The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:upmerge per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently just one article. Correct me if I'm wrong but
Category:History of business seems to be a more suitable merge target than either of the two parent categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
It would be an anachronistic categorization though,
Scientific management, the topic of the article, is much older than
Management science, and the terms are also less closely related with each other than you would expect based on their names.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: Perhaps we need a
Category: History of commerce as well. And/or a re-write of the article
Business, which Wikipedia defines almost exclusively as relating to individual firms. But management, of course, operates equally in the non-commercial sectors - in government and in not-for-profits. -
Jandalhandler (
talk) 02:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Management does not just happen in businesses. It happens in public and not for profit organisations too.
Rathfelder (
talk) 19:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The one article in this category is about business.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Notably in its discussion of Taylorism in the Soviet Union and in East Germany. -
Jandalhandler (
talk) 12:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Support nom -- Business history is a recognised academic subject, distinct from economic history, though they are of course related. One of the objectives of business history journals is producing case studies for business schools, whose object is to teach management. Commerce may (as suggested) be slightly wider, but is not treated as an academic subject in its own right.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Shame about all those
Bachelor of Commerce degrees. - Nevertheless, apart from academic respectability, applied management may have a history too... -
Jandalhandler (
talk) 12:27, 27 December 2017 (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:Rulers of Númenor
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 – a perfect example of how to categorise redirects. A redirect to a section in an article should be categorised as if it were a self-standing article, exactly as here.
Oculi (
talk) 19:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete no reason to have a category for a bunch of redirects that all point to the same page.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Full upmerge - Apart from the main article everything (except one case) is a redirect. However the target should be
Category:Fictional rulers not
Category:Rulers, as we should not be mixing history and fiction. At least one more item needs purging from
Category:Rulers.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:03, 27 December 2017 (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:Actors with disabilities
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 as part of a series, without prejudice to any wider discussion of disability categories. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 08:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: "Disability" is far too vague to be used as a catch-all category. Is nearsightedness a disability? Mild arthritis? A decreased sense of smell? Skin cancer? Presumably most fatal illnesses would be disabilities, so lots of now-dead actors at one point or another were disabled. If someone had corrective surgery (bone spur, LASIK, braces) does that count?
Disability says it is "an impairment that may be cognitive, developmental, intellectual, mental, physical, sensory, or some combination of these. It substantially affects a person's life activities..." That covers a lot of ground, far too much to be a defining characteristic. SummerPhDv2.0 16:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
comment I've created
Category:Actors with Down syndrome which took more than half of the previous membership. There are probably enough actors with cerebral palsy to make a similar subcat.
Mangoe (
talk) 17:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
"Actor's with (specific condition)" cats are likely to be discreet enough and I doubt anyone will create "Actor's with nearsightedness" and such. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep User:JDDJS has demonstrated this is part of a larger category tree, and it seems easy to source.
Dimadick (
talk) 00:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
JDDJS has demonstrated that other categories exist. I would posit that FDR's inability to walk and Clinton's use of eyeglasses means both of them are presidents with disabilities. Helena Bonham Carter had a bit of bladder leakage after giving birth. Is that a "disability"? She said it substantially limited her wardrobe choices ("substantially affects a person's life activities"). As far as I can tell, there is not a bright line between "disabled" and not. (As for the other categories, the list of musicians is clearly very poorly added. Drug addiction is clearly a disability, but the distinction between drug addiction and cigarette smoking is blurry at best. It's actually rather hard to think of a band that doesn't have at least one member that would belong on that list.) - SummerPhDv2.0 02:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
If you want to have a much larger conversation about all the cats, then by all means have it. However, I strongly feel that one way or another we need to be consistent. Additionally having separate discussions would be redundant because the same arguments would apply and the only way it could end differently is if different people show up to the conversation. I highly recommend that you withdraw this nomination and instead start a new discussion that includes all of the occupations with disabilities cats.
JDDJS (
talk) 17:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Containerize, classifying someone as having a disability 'in general' is too subjective, but a container category for deaf actors, blind actors etc. should be allowed. Of course this also applies the same way to the sibling categories that haven't been nominated (yet).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a horrible plan that mixes all sorts of things, and brings up issues like if the disability was hidden, should we categorize by it. That we have other such equally bad categories does not mean we should keep this one.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Should we not be constitent one way or the other? I'm all for having a much larger discussion about all of these categories. However, I strongly feel that it would be wrong to just delete this single category.
JDDJS (
talk) 19:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I meant "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". Changed that now.
J 1982 (
talk) 10:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:upmerge per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently just one article. Correct me if I'm wrong but
Category:History of business seems to be a more suitable merge target than either of the two parent categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
It would be an anachronistic categorization though,
Scientific management, the topic of the article, is much older than
Management science, and the terms are also less closely related with each other than you would expect based on their names.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: Perhaps we need a
Category: History of commerce as well. And/or a re-write of the article
Business, which Wikipedia defines almost exclusively as relating to individual firms. But management, of course, operates equally in the non-commercial sectors - in government and in not-for-profits. -
Jandalhandler (
talk) 02:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Management does not just happen in businesses. It happens in public and not for profit organisations too.
Rathfelder (
talk) 19:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The one article in this category is about business.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Notably in its discussion of Taylorism in the Soviet Union and in East Germany. -
Jandalhandler (
talk) 12:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Support nom -- Business history is a recognised academic subject, distinct from economic history, though they are of course related. One of the objectives of business history journals is producing case studies for business schools, whose object is to teach management. Commerce may (as suggested) be slightly wider, but is not treated as an academic subject in its own right.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Shame about all those
Bachelor of Commerce degrees. - Nevertheless, apart from academic respectability, applied management may have a history too... -
Jandalhandler (
talk) 12:27, 27 December 2017 (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:Rulers of Númenor
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 – a perfect example of how to categorise redirects. A redirect to a section in an article should be categorised as if it were a self-standing article, exactly as here.
Oculi (
talk) 19:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete no reason to have a category for a bunch of redirects that all point to the same page.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Full upmerge - Apart from the main article everything (except one case) is a redirect. However the target should be
Category:Fictional rulers not
Category:Rulers, as we should not be mixing history and fiction. At least one more item needs purging from
Category:Rulers.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:03, 27 December 2017 (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:Actors with disabilities
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 as part of a series, without prejudice to any wider discussion of disability categories. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 08:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: "Disability" is far too vague to be used as a catch-all category. Is nearsightedness a disability? Mild arthritis? A decreased sense of smell? Skin cancer? Presumably most fatal illnesses would be disabilities, so lots of now-dead actors at one point or another were disabled. If someone had corrective surgery (bone spur, LASIK, braces) does that count?
Disability says it is "an impairment that may be cognitive, developmental, intellectual, mental, physical, sensory, or some combination of these. It substantially affects a person's life activities..." That covers a lot of ground, far too much to be a defining characteristic. SummerPhDv2.0 16:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
comment I've created
Category:Actors with Down syndrome which took more than half of the previous membership. There are probably enough actors with cerebral palsy to make a similar subcat.
Mangoe (
talk) 17:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
"Actor's with (specific condition)" cats are likely to be discreet enough and I doubt anyone will create "Actor's with nearsightedness" and such. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep User:JDDJS has demonstrated this is part of a larger category tree, and it seems easy to source.
Dimadick (
talk) 00:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
JDDJS has demonstrated that other categories exist. I would posit that FDR's inability to walk and Clinton's use of eyeglasses means both of them are presidents with disabilities. Helena Bonham Carter had a bit of bladder leakage after giving birth. Is that a "disability"? She said it substantially limited her wardrobe choices ("substantially affects a person's life activities"). As far as I can tell, there is not a bright line between "disabled" and not. (As for the other categories, the list of musicians is clearly very poorly added. Drug addiction is clearly a disability, but the distinction between drug addiction and cigarette smoking is blurry at best. It's actually rather hard to think of a band that doesn't have at least one member that would belong on that list.) - SummerPhDv2.0 02:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
If you want to have a much larger conversation about all the cats, then by all means have it. However, I strongly feel that one way or another we need to be consistent. Additionally having separate discussions would be redundant because the same arguments would apply and the only way it could end differently is if different people show up to the conversation. I highly recommend that you withdraw this nomination and instead start a new discussion that includes all of the occupations with disabilities cats.
JDDJS (
talk) 17:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Containerize, classifying someone as having a disability 'in general' is too subjective, but a container category for deaf actors, blind actors etc. should be allowed. Of course this also applies the same way to the sibling categories that haven't been nominated (yet).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a horrible plan that mixes all sorts of things, and brings up issues like if the disability was hidden, should we categorize by it. That we have other such equally bad categories does not mean we should keep this one.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Should we not be constitent one way or the other? I'm all for having a much larger discussion about all of these categories. However, I strongly feel that it would be wrong to just delete this single category.
JDDJS (
talk) 19:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I meant "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". Changed that now.
J 1982 (
talk) 10:30, 23 December 2017 (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.