Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 24

< September 23	September 25 >

September 24[edit]

Category:Gynaecology[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. While the American English spelling doesn't have an "a," this does match the article title--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gynaecology to Category:Gynecology

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was speedy renamed after the discussion was aborted as a C2D. However this is a clear case of WP:ENGVAR and should never have been renamed. I could take this to WP:DRV, but let's just discuss this here. The category was created in May of 2004 and was at that name ever since. A no consensus here should result in the category being restored to the old name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the category should have matched the article in 2004 (Gynaecology, Gynecology). Occuli (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm always in favor of article and category names matching--why wouldn't they? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match article name. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Let's correct the mistake. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It doesn't make much sense to me to preserve ENGVAR differences between article names and category names. The category should be named whatever variation of English the article name uses. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match article name. Cjc13 (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Call me dense but I simply don't get the nominator's rationale. Surely it makes sense to match the names of the category and the main article. I don't remember the letter of WP:ENGVAR but I'm pretty sure the spirit is "don't confuse anybody and when that's impossible confuse as few as possible". Since there's a consensus that spelling it gynaecology is less confusing on average, why move away from that? Pichpich (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as I said in the discussion on 24 August, 2011, main article appears to be stable at the "ae" spelling. The category should match that. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article is spelt Gynaecology. This should match. The Commons cat does have the suggested spelling, but it is an inappropriate one. The word is from the Greek Gynaiky (ΓΥΝΑΙΚΗ). Medieval Latin convered the classical Latin ae to e, but I do not think this is appropriate for a word transliterated from Greek. It is the Commons Cat that needs to be changed. Can some one do a CFD there? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2011 (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:Truro Cathedral[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:Diocese of Truro.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Not likely to be further populated -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Category:Deans of Truro and Category:Bishops of Truro are currently subcategories of Category:Truro but could be subcategories of Category:Truro Cathedral. An alternative is to create Category:Diocese of Truro, as there is an article for Diocese of Truro but no category (see Category:Dioceses of the Church of England). Cjc13 (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Move to Category:Diocese of Truro, as per above rationale and include Category:Deans of Truro and Category:Bishops of Truro as subcategories. Zangar (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Diocese of Truro and re-purpose per Cjc13's sagacious remarks. Occuli (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose -- The bishop is not a Cathedral official and so should not be in a Cathedral cat. In theory it could be populated by cats for precentors, organists, and prebendaries (or are they canons?), but most candidates will be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2011 (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:Prajapati volunteers[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. Definitely not a good idea to categorize by caste.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Over categorization with ambiguous name "volunteers" and thus csope.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all the categories under and including Category:Prajapati people (except the clan one if it finds its way back in there), per consensus at WP:India and the acceptance of that consensus on not classifying people by caste at all CFDs (e.g. 1, 2, 3; there are a couple more I think, but I can't remember off-hand). —SpacemanSpiff 08:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and per SpacemanSpiff. It's my understanding that we do not categorize people by Indian caste. I've added all the other categories under Category:Prajapati people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the general view seems to be that caste categories should not be created to hold biographical articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to Category:Prajapati people in the first instance. This might be followed by a CFD on that in view of the precedents cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2011 (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:Prajapati[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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Prajapati to Category:Kumhar

Nominator's rationale: To sync with the mother article and common name Kumhar Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many daughter categories under it like Category:Prajapati people, Category:Prajapati politicians, Category:Prajapati saints et al. Please move those too. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:15, 24 September 2011 (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:Prajapati Gods[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: No neutral references (RS) except the Prajapati caste legend defines the gods being of that caste Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more than unverifiable claims. —SpacemanSpiff 08:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2011 (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.

Single-member Musicians by band categories[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Each of these categories (some of which I created) has only one article in it. The header on Category:Musicians by band says, "Categories should not be created when only one member has an article." I've gone through the categories and made sure no other members of these bands have articles. Of course, if someone creates an article for one or more additional members of a band, I'll withdraw the nomination for that band specifically.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Per Mike and current policy. Lugnuts (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2011 (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:Cold War by year[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 with no prejudice against re-nomination. Nominator's rationale appears to be mooted. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting or renaming

Delete Category:1960 in the Cold War & Category:1961 in the Cold War & Category:Cold War by year

Nominator's rationale: The two categories for 1960 & 1961 were created in 2007 and have not been extended; I do not think that they will ever include all the years 1947 (or 1946?) to 1991 as the series should. Hugo999 (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am, to be sure, chagrined to have left these categories in a such a partially-completed state. So thanks for notifying me, Hugo999. Now that it has been brought to my attention, I will make an effort to flesh them out more fully. I have also notified another editor, who just created two new sub-cats this very day, and asked for his assistance in this endeavor. (Hopefully he will respond here in a timely fashion.) Cgingold (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2011 (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:Cold War by period[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting or renaming

Rename Category:Cold War by period to Category:History of the Cold War

Nominator's rationale: none provided by Hugo999 on 24 September 2011. 64.134.156.175 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep name - Further comment: It wouldn't really make a whole lot of sense to have a Category called "History of the Cold War", since the entire contents of Category:Cold War are, in fact, history. The same reason we don't have Category:History of World War II or Category:History of the American Civil War. Cgingold (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Cold War. These are important articles—essentially a broken-up series of head articles—and belong in the main category. Category:History by period isn't where this should go, since those categories are about things that happened over multiple periods of history, not in a continuous and fairly short period of time.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't disagree with you on the importance of the articles, Mike. I suppose they could go in BOTH this category and the head category. Of course, part of the reason for creating this category in the first place was that Category:Cold War was (and still is) totally bursting at the seams with articles. An other thing that's useful about the category is that it does provide a point of access thru Category:History by period, which is of real value IMO. Cgingold (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I neglected to mention that the sub-cat, Category:Cold War by year has been Kept (above). THIS category allows those sub-cats and articles to be grouped together with those head-articles in one convenient package. Cgingold (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2011 (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:Military units and formations of the Cold War[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Military units and formations of the Cold War & Category:Military units and formations of the United States in the Cold War

Nominator's rationale: There is only one subcategory, that for the United States, with only five articles in it. Potentially it could include most current US units and formations, plus extra categories for all the other countries who are/were members of NATO or the Warsaw Pact, but it is doubtful if any more of the possible units/formations and countries will be added. Hugo999 (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False "Nominator's rationale" 1: Underpopulated Category is not a valid rationale for deleting a category that meets the criteria for inclusion in its parent categories. 64.134.156.175 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
False "Nominator's rationale" 2: Fabricated conjecture that "it is doubtful if any more of the possible units/formations and countries will be added" is absolutely false, as numerous articles meet the scope of the category (e.g., essentially all of post-war USSR military units). In particular, Template:Category diffuse applies to numerous categories which have Cold War units/formations, which is specifically for making the probability likely that "more...will be added". 64.134.156.175 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this is far too general. Possibly in the future we might consider recreating for specific wars, such as the Dominican Republic intervention or similar. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- False "Support" Rationale 1: Category is not in any way "general", "too general", or "far too general"; as the Cold War is a specific, relatively short era (cf. Category:Hundred Years War in the long history of military units and formations (i.e., warfare) and had an extensive number of specific units and formations, many of which have wikiarticles. 64.134.156.175 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- False "Support" Rationale 2: "Possibly in the future we might consider...for specific wars" is invalid, as categories for units/formations of specific wars were considered, and established, in Wikipediafor in the past -- e.g., Category:Military units and formations of World War I, ...World War II, ...Hundred Years War, etc. 64.134.156.175 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not useful. We have categories for military units and formations by country and by year created. I do not think there is a need to make them also by war, especially when it was a non-declared war that dragged on for 40 or so years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- False "Delete" Rationale 1: "this is not useful" is entirely inaccurate, as the categories perform their utility of subdividing specific articles so readers do not have to view through them in the parent category. 64.134.156.175 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- False "Delete" Rationale 2: "I do not think there is a need to make them also by war" directly contradicts the parent category Category:Military units and formations by war, which is not limited to only declared wars or to wars of shorter duration than "40 or so years". 64.134.156.175 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both categories are valid groupings for the great number of articles and subcategories that need diffused from various parent categories for this war/era. 64.134.156.175 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a difference between this and the other by-war categories. We have lots of categories for Cold War-era equipment and activity, so even though it was an undeclared war, it still fits the scheme--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2011 (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:16th century naval battles[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: upmerge. We don't categorize battles by century. I've made sure all contents are in the target category or a "Naval battles of (specific war)" category, so this is essentially a delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:16th-century naval battles to Category:Naval battles of the Early Modern era

Nominator's rationale: There is only one categories by century for naval battles (as far as I can find), and there are no category by century for battles, eg there is no Category:16th-century battles of which it would be a subcategory. Hence this category is an orphan, with no overall series of naval battles by century or battles by century. Now that categories by era for military history and battles exist up to the present, these naval battles can be included in the appropriate category by era. Possibly some could go into new “naval battles by war” categories if they are part of a “war”. Hugo999 (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose without clear support from the milhist project. This doesn't seem to contradict their policy and other by century categories could easily, and I would think usefully, be created. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Most naval battles are categorised into “naval battles by war” and the wars are in turn categorised in the appropriate era of warfare. So there are few naval battles left which could be categorised by century. The only large era where subcategorisation by century might be useful is Category:Naval battles of the Middle Ages (and Category:Battles of the Middle Ages?) as the era covers the 6th to 15th centuries (ie 10 centuries) and directly contains a significant number of battle/naval battle articles. While Category:Naval battles of the Ancient era covers the 1st to 5th century, most naval battles are already categorised by participant or war, with only one naval battle categorised directly in it. Hugo999 (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nom -- "by war" is the best sub-classification. This will leave a small number of battles that are less easily classified. The extent of "Early modern" may be debated, but 1500-1792 is satisfactory for most purposes. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2011 (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:Methods of writing[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Methods of writing to Category:Literary genres

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'm just converting the {{merge to}} added by User:Lobsterthermidor on 11 April 2011. I personally don't necessarily support this merge. I have informed User:Lobsterthermidor of this corrected nomination. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: "Methods of writing" is an inexact category, poorly entitled. It seems to imply: "with a pen, with a pencil, in the sand, with the feet, etc." but that is not what it is currently being used for. All 9 articles currently in this category would be appropriate to Category:Literary genres, a standard & well-recognised category.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Support And yes, the way it lumps things like Poetry and Professional writing as "methods of writing" is pretty muddled, imo. So some pruning may need to be done, as is often the case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2011 (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:Sheriffs of London[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Sheriffs of London to Category:Sheriffs of the City of London

Nominator's rationale: Merge. On 9 April 2011 User:Boleyn added a {{mergeto}} for this (which does display it is incorrect for this usage). This probably could be speedy, but it isn't obvious how to process speedy merges. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Sheriff of London redirects to Sheriffs of the City of London. Cjc13 (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I am not clear what the situation is in the rest of Greater London. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2011 (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 carnivorous fungi[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: upmerge. In the case of the plants category, the upmerge is to the various regional categories of carnivorous plants. If anything was not correctly categorized as either edible or carnivorous, please fix those errors.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category, along with the new Category:Edible carnivorous plants, is a meaningless intersection. Both should be deleted. Very few of the plants (if ANY) are actually eaten regularly. And of the fungi, edibility and carnivory (or nematophagy) are unrelated. In fact, it would probably be easier to make a list of the carnivorous plants and fungi that are not edible (but I would argue against that, too). I'm also unaware of any reliable source that makes any claims about the plant species' edibility. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning, the following pages also should be deleted"

Edible mushroom

Category:Edible fungi

Edible plant stems

Category:Edible plants

Template:Mycomorphbox

Category:Edible Apiaceae

Category:Edible Solanaceae

Category:Edible nuts and seeds

Category:Edible legumes

List of edible seeds

List of edible flowers

True, there is no single source that defines edibility for the millions of species in the world, but if there is a source, it will be on the page for the specific species. That's why a category is appropriate more than a list.--Nessie (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion about the former List of plants with edible leaves. I especially like Casliber's comment: "I hate some of these pages - "edible" (loosely defined) can mean almost anything which lacks a disagreeable taste and toxic compounds, which could cover an insane number of plant species...." That's why saying something is "edible" is almost meaningless. First, it assumes we mean edible by humans and second, it lacks specificity on dosage and preparation (e.g. apple seeds are edible, but too many would cause harm and cassava must be cooked before being considered edible). Rkitko ^(talk) 03:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; there is nothing showing the intersection between what we eat and what we eat eats in outside of (perhaps) the animal kingdom; Category:Edible plants that thrive on ruminant dung, anyone? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom to the parents. There is nothing wrong with Category:Edible fungi and Category:Carnivorous fungi; the objection is to forming their intersection, per WP:OCAT#Trivial intersection. Occuli (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that upmerging would not be ideal at least for the carnivorous plants. All of the articles currently within Category:Edible carnivorous plants are found within subcategories of Category:Carnivorous plants or, in the case of several of them, including Proboscidea, are not considered carnivorous. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:46, 27 September 2011 (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.