Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 26 April 28 >

April 27[edit]

Category:Human blood[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. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Of course there is a distinction that could be made, but I don't think that the two categories are doing a very good job of making it, and I hardly think it's necessary, since almost everything that is currently in Category:Blood could also go in Category:Human blood. We don't bother in article space, the article for all types of animal blood is just Blood. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose non-humans also have blood, and blood donation is not something for non-humans (blood extraction would be, since non-human animals cannot give consent to donate) We don't have cord blood repositories for non-humans either, etc. We should keep human topics separate from general and non-human topics, since there are many articles here. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • So where do articles go that are both about human blood and other animals' blood? The vast majority are about blood in general (ie, both) and are not limited to subtype. If we say they go in Category:Human blood, it doesn't really make intuitive sense because the topics are also about animal blood and the category will be over-limiting. If we say they go in Category:Blood, then it makes Category:Human blood unnecessary, because we will be excluding most articles that relate to human blood from the category called "Human blood". If we say they go in both, we are going to double categorize many articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • They would go in the parent category since they don't pertain to human blood specifically. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which renders the category kind of pointless—if the majority of the articles that deal with human blood are not in the category, why bother? It's not helpful to readers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, in practice these topics overlap too much. I would rather favor a category specifically about animal blood, if sufficient content available. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Conceptually I was nodding with the nomination but, after going through the categories, there do seem to be a lot of articles specific to human blood. My only concern is the lack of a main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: Too much overlap. Perhaps a category for specifically human issues, such as voluntary donation and such would be useful, but I see too many articles that would have to be non-disseminating if both cats are kept. (And, they DO have blood transfusions for animals, just not the consent issue) Montanabw(talk) 07:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nominator). I kind of keep referring to the concept implicitly, but the relevant guideline is WP:OVERLAPCAT: "If two or more categories have a large overlap ... it is generally better to merge the subjects to a single category". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: seeking responses to the policy justification offered above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 22:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. As noted above, a large number of Blood articles are about Human blood. Moving them into Human blood would be confusing, because it would wrongly imply that they're only human topics (e.g. Livor mortis can occur in other species), leaving them in Blood can be confusing, because it wrongly implies that they're not human topics, and putting them in both would be overcategorisation, a fundamental misuse of how a thesaurus is supposed to be used. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While human blood has its unique characteristics, many of its characteristics are shared with other animals. These two categories have too much overlap for splitting them in this way to be a good idea. Nyttend also makes a good argument. SJK (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2016 (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:Court systems[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. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories state "The main article for this category is Judiciary.". That article, in turn, begins "The judiciary (also known as the judicial system or court system) is the system of courts that...". And Court system redirects to judiciary. Why I can appreciate one can argue about semantics and dictionary definitions, I believe that unless someone can present a source which clearly differentiates between "judiciary" and "court system" to the point we could stub the article on the latter, I think we are just looking at synonyms here. Also, this merge, if carried out, should then follow with merger/renaming for Category:Court systems by country which should become Category:Judiciaries by country (plenty of subcategories in Category:Judiciaries ripe for just this parent category). Lastly: please note this nomination DOES NOT CONCERN a similarly named category Category:Courts by country. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and this should definitely be followed by a merger at country level. I checked a few countries and the contents is largely overlapping. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2016 (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.

Economics other[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) 01:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OCMISC, both of them are clearly a category for grouping miscellaneous things together that aren't any closer related to each other than they are related to the content of the parent category. Note that the names of the nominated categories are derived from the JEL classification codes, but there is no policy that Wikipedia categories have to follow one particular classification scheme. If desired, we can move the JEL tag on this category page to the target category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There is no Wikipedia article on "General economics‎", so we do not have a definition for the term. And the "other topics" sounds like miscellanea to me. Dimadick (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The similarity between the items in "other" is that they're placed together by the scholars in the field. We shouldn't go telling the academics in the field that they've made fundamental mistakes in their classification system. Much better to use an existing and reputable classification scheme than to create our own. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia doesn't follow JEL literally anyway, especially all "general" things from JEL (B0, C0, D0 etc.) are not present in the WP category structure. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 747 JEL codes that WP doesn't "accidentally follow", 737 (98.7%) are not on WP, and we should remove the rest. TL;DR: Wikipedia does not really follow the JEL codes. jonkerz ♠talk 11:25, 10 June 2016 (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.

Memorials[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. Most editors seem to agree this is a defining characteristic of at least some memorials. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 00:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More memorials categories
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SHAREDNAME and per ample precedent as mentioned in Category_talk:Monuments_and_memorials_by_person. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there is in fact a good reason to group these articles together as they all share something in common - they are all things which memorialise a particular person. The statement on overcategorisation at [[1]] states that a category may be useful if the people, objects, or places are directly related and indeed these objects and places *are* directly related as they all memorialise the same person. I note that there is a similar comment by an IP editor in the discussion [[2]], pointing out that by definition, namesakes are related and therefore fit the definition of a category as "things which are directly related". In addition, it is definitely of interest to an encyclopedia that, for example, diverse communities in India, New Zealand, Canada etc all decided to build monuments to Queen Victoria. MurielMary (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "ample precedents" are no such thing. They are all categories for things named after persons. Monuments and memorials, on the other hand, are defined by who they memorialise. That is why they exist. Memorials (which may or may not be named after the person they memorialise) are quite different from things which only share a common name.--Mhockey (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These categories are very helpful for biographers and researchers in understanding the importance and impact of the person being honored or memorialized.Jllm06 (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are all the ancient cities named "Alexandria" for Alexander the Great memorials or monuments to him? Is "Stalingrad" a memorial or monument to Stalin? It was so named in his lifetime, but must all memorials and monuments be posthumous? Apparently there is a "George HW Bush Memorial" in Houston, Texas's Sesquicentennial Park, according to our article Presidential memorials in the United States; last I checked he was still alive. We have a List of statues of Queen Victoria, presumably created to honor her, many of which were completed during her lifetime. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on WP:SHAREDNAME. Many of the members of these categories are not actually monuments, but just happen to be named for someone, such as Rosa Parks Transit Station or Albert Lock. They aren't defined by their names, but by their function and location. These articles definitely don't belong in these categories. However, there are a few that seem to deserve a category, such as the statues of Queen Victoria, but for those, maybe a specific Category:Statues of Queen Victoria could be used. kennethaw88 • talk 01:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit puzzled why Category:Statues of Queen Victoria should be OK, but Category:Monuments and memorials to Queen Victoria is not. And on what basis should some deserve a category and some not?--Mhockey (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really a strong advocate for a statues category, but the point is the current category is combining actual monuments/memorials (the statues) which are defined by their depiction of Queen Victoria, and other objects/places which simply bear her name. A prime example is Victoria Square, Montreal, which actually existed before Victoria was born, but was just renamed later on. Most of the above categories just contain objects that are named after someone, which is not a defining trait, so shouldn't be categorized like this. In most cases, a list would be more appropriate. In fact, since there is already a list of statues of Queen Victoria, then I would say the statues category is also not needed. kennethaw88 • talk 23:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in case deletion does go ahead, here for the record is a copy of the precedents referred to in the nomination above. – Fayenatic London 15:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignoring the name issue. Carlossuarez46 raises some good points about memorials to George Bush and the like, but I can see the other side as well, so I'll not address that. Keep the categories themselves (regardless of the names they're using), because they're a reasonable subdivision of the parent individual's category. It's entirely reasonable to put a memorial to Simón Bolívar into Category:Simón Bolívar, and once we have enough memorials in his category, splitting them out into their own category is helpful for navigation. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renominate in Smaller Groups It is true that some of these categories are needed and it is also true that most of this categorization is WP:SHAREDNAME garbage. A few of these have enough purpose built memorials to justify a category, most just have bridges or whatever that should be purged. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, withdraw proposal for the latter reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful categories. Shyamsunder (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they are not name coincidences, they are memorials to the same person. Also having a more specific category prevents the cluttering up of the eponymous category, and may even eliminate the need for one at all. Tim! (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Buttons0603 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These memorials don't just share the same name (some even don't), but share the commemoration of the same historic person, making the person clearly a defining characteristic of the memorials, if not the single most defining aspect. --PanchoS (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2016 (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/2016_April_27&oldid=1089914404"