Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 27[edit]

Category:2010s rock song stubs[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, but at least the category meets the content thresholds for stub categories now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Doesn't meet threshhold for new stub categories and was not created following procedures per Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. I'm baffled that proposals process still exists. Be bold people, and if you make a mistake, someone will spot it and it will end up here. Like this one. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - I sincerely apologize for not following proper procedure, which I will try to do in the future. I have filed a request here to create such a category. That being said, if rock song stubs are not divided into separate decades, there could end up being several thousand stubs in this category by the end of the century. People may put {{2000s-rock-song-stub}} in the article thinking that "2000s" means the 21st century. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as part of Category:Rock song stubs, which has subcats for preceding decades. – Fayenatic London 15:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: I took it upon myself to diffuse Category:Rock song stubs and was able to up the number of stub articles in the nominated category to 70. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)----Reply[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.

Society by country[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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)Reply[reply]
Full list
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are logically required following the change of the parent from "by nationality" to "by country" at CFD March 12. The contents are about countries rather than diasporas. Most of the contents are named by country rather than nationality. – Fayenatic London 18:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have now tagged all the nominated categories. – Fayenatic London 14:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • oppose While I agree these are *generally* about the country, they sometimes bleed over - for example, Category:Irish culture is in Category:Irish society. I think the shorter forms are cleaner and more in line with how reliable sources talk about these things, even if the culture bleeds into other places.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • All of the corresponding Culture categories are in the Society categories; I checked that last week. For Ireland, there are corresponding sub-cats for the Republic of Ireland and for Northern Ireland. It all makes sense. – Fayenatic London 19:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but Category:Chinese culture goes far beyond the borders of whatever entity you define as China in a given point in time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not a problem. If Chinese society covers culture and other matters in the diaspora, do we have to remove it from the parent Category:China? Not at all. WP:SUBCAT allows flexibility in parenting where there is a close enough match. In the same way, the intervening society category Category:Chinese society can still stay as the parent of Category:Chinese culture even if it is renamed to [ Category:Culture of China (oops)] Category:Society of China. If people disagree and think this is a barrier to the renaming, then I am prepared to move all the national culture categories back out of the national Society categories, although that strikes me as wrong given that Category:Culture is within Category:Society. – Fayenatic London 23:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think on balance - Chinese culture vs Culture of China - or Chinese society vs Society of China - leads me to prefer the former rather than the latter, since it just seems a bit broader and representative of the contents.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, that was a typo about culture. The culture categories are not to be renamed; they reach the diasporas, and so must stay named by nationality (e.g. Chinese). However, the Society category contents are mostly just in-country matters, e.g. Category:health in China, Category:crime in China, Category:education in China. – Fayenatic London 23:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see a good rationale for making such sweeping change. The culture or society of a country is not limited by political boundaries (that is Welsh society or Welsh culture is not limited to Wales). There is also the assumption that there is a unified society when cultures and societies are mixtures and contain many subcultures. If this proposal goes through, it definitely should be discussed on a variety of political, international relations, sociological and anthropological WikiProjects or, at the least, they should receive talk page notifications. Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I'd agree that adjectives are more forgiving and cover the subleties better than trying to force into "countries" - for instance Ireland isn't a country, one of its subcategories is and one isn't, yet that's meant to fit what is mostly a "country" category. Adjectives also cope better with historical societies - Norman culture generally implies you're in the Middle Ages and roaming from Scandinavia to Sicily, whereas culture of Normandy implies you're talking about the modern day region of France. Inherently "culture" is something that reflects ethnic and cultural "fuzz" rather than modern political boundaries, in contrast to something like "Law of ..." or "Government of ..." Le Deluge (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Obiwankenobi, Liz, Le Deluge: there is no change to the Culture categories, just Society. Most of the contents of the "Society" categories are Law, Government, etc, which are limited to the national borders.
    • Category:Norman society is not part of this nomination, and is covered at CFD March 28. I can see a case for treating former countries/empires differently. That does not stop us having a more consistent set of names for current countries. – Fayenatic London 14:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I think a split should be done to the proposed titles, so that society in Country X can contain information about ethnic Group Y from country Y in country X and not be confused with ethnic group X from country X in country Z. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @70.24.250.235: Please would you give an example of a split that you want to see? I'm not clear what you mean. It sounds as if you want, e.g. Category:Bangladeshi society in Britain and Category:Bangladeshi society in Malaysia. However, this nomination is not about splitting categories for diaspora, but just clearer more consistent naming for categories which mainly cover the "home" country. – Fayenatic London 15:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Bangladeshi society would have subcategories of your examples, while having a sibling category for Society in Bangladesh. Society of Bangladesh would cover all aspects of the society in the country including minority groups and non-Bangladeshi diaspora populations in Bangladesh, while Bangladeshi society would cover the diaspora of Bangladesh, and the majority Bangladeshi society of Bangladesh. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, I think this is excessive subcategorization. We try to make subcats really subcats, but culture and society and many other things simply bleed over the borders, but I don't think it means we should split them somehow.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On the one hand, this alternate proposal does have a certain logic to it. On the other hand, it leads to a very complex and, I think, unwieldy arrangement that would probably be overly confusing for readers to be able to navigate. Cgingold (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK, I agree with you both. For countries that have only a few sub-categories under Society, it would clearly be unhelpful. So we are just back to the alternative outcome below, i.e. renaming the parent. – Fayenatic London 10:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Cgingold: I only supported the rename of the head category at CFD March 12 because I have long thought that these national categories were mis-named. If they are to be kept, e.g. "Afghan", well, that is a nationality; only if they were renamed to e.g. "of Afghanistan" would "by country" match the contents. "By country" or "by nationality" should be used according to the naming of the national sub-cats, not according to one's view of the nature of the contents. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per previous comments that the current naming is more flexible to cover more potential topics. For instance, the first cat in the first example Category:Afghan society is Category:Afghan refugee camps, many of which are in Iran and Pakistan, not within the borders of Afghanistan. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)UyvsdiReply[reply]
  • Oh bother, this nomination took me hours! If it is rejected, please can the alternative outcome be to reverse the renaming of the parent Category:Society by country back to Category:Society by nationality, to match the contents again? – Fayenatic London 17:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - With sincere apologies to Fayenatic for the time put into this proposal, there is no inherent contradiction in organizing by country at the top level the discussions of culture and cultural diasporas. Some geographically bounded "countries" may contain more than one culture and be the origin of more than one diaspora, but such situations are easily addressable within a text covering that country. If there is no inherent contradiction, it seems like a wasteful expenditure of time to do all this re-naming. Meclee (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Meclee: Yes, yes, and that's why Culture will remain "by nationality". The question is at what level to make the switch from "by country" to "by nationality". IMHO, the Society categories – which are between the main country level and the culture categories – should be "by country", following the nature of most (by far) of the other contents. – Fayenatic London 20:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • support alternative proposal though I fear it may be better to hit the reset button. 'Country' or 'nationality' are Both wrong actually, it should really be Category:Society by national origin and myth in the imaginary of citizens of said nation - in that for many of these things we can't firmly establish whether tradition or food or practice as is 'Italian' when the nation state of Italy was a relatively recent creation, so a lot of this is related to the historical imagining and revisionist continuous histories that people use to link them to the past, even if their present state conquered and perhaps destroyed what was previously there. I can't think of a better shorter term, either one is actually fine, so I will throw my support behind whichever one others like - society by country or society by nationality, both are slightly wrong but close enough indeed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with the above comment from Obi-Wan Kenobi, but only if he's the Alec Guinness and not the new guy. I'm not sure I understand using the lesser/greater of two ill-defined terms, when "Society by national origin and myth in the imaginary of citizens of said nation" actually works best. I do see Fayenatic's point as such and appreciate the time he put into this. Mvblair (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Favor. "Society" first. More objective. I would prefer country, but that is really a separate change from what the discussion first started out to be. "Society of Abenaki" instead of "Society of North American Natives" or "Society of the United States" or whatever. These are simply three competing articles calling for a different solution. Society first. That is the decision that needs to be made. Student7 (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Women Egyptologists[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 to Category:Egyptologists and Category:Women archaeologists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a follow on to this discussion. The possibility of upmerging this to Category:Egyptologists was proposed as an add on to nomination being discussed. With only 3 articles, the idea probably should get a full discussion. I'm still neutral but thinking abut it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Cross-dressing in media[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: reverse merge to Category:Cross-dressing in media. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge or reverse merge. These seem to be two overlapping categories. In fact the vast majority of the content is the same and one could argue that the Category:Cross-dressing in literature‎ could be move to fiction without a discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • reverse merge, just put it all in media, that way if we have non-fiction it could fit there as well, I don't see a need to separate out fiction at this point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)----Reply[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.

Shades of Colors[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: wrong place to discuss page moves, see Requested Move at Talk:Variations of brown. – Fayenatic London 23:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Propose rename:
  1. Variations of gray to Shades of gray
  2. Variations of brown to Shades of brown
  3. Variations of pink to Shades of pink
  4. Variations of cyan to Shades of cyan
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Category:Shades of color and respective parent categories. --172.251.77.75 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Death of women[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Excessive sub categorization. We already have a parent which covers the topic of women and death, and all of these articles would work fine in the parent. Additionally, this category actually suggests a wider scope, meaning people may start to place articles that mention a woman dying within, which is not the intent here. Merging up will help tighten the scope so it remains for articles on the topic of intersection of women and death. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. This category and the parent category are not particularly small (total 9 subcats and 43 pages) so it's not excessive sub categorization. It's useful to separate articles about deaths of women from articles about other things (e.g. female murderers, female mourning). If anything, it's Category:Women and death which should be purged/deleted (along with many other "Foo and bar" categories). If necessary, the scope can be clarified/tightened using inclusion criteria. (category creator) DexDor (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But we don't want to have articles about deaths of women - I already removed one article about a woman who died - this is silly to gather these together in this way - e.g. "Here is a person who died" + "she was a woman" - I see no need to collect such articles together. I proposed deletion of Category:Women and death earlier but people liked it, so consensus is to keep, I just don't think we need to divide further, these are all on the topic of women and death, that's close enough...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Women_and_death CFD closed as no consensus and the argument to delete/upmerge that category is stronger now that a chunk of that category is in the the Death_of_women category. Women_and_death isn't really one topic; it's a collection of topics that are separate intersections of the topic of women with the topic of death. DexDor (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, I'm all with you, but I wasn't able to get that one deleted, people seemed to like "random mishmash of something to do with death and something to do with women". The problem with this cat is it may start collecting articles about women who died, which is a bad idea. Sadly, death takes us all, women and men and boys and girls, and I don't see the value in genderizing, but if we do, let's keep it to a single cat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Upmerge The current name is too likely to lead to miscategorization and misuse.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep useful sub categorisation. e.g. Medea and death goddesses are plainly in a different category to dead women. I have notified WP:Death where there may be more insight into this grouping. Ephebi (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)----Reply[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:Law enforcement museums and memorials in Canada[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: split into Category:Law enforcement museums in Canada and Category:Law enforcement memorials in Canada. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note:' only implemented in part, as only one article on a memorial does not justify a category. – Fayenatic London 23:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split, per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 15#Category:Law enforcement museums and memorials Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Single-deck solitaire card games[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: reverse merge. The Bushranger One ping only 05:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same as Category:52-card deck solitaire card games TheChampionMan1234 04:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a merge is better, since we have Category:Double deck solitaire card games, I don't feel like there's value in separating out solitaire played with 52 card deck vs spanish deck (50 cards), or italian deck (40 cards), or German skat deck (36 cards), or austrian schnapsen deck (24 cards), or tarot deck (78 cards). Single deck is close enough.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is simple category diffusion, common practice on Wikipedia. If you have a large category, it can help navigation if you diffuse it into smaller subcats. So in this case, the parent is Category:Single-deck solitaire card games, and so Category:52-card deck solitaire card games is a subcat of that. no need for a merge, which then makes a large voluminous category. And besides, as this is the english Wikipedia, I don't think it's beyond the pale to think that readers are likely going to be looking for 52-card deck related solitaires, as 52 cards is a common deck in primarily english-speaking countries, such as US, UK, Australia and elsewhere.
So this is a simple subcat choice, which helps navigation and helps readers find what they want/need. What's the converse arguement? They all need to be dumped in a pile together, forcing readers to try to sift through all those pages to try to figure out which articles involved 52-card decks? Which do you think helps navigation? - jc37 18:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
most games with fewer than 52 cards can be played with a stripped 52-card deck. Yes subcats can work here but I think it's an unneeded level of specification and the cat wouldn't be that big anyway and would probably fit on one page nonetheless.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • reverse merge—the key difference between single deck and double deck patience is that in a single deck there are no duplicate cards. The number of cards in the single deck doesn't change that fact that it's a single deck. See David Partlett's encyclopaedic work on patience games for more details. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Zabytki[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 as proposed. There's definitely a consensus here to use an English-language name. In the absence of a consensus for any alternative name, I'm defaulting so it matches the name of the article. It may be possible to reach a consensus on a different name through WP:RM. If so, the category name can then be changed speedily to match the new name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Let's use an English name. The main article was moved by User:Staszek Lem already two years back; although there was no discussion, there were no objections. I have raised this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Category:Zabytki_probably_should_be_renamed, where the category creator expressed no objections to renaming the category. My only concern would be that the English name is a bit ORish (as in, I haven't found any other English widespread translation of zabytek), see my analysis at Talk:Objects of cultural heritage in Poland for details. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • speedy rename - further discussions about the appropriate English title should be had at the article; then the category should simply follow suit if it's decided to change.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question to @Piotrus: If the Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa (National Heritage Board of Poland) is not using this term, as you stated on the article talk page, is there a definable scope for the contents of the category? – Fayenatic London 17:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Yes, for objects in the official catalogues at Objects of cultural heritage in Poland, maintained by NID itself. NID is not using the Polish term in English, but they certainly do it in Polish, and such a category can be defined.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - I am all in favor of using English terms in category names whenever possible. However, it seems to me that we can do better than the current proposal. In particular, I think we should use the term "artifacts" rather than "objects". What about "Cultural artifacts in Poland" (wherein "heritage" is implicit)? Cgingold (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Good point. How about using the term Cultural property, i.e. Category:Cultural properties in Poland? This covers both moveable and immoveable objects. I have suggested at the main article talk page that it could be renamed following this discussion. – Fayenatic London 08:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Property" would be a good term, except that it is ambiguous: besides "a thing... owned" and the like, it has a couple of other meanings, including a "trait or attribute... [a] peculiarity... any of the principal characteristics of a substance... an essential quality common to all members of... a class." Nihil novi (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support an English-language rendering of the Polish "zabytki" (in the singular, "zabytek"). Nihil novi (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps "Polish cultural monuments"? "Monument", derived ultimately from the Latin "monere", "to remind", is used in many senses, all of which are applicable in this context. For example, literary works may be classed as monuments, as in the title of [1] Bogdana Carpenter's Monumenta Polonica: the First Four Centuries of Polish Poetry: a Bilingual Anthology. I would use the wording "Polish cultural monuments" rather than "Cultural monuments in Poland", because a Polish cultural monument such as a painting or book might be found outside Poland, in another country. Nihil novi (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[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.