Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 28 June 30 >

June 29

Category:Animal births by year

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The result of the discussion was: keep (withdrawn by nominator). Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 10:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose subcategorizing/nesting:
and the same for all subcategories (no need to tag for this type of nomination)
Nominator's rationale: Clearly, animal births and deaths are births resp. deaths as well. Not nesting (animal) births and deaths categories, contributes to unnecessarily polluting the individual year's categories with a growing number of flat subcategories, see for example Category:2014. Of course, there's more to do but this would be a start.
We're human-centered and will always be, so keeping humans in the parent category, while subdividing for animals, should be no problem. The only problem is Category:People by time that shouldn't include animals. So instead we might possibly prefer creating a container that holds all of Category:Births by year, Category:Animal births by year and Category:Establishments by year and another one containing Category:Deaths by year, Category:Animal deaths by year and Category:Disestablishments by year. Somebody a good idea how that container could be named? -- PanchoS ( talk) 22:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator on 1 July. DexDor (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose (for the moment). I'm not sure that the number of subcats of Category:2014 etc is a problem (and if it is then it would be better to find a way to move Category:2014 in theatre etc into a lower level category), the nomination isn't clear (e.g. "are births resp. deaths as well."), and the proposed change may complicate existing techniques/systems used for BLP administration (afaics that's that main purpose of the human births/deaths categories).
Looking at the wider picture, I'm not sure that categorizing animals by their year of birth/death is good categorization; such categories are not needed for BLP purposes and are not very useful for navigation (many/most such categories contain just a single article - usually about a racehorse). IMO it would be better to categorize animals by the century than by the exact year of birth/death - e.g. Category:Individual dogs could usefully be subcategorized by century. However, any changes in that direction are outside the scope of this CFD. DexDor (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Not a grave objection, but I don't think Category:Beginnings by year is a good way to go - it doesn't do much to reduce the number of subcats of each year category whilst adding a new (and potentially confusing) set of categories. A better way to reduce the number of subcats in of each year category might be to copy the structure at Category:Main topic classifications etc - i.e. have Category:2014 in nature, Category:2014 in society etc (or Category:Society in 2014 etc). And (as I suggested above) perhaps the animal births/deaths by year categories should be deleted. DexDor (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Certainly another way of grouping the individual categories, and a sensible one, though they're not mutually exclusive. At least for the 19th and earlier centuries, animal birth/death categories should IMO be either collapsed by decade, or altogether transformed to Category:Animals by decade, but that's outside this nomination's scope. For later years, there seems to be sufficient content. -- PanchoS ( talk) 09:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment most of the notable animals whose birth years are known are captive and not part of the "environment" as many would understand that term, so that part of the upmerge is probably not appropriate. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Withdrawing. DexDor brought up some convincing arguments against the original proposal, and possible alternatives need WP:CfD involvement even less than the original proposal does. -- PanchoS ( talk) 09:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I know it was withdrawn but I want to register this as a horrible idea. Category:1991 births currently has no subcats and we want to keep it that way. This would open the door at least in some peoples minds to creating lots of birth subcats which would create a mess. It is bad enough that we have some people in 5 or more type/place of death categories, we at least have kept it to pretty much 1 birth category per article, although some articles are incorrectly categorized in say Category:People from Provo, Utah, when the article states that they only lived there until they were 6 months old and then were raised in Fresno, California, and we have guidelines that state that the place of birth is generally not defining. This proposal would lead to category clutter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The racehorse births by year categories are bizarre. So if we had an article on a horse that was not a race horse (which I am sure we have, although the year of birth might not be known), it would be in the general animal birth by year categories and thus more closely categorized with dogs born that year than with racehorses born that year, this just seems odd. I would make a proposal to upmerge these categories but don't feel like going to the work of tagging hundreds of categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all into century categories up to 1900 and decade categories thereafter, with a further merge to year by country (if existing) or decade by country (if not); and to year by continent (where there is not lower year category. I do not think it useful to combine human and animal births. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:51, 3 July 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:Sportspeople by province in the Netherlands

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus as opinion seems split here. One side argues following the category tree of Category:Dutch people (along with the Musician precedent) while the other side argues following Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision along with concerns that the "Dutch" demonym is ambiguous. -- Tavix ( talk) 15:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Source category is a sub of Category:Dutch sportspeople (i.e. inconsistent with its parent and other categories); Target name would be in proper English gidonb ( talk) 21:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Reply I'm not an expert on Dutch sensibilities. Can one be Of the Netherlands but not be Dutch? For example are people from Aruba Aruban or Dutch? If not,then I'd be fine with this alternative also. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 19:58, 10 July 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 by province in the Netherlands

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus as opinion seems split here. One side argues following the category tree of Category:Dutch people (along with the Musician precedent) while the other side argues following Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision along with concerns that the "Dutch" demonym is ambiguous. -- Tavix ( talk) 15:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Source name is a subcategory of Category:Dutch people (i.e. inconsistent with its parent and other categories); Target name would be in proper English. gidonb ( talk) 21:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
A category called "People by province in the Netherlands" should not contain people who live abroad. So either keep and purge or rename. Debresser ( talk) 14:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Being Dutch is in these cases a defining characteristic. If they cannot be purged, do I understand that you would prefer to rename as suggested? gidonb ( talk) 15:04, 10 July 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:FWA Members

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: selective merge of only the main Film Writers Association and Jalees Sherwani, as there has been strong arguments that this isn't a defining characteristic of regular members but no argument that either of those aren't defined by Category:Film Writers Association. I'll follow-up with a nomination of Category:Film Writers Association to decide if that's worth keeping or merging somewhere. ~ Rob13 Talk 02:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There are a number of organizations that use the initials FWA. Instead of renaming to something less ambiguous, propose upmerging to Category:Film Writers Association, given that this category is the only thing in the parent. Even the mainspace Film Writers Association is in this cat, not the parent.— Ketil Trout ( <><!) 21:18, 29 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:1781 establishments in Alta 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 result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:1781 establishments in New Spain. ~ Rob13 Talk 00:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The other categories within Category:18th-century establishments in California for each years are establishments in California. However I may wonder if it's better to reverse the others instead to Alta California. Ricky81682 ( talk) 19:38, 29 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:European Parliament constituencies in Scotland

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 London to England and keep the other two. ~ Rob13 Talk 02:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Of the three contemporary constituencies (one for Scotland; one for Wales; one for London), the former two should be selectively upmerged to Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom, while the London constituency is already listed in Category:European Parliament constituencies in England. PanchoS ( talk) 19:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep England (not CfDd), Scotland, and Wales; Upmerge London to England (the article is already included) and Former London to Former England. This scheme would be consistent with other geographies set aside Northern Ireland under the UK root. Since Northern Ireland can have a category for UK division consistency but does not necessitate a category -- I wouldn't create it and I wouldn't support removing it, had it been created. Like Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are not strictly necessary as regular categories because of the limited population potential. However, these cats are strictly necessary as the containers for their former constituencies, hence should be kept as is. gidonb ( talk) 23:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge London; keep the rest. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:59, 3 July 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:American brands

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: purge as per nom. Based on this discussion, the scope of the category is "articles or redirects on specific American product or service brands". Company articles are specifically to be removed. I encourage follow-up nominations to decide on this for the rest of the Category:Brands tree after the purge is complete so we have a better idea of the end result. ~ Rob13 Talk 02:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is a mish-mash of products bearing a trademark, companies, and articles about brands. Sure, there are articles about products with brands ( Hot Wheels), but the article is mostly about the product not the brand. The title doesn't reflect that: is " Estée Lauder Companies" an "American brand?" I would venture that "Estée Lauder" is, but Estée Lauder Companies is an American company, for which we have a whole different tree. Ditto entries like Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, then we have things like Francis Ford Coppola Presents, which is Coppola's company, presumably his name is what brands his work, not that mouthful. Hershey's is a brand, The Hershey Company is not used by any consumer to refer to chocolate. The Hershey Company kisses, anyone? Also, what is an "American" brand - is it a brand for a company based in the US, or a trademark of tradename of significance to the American consumer? What if a the company operates in the US but is owned by a foreign company, like Chrysler or Budweiser? Or the products bearing the "brand" are made elsewhere, like Hot Wheels. Since this category isn't what it claims to be, it's name should be changed to reflect what it is, perhaps Category:Trademarks and tradenames of companies based in the United States. Alternately, the category could be purged to include only articles on brands, not companies or people or products. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Purge per nom. I concur with the nominator that these brands-categories should only contain articles on particular brands, or branded product families, which would include both registered trademarks and non-registered ones if still notable. If a brand is not notable enough to have its own article apart from the company or a particular product, then a – possibly categorized – redirect should be enough. If someone considers a brand to be widely relevant to the American every-day culture, then please write a well-sourced article. -- PanchoS ( talk) 19:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Purge to remove articles from this category that are about companies. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Close with no decision. This is a general Category:Brands problem, not a US problem. Please take this important discussion to the brands root! gidonb ( talk) 12:34, 10 July 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:Expulsions of Jews

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) 05:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: What I am proposing is renaming of articles (and this single category) that use the word expulsion to using the word deportation. The reason for this is that the word expulsion is not defined anywhere in our project. Note that Expulsion is a disambig, which mentions Deportation as the related article. Its lead reads: "Deportation is the expulsion of a person or group of people from a place or country", and it is applicable in the historical context ("Deportation is an ancient practice, for example: Khosrau I, Sassanid King of Persia, deported 292,000 citizens, slaves, and conquered people to the new city of Ctesiphon in 542 C.E.["). PS. Just in case I wouldn't be clear, this proposal is limited to this single category. Any article renaming will be done on relevant article pages through RM. See also related discussion I just started here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support on the basis of using the most neutral and general term. If anyone identifies a better term then use that one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support to make the actual meaning clearer. But why is Category:Immigration to Israel a subcategory here? I don't think all people who immigrate to Israel were deported there. Dimadick ( talk) 19:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The definition in the lead of Deportation is at least shaky, given that the first book referenced deals with "mass expulsions", and the second one specifies "Deportation is the removal of an alien out of the country." (italics are mine), whereas throughout history, most expelled Jews weren't aliens. Other established definitions make a difference between mere expulsions (forcing someone to leave the country) vs. deportation (carrying someone out of the country). While etymologically imprecise, "deportation" is also used for legal expulsion of aliens, the mere expulsion or banishment of non-aliens isn't covered by that term. It is therefore not clearer nor the "most neutral and general term", but in fact is a narrower term that excludes much of the current content and would therefore invalidate the category. The fact that we currently don't have an article on mass expulsion or collective expulsion, and that expulsion isn't even a WP:CONCEPTDAB, may be deplorable, but insofar remains irrelevant. -- PanchoS ( talk) 20:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as there are four expulsion articles under this category and zero deportation articles. gidonb ( talk) 11:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose 1. "Expulsion" is driving people out of where they live, while "deportation" means in addition also to bring them to another area. These are not the same, so the rename is incorrect. 2. The reason for the nomination "the word expulsion is not defined anywhere in our project" is not a sufficient reason for a rename, and is not much of a reason for anything IMHO. Debresser ( talk) 14:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I have thought about whether expulsion and deportation are the same and I think that Debresser captures the essence of the difference. And the difference, to my mind, has meaning: expulsion is "we don't want you here", deportation is "we want you there." It's also commonly said expelled from Fooland, while deported (often, back) to Fooland. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Debresser and Carlossuarez46. Neutrality talk 19:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- Not one of the article titles uses the word "deportation". In my book, deportation refers to the removal of illegal aliens, but in most cases, the Jews were legally settled until an anti-Semitic edict was enacted. Edward I of England expelled the Jews because he could not pay back his loans to them (an item missing from the category. A cognate case is Idi Amin expelling the Ugandan Asians. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:06, 3 July 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 channels in Thailand

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Television stations in Thailand ( non-admin closure). Yellow Dingo  (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Categories with identical scope. (Note that the proposed category is actually the older, more established category, but most categories in the Category:Television stations by country tree use stations.) Paul_012 ( talk) 10:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support move per nom. What actually happened here is that this was originally at "stations", as it should be per our naming conventions for this tree, and a new user arbitrarily moved it to "channels" earlier this year. That most certainly should not have been done without consensus, however — while nationality-specific categories are allowed to vary from a parent naming convention if there's a compelling reason for the variance, that reason has to be agreed upon by consensus and cannot just be an arbitrary action by one editor. Bearcat ( talk) 15:43, 29 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:Palestine Emergency

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. The requested move was closed with the article title staying put, so the category can be renamed to match the article. -- Tavix ( talk) 02:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The article is called Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine. Palestine Emergency redirects there, but the category and article name should match. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Fayenatic london: Should we have the subcategory at all? It largely consists of British military personnel who happened to be in Palestine in the years of the Jewish insurgency, as part of their military career path, without having had any explicit role with respect to the Jewish insurgency. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:33, 7 July 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:Esperanza

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 (and I'll take care of the upmerge as well.) -- Tavix ( talk) 02:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category contains just the following: the eponymous page, lots of redirects, 2 MFD discussion (MFDs are not normally categorized like this, one is linked from the eponymous page and the other is only tangentially related to Esperanza), 3 signpost articles (which I've listed at the bottom of the eponymous page). Wikipedia:Esperanza should be upmerged to Category:Inactive Wikipedian organizations. If not deleted this category should be renamed to Category:Wikipedia Esperanza. DexDor (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose but would discuss further. This is a case of a well-developed but now inactive project which also has pages suppressed as redirects. If the pages were not suppressed then definitely the category would be valid. The argument here might be since the pages are hidden by being made redirects, then categories should also be removed. I see no reason for this. This categorization system will only be seen by people exploring the archival categorization. If the pages are to be kept at all, rather than deleted, then it seems useful to categorize them. Removing the categories removes value from this content which is being kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluerasberry ( talk • contribs)
The Wikipedia:Esperanza page provides a summary of the history of Esperanza (including links to the MFD discussions) and that's all that current Wikipedia editors need if (now increasingly unlikely) they come across a reference to Esperanza (e.g. at Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people). If anybody is doing serious (e.g. academic) research into that part of Wikipedia history they'll probably need access to deleted material and a more accurate way to find old Esperanza pages - some of which (e.g. Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs) aren't (currently) in this category. DexDor (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Support renaming to "Wikipedia Esperanza" and this category also should be categorized as an inactive Wikimedia organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 29 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:Hemiptera by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: We have been moving away from categorizing species by countries ( recent CFDs) as it causes some articles to be in large numbers of categories (for Jersey, Andorra etc). Thus, this category is unnecessary - the two subcategories are in Category:Hemiptera of Oceania. DexDor (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, since this category tree is no longer useful or actively populated. Dimadick ( talk) 19:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. No longer useful, and the two subcategories are sufficiently categorized. -- PanchoS ( talk) 20:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Plant and animal species are not constrained by the political borders of countries, and accordingly consensus has long been against categorizing them by individual country. I'll grant that the two countries here are potentially special cases — one is considered a full-on continent in its own right, and the other is geographically isolated enough that it has a higher than normal volume of uniquely endemic species. But they don't need this as a parent category, if other siblings for other countries are deprecated — Category:Hemiptera of Oceania is the only parent required here. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep only for the relevant species by country categories. gidonb ( talk) 12:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge -- New Zealand has a unique range of biota; Australia and Madagascar likewise. Conversely, the presence of land bridges means that for Europe and Asia even a continental split does not really work. The category scheme needs to reflect species distributions, not political boundaries. I am not a biologist and cannot suggest a robust category scheme for this. Country (as such) is clearly not the right solution, but here the two items represent isolated populations, so that the sub-cats should survive. For the moment, they need to be re-parented in by "by location" parent, but I am hoping that some WP project can sort this out generally. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Deletion of Category:Hemiptera by country would not delete the subcats - and the subcats would still be in Category:Hemiptera by location. So can you clarify what merging you think is needed. DexDor (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Category:Hemiptera by country per nom, Keep subcategories. As an entomologist and participant in WikiProject Insects, I have reservations about how useful these by-continent or by-country categories are as the vast majority of articles are not categorized at all. However, keeping it at the continent level (with major islands like Madegascar and New Zealand retained due to their specialized biota), should simplify Wikipedia's categorization issues. Should the tens of thousands of insect articles ever be categorized by place, more subcategories would be needed, but this is unlikely to happen in the near future due to the lack of editors and scientific data. M. A. Broussard ( talk) 03:18, 6 July 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.

Defunct WikiProject Vespidae Categories

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP Vespidae has been rolled into WP Insects/Hymenoptera. WP Vespidae's categories are no longer required. M. A. Broussard ( talk) 03:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The following categories are recommended to be deleted:

The 4 categories that are currently bluelinks above should be deleted when this CFD closes (assuming it closes as delete). There's also Category:Vespidae articles by importance and Category:Vespidae articles by quality - if they are not deleted by whoever closes this discussion then they can be CSD#G6ed. DexDor (talk) 05:34, 6 July 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:Whips (horse)

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: dual upmerge. Both sides made reasonable arguments, but the arguments for upmerging were more convincing to discussion participants. ~ Rob13 Talk 03:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no article name we are matching to here, so I suggest a more natural phrasing for this category. Alternatively, it could be upmerged to Category:Whips and Category:Horse tack and equipment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Dual Upmerge My arbitrary cutoff under WP:SMALLCAT is 5 articles, and this has 3. No objection to recreating if/when the article count grows. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Question: There are dozens of 3-article categories, where shall this end? And actually, there is no reason an article has to be "unique to horses" to be in a category, there can be multiple categories in which an article fits. I can add two more articles to this now, will that settle the matter? Montanabw (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back to Category:Whips. There is just not enough content. One of the articles is about a whip used from a horse on cattle; another is also used on dogs. If kept, certainly rename. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: I'm not opposed to a rename, I am opposed to an upmerge; whips are used in many different ways on different animals (there should be a Category:Bullwhips), and there is no reason that this topic cannot be non-diffused where equipment might be used on more than one animal (the romal is, in reality, used frequently on horses (sad to say), really more often than its historic use on cattle; go to any horse show where they have the appropriate classes and look out behind the barns). To upmerge to the the horse tack and equipment category just means that there will be several loose articles there and the category will eventually be recreated. Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Why would it eventually be re-created? Having "loose" articles in a category is not something that necessarily mandates subcategorization. Indeed, this discussion could act as a "precedent" of sort that such a subcategory should in fact not be re-created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Good Olfactory your reasoning here puzzles me. These are tools used on horses, and should be separated out from the broader category of horse tack. Not all whips are used on horses, so distinguishing the designs that are is useful. The argument that they might be used for other purposes too, as noted below, is a useless argument. I am going to @ Beyond My Ken: who has some knowledge of these articles and may have insights as to their categorization. Montanabw (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
              • These are tools used on horses, and should be separated out from the broader category of horse tack. Here you go from an "is" statement to a "should" statement, with nothing that I can see the logically connects the two. I guess we just disagree on how categories ought to be used. Regarding your notification of other users, you do need to be careful about how you go about it, per Wikipedia:Canvassing. The context in which you have notified user:Beyond My Ken is not exactly neutral. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Whips since these whips are not exclusively used on horses. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:42, 7 July 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_June_29&oldid=1089914370"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 28 June 30 >

June 29

Category:Animal births by year

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 (withdrawn by nominator). Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 10:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose subcategorizing/nesting:
and the same for all subcategories (no need to tag for this type of nomination)
Nominator's rationale: Clearly, animal births and deaths are births resp. deaths as well. Not nesting (animal) births and deaths categories, contributes to unnecessarily polluting the individual year's categories with a growing number of flat subcategories, see for example Category:2014. Of course, there's more to do but this would be a start.
We're human-centered and will always be, so keeping humans in the parent category, while subdividing for animals, should be no problem. The only problem is Category:People by time that shouldn't include animals. So instead we might possibly prefer creating a container that holds all of Category:Births by year, Category:Animal births by year and Category:Establishments by year and another one containing Category:Deaths by year, Category:Animal deaths by year and Category:Disestablishments by year. Somebody a good idea how that container could be named? -- PanchoS ( talk) 22:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator on 1 July. DexDor (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose (for the moment). I'm not sure that the number of subcats of Category:2014 etc is a problem (and if it is then it would be better to find a way to move Category:2014 in theatre etc into a lower level category), the nomination isn't clear (e.g. "are births resp. deaths as well."), and the proposed change may complicate existing techniques/systems used for BLP administration (afaics that's that main purpose of the human births/deaths categories).
Looking at the wider picture, I'm not sure that categorizing animals by their year of birth/death is good categorization; such categories are not needed for BLP purposes and are not very useful for navigation (many/most such categories contain just a single article - usually about a racehorse). IMO it would be better to categorize animals by the century than by the exact year of birth/death - e.g. Category:Individual dogs could usefully be subcategorized by century. However, any changes in that direction are outside the scope of this CFD. DexDor (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Not a grave objection, but I don't think Category:Beginnings by year is a good way to go - it doesn't do much to reduce the number of subcats of each year category whilst adding a new (and potentially confusing) set of categories. A better way to reduce the number of subcats in of each year category might be to copy the structure at Category:Main topic classifications etc - i.e. have Category:2014 in nature, Category:2014 in society etc (or Category:Society in 2014 etc). And (as I suggested above) perhaps the animal births/deaths by year categories should be deleted. DexDor (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Certainly another way of grouping the individual categories, and a sensible one, though they're not mutually exclusive. At least for the 19th and earlier centuries, animal birth/death categories should IMO be either collapsed by decade, or altogether transformed to Category:Animals by decade, but that's outside this nomination's scope. For later years, there seems to be sufficient content. -- PanchoS ( talk) 09:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment most of the notable animals whose birth years are known are captive and not part of the "environment" as many would understand that term, so that part of the upmerge is probably not appropriate. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Withdrawing. DexDor brought up some convincing arguments against the original proposal, and possible alternatives need WP:CfD involvement even less than the original proposal does. -- PanchoS ( talk) 09:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I know it was withdrawn but I want to register this as a horrible idea. Category:1991 births currently has no subcats and we want to keep it that way. This would open the door at least in some peoples minds to creating lots of birth subcats which would create a mess. It is bad enough that we have some people in 5 or more type/place of death categories, we at least have kept it to pretty much 1 birth category per article, although some articles are incorrectly categorized in say Category:People from Provo, Utah, when the article states that they only lived there until they were 6 months old and then were raised in Fresno, California, and we have guidelines that state that the place of birth is generally not defining. This proposal would lead to category clutter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The racehorse births by year categories are bizarre. So if we had an article on a horse that was not a race horse (which I am sure we have, although the year of birth might not be known), it would be in the general animal birth by year categories and thus more closely categorized with dogs born that year than with racehorses born that year, this just seems odd. I would make a proposal to upmerge these categories but don't feel like going to the work of tagging hundreds of categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all into century categories up to 1900 and decade categories thereafter, with a further merge to year by country (if existing) or decade by country (if not); and to year by continent (where there is not lower year category. I do not think it useful to combine human and animal births. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:51, 3 July 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:Sportspeople by province in the Netherlands

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus as opinion seems split here. One side argues following the category tree of Category:Dutch people (along with the Musician precedent) while the other side argues following Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision along with concerns that the "Dutch" demonym is ambiguous. -- Tavix ( talk) 15:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Source category is a sub of Category:Dutch sportspeople (i.e. inconsistent with its parent and other categories); Target name would be in proper English gidonb ( talk) 21:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Reply I'm not an expert on Dutch sensibilities. Can one be Of the Netherlands but not be Dutch? For example are people from Aruba Aruban or Dutch? If not,then I'd be fine with this alternative also. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 19:58, 10 July 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 by province in the Netherlands

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus as opinion seems split here. One side argues following the category tree of Category:Dutch people (along with the Musician precedent) while the other side argues following Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision along with concerns that the "Dutch" demonym is ambiguous. -- Tavix ( talk) 15:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Source name is a subcategory of Category:Dutch people (i.e. inconsistent with its parent and other categories); Target name would be in proper English. gidonb ( talk) 21:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
A category called "People by province in the Netherlands" should not contain people who live abroad. So either keep and purge or rename. Debresser ( talk) 14:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Being Dutch is in these cases a defining characteristic. If they cannot be purged, do I understand that you would prefer to rename as suggested? gidonb ( talk) 15:04, 10 July 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:FWA Members

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: selective merge of only the main Film Writers Association and Jalees Sherwani, as there has been strong arguments that this isn't a defining characteristic of regular members but no argument that either of those aren't defined by Category:Film Writers Association. I'll follow-up with a nomination of Category:Film Writers Association to decide if that's worth keeping or merging somewhere. ~ Rob13 Talk 02:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There are a number of organizations that use the initials FWA. Instead of renaming to something less ambiguous, propose upmerging to Category:Film Writers Association, given that this category is the only thing in the parent. Even the mainspace Film Writers Association is in this cat, not the parent.— Ketil Trout ( <><!) 21:18, 29 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:1781 establishments in Alta 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 result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:1781 establishments in New Spain. ~ Rob13 Talk 00:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The other categories within Category:18th-century establishments in California for each years are establishments in California. However I may wonder if it's better to reverse the others instead to Alta California. Ricky81682 ( talk) 19:38, 29 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:European Parliament constituencies in Scotland

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 London to England and keep the other two. ~ Rob13 Talk 02:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Of the three contemporary constituencies (one for Scotland; one for Wales; one for London), the former two should be selectively upmerged to Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom, while the London constituency is already listed in Category:European Parliament constituencies in England. PanchoS ( talk) 19:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep England (not CfDd), Scotland, and Wales; Upmerge London to England (the article is already included) and Former London to Former England. This scheme would be consistent with other geographies set aside Northern Ireland under the UK root. Since Northern Ireland can have a category for UK division consistency but does not necessitate a category -- I wouldn't create it and I wouldn't support removing it, had it been created. Like Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are not strictly necessary as regular categories because of the limited population potential. However, these cats are strictly necessary as the containers for their former constituencies, hence should be kept as is. gidonb ( talk) 23:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge London; keep the rest. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:59, 3 July 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:American brands

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: purge as per nom. Based on this discussion, the scope of the category is "articles or redirects on specific American product or service brands". Company articles are specifically to be removed. I encourage follow-up nominations to decide on this for the rest of the Category:Brands tree after the purge is complete so we have a better idea of the end result. ~ Rob13 Talk 02:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is a mish-mash of products bearing a trademark, companies, and articles about brands. Sure, there are articles about products with brands ( Hot Wheels), but the article is mostly about the product not the brand. The title doesn't reflect that: is " Estée Lauder Companies" an "American brand?" I would venture that "Estée Lauder" is, but Estée Lauder Companies is an American company, for which we have a whole different tree. Ditto entries like Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, then we have things like Francis Ford Coppola Presents, which is Coppola's company, presumably his name is what brands his work, not that mouthful. Hershey's is a brand, The Hershey Company is not used by any consumer to refer to chocolate. The Hershey Company kisses, anyone? Also, what is an "American" brand - is it a brand for a company based in the US, or a trademark of tradename of significance to the American consumer? What if a the company operates in the US but is owned by a foreign company, like Chrysler or Budweiser? Or the products bearing the "brand" are made elsewhere, like Hot Wheels. Since this category isn't what it claims to be, it's name should be changed to reflect what it is, perhaps Category:Trademarks and tradenames of companies based in the United States. Alternately, the category could be purged to include only articles on brands, not companies or people or products. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Purge per nom. I concur with the nominator that these brands-categories should only contain articles on particular brands, or branded product families, which would include both registered trademarks and non-registered ones if still notable. If a brand is not notable enough to have its own article apart from the company or a particular product, then a – possibly categorized – redirect should be enough. If someone considers a brand to be widely relevant to the American every-day culture, then please write a well-sourced article. -- PanchoS ( talk) 19:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Purge to remove articles from this category that are about companies. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Close with no decision. This is a general Category:Brands problem, not a US problem. Please take this important discussion to the brands root! gidonb ( talk) 12:34, 10 July 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:Expulsions of Jews

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) 05:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: What I am proposing is renaming of articles (and this single category) that use the word expulsion to using the word deportation. The reason for this is that the word expulsion is not defined anywhere in our project. Note that Expulsion is a disambig, which mentions Deportation as the related article. Its lead reads: "Deportation is the expulsion of a person or group of people from a place or country", and it is applicable in the historical context ("Deportation is an ancient practice, for example: Khosrau I, Sassanid King of Persia, deported 292,000 citizens, slaves, and conquered people to the new city of Ctesiphon in 542 C.E.["). PS. Just in case I wouldn't be clear, this proposal is limited to this single category. Any article renaming will be done on relevant article pages through RM. See also related discussion I just started here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support on the basis of using the most neutral and general term. If anyone identifies a better term then use that one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support to make the actual meaning clearer. But why is Category:Immigration to Israel a subcategory here? I don't think all people who immigrate to Israel were deported there. Dimadick ( talk) 19:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The definition in the lead of Deportation is at least shaky, given that the first book referenced deals with "mass expulsions", and the second one specifies "Deportation is the removal of an alien out of the country." (italics are mine), whereas throughout history, most expelled Jews weren't aliens. Other established definitions make a difference between mere expulsions (forcing someone to leave the country) vs. deportation (carrying someone out of the country). While etymologically imprecise, "deportation" is also used for legal expulsion of aliens, the mere expulsion or banishment of non-aliens isn't covered by that term. It is therefore not clearer nor the "most neutral and general term", but in fact is a narrower term that excludes much of the current content and would therefore invalidate the category. The fact that we currently don't have an article on mass expulsion or collective expulsion, and that expulsion isn't even a WP:CONCEPTDAB, may be deplorable, but insofar remains irrelevant. -- PanchoS ( talk) 20:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as there are four expulsion articles under this category and zero deportation articles. gidonb ( talk) 11:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose 1. "Expulsion" is driving people out of where they live, while "deportation" means in addition also to bring them to another area. These are not the same, so the rename is incorrect. 2. The reason for the nomination "the word expulsion is not defined anywhere in our project" is not a sufficient reason for a rename, and is not much of a reason for anything IMHO. Debresser ( talk) 14:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I have thought about whether expulsion and deportation are the same and I think that Debresser captures the essence of the difference. And the difference, to my mind, has meaning: expulsion is "we don't want you here", deportation is "we want you there." It's also commonly said expelled from Fooland, while deported (often, back) to Fooland. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Debresser and Carlossuarez46. Neutrality talk 19:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- Not one of the article titles uses the word "deportation". In my book, deportation refers to the removal of illegal aliens, but in most cases, the Jews were legally settled until an anti-Semitic edict was enacted. Edward I of England expelled the Jews because he could not pay back his loans to them (an item missing from the category. A cognate case is Idi Amin expelling the Ugandan Asians. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:06, 3 July 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 channels in Thailand

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Television stations in Thailand ( non-admin closure). Yellow Dingo  (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Categories with identical scope. (Note that the proposed category is actually the older, more established category, but most categories in the Category:Television stations by country tree use stations.) Paul_012 ( talk) 10:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support move per nom. What actually happened here is that this was originally at "stations", as it should be per our naming conventions for this tree, and a new user arbitrarily moved it to "channels" earlier this year. That most certainly should not have been done without consensus, however — while nationality-specific categories are allowed to vary from a parent naming convention if there's a compelling reason for the variance, that reason has to be agreed upon by consensus and cannot just be an arbitrary action by one editor. Bearcat ( talk) 15:43, 29 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:Palestine Emergency

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. The requested move was closed with the article title staying put, so the category can be renamed to match the article. -- Tavix ( talk) 02:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The article is called Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine. Palestine Emergency redirects there, but the category and article name should match. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Fayenatic london: Should we have the subcategory at all? It largely consists of British military personnel who happened to be in Palestine in the years of the Jewish insurgency, as part of their military career path, without having had any explicit role with respect to the Jewish insurgency. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:33, 7 July 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:Esperanza

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 (and I'll take care of the upmerge as well.) -- Tavix ( talk) 02:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category contains just the following: the eponymous page, lots of redirects, 2 MFD discussion (MFDs are not normally categorized like this, one is linked from the eponymous page and the other is only tangentially related to Esperanza), 3 signpost articles (which I've listed at the bottom of the eponymous page). Wikipedia:Esperanza should be upmerged to Category:Inactive Wikipedian organizations. If not deleted this category should be renamed to Category:Wikipedia Esperanza. DexDor (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose but would discuss further. This is a case of a well-developed but now inactive project which also has pages suppressed as redirects. If the pages were not suppressed then definitely the category would be valid. The argument here might be since the pages are hidden by being made redirects, then categories should also be removed. I see no reason for this. This categorization system will only be seen by people exploring the archival categorization. If the pages are to be kept at all, rather than deleted, then it seems useful to categorize them. Removing the categories removes value from this content which is being kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluerasberry ( talk • contribs)
The Wikipedia:Esperanza page provides a summary of the history of Esperanza (including links to the MFD discussions) and that's all that current Wikipedia editors need if (now increasingly unlikely) they come across a reference to Esperanza (e.g. at Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people). If anybody is doing serious (e.g. academic) research into that part of Wikipedia history they'll probably need access to deleted material and a more accurate way to find old Esperanza pages - some of which (e.g. Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs) aren't (currently) in this category. DexDor (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Support renaming to "Wikipedia Esperanza" and this category also should be categorized as an inactive Wikimedia organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 29 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:Hemiptera by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: We have been moving away from categorizing species by countries ( recent CFDs) as it causes some articles to be in large numbers of categories (for Jersey, Andorra etc). Thus, this category is unnecessary - the two subcategories are in Category:Hemiptera of Oceania. DexDor (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, since this category tree is no longer useful or actively populated. Dimadick ( talk) 19:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. No longer useful, and the two subcategories are sufficiently categorized. -- PanchoS ( talk) 20:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Plant and animal species are not constrained by the political borders of countries, and accordingly consensus has long been against categorizing them by individual country. I'll grant that the two countries here are potentially special cases — one is considered a full-on continent in its own right, and the other is geographically isolated enough that it has a higher than normal volume of uniquely endemic species. But they don't need this as a parent category, if other siblings for other countries are deprecated — Category:Hemiptera of Oceania is the only parent required here. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep only for the relevant species by country categories. gidonb ( talk) 12:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge -- New Zealand has a unique range of biota; Australia and Madagascar likewise. Conversely, the presence of land bridges means that for Europe and Asia even a continental split does not really work. The category scheme needs to reflect species distributions, not political boundaries. I am not a biologist and cannot suggest a robust category scheme for this. Country (as such) is clearly not the right solution, but here the two items represent isolated populations, so that the sub-cats should survive. For the moment, they need to be re-parented in by "by location" parent, but I am hoping that some WP project can sort this out generally. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Deletion of Category:Hemiptera by country would not delete the subcats - and the subcats would still be in Category:Hemiptera by location. So can you clarify what merging you think is needed. DexDor (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Category:Hemiptera by country per nom, Keep subcategories. As an entomologist and participant in WikiProject Insects, I have reservations about how useful these by-continent or by-country categories are as the vast majority of articles are not categorized at all. However, keeping it at the continent level (with major islands like Madegascar and New Zealand retained due to their specialized biota), should simplify Wikipedia's categorization issues. Should the tens of thousands of insect articles ever be categorized by place, more subcategories would be needed, but this is unlikely to happen in the near future due to the lack of editors and scientific data. M. A. Broussard ( talk) 03:18, 6 July 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.

Defunct WikiProject Vespidae Categories

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP Vespidae has been rolled into WP Insects/Hymenoptera. WP Vespidae's categories are no longer required. M. A. Broussard ( talk) 03:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The following categories are recommended to be deleted:

The 4 categories that are currently bluelinks above should be deleted when this CFD closes (assuming it closes as delete). There's also Category:Vespidae articles by importance and Category:Vespidae articles by quality - if they are not deleted by whoever closes this discussion then they can be CSD#G6ed. DexDor (talk) 05:34, 6 July 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:Whips (horse)

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: dual upmerge. Both sides made reasonable arguments, but the arguments for upmerging were more convincing to discussion participants. ~ Rob13 Talk 03:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no article name we are matching to here, so I suggest a more natural phrasing for this category. Alternatively, it could be upmerged to Category:Whips and Category:Horse tack and equipment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Dual Upmerge My arbitrary cutoff under WP:SMALLCAT is 5 articles, and this has 3. No objection to recreating if/when the article count grows. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Question: There are dozens of 3-article categories, where shall this end? And actually, there is no reason an article has to be "unique to horses" to be in a category, there can be multiple categories in which an article fits. I can add two more articles to this now, will that settle the matter? Montanabw (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back to Category:Whips. There is just not enough content. One of the articles is about a whip used from a horse on cattle; another is also used on dogs. If kept, certainly rename. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: I'm not opposed to a rename, I am opposed to an upmerge; whips are used in many different ways on different animals (there should be a Category:Bullwhips), and there is no reason that this topic cannot be non-diffused where equipment might be used on more than one animal (the romal is, in reality, used frequently on horses (sad to say), really more often than its historic use on cattle; go to any horse show where they have the appropriate classes and look out behind the barns). To upmerge to the the horse tack and equipment category just means that there will be several loose articles there and the category will eventually be recreated. Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Why would it eventually be re-created? Having "loose" articles in a category is not something that necessarily mandates subcategorization. Indeed, this discussion could act as a "precedent" of sort that such a subcategory should in fact not be re-created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Good Olfactory your reasoning here puzzles me. These are tools used on horses, and should be separated out from the broader category of horse tack. Not all whips are used on horses, so distinguishing the designs that are is useful. The argument that they might be used for other purposes too, as noted below, is a useless argument. I am going to @ Beyond My Ken: who has some knowledge of these articles and may have insights as to their categorization. Montanabw (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
              • These are tools used on horses, and should be separated out from the broader category of horse tack. Here you go from an "is" statement to a "should" statement, with nothing that I can see the logically connects the two. I guess we just disagree on how categories ought to be used. Regarding your notification of other users, you do need to be careful about how you go about it, per Wikipedia:Canvassing. The context in which you have notified user:Beyond My Ken is not exactly neutral. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Whips since these whips are not exclusively used on horses. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:42, 7 July 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_June_29&oldid=1089914370"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE