Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 8

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< July 7 July 9 >

July 8

Category:Breakup albums

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. – Fayenatic London 17:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Something of interest to incorporate into each of the articles for these albums (with reliable sources, of course) but not a defining characteristic for any of them. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Besides the "not defining" aspect, what this comes down to is the notion that making music is all about expressing your personal life. Given the number of break-ups we probably don't know about, however, he accuracy of the categorization is always going to be questionable, and never mind that the theory itself is doubtful. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vague category, OR, could also be interpreted as albums with songs about breakups. Also, what about bands who frequently change members, and bands who get back together? -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2014 (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.

Female economists

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. – Fayenatic London 11:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Female economists to Category:Women economists
  • Nominator's rationale This is the only sub-category of Category:Women social scientists that does not use women. In general we seem to have tended to use women in cases where the vast majority of notable people in the field are adults. This clearly applies to economists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- Is economics a field where women perform differently from men? I suspect not. In sociology the gender of the researcher may be significant, but I doubt it applies in economics. If so, merge Category:Economists. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is not whether they perform differently, it is whether it is an intersection that has received enough coverage that we could write a reliably-sourced, more than just a list article on Women economists. I do not actually know the answer to that question, but I suspect it would be a yes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match parent structure. A quick google suggests women economists as a topic is getting some attention, so deletion is not an obvious choice. SFB 21:28, 20 July 2014 (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:David Crowther

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. – Fayenatic London 17:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a person who doesn't have the volume of spinoff content necessary to warrant one; all that's filed here is his own biographical article and one book he wrote. Delete as an
WP:OC#EPONYMOUS violation. Bearcat (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2014 (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.

Merge Category:Concepts by field and Category:Terminology

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This proposal is my attempt to deal with the mess illustrated by the individual case discussed at #Merge_Category:Biological_concepts_and_Category:Biology_terminology. This is a problem with numerous categories from Category:Concepts by field and Category:Terminology, both of which are rather problematic as they are containers for articles that people just wanted to remove from the parent categories but couldn't figure out where they should go. To be honest, I'd probably support deleting both categories (as a sociologist and Wikipedian, I don't really see why all articles from Category:Sociological terminology shouldn't be in Category:Sociology, pending a more meaningful categorization). But for now, instead of proposing the nuclear option, let's at least deal with a mess of having two container categories for "stuff people don't know how to categorize and thus call foo-ian concepts or terminology". A number overlap in a similar way to the Biology example discussed, consider for example Category:Philosophical terminology and Philosophical concepts‎ Category:Philosophical concepts - is just one of several. Another problem is illustrated bt arbitrary choices: why do we have Category:Engineering concepts‎ but no Category:Engineering terminology? Or Category:Sociological terminology‎ but no Category:Sociological concepts? For a perfect illustration of the arbitrary system, consider the prior sociology example - and the reverse in psychology: we have Category:Psychological concepts‎ but no Category:Psychological terminology. I hope I make a clear case that those categories are about the same type/level of concepts. Let's merge them - probably to terminology as it is more popular. Once that happens we can have another discussion about the merits of keeping or deleting the resulting category. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - I could not support this more strongly! Everything is "terminology" and therefore a completely useless name for a category. Whereas the concepts category is well defined, and fundamental to the organization of Wikipedia. I would support abolishing all "terminology" categories. Greg Bard (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Many/most articles that are currently in terminology categories are categorized inappropriately (e.g. the
    my essay for more details. This proposed merge would bring even more articles about topics that have nothing to do with linguistics under Category:Linguistics. DexDor (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 07:50, 8 July 2014 (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.

Merge Category:Biological concepts and Category:Biology terminology

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, and DexDor has provided strong reasons for not deleting this category alone while it has "terminology" sub-categories. I will add "see also" links between these two, and this close is of course no bar to cleaning up the contents. – Fayenatic London 12:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is no significant difference between concept and terminology in those cases, articles are added to one or the other - or both - more or less at random. I am not sure which direction we should merge things, but I am leaning towards terminology and Category:Terminology is more widely used than Category:Concepts by field. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - I could not support this more strongly! Everything is "terminology" and therefore a completely useless name for a category. Whereas the concepts category is well defined, and fundamental to the organization of Wikipedia. I would support abolishing all "terminology" categories. Greg Bard (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This category contains several subcats that are (or at least claim to be) about terminology (e.g.
    this does belong in a terminology category. The subcats should be considered first or together with the parent category. DexDor (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @DexDor: I have trouble seeing how anything but articles clearly labelled "foo-ian terminology" belong in that category; and for those articles I see an AfD as they appear to be a hybrid of "OR" and "move to Wiktionary". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These categories contain articles like Synonym (taxonomy), Homonym (biology) and International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. If you think articles like that shouldn't exist then delete them by AfD and then take the category to CFD. As long as Category:Ecology terminology (for example) exists then it should have a terminology parent category. This CFD proposes deleting a mid-level terminology category - a CFD to delete lowest-level terminology categories would probably get my support. DexDor (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 07:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish it were possible to nominate categories as "automatically clean category except the following few articles". Because a nomination like that would certainly be applicable to most or all Terminology categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, would my previous thought be entirely impossible to realize? Wouldn't it be possible to delete the category, and then re-establish the category from scratch with only the before-mentioned content? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Marcocapelle: It can be done, and I have done it once. If the decision is "purge", we can automate the hard work by making a bot empty and delete a category, then manually undelete and selectively repopulate it. Can you list your proposed contents here? – Fayenatic London 15:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Fayenatic london:, I think meanwhile for biology it's too late now, this CfD has been posted too long ago and (knowledgeable) people will no longer check this discussion. My question was actually more like a fundamental question, of which the answer could be applied to every terminology page. At least I'm glad the answer is yes! Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2014 (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:Rail transport book citation templates

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. It's not a categorisation of books, but of templates. – Fayenatic London 13:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to Ship book citation templates, it is an odd categorization to call it "rail-related transport books." This isn't so much of a category for "rail transport-related books" but a category for "templates for rail transport-related books that are used on Wikipedia rail transport articles" to me. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a subject matter categorization. It's a categorization not of books regarding rail transport but of books regarding rail transport 'used in Wikipedia articles' that 'we have templates'. We don't categorize the sources of articles by the article topic, categorizing the templates used for the sources of articles seems like a strange organizational scheme. It would be an upmerge to the main single-source category. I guess I could list all the subtemplates categories if that makes my view clearer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your argument. Please keep in mind I'm not a CfD regular so if you're using CfD short-hand I'm going to need it spelled out. It says right at the top of the category page that the category is "...part of Wikipedia's administration and not part of the encyclopedia." That's the purpose of the parent category as well. What's the proposed benefit of an upmerge, besides making it more difficult to find similar subject-matter templates, when both parents are also administration/maintenance categories? Mackensen (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What Mackensen said. I sometimes use templates like {{Butt-Stations}}, and occasionally need to see if a similar template has already been created for a different book that I'm currently referring to. this cat makes it easier to locate the template, if it exists. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2014 (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:Bands with numbers in their name

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. – Fayenatic London 19:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is an example of overcategorization by a non-defining, trivial characteristic:
WP:OC#TRIVIAL. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:59, 8 July 2014 (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:Yueju opera

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. – Fayenatic London 15:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only former category member,
Yue opera (Zhejiang). TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 01:08, 8 July 2014 (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.

USU Eastern Golden Eagles baseball

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:Utah State Eastern Golden Eagles baseball. – Fayenatic London 12:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The College of Eastern Utah became Utah State University Eastern in 2010; athletics at the school compete as "USU Eastern" [1]. Same should go for subcategories category:Eastern Utah Golden Eagles baseball players & category:Eastern Utah Golden Eagles baseball coaches Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_8&oldid=1138399527"