establish that one is for people and the other is for language. --
70.51.202.113 (
talk) 03:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Now I understand better. Still, this problem may occur with other languages as well and I think the convention in Wikipedia is well-established.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename If 70.51.202.113 feels the article hatnote is valuable, no objection to recreating it on the category. I don't see how having different name for the main article and category would aid navigation.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)reply
REname per nom. The convention is to put people in the plural.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:16, 4 October 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:Superlatives in sports
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.
This is a worthwhile category that groups together the best possible scores in different sports:
Nine finish in Darts,
Eight-ender in Curling,
Golden set in Tennis, etc. The current name and parent category don't work because, grammatically, most of these are not actually
superlatives. This nomination just seeks to get the category to better describe the actual contents.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 03:13, 30 September 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:Algae genera
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The title is ungrammatical, since algae is plural. It is like saying "plants genera" or "animals genera". All corresponding categories use the singular in the name, such as
Category:Plant genera and
Category:Fungus genera.
EncycloPetey (
talk) 02:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Who ever uses the singular, even if it is strictly correct?
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom; if "Algal" were used as the IP suggested, that would prompt the given example to be switched to "Fungal". —
烏Γ(
kaw), 19:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. In cases such as this, I think a good solution is to use the proper (singular) word but keep a redirect on category version that uses the improper (plural) word since the chance of the plural being used is relatively high.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per
WP:SMALLCAT, it's not meaningful to keep a category for one prince.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge -- I do not think we need a category for every fragment of Brunswick.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:51, 4 October 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:Arrow characters
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.
Comment The usual course of action is to merge all the character articles into one list article, converting the individual ones to redirects (or simply deleting them). While we still have a lot of substantive articles on characters, we need a category. However the category should ultimately be deleted.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:54, 4 October 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:Arrowverse characters
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.
Delete per nom; at least this doesn't suffer from the ambiguity of the other one, but small graces doesn't save it from uselessness.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 18:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment The usual course of action is to merge all the character articles into one list article, converting the individual ones to redirects (or simply deleting them). While we still have a lot of substantive articles on characters, we need a category. However the category should ultimately be deleted. If this is in fact duplicating
Category:Arrow characters, one should be deleted now, as a duplicate
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:56, 4 October 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:Male Singers by Nationality
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I declined speedy deletion on this category. But given that it is populated with a sub category related to Pakistani male singers, it appears to be of limited utility.
Safiel (
talk) 19:23, 30 September 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:17th century in the Netherlands
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. —
ξxplicit 07:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, similar merge as for 18th century in the Netherlands which was discussed earlier in
this discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. The Netherlands are a 19th century establishment, not 17th century.
Dimadick (
talk) 16:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge -- Netherlands is ambiguous, as it could refer to the Spanish Netherlands.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge The Dutch Republic is the preferred name used by historians for this polity at this time.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:52, 16 October 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:Main topic classifications
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.
Question@
The Transhumanist: To what end? I take a pretty hands off approach to WikiProject categories on the Category talk pages, but this is on the actual Category pages so it should aid readers in navigation. Is this more of an administrative category for editors?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 18:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
It's not a WikiProject category. It's the top-tier of Wikipedia's overall classification system (which is comprised of the several navigation systems mentioned above). Every knowledge classification system has a top level (the main branches of knowledge). Wikipedia is no different. Wikipedia's major classifications are "Culture and the arts", "Geography and places", "History and events", "Health and fitness", etc. Those are the major subjects that Wikipedia breaks knowledge down into. Even the index of categories at
Portal:Contents/Categories applies that standard. Note that each of the classifications are subject pairings (a main plus an example, for most of them), so to put them in categories you need to break those apart:
Category:Culture,
Category:Arts,
Category:Geography,
Category:Places,
Category:History,
Category:Events, etc.
The Transhumanist 20:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
In practice, all of these categories have parent categories (not counting this one), so they're not the top of the hierarchy from a categorization perspective. They are however conceptually top knowledge areas for some important navigation in portals outside of the categorization structure. Is that a fair summary?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 23:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Considering its entire structure, the category system doesn't have a "top", because it is a network rather than a hierarchy (hierarchies are
tree structures and don't have cross-links). But there are several hierarchies embedded into it, including this one. Their tops provide significant entry points to the category system.
The Transhumanist 01:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Move to Talk Pages & Rename Rename to
Category:WikiProject Outlines main topic classifications and move to the category talk pages. This vote is meant to be helpful to maintain The Transhumanist's fine work in that project while not cluttering navigation for casual readers. If this compromise is unacceptable, then Delete.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 23:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
But it is not part of the outline WikiProject. The standard table of contents classifications are used to classify topics throughout all of Wikipedia's contents systems, from categories to glossaries to portals to indices ,etc. See the Table of Contents (which is repeated) in each of the pages in the top row in the menu bar below. The subjects in the bottom row are the mains from the topic pairs included in that Table of Contents (and mentioned above).
The Transhumanist 01:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - This category should consist exclusively of academic divisions. This way it compliments the fundamental categories. I would propose a division such as Humanities and fine arts, Natural sciences, Behavioral and social sciences, Applied sciences, Professional studies, and Communication and education. This is based on the model of a typical university, whose mission is similar to Wikipedia's: to find and identify all of the substantial forms in the universe. None of these vague subcategories should be allowed like "information," "knowledge," "structure", or "world."
Youknowwhatimsayin (
talk) 09:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree. Those subjects listed in the menu bar above (second row) are academic, or at least formal (in the library science sense). And these subjects include all other topics in the encyclopedia.
The Transhumanist 01:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep entry point into the category heirarchy system that complements the other Wikipedia (and not WikiProject) navigation --
70.51.202.113 (
talk) 05:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks@
The Transhumanist: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. We still disagree on the usefulness of this in the category space but the background was helpful.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 10:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The category has been cleaned up. It doesn't look much like it did when this discussion started.
The Transhumanist 19:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - I think that the inclusion criteria is rather clear now. - jc37 20:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. I don't see how deleting this would help our readers. -- Ϫ 07:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Keep the category and limit it's members to academic areas.
Youknowwhatimsayin (
talk) 08:58, 7 October 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:Four species
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 on deletion, therefore rename. There is no Jewish ritual called "Four Species", therefore rename to
Category:Four species (Sukkot) which matches parent
category:Sukkot. –
FayenaticLondon 16:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Category is not needed. Four Species is an item, the corresponding Wikipage about the Four Species contains all the links currently in the category page.
Yossiea(talk) 15:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose, but rename clearly That's not how categories work! That "the corresponding Wikipage about the Four Species contains all the links currently in the category page" is no reason to delete, given there are a deal more than 4 articles in the category - currently 9. Please list for Jewish-related deletions. Should be renamed something like
Category:Four species (Jewish ritual).
Johnbod (
talk) 15:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete the fact that certain species are integral to one religious rite is not what makes the species notable. Thus, trivial. Not unlike creating a category
Category:Bell, Book and Candle from the notable movie and including
bell,
book, and
candle.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 18:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:Sukkot As far as I can tell the only thing the category is doing is setting out someone's opinion of which varieties of
citron are suitable for use as the etrog of the feast. Indeed, the category is somewhat misleading because one needs to read the article to understand how the Torah passage is interpreted to mean these specific four plant parts. Some of these entries (but not, I think, the various citron variety articles) need to be in the Sukkot category, but I'm dubious about it as a separate category.
Mangoe (
talk) 18:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
REname per Johnbod. Their relation to Jewish ritual makes this a valid category, but it needs better description to make it clear that they are not a random selection. my reaction (before I looked) was trhat it was going to be about the four living creatures of Ezekiel and Revelation.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Being one of the four species used by a small sub-group of Jews is not defining to
Citron. This is all the more clear since the article also mentions that in China Citron is widely used in offerings to the Buddha, but no corresponding category for
Category:Plants commonly used in Buddhist ritual exists. Not every detail that will appear in an article needs to be categorized by, only those that are defining, and this is not defining to the plants involved.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per Carlossuarez46. A non-defining characteristic and gateway to a possibly horrendous precedent. —
ξxplicit 07:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per Carlos and Explicit. I agree that this is non-defining for those species that are so categorized. The point about their use in Sukkot can easily be made in the relevant article text.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename per Johnbod.
CN1 (
talk) 20:54, 17 November 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:Food grains
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Contested at CFDS. Following an RM decision to make this the primary topic again, the category should be moved back to where it was pre-2014. The target title redirects here anyway.
Jenks24 (
talk) 13:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy worth keeping the clarification. That grain actually only means food grain is dubious.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
It is bizarre to me that the category gets moved from
Category:Grains (which still redirects there) to
Category:Food grains per C2D, but when the article gets moved back apparently C2D shouldn't apply. Why should C2D only apply in one direction?
Jenks24 (
talk) 17:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That was an odd move discussion, & sometimes categories need to be extra-clear. The complicated OED entry on "grain" does not support the idea that grains refer only to edible types. That may be the primary meaning, which might be enough for an article, but category names need to be clearer.
Johnbod (
talk) 01:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Johnbod: what are some articles that could theoretically be categorized as
Category:Grains but we would not place in
Category:Food grains? Not snark or trying to make a point—sincerely wondering what sort of article is in question here and if there would be a practical difference in terms of WP categorization.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That's really the wrong question, although the OED doesn't define grain as restricted to food. The right one is "What might people think
Category:Grains covers?", and given the range of uses in material science etc, I think there's potential for confusion. It should not be speedied anyway. See below.
Johnbod (
talk) 04:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Silly Johnbod, there are no wrong questions. Thanks for your quick response! (I agree it should not be speedied when users object on reasonable grounds—speedies are for non-controversial issues or issues that perhaps were controversial but have been at least temporarily settled by consensus.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Object to CFDS renameGrain (disambiguation) shows the ambiguity in this. There are many prominent topics in unrelated areas --
70.51.202.113 (
talk) 04:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose Please copy the CFDS duiscussion here, per usual. Reasons given there.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't think there's any onus on the proposer to do that, I've clearly mentioned it was contested there if anyone wants to go see what was said.
Jenks24 (
talk) 16:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I've added the speedy discussion. Right now there's no "rule" that it must be added, but if users want it present, I think it's OK to just copy it in without asking.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename, keep a redirect. I don't think there's a very large risk of any confusion here. "Food grain" is the overwhelming primary meaning of "Grain", which is why the article is now at
Grain. I think we're safe in following the main article in this case (especially since the category was at
Category:Grains for many years until the article was (temporarily) moved to
Food grain).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename Once again, the opposition to a speedy rename to match the article amounts to disagreeing with the article move. The article rename may be ill conceived (I have no opinion) but this isn't the forum for rehashing that. The category name should almost always blindly copy the main article name.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 18:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Support category:Grains per WP:PRIMARY and Good Olfactory. Plural form is not ambiguous,
etymology shows history of word used to describe seeds and from that other small particles generally, and though other definitions follow in short order, use to describe food grains being the most common. This is what dab pages are for, grain of salt, grain of sand, wood grain, etc. Also "factor of least surprise" is at work here,
google hits has food-related pages primary for quite a while, occasional wood grain references pop up.
Montanabw(talk) 22:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Support. Keep consistent with the article. While there are some specialized uses, food grains are by far the most common.
older ≠
wiser 22:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Support grains -- I suppose that a grain of sand, but I doubt we will ever need a category to include them. Perhaps that objection can be dealt with by having a headnote defining the category as relating to food grains and placing an "otheruses" dablink on the page (yes I know that leads to articles, not categories). And populate -- I did not see wheat, oats, barley, rice, millet or maize in the category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:09, 4 October 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:Old Saxon language
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.
Object to CFDS speedy rename that article carries a hatnote leading to the people, the Saxons of yore, instead of the people of Saxony. So this would result in an ambiguous situation as to which we are referring to, particularly since their category is called
Category:Old Saxons, and only Wikipedia convention makes the difference between using plural and singular, and not actual English-language differences between the two positions. --
70.51.202.113 (
talk) 05:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)reply
rename per nom The language was moved five years ago; the category never caught up.
Mangoe (
talk) 13:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, also I do not precisely understand the objection as mentioned in the CFDS discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The choice between using singular form and plural form is purely a stylistic choice in the case of the people category, an Old Saxon or the Old Saxons. The category itself relies solely on Wikipedia convention two distinguish between the two. That isn't a real world distinction, since a person and the language can both be called "Old Saxon", thus making the category for the language highly ambiguous with one for persons that are Old Saxons. --
70.51.202.113 (
talk) 03:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
If you create a bot to automatically move non-language articles into the ethic category, you run into the situation where a modern Old Saxon speaker appears vs an ethnic Old Saxon one would categorize in one, the other in the other. But that bot will then mistransfer such biographies to the wrong category. So it is better to establish that one is for people and the other is for language. --
70.51.202.113 (
talk) 03:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Now I understand better. Still, this problem may occur with other languages as well and I think the convention in Wikipedia is well-established.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename If 70.51.202.113 feels the article hatnote is valuable, no objection to recreating it on the category. I don't see how having different name for the main article and category would aid navigation.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)reply
REname per nom. The convention is to put people in the plural.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:16, 4 October 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:Superlatives in sports
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.
This is a worthwhile category that groups together the best possible scores in different sports:
Nine finish in Darts,
Eight-ender in Curling,
Golden set in Tennis, etc. The current name and parent category don't work because, grammatically, most of these are not actually
superlatives. This nomination just seeks to get the category to better describe the actual contents.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 03:13, 30 September 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:Algae genera
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The title is ungrammatical, since algae is plural. It is like saying "plants genera" or "animals genera". All corresponding categories use the singular in the name, such as
Category:Plant genera and
Category:Fungus genera.
EncycloPetey (
talk) 02:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Who ever uses the singular, even if it is strictly correct?
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom; if "Algal" were used as the IP suggested, that would prompt the given example to be switched to "Fungal". —
烏Γ(
kaw), 19:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. In cases such as this, I think a good solution is to use the proper (singular) word but keep a redirect on category version that uses the improper (plural) word since the chance of the plural being used is relatively high.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:43, 8 October 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.