Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 30 June 1 >

May 31[edit]

Category:Diving (acrobatics)[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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article for this category named simply Diving (about the sport of jumping or falling). I propose to rename category for consistency. Note, Underwater diving has own article and own category. Otherwise we must rename the article to Diving (acrobatics), that is not good way, I think. NickSt (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the previous discussions. Diving is ambiguous and as others have pointed out, this may even not be the primary use. Categories need to be unambiguous. The fact that since the split and renames we have not had problems should be viewed as a good reason to not change back to the problematic naming. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If diving is ambiguous, then we must rename Diving to Diving (acrobatics) (acrobatics?) or Diving (sport) (better choice) or something else, and put disambig Dive#Sports into Diving's place. Note, some time ago were similar problem, and article Team handball was renamed to Handball, the primary place. Olympic sports are well known subjects, better then other uses. NickSt (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Renaming the article is an option. Note that it is common to have an article at the based name and a disambiguated category name. The issue is that there is no way to watch what is added to a category. Even if that feature is added, it may not garner many watchers. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - diving is indeed ambiguous and categories certainly need to be unambiguous. I'm not sure that Diving (acrobatics) is the best name but Diving (sport) is still ambiguous, as Sky diving and scuba diving are sports. Oculi (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose exceedingly ambiguous. Categories are not articles, and acrobatic diving is not the totality of diving. This will require excessive maintenance and will garner alot of miscategorization without the disambiguator. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:01, 1 June 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:Zahara (South African musician)[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content: only one article and two subcats which are interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:22, 31 May 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:396 BCE deaths[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other categories. Del♉sion23 (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. No harm in having a redirect, but does consistency override wp:era? If it did we would be standardising on one or the other. ϢereSpielChequers 12:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually categories all use BC. A clear and longstanding guideline. And WP:ERA says do not change between forms in an article, so the logic extension or interpretation would to be not to change established category trees. Nothing there says to change established guidelines for categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ERA states we should be consistent within one article. I would suggest we should also be consistent in category trees. If all other categories are BC it is what people would expect and search for. Del♉sion23 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename This is an established tree: there's no reason to have a single outlier. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 3 June 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:Serer basketball players[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 all to Category:Serer sportspeople. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Serer ethnicity is not relevant at a sport-specific level. The contents of the parent Serer sportspeople category is currently minimal and should be the main container of this information as Serer people within sport is a topic of value. SFB 11:53, 31 May 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:Romani boxers[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 all to Category:Romani sportspeople. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Romani ethnicity is not relevant at a sport-specific level. The contents of the parent Romani sportspeople category is currently minimal and should be the main container of this information as Romani people within sport is a topic of value. SFB 11:49, 31 May 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:Ethnic Armenian boxers[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 all to Category:Ethnic Armenian sportspeople. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Armenian ethnicity is not relevant at a sport-specific level. The contents of the parent Ethnic Armenian sportspeople category is currently minimal and should be the main container of this information as Ethnic Armenian people within sport is a topic of value. SFB 11:46, 31 May 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:Igbo athletes[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 all to Category:Igbo sportspeople. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Igbo ethnicity is not relevant at a sport-specific level. The contents of the parent Igbo sportspeople category is currently minimal and should be the main container of this information as Igbo people within sport is a topic of value SFB 11:40, 31 May 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:Yoruba athletes[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 all to Category:Yoruba sportspeople. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Yoruba ethnicity is not relevant at a sport-specific level. The contents of the parent Yoruba sportspeople category is currently minimal and should be the main container of this information as Yoruba people within sport is a topic of value. SFB 11:30, 31 May 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:Association football players by ethnic or national origin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete/merge as proposed. Category:American soccer players of Mexican descent‎ will be merged to the more narrow Category:American sportspeople of Mexican descent. The issue of whether the general sportspeople categories for ethnicities are appropriate can be tackled in a nomination of those categories. For now, we will merge the contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Specific ethnicities are of very little relevance to the topic football, especially when teams are not formed on an ethnic basis (fails the Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality #1). I propose upmerging all ethnicity categories to the parent "fooian sportspeople" ethnicity categories. Most of these parent categories actually have very limited content as it stands (African-American and Jewish being the big exceptions here). SFB 10:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Side-note: At the very least this category should have been named "Association footballers by ethnicity". SFB 11:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I don't see why we should upmerge them if categorizing by ethnic basis is not allowed, they should surely be deleted? GiantSnowman 19:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: As I mention in the other ethnic sports nominations above, I think the key question amounts to "are specific ethnicities a relevant topic when discussing sports?". At the top level, I would say yes – ethnicity and sports is a broad and active area of study. But apart from a limited few cases (African-Americans in certain American sports for example), we rarely see discussions at both an ethnic-specific + sport-specific level. SFB 17:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree, as these categories are by-and-large BLP minefields. The only exception would be Jewish sportspeople/footballers; see List of Jewish footballers, for example, which was determined to be notable at an AFD and therefore the related category has clear merit. GiantSnowman 17:55, 4 June 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:Chemical compounds by physiological function[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. The category is no longer empty and contains subcategories that use the same "... by physiological function" wording. If the nominator wants to re-nominate this for deletion using an alternative rationale, that should be permitted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty and not likely to be filled with anything other than its original member, Category:Toxicants. I propose this is deleted. "Toxicants" can be directly added to the Category:Physiology if necessary. LT910001 (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though we aren't yet to a point of covering many scientific articles to this extent, the physiological function of various chemical compounds is an important level of detail that can be utilized with time. Almost all medicines are chemical compounds, but not all biologically active chemical compounds are medicines, and there are many in the latter group that lack useful categorization.   — C M B J   06:41, 31 May 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:Paganism in Africa[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories seem to have a very similar purpose. Besides Category:Paganism in Africa is too small to keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Little/no overlap. Category:Paganism in Africa is part of a category structure involving continents and paganism; the number of articles/categories in it is of no relevance Hmains (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If merger would not be an option, deleting might be a good alternative. The leading article Paganism dwells largely on the fact that Paganism cannot be defined properly while there are much clearer terms like ethnic religion and polytheism available. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Pagan was a pejorative term developed by advocates of Christianity in the 4th century, and from an accurate historical view should not be applied to religions other than the ones known to the developers of the term, traditional Roman, Greek and maybe Germanic religions. It is not workable to apply it to the different religious tradtions found in Africa covered here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 2 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:Religion in the Roman Empire[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. I acknowledge that the nominator asked for this discussion to be left open pending mediation. However, I'm not sure if there would be a tremendous benefit to leaving the discussion open any longer. If mediation leads to a situation where there is agreement between the only two editors who participated in this discussion, the category can easily be re-nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories apparently have a very similar purpose and nearly the same contents. Then you could choose between merging up or merging down. In that choice I do have a preference for keeping 'Religions of the Greco-Roman world' as the title of the category, because:
  1. it comprises Ancient Greek religion, which is very interrelated to Ancient Roman religion
  2. it comprises not only the Roman empire, but also the Roman republic. The religions in the republic were largely the same as in the empire (except of course for Christianity).Marcocapelle (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rome was just 1 part of the Greco-Roman world. The Empire was just 1 point in time. The two are not co-extensive. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So that's an extra reason to opt for the broader title, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply No. It means that they are two tree structures that are valid in themselves and so need not be merged. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change in content of the debated category page Laurel, I notice now that you changed a parent category of this page, after this discussion started. You made Category:Ancient Roman religion the parent of Category:Religion in the Roman Empire. That can't be right, can it? After all, Ancient Roman religion is just one of the religions in the Roman empire, so the parent-child category relationship should be the other way around. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At second glance I notice that you even made it into a circular categorization. Which confirms that it can't be right. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reason for merging: to undo the circular categorization that Laurel Lodged created yesterday. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the discussion above and on my talk page, it appears that the proposer has not grasped the categorical structure of Roman history. Here follows a short tutorial for his benefit: Roman history is usually dived into 3 eras (1) The Kingdom of Rome; (2) the Roman Republic; (3) The Roman Empire. All three are usually collectively known as Ancient Rome to differentiate it from the modern Papal States and city. So there is no circle involved. It's strictly hierarchical. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a circle: Category:Ancient Roman religion has become a great-grandchild category of itself, and so have Category:Religion in the Roman Empire and Category:Religions of the Greco-Roman world.Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have found and fixed the grandchild anomaly in Category:Religions of the Greco-Roman world. I can find no similar anomaly in Category:Ancient Roman religion. Perhaps you'd draw it out for me. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, if you break the circle at one place, the circle is broken for all three categories. However, a new problem arises: Ancient Roman Regligion no longer appears as one of the religions (child cats) of Religions of the Greco-Roman world or of Religions in the Roman Empire, while it should be a child cat because it was definitely one of the religions in that era. This remains a problem after you've turned the religion-within-era categorization upside down for just one pair of categories within the entire framework. Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your last comments Marco. Ancient Roman Religion is a child of Religions of the Greco-Roman world. The category "Religions in the Roman Empire" does not exist. Getting back to the original point, what now are your arguments for continuing this proposal? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recap[edit]

I may have seen it wrong yesterday, and yes, you're right, it's a good idea to recap. The current categorization is:

For Ancient Roman religion I mentioned only 3 subcategories, because I'm perfectly fine with the 9 others. Basically, the 9 others are about the (one) Ancient Roman religion, as expected, while the three subcategories listed here are intended for multiple religions, hence shouldn't be in this category but should be higher up in the tree.

  1. Religions of the Greco-Roman world (in the 1st layer) and Religion in the Ancient Roman period (in the third layer) can be merged because both categories cover all religions in the same region in the same time span. To be honest I hadn't detected this any earlier.
  2. Religion in the Roman Republic is a very small category and can just as well be merged into its current parent Ancient Roman religion, since it contains only one subcategory which relates to Ancient Roman religion only. I hadn't detected this any earlier either.
  3. That leaves us with Religion in the Roman Empire, which should be a child category of the upper category Religions of the Greco-Roman world/Religion in the Ancient Roman period, instead of a child of Ancient Roman religion, to begin with. The problem is that religions in the Republic and in the Empire are largely the same, so breaking up religion(s) by Republic versus Empire is a matter of overcategorization. Republic/Empire is not a defining characteristic of any of these religions. I can imagine for convenience reasons they are broken up by time, but that has already been done by century as well.
  4. Another problem with Religion in the Roman Empire category is that it currently contains very few articles about Ancient Roman religion and equally few about Ancient Christianity, while one would expect to find everything here. But if one would start filling this category, one would create an enormous duplication with the other categories (e.g. with Ancient Christianity and Xth century in religion). So on the one hand it shouldn't exist as it is now, with only a sort of random subset of relevant articles, but on the other hand it's not desirable to expand either.

Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all of the above. Your reasoning on this topic is very muddled Marco. No. 1 is wrong because Religion in the Ancient Roman period is for 1 period in 1 region, not, as you have suggested, all religions in the same region. THe equivalent is categories for oranges , lemons and limes which are children of Citrous fruits. No. 2 is wrong because there is nothing inherently wrong with it and it shows potential to grow. No. 3 is wrong the Empire was only one of 3 periods in the Roman area of the world. The overall wrapper should be the i; if readers want to delve deeper into one of the periods, they can safely navigate to do so. No. 4 is wrong because the Empire was in a state of transition towards the end of the 3rd and 4th centuries; it was a mixture of pagan and Christian. It would be wrong to classify the Empire as belonging exclusively to one or the other religion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my reply:

  1. Both categories contain a period of about a millennium (500 BC - 500) in the region in which the Romans ruled.
  2. My best guess is it can only grow by copying more from Ancient Roman religion. Could you elaborate how else it has 'potential to grow'?
  3. I can only repeat, the distinction between Republic and Empire is irrelevant with respect to religion + It is really not understandable why you define a category with all religions as a child of a category with only one religion.
  4. I understand this even less, why would need to assign a monopoly to one religion when there were in fact multiple religions next to each other?

Note, I presumed nr 1 and 2 were entirely independent of nr 3 and 4, that's why I've posted them already.

Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Here's an additional comment on #1, for your information:

So far I looked only at the Religion tree. But if you look at the History tree, you will see the following:

So here we have two different - though in time overlapping - classification systems: one by religion, the other by time. The name Religion in the Ancient Roman period is quite confusing in that respect, as it suggests time and place simultaneously. I don't have any concrete suggestion for now, except it's clear that my 1st point is not (immediately) feasible.

Besides Ancient Roman religion is now both child category and brother category of Religions in the Greco-Roman world, which doesn't seem right. It should be child.

Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to proceed from here?[edit]

Dear Laurel Lodge, My proposal is as follows:

  1. I'm going to change the merge request on Category:Religion in the Ancient Roman period into a renaming request into Category:Ancient religion by century, based on my very latest comment. That's entirely independent of our main discussion, isn't it?
  2. On the other points (2,3,4) I suggest we seek another way to resolve this, i.e. via the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or a Mediation Committee. Do you agree and do you have a preference of one over the other?

Kind regards Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Sorry for the late response. I disagree with the first point and have explaned my position on the CFD that you opened for it. For points 2,3,4 I'm happy to go to mediation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to closer: could you please leave this discussion open while mediation is ongoing? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 24 June 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_May_31&oldid=1086356198"