Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 17 February 19 >

February 18[edit]

Category:Canadian Indigenous case law[edit]

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; the last one includes only one page on indigenous law, so I will rename it as Category:Canadian Aboriginal and indigenous law (lowercase i) following various siblings and the usage within template:Canadian Aboriginal and Indigenous law. – Fayenatic London 17:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To be consistent with the use of these two distinct terms in Canadian and Indigenous law. Quoting from Jim Reynolds "Aboriginal Peoples and the Law":

Aboriginal law deals with the legal situation of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada under the laws of Canda; 'Indigenous law' refers to the law of a particular Aboriginal group, developed within and applying to that group.

See the lede from Canadian Aboriginal law (citing John Burrows):

Canadian Aboriginal Law is different than Indigenous Law. In Canada, Indigenous Law refers to the legal traditions, customs, and practices of Indigenous peoples and groups

See also, West Coast Environmental Law's description

It’s also important to distinguish Indigenous law from Aboriginal law. Aboriginal law is generally considered to be the law of the state, and comes from legislation and the common law through the courts and the Constitution; whereas, Indigenous law refers to Indigenous peoples’ own law, and has many sources such as custom, songs, stories, language and ceremonies.

This is recognized in the header of the template: Template:Canadian Aboriginal and Indigenous law. All of Canadian case law refers to "Aboriginal title", not "Indigenous title". With respect to the proposed split of Category:Indigenous law in Canada, only one of the articles (Wahkohtowin) in the category right now is Indigenous law. So, I'm not sure how to handle that when the split would leave only one article in one of the categories. An alternative would be to rename that category to "Aboriginal and Indigenous law in Canada", just like the template is titled. Sancho 23:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded I tagged the subcategory, Category:Indigenous title case law in Canada, for consideration as well. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! There are a couple more that I'll group here too. -- Sancho 00:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge -- The article titles seem overwhelmingly to be at "indigenous" not "aboriginal". Whatever we do it should reflect Canadian usage, not what happens at an international or multi-national level. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That merely suggest that the main article also needs to be renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: Sorry to bother you again. According to the main article, citing John Burrows: Aboriginal Law is different than Indigenous Law. In Canada, Indigenous Law refers to the legal traditions, customs, and practices of Indigenous peoples and groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not claim expertise in this area and was merely going on what appeared to be the consensus in articles, etc. My comment about Canadian usage remains relevant. The proposal was to combine aboriginal and indigenous, and I was suggesting it should be merged the other way around, but if they are not the same (as others say), they should be kept separate, though possibly with the same parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice: Just posted a link to this discussion at the Canadian Wikipedian's noticeboard. Let's wait to see if we can get more input here before closing for no-consensus (if that were to be the outcome). Sancho 16:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes restore Aboriginal is a legal term of art used in documents and legal proceedings..... so if the request is to move these from indigenous to the legal term in Canadian Courts.....YES because Indigenous laws and Aboriginal laws are two different things in Canada.Thomas Isaac (15 August 2012). Aboriginal Law, Fourth Edition: Commentary and Analysis. UBC Press. ISBN 978-1-895830-65-1.--Moxy (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's exactly the distinction you mention that motivated my suggestion that these categories be renamed. Very few (maybe only one) of the articles in these categories is about Indigenous law. Sancho 20:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for posting this at the Canadian noticeboard.... don't worry Canadians will show up and explain the difference to others. We follow most common sources and what the Canadian academic organizations use. here's the scholar mentioned above....about indigenous law vs Aboriginal law..... this is the same manner we have/should organized are articles here..... a few legal related articles reference Aboriginal and the rest indigenous..... Indigenous peoples of Canada vs Aboriginal Canadian law--Moxy (talk) 20:46, 9 March 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:Critics of transhumanism[edit]

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:Criticism of transhumanism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category contains only one (1) article. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. PPEMES (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I hardly even understand what the topic criticised is about, but if the individual is correctly categorised, that should be recorded somewhere: where? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion - instead Rename to Category:Criticism of transhumanism, which will allow the inclusion of Francis Fukuyama's book, Our Posthuman Future. The parent cat, Category:Transhumanism has many articles on the subject as well as a large sub-cat for advocates. So a category for criticism is entirely appropriate. I'm sure Fukuyama is not the only notable critic of transhumanism, and there may well be other books. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: - I thought you might like to consider this. Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there was no possibility/likelihood of expansion I might support deletion of the category, but there is every reason to think that the subject will attract more critics/criticism going forward. As for the book, having it listed in Category:Transhumanist books is not all that helpful, as the name of the category gives the very clear impression that all of them were written by Transhumanist authors, which is indeed the case except for Fukuyama. It probably should be renamed to Category:Books about transhumanism. Anomalous+0 (talk) 19:46, 6 March 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:Islamic dress[edit]

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, see here. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the main article, Islamic clothing, which was moved to the present title following a move discussion. This was previously declined at speedy, so I am bringing it here. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:05, 18 February 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:Superheroes by continent[edit]

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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Continent" is not a meaningful basis for categorizing superheroes. Currently, these categories are basically containers for various national-level subcategories, with a sprinkling of individual articles that are already in other, more appropriate subcategories of Category:Superheroes. (Pinging the category's creator, User:Samantha Ireland) -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:25, 18 February 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:Redirects to anthroponymy pages[edit]

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: Speedily deleted because dependent on a deleted template. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category that was related to Template:R to anthroponymy page, which was recently deleted per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 10#Template:R to anthroponymy page. —Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 18 February 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:Fictional men by sexual orientation[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary layer of categorization, as not every People category needs a Fictional people counterpart. The 'bisexual' and 'gay'/'lesbian' categories can be (and are) placed directly in Fictional LGBT (wo)men, and there is no need to upmerge to Category:Fictional characters by sexual orientation as the contents can be reached via Category:Fictional bisexuals and Category:Fictional homosexuals. (Pinging the categories' creator, User:*Treker) -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't any need to ping me when I'm already editing on the page today.★Trekker (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a habit for me, I suppose. I always try to ping the category's creator when starting a new nomination. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this seems redundant. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:58, 20 February 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:Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology[edit]

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure this one is merited. Compare merge discussion (completed) on Talk:History of Catholic eucharistic theology. PPEMES (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PPEMES: what exactly is the rationale to merge? It might not be merited for what reason? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning that hesitating whether distinction is relevant for the theology of it and the subject per se. PPEMES (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After looking once more, my impression is that Category:Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology contains very few articles about theology while most articles are about practices. In that sense the scope of the two categories overlap a lot. Not sure if we have the same rationale, but I support the merge anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 26 February 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:Decades in the City of Westminster[edit]

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, tending towards keep. If this is nominated again I suggest that its parent Category:20th century in the City of Westminster should also be considered, either as a target for merging, or also for deletion along with its more sparsely-populated siblings for other London boroughs. – Fayenatic London 15:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting :
Nominator's rationale: overcategorisation per WP:NONDEF.
Where appropriate, these pages are already categorised under Category:Years in London. In nearly all cases, the extra specificity by location is pointless: e.g. it is no way a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the Lancaster House Agreement, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2018, the 14th Empire Awards, the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade or the 17th G7 summit that they took place in the City of Westminster rather than in the adjoining London Boroughs of Camden, Lambeth or Southwark — or even one of the outer boroughs.
Look for example at Category:2010s in London. Its most populous subcat contains only 71 pages, so there is no oversize problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Westminster is by far London's most important borough, and it's relevant & defining that the events took place there. Jim Michael (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jim Michael, I urge you to read WP:DEFINING, and then check the 5 examples I gave. None of them even namechecks Westminster other than in the category ... but all but one of them mentions London in the lede, 3 of them in the opening sentence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Each of the categories is sufficiently populated. I am not sure that its status as a conference venue (distinct from London generally) is all that significant, but if they were in a general London category they would get buried in a wealth of material relating to other boroughs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peter, my deletion rationale is WP:NONDEF, not WP:SMALLCAT, so sufficiently populated is irrelevant.
The rest sounds like an argument for creating a category named something like "YYYY diplomatic events in London", rather than for categorising these gatherings because they happened in Westminster rather than on the other side of Westminster Bridge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sometimes a building is mentioned as the location of an event, or a street is mentioned, or a borough is mentioned, but no kind of place is consistently mentioned beside London. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the articles state the location in the infobox. The borough isn't typically included because it isn't a usual part of an address. Jim Michael (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's omitted because it's not WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's omitted from the text because there's more levels of geography/address than would be reasonable to mention in the text (especially in text where places are hyperlinked). For example, the Lancaster House (the location of some of these events) article text doesn't actually say "Westminster" (it refers to a smaller district within Westminster), but it could easily be reworded to refer to Westminster and (imo) it's reasonable for that article to be in Westminster categories. For international events the borough may be a non-defining characteristic, but the borough not being mentioned when a more specific location is mentioned is not proof of this. DexDor (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor, we could write Wikipedia articles in all sorts of ways to make particular points, but the test in WP:DEFINING is A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Note "reliable sources", which I have underlined.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so look what happens if we do search reliable sources:
"London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade" Westminster gets 2 gnews hits
So only 10% of hits mention "Westminster". That's a long way short of "commonly and consistently". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's partly because the City of Westminster covers several smaller areas, of which Westminster is a small part. Things which happened in the City of Westminster but not in Westminster are more likely to be referred to by the smaller specific area within (and/or by the street or building), rather than the borough. Jim Michael (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael, if you want to keep these category, please go find some actual evidence that the characteristic of location in the City of Westminster is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having.
All your variants of "it might be phrased differently" establish nothing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 21 February 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.

Numismatics award recipients[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting: (but without recommendation)
Nominator's rationale: Neutral. I am not sure about how WP:OC#AWARD applies to these two.
Category:Recipients of the Jeton de Vermeil has been populated in the last 24 hours by User:Hkb, who didn't create a category page.
Per WP:REDNOT, it shouldn't stay as a redlinked category, so I debated whether to create the category page or revert the articles. I eventually decided to create the page, and throw it immediately at CFD to see whether or not it should stay.
Category:Recipients of the Medal of the Royal Numismatic Society is nearly 3 years old, but seems broadly similar, so I have nominated it too.
WP:OC#AWARD says that "in general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic." The principle is that the WP:DEFINING characteristic is what people do, not what awards they may get.
In each of the cases, the recipients are listed, at Jeton de Vermeil and Medal of the Royal Numismatic Society respectively. Numismatics is not a crowded field; Category:Numismatists+subcats contains only ~420 biographies, but between them these two lists include ~180 names, of which about half are blue-linked. The fact that one-in-three of notable numismatists could be in these categories suggests a weak case for treating the awards as WP:DEFINING ... but maybe numismatics just a field where en.wp's current coverage is poor? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (I assume there is a list) -- We allow categories for Nobel Prizes and some film awards, but these are exceptions. WP:OC#AWARD prohibits most award categories as they create category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete for Jeton de Vermeil/Lean Toward Delete for RNS Award The Jeton de Vermeil is given to non-French recipients and doesn't come within a mile of being defining. The Medal of the Royal Numismatic Society is more prominent but doesn't seem to be defining however the articles in the category are very short stubs so it's hard to evaluate and I'm willing to reconsider later. The winners are already listified in the main articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means, Delete - There are FAR too many awards categories. They've proliferated and metastasized to the point that on some articles the category listings have been swamped by such categories. 80 or 90 percent of them should be deleted, IMHO. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in both instances not a significant award that has received coverage in multiples of reliable sources. The recipients are not defined or notable due to this award. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:42, 6 March 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.

MLCs[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: MLCs is pretty cryptic and certainly not unambiguous. The parent category is Category:Members of the New Zealand Legislative Council, which also contains Category:Women members of the New Zealand Legislative Council‎ and Category:Speakers of the New Zealand Legislative Council‎ - it would be nice if these followed suit. I note that the women's category uses a lower case "m" for members - I'm open to advice as to whether that category is correct or needs changing - if it's correct these should also have a lower case "m". Grutness...wha? 14:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose un-needed verbosity. In these uses, the abbreviation MLC is unambiguous because the context is defined by the preceding party name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- We have a lot of MLC (and MP) categories, so that, exceptionally, abbreviation is encouraged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (as above) Hugo999 (talk) 03:41, 25 February 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:Wikipedia articles by where they incorporate a citation from[edit]

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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Correct the grammar UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:10, 18 February 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.

Fictional trans people[edit]

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 WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 11#Fictional_trans_people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The phrases "trans men"/"trans women" are preferred to "transmen"/"transwomen", to to avoid the implication that they are not men or women but something else. Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems reasonable.★Trekker (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual characters. At ~30 articles in total, there is not enough content to justify splitting the category based on declared gender. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. It's far more effective to have it this way. A category only needs about 5 articles to be justified in it's existense. Merging them would do nothing but make navigation harder.★Trekker (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A category only needs about 5 articles to be justified in it's existense. That's definitely not true. The 5-article threshold is a minimum necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition to justify a category's existence. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is suggesting that we have a category for trans male characters solely because there are more than five of them, but rather because it would also be useful. This isn't a case of WP:SMALLCAT; there are obviously more of them than this, and the number is already starting to rapidly grow. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point, but I don't see the category's usefulness. I agree that WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to this category, but my focus continues to be on the necessity and utility of splitting Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual characters. We can disagree about utility, but with ~30 articles it is definitely not necessary. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The usefulness comes from the fact that they are distinct groups, because their defining trait is their gender. Someone researching trans characters will almost always consider their gender significant. For example, a trans man looking to identify characters like himself would appreciate not having to click thru a category of mostly off-topic articles to find those. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that breaking the category down by gender is not just acceptable, but valuable, because the category is about gender. The fact that Maura Pfefferman is female isn't an incidental part of the character; it's arguably the main theme of the story she appears in. Further a question such as, "How are trans men handled in fiction?" would be a very likely topic of inquiry, which categories are meant to assist. And there's "optics": Even if it isn't intentional, lumping them together would imply they had to be put together because we weren't sure "what" they were, which is not the case. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The handling of transgenderism in fiction would be a meaningful category, but that's not what this is—this is just a bifurcation of transgender characters by their declared gender. I don't disagree that doing this could be acceptable and valuable in principle but for me it's a question of organization, and a 30-member category does not, quite simply, benefit from being split. Even if it isn't intentional, lumping them together would imply they had to be put together because we weren't sure "what" they were, which is not the case. Not so, and I don't think we should let "optics" drive the decision. Someone could potentially infer that, but in my experience people who assume the worst before asking questions tend to do so regardless of how much we try to accommodate them. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Keep Separate The rename seems clearer. I do not infer any bad intent with the suggestion to merge the categories, above. Since what is defining is the identified gender, I think it's defining whether they are trans men or trans women. As more more trans characters are created and our understanding of gender increases, no objection to reviewing how best to categorize these articles to aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate proposal: I to think there is value in keeping these categories separate because their treatments in fiction are likely to reflect their differing treatment/reception in real life. However, neither the current names nor the proposed names are appropriate for Wiki categories.
Perhaps so. But that would be a whole other, much larger, CFD discussion. So for now, these categories should just be renamed as I've suggested. Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 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:Examples[edit]

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: redirect (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Example, and unused. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being unused isn't a problem if (and only if) it serves the same purpose as Category:Example, which is an example category much like User:Example and thus is purposely unused. However, if it really serves the same purpose as Category:Example we don't need two of them, and thus it should be deleted.
That being said, in my opinion, Category:Examples does not serve the same purpose as Category:Example. We don't use plurals for any of the other example pages -- no User:Examples, no Draft:Examples. I think that it serves the same purpose as Category:Namespace example pages; a real category (unused and redundant, but still real) as opposed to being an example of a category. Thus it should be redirected to Category:Namespace example pages as a plausible search term. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is what the category looked like before it was blanked. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 19 February 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.

Flora of X by taxonomy[edit]

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. There might have been a different outcome if the nominator @Sietecolores had proposed merging these categories to their parents, or if they had made a broader nomination to upmerge some of the subcats as well ... but the nomination as presented would simply have removed the contents from the national "Flora of X" category. Most editors agreed that was a bad idea, but there was no consensus on any alternative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Australia is an island - and has a very high level of endemic flora - and the argument simply doesnt fit. JarrahTree 10:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should it not then the category be Category:Endemic flora of Australia by taxonomy? And how should other areas of the world be treated? By continent or floristic kingdom? Sietecolores (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these are not the main "Flora of..." categories, nor are they the "Endemic flora of..." categories. These are intersection of taxon and country categories and are unmanageable. Abductive (reasoning) 12:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with @JarrahTree: and others who oppose this. MargaretRDonald (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least for Australia. This nomination is hard to respond to because it is so vague. If the issue is that plants occur in multiple countries, then sure: that's why WP:PLANTS says to use the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions when categorising plants by geographic distribution -- this is a botanical standard that was devised to address this specific issue. If the issue is that "intersection of taxon and country categories... are unmanageable", then I put it to you that it's a lot more unmanageable to have a flat Category:Flora of Australia with 15000+ articles in it. Furthermore, people write books with titles like Orchids of Australia, Australian Flowering Plants and Australian Proteaceae. These categories map directly onto concepts that people use in the real world. This is not overcategorisation; it's providing our readers with sensible categorisations that they use, they want, and they expect to find here. Hesperian 12:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, people do consider the intersection of endemics with WGSRPD with family. But that is the purpose of list articles. This nomination is of the intersection of nationstates with superphyla and ignoring endemism. That is unmanageable. List of the orchids of Western Australia exists, and it is not being nominated. Abductive (reasoning) 04:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain about the relevance of that list's existence, or lack of nomination, but it is of genera only and that the page is being maintained is more good fortune than common routines in categories. The Australian category structure does not ignore endemism, except to accord with the separation of one continent from another and an established means of accessing the information on Australian taxa (eg. the titles of books, journals, and plausible articles here). cygnis insignis 13:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated as this should either be a merge (e.g. to Category:Flora of Australia) or have an explanation of why a merge is not necessary. DexDor (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. There's no need for intersectional categories; Australia is not a special case, so we will end up with tens of thousands of intersectional categories for every area of the WGSRPD + political entities subdivided by every major group of plants, animals, etc. This is gross over-categorization. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peter, I would be interested to hear your response to my comment above: "people write books with titles like Orchids of Australia, Australian Flowering Plants and Australian Proteaceae. These categories map directly onto concepts that people use in the real world." Hesperian 00:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What if, instead of "by taxonomy", we use "by higher taxonomy", or something with that desired effect. Something to 1) reduce possible large categories, and 2) not bait editors to create needlessly over-specific cats. I could, once again, create a template to standardize all of these cats, which would be in the low thousands (~300 countries + a handful of subcats per country? OR even less if WGSRPD regions are used).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has no reader value. What lay reader needs to know all the angiosperms or all the ferns of Australia? And you are asking to maintain this by huge amounts of work. And there is no guarantee to the reader that the category is perfect and complete. No, such information can be had by Catscan/Petscan and is in the Flora of Australia article. Abductive (reasoning) 22:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That has no reader value. - disagree. I, for one, would want to easily see what X is in my state/country. Large, high-level flora & fauna groupings (like flowering plants), yes; by every order/family/genus, not really. What I don't want to see is an article with a dozen or more "Flora of X" categories, which I assume using WGSRPD would greatly limit(?). If not, then WikiData might be a better place to implement this, but I don't think the appropriate WikiData properties exist yet.
      • Second, it's not a huge amount of work; certainly less work than going down most of the taxonomic tree for each country/region. Using regions and a handful of the highest ranks, it would be relatively trivial, and it would clean up most of the current mess in the process. The hardest part, funny enough, would probably be getting a consensus on what ranks to use and where to stop at. Hesperian makes a good point about 15,000+ item cats, and I think that an acceptable maximum size would be somewhere around 1000-3000 as a compromise between many current categories in the near/single digits and, for example, the ~9k uniques in Category:Flora of Australia.
      • Third, there's no guarantee that Flora of Australia is perfect and complete either.
      • There's clearly an interest here, but it hasn't really been formalized in any way, just been left to various editors' personal preferences over the many years, so more discussion needed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Flora of Australia might not be complete, but it can contain redlinks, unlike a category. Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The interest is for specific taxa, those with high edemism, by certain of the regions in the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. Why not have an article and a category, All eukaryotes of Russia? Because that is not how the secondary sources think about these things. Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this is a nomination to delete hundreds of categories of the form Category:Orchids of Australia, then these should all be included in the nomination, and tagged, so that we get some eyeballs on this. Otherwise, this is simply a nomination to delete three parent categories. Hesperian 00:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. my questions pretty much align with Hesperian's Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 19 February 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:Scientific organizations by year of disestablishment[edit]

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/merge as nominated. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC) @BrownHairedGirl: The latter three categories have been merged, but the former two categories have not been deleted because there is also a Category:Scientific organizations disestablished in the 2000s. I suppose this requires a fresh nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: small (only 4 articles in total), with little prospect of expansion because scientific organizations tend to be long-lived. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support all the above per WP:SMALLCAT UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:05, 18 February 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:Edible fish by habitat[edit]

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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Freshwater edible fish: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 18#Category:Freshwater_edible_fish
  2. Marine edible fish: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 18#Category:Marine_edible_fish
Category:Edible fish by habitat was simply a container category for the two above. It held no articles, so there is no list for it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Marine edible fish is a pointless category. Apart from actually poisonous fish all marine fish are edible, if not exactly palatable or commonly eaten. Nick Thorne talk 03:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Freshwater edible fish is another pointless category, although not all species are eaten, very few are actually not edible. There are literally thousands of species of edible fish. Nick Thorne talk 06:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Combined into one nomination. DexDor (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Edible fish by habitat and its 3 subcats. For one thing, it's subjective - if some explorer mentions eating spotted mudfish to avoid starvation then does that mean it's sufficiently edible to go in the category? DexDor (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm new to category deletion, should I separately nominate the parent cetegory or does this mention suffice? - Nick Thorne talk 00:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the subcats are all deleted leaving the by-habitat category empty then that can be CSDed as an empty category. However, if an article is added to that category then it'd need another CFD to delete it unless that's included in this CFD (as I've now done). DexDor (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity I supporrt deletion of all the above cats as unnescessary, being edible is not generally a distinction between fish species. - Nick Thorne talk 21:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For certain diets such as Ayurveda Pitta constitution that call for only 'freshwater fish' [1], this is the best concise list of freshwater fish that I've seen on the internet. Nataline Chewtalk 12:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Nataline Chew (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An actual list (where the edibility of each entry in the list can be clarified and referenced) would be much better. DexDor (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No point for intersectional (habitat/edibility) categories here when these can be specified by separate habitat and edibility categories. Although I don't think Category:Edible fish is a particularly good idea either; as noted by the nominator, most fish are technically edible (non-poisonous), but some are unpalatable, or not economically viable to harvest commercially. And of fish that are poisonous, the poisons may not always be present, leaving these fish potentially edible (cf. Ciguatera fish poisoning). Plantdrew (talk) 20:19, 25 February 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:Articles in mediation[edit]

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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I understand the sound historical reasons to keep inactive project pages and even inactive project categories that are not empty. But I do not see any value in keeping inactive, empty categories, and propose that these be deleted. If there is consensus around the concept, I will make a subsequent additional nomination of similar cats. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I backed off of deleting legacy admin categories because they required re-working templates. That doesn't appear to be an issue here though. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, these are used in {{Medcom category}}, which will have red links if they are deleted. But since that template is also marked as historical, I do not feel that is an issue. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:08, 21 February 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.

Introductions by century[edit]

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 rename. – Fayenatic London 16:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category: 20th-century introductions Should the category with or without a dash be used for all subcategories of the form “Introduced in ….., ) for this and other centuries? Probably that without a dash?? (But not Category: 20th-century robots, likewise debuts and neologisms). And can they be changed speedily? I will tag those to be altered if there is agreement on which way to jump! The above two are samples. Hugo999 (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hugo999: my understanding is that the adjectival usage creates a compound modifier which should be hyphenated (see hyphenated compound modifiers), but that other usage should be unhyphenated.
So "20th-century Foo" [compound modifier], but "FooBar in the "21st century" [noun]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposals to rename: Below are the categories I nominate for renaming to remove the dash (note that some categories do not to have a 20th or 21st century subcategory): Hugo999 (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming all of the above. For future reference, these all qualify for speedy renaming, reason C2B. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy rename per C2B. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposals may as well stay on this page now (not speedy): Hugo999 (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The hyphen is not needed here. There is no adective. Dimadick (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename. Qzekrom (talk) 18:37, 18 February 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:Ohio State University Research, Publications, and Experiments[edit]

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. I ran a quick check and most (probably all) articles appear to be included in Category:Ohio State University. If splitting that cat is necessary, it's easier to do from there than from this one. Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic. It appears to be a mix of research facilities (that could be a category, or a set of entries in a navbox, though would need to set a reasonable bar along the continuum from "subunit" to "affiliated institute" to "collaboratively controlled" to "independent by used by"). But then also it has all sorts of other things that are somehow associated with OSU (an island that has among all sorts of other things a research site, a piece of software created by OSU students, a way of drawing chemical diagrams that was created by a professor there--named for him not for the school). DMacks (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This group is needed to complie all research, publications, and experiments done by this university. A similar category should also be created for other universities. It us to help easing search and group the same related work in one category. Research, publications, and experiments are the major functions of any universities and they deservea place as a category in universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohho (talk • contribs) 01:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split This is bringing together disparate things. Publications should have enough content for a subcat of OSU. Research programs/institutes, etc can be another subcat. If that leaves anything it can be merged to the OSU category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge To Category:Ohio State University per WP:OCMISC. No issue with any of these topics, but this is essentially a grab bag miscellaneous category of things that could be in the parent category. No objection to recreating more specific, defining categories as a follow up as Peterkingiron suggested. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. Left as it is, it will be a magnet for all sorts of tenuous connections - the recent addition of Defecation being a case in point. Upmerging that would not seem to be an improvement. Would support creation of a publications subcat of OSU if there are enough publications significant enough to have their own articles, but the bar for inclusion needs to be high enough - notable publications of research done at the university, not simply books written by someone who worked there once. Philip Trueman (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, but with a selective upmerge to the parent category (e.g. not NATO phonetic alphabet). No objection to creation of a more appropriate category (e.g. like Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology publications) which could be done before this CFD closes. DexDor (talk) 06:42, 19 February 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.

Currencies introduced[edit]

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
127 by-year and by-decade subcats
Nominator's rationale: These are set categories. Per WP:SETCAT and WP:NCCAT#General_conventions, set categories should use the plural form.
(I think think this qualifies as a speedy renaming per WP:C2C, but the singular form has been used by the creator of the series and by @Hugo999 who has been expanding it. They may have reasons to object, so it seemed easier to bring this directly to a full discussion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: I think that the plural is correct. I have added navigation templates and extra capacities to categories by year (many of them!) that only had two rather than four subcategories. So the only new categories I created were some by decade where the category by year previously did not have a decade subcategory. Hugo999 (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.ayurveda.com/pdf/food-guidelines.pdf
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_18&oldid=891229067"