From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 22

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 1#Category:Rubik's Cube permutations

Category:Moons of Haumea

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 5#Category:Moons of Haumea

Category:Heritage listed buildings and structures by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. There is no consensus to merge. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 15:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Following the closure of WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_7#Category:Listed buildings and structures, it was suggested that I should make the necessary changes to implement my suggestion that this category should have one subcategory per country. I have accordingly edited subcategories, providing a new parent (where necessary) in cases where there were multiple national categories in this one, e.g. Grade 1 and 2 listed buildings in UK (and Hong Kong). Having done so, I found we also have a much more wide-ranging Category:Heritage registers by country. It looks to me as if what I have ended up with should effectively be a duplicate of that. I am therefore now suggesting merger to that, which is only feasible now after my alteration to the subject's sub-categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply

* Support in principle, per nom, per WP:OVERLAPCAT. However I think that a plain delete is more appropriate than a merge, since a merge would move some subcats to the target that do not belong there. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from nom -- I made this nom after restructuring the tree in accordance with the previous discussion. This is about governmentally designated classifications, not about awards by professional bodies. I am merely suggesting that we now have a redundant category level. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:39, 23 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:Statistical analysis

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: do not merge. MER-C 10:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: undefined scope fgnievinski ( talk) 15:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:26, 22 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:Video games with custom soundtrack support

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. MER-C 10:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a non-" defining" trait. A spot check of articles in the category had none even mentioning a custom soundtrack feature, nevertheless as a defining trait of the release. czar 00:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I think it's at least true that this category has been overapplied to games for which it's not defining, but I'm not comfortable with removing it en masse from all of these on the basis of a spot check. For example, Audiosurf and Musika (both also in the Category:Music generated games subcat) do mention the custom soundtrack feature. I would recommend manually removing the cat from articles where it doesn't belong. After that, depending on what's left, there may be a clear basis for deleting the cat or downmerging it with Category:Music generated games. Colin M ( talk) 07:52, 23 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:Buildings and structures on the Hanover-Würzburg high-speed rail line

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Hanover–Würzburg high-speed railway. MER-C 10:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:DASHDaybeers ( talk) 00:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:26, 22 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 scholars by nationality

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 close is no bar to further nominations. – Fayenatic London 14:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category tree, for the most part recently created by User:Invokingvajras, is apparently intended to contain as its members people who were religious scholars on Buddhism. However, this contradicts with its parent Category:Buddhist scholars, which states, "This category is about Buddhist people who are scholars. For scholars of Buddhist studies, see Category:Buddhist studies scholars." Either this new by-nationality tree should be renamed, or the parent re-scoped (regarding the parent, though, I wonder whether categorising non-religion scholars based on religion isn't a trivial cross-categorisation). Paul_012 ( talk) 22:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I'm not quite sure how nationality contradicts the parent's description. I initially made the category to collect present like-categories. Upon seeing how, for example, Category:Islamic studies scholars breaks down Category:Muslim scholars of Islam and Category:Non-Muslim scholars of Islam, I'd like to see this for Category:Buddhist studies scholars as well (The presence and distinction between scholars and scholar-practitioners is a well-recognized feature within Buddhist studies as pointed out by Charles Prebish), and preferably all religious studies categories as things develop.
Regarding the triviality of cross-categorisation, see: Category:Scholars by religion, which is currently a bit messy, but it's a wip. -- Invokingvajras( talk) 22:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Shouldn't Buddhist Studies scholars be contained within Category:Religious scholars by religion?— Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 00:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
It seems like Buddhist Studies scholars would be reserved for Category:Religious studies scholars, while Category:Religious scholars by religion would encompass scholars who profess affiliation with a particular tradition. -- Invokingvajras( talk) 07:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
confused. I know a few buddhist scholars personally, and I do not think their categorisation as nationality + buddhist + scholar seems right, it's not as simple as it looks. In some cases I would consider some buddhists as scholars, and some scholars as buddhists, but not sure the nationality helps... JarrahTree 09:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Pardon my confusion for the confusion, but would it not be more confusing without nationality? For example, Category:Japanese Buddhist scholars could refer to either Buddhist scholars of Japanese descent (which is meant here), or scholars of Japanese Buddhism. Category:Tibetan Buddhists from Tibet is a prime example of how these distinctions can become a bit sloppy linguistically, but that's the exception.
As for "Buddhists as scholars" and "scholars as Buddhists", well that depends if we're discussing Buddhists who are scholars of all possible fields or scholars of Buddhism who exist outside the scope of Buddhist Studies, which to my understanding is a strictly academic field that just so happens to include scholars who identify as Buddhist (I may be wrong. It's been a while). The latter approach still doesn't assume that all these scholars would be Buddhist. Another possibility, which I think is implied by branch categories Category:Christian theologians and Category:Muslim scholars of Islam, is that "Buddhist scholars" may indicate those who study Buddhism for an explicitly religious purpose. In this case, many of the articles present may well be better off in Category:Buddhist studies scholars. Nationality may still prove useful as we already have Category:American Buddhist studies scholars. -- Invokingvajras( talk) 07:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Category:Buddhist studies scholars is extant, which I imagine would be synonymous with "Buddhist studies academics." (?) -- Invokingvajras( talk) 07:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Suggestion - For greater clarity & concision, we should consider renaming all such categories using the formulation "Scholars of Buddhism" instead of "Buddhist studies scholars". Anomalous+0 ( talk) 11:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support Anomalous+0. I was going to suggest much the same. "Buddhist studies" is unnecessarily long. Generally the religion of a scholar of almost any other subject would not be worth categorising, unless (perhaps) being a Buddhist would result in a different approach to the subject. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:46, 23 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:Gaelic-language magazines

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated. MER-C 10:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination to match e.g. Category:Scottish Gaelic literature, after inconclusive discussion on Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 11:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Copy of Speedy discussion

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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 22

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 1#Category:Rubik's Cube permutations

Category:Moons of Haumea

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 5#Category:Moons of Haumea

Category:Heritage listed buildings and structures by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. There is no consensus to merge. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 15:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Following the closure of WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_7#Category:Listed buildings and structures, it was suggested that I should make the necessary changes to implement my suggestion that this category should have one subcategory per country. I have accordingly edited subcategories, providing a new parent (where necessary) in cases where there were multiple national categories in this one, e.g. Grade 1 and 2 listed buildings in UK (and Hong Kong). Having done so, I found we also have a much more wide-ranging Category:Heritage registers by country. It looks to me as if what I have ended up with should effectively be a duplicate of that. I am therefore now suggesting merger to that, which is only feasible now after my alteration to the subject's sub-categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply

* Support in principle, per nom, per WP:OVERLAPCAT. However I think that a plain delete is more appropriate than a merge, since a merge would move some subcats to the target that do not belong there. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from nom -- I made this nom after restructuring the tree in accordance with the previous discussion. This is about governmentally designated classifications, not about awards by professional bodies. I am merely suggesting that we now have a redundant category level. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:39, 23 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:Statistical analysis

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: do not merge. MER-C 10:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: undefined scope fgnievinski ( talk) 15:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:26, 22 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:Video games with custom soundtrack support

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. MER-C 10:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a non-" defining" trait. A spot check of articles in the category had none even mentioning a custom soundtrack feature, nevertheless as a defining trait of the release. czar 00:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I think it's at least true that this category has been overapplied to games for which it's not defining, but I'm not comfortable with removing it en masse from all of these on the basis of a spot check. For example, Audiosurf and Musika (both also in the Category:Music generated games subcat) do mention the custom soundtrack feature. I would recommend manually removing the cat from articles where it doesn't belong. After that, depending on what's left, there may be a clear basis for deleting the cat or downmerging it with Category:Music generated games. Colin M ( talk) 07:52, 23 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:Buildings and structures on the Hanover-Würzburg high-speed rail line

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Hanover–Würzburg high-speed railway. MER-C 10:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:DASHDaybeers ( talk) 00:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:26, 22 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 scholars by nationality

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 close is no bar to further nominations. – Fayenatic London 14:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category tree, for the most part recently created by User:Invokingvajras, is apparently intended to contain as its members people who were religious scholars on Buddhism. However, this contradicts with its parent Category:Buddhist scholars, which states, "This category is about Buddhist people who are scholars. For scholars of Buddhist studies, see Category:Buddhist studies scholars." Either this new by-nationality tree should be renamed, or the parent re-scoped (regarding the parent, though, I wonder whether categorising non-religion scholars based on religion isn't a trivial cross-categorisation). Paul_012 ( talk) 22:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
I'm not quite sure how nationality contradicts the parent's description. I initially made the category to collect present like-categories. Upon seeing how, for example, Category:Islamic studies scholars breaks down Category:Muslim scholars of Islam and Category:Non-Muslim scholars of Islam, I'd like to see this for Category:Buddhist studies scholars as well (The presence and distinction between scholars and scholar-practitioners is a well-recognized feature within Buddhist studies as pointed out by Charles Prebish), and preferably all religious studies categories as things develop.
Regarding the triviality of cross-categorisation, see: Category:Scholars by religion, which is currently a bit messy, but it's a wip. -- Invokingvajras( talk) 22:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Shouldn't Buddhist Studies scholars be contained within Category:Religious scholars by religion?— Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 00:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
It seems like Buddhist Studies scholars would be reserved for Category:Religious studies scholars, while Category:Religious scholars by religion would encompass scholars who profess affiliation with a particular tradition. -- Invokingvajras( talk) 07:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
confused. I know a few buddhist scholars personally, and I do not think their categorisation as nationality + buddhist + scholar seems right, it's not as simple as it looks. In some cases I would consider some buddhists as scholars, and some scholars as buddhists, but not sure the nationality helps... JarrahTree 09:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Pardon my confusion for the confusion, but would it not be more confusing without nationality? For example, Category:Japanese Buddhist scholars could refer to either Buddhist scholars of Japanese descent (which is meant here), or scholars of Japanese Buddhism. Category:Tibetan Buddhists from Tibet is a prime example of how these distinctions can become a bit sloppy linguistically, but that's the exception.
As for "Buddhists as scholars" and "scholars as Buddhists", well that depends if we're discussing Buddhists who are scholars of all possible fields or scholars of Buddhism who exist outside the scope of Buddhist Studies, which to my understanding is a strictly academic field that just so happens to include scholars who identify as Buddhist (I may be wrong. It's been a while). The latter approach still doesn't assume that all these scholars would be Buddhist. Another possibility, which I think is implied by branch categories Category:Christian theologians and Category:Muslim scholars of Islam, is that "Buddhist scholars" may indicate those who study Buddhism for an explicitly religious purpose. In this case, many of the articles present may well be better off in Category:Buddhist studies scholars. Nationality may still prove useful as we already have Category:American Buddhist studies scholars. -- Invokingvajras( talk) 07:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Category:Buddhist studies scholars is extant, which I imagine would be synonymous with "Buddhist studies academics." (?) -- Invokingvajras( talk) 07:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Suggestion - For greater clarity & concision, we should consider renaming all such categories using the formulation "Scholars of Buddhism" instead of "Buddhist studies scholars". Anomalous+0 ( talk) 11:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support Anomalous+0. I was going to suggest much the same. "Buddhist studies" is unnecessarily long. Generally the religion of a scholar of almost any other subject would not be worth categorising, unless (perhaps) being a Buddhist would result in a different approach to the subject. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:46, 23 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:Gaelic-language magazines

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated. MER-C 10:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination to match e.g. Category:Scottish Gaelic literature, after inconclusive discussion on Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 11:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Copy of Speedy discussion

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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook