Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 3

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< December 2 December 4 >

December 3

Category:Dungeons & Dragons novelists

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 will leave a list of the current contents on the talk page, in case anyone wants to make a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:PERFCAT and earlier discussion regarding TV writers by series; suggest listifying. Trivialist (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2017 (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:Dungeons & Dragons writers

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 will leave a list of the current contents on the talk pag e, in case anyone wants to make a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:PERFCAT and earlier discussion regarding TV writers by series; suggest listifying. Trivialist (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2017 (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:Dungeons & Dragons artists

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 will leave a list of the current contents on the talk pag e, in case anyone wants to make a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:PERFCAT and to the somewhat analogous earlier discussion regarding TV writers by series; suggest listifying. Trivialist (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2017 (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:Magic: The Gathering artists

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:PERFCAT and to the somewhat analogous earlier discussion regarding TV writers by seriessuggest listifying. Trivialist (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2017 (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:Television occupations

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 by weight of argument. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Television people" already includes television occupations in its subcategories. Jaqen (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2017 (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:Russian gynaecologists

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, i.e. do not merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap Rathfelder (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Rathfelder should refer us to the fate of previous similar proposals such as
    Oculi (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose. Same as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_14#Category:Gynaecologists. These categories are woefully underpopulated, rendering "Complete overlap" a weak rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Complete overlap is not meaningful because both suffer from incomplete categorisation. The medical people say these things are difference, and that the overlap is usual but not necessary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been through all the Russian Physician articles and diffused them where possible. Rathfelder (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I see two categories with exactly the same contents and I haven't seen any counter evidence that in Russia these are consistently separate occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment, the previous nomination was closed as keep because there seems to be a clearer distinction in the United States, but that doesn't have to apply to all countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A subcategory may have two parents. Rathfelder (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This probably refers to something different? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Oculi and SmokeyJoe. While Rathfelder has a valid point, that these category trees overlap significantly, they are ultimately distinct and were kept separate just last month. Nominations for individual nationalities are not productive as long as the parent categories are kept separate. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont see why we cannot keep the parent categories separate, but combine the child categories where it is appropriate because the practice of obstetrics and gynaecology in some countries is always combined. In others it isn't. Rathfelder (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to evidence that the disciplines of obstetrics and gynaecology are (and were, given this category is not limited just to modern, post-1991 Russia) always combined in Russia? I know that is not exactly what you said, but we should consider the study of obstetrics and gynaecology in addition to their practice. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (indented) I'm afraid my knowledge of Russian medicine is largely restricted to what I've read in these articles. But they all seem to take for granted that obstetrics and gynaecology go together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair, and my knowledge of the topic is even more limited, but I don't think we should selectively intersect (for certain nationalities only) the two category trees on the basis of incomplete information. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? It seems to me that in many countries, and more especially in modern times, the two go together, but not always and not everywhere. What damage is done by combining some, but not all, of the national categories? As it is we have quite a few countries with a complete overlap. Rathfelder (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A handful of articles is not a sound basis for concluding whether or not the two fields "go together"—hence my earlier query about a source. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support These two occupations have such high overlap, splitting the categories makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How to reconcile that, then, with the recent CfD were that very thing (keeping the categories split) happened? -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A gynecologist who does not practice obstetrics is pretty notable. They may also specialize in gynecological treatment of cancer, which puts them even further away from obstetrics. Just because they are underpopulated doesn't mean that a merge is necessary. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 20:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Practice varies over time and place. In Russia - as far as our articles go - there is a complete overlap. That is not true everywhere.Rathfelder (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2018 (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:Russian obstetricians

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, i.e. do not merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: complete overlap Rathfelder (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as above.
    Oculi (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose. Same as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_14#Category:Gynaecologists. These categories are woefully underpopulated, rendering "Complete overlap" a weak rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I see two categories with exactly the same contents and I haven't seen any counter evidence that in Russia these are consistently separate occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Same contents" is meaningless unless you assume articles are completely categorised. They are separate practices with usually common training. Not sure "consistently separate occupations" is a meaningful query. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Oculi and SmokeyJoe. While Rathfelder has a valid point, that these category trees overlap significantly, they are ultimately distinct and were kept separate just last month. Nominations for individual nationalities are not productive as long as the parent categories are kept separate. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as with the other category, this split makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - rationale given above. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 20:38, 28 December 2017 (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:Cattle hybrids

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as a useless misnomer. While fleshing out
WP:LIVESTOCK has no apparent interest in doing so, on the basis that our readers generally don't know what the lineage of a breed is – that's information people are generally looking for, not already in possession of).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:26, 3 December 2017 (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.

Years and decades in the Aztec civilization

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/delete. per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, most categories contain only one article. The target in this proposal is mostly a century, but in case of the 1500s, 1510s and 1520s the target is kept at a decade level because this is a period with quite a lot of content about the Aztec civilization. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2017 (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:Christian biblical canon

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: purge and merge, I can't see what should be in Category:Christian biblical canon beyond what is already in subCategory:Development of the Christian biblical canon. The three articles currently in the category belong, and already are, in Category:Bible versions and translations. Just add the subcategory directly to Category:Christian Bible. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2017 (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:Boston Patriots broadcasters

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of Category:New England Patriots broadcasters. Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree. Thanks PolarYukon (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not necessarily a duplicate. The Patriots were known as the Boston Patriots from 1960 to 1970. This category is for announcers from those years. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Just for the record, there are also other teams categorized like this, as I noted above. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2017 (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:Lizards of South Africa

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 Category:Lizards of South Africa to Category:Lizards of Africa and Category:Reptiles of South Africa;
delete Category:Lizards by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale:
WP:NON-DEFINING (e.g. for Nile monitor). Note: The South Africa category is the only country subcat below Category:Lizards of Africa and below Category:Lizards by country. There is List of lizards of South Africa. This could also be upmerged to Category:Reptiles of South Africa (but non-defining still applies). DexDor (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
There's now 30 (I've moved some down from the fauna category), but I agree that we don't need to subcategorize (and afaics there are currently no endemic-lizards-of-country categories). DexDor (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2017 (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:National Lacrosse League season 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: rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These templates are all navigation boxes and are categorized under NLL nav boxes. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is a backlog, but this and the one below seem like a slam dunk. Can someone close these discussions please? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:22, 28 December 2017 (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:National Lacrosse League team rosters navigational boxes

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are not navigational boxes. After renaming, move from NLL nav box category to NLL templates category. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:11, 3 December 2017 (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:Intersex activists in New Zealand

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) 07:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:OCAT by location, as Category:Intersex rights activists isn't large enough as of yet to require subdivision by nationality. It only has 37 entries, and upmerging this isn't even going to make it any larger, since both of the people here are already duplicate-categorized in the parent anyway. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2017 (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/2017_December_3&oldid=872003032"