Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 1 April 3 >

April 2

Category:Footballers from Barcelona

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: keep. This does break from past consensus, but there are some concerns unique to this discussion that there are enough footballers in this category that it's worth keeping. WilliamJE noted that some of these footballers may be miscategorized. If that issue is fixed and it substantially changes the number of footballers in this category, a renomination would be worthwhile. As a side note, it might be a good idea to have a more broad discussion on when (if ever) sportspeople should be categorized as "Sport from city" to reconcile the different outcomes in this discussion and past discussions. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per multiple CFDs, here [1], here [2], here [3], here [4] here [5], and here [6] just being six examples, we don't subcategorize sportspeople from Fooville by the type of athletes they are. Note- The entries all look to be categorized as Catalan footballers. Which makes them overcategorized because Footballers from Catalan is the parent of this category. If this category is kept, the FBers from Catalan will have to be empty of those articles that are overcategorized. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'd say keep due to the significance and political aspects of Barcelona as well as the fact that the category is so populated that merging it would make the Sportspeople category overpopulated and difficult to find individual articles in. Inter&anthro ( talk) 18:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Barcelona is the biggest city in Catalonia, but only part of that province. It is entirely appropriate to have city categories if they can be populated with (say) five articles. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (1) While we have a WP:SMALLCAT guideline, we don't have a WP:BIGCAT guideline and this discussion would benefit from the latter. The purpose of categorization is to facilitate easy navigation from one article to other articles that are as closely related to that first article as possible. While too few articles in the category is not practical to suit that purpose, too many articles isn't practical either because there's no way someone is going to check as many as 500 articles (and checking a random subset is highly unsatisfactory). (2) On the other hand, I'm not sure that categorizing footballers by city would create categories with even more closely related articles, in comparison to footballers by province or state. After all, what do two random footballers from Barcelona have more in common than a random footballer from Barcelona and one from Girona? Nothing, right? In other words, geography is a rather trivial issue here and the ultimate question is (to which I don't have an answer), can we divide footballers further by a characteristic that is not derived from geography, but instead divide them by a characteristic that is derived from football itself? Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sex trafficking (re-direct)

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: keep. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unless this category is specifically to contain articles about illegally transporting animals for Bestiality, I suggest it is redundant of Category:Human trafficking and should be deleted or re-directed there. An additional possibility is Category:Sex industry Meclee ( talk) 22:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose —  Category:Sex trafficking is a subcategory and type of Human trafficking. Slavery is also. Not all human trafficking is about sex; certainly slavery is not (necessarily) about sex. The distinction seems clear enough as it is. giso6150 ( talk) 22:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose — as creator and per Giso6150. Stefanomione ( talk) 01:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose - this clearly a subcategory, not a duplicate category, of the proposed target. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Music by country or 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.
The result of the discussion was: closed. Merger as proposed was done a full month ago now, so I'm not understanding why this was even still open. Bearcat ( talk) 00:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: A rare case of a few categories that are correctly categorized by Country, which isolates them from the rest of tree, which are correctly categorized by nationality. The precedent for this can be seen in Arts genres by country or nationality. Combining just these two very high level categories would eliminate the isolation and clear up a lot of confusion for anyone who wants to use the categories for navigation or who is trying to find the correct category for an existing article. giso6150 ( talk) 21:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you, Marcocapelle, for this perfect example to support my point. Renaming Category:French music as you suggest would mean that under the new category Category:Music of France, there would still be the articles French popular music, French electronic music, 2016 in French music, etc. Do we rename those articles 2016 in Music of France? There will always be a mix of Music pages named for the country and named for the nationality, unless we cleave apart 200+ "Nationalitish Music" categories and try to police and maintain that distinction. I believe that solution would be more confusing that what we have now. Combining country and nationality in a special case like this would solve for both the ambiguity of the English language and the relative unimportance of whether something is "Music from a specific country" or "Music related to a specific nationality". Examples abound of nationalities with no country, of course (Breton, Basque, Igbo, Cantonese), but for the majority of country/nationality pairs, the distinction is confusing and unnecessary. The non-country nationalities issue is separate to whether we can create Category:Music by country or nationality now. giso6150 ( talk) 19:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
This was  Done a while ago. Discussion can be closed. giso6150 ( talk) 03:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Creeks

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. No prejudice against separate renaming proposals to move the targets to a "Rivers and streams" format, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. Bearcat ( talk) 00:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Propose merging:

Rationale: I see no reason to have separate creek categories fro these specific places. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs about rain

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete WP:CSD#G4. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_about_rain, deleted after I made a list from the category last time. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of category already deleted by discussion here. Same reasoning as before, members are included because of the word "rain" is included in the title. Richhoncho ( talk) 18:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Shawn in Montreal:, I thought so too, but couldn't find anything. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 22:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deaths in Northumberland

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 12:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Also nominating-

Nominator's rationale: Is the location somebody died, a defining characteristic? Besides dying at home, People can die while traveling or at a hospital in a place they have no other connection to. To me, that makes the location of somebody's defining non-defining and something we shouldn't categorize by. Note we don't categorize people as from Foo only because the only connection the person had to Foo was that they died there. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Me too. Why does CFD not appear in Google searches? RevelationDirect ( talk) 16:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Criticism of the Bible

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: keep. There was some concern over what currently populates these categories. If editors check the existing articles in both categories for proper categorization and something changes significantly, a renomination may be appropriate. As it stands, specific examples weren't pointed to, and those supporting "keep" weren't convinced. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, the content of the both categories seems not different enough to keep them apart. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Editor2020 and Giso6150: I realized this when nominating, by not writing "the two categories apparently have the same scope". Yet while looking at the content of the categories the difference does not seem maintainable. Or would you say that the current content nicely reflects the difference as you had in mind? Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I understand the distinction the two keep votes and the main articles are trying to make in theory. Beyond the similar names, many scholarly discussions of the ethics of the Bible presuppose the Bible is partly ahistorical and many people who reject the Bible do so by analyzing claimed inconsistencies, so the approaches often overlap at the article level. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:World War II internment camps in the United Kingdom

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as in nom. As noted by Marcocapelle, renaming can (and should) be handled as a separate issue to keep things from being too muddy here. Please ping all participants of this discussion (not including myself) if you start a renaming discussion. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to all parent categories, there is only one subcategory in it, so it's an unnecessary layer. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Long Kesh isn't WWII. Also what about WWI prisoner of war camps, or even the Napoleonic prisoners and Norman Cross?
Also if there were only WWII camps, then a single category would be better named as World War II internment camps in the United Kingdom. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • There are camps that are both WWII and non-WWII. I can understand a merge if one of these categories was empty and merely contained the other category, but we have enough here to justify the two levels of categorization. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • PoW camps are currently categorized under internment camps, so changing that (should you wish) is a bigger issue than WWII UK alone.
If you want to claim that Long Kesh was a PoW camp rather than an internment camp then you'll find some support from the fringes of one side, but it was very definitely not just a prison alone. Most of those in there were interned, not convicted. I wouldn't claim than HMP Maze was an internment camp (by 1976 it had become a prison), but even then there's the politically charged question of Special Category Status and who it applied to. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Fair enough, and if you know some other examples to populate the category, please go ahead. By the time the discussion closes the closing admin will judge whether the category is well-populated enough to keep it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge for Now I have no objection adding section redirects to categories. However, I don't count that toward my arbitrary limit of 5 articles for WP:SMALLCAT. No objection to recreating later when those links aren't in italics. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Is the goal here SMALLCAT, consistency or accuracy? There is regular opportunity for back-and-forth edit warring hereabouts where some editors want to see an enforced consistency across category structure (thus lots of identically-named categories, even if barely populated or if the names are locally inappropriate). This is fundamentally contradictory to SMALLCAT. There's also a naming problem. "UK" doesn't strictly apply to either the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands. For WWII prison camps, does this mean "in the UK" or "of the UK"? The scope at present is geographical, but does a political scope make more sense? Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Andy Dingley: I have similar concerns about WP:SMALLCAT but our solutions may be different. See this discussion. RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Macedonian hegemony

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 12:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, hegemony is not a defining characteristic of the content that it is in this category. Besides we already have a category associated with Macedonian hegemony, namely Category:Macedonian Empire. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Church historians

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 12:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, both categories have the same scope. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Psychiatric patients

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. ("Mormonsims": the video game, I assume.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Being a specific type of patient is not a defining characteristic of a person, so categories should not (and generally do not) contain the word "patient". Instead, the common Wikipedia categorization for people with diseases is "People with X" - see Category:People by medical or psychological condition. (For full disclosure, there are currently 2 other "patient" categories, located in Category:Patients. These have also been brought to CFD.) A person may have a psychiatric illness their entire lives, but they are not always a patient. This category should be renamed "People with x", and I chose "mental and behavioural disorders" since a category already exists called Category:Mental and behavioural disorders. This renamed category should be a child of Category:Mental and behavioural disorders, as well as Category:People by medical or psychological condition. It should be a parent of the other psychiatric-related disorders, including: Category:People with anorexia nervosa, Category:People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Category:People on the autism spectrum, Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder, Category:People with factitious disorders, Category:Hypochondriacs, Category:People with mood disorders, Category:People with bipolar disorder, Category:People with schizophrenia, Category:People with social anxiety disorder, etc. This revised category should mostly be a container category, as most psychiatric diseases already have their own categories. People with non-specific psychiatric disorders, or historical people with an unknown psychiatric issue (ex "insane") could perhaps stay in the container category. Scott Alter ( talk) 02:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Giso6150: I created the Category:Health activists by diseases and disorders tree because I think, usually, when these topics are defining it's because the person later became an activist for better treatment. I'm not seeing a current similar biography category for mental health though. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
@ RevelationDirect: I completely agree with your reasons for creating the Category:Health activists by diseases and disorders tree. The existence of Category:Psychiatric patients (or Category:People with mental and behavioural disorders) does not bother me. It’s the application of the category that is problematic. Examples like yours demonstrate that there is clear need for some kind of categorization by disease. In that way, I support in principle as well. This is a tricky one. giso6150 ( talk) 15:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I could support that. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but Purge -- The content covers those who had a mental breakdown and Abe Lincoln's widow who was not surprisingly overcome by grief. Some of the ancient cases probably have to remain here, because assigning them to particular diseases would be original research, but in general, this should mainly be a container category, or merged with the parent cat for the more specific conditions. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, delete, delete, and oppose rename as it's almost as bad. Waaay too broad. And I'm looking at the performers and other celebrities and I think its a stretch to call this "defining" by any stretch of the imagination. If there's some cat for some applicable specific medical issue for each individual, then cat articles as appropriate, but this cat needs to go away. - jc37 10:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. In looking through these articles, there is almost no instances of this being a defining characteristic. Moreover, I can't imagine any circumstance in which a reader would want to navigate between these articles. Besides, when psychiatric treatment is a true defining characteristic, there will presumably be a diagnosis available. That creates significant overlap with more specific categories in Category:People by medical or psychological condition. There's no need for a broad category covering mental illness. ~ Rob Talk 06:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The fact that some people in the past have been committed to psychiatric institutions for joining Mormonsims, and I believe in some cases wanting to marry someone of a different race, should show that historically this process has been extremely misued. Since being "patients" in theory also includes anyone who has ever been prescribed an anti-depressant by a doctor, or met with any type of mental health counselor, it is not really defining, over broad, and in many cases not very publicly known. We know Jeffrey R. Holland has been treated for depression because he publicly admitted it, but that was 10 or so years after the Wikipedia article on him was created, and 40 years after he became notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The target is even more problematic. Some forms of depression are passing. Should a woman who had post-partum depression with her second child 50 years ago, but did not have it with her two subsequent children, and did not become notable until 20 years ago be in such a category? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment as nom. Deleting this category would be a good move too, for the reasons mentioned above by others. It just shouldn't stand as-is. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 13:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Provinces of Roman Gaul

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: keep. No consensus on renaming. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Roman Gaul was a territory, merely defined as an ethno-/cultural-historical area of Celtic settlement; possibly also by the fact it was –in a body– defeated and conquered by Julius Caesar. Making them a container (separate from the rest) is a concession to out-of-date Franco-centric historiography, which is particularly questionable in the face of the history of French foreign policy (with varying definitions of its fringes towards the east or north-east, or what was perceived as 'Gaul' or territorial claim of France). 109.45.2.22 ( talk) 07:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: CFD tag was placed on talk page instead of category page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic L ondon 00:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_2&oldid=1074815883"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 1 April 3 >

April 2

Category:Footballers from Barcelona

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: keep. This does break from past consensus, but there are some concerns unique to this discussion that there are enough footballers in this category that it's worth keeping. WilliamJE noted that some of these footballers may be miscategorized. If that issue is fixed and it substantially changes the number of footballers in this category, a renomination would be worthwhile. As a side note, it might be a good idea to have a more broad discussion on when (if ever) sportspeople should be categorized as "Sport from city" to reconcile the different outcomes in this discussion and past discussions. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per multiple CFDs, here [1], here [2], here [3], here [4] here [5], and here [6] just being six examples, we don't subcategorize sportspeople from Fooville by the type of athletes they are. Note- The entries all look to be categorized as Catalan footballers. Which makes them overcategorized because Footballers from Catalan is the parent of this category. If this category is kept, the FBers from Catalan will have to be empty of those articles that are overcategorized. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'd say keep due to the significance and political aspects of Barcelona as well as the fact that the category is so populated that merging it would make the Sportspeople category overpopulated and difficult to find individual articles in. Inter&anthro ( talk) 18:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Barcelona is the biggest city in Catalonia, but only part of that province. It is entirely appropriate to have city categories if they can be populated with (say) five articles. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (1) While we have a WP:SMALLCAT guideline, we don't have a WP:BIGCAT guideline and this discussion would benefit from the latter. The purpose of categorization is to facilitate easy navigation from one article to other articles that are as closely related to that first article as possible. While too few articles in the category is not practical to suit that purpose, too many articles isn't practical either because there's no way someone is going to check as many as 500 articles (and checking a random subset is highly unsatisfactory). (2) On the other hand, I'm not sure that categorizing footballers by city would create categories with even more closely related articles, in comparison to footballers by province or state. After all, what do two random footballers from Barcelona have more in common than a random footballer from Barcelona and one from Girona? Nothing, right? In other words, geography is a rather trivial issue here and the ultimate question is (to which I don't have an answer), can we divide footballers further by a characteristic that is not derived from geography, but instead divide them by a characteristic that is derived from football itself? Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sex trafficking (re-direct)

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: keep. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unless this category is specifically to contain articles about illegally transporting animals for Bestiality, I suggest it is redundant of Category:Human trafficking and should be deleted or re-directed there. An additional possibility is Category:Sex industry Meclee ( talk) 22:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose —  Category:Sex trafficking is a subcategory and type of Human trafficking. Slavery is also. Not all human trafficking is about sex; certainly slavery is not (necessarily) about sex. The distinction seems clear enough as it is. giso6150 ( talk) 22:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose — as creator and per Giso6150. Stefanomione ( talk) 01:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose - this clearly a subcategory, not a duplicate category, of the proposed target. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Music by country or 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.
The result of the discussion was: closed. Merger as proposed was done a full month ago now, so I'm not understanding why this was even still open. Bearcat ( talk) 00:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: A rare case of a few categories that are correctly categorized by Country, which isolates them from the rest of tree, which are correctly categorized by nationality. The precedent for this can be seen in Arts genres by country or nationality. Combining just these two very high level categories would eliminate the isolation and clear up a lot of confusion for anyone who wants to use the categories for navigation or who is trying to find the correct category for an existing article. giso6150 ( talk) 21:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you, Marcocapelle, for this perfect example to support my point. Renaming Category:French music as you suggest would mean that under the new category Category:Music of France, there would still be the articles French popular music, French electronic music, 2016 in French music, etc. Do we rename those articles 2016 in Music of France? There will always be a mix of Music pages named for the country and named for the nationality, unless we cleave apart 200+ "Nationalitish Music" categories and try to police and maintain that distinction. I believe that solution would be more confusing that what we have now. Combining country and nationality in a special case like this would solve for both the ambiguity of the English language and the relative unimportance of whether something is "Music from a specific country" or "Music related to a specific nationality". Examples abound of nationalities with no country, of course (Breton, Basque, Igbo, Cantonese), but for the majority of country/nationality pairs, the distinction is confusing and unnecessary. The non-country nationalities issue is separate to whether we can create Category:Music by country or nationality now. giso6150 ( talk) 19:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
This was  Done a while ago. Discussion can be closed. giso6150 ( talk) 03:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Creeks

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. No prejudice against separate renaming proposals to move the targets to a "Rivers and streams" format, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. Bearcat ( talk) 00:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Propose merging:

Rationale: I see no reason to have separate creek categories fro these specific places. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs about rain

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete WP:CSD#G4. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_about_rain, deleted after I made a list from the category last time. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of category already deleted by discussion here. Same reasoning as before, members are included because of the word "rain" is included in the title. Richhoncho ( talk) 18:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Shawn in Montreal:, I thought so too, but couldn't find anything. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 22:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deaths in Northumberland

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 12:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Also nominating-

Nominator's rationale: Is the location somebody died, a defining characteristic? Besides dying at home, People can die while traveling or at a hospital in a place they have no other connection to. To me, that makes the location of somebody's defining non-defining and something we shouldn't categorize by. Note we don't categorize people as from Foo only because the only connection the person had to Foo was that they died there. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Me too. Why does CFD not appear in Google searches? RevelationDirect ( talk) 16:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Criticism of the Bible

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: keep. There was some concern over what currently populates these categories. If editors check the existing articles in both categories for proper categorization and something changes significantly, a renomination may be appropriate. As it stands, specific examples weren't pointed to, and those supporting "keep" weren't convinced. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, the content of the both categories seems not different enough to keep them apart. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Editor2020 and Giso6150: I realized this when nominating, by not writing "the two categories apparently have the same scope". Yet while looking at the content of the categories the difference does not seem maintainable. Or would you say that the current content nicely reflects the difference as you had in mind? Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I understand the distinction the two keep votes and the main articles are trying to make in theory. Beyond the similar names, many scholarly discussions of the ethics of the Bible presuppose the Bible is partly ahistorical and many people who reject the Bible do so by analyzing claimed inconsistencies, so the approaches often overlap at the article level. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:World War II internment camps in the United Kingdom

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as in nom. As noted by Marcocapelle, renaming can (and should) be handled as a separate issue to keep things from being too muddy here. Please ping all participants of this discussion (not including myself) if you start a renaming discussion. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to all parent categories, there is only one subcategory in it, so it's an unnecessary layer. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Long Kesh isn't WWII. Also what about WWI prisoner of war camps, or even the Napoleonic prisoners and Norman Cross?
Also if there were only WWII camps, then a single category would be better named as World War II internment camps in the United Kingdom. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • There are camps that are both WWII and non-WWII. I can understand a merge if one of these categories was empty and merely contained the other category, but we have enough here to justify the two levels of categorization. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • PoW camps are currently categorized under internment camps, so changing that (should you wish) is a bigger issue than WWII UK alone.
If you want to claim that Long Kesh was a PoW camp rather than an internment camp then you'll find some support from the fringes of one side, but it was very definitely not just a prison alone. Most of those in there were interned, not convicted. I wouldn't claim than HMP Maze was an internment camp (by 1976 it had become a prison), but even then there's the politically charged question of Special Category Status and who it applied to. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Fair enough, and if you know some other examples to populate the category, please go ahead. By the time the discussion closes the closing admin will judge whether the category is well-populated enough to keep it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge for Now I have no objection adding section redirects to categories. However, I don't count that toward my arbitrary limit of 5 articles for WP:SMALLCAT. No objection to recreating later when those links aren't in italics. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Is the goal here SMALLCAT, consistency or accuracy? There is regular opportunity for back-and-forth edit warring hereabouts where some editors want to see an enforced consistency across category structure (thus lots of identically-named categories, even if barely populated or if the names are locally inappropriate). This is fundamentally contradictory to SMALLCAT. There's also a naming problem. "UK" doesn't strictly apply to either the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands. For WWII prison camps, does this mean "in the UK" or "of the UK"? The scope at present is geographical, but does a political scope make more sense? Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Andy Dingley: I have similar concerns about WP:SMALLCAT but our solutions may be different. See this discussion. RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Macedonian hegemony

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 12:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, hegemony is not a defining characteristic of the content that it is in this category. Besides we already have a category associated with Macedonian hegemony, namely Category:Macedonian Empire. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Church historians

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 12:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, both categories have the same scope. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Psychiatric patients

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. ("Mormonsims": the video game, I assume.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Being a specific type of patient is not a defining characteristic of a person, so categories should not (and generally do not) contain the word "patient". Instead, the common Wikipedia categorization for people with diseases is "People with X" - see Category:People by medical or psychological condition. (For full disclosure, there are currently 2 other "patient" categories, located in Category:Patients. These have also been brought to CFD.) A person may have a psychiatric illness their entire lives, but they are not always a patient. This category should be renamed "People with x", and I chose "mental and behavioural disorders" since a category already exists called Category:Mental and behavioural disorders. This renamed category should be a child of Category:Mental and behavioural disorders, as well as Category:People by medical or psychological condition. It should be a parent of the other psychiatric-related disorders, including: Category:People with anorexia nervosa, Category:People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Category:People on the autism spectrum, Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder, Category:People with factitious disorders, Category:Hypochondriacs, Category:People with mood disorders, Category:People with bipolar disorder, Category:People with schizophrenia, Category:People with social anxiety disorder, etc. This revised category should mostly be a container category, as most psychiatric diseases already have their own categories. People with non-specific psychiatric disorders, or historical people with an unknown psychiatric issue (ex "insane") could perhaps stay in the container category. Scott Alter ( talk) 02:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Giso6150: I created the Category:Health activists by diseases and disorders tree because I think, usually, when these topics are defining it's because the person later became an activist for better treatment. I'm not seeing a current similar biography category for mental health though. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
@ RevelationDirect: I completely agree with your reasons for creating the Category:Health activists by diseases and disorders tree. The existence of Category:Psychiatric patients (or Category:People with mental and behavioural disorders) does not bother me. It’s the application of the category that is problematic. Examples like yours demonstrate that there is clear need for some kind of categorization by disease. In that way, I support in principle as well. This is a tricky one. giso6150 ( talk) 15:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I could support that. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but Purge -- The content covers those who had a mental breakdown and Abe Lincoln's widow who was not surprisingly overcome by grief. Some of the ancient cases probably have to remain here, because assigning them to particular diseases would be original research, but in general, this should mainly be a container category, or merged with the parent cat for the more specific conditions. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, delete, delete, and oppose rename as it's almost as bad. Waaay too broad. And I'm looking at the performers and other celebrities and I think its a stretch to call this "defining" by any stretch of the imagination. If there's some cat for some applicable specific medical issue for each individual, then cat articles as appropriate, but this cat needs to go away. - jc37 10:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. In looking through these articles, there is almost no instances of this being a defining characteristic. Moreover, I can't imagine any circumstance in which a reader would want to navigate between these articles. Besides, when psychiatric treatment is a true defining characteristic, there will presumably be a diagnosis available. That creates significant overlap with more specific categories in Category:People by medical or psychological condition. There's no need for a broad category covering mental illness. ~ Rob Talk 06:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The fact that some people in the past have been committed to psychiatric institutions for joining Mormonsims, and I believe in some cases wanting to marry someone of a different race, should show that historically this process has been extremely misued. Since being "patients" in theory also includes anyone who has ever been prescribed an anti-depressant by a doctor, or met with any type of mental health counselor, it is not really defining, over broad, and in many cases not very publicly known. We know Jeffrey R. Holland has been treated for depression because he publicly admitted it, but that was 10 or so years after the Wikipedia article on him was created, and 40 years after he became notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The target is even more problematic. Some forms of depression are passing. Should a woman who had post-partum depression with her second child 50 years ago, but did not have it with her two subsequent children, and did not become notable until 20 years ago be in such a category? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment as nom. Deleting this category would be a good move too, for the reasons mentioned above by others. It just shouldn't stand as-is. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 13:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Provinces of Roman Gaul

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: keep. No consensus on renaming. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Roman Gaul was a territory, merely defined as an ethno-/cultural-historical area of Celtic settlement; possibly also by the fact it was –in a body– defeated and conquered by Julius Caesar. Making them a container (separate from the rest) is a concession to out-of-date Franco-centric historiography, which is particularly questionable in the face of the history of French foreign policy (with varying definitions of its fringes towards the east or north-east, or what was perceived as 'Gaul' or territorial claim of France). 109.45.2.22 ( talk) 07:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: CFD tag was placed on talk page instead of category page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic L ondon 00:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_2&oldid=1074815883"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE