Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 9 October 11 >

October 10[edit]

History of Brunswick/Braunschweig[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 to English name Category:History of Brunswick. Although there are objections which have not been withdrawn, they have all been answered. Rather than combine two versions of the name in the new category title, which would not be standard in Wikipedia, the German name should be kept as a redirect. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge. The larger amount of Brunswick history articles are in the more specific Category:Duchy of Brunswick and Category:Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg categories. So the both nominated categories are really for 'miscellaneous' articles of the history of Brunswick. While formally Category:History of Brunswick is for the history of the region and Category:History of Braunschweig is for the history of the town, keeping them separate is both semantically confusing (Braunschweig=Brunswick) and practically unnecessary (because it is hard to distinguish between region and city). Note that I'm neutral about the merge direction, I've tagged both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The German wikipedia uses a single category for the history of the city and the various states as well. I would say History of Braunschweig would be the better name, since it has become common to use the German name for the city and region today (although Brunswick is still commonly used when talking about the historic state). Categorizing articles about the post WWII history of Braunschweig under Brunswick would only add more confusion, probably.Alexpostfacto (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose -- Braunschweig refers to the city. Brunswick refers to a much wider region. This would be the equivalent of merging Cambridge with Cambridgeshire in England or New York City with New York State. Category:History of Braunschweig ought to be a sub-cat of Category:History of Brunswick with the distinction between the two made in their headnotes. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no - there is no difference in meaning between Braunschweig and Brunswick. Brunswick is the English name for Braunschweig (both for the city and the former state). In 19th century (or older) English language works, both are simply referred to as Brunswick (which makes it sometimes hard to figure out if they mean the city or the state - I have fixed quite a few links on articles where the editor had mixed up the do due to his sources being ambigous). However, today it seems to have become more common to use the German name for the city in English (see the talkpage of the city, there have been a few discussion to move the article to Brunswick). The name is still used for the states of Brunswick, since they have been de facto abolished almost a century ago (de jure only in 1946) and are mostly talked about in history texts (in books on medieval history the city is also still often called Brunswick). Saying that there is a difference in meaning between Braunschweig and Brunswick borders on WP:OR. The article Brunswick Land should probably also be moved to Braunschweiger Land - a google search for "the Brunswick Land" gives mostly results for Brunswick, USA while "the Braunschweiger Land" gives some reliable sources (although mostly from non-native speakers):
http://www.europeangeoparks.org/?page_id=470
http://www.schweizerbart.de/publications/detail/artno/186046400/Geowissenschaftliche_Untersuchungen_zur_Eignung_von_tonigenSedimenten_und_Sedimentgesteinen_als_Deponieuntergrundim_Braunschweiger_Land
http://www.dw.com/en/braunschweig-region-rich-in-history/a-16643696
http://www.niedersachsen-tourism.com/on-tour-in-helmstedt-1
http://web.rgzm.de/publikationen/verlagsprogramm/zeitschriften/archaeologisches-korrespondenzblatt/pm/article/menschliche-skelettreste-und-mehrstufige-teilbestattungen-der-aunjetitzer-kultur-im-nordharzvorland.html
Having History of Braunschweig as a subcategory of History of Brunswick doesn't really fit - this would give the impression that there is a difference in meaning between Brunswick and Braunschweig. And practically, many, if not most, articles should be both in the categories for the history of the city and the state. As I said, the German wikipedia, which has many, many more articles and sub-categories on the subject doesn't make the distinction: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:Braunschweigische_Geschichte
I am pretty sure, that the English language wikipedia will never reach such an amount of articles on the topic, so splitting the few articles that are there only adds confusion where to put individual articles. Alexpostfacto (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative Keep as Category:History of Brunswick and Category:History of Brunswick (city). I had realised that Braunschweig was the German spelling of a city that has a slightly different English name. The city of Brunswick is a small portion of the Duchy and other entities, so that they should not be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The former Duchy of Brunswick (the state commonly referred to as Brunswick in English) is pretty much identical with the modern day metro area of the city of Braunschweig, minus a few minor exclaves. Outside of Braunschweig, the state only had a few small towns with a few thousand inhabitants at most. The Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg is larger, but was split into two states, the other is commonly known as Hanover in English. Hanover has its own category under Category:History of Hanover already, so the categories we are talking about only cover Braunschweig and its metro area. Having a category named Brunswick (city) would be impractical due to the city's article being named Braunschweig (and in the past there has been a clear consesus against moving the article). Alexpostfacto (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After thinking about it a bit more, I would say "Category:History of Braunschweig (Brunswick)" would be a good name for a category. It would fit both the historic states as the post-war history of the region (so articles like Braunschweig (region) or Wunder von Lengede could fit in there), and it would also be suitable for articles on the history of the city (since I still think a country that only had one city is a case where you can't clearly seperate state and city history). Alexpostfacto (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it's a history category, I wouldn't have a problem with this either. Personally I lean towards my suggestion, since the article Braunschweig gets more traffic than all states of Brunswick combined (B-L, B-WF, DoB), but either way would be fine by me. Alexpostfacto (talk) 11:54, 14 October 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.

Cardiovascular disease deaths by country[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) 02:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and its subcats
Nominator's rationale: delete. After this deletion and this deletion it's about time to fell the entire tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, you're entirely free to come up with a nomination yourself. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle, true, but I admire the way you've systematically established consensus before moving onto the next generalisation. I expect the next generalisation will be "Deaths caused by X in country Y". I hope you do not mind my "chop chop" here, it is referring to deleting and not extra pressure for you :)--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous CFDs. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fell the whole tree (i.e. Delete all) -- This is far too common a cause of death to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Common form of death that is non-defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all common cause of death, not notable, not encyclopedic or useful to keep as a category. --  R45  talk! 14:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—None of the people in the sub-categories I've checked are/were notable for dying from CVD. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. When known, cause of death ought to be categorised, if for no other reason than expanding our metadata. Print encyclopedias and other works with sufficient space will routinely provide causes of death if known, even though they generally only have room comparable to our article intros. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the purpose is just keeping these data at a sort of central location, I suppose that a list can also do the job. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The articles on notable people tend to capture the wealthy, compared to the general population, which means the causes of death won't be representative. What do you hope to get out of the metadata? RevelationDirect (talk) 19:45, 16 October 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:Human resource management women[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 to Category:Human resource management people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't respect the x of y structure we now use and makes it sound a bit menial to my ears, but I don't know what's the lesser of evils. I'd frankly rather delete it but we now seem to favour retaining women/female occupation categories regardless of whether a case can be made for "definingness" or not, am I right? If so, I'm open to any rename target.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gender is not a defining characteristic of human resource managers.--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @LT910001: Gender is ALWAYS a defining characteristic . See: Wikipedia:Defining — Every single biography article contains the word he/she several times. Just my $.02. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This doesn't imply that every gender intersection is defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Human resource management people. I don't mind having older history categories for women e.g. Category:17th-century women writers because having a well-known occupation was pretty rare for women in the past. But in this case with a very modern profession I don't think that we need to make a gender distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes support as nominator to delete/upmerge as required, for the reasons outlined above. I too could see no reason to make a gender distinction here, I just figured we were stuck with it, these days. Perhaps not! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to HR people. There may be more HR women than men, but it is not an occupation that women have difficulty getting into to bring much to that is different from men. This differs from writers (or at least fiction writers), because women almost inevitably come at the subject from the point of view of women. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Peterkingiron: If that is the case then why are there sixteen entries in Category:Human resource management people out of which only three are women? Doesn’t this illustrate the need to allow this category to exist on Wikipedia so that those who care about the Gender Gap can work to address this glaring example? Are we simply going to sweep this evidence under the carpet? Ottawahitech (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The actual number is 7 of 18 articles. I am not sure that is a statistically significant deviation. Add to this the fact that one of the men is notable as Prime Minister of the Netherlands, not much for this part of his career, and we can not really argue that women this category shows women are under represented in this profession at least from our data points. The category is extremely small, and there may well be many more articles that exist in Wikipedia that should be categorized here and another large number of articles that should be created and added here, but for now this subdivision is neither needed nor helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or rename as necessary, but in general, wouldn't using "workers" sound better than "people"? —烏Γ (kaw), 19:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge The reason I give is that with the total category having under 20 articles, there is no reason to split Category:Human resource management people in any way. This is a clear violation of the last rung rule, we should never have the only subdivision of a category be by sex unless sexer is defining to the category, such as men's and women's basketball players categories where they compete only on teams of one sex. If this categories grows, we might reconsider such issues, but no split is needed at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 16 October 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.

Kings of Burgundy while Burgundy was not an independent state[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. – Fayenatic London 15:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT and in the spirit of WP:NONDEF, these are Frankish kings (categorized as such) and German/Roman kings/emperors (categorized as such) during the periods that Burgundy first was part of the Frankish kingdom and later was part of the lands of the Roman emperors. The Frankish kings and Roman emperors aren't notable for their rule of Burgundy specifically. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is a mess. These categories need to be removed, but in doing so, we need to ensure that we do not lose data. The subject is covered in List of Kings of Burgundy. Until the partition of the Holy Roman Empire in 853, no one should be in any Kings of Burgundy category, though we need (and probably have) a Kings of the Burgundians category for the 6th century. From 853 there was a king of Burgundy, bit not long after Burgundy was partitioned again into Upper and Lower parts. Including Burgundy in part of a larger realm is in the nature of a performance category, the performance being rulership. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For info: "ancient" kings of Burgundy (i.e. pre-Frankish) are in the child Category:Burgundian kings while 9th-10th-century kings of Burgundy (i.e. pre-Holy Roman Empire) are directly in Category:Kings of Burgundy. Neither the "ancient" kings nor the 9th-10th-century kings of Burgundy are nominated to be deleted. Only the Frankish kings and German kings/Holy Roman Emperors are nominated to be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Careful there There have been 13 Burgundies. We should tread very carefully (gamayly?) here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until someone proposes a really careful plan of what to do. Being the king of a jurisdiction is absolutely significant, and we absolutely need to have a category (or category tree) embracing all kings of Burgundy; getting rid of such a category entirely, or making it only partial, would be ridiculous. For periods when Burgundy isn't an independent kingdom, we can still have a category, just as we have categories for subnational monarchs elsewhere in the world (e.g. Category:Roman client rulers) and for non-monarchial politicians of subnational jurisdictions. Given the state of mess that Peterkingiron mentions, the only appropriate nomination would be one that explains how to resolve the mess, perhaps by deleting some categories and merging or renaming others. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case of the Frankish kings it's even questionable if there was a Burgundian jurisdiction at all. For this period, the article Kingdom of Burgundy only speaks of a title of king of Burgundy. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 17 October 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:School buildings destroyed by arson[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. It looks as though there might be support for a fresh nomination for a merger per user:Nyttend. – Fayenatic London 19:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That one building of a school has been destroyed by arson ("articles on schools having buildings which were destroyed") is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the whole school. Note: There are other problems with these categories - e.g. they incorrectly place many articles in Category:Disasters. Note: Many of the articles currently in these categories don't even say that a building was destroyed (e.g. St. John's School (Quebec) or Walney School) and didn't when the category tag was added (e.g. [1])! DexDor (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- It is unfortunately far too common for disaffected pupils to burn down their schools, or one of the buildings in their school. However, that will generally not be the end of the school, merely an incident in its history, albeit one giving rise to much difficulty. Nevertheless, we generally categorise schools, not school buildings; there will be exceptions and in some cases it will be effectively the same thing. Where a school is notable, generally its individual buildings will not be, accordingly the subject of these categories is NN. Alternatively, it is in the nature of a performance category (which we do not allow), the "performance" consisting of suffering arson. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not defining for many of these institutions. However for what it is worth, at least in some of the US cases the school was one building, that was destroyed by fire and then rebuilt.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: at a previous discussion on 2013 February 14, there was a consensus to delete categories for damaged by arson, but to keep those for destroyed by arson as this was considered defining. Pinging participants from that discussion who have not already !voted above: Vegaswikian, The Bushranger, Lugnuts, Orlady, Nyttend, Hmains. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:School arson fires, merge the contents of the three subcategories to the other subcategories of Category:School fires, and make them subcategories of this one; for example, Category:School buildings in the United Kingdom destroyed by arson should have its contents moved to Category:School arson fires in the United Kingdom. I don't see a significant difference between these categories, a difference that would warrant two separate small trees. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, if the only alternatives were deletion or keeping, I'd say delete. School buildings aren't closely correlated with arson, and while it would be reasonable to separate out the school buildings from other buildings if we had a ton of school arsons (as opposed to library arsons, baseball park arsons, etc.), we don't have that many; it's not like separating out the schools makes navigation a lot easier. However, the existence of another category tree makes it look like we have a good deal more of these than I would have imagined otherwise, so merging it there makes sense. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and prune. The nom's statement of That one building of a school has been destroyed by arson ("articles on schools having buildings which were destroyed") is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the whole school is entirely correct. However, for the individual building, it is highly WP:DEFINING. These categores are not for "schools which have had a building destroyed by arson". It is for "school buildings destroyed by arson" - the individual buildings that are notable enough to have articles about the buildings themselves. If the remaining categories are insufficiently populated they should be upmerged, but we shouldn't toss out these categories simply because they have been inappropriately populated. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The articles currently in these categories are articles about schools - not articles about buildings (nearly every article in these categories is named "... School" or "... College"). If we ever get a significant number of articles about individual school buildings that have been destroyed by fire then I would have no objection to creating categories for such articles - such categories might have the same names as these categories, but would have different text. However, it's unlikely that many individual school buildings would be notable enough. DexDor (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DEFINING and Bushranger. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative merge proposal of Nyttend. Not only does it avoid a duplication of categories, but it also avoids the discussion about whether it concerns the school institute or a school building. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 6 December 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.

The entire "Sequenced genomes" category tree[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/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:RECENT
When this category was created in 2009, there were only about handful of species that had their whole genome sequenced, and that certainly seemed defining back then. By 2013, there were 180 (source) and now there are thousands (source). Categorizing a species that has been around millions of years based on whether or not humans have closely researched it's genetics over the last couple years seems non-defining. Articles that are specifically about genome projects, like Chimpanzee genome project, can continue to be categorized in Category:Genome projects; this nomination just seeks to remove similar categorization from general articles like Cat, Cod, Ebola, Rice and Apple. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16 Sub-Categories
Note: Notified Plindenbaum as the primary category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Genetics. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/rename per nom. Articles like ostrich and yak do not belong under Category:Genome projects etc. DexDor (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the eloquently worded nom. As stated whether or not a species that has existed for thousands or millions of years has been researched by humans over the last decade or so is not "defining". --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably, listify then delete (i.e. check that the existing list articles are complete) -- The objection seems to be that this is in the nature of a performance category. The performance being a rather passive one of the sequence having been read. What has presumably happened is that a member of the species (or several) has had its sequence read. The problem is that most of the articles will not mention the sequencing at all. However, we should not lose from WP that information that the sequencing has bene done. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—last discussed February 2013. My argument then, that these categories would quickly become unmanagably large as the cost and speed of sequencing decreases, still stands. Peterkingiron's concern that we lose the information that sequencing has been done is valid. My previous suggestion of holding this information in Wikispecies is still a possibility, but that was before Wikidata had come on line. I suggest that Wikidata should hold a data item on sequencing. That data item could then populate the infobox on the relevant species' page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With tens of thousands of genomes having been sequenced, it is not defining to the subjects of the articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, the source above gives us about 18,000, so maybe "tens of thousands" is premature. However that source was also from April of 2014, so well over a year old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – increasingly less useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:03, 18 October 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_October_10&oldid=1141927783"