Category:Television series filmed in Atlanta, Georgia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Abbasid Caliphate
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: implement Fayenatic london's alternative merge. There's clear consensus that something needs to happen but differing opinions on how that should take place. The alternative merge seems to be a good place of compromise that most people seem to be at least somewhat supportive of. Perhaps allowing some time to see if this tree will develop further could be beneficial before diving right into more nominations involving this tree (although any lingering anachronistic issues should be taken care of with a separate nomination ASAP). --
Tavix(
talk)17:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only six pages total in this whole tree. Not even enough to maintain century categories in the establishments tree. The typical year/decade targets in Asia and the Abbasid Caliphate would also be left with just one page, so upmerging to centuries on those.
WP:SMALLCAT. ~ RobTalk17:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose - there is some kind of overkill going on here. Instead of developing trees, some users are trying to kill them in infancy. There is a general agreement that anachronism is to be avoided, but on the other hand past entities trees' are becoming deleted. I've personally begun developing this category tree and with some help Abbasid Caliphate can be a vast category tree - we are talking of a dominant Empire lasting for centuries!!!
GreyShark (
dibra)
05:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Alternative proposalComment - i think we should merge/rename all anachronistic Iraqi categories into Abbasid tree (already reviewed for historical accuracy):
Please don't make a bolded vote twice. The alternative proposal can't happen as part of this discussion since none of those cats have been tagged but I would support that as another nom. ~ RobTalk06:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I would be against "Arab World" cats, which refer to Arab World - a very ill defined concept. Theoretically Arab World can include every territory with past or present presence of Arab communities (all across the world). On the other hand, Arab League cat can be a well defined location, being a League of specific states. Furthermore, i would prefer to keep Asia as the top cat and not going into modern Middle East definitions, which is a pretty much Euro-centric concept (unlike West Asia).
GreyShark (
dibra)
15:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I would support upmerges to centuries but strongly oppose an Arab world tree, both because that geographical area changes based on time period, is not well-defined, and overlaps the Middle East in the modern day. ~ RobTalk16:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
@
BU Rob13: the Abbasid category tree has about 3 times more categories than mentioned (!) - how come you mention only part of the relatively large Abbasid tree? It creates a false image that there are not enough categories.
GreyShark (
dibra)
06:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Greyshark09: Those are in the history tree, which I haven't included in this nomination. This nomination focuses on the establishments tree, although certain history sub-cats which are only an extra layer of categorization for establishments were included in the nomination. ~ RobTalk12:55, 30 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:Music by place
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.
As always, before responding, please read my responses to other comments, as much insight into the matter is only tickled out of me when I have to respond to the thoughts of others and copying the info into the rationale feels redundant.
CN1 (
talk)
09:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)reply
At that time, I did not understand that even if we'd all agree that region, continent and country count as a place, it still would not mean that we should call the parent category ".. by place".
What all these subcategories have in common is, that they are defined by their geographic location.
What makes a place?
Its location.
So the thing the category actually categorizes by, is the location.
The discussion fortunately found no consensus, because some felt that location fits better.
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:Monumental crosses in Ireland
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.
Note to closer: the individual articles in the 2nd and 3rd categories should be removed, not merged, as they are already in the corresponding sub-cats for High crosses. –
FayenaticLondon15:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
What has
Anna Livia (monument) to do with anything? Merging crosses into "Monuments and memorials" doesn't imply that all those are crosses. The high cross tree is far more useful than this one, if one had to choose, which we don't.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Sorry - misread the direcrtion of the merger there so have struck those comments. I still think that the proposed category is a better container than "High". Outside of the British Isles, it's entirely possible that someone might conclude that it's part of a structure that includes Low, Medium, High and Really Quite High crosses. The current name makes this error less likely I think.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
21:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support In terms of crosses "monumental" correctly means anything larger than about 3 feet, and I think almost all the "Stone crosses" category would be correctly so described. The Monumental crosses tree seems to contain a very arbitary mixture of larger high crosses and Celtic crosses, plus outside the British Isles ones that would be more accurately described as "colossal", eg
Valle de los Caídos. I'd like to see clearer criteria, & a rename.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support --
Category:High crosses in Ireland is an appropriate category for a particular genre of archaeological structure. It is appropriate to have an all-Ireland category, as they date from many centuries before the 1922 partition. They are monumental, but are not memorials. They were perhaps originally the equivalent of a church building before any were built - a place where a congregation met - or a teaching aid. Purge of anything that does not fit (e.g. war memorials).
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:06, 12 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:People with dual American and German citizenship
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: Non-notable intersection. Are we going to create this for every possible combination? We would end up with 46 000 categories.
Nymf (
talk)
10:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete another requested enhancement candidate for being able to search for articles in 2 or more categories, but we don't want to start this morass.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
KeepGerman nationality law, as well as that of many other countries, typically forbids dual citizenship, so the individuals listed here are distinguished. Seriously though, I get that citizenship is a dicey subject but I don't understand the immense dislike for this category.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
21:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The category has a Kosavar refugee who came to the US via Germany and an NBA player born in Germany but who grew up in Utah. Neither one of these people seem defined by the nexus of American and German culture/citizenship.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
It doesn't really matter what the cultural and/or political inclinations of these people are, this category is merely noting a significant legal anomalies.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
23:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Such people will have their former identity recorded a normal expatriate or descent category. Rules on nationality vary. Those with dual British and foioan nationality would be so numerous that we would not want to have anything of the kind.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Being a dual citizen may be often cited in RSs, but RSs often (e.g. when referring to criminals and victims) use phrases like "a married father of 2" - i.e. not every fact that may be important to include in a biography is a good characteristic to categorize an encylopedia article by (categorization should primarily be by why the person is in the encyclopedia). Why is diffusing categories relevant? DexDor(talk)06:49, 17 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:Crux gemmata
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. The arguments against are stronger. While set categories are generally plural, we also must use the
WP:COMMONNAME where possible (which has no plural in English) and our guidelines also say we should use the names of main articles where possible. We often have exceptions to the usual singular/plural rules for categorization where there exist exceptions to singular/plural rules in the English language. This appears to be one of those cases. (
non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk19:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: We use plural names for set categories holding articles about individual objects. The main article is
Crux gemmata and the Latin plural would be cruces gemmatae, but that Latin plural is not a recognised English expression, so let's use English. –
FayenaticLondon10:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose I agree the Latin plural would be OTT, but these are normally called by the Latin name in sources - really, not every Jewelled cross is a crux gemmata (if small enough to be worn round the neck for example).
Johnbod (
talk)
12:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep -- While in theory this should be plural, it would be OTT. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Peterkingiron (
talk •
contribs) 12 June 2016
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:Social problems
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league) players
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: This is a confusing two categories. It appears a bunch of teams happen to share a name, but they're completely unrelated otherwise. For some reason, they're even sharing an article at
Syracuse Stars (minor league baseball). We could try splitting these by iterations, although the information in the article makes it hard to know where one team starts and ends. We could also split by league. Alternatively, we could give up on splitting and merge
Category:Syracuse Stars (1877) players here. It makes little sense to have one split out and all the rest not. Also, as it stands,
Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league) players is an ambiguous name when we have the other category in existence. ~ RobTalk06:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: part of the issue here is that the categories involve multiple franchises that just happen to have the same name. But with the current sources it's not easy to figure out which players played for which particular franchise.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, that is indeed the issue. Multiple times, a franchise disbanded, only to have an entirely new but unrelated franchise resurrect the name. I'm not sure why these distinct franchises share an article, which is probably not desirable. ~ RobTalk22:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment from nominator. I'm still not entirely convinced a merged category is the best outcome, but I don't oppose it. It's clearly better than what we have now, and I agree with
Good Olfactory that we probably don't have enough information to make a sensible split here. ~ RobTalk22:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge basically per Peterkingiron. Although there have been gaps in time, although the teams played in different leagues, we should consider that 19th- and early 20th-century people in Syracuse named them the same to stress the continuity.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:35, 18 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:Insects of Oman
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.
Merge – per nom. In this case a regional category seems to make more sense. Insects do not seem to care about political borders.
Dimadick (
talk)
08:00, 17 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:1934 establishments in the Tuvan People's Republic
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: One page for all of these categories, which clearly provides no useful classification. Upmerge to the most relevant establishments category and then delete the empty categories as per
WP:SMALLCAT. And no, you didn't misread; this entire tree is for a single page. Note that the single page is already in
Category:Tuva (which would have been the other plausible upmerge target). ~ RobTalk05:39, 10 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:Mammals of Iran
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: This category
was deleted last year - categorizing by countries (rather than by larger regions) leads to a large number of category tags on some articles and often (as currently in this case) the category forms a very incomplete list. Lists (in this case
List of mammals of Iran) are a much better way to cover this information. The one article currently in this category is already in
Category:Mammals of the Middle East so no upmerge is needed. DexDor(talk)05:34, 10 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:Top lists
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: I'm not sure about this. The target has lists of things that are or were the top one at a point in time. These "top lists" list selections that were in the top 100 / 500 etc over a period of time. So, the two sets have something different in common. –
FayenaticLondon16:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose , in addition to what Fayenatic london mentioned, there is also the element of objectivity. Items in the Lists of superlatives are objectively measurable superlatives while Top lists mostly contains top items based on election or judgment.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:03, 10 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:Glimcher Realty Trust
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.
Discussion, as this is essentially a shopping malls category, should we really categorize shopping malls by owner, while ownership may very easily go from one company to a next? Is this a defining characteristic?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:31, 4 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:2016 in San Jose, California
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2016 in San Francisco, California
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.
Keep. Can't see how this is procedurally a follow-up of any of these CfDs. The category is sufficiently populated, with San Francisco being a city that should generate enough content for per-year categories, at least for the more recent years. --
PanchoS (
talk)
08:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Given that we deleted a city and year category for San Jose and deleted the parent of this category, it seemed worth a discussion. (Still not expressing an opinion.) ~ RobTalk15:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak keep at least for the for the years of the 2010s decade. It looks like SF generates just enough content to populate these categories decently. If not kept, it should be upmerged to its parents.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:09, 20 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:Wikipedia categories named after cities
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.
Support I don't see the advantage of this technical breakdown by type of populated places. (Note, though, that I also don't see the advantage of this entire category tree.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
14:16, 10 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:Oceanic string quartets
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Cyprus peace process
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: Not saying the situation in Cyprus was outright "peaceful", it is no longer determined by a violent conflict. The ongoing process is about reconciliation or, more precisely, about the possible reunification of Cyprus.
PanchoS (
talk)
10:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - frankly i'm neutral, but for others i would like to note that "Cyprus peace process" has
11200 hits on Google, while "Cyprus reconciliation process" has
102 hits on Google.In Google Books (mostly reliable sources) - we have
364 hits for "Cyprus peace process" and none for "Cyprus reconciliation process". By the way, we certainly need an article on this topic, so when this discussion is finished, i shall start one.
GreyShark (
dibra)
11:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment As soon as someone creates a stub article on the topic, I'll favor speedily renaming this category to match it. In the mean time, I have no preference and no objection.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
09:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: I actually started writing an article about the (proposed)
Reunification of Cyprus (no, not the currently linked Annan Plan) a few weeks ago. Of course that reunification process is not completed, and it may fail again. But even if there were a full breakdown of the process, it probably won't ever be abandoned as an idea, similar to the
Korean reunification, the
Unification of Romania and Moldova or the
Chinese unification, but different to these in that it isn't (necessarily) based on
ethnic nationalism. Actually, this is a slightly different perspective to the reconciliation process that indeed in the literature is usually referred to as "peace process". I'm happy to withdraw my nomination until the dust has settled, but would like to invite you,
Greyshark09,
RevelationDirect and others to team up with me in writing one or even both articles on this topic. This is no talk forum here, but we might want to use this discussion to come up with a plan how to organize the topic and basically how to proceed from here. --
PanchoS (
talk)
16:48, 2 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:Fireworks festivals in Canada
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: This is a followup to
a previous CfD that succeeded in deleting a number of narrow per-country categories for fireworks festivals. We're usually trying to have broader categories first, before intersecting one concept with the other. Therefore it would be preferable to have a robust set of categories that cover everything about fireworks in a country (festivals, law, companies etc.), before further subdividing. If this approach yields, say, more than five articles for a country like China, a ‹The
templateCat is being
considered for merging.›Category:Fireworks in China category could be (re)created.
PanchoS (
talk)
02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
For the record, I'm listed as the original creator here, but that's only because I was the closer of the original discussion, which nominated some categories for deletion, but listed this for simple renaming as it was larger than the deletion candidates — so my action as closer was to rename this as nominated, but to relist the deletion candidates as a consensus had not quite formed on that part of the nomination. However, as the relisted discussion, linked by PanchoS above, achieved a new consensus about how to handle this and the USian sibling, I have no objection to the nomination.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:41, 14 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:Cartography journals
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.
Oppose. did you try googling for "cartography journals"? it'd have readily provided an abundance of such publications, thus demonstrating the potential for growth of this category. the fact that you see no utility of separating "cartography journals" from "geography journals" only shows how much you know about the subject. not only is cartography a notable topic on its own, but it's also not entirely contained within geography, re: navigation, surveying, geodesy, etc. your proposal is equivalent to deleting a medical specialty journal category.
fgnievinski (
talk)
08:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: as I said, even if there exist more journals, I don't see any need to split this category off. Cartography belongs in geography. --
Randykitty (
talk)
08:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It's clear that this is too small to justify a category at its current size. The question that should be discussed further is whether there's potential for growth or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk01:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose While cartography and geography have some overlap, cartography is not wholly in geography.
Topography of the Moon,
Brain mapping,
human genome map--these could all be considered as topics in cartography, but not geography. Hence. there is utility in separating these two fields. I understand the smallcat motivation for deletion, but this cat has links to both
Category:Geography journals and
Category:Cartography. If this cat is deleted, Marcocapelle has the right idea--articles need to be upmerged to both parent categories, so the journals don't lose their link to cartography. In terms of potential for growth,
Journals in Cartography, GIS, and Geovisualization shows 22 journals with impact factors and thus probably notable. There seems some potential for growth, but the articles need to be written. --
Mark viking (
talk)
03:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I think that grouping together journals on subjects as diverse as brain mapping, genetic mapping, Moon topography, and the
history of cartography (in the sense of making maps of the Earth) makes no sense at all. Indeed, none of these subjects (except for the history one) is in the category "cartography". I am quite certain that readers of, say,
Human Brain Mapping would be flabbergasted to find that journal categorized as a "cartography journal" (which in addition is a subcat of "Earth and atmospheric sciences journals"). Heck, I am sure that even cartographers will not consider those subjects to be part of cartography. --
Randykitty (
talk)
11:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I am, or was, a neuroscientist. We used mapping techniques--Voronoi diagrams, chloropleth maps, traditional map color LUTs-- all the time in mapping studies of the cortex. And we called them maps. It is Human Brain Mapping, not Human Brain Plotting. Cartography is about map making. This historically meant geographic map-making, but the field has broadened in scope since then to encompass general visualization techniques for spatial information. --
Mark viking (
talk)
18:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)reply
That is all true, yet nobody has ever called this kind of mapping "cartography". That term has been used almost exclusively for geographical mapping (I'm sure you'll be able to find the odd example where somebody used "cartography", but my point is that 99% of the time people do not associate brain or genetic mapping with "crtography). Nobody ever talks about "Human Brain Cartography" or "gene cartography". --
Randykitty (
talk)
08:42, 14 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:Television series filmed in Atlanta, Georgia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Abbasid Caliphate
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: implement Fayenatic london's alternative merge. There's clear consensus that something needs to happen but differing opinions on how that should take place. The alternative merge seems to be a good place of compromise that most people seem to be at least somewhat supportive of. Perhaps allowing some time to see if this tree will develop further could be beneficial before diving right into more nominations involving this tree (although any lingering anachronistic issues should be taken care of with a separate nomination ASAP). --
Tavix(
talk)17:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only six pages total in this whole tree. Not even enough to maintain century categories in the establishments tree. The typical year/decade targets in Asia and the Abbasid Caliphate would also be left with just one page, so upmerging to centuries on those.
WP:SMALLCAT. ~ RobTalk17:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose - there is some kind of overkill going on here. Instead of developing trees, some users are trying to kill them in infancy. There is a general agreement that anachronism is to be avoided, but on the other hand past entities trees' are becoming deleted. I've personally begun developing this category tree and with some help Abbasid Caliphate can be a vast category tree - we are talking of a dominant Empire lasting for centuries!!!
GreyShark (
dibra)
05:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Alternative proposalComment - i think we should merge/rename all anachronistic Iraqi categories into Abbasid tree (already reviewed for historical accuracy):
Please don't make a bolded vote twice. The alternative proposal can't happen as part of this discussion since none of those cats have been tagged but I would support that as another nom. ~ RobTalk06:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I would be against "Arab World" cats, which refer to Arab World - a very ill defined concept. Theoretically Arab World can include every territory with past or present presence of Arab communities (all across the world). On the other hand, Arab League cat can be a well defined location, being a League of specific states. Furthermore, i would prefer to keep Asia as the top cat and not going into modern Middle East definitions, which is a pretty much Euro-centric concept (unlike West Asia).
GreyShark (
dibra)
15:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I would support upmerges to centuries but strongly oppose an Arab world tree, both because that geographical area changes based on time period, is not well-defined, and overlaps the Middle East in the modern day. ~ RobTalk16:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
@
BU Rob13: the Abbasid category tree has about 3 times more categories than mentioned (!) - how come you mention only part of the relatively large Abbasid tree? It creates a false image that there are not enough categories.
GreyShark (
dibra)
06:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Greyshark09: Those are in the history tree, which I haven't included in this nomination. This nomination focuses on the establishments tree, although certain history sub-cats which are only an extra layer of categorization for establishments were included in the nomination. ~ RobTalk12:55, 30 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:Music by place
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.
As always, before responding, please read my responses to other comments, as much insight into the matter is only tickled out of me when I have to respond to the thoughts of others and copying the info into the rationale feels redundant.
CN1 (
talk)
09:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)reply
At that time, I did not understand that even if we'd all agree that region, continent and country count as a place, it still would not mean that we should call the parent category ".. by place".
What all these subcategories have in common is, that they are defined by their geographic location.
What makes a place?
Its location.
So the thing the category actually categorizes by, is the location.
The discussion fortunately found no consensus, because some felt that location fits better.
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:Monumental crosses in Ireland
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.
Note to closer: the individual articles in the 2nd and 3rd categories should be removed, not merged, as they are already in the corresponding sub-cats for High crosses. –
FayenaticLondon15:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
What has
Anna Livia (monument) to do with anything? Merging crosses into "Monuments and memorials" doesn't imply that all those are crosses. The high cross tree is far more useful than this one, if one had to choose, which we don't.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Sorry - misread the direcrtion of the merger there so have struck those comments. I still think that the proposed category is a better container than "High". Outside of the British Isles, it's entirely possible that someone might conclude that it's part of a structure that includes Low, Medium, High and Really Quite High crosses. The current name makes this error less likely I think.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
21:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support In terms of crosses "monumental" correctly means anything larger than about 3 feet, and I think almost all the "Stone crosses" category would be correctly so described. The Monumental crosses tree seems to contain a very arbitary mixture of larger high crosses and Celtic crosses, plus outside the British Isles ones that would be more accurately described as "colossal", eg
Valle de los Caídos. I'd like to see clearer criteria, & a rename.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support --
Category:High crosses in Ireland is an appropriate category for a particular genre of archaeological structure. It is appropriate to have an all-Ireland category, as they date from many centuries before the 1922 partition. They are monumental, but are not memorials. They were perhaps originally the equivalent of a church building before any were built - a place where a congregation met - or a teaching aid. Purge of anything that does not fit (e.g. war memorials).
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:06, 12 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:People with dual American and German citizenship
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: Non-notable intersection. Are we going to create this for every possible combination? We would end up with 46 000 categories.
Nymf (
talk)
10:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete another requested enhancement candidate for being able to search for articles in 2 or more categories, but we don't want to start this morass.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
KeepGerman nationality law, as well as that of many other countries, typically forbids dual citizenship, so the individuals listed here are distinguished. Seriously though, I get that citizenship is a dicey subject but I don't understand the immense dislike for this category.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
21:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The category has a Kosavar refugee who came to the US via Germany and an NBA player born in Germany but who grew up in Utah. Neither one of these people seem defined by the nexus of American and German culture/citizenship.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
It doesn't really matter what the cultural and/or political inclinations of these people are, this category is merely noting a significant legal anomalies.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
23:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Such people will have their former identity recorded a normal expatriate or descent category. Rules on nationality vary. Those with dual British and foioan nationality would be so numerous that we would not want to have anything of the kind.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Being a dual citizen may be often cited in RSs, but RSs often (e.g. when referring to criminals and victims) use phrases like "a married father of 2" - i.e. not every fact that may be important to include in a biography is a good characteristic to categorize an encylopedia article by (categorization should primarily be by why the person is in the encyclopedia). Why is diffusing categories relevant? DexDor(talk)06:49, 17 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:Crux gemmata
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. The arguments against are stronger. While set categories are generally plural, we also must use the
WP:COMMONNAME where possible (which has no plural in English) and our guidelines also say we should use the names of main articles where possible. We often have exceptions to the usual singular/plural rules for categorization where there exist exceptions to singular/plural rules in the English language. This appears to be one of those cases. (
non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk19:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: We use plural names for set categories holding articles about individual objects. The main article is
Crux gemmata and the Latin plural would be cruces gemmatae, but that Latin plural is not a recognised English expression, so let's use English. –
FayenaticLondon10:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose I agree the Latin plural would be OTT, but these are normally called by the Latin name in sources - really, not every Jewelled cross is a crux gemmata (if small enough to be worn round the neck for example).
Johnbod (
talk)
12:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep -- While in theory this should be plural, it would be OTT. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Peterkingiron (
talk •
contribs) 12 June 2016
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:Social problems
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league) players
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: This is a confusing two categories. It appears a bunch of teams happen to share a name, but they're completely unrelated otherwise. For some reason, they're even sharing an article at
Syracuse Stars (minor league baseball). We could try splitting these by iterations, although the information in the article makes it hard to know where one team starts and ends. We could also split by league. Alternatively, we could give up on splitting and merge
Category:Syracuse Stars (1877) players here. It makes little sense to have one split out and all the rest not. Also, as it stands,
Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league) players is an ambiguous name when we have the other category in existence. ~ RobTalk06:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: part of the issue here is that the categories involve multiple franchises that just happen to have the same name. But with the current sources it's not easy to figure out which players played for which particular franchise.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, that is indeed the issue. Multiple times, a franchise disbanded, only to have an entirely new but unrelated franchise resurrect the name. I'm not sure why these distinct franchises share an article, which is probably not desirable. ~ RobTalk22:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment from nominator. I'm still not entirely convinced a merged category is the best outcome, but I don't oppose it. It's clearly better than what we have now, and I agree with
Good Olfactory that we probably don't have enough information to make a sensible split here. ~ RobTalk22:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge basically per Peterkingiron. Although there have been gaps in time, although the teams played in different leagues, we should consider that 19th- and early 20th-century people in Syracuse named them the same to stress the continuity.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:35, 18 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:Insects of Oman
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.
Merge – per nom. In this case a regional category seems to make more sense. Insects do not seem to care about political borders.
Dimadick (
talk)
08:00, 17 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:1934 establishments in the Tuvan People's Republic
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: One page for all of these categories, which clearly provides no useful classification. Upmerge to the most relevant establishments category and then delete the empty categories as per
WP:SMALLCAT. And no, you didn't misread; this entire tree is for a single page. Note that the single page is already in
Category:Tuva (which would have been the other plausible upmerge target). ~ RobTalk05:39, 10 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:Mammals of Iran
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: This category
was deleted last year - categorizing by countries (rather than by larger regions) leads to a large number of category tags on some articles and often (as currently in this case) the category forms a very incomplete list. Lists (in this case
List of mammals of Iran) are a much better way to cover this information. The one article currently in this category is already in
Category:Mammals of the Middle East so no upmerge is needed. DexDor(talk)05:34, 10 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:Top lists
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: I'm not sure about this. The target has lists of things that are or were the top one at a point in time. These "top lists" list selections that were in the top 100 / 500 etc over a period of time. So, the two sets have something different in common. –
FayenaticLondon16:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose , in addition to what Fayenatic london mentioned, there is also the element of objectivity. Items in the Lists of superlatives are objectively measurable superlatives while Top lists mostly contains top items based on election or judgment.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:03, 10 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:Glimcher Realty Trust
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.
Discussion, as this is essentially a shopping malls category, should we really categorize shopping malls by owner, while ownership may very easily go from one company to a next? Is this a defining characteristic?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:31, 4 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:2016 in San Jose, California
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2016 in San Francisco, California
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.
Keep. Can't see how this is procedurally a follow-up of any of these CfDs. The category is sufficiently populated, with San Francisco being a city that should generate enough content for per-year categories, at least for the more recent years. --
PanchoS (
talk)
08:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Given that we deleted a city and year category for San Jose and deleted the parent of this category, it seemed worth a discussion. (Still not expressing an opinion.) ~ RobTalk15:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak keep at least for the for the years of the 2010s decade. It looks like SF generates just enough content to populate these categories decently. If not kept, it should be upmerged to its parents.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:09, 20 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:Wikipedia categories named after cities
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.
Support I don't see the advantage of this technical breakdown by type of populated places. (Note, though, that I also don't see the advantage of this entire category tree.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
14:16, 10 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:Oceanic string quartets
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Cyprus peace process
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: Not saying the situation in Cyprus was outright "peaceful", it is no longer determined by a violent conflict. The ongoing process is about reconciliation or, more precisely, about the possible reunification of Cyprus.
PanchoS (
talk)
10:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - frankly i'm neutral, but for others i would like to note that "Cyprus peace process" has
11200 hits on Google, while "Cyprus reconciliation process" has
102 hits on Google.In Google Books (mostly reliable sources) - we have
364 hits for "Cyprus peace process" and none for "Cyprus reconciliation process". By the way, we certainly need an article on this topic, so when this discussion is finished, i shall start one.
GreyShark (
dibra)
11:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment As soon as someone creates a stub article on the topic, I'll favor speedily renaming this category to match it. In the mean time, I have no preference and no objection.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
09:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: I actually started writing an article about the (proposed)
Reunification of Cyprus (no, not the currently linked Annan Plan) a few weeks ago. Of course that reunification process is not completed, and it may fail again. But even if there were a full breakdown of the process, it probably won't ever be abandoned as an idea, similar to the
Korean reunification, the
Unification of Romania and Moldova or the
Chinese unification, but different to these in that it isn't (necessarily) based on
ethnic nationalism. Actually, this is a slightly different perspective to the reconciliation process that indeed in the literature is usually referred to as "peace process". I'm happy to withdraw my nomination until the dust has settled, but would like to invite you,
Greyshark09,
RevelationDirect and others to team up with me in writing one or even both articles on this topic. This is no talk forum here, but we might want to use this discussion to come up with a plan how to organize the topic and basically how to proceed from here. --
PanchoS (
talk)
16:48, 2 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:Fireworks festivals in Canada
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: This is a followup to
a previous CfD that succeeded in deleting a number of narrow per-country categories for fireworks festivals. We're usually trying to have broader categories first, before intersecting one concept with the other. Therefore it would be preferable to have a robust set of categories that cover everything about fireworks in a country (festivals, law, companies etc.), before further subdividing. If this approach yields, say, more than five articles for a country like China, a ‹The
templateCat is being
considered for merging.›Category:Fireworks in China category could be (re)created.
PanchoS (
talk)
02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
For the record, I'm listed as the original creator here, but that's only because I was the closer of the original discussion, which nominated some categories for deletion, but listed this for simple renaming as it was larger than the deletion candidates — so my action as closer was to rename this as nominated, but to relist the deletion candidates as a consensus had not quite formed on that part of the nomination. However, as the relisted discussion, linked by PanchoS above, achieved a new consensus about how to handle this and the USian sibling, I have no objection to the nomination.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:41, 14 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:Cartography journals
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.
Oppose. did you try googling for "cartography journals"? it'd have readily provided an abundance of such publications, thus demonstrating the potential for growth of this category. the fact that you see no utility of separating "cartography journals" from "geography journals" only shows how much you know about the subject. not only is cartography a notable topic on its own, but it's also not entirely contained within geography, re: navigation, surveying, geodesy, etc. your proposal is equivalent to deleting a medical specialty journal category.
fgnievinski (
talk)
08:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: as I said, even if there exist more journals, I don't see any need to split this category off. Cartography belongs in geography. --
Randykitty (
talk)
08:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It's clear that this is too small to justify a category at its current size. The question that should be discussed further is whether there's potential for growth or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk01:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose While cartography and geography have some overlap, cartography is not wholly in geography.
Topography of the Moon,
Brain mapping,
human genome map--these could all be considered as topics in cartography, but not geography. Hence. there is utility in separating these two fields. I understand the smallcat motivation for deletion, but this cat has links to both
Category:Geography journals and
Category:Cartography. If this cat is deleted, Marcocapelle has the right idea--articles need to be upmerged to both parent categories, so the journals don't lose their link to cartography. In terms of potential for growth,
Journals in Cartography, GIS, and Geovisualization shows 22 journals with impact factors and thus probably notable. There seems some potential for growth, but the articles need to be written. --
Mark viking (
talk)
03:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I think that grouping together journals on subjects as diverse as brain mapping, genetic mapping, Moon topography, and the
history of cartography (in the sense of making maps of the Earth) makes no sense at all. Indeed, none of these subjects (except for the history one) is in the category "cartography". I am quite certain that readers of, say,
Human Brain Mapping would be flabbergasted to find that journal categorized as a "cartography journal" (which in addition is a subcat of "Earth and atmospheric sciences journals"). Heck, I am sure that even cartographers will not consider those subjects to be part of cartography. --
Randykitty (
talk)
11:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I am, or was, a neuroscientist. We used mapping techniques--Voronoi diagrams, chloropleth maps, traditional map color LUTs-- all the time in mapping studies of the cortex. And we called them maps. It is Human Brain Mapping, not Human Brain Plotting. Cartography is about map making. This historically meant geographic map-making, but the field has broadened in scope since then to encompass general visualization techniques for spatial information. --
Mark viking (
talk)
18:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)reply
That is all true, yet nobody has ever called this kind of mapping "cartography". That term has been used almost exclusively for geographical mapping (I'm sure you'll be able to find the odd example where somebody used "cartography", but my point is that 99% of the time people do not associate brain or genetic mapping with "crtography). Nobody ever talks about "Human Brain Cartography" or "gene cartography". --
Randykitty (
talk)
08:42, 14 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.