September 23
Category:Settlements missing geocoding
- 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. — ξ xplicit 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Settlements missing geocoding (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. As far as I understand, this was created to match this proposed change to the behaviour of the template {{ Infobox settlement}}. Since the proposal never materialized, we're left with a category meant to be populated automatically but through a mechanism that doesn't exist. Pichpich ( talk) 22:29, 23 September 2011 (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.
Category:Estonian deities
- 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. — ξ xplicit 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Estonian deities to Category:Estonian gods
- Nominator's rationale: The only entry in this category of deities is a category of gods. Unless there are cases in Estonian mythology wherein a being can be a deity but not a god, this is probably best merged with its child category. ~
T
P
W 13:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Most "deities" categories are container categories for the corresponding "gods" and "goddesses" categories (cf. Category:Finnish deities. Are there no Estonian goddesses? Goustien ( talk) 22:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. I've added two goddesses to the category.
Goustien (
talk) 02:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Do we really need to split such small clusters of articles into sex-based taxonomies? I assume this is for parity with the larger "national deities" categories, but that smacks of unnecessary consistency to me.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) -
talk 10:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree . . . if you think "deities" is a more gender-neutral word than "gods" than I support keeping "deities" instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True Pagan Warrior ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 24 September 2011
- Do we really need to split such small clusters of articles into sex-based taxonomies? I assume this is for parity with the larger "national deities" categories, but that smacks of unnecessary consistency to me.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) -
talk 10:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- In theory I don't object to combining
Category:Estonian gods and
Category:Estonian goddesses into a single parent
Category:Estonian deities. If so, the same should be done with other small pantheons of under ten members, such as
Category:Latvian deities,
Category:Dacian deities, and
Category:Thracian deities. However, many other categories consider the deity's gender to be important: see
Category:Fertility goddesses,
Category:Sea and river goddesses,
Category:Sky and weather gods,
Category:Underworld gods,
Category:Agricultural gods, etc. It may be easier to retain the gender categories, especially if more Estonian deities are to be added later.
Goustien (
talk) 18:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think the categories presume that the gender is important, which is appropriate in some contexts. Not every reference to the word "god" presumes maleness (although there is a bias in that direction), but every case of the use of the "goddess" presumes femaleness. I don't think a "god" category is particularly descriptive if you want to denote gender. In the absence of a "goddess" category it didn't occur to me that this was a categorization by gender, nor am I clear why that is relevant to Estonian mythology. If it is, I think we should explain that on the category page. Many gods throughout the world can switch genders, or are both or none. Other gods have very specifically defined gender roles, such as of a mother goddess. Any of the other categories you cite may well be appropriate for that specific culture; is a breakdown by gender called for in Estonian mythology?--~ T P W 18:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- In theory I don't object to combining
Category:Estonian gods and
Category:Estonian goddesses into a single parent
Category:Estonian deities. If so, the same should be done with other small pantheons of under ten members, such as
Category:Latvian deities,
Category:Dacian deities, and
Category:Thracian deities. However, many other categories consider the deity's gender to be important: see
Category:Fertility goddesses,
Category:Sea and river goddesses,
Category:Sky and weather gods,
Category:Underworld gods,
Category:Agricultural gods, etc. It may be easier to retain the gender categories, especially if more Estonian deities are to be added later.
Goustien (
talk) 18:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify here, the gender-neutral form of "god" is "god". There may be reasons to prefer "deities", but "gods and goddesses are different things" isn't one of them.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) -
talk 08:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, but it's occurred to me that my view may not be the prevailing one. Thanks for weighing in.--~ T P W 12:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- an alternative might be to merge both sub-cats here. Gods and godesses are clearly of opposite sexes. I disagree that "gods" is a gender-neutral word. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:51, 2 October 2011 (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.
Category:Desktop backgrounds
- 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. — ξ xplicit 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Desktop backgrounds (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Was included in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 15#Wallpaper templates which listed templates an categories which were principally used to identify images which could be used as desktop backgrounds. The TFD result was delete. After all other items were delete/removed from cat there were still three article entries left in it. I'll leave it up to you to decide on the final fate of the category. Salix ( talk): 07:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- The arguments at the TfD apply pretty well here. Wikipedia hosts media for the specific purpose of including it in the encyclopedia: desktop wallpapers don't really fit that rationale, and any attractive, high-resolution free content which would be suitable belongs on Commons. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- keep Reading the contents of this category, there are articles 'about' desktop backgrounds, not background images, which will certainly not go to commons or anywhere else. This category logically groups them together for ready reference.
Hmains (
talk) 17:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Even if it were to be considered on those grounds, a category containing three articles (of which two are of very dubious notability anyway) is hardly necessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to delete per WP:SMALLCAT and Chris. I've done some Googling on the two dubious articles in the category and neither seems to satisfy our notability guidelines. (I did see one passing mention of Digital Blasphemy in the SF Chronicle but it was an article about something else). So we don't seem to have the makings of a well populated category, at this time. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:32, 24 September 2011 (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.
Category:Orangutan rescue and rehabilitation
- 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. — ξ xplicit 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Orangutan rescue and rehabilitation to Category:Orangutan conservation
- Nominator's rationale: more useful and succinct title -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 05:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Change - I created the category, but I can see the rationale for change and am quite happy if it is changed.-- Annielogue ( talk) 15:18, 24 September 2011 (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.
September 23
Category:Settlements missing geocoding
- 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. — ξ xplicit 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Settlements missing geocoding (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. As far as I understand, this was created to match this proposed change to the behaviour of the template {{ Infobox settlement}}. Since the proposal never materialized, we're left with a category meant to be populated automatically but through a mechanism that doesn't exist. Pichpich ( talk) 22:29, 23 September 2011 (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.
Category:Estonian deities
- 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. — ξ xplicit 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Estonian deities to Category:Estonian gods
- Nominator's rationale: The only entry in this category of deities is a category of gods. Unless there are cases in Estonian mythology wherein a being can be a deity but not a god, this is probably best merged with its child category. ~
T
P
W 13:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Most "deities" categories are container categories for the corresponding "gods" and "goddesses" categories (cf. Category:Finnish deities. Are there no Estonian goddesses? Goustien ( talk) 22:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. I've added two goddesses to the category.
Goustien (
talk) 02:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Do we really need to split such small clusters of articles into sex-based taxonomies? I assume this is for parity with the larger "national deities" categories, but that smacks of unnecessary consistency to me.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) -
talk 10:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree . . . if you think "deities" is a more gender-neutral word than "gods" than I support keeping "deities" instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True Pagan Warrior ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 24 September 2011
- Do we really need to split such small clusters of articles into sex-based taxonomies? I assume this is for parity with the larger "national deities" categories, but that smacks of unnecessary consistency to me.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) -
talk 10:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- In theory I don't object to combining
Category:Estonian gods and
Category:Estonian goddesses into a single parent
Category:Estonian deities. If so, the same should be done with other small pantheons of under ten members, such as
Category:Latvian deities,
Category:Dacian deities, and
Category:Thracian deities. However, many other categories consider the deity's gender to be important: see
Category:Fertility goddesses,
Category:Sea and river goddesses,
Category:Sky and weather gods,
Category:Underworld gods,
Category:Agricultural gods, etc. It may be easier to retain the gender categories, especially if more Estonian deities are to be added later.
Goustien (
talk) 18:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think the categories presume that the gender is important, which is appropriate in some contexts. Not every reference to the word "god" presumes maleness (although there is a bias in that direction), but every case of the use of the "goddess" presumes femaleness. I don't think a "god" category is particularly descriptive if you want to denote gender. In the absence of a "goddess" category it didn't occur to me that this was a categorization by gender, nor am I clear why that is relevant to Estonian mythology. If it is, I think we should explain that on the category page. Many gods throughout the world can switch genders, or are both or none. Other gods have very specifically defined gender roles, such as of a mother goddess. Any of the other categories you cite may well be appropriate for that specific culture; is a breakdown by gender called for in Estonian mythology?--~ T P W 18:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- In theory I don't object to combining
Category:Estonian gods and
Category:Estonian goddesses into a single parent
Category:Estonian deities. If so, the same should be done with other small pantheons of under ten members, such as
Category:Latvian deities,
Category:Dacian deities, and
Category:Thracian deities. However, many other categories consider the deity's gender to be important: see
Category:Fertility goddesses,
Category:Sea and river goddesses,
Category:Sky and weather gods,
Category:Underworld gods,
Category:Agricultural gods, etc. It may be easier to retain the gender categories, especially if more Estonian deities are to be added later.
Goustien (
talk) 18:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify here, the gender-neutral form of "god" is "god". There may be reasons to prefer "deities", but "gods and goddesses are different things" isn't one of them.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) -
talk 08:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, but it's occurred to me that my view may not be the prevailing one. Thanks for weighing in.--~ T P W 12:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- an alternative might be to merge both sub-cats here. Gods and godesses are clearly of opposite sexes. I disagree that "gods" is a gender-neutral word. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:51, 2 October 2011 (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.
Category:Desktop backgrounds
- 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. — ξ xplicit 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Desktop backgrounds (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Was included in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 15#Wallpaper templates which listed templates an categories which were principally used to identify images which could be used as desktop backgrounds. The TFD result was delete. After all other items were delete/removed from cat there were still three article entries left in it. I'll leave it up to you to decide on the final fate of the category. Salix ( talk): 07:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- The arguments at the TfD apply pretty well here. Wikipedia hosts media for the specific purpose of including it in the encyclopedia: desktop wallpapers don't really fit that rationale, and any attractive, high-resolution free content which would be suitable belongs on Commons. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- keep Reading the contents of this category, there are articles 'about' desktop backgrounds, not background images, which will certainly not go to commons or anywhere else. This category logically groups them together for ready reference.
Hmains (
talk) 17:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Even if it were to be considered on those grounds, a category containing three articles (of which two are of very dubious notability anyway) is hardly necessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to delete per WP:SMALLCAT and Chris. I've done some Googling on the two dubious articles in the category and neither seems to satisfy our notability guidelines. (I did see one passing mention of Digital Blasphemy in the SF Chronicle but it was an article about something else). So we don't seem to have the makings of a well populated category, at this time. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:32, 24 September 2011 (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.
Category:Orangutan rescue and rehabilitation
- 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. — ξ xplicit 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Orangutan rescue and rehabilitation to Category:Orangutan conservation
- Nominator's rationale: more useful and succinct title -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 05:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Change - I created the category, but I can see the rationale for change and am quite happy if it is changed.-- Annielogue ( talk) 15:18, 24 September 2011 (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.