Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 8 July 10 >

July 9[edit]

Establishments in the Empire of Brazil 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: No consensus. After a long period of feedback, it's clear there is no current, clear consensus in favour of resolving this in any direction. On this issue, we are apparently so internally divided that one editor whose comment was deemed insightful subsequently changed his mind and opposed his earlier suggestion. Perhaps our category system is ill-equipped to deal with this kind of question. Samsara 15:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1830s through 1880s establishments in Uruguay and Brazil
Nominator's rationale: From 1822-1889, the areas of Brazil and Uruguay were under the Empire of Brazil. Rather than having Brazil and Uruguay categories, the consensus seems to be towards putting these articles in the establishment of the Empire of Brazil categories and probably putting those under Category:Establishments in Uruguay by year and Category:Establishments in Brazil by year, etc. so that it shows up under their histories in some way. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial oppose. Consensus is that we don't categorize in Brazil if Brazil didn't exist at the time. But in this case Brazil did exist, it was just slightly bigger than it is now. Also consensus exists that we usually don't add "Empire of" , "Republic of" etc in front of the country name. I would suggest merging the Uruguay categories to the existing Brazil categories without renaming them. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's for articles I think not category but it's only there to distinguish from Brazil today. Do you think we should merge Category:Establishments in Colonial Brazil by year and/or Category:Establishments in Dutch Brazil by year together as well? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I think so, Brazil has been a separate and unambiguous polity since 1493. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial oppose -- Brazil was not evaporated and reconstituted when the Empire was dissolved. Keep All the Brazil categories. Merge all the Uruguay categories into it. Certain headnotes may need amendemnt to say that they cover the contemporary extent of Brazil, including the present Uruguay. CAtegory names should be kept short for prefernece and additions should only be necessary where there is room for confusion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you'll have establishments in Brazil (without Empire to distinguish it) that includes Uruguay stuff in it. Wouldn't that be more confusing than having a separate Empire of Brazil category as part of the history for both Uruguay and Brazil? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to Empire of Brazil. However oppose inclusion of Uruguay from 1828 on. Cisplatina, the Brazilian state that covered what is today Uruguay, ceased to exist in 1828 and from that year Uruguay was an independent nation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dutch Brazil needs to be treated as an distinct place. Also, some parts of what today is Brazil were under control of other countries and we need to closely follow the de facto political limits of the time in these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - avoid anachronism, but do it delicately per Johnpacklambert.GreyShark (dibra) 08:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename. Historical Empires tend to have more than one successor states due to their vast territories. The Empire of Brazil is not identical to modern Brazil. Dimadick (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strongly recommend not to change category names just based on varying borders of a country. If we would start doing that, the number of categories in Europe will grow into infinite. Note: this is not meant a second vote, but merely to emphasize my strong opinion on this. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I see the desirability to connect the category name to specific articles, in the case of Brazil, I think the continuity of the country and the general acceptance that it is the same country with changes in the government structure back at least to when it broke from Portugal suggest we should just use the Brazil name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2015 (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:Prokaryotic obsolete taxonomic groups[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, without prejudice to future discussions about whether "obsolete" is the preferred word to use. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of our categories on specific taxa are "[adjective] [foo] [taxa]" (e.g., Category:Monotypic spider genera), and the plural of taxon is "taxa" ("Taxonomic group" isn't wrong as such—just a descriptive phrase). I think the proposed titles are clearer and more natural phrasing. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "taxonomic groups"->"taxa". However, I'm not sure about "obsolete" (I moved the plant versions of this categories from "obsolete" to "historically recognized" a couple of years ago). Taxon names in the categories fall into three groups:
1 Names that violate a current rule of nomenclature and which can not be used for a taxon.
2 Names that don't violate any rules, but which represent a concept so at odds with current taxonomic understanding that they will never be used in a modern context
3 Names that aren't used in the most recent classifications, but which could possibly be resurrected as taxonomic understanding progresses
I think it's fair to call names in case 2 "obsolete", but I'm not sure that's the best phrasing for case 3 (and case 1 could perhaps take it's own more specific category). Case 2 names were all defunct by 1900 or much earlier. Case 3 names may have recognized until quite recently. I think "historically recognized" covers all 3 cases better than "obsolete", although I'm not especially tied to that exact phrasing. There are some plant families that were first recognized in 1998 or 2003 and which were derecognized in 2009, and a couple which were recognized from 1998-2003 and 2009-present; "historical" depth isn't that great for these, but it goes to show that "obsolescence" can change. Plantdrew (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind switching to "historically recognized" or anything, as long as we stick to the general formula of having the adjective (or adjectival phrase) first. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify my argument with some examples. Thalamiflorae is a case 2; the rules allow it to be used for a group of plants, but the there is no useful way to define it that would follow the rules. Papilio ajax is a case 1, and can't be used. And discerning between 1 and 2 may require expert knowledge. Vermes isn't a useful classification, but I'd need to do further reading to know whether it can possibly be used in accordance with the rules (I'm more familiar with the plant rules and am not sure whether Vermes is flat out against the rules for animals, or is only legal in essentially impossible circumscriptions as is the case for Thalamiflorae. Plantdrew (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the principle -- This is a better word order. Neutral on the detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename per nominator, however instead of "obsolote" the word "defunct" should be used per List of defunct taxa. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename as proposed: shorter is better, and there is no loss of clarity. Discussion over what exactly "obsolete" means can be settled in future discussions. N.B., per Armbrust's comment above, "Obsolete taxon" appears more commonly used than "defunct taxon" (Google, Google Books, and G Scholar search), and we should not let one List of defunct taxa trump usage in reliable sources). --Animalparty! (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename as proposed. Although "group" is no uncommon word in the Code (e.g. species-group, family-group), this category seems to list taxa, not groups.  Wikiklaas  22:34, 1 August 2015 (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:BattleTech technology[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. MER-C 12:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with only a single article--not useful for navigation. Have added its only article to the parent. Izno (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- My rule on fictional universes is "one franchise, one category". It will be a very rare none that needs splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It was created back when we did not have wikias, and I hoped our notability policies would be more relaxed. As things stand... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:55, 13 July 2015 (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:Books by discipline[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, without prejudice to further discussion regarding this and related categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Already a member of Category:Non-fiction books, where there are, e.g., Category:Non-fiction books by country‎, Category:Non-fiction books by topic‎, etc. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Fgnievinski (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mangoe's research further demonstrates the unsustainability of much (all) of these "about" categories: any movie featuring a dentist, a dental appointment, a Nazi using dental tools as torture, seems to be "about" dentistry, with no reliable sources to tell us that that's what the work is about. They're purely subjective and they're a terrific mess that ought to be junked. If there is a legitimate genre of works (novels, essays, poems, songs, films. etc.), that's reliably sourced and notable, a list of the works can be included in an article on that subject. As for fiction/non-fiction divide. Those works that purport to be non-fiction can be listed separately from fictionalizations of the topic - this can also cover the dicey (is the story real or not?) areas where the work purports to be non-fiction but others dispute the accuracy to such an extent that it can be reliably questioned. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination. I see little room for fiction about a (non-fiction) subject area, per previous comments, and if that room exists at all then I think that fiction and non-fiction should be in separate subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2015 (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:Newspapers by city of publication[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: almost empty category; can't seem to remove last member. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- now empty. I do not think we need to keep a cat-redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2015 (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/2015_July_9&oldid=1138408793"