- 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: No actual articles in the category, just a redirect Rathfelder ( talk) 21:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Just delete. If there are not articles, nothing to merge. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 09:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, we do not categorise people by caste. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion in which the parent Category:Rajput clans was kept. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. Arthur Rackham isn't even mentioned in 2 of the 3 articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- delete there are a couple of books where Rackham was the illustrator (and which gain some of their notability because of that), but going through the list in his bio, in general he provided plates for some particular edition of an established work, so WP:NONDEF would in general apply. Also, it's not clear that any of these are "picture books" in he modern sense, and as far as I can tell he didn't write any of them; he provided illustrations for the stories of others. Mangoe ( talk) 22:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: Redundant in purpose to Category:Books illustrated by Arthur Rackham, and two of the three entries are mis-entries, being not articles on books but articles on folktales ( Cinderella and the Pied Piper of Hamelin). The third fits into the other category, since it is a book he illustrated. Whether it's a "picture book" is open to interpretation and would appear to be irrelevant. And "by Arthur Rackham" is grossly misleading in this construction, imply sole authorship. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 09:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: not picture books, and also not defined as books illustrated by Rackham. Robina Fox ( talk) 02:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 17#Category:Female_geologists. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Female geologists to Category:Women geologists
- Nominator's rationale: Per Women in geology, Category:Women earth scientists, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 6. Will also involve renaming all the subcategories. Courcelles ( talk) 21:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Rename per nom To match parent category Category:Women earth scientists. Dimadick ( talk) 10:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Procedural comment. If the intention is also to rename the subcats, they should be tagged and listed. I suggest that the best way to proceed is to relist this discussion on today's CfD, and add the subcats. I would be happy to do both if that's OK with @ Courcelles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sorry, it's been years since I've been active with CFD and I just plain forgot. Yeah, if you're willing, feel free, the subcats need to be renamed as well. Courcelles ( talk) 14:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Only 26 biographies in the permanent category. Significantly less than the 60 minimum for a stub category, and some of the articles have moved beyond stub stage. Propose deleting category as it stands. No prejudice against recreation once there are sufficient tagged articles. Upmerge {{ Israel-volleyball-bio-stub}} to Category:Israeli sportspeople stubs and Category:European volleyball biography stubs. (Because of culture clashes, Israel plays all sports in European leagues.) Dawynn ( talk) 20:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Sextet sibling groups to parent Category:Sibling groups. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: having six people in a family at some generation is not WP:DEFINING. Mangoe ( talk) 18:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Upmrerge to parent Category:Sibling groups. That they are sibling groups is defining. How many siblings, probably isn't. Dimadick ( talk) 10:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Upmerge -- If this were Category:sextuplets it might have been worth having, but the number of siblings is hardly defining. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: merge, by decree of the Cabal. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Wikipedia Cabal decrees to Category:Wikipedia cabal humor
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent. This is all hilarious material, but the nominated category is just a handful of essays, and that's what the parent category is too (plus associated templates). The only difference is that the ones in the nominated category are supposedly official decrees of the fictional cabal, and that's not a good reason for a subcategory. In the end, all it does is bury some of the humor pages deeper into a category structure for no reason. (Disclaimer: I created the parent category, to gather all the cabal-related joke pages and essays into one spot; afterwards, I realized the "decrees" cluster is illusory.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 16:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. Unencyclopedic creep into category space. VegaDark ( talk) 08:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Keep and rename to Category:Spanish-language YouTubers. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_22#Category:Youtubers and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_8#Category:YouTube_video_producers — swpb T go beyond 17:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to
Category:Spanish-language YouTubers.
Category:YouTubers is an established category, and the language is a defining characteristic of the content they produce. It's no different from
Category:Spanish-language films.
ℯ
xplicit
02:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- @ Explicit: While Category:YouTubers is an established category, Category:YouTubers by language is not. Are you suggesting it should be created and populated—and if so, what is your thought on the significant overlap with Category:YouTubers by nationality? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted from
WP:CfD 2017 December 26 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- relisting comment: Do we start categorising YouTubers by language, or not? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- If kept, fix spelling to "YouTubers". I have to go with keep. A category series like this is arguably at least as useful as
Category:YouTubers by nationality, and is consistent with
Category:Films by language, etc. (the fact that there's some overlap with
Category:Films by country has never been an issue). They're just completely different criteria that exist for different reasons (classification by jurisdiction and classification by language of communication, which is trans-national). So, yes, we would eventually have
Category:YouTubers by language. That said, I think at some point we'll need a more generalized category. YouTube already has competition, and is unlikely to last forever. These people should ultimately by classified by a broader term, whether that be vloggers or online broadcasters or whatever; I think we'll have a better idea what that should be when the time comes to do it. The long-term problem with
Category:YouTubers is that's its too specific in the same way that "Category:Actors on HBO" or "Category:WordPress.com bloggers" would be. YouTube is a conduit, not a publisher or a publication (in
WP:CS1 citation template terms, it's a
|via=). While we might keep Category:The New York Times writers (not quite a PERFCAT) we eventually would not keep these YT ones at this name, especially given that some of them are already on multiple sites, and tools like IFTTT make it easier and easier to e-publish simultaneously (or in a timed manner) on multiple platforms. Give it 5 years? 2? Who knows. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 15:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. This discussion has been open for 81 days, and relisting generated no further comments, so there's point keeping it open.
There was general unhappiness with the term "administrative territorial entities", but no agreement on what label is best for a set which could be described verbosely as "geographical areas created by humans for political or administrative purposes (e.g. countries, states, counties, provinces, wards, constitencies, civil parishes, raions, oblasts), rather than physically-derived areas (e.g. islands, continents), biologically-science-defined areas (e.g. biogeographic realms/ecozones), or divisions created for other types of human study (e.g. cultural areas, or zones in economic geography)."
Maybe a discussion at WikiProject Geography would help to clarify what terminology is used by English-language geographers, and maybe form the basis of a further CfD?
Pinging the participants, in case my suggestion is any help: @ Fayenatic london, Peterkingiron, and Marcocapelle. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming
- Category:Administrative territorial entities to ?????
- Category:Protests by administrative territorial entity to ?????
- Category:Establishment of administrative territorial entities to ?????
- Category:Administrative territorial entities by time of establishment to Category:States and territories by time of establishment
- Category:Administrative territorial entities by time of disestablishment to ????? (added on 3 Nov)
- Category:Proposed administrative territorial entities to ????? (added on 3 Nov)
- Category:Lists of administrative territorial entities to ????? ( " " " ")
- Category:Administrative territorial entities by language to ????? (etc)
- Category:Lists of administrative territorial entities by language
- Category:Former administrative territorial entities
- Category:Administrative territorial entities by continent
- Category:Former administrative territorial entities by continent
- Category:Disestablishment of administrative territorial entities
- Category:Administrative territorial entities by time
- Category:Administrative territorial entities by type
- Nominator's rationale: This category holds countries, states, counties, cities etc. It was created by user:Androoox, a sockpuppet of blocked editor user:Tobias Conradi, as "humangeographic territorial entities". It was later manually renamed to "Administrative territorial entities" by user:Eldizzino, another sock of the same editor. That editor has recently been using various IP socks, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Tobias_Conradi. Some of his recent work has been using the CFD Speedy page to rename various branches of the hierarchy to use the same category naming pattern. The fullest justification was "not about some physical entities (e.g. woodlands) but about Category:Administrative territorial entities". [1] This seems fair enough, but one counter-argument is that the name is rather long and may be longer than necessary. It is high time that the naming of this hierarchy was submitted to a full CFD discussion. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note on category history: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_2#Category:Humangeographic_territorial_entities closed with no consensus about the original name "Humangeographic_territorial_entities". Eldizzino moved it to Administrative territorial entities, then made it a sub-cat of that one. [2] That one was later merged to its parents, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_27#Category:Humangeographic_territorial_entities.
- Other parts of the hierarchy were originally created by other editors, e.g. "Territories by language", but this was progressively renamed by socks of Tobias Conradi: [3] (speedy nomination, which was opposed); [4] (out of process); [5] (out of process again). – Fayenatic London 17:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment -- I suspect that the term that is needed is "polities". However, that may be too technical a word. This is after all only a container category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Peterkingiron - The article "
Polity" starts: "A polity is any kind of political entity. It is a group of people who are collectively united by a self-reflected cohesive force". Your proposal would place "
Neutral zone (territorial entity)",
Military district,
Exclusive economic zone,
Metropolitan statistical area,
Planning regions of Latvia under "Polity".
85.181.157.239 (
talk)
19:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- I stand corrected however many of them are actually polities. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Peterkingiron - The article "
Polity" starts: "A polity is any kind of political entity. It is a group of people who are collectively united by a self-reflected cohesive force". Your proposal would place "
Neutral zone (territorial entity)",
Military district,
Exclusive economic zone,
Metropolitan statistical area,
Planning regions of Latvia under "Polity".
85.181.157.239 (
talk)
19:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment:
Category:Administrative territorial entities by time of establishment contains
Category:States and territories by century of establishment etc. It would be natural at least to rename that one to "States and territories..." to match the established hierarchy that it contains. See related
CFD October 22. –
Fayenatic
London
19:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Fayenatic london - The page "
States and territories" refers only to subdivisions of countries. It would be inconsistent and confusing to use the term differently in the category hierarchy.
85.181.157.239 (
talk)
19:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Does it indeed? In that case it should be called country subdivisions. However, I have not been reading it that way, and it is not used that way. Many ancient kingdoms are categorised as "states and territories established in...", and they were in effect countries. I understood the "states and territories" hierarchy to be inclusive, embracing both countries and subdivisions.
Template:Infobox former country populates it (perhaps
Template:Infobox country too), and that seems fine to me. –
Fayenatic
London
09:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- User:Fayenatic london RE "Does it indeed?" How does States and territories not if you look at the content of the page
- And there is no Category:States and territories. But there are Category:Countries and Category:Categories by country with hundreds of subcategories and Category:Country subdivision Category:Categories by country subdivision. Australia (s,t), Canada (t), India (s,t), Malaysia (s,t), Mexico (s,t), Russia (t) and the United States (s,t): They have or had first-level country subdivisions named "state" or "territory". By which logic "states and territories" could be a better name for the top category for entities named "area, block, borough, canton, circle, city, community, county, department, district, division, hide, municipality, prefecture, protectorate, province, region, reserve, state, territory, town, township, unit, union, ward, zone" than a descriptive term like "administrative territorial entities", which avoids taking position on whether something is a country/state, a territory and the level of a country, or a country subdivision named "state" or "country"?
- Would you put country below "states and territories"? If so, why would it be "states and territories" and not "countries and territories" if country is the overwhelmingly used term for sovereign entities?
85.179.110.23 (
talk)
01:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- The looming question is whether the hierarchy States and territories by century of establishment should be renamed. In that hierarchy I had understood "States and territories" as a generic term embracing empires and vassal kingdoms, countries and subdivisions, and provisional countries/subdivisions like the American pre-State territories. If other editors read that name as meaning "subdivisions" (which has not yet been demonstrated), then it should change. I would be inclined to oppose "administrative territorial entities..." as too long-winded, and prefer "countries and subdivisions".
- I think this would work all the way to the top, i.e. rename the categories nominated here to Category:Countries and subdivisions, Category:Protests by country or subdivision, etc. – Fayenatic London 10:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- RE "Countries and subdivisions" VS "Protests by country or subdivision": any logic behind this, or random use of these words?
77.180.245.225 (
talk)
06:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, this is standard naming. "Protests by country and subdivision" would be for categories that were by subdivision within country; compare e.g. People by continent and occupation or the many similar categories at the top of People by occupation. The Protests category is not like that, but contains Protests by country and a few other locations that may not be recognised as countries. Perhaps Category:Protests by location would be better for this one. – Fayenatic London 09:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- RE Countries/subdivisions: As what of the two do the following qualify:
Neutral zone (territorial entity),
International waters, the territory of the
Antarctic Treaty System, entities of the
United Nations geoscheme, the various
Euroregions/
Eurodistricts, the
ITU regions,
European Broadcasting Area.
77.180.245.225 (
talk)
06:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- So IP number, what do you suggest? Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Does it indeed? In that case it should be called country subdivisions. However, I have not been reading it that way, and it is not used that way. Many ancient kingdoms are categorised as "states and territories established in...", and they were in effect countries. I understood the "states and territories" hierarchy to be inclusive, embracing both countries and subdivisions.
Template:Infobox former country populates it (perhaps
Template:Infobox country too), and that seems fine to me. –
Fayenatic
London
09:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Fayenatic london - The page "
States and territories" refers only to subdivisions of countries. It would be inconsistent and confusing to use the term differently in the category hierarchy.
85.181.157.239 (
talk)
19:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to
Category:Territories but keep the current parents. Much shorter without changing the meaning of the categories. And move part of the current
Category:Territories to the parent
Category:Types of country subdivisions. Rename
Category:Establishment of administrative territorial entities to
Category:Establishment of territories and
Category:Administrative territorial entities by time of establishment to
Category:Territories by time of establishment. Note that "state" is ambiguous and probably unneeded. Not sure if the protests category should be kept at all.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Marcocapelle -
Category:Territories is placed inside
Category:Types of country subdivisions and the article
Territory starts "A territory is an
administrative division" and the article for the latter starts "An administrative division, unit, entity, area or region, also referred to as a subnational entity, constituent unit, or country subdivision, is a portion of a
country". Your proporsal would place "country" below a portion of a country.
85.181.157.239 (
talk)
19:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- That is why I added "but keep the current parents". And for that matter, I don't agree with the article
Territory because the word territory may have a much broader meaning (like in the current category name, Administrative territorial entities, which includes countries, but also e.g. animals may have a territory). The article should better be renamed to
Territory (country subdivision).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Marcocapelle - The article was started 14 August 2006 as
Territory (subnational entity) by
User:Tobias Conradi and renamed 20 October 2006 to "
Territory (country subdivision)" by the creator. At that time it referred only to human-made entities, not animal-territories. Later editors so far succeeded in making the distinction disappear from the article title.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Territory&offset=&limit=5000&action=history - search for "moved page" in the page shows several renames.
92.229.97.47 (
talk)
20:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- So what is your opinion about the nomination? Do you support or oppose the nomination to rename somehow and why? Do you support or oppose any of the alternative names and why? Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Marcocapelle - The article was started 14 August 2006 as
Territory (subnational entity) by
User:Tobias Conradi and renamed 20 October 2006 to "
Territory (country subdivision)" by the creator. At that time it referred only to human-made entities, not animal-territories. Later editors so far succeeded in making the distinction disappear from the article title.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Territory&offset=&limit=5000&action=history - search for "moved page" in the page shows several renames.
92.229.97.47 (
talk)
20:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- That is why I added "but keep the current parents". And for that matter, I don't agree with the article
Territory because the word territory may have a much broader meaning (like in the current category name, Administrative territorial entities, which includes countries, but also e.g. animals may have a territory). The article should better be renamed to
Territory (country subdivision).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Marcocapelle -
Category:Territories is placed inside
Category:Types of country subdivisions and the article
Territory starts "A territory is an
administrative division" and the article for the latter starts "An administrative division, unit, entity, area or region, also referred to as a subnational entity, constituent unit, or country subdivision, is a portion of a
country". Your proporsal would place "country" below a portion of a country.
85.181.157.239 (
talk)
19:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note on former lists by country and language:
Category:Lists of administrative territorial entities by language and its contents used to be named "lists of countries" but were moved, without discussion, by Tobias Conradi's socks, e.g.
[6]
[7] (category)
[8] (contents). –
Fayenatic
London
11:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- RE Sock: Evidence for sock allegation? Even by WP standards not all moves were carried out by socks.
77.180.245.225 (
talk)
06:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- The first move was by User:Eldizzino which has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of Tobias Conradi. The second one was moved by User:Derianus which is likewise blocked as a suspected sock of the same editor. Looking at the edits by those accounts, I see no reason to doubt that conclusion. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- RE lists of countries: Can you explain to the audience how
Tamil Nadu,
South Tirol and
Wallonia would qualify for
category:Countries?
77.180.245.225 (
talk)
06:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't say the contents were all countries. My point was that the categories were moved out-of-process. The current hierarchy using the longwinded category names has all been built by Tobias Conradi without discussion. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- RE Sock: Evidence for sock allegation? Even by WP standards not all moves were carried out by socks.
77.180.245.225 (
talk)
06:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just summing up, we have three alternatives here and they all three have a disadvantage, but none of the disadvantages is particularly huge:
- keep current name, with a made-up term, with a long name, but it is an accurate descriptor of the content
- Category:Countries and subdivisions, it does not cover every type of territory that is in the category, but it is aligns best with current terminology in the category tree
- Category:Territories, with an ambiguous term (in some countries?), it is short and accurate (if you take the broader meaning of territory in mind)
- Frankly, as they all three have their pros and cons, I wouldn't oppose any of the three. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted from
WP:CfD 2017 October_29 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: merge
Category:History of management to
Category:History of business.
Editors may wish to further refine the categorisation of the two articles currently in the category: Management fad, Scientific management. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:History of management to Category:History of business
- 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)
- Double merge as the current parent Category:Management science also seems relevant to me. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I understand the concern, but creating Category: History of commerce would not solve this problem, as it would merely function as a synonym of Category:History of business. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- The one article in this category is about business. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Notably in its discussion of Taylorism in the Soviet Union and in East Germany. - Jandalhandler ( talk) 12:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Relisted from
WP:CfD 2017 December 22 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Relisting comment. Only 2 articles here. Surely there is a simple solution? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- It may be easy for me to say as the nominator, but I think the nomination to merge is simple and adequate. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:G4 as Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion ... and WP:TROUT @ OnBeyondZebrax, the creator of both, for ignoring consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete as a copy of Category:Post-grunge authors that was deleted earlier in this discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT. Only two entries, one of which is a redirect. Both entries are fictional beings that only resemble pangolins. The species is clearly too rare to have enough fictional counterparts. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- delete One article of dubious notability, and a Pokemon critter. A picture book about a pet pangolin might be terribly cute but it is clearly a sub-genre whose time has not come. Mangoe ( talk) 19:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- delete. Unfortunately, there's not really a higher level for pangolins shy of the main mammal category. BTW, we might want to look at the worth of Category:Fictional shrews, too. Grutness... wha? 00:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- It has never been revealed whether or not Pokemon are mammals, has it? Mangoe ( talk) 00:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete, and disperse contents to Category:Works about Kenya and Category:Kenya in fiction. (Only 4 items in the category: Category:Films set in Kenya, Category:Novels set in Kenya, Juma and the Magic Jinn, Out of Africa). I will list the cat at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging
Category:Works set in Kenya into
Category:Works about Kenya
- Nominator's rationale: The parent category of "Works set in Kenya" includes no other categories by country, while the category Category:Works about countries contains 142 countries. Hugo999 ( talk) 03:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Support per nom. Grutness... wha? 00:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)see below- ALT Merge to
Category:Kenya in fiction; I'll place that one into
Category:Works about Kenya. I think this will result in a standard hierarchy. –
Fayenatic
London
00:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not in favour of that - quite a few of the films in Category:Films set in Kenya are documentary or otherwise non-fiction. Grutness... wha? 00:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose The current form is standard for works set in x. Like Category:Works set in New York City. Works can be set in locations, including entirely in that location, without every being about that location. This is standard to how things work, and part of a much larger scheme. On further reflection, we have not created this general works category, but we have films and novels sub-sets, and no good reason to not have a more general parent. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, there do appear to be a dozen or so categories of this format, though they're not tied in to any category tree and are mainly for cities and regions, which is why we missed them. See here... Grutness... wha? 01:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- We should consider carefully whether creating a new tree by country with Category:Works set in Kenya and siblings makes sense. It wouldn't add much value if it would mainly serve as a container category for two subcats, e.g. in this case Category:Novels set in Kenya and Category:Films set in Kenya. Actually Fayenatic london's suggestion could work as well, provided that the documentary films are moved from Category:Films set in Kenya to Category:Documentary films about Kenya. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: No actual articles in the category, just a redirect Rathfelder ( talk) 21:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Just delete. If there are not articles, nothing to merge. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 09:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, we do not categorise people by caste. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion in which the parent Category:Rajput clans was kept. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. Arthur Rackham isn't even mentioned in 2 of the 3 articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- delete there are a couple of books where Rackham was the illustrator (and which gain some of their notability because of that), but going through the list in his bio, in general he provided plates for some particular edition of an established work, so WP:NONDEF would in general apply. Also, it's not clear that any of these are "picture books" in he modern sense, and as far as I can tell he didn't write any of them; he provided illustrations for the stories of others. Mangoe ( talk) 22:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: Redundant in purpose to Category:Books illustrated by Arthur Rackham, and two of the three entries are mis-entries, being not articles on books but articles on folktales ( Cinderella and the Pied Piper of Hamelin). The third fits into the other category, since it is a book he illustrated. Whether it's a "picture book" is open to interpretation and would appear to be irrelevant. And "by Arthur Rackham" is grossly misleading in this construction, imply sole authorship. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 09:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: not picture books, and also not defined as books illustrated by Rackham. Robina Fox ( talk) 02:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 17#Category:Female_geologists. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Female geologists to Category:Women geologists
- Nominator's rationale: Per Women in geology, Category:Women earth scientists, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 6. Will also involve renaming all the subcategories. Courcelles ( talk) 21:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Rename per nom To match parent category Category:Women earth scientists. Dimadick ( talk) 10:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Procedural comment. If the intention is also to rename the subcats, they should be tagged and listed. I suggest that the best way to proceed is to relist this discussion on today's CfD, and add the subcats. I would be happy to do both if that's OK with @ Courcelles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sorry, it's been years since I've been active with CFD and I just plain forgot. Yeah, if you're willing, feel free, the subcats need to be renamed as well. Courcelles ( talk) 14:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Only 26 biographies in the permanent category. Significantly less than the 60 minimum for a stub category, and some of the articles have moved beyond stub stage. Propose deleting category as it stands. No prejudice against recreation once there are sufficient tagged articles. Upmerge {{ Israel-volleyball-bio-stub}} to Category:Israeli sportspeople stubs and Category:European volleyball biography stubs. (Because of culture clashes, Israel plays all sports in European leagues.) Dawynn ( talk) 20:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Sextet sibling groups to parent Category:Sibling groups. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: having six people in a family at some generation is not WP:DEFINING. Mangoe ( talk) 18:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Upmrerge to parent Category:Sibling groups. That they are sibling groups is defining. How many siblings, probably isn't. Dimadick ( talk) 10:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Upmerge -- If this were Category:sextuplets it might have been worth having, but the number of siblings is hardly defining. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: merge, by decree of the Cabal. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Wikipedia Cabal decrees to Category:Wikipedia cabal humor
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent. This is all hilarious material, but the nominated category is just a handful of essays, and that's what the parent category is too (plus associated templates). The only difference is that the ones in the nominated category are supposedly official decrees of the fictional cabal, and that's not a good reason for a subcategory. In the end, all it does is bury some of the humor pages deeper into a category structure for no reason. (Disclaimer: I created the parent category, to gather all the cabal-related joke pages and essays into one spot; afterwards, I realized the "decrees" cluster is illusory.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 16:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. Unencyclopedic creep into category space. VegaDark ( talk) 08:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: Keep and rename to Category:Spanish-language YouTubers. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_22#Category:Youtubers and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_8#Category:YouTube_video_producers — swpb T go beyond 17:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to
Category:Spanish-language YouTubers.
Category:YouTubers is an established category, and the language is a defining characteristic of the content they produce. It's no different from
Category:Spanish-language films.
ℯ
xplicit
02:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- @ Explicit: While Category:YouTubers is an established category, Category:YouTubers by language is not. Are you suggesting it should be created and populated—and if so, what is your thought on the significant overlap with Category:YouTubers by nationality? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted from
WP:CfD 2017 December 26 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- relisting comment: Do we start categorising YouTubers by language, or not? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- If kept, fix spelling to "YouTubers". I have to go with keep. A category series like this is arguably at least as useful as
Category:YouTubers by nationality, and is consistent with
Category:Films by language, etc. (the fact that there's some overlap with
Category:Films by country has never been an issue). They're just completely different criteria that exist for different reasons (classification by jurisdiction and classification by language of communication, which is trans-national). So, yes, we would eventually have
Category:YouTubers by language. That said, I think at some point we'll need a more generalized category. YouTube already has competition, and is unlikely to last forever. These people should ultimately by classified by a broader term, whether that be vloggers or online broadcasters or whatever; I think we'll have a better idea what that should be when the time comes to do it. The long-term problem with
Category:YouTubers is that's its too specific in the same way that "Category:Actors on HBO" or "Category:WordPress.com bloggers" would be. YouTube is a conduit, not a publisher or a publication (in
WP:CS1 citation template terms, it's a
|via=). While we might keep Category:The New York Times writers (not quite a PERFCAT) we eventually would not keep these YT ones at this name, especially given that some of them are already on multiple sites, and tools like IFTTT make it easier and easier to e-publish simultaneously (or in a timed manner) on multiple platforms. Give it 5 years? 2? Who knows. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 15:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. This discussion has been open for 81 days, and relisting generated no further comments, so there's point keeping it open.
There was general unhappiness with the term "administrative territorial entities", but no agreement on what label is best for a set which could be described verbosely as "geographical areas created by humans for political or administrative purposes (e.g. countries, states, counties, provinces, wards, constitencies, civil parishes, raions, oblasts), rather than physically-derived areas (e.g. islands, continents), biologically-science-defined areas (e.g. biogeographic realms/ecozones), or divisions created for other types of human study (e.g. cultural areas, or zones in economic geography)."
Maybe a discussion at WikiProject Geography would help to clarify what terminology is used by English-language geographers, and maybe form the basis of a further CfD?
Pinging the participants, in case my suggestion is any help: @ Fayenatic london, Peterkingiron, and Marcocapelle. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming
- Category:Administrative territorial entities to ?????
- Category:Protests by administrative territorial entity to ?????
- Category:Establishment of administrative territorial entities to ?????
- Category:Administrative territorial entities by time of establishment to Category:States and territories by time of establishment
- Category:Administrative territorial entities by time of disestablishment to ????? (added on 3 Nov)
- Category:Proposed administrative territorial entities to ????? (added on 3 Nov)
- Category:Lists of administrative territorial entities to ????? ( " " " ")
- Category:Administrative territorial entities by language to ????? (etc)
- Category:Lists of administrative territorial entities by language
- Category:Former administrative territorial entities
- Category:Administrative territorial entities by continent
- Category:Former administrative territorial entities by continent
- Category:Disestablishment of administrative territorial entities
- Category:Administrative territorial entities by time
- Category:Administrative territorial entities by type
- Nominator's rationale: This category holds countries, states, counties, cities etc. It was created by user:Androoox, a sockpuppet of blocked editor user:Tobias Conradi, as "humangeographic territorial entities". It was later manually renamed to "Administrative territorial entities" by user:Eldizzino, another sock of the same editor. That editor has recently been using various IP socks, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Tobias_Conradi. Some of his recent work has been using the CFD Speedy page to rename various branches of the hierarchy to use the same category naming pattern. The fullest justification was "not about some physical entities (e.g. woodlands) but about Category:Administrative territorial entities". [1] This seems fair enough, but one counter-argument is that the name is rather long and may be longer than necessary. It is high time that the naming of this hierarchy was submitted to a full CFD discussion. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note on category history: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_2#Category:Humangeographic_territorial_entities closed with no consensus about the original name "Humangeographic_territorial_entities". Eldizzino moved it to Administrative territorial entities, then made it a sub-cat of that one. [2] That one was later merged to its parents, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_27#Category:Humangeographic_territorial_entities.
- Other parts of the hierarchy were originally created by other editors, e.g. "Territories by language", but this was progressively renamed by socks of Tobias Conradi: [3] (speedy nomination, which was opposed); [4] (out of process); [5] (out of process again). – Fayenatic London 17:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment -- I suspect that the term that is needed is "polities". However, that may be too technical a word. This is after all only a container category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Peterkingiron - The article "
Polity" starts: "A polity is any kind of political entity. It is a group of people who are collectively united by a self-reflected cohesive force". Your proposal would place "
Neutral zone (territorial entity)",
Military district,
Exclusive economic zone,
Metropolitan statistical area,
Planning regions of Latvia under "Polity".
85.181.157.239 (
talk)
19:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- I stand corrected however many of them are actually polities. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Peterkingiron - The article "
Polity" starts: "A polity is any kind of political entity. It is a group of people who are collectively united by a self-reflected cohesive force". Your proposal would place "
Neutral zone (territorial entity)",
Military district,
Exclusive economic zone,
Metropolitan statistical area,
Planning regions of Latvia under "Polity".
85.181.157.239 (
talk)
19:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment:
Category:Administrative territorial entities by time of establishment contains
Category:States and territories by century of establishment etc. It would be natural at least to rename that one to "States and territories..." to match the established hierarchy that it contains. See related
CFD October 22. –
Fayenatic
London
19:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Fayenatic london - The page "
States and territories" refers only to subdivisions of countries. It would be inconsistent and confusing to use the term differently in the category hierarchy.
85.181.157.239 (
talk)
19:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Does it indeed? In that case it should be called country subdivisions. However, I have not been reading it that way, and it is not used that way. Many ancient kingdoms are categorised as "states and territories established in...", and they were in effect countries. I understood the "states and territories" hierarchy to be inclusive, embracing both countries and subdivisions.
Template:Infobox former country populates it (perhaps
Template:Infobox country too), and that seems fine to me. –
Fayenatic
London
09:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- User:Fayenatic london RE "Does it indeed?" How does States and territories not if you look at the content of the page
- And there is no Category:States and territories. But there are Category:Countries and Category:Categories by country with hundreds of subcategories and Category:Country subdivision Category:Categories by country subdivision. Australia (s,t), Canada (t), India (s,t), Malaysia (s,t), Mexico (s,t), Russia (t) and the United States (s,t): They have or had first-level country subdivisions named "state" or "territory". By which logic "states and territories" could be a better name for the top category for entities named "area, block, borough, canton, circle, city, community, county, department, district, division, hide, municipality, prefecture, protectorate, province, region, reserve, state, territory, town, township, unit, union, ward, zone" than a descriptive term like "administrative territorial entities", which avoids taking position on whether something is a country/state, a territory and the level of a country, or a country subdivision named "state" or "country"?
- Would you put country below "states and territories"? If so, why would it be "states and territories" and not "countries and territories" if country is the overwhelmingly used term for sovereign entities?
85.179.110.23 (
talk)
01:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- The looming question is whether the hierarchy States and territories by century of establishment should be renamed. In that hierarchy I had understood "States and territories" as a generic term embracing empires and vassal kingdoms, countries and subdivisions, and provisional countries/subdivisions like the American pre-State territories. If other editors read that name as meaning "subdivisions" (which has not yet been demonstrated), then it should change. I would be inclined to oppose "administrative territorial entities..." as too long-winded, and prefer "countries and subdivisions".
- I think this would work all the way to the top, i.e. rename the categories nominated here to Category:Countries and subdivisions, Category:Protests by country or subdivision, etc. – Fayenatic London 10:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- RE "Countries and subdivisions" VS "Protests by country or subdivision": any logic behind this, or random use of these words?
77.180.245.225 (
talk)
06:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, this is standard naming. "Protests by country and subdivision" would be for categories that were by subdivision within country; compare e.g. People by continent and occupation or the many similar categories at the top of People by occupation. The Protests category is not like that, but contains Protests by country and a few other locations that may not be recognised as countries. Perhaps Category:Protests by location would be better for this one. – Fayenatic London 09:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- RE Countries/subdivisions: As what of the two do the following qualify:
Neutral zone (territorial entity),
International waters, the territory of the
Antarctic Treaty System, entities of the
United Nations geoscheme, the various
Euroregions/
Eurodistricts, the
ITU regions,
European Broadcasting Area.
77.180.245.225 (
talk)
06:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- So IP number, what do you suggest? Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Does it indeed? In that case it should be called country subdivisions. However, I have not been reading it that way, and it is not used that way. Many ancient kingdoms are categorised as "states and territories established in...", and they were in effect countries. I understood the "states and territories" hierarchy to be inclusive, embracing both countries and subdivisions.
Template:Infobox former country populates it (perhaps
Template:Infobox country too), and that seems fine to me. –
Fayenatic
London
09:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Fayenatic london - The page "
States and territories" refers only to subdivisions of countries. It would be inconsistent and confusing to use the term differently in the category hierarchy.
85.181.157.239 (
talk)
19:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to
Category:Territories but keep the current parents. Much shorter without changing the meaning of the categories. And move part of the current
Category:Territories to the parent
Category:Types of country subdivisions. Rename
Category:Establishment of administrative territorial entities to
Category:Establishment of territories and
Category:Administrative territorial entities by time of establishment to
Category:Territories by time of establishment. Note that "state" is ambiguous and probably unneeded. Not sure if the protests category should be kept at all.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Marcocapelle -
Category:Territories is placed inside
Category:Types of country subdivisions and the article
Territory starts "A territory is an
administrative division" and the article for the latter starts "An administrative division, unit, entity, area or region, also referred to as a subnational entity, constituent unit, or country subdivision, is a portion of a
country". Your proporsal would place "country" below a portion of a country.
85.181.157.239 (
talk)
19:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- That is why I added "but keep the current parents". And for that matter, I don't agree with the article
Territory because the word territory may have a much broader meaning (like in the current category name, Administrative territorial entities, which includes countries, but also e.g. animals may have a territory). The article should better be renamed to
Territory (country subdivision).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Marcocapelle - The article was started 14 August 2006 as
Territory (subnational entity) by
User:Tobias Conradi and renamed 20 October 2006 to "
Territory (country subdivision)" by the creator. At that time it referred only to human-made entities, not animal-territories. Later editors so far succeeded in making the distinction disappear from the article title.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Territory&offset=&limit=5000&action=history - search for "moved page" in the page shows several renames.
92.229.97.47 (
talk)
20:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- So what is your opinion about the nomination? Do you support or oppose the nomination to rename somehow and why? Do you support or oppose any of the alternative names and why? Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Marcocapelle - The article was started 14 August 2006 as
Territory (subnational entity) by
User:Tobias Conradi and renamed 20 October 2006 to "
Territory (country subdivision)" by the creator. At that time it referred only to human-made entities, not animal-territories. Later editors so far succeeded in making the distinction disappear from the article title.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Territory&offset=&limit=5000&action=history - search for "moved page" in the page shows several renames.
92.229.97.47 (
talk)
20:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- That is why I added "but keep the current parents". And for that matter, I don't agree with the article
Territory because the word territory may have a much broader meaning (like in the current category name, Administrative territorial entities, which includes countries, but also e.g. animals may have a territory). The article should better be renamed to
Territory (country subdivision).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Marcocapelle -
Category:Territories is placed inside
Category:Types of country subdivisions and the article
Territory starts "A territory is an
administrative division" and the article for the latter starts "An administrative division, unit, entity, area or region, also referred to as a subnational entity, constituent unit, or country subdivision, is a portion of a
country". Your proporsal would place "country" below a portion of a country.
85.181.157.239 (
talk)
19:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note on former lists by country and language:
Category:Lists of administrative territorial entities by language and its contents used to be named "lists of countries" but were moved, without discussion, by Tobias Conradi's socks, e.g.
[6]
[7] (category)
[8] (contents). –
Fayenatic
London
11:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- RE Sock: Evidence for sock allegation? Even by WP standards not all moves were carried out by socks.
77.180.245.225 (
talk)
06:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- The first move was by User:Eldizzino which has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of Tobias Conradi. The second one was moved by User:Derianus which is likewise blocked as a suspected sock of the same editor. Looking at the edits by those accounts, I see no reason to doubt that conclusion. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- RE lists of countries: Can you explain to the audience how
Tamil Nadu,
South Tirol and
Wallonia would qualify for
category:Countries?
77.180.245.225 (
talk)
06:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't say the contents were all countries. My point was that the categories were moved out-of-process. The current hierarchy using the longwinded category names has all been built by Tobias Conradi without discussion. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- RE Sock: Evidence for sock allegation? Even by WP standards not all moves were carried out by socks.
77.180.245.225 (
talk)
06:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just summing up, we have three alternatives here and they all three have a disadvantage, but none of the disadvantages is particularly huge:
- keep current name, with a made-up term, with a long name, but it is an accurate descriptor of the content
- Category:Countries and subdivisions, it does not cover every type of territory that is in the category, but it is aligns best with current terminology in the category tree
- Category:Territories, with an ambiguous term (in some countries?), it is short and accurate (if you take the broader meaning of territory in mind)
- Frankly, as they all three have their pros and cons, I wouldn't oppose any of the three. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted from
WP:CfD 2017 October_29 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: merge
Category:History of management to
Category:History of business.
Editors may wish to further refine the categorisation of the two articles currently in the category: Management fad, Scientific management. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:History of management to Category:History of business
- 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)
- Double merge as the current parent Category:Management science also seems relevant to me. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I understand the concern, but creating Category: History of commerce would not solve this problem, as it would merely function as a synonym of Category:History of business. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- The one article in this category is about business. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Notably in its discussion of Taylorism in the Soviet Union and in East Germany. - Jandalhandler ( talk) 12:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Relisted from
WP:CfD 2017 December 22 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Relisting comment. Only 2 articles here. Surely there is a simple solution? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- It may be easy for me to say as the nominator, but I think the nomination to merge is simple and adequate. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:G4 as Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion ... and WP:TROUT @ OnBeyondZebrax, the creator of both, for ignoring consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete as a copy of Category:Post-grunge authors that was deleted earlier in this discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT. Only two entries, one of which is a redirect. Both entries are fictional beings that only resemble pangolins. The species is clearly too rare to have enough fictional counterparts. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- delete One article of dubious notability, and a Pokemon critter. A picture book about a pet pangolin might be terribly cute but it is clearly a sub-genre whose time has not come. Mangoe ( talk) 19:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- delete. Unfortunately, there's not really a higher level for pangolins shy of the main mammal category. BTW, we might want to look at the worth of Category:Fictional shrews, too. Grutness... wha? 00:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- It has never been revealed whether or not Pokemon are mammals, has it? Mangoe ( talk) 00:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete, and disperse contents to Category:Works about Kenya and Category:Kenya in fiction. (Only 4 items in the category: Category:Films set in Kenya, Category:Novels set in Kenya, Juma and the Magic Jinn, Out of Africa). I will list the cat at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging
Category:Works set in Kenya into
Category:Works about Kenya
- Nominator's rationale: The parent category of "Works set in Kenya" includes no other categories by country, while the category Category:Works about countries contains 142 countries. Hugo999 ( talk) 03:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Support per nom. Grutness... wha? 00:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)see below- ALT Merge to
Category:Kenya in fiction; I'll place that one into
Category:Works about Kenya. I think this will result in a standard hierarchy. –
Fayenatic
London
00:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not in favour of that - quite a few of the films in Category:Films set in Kenya are documentary or otherwise non-fiction. Grutness... wha? 00:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose The current form is standard for works set in x. Like Category:Works set in New York City. Works can be set in locations, including entirely in that location, without every being about that location. This is standard to how things work, and part of a much larger scheme. On further reflection, we have not created this general works category, but we have films and novels sub-sets, and no good reason to not have a more general parent. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, there do appear to be a dozen or so categories of this format, though they're not tied in to any category tree and are mainly for cities and regions, which is why we missed them. See here... Grutness... wha? 01:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- We should consider carefully whether creating a new tree by country with Category:Works set in Kenya and siblings makes sense. It wouldn't add much value if it would mainly serve as a container category for two subcats, e.g. in this case Category:Novels set in Kenya and Category:Films set in Kenya. Actually Fayenatic london's suggestion could work as well, provided that the documentary films are moved from Category:Films set in Kenya to Category:Documentary films about Kenya. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.