The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support. (same response as on
Category:Journalism genres CfD) Looking at
Category:Categories by genre, everything else there is primarily a form of art. And the dictionary agrees the usage of genre is for forms of art. Not that journalism doesn't involve creativity - but art isn't its primary function. There is no clear distinction between type and genre here. So that supports the merge.
Ikluft (
talk)
19:21, 3 November 2019 (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:Journalism genres
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support. Looking at
Category:Categories by genre, everything else there is primarily a form of art. And the dictionary agrees the usage of genre is for forms of art. Not that journalism doesn't involve creativity - but art isn't its primary function. There is no clear distinction between type and genre here. So that supports the merge.
Ikluft (
talk)
19:17, 3 November 2019 (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:Philippine web media
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: We dont have any other categories along the lines of "Fooish web media" as far as I know. Not clear how web media differ from websites.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:09, 2 November 2019 (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.
Methodist church buildings
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 I've looked at the contents and I've seen none that is a congregation (or parish or equivalent) as opposed to a bricks-and-mortar building.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
21:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment (without opposing) - Local churches do sometimes rebuild their buildings, for example because the church has grown. I cannot think of cases to which this applies, but
Carrs Lane Church, Birmingham occupies a 1960s building, but the local church was originally established in 1748. Great care is needed with this series of mergers and renames. It is currently categorised as "Churches completed in 1971".
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:32, 4 November 2019 (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:Buddhist scientists
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.
WP:EGRS says "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic. For example, most sportspeople should not be categorized by religion, since being Catholic, Buddhist, or another religion is not relevant to the way they perform in sports." Being a scientist isn't any different from being sportspeople in this respect. We do not have
Category:Christian scientists or
Category:Muslim scientists either, for the same reason.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
delete per nom. EGRS is clear. Let's not get into the habit of sorting every profession by religion without good reason.--
TM22:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Very well. I'd like to point out that this problem does seem to follow for the other categories, as not all articles included are particularly relevant to the intersection of scientific occupation and religious affiliation (Jewish, either as a religion or ethnicity, seems to provide little weight on many of the persons listed). Although I would argue that one's religious affiliation may indeed play a role in performance of any area, as the ethics prescribed by a tradition may serve as inspiration for the person in question (Both Buddhism and Judaism, as far as I'm aware, encourage intellectual pursuits, which may serve as inspiration for an especially devout person). If an article includes this sort of information, it should remain relevant to the intersection. Perhaps some clean-up is in order. --
Invokingvajras(
talk)20:44, 3 November 2019 (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:Lists of UK MPs 2017–
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:Renamed following clear precedent, 2010-2015, 2015-2017. The only hesitations were in regard to the dissolution of parliament which has now happened.
Cabayi (
talk)
11:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support -- Since the Dissolution is the result of a special Act of Parliament, this is appropriate. Normally, it would be premature until the dissolution has actually occurred.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:35, 4 November 2019 (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:Category:People educated at Ysgol Aberconwy
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.
User:Oculi is obviously correct in their oppose against this particular nomination. At the same time I wonder in general if we should categorize people by secondary school. Especially biography articles often suffer from far too much category clutter, we should somehow reduce that.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:15, 3 November 2019 (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:Primary source digital libraries
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.
Weak support, to a certain extent I can buy that this is a 'thing', but probably nobody is going to find the category under this name, it is not a recognizable term nor do I know any better recognizable term.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)reply
There are lots of archive categories which I think contain original historical documents. but I'm not sure what an original historical document is in a digital context. And indeed I'm not sure what the difference is between a digital library and an online archive.
Rathfelder (
talk)
10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - I created this category, admittedly without going to the effort to fully populate it. I thought it would be a useful subcategory of
Category:Digital libraries, which currently has 1873 entries according to
PetScan. I wanted to distinguish between digital libraries comprised of primary sources like Wikisource,
Project Gutenberg, etc. vs. those that contain new books and original content, eg.
Category:Full text scholarly online databases. These seem like fairly different kinds of libraries. I don't see the "better categories" that
Rathfelder refers to.
Daask (
talk)
22:42, 5 November 2019 (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:Maharashtra MLAs 2014–
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment, it is actually a bit too early for this rename because the new term has not officially started yet. But probably it does not really matter.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
11:45, 26 October 2019 (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:Simplified languages
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Radio
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: The category text and the parent categories make clear that this is specifically for broadcasting, but this category gets lots of things placed in it such as
Category:Radio astronomy. After any rename further tidying up (possibly including renaming
Category:Wireless or creating a more general Category:Radio) could be done. Renaming some of the subcategories could also be considered. DexDor(talk)07:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
It would make sense to make the
Category:Radio broadcasting subcategory and then move to there broadcast-specific parts including the instruction that it's about broadcast. Then
Category:Radio could shed the confusion that has already occurred by being about all topics that radio actually is. I'm willing to help with that once the CfR is over or withdrawn.
Ikluft (
talk)
22:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Great question. The terms “wireless” and “radio” have historically meant the same thing, but British use the former and Americans the latter. More recently, “wireless” has been universally applied to describe modern digital technologies like WiFi and mobile devices. -
LuckyLouie (
talk)
23:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The articles on
radio and
wireless show there's enough overlap for both to be subcategories of
Category:Telecommunications but enough difference not to merge them. Radio has specific meaning to usage of the electromagnetic spectrum between 30Hz to the lower boundary of light at 300GHz. Wireless has a lot of colloquial uses related to not having wires. Specifically wireless can include light (i.e. infrared, laser, etc) and near-field communication which are not radio. Just about any "wireless X" category could be a subcategory or within the category tree under Wireless, influenced by the heavy weight of existing usage. Both categories should rely on their main articles for their definitions. It's OK for something to be categorized under both, such as cell phones. Both are big topics - wireless would almost certainly need to be marked with {{category diffuse}}, and maybe radio too.
Ikluft (
talk)
05:06, 4 November 2019 (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:Unknown origin craters
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:small category and
miscellaneous category. This is not eligible for speedy deletion because I already emptied it out of process while cleaning up various categories into impact, volcanic or explosion craters, which avoids recurring confusion around unspecified "craters". See also the
2009 mass-renaming CfR of crater-related categories which I was the nominator for, which was the first time this kind of crater category cleanup was done. (Do I need to write an essay on categorization of craters?)
Ikluft (
talk)
05:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
It sounds like an essay would be good. subsistence covers things apart from impact, volcanic or explosion craters, such as collapse into a cave. Unknown can cover what is left, although I suppose they could just be in "craters".
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
05:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Yeah, this response makes me think an essay would prevent these kinds of misunderstandings and confusion from continually recurring. You are not alone. On those specific examples... A collapse into a cave goes by definition in
Category:Sinkholes, which are not a kind of crater. Depressions of unknown origin fail as a category by
WP:SMALLCAT/
WP:OCMISC but should go under
Category:Depressions (geology), and would not be called a crater until an impact, volcanic or explosion origin is identified.
Ikluft (
talk)
05:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Something else to include in that essay... the lesson learned from the 2009 CfR mega-renaming of crater-related categories was to avoid recurring confusion by making the type of crater as explicit criteria for inclusion part of the category name.
Ikluft (
talk)
06:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I de-listed three articles with nothing in common from the category:
Eden Patera (impact or volcano on Mars),
Managua event (2014 explosion in Nicaragua theorized to be an impact),
Patomskiy crater (circular rock formation in Siberia disproved as an impact). The category was changed to a templated redirect to the disambiguation at
Category:Craters so nothing else would be added to it.
Ikluft (
talk)
17:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. This is an artificial/fake categorization (at least with regard to what's was it, or they couldn't've been properly and more narrowly categorized). Actual craters that have not yet been investigated as to their origin are probably rare and non-notable enough we'll never need a category for them. PS: I also support the crater categorization essay idea, perhaps under
WP:GEOLOGY somewhere. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, possibly listify. A category isn't really needed (and if it were needed, it should be at a less cringeworthy title like "Craters of unknown origin").
Grutness...wha?15:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
You can have your
WP:TROUT back because
Category:Craters is a re-created category that was previously deleted in process per
2009 mass-renaming CfR of crater-related categories - if it isn't deleted again, it needs to be a disambiguation, which requires it be empty to use {{Category disambiguation}}, which rules out a merge up to it. The other Wikimedia sites that use miscellaneous craters categories will be worked on one at a time - we're working on reducing that confusion here now. The confusion caused by "crater" categories that don't include the type of crater in their title is real and recurring - see my new draft
User:Ikluft/essay/Categorization_of_craters (to be moved to WikiProject Geology as suggested by other editors) which came as a result of this latest round of cleanup.
Ikluft (
talk)
19:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I understand you're trying to act in
good faith but you are actually promoting confusion from a point of misinterpretation. Of the articles you listed,
Patomskiy crater uses the term crater colloquially; but of its 2 references, one speculates about UFOs and the other says a meteoric origin was disproven, leading to questions whether the article even qualifies for
WP:N.
Eden Patera is satisfactorily categorized in
Category:Surface features of Mars until reliable sources sort out if it's from volcanic or impact origin. The article called
crater is a disambiguation page, leaving no official
WP:DEFINING characteristic for the category to stand on, except also as a disambiguation. The English dictionary (
[1],
[2]) only supports impact, volcanic and explosion craters. Anything else is not a crater. Please stop promoting the recurring confusion over this topic. It has been solved already and needs to not re-emerge.
Ikluft (
talk)
01:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
One benefit to result from this discussion - I took this to indicate the question will easily resurface if not answered plainly up front, and added the dictionary definition of a crater, requiring it be caused by some kind of explosion, to the
"Categorization_of_craters" essay.
Ikluft (
talk)
21:32, 7 November 2019 (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:Subsidence craters
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:WP:SMALLCAT and insignificant subset of
Category:explosion craters. This is not eligible for speedy deletion because I already emptied it out of process while cleaning up various categories into impact, volcanic or explosion craters, which avoids recurring confusion around unspecified "craters". See also the
2009 mass-renaming CfR of crater-related categories which I was the nominator for, which was the first time this kind of crater category cleanup was done. (Do I need to write an essay on categorization of craters?)
Ikluft (
talk)
04:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Also wondering that, though I would think the nom's rationale as to significance (i.e. whether it's a defining characteristic) is correct. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:27, 2 November 2019 (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:Motorsports portals
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Cricket portals
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Slovenian female comics artists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support. (same response as on
Category:Journalism genres CfD) Looking at
Category:Categories by genre, everything else there is primarily a form of art. And the dictionary agrees the usage of genre is for forms of art. Not that journalism doesn't involve creativity - but art isn't its primary function. There is no clear distinction between type and genre here. So that supports the merge.
Ikluft (
talk)
19:21, 3 November 2019 (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:Journalism genres
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support. Looking at
Category:Categories by genre, everything else there is primarily a form of art. And the dictionary agrees the usage of genre is for forms of art. Not that journalism doesn't involve creativity - but art isn't its primary function. There is no clear distinction between type and genre here. So that supports the merge.
Ikluft (
talk)
19:17, 3 November 2019 (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:Philippine web media
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: We dont have any other categories along the lines of "Fooish web media" as far as I know. Not clear how web media differ from websites.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:09, 2 November 2019 (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.
Methodist church buildings
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 I've looked at the contents and I've seen none that is a congregation (or parish or equivalent) as opposed to a bricks-and-mortar building.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
21:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment (without opposing) - Local churches do sometimes rebuild their buildings, for example because the church has grown. I cannot think of cases to which this applies, but
Carrs Lane Church, Birmingham occupies a 1960s building, but the local church was originally established in 1748. Great care is needed with this series of mergers and renames. It is currently categorised as "Churches completed in 1971".
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:32, 4 November 2019 (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:Buddhist scientists
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.
WP:EGRS says "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic. For example, most sportspeople should not be categorized by religion, since being Catholic, Buddhist, or another religion is not relevant to the way they perform in sports." Being a scientist isn't any different from being sportspeople in this respect. We do not have
Category:Christian scientists or
Category:Muslim scientists either, for the same reason.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
delete per nom. EGRS is clear. Let's not get into the habit of sorting every profession by religion without good reason.--
TM22:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Very well. I'd like to point out that this problem does seem to follow for the other categories, as not all articles included are particularly relevant to the intersection of scientific occupation and religious affiliation (Jewish, either as a religion or ethnicity, seems to provide little weight on many of the persons listed). Although I would argue that one's religious affiliation may indeed play a role in performance of any area, as the ethics prescribed by a tradition may serve as inspiration for the person in question (Both Buddhism and Judaism, as far as I'm aware, encourage intellectual pursuits, which may serve as inspiration for an especially devout person). If an article includes this sort of information, it should remain relevant to the intersection. Perhaps some clean-up is in order. --
Invokingvajras(
talk)20:44, 3 November 2019 (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:Lists of UK MPs 2017–
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:Renamed following clear precedent, 2010-2015, 2015-2017. The only hesitations were in regard to the dissolution of parliament which has now happened.
Cabayi (
talk)
11:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support -- Since the Dissolution is the result of a special Act of Parliament, this is appropriate. Normally, it would be premature until the dissolution has actually occurred.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:35, 4 November 2019 (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:Category:People educated at Ysgol Aberconwy
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.
User:Oculi is obviously correct in their oppose against this particular nomination. At the same time I wonder in general if we should categorize people by secondary school. Especially biography articles often suffer from far too much category clutter, we should somehow reduce that.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:15, 3 November 2019 (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:Primary source digital libraries
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.
Weak support, to a certain extent I can buy that this is a 'thing', but probably nobody is going to find the category under this name, it is not a recognizable term nor do I know any better recognizable term.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)reply
There are lots of archive categories which I think contain original historical documents. but I'm not sure what an original historical document is in a digital context. And indeed I'm not sure what the difference is between a digital library and an online archive.
Rathfelder (
talk)
10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - I created this category, admittedly without going to the effort to fully populate it. I thought it would be a useful subcategory of
Category:Digital libraries, which currently has 1873 entries according to
PetScan. I wanted to distinguish between digital libraries comprised of primary sources like Wikisource,
Project Gutenberg, etc. vs. those that contain new books and original content, eg.
Category:Full text scholarly online databases. These seem like fairly different kinds of libraries. I don't see the "better categories" that
Rathfelder refers to.
Daask (
talk)
22:42, 5 November 2019 (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:Maharashtra MLAs 2014–
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment, it is actually a bit too early for this rename because the new term has not officially started yet. But probably it does not really matter.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
11:45, 26 October 2019 (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:Simplified languages
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Radio
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: The category text and the parent categories make clear that this is specifically for broadcasting, but this category gets lots of things placed in it such as
Category:Radio astronomy. After any rename further tidying up (possibly including renaming
Category:Wireless or creating a more general Category:Radio) could be done. Renaming some of the subcategories could also be considered. DexDor(talk)07:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
It would make sense to make the
Category:Radio broadcasting subcategory and then move to there broadcast-specific parts including the instruction that it's about broadcast. Then
Category:Radio could shed the confusion that has already occurred by being about all topics that radio actually is. I'm willing to help with that once the CfR is over or withdrawn.
Ikluft (
talk)
22:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Great question. The terms “wireless” and “radio” have historically meant the same thing, but British use the former and Americans the latter. More recently, “wireless” has been universally applied to describe modern digital technologies like WiFi and mobile devices. -
LuckyLouie (
talk)
23:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The articles on
radio and
wireless show there's enough overlap for both to be subcategories of
Category:Telecommunications but enough difference not to merge them. Radio has specific meaning to usage of the electromagnetic spectrum between 30Hz to the lower boundary of light at 300GHz. Wireless has a lot of colloquial uses related to not having wires. Specifically wireless can include light (i.e. infrared, laser, etc) and near-field communication which are not radio. Just about any "wireless X" category could be a subcategory or within the category tree under Wireless, influenced by the heavy weight of existing usage. Both categories should rely on their main articles for their definitions. It's OK for something to be categorized under both, such as cell phones. Both are big topics - wireless would almost certainly need to be marked with {{category diffuse}}, and maybe radio too.
Ikluft (
talk)
05:06, 4 November 2019 (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:Unknown origin craters
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:small category and
miscellaneous category. This is not eligible for speedy deletion because I already emptied it out of process while cleaning up various categories into impact, volcanic or explosion craters, which avoids recurring confusion around unspecified "craters". See also the
2009 mass-renaming CfR of crater-related categories which I was the nominator for, which was the first time this kind of crater category cleanup was done. (Do I need to write an essay on categorization of craters?)
Ikluft (
talk)
05:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
It sounds like an essay would be good. subsistence covers things apart from impact, volcanic or explosion craters, such as collapse into a cave. Unknown can cover what is left, although I suppose they could just be in "craters".
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
05:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Yeah, this response makes me think an essay would prevent these kinds of misunderstandings and confusion from continually recurring. You are not alone. On those specific examples... A collapse into a cave goes by definition in
Category:Sinkholes, which are not a kind of crater. Depressions of unknown origin fail as a category by
WP:SMALLCAT/
WP:OCMISC but should go under
Category:Depressions (geology), and would not be called a crater until an impact, volcanic or explosion origin is identified.
Ikluft (
talk)
05:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Something else to include in that essay... the lesson learned from the 2009 CfR mega-renaming of crater-related categories was to avoid recurring confusion by making the type of crater as explicit criteria for inclusion part of the category name.
Ikluft (
talk)
06:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I de-listed three articles with nothing in common from the category:
Eden Patera (impact or volcano on Mars),
Managua event (2014 explosion in Nicaragua theorized to be an impact),
Patomskiy crater (circular rock formation in Siberia disproved as an impact). The category was changed to a templated redirect to the disambiguation at
Category:Craters so nothing else would be added to it.
Ikluft (
talk)
17:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. This is an artificial/fake categorization (at least with regard to what's was it, or they couldn't've been properly and more narrowly categorized). Actual craters that have not yet been investigated as to their origin are probably rare and non-notable enough we'll never need a category for them. PS: I also support the crater categorization essay idea, perhaps under
WP:GEOLOGY somewhere. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, possibly listify. A category isn't really needed (and if it were needed, it should be at a less cringeworthy title like "Craters of unknown origin").
Grutness...wha?15:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
You can have your
WP:TROUT back because
Category:Craters is a re-created category that was previously deleted in process per
2009 mass-renaming CfR of crater-related categories - if it isn't deleted again, it needs to be a disambiguation, which requires it be empty to use {{Category disambiguation}}, which rules out a merge up to it. The other Wikimedia sites that use miscellaneous craters categories will be worked on one at a time - we're working on reducing that confusion here now. The confusion caused by "crater" categories that don't include the type of crater in their title is real and recurring - see my new draft
User:Ikluft/essay/Categorization_of_craters (to be moved to WikiProject Geology as suggested by other editors) which came as a result of this latest round of cleanup.
Ikluft (
talk)
19:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I understand you're trying to act in
good faith but you are actually promoting confusion from a point of misinterpretation. Of the articles you listed,
Patomskiy crater uses the term crater colloquially; but of its 2 references, one speculates about UFOs and the other says a meteoric origin was disproven, leading to questions whether the article even qualifies for
WP:N.
Eden Patera is satisfactorily categorized in
Category:Surface features of Mars until reliable sources sort out if it's from volcanic or impact origin. The article called
crater is a disambiguation page, leaving no official
WP:DEFINING characteristic for the category to stand on, except also as a disambiguation. The English dictionary (
[1],
[2]) only supports impact, volcanic and explosion craters. Anything else is not a crater. Please stop promoting the recurring confusion over this topic. It has been solved already and needs to not re-emerge.
Ikluft (
talk)
01:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
One benefit to result from this discussion - I took this to indicate the question will easily resurface if not answered plainly up front, and added the dictionary definition of a crater, requiring it be caused by some kind of explosion, to the
"Categorization_of_craters" essay.
Ikluft (
talk)
21:32, 7 November 2019 (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:Subsidence craters
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:WP:SMALLCAT and insignificant subset of
Category:explosion craters. This is not eligible for speedy deletion because I already emptied it out of process while cleaning up various categories into impact, volcanic or explosion craters, which avoids recurring confusion around unspecified "craters". See also the
2009 mass-renaming CfR of crater-related categories which I was the nominator for, which was the first time this kind of crater category cleanup was done. (Do I need to write an essay on categorization of craters?)
Ikluft (
talk)
04:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Also wondering that, though I would think the nom's rationale as to significance (i.e. whether it's a defining characteristic) is correct. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:27, 2 November 2019 (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:Motorsports portals
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Cricket portals
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Slovenian female comics artists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.