Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 20 July 22 >

July 21[edit]

Category:Insects of Libya[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. Timrollpickering 19:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That, for example Eremiaphila typhon is found in Libya is non-defining.  See also previous discussions about similar categories (example, example). For info: Most of these categories were created by NotWith. DexDor (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Merging, not deletion, is a good idea because North Africa is a significant region for small animals like these, given the Sahara and the Mediterranean. Nyttend (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom - and previous discussions. Created by the usual suspects. Oculi (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator and other discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – yet more non-defining NotWith categories; "North Africa" (or "Northern Africa" in the WGSRPD) is a recognized biogeographical region. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- However it might be better to aim for one category for the north African litoral and another for the desert. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the articles list the countries where the species is found, but don't provide enough information to categorize in the way you propose (example). DexDor (talk) 19:00, 24 July 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:South American howlers[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. Timrollpickering 19:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More standard name for this type of category (e.g. parent Category:Primates of South America). DexDor (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That'd probably be better as a separate CFD. Note: At least one of those (Category:Pitheciidae) was deleted in 2010 and then re-created (guess who?). DexDor (talk) 18:52, 23 July 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:Falling[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 but restructure membership of Category:Geriatrics as described at the end. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Splitting is necessary because this category conflates two separate topics: descent because of gravity and injuries caused by tripping or loss of balance. As a result of the current situation, Category:Geriatrics is currently a grandparent category for Category:Parachuting: the cause is understandable, but it doesn't make much sense, and I can't imagine this happening if we didn't use the term "Falling" for both concepts. Please suggest alternate names if you can think of them; the articles are Falling (physics) and Falling (accident), but the parentheses don't look right in category names. Nyttend (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (upmerging where necessary) - there are currently only 9 subcats/articles in this category and I'm not convinced that all of them belong in either geriatrics or gravitation. DexDor (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion from me on deleting versus splitting, FYI. I just want some reasonable solution to the two-topics-in-one-category situation that we have right now. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DexDor, which ones wouldn't belong in either place? Here's my analysis:
  • To me, they all seem to fit one or the other. Note that Falling (accident) isn't in here at all, so that would be another geriatrics entry. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably DexDor's intention is splitting between Category:Geriatrics and Category:Gravitation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gravity is fundamentally involved in (for example) most forms of transport, most sports, many weapons, but the articles about those things don't generally belong in Category:Gravitation.  Categories should be grouping articles about similar topics which is slightly different from encoding information about "X can only exist if Y exists". Hence many of those articles (e.g. Defenestration) don't belong in the Gravitation category. DexDor (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, do not delete, because things like defenestration and parachuting are intimately related to the concept. The geriatrics sense is tangentially related, because it wouldn't exactly be an issue in a weightless context, but the ones I've marked as "gravitation" definitely are — if we didn't experience weight at all, we wouldn't be able to conceive of putting people out a window (except in the same sense as putting someone out a ground-floor doorway) or using a parachute. Those don't even have an analogy for a weightless situation, while sports, old people accidentally hitting their heads on things, etc. would still be likely to happen in some alternate way. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would, for example, golf or road transport happen exist without gravity? More to the point, is someone looking for articles about topics similar to defenestration likely to find Category:Gravitation useful? P.S. if not deleted then split per nom. DexDor (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The details would not, but the concepts of transport and competing to propel an object to a precise place could. Conversely, without gravity, the concept of lift wouldn't matter, so stalling wouldn't be an issue at all, and the concept of terminal velocity wouldn't exist, since it's "the highest velocity attainable by an object as it falls through a fluid" and "occurs when the sum of the drag force and the buoyancy is equal to the downward force of gravity acting on the object". This category is fundamentally for "effects of gravitation", not gravitation itself, and the non-geriatric contents are relevant because gravity-enabled downward motion (i.e. falling) is the core element of what they are, rather than being merely an enabling factor as with the geriatric content, or golf, or road transport. Given this fact, why wouldn't the category be useful for someone who's interested in finding articles about other direct effects of gravity? And finally, remember that a category for falling (physics) would be specifically related to free fall, and all of the items I marked as "gravitation" are fundamentally related to free fall; upon finishing the article about free-falling out a window, someone might want to find other articles about objects in free fall, and this category would be useful to such a person. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realise that "free fall" has 2 meanings? I'm not clear which one you're referring to. DexDor (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies: I wasn't paying enough attention when writing that. Please read "falling" where I said "free fall". Obviously free fall isn't relevant to things such as parachuting, even when the physics concept of falling is relevant. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's workable to categorize things based on whether they are "direct effects of gravity" or not. E.g. if parachuting is in that group then what about (for example) downhill skiing and rain? There are thousands (possibly millions when you consider that without gravity planet Earth wouldn't exist) of articles about things that wouldn't exist without gravity. DexDor (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consider an extreme interpretation of WP:DEFINING: does the concept get mentioned in the intro? "Parachuting, or skydiving, is a method of transiting from a high point to Earth with the aid of gravity..." "Throwing or dropping people from great heights has been used as a form of execution since ancient times" "Terminal velocity is the highest velocity attainable by an object as it falls through a fluid (air is the most common example)" Conversely, golf doesn't mention anything about falling in its intro (remember putting ideally doesn't get the ball off the ground), and road transport doesn't address propulsion in any direction, except for the comments about rickshaws and animal-powered vehicles. Downhill skiing isn't falling; it's sliding down a hill, basically the same as soapbox cars on a different surface with a steeper slope. Rain is just a form of precipitation, so it would be bad to put rain in this category, but "In meteorology, precipitation is any product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapor that falls under gravity", so Category:Precipitation would be a good candidate for inclusion. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The word "down" (e.g. in downhill skiing) refers to the direction pulled by gravity (e.g. see Relative direction). DexDor (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment perhaps the division isn't between accidents and physics but between falling people (and falling regardless of what is falling, thus splitting:

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- All refer to the effect of gravitation, including geriatric cases of falls. There is no useful purpose in splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that Parachuting belongs in Category:Geriatrics (as it is now)? If not then what would you change? DexDor (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peterkingiron; and remove Category:Geriatrics as a parent category, loosely per DexDor. Only Falls in older adults and Fall prevention should be in Category:Geriatrics. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 26 July 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:This Ain't...[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. Timrollpickering 19:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:CATDEF and an unnecessary cross-categorisation. A small category, with no opportunity for expansion, as most entries that used to be included were deleted for lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:42, 21 July 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:Nepalese VFX artist[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 7#Category:Nepalese VFX artist. ℯxplicit 05:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is not correctly named according to Wikipedia's naming conventions: it needs to be "artists" rather than "artist" as we declare categories in the plural, not the singular, and it needs to be "visual effects" rather than "VFX" as we don't use abbreviations in category names. It may also be preferable to simply upmerge this to the parent categories Category:Visual effects artists and Category:Nepalese film people, as it's a WP:SMALLCAT for two people and neither of the parents is large enough to really require subcategorization (and no, there isn't yet any established scheme of subcategorizing visual effects artists by nationality, either) -- but if it is kept it definitely needs to be renamed. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 21 July 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.

First French Republic[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. Timrollpickering 19:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_19#Years_in_France. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger, because surely anything within the First Republic boundaries was in France. But wouldn't it be better to either discuss this in the main discussion or wait till the main discussion is concluded? Sionk (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all. The only "issue" being topics which were, at the time, in France but outside current French borders (such as former French departments in Belgium, which seems to be much of the content), these individual articles can be placed in both these categories and another equivalent category for the modern or local equivalent, such as Category:1800s establishments in the Southern Netherlands. Place Clichy (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe our standard is that things established by the government of X are categorized in X even when the thing established is in country Y; for example: Romanian counties now in Moldova or Ukraine founded in 1941 when Romania ruled that territory are categorized in "1941 establishments in Romania" (and certainly not in "1941 establishments in the Kingdom of Romania", which would be the equivalent of the French First Republic vs. France). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The potential problem arises from the French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands, which were thus part of France between 1790s and 1814/5. Something established in Brussels in 1800, properly belongs in a French category, though perhaps we might allow it to be in a "Belgian" subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 24 July 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.

Graphs[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. Timrollpickering 19:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, all these graphs categorization schemes merely lead to a huge amount of single-article categories. The information is much more conveniently contained in List of graphs by edges and vertices. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous result. These characteristics are even less defining than number of edges or vertices. --Salix alba (talk): 13:46, 21 July 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: Squad automatic weapons[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: Kept without prejudice to a renaming nomination. Timrollpickering 20:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT, additionally "Squad automatic weapon" is a term only used by the United States and so the categorisation of non-US weapons as such is deceptive and misleading. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this does not sound like a good reason to delete the category. One would rather expect a proposal to rename or to merge it to another category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete, i.e. retain a category with this content, but no opinion on renaming. It's well populated, and having a category for this sort of weapon seems to be sensible. Nyttend (talk) 15:56, 21 July 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:Afridi people[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. Timrollpickering 20:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not an ethnic group. We don't categorize like that. Afridi is a surname and we have a page on it. Störm (talk) 06:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The surname is covered in Afridi (surname). The main article is about the Afridi tribal group in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Dimadick (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless I'm mistaken, this just appears to be people who share the same surname. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 05:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is about a tribe, which is a sort of ethnicity, perhaps one should say a sub-ethnicity, where people are using the tribal name as a surname. That measn this is not a case of shared surname. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Relisting comment: a more thorough discussion about Peterkingiron's keep argument is desirable. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems to a cultural characteristic and may not fit into what we consider a surname/tribe. Think 'Hatfields and McCoys'. Barbara ✐  ✉ 02:53, 28 July 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:World War I assault rifles[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 for now without prejudice to a future merge proposal. Timrollpickering 19:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other firearms by cartridge size categories
Nominator's rationale: Massive WP:Overcategorization, many only contain one article or one subcategory with one article, and frequently the same article across multiple nominated categories because firearms are usually chambered in different cartridges. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the moment. The nomination is insufficient for deletion of, for example, Category:Squad automatic weapons. There's no explanation of why delete rather than upmerge. This would probably be better broken up into separate CFD discussions - e.g. by removing (strikethrough) all except the by-cartridge-size categories from the nomination. DexDor (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this does not sound like a good enough reason to delete these categories, one would rather expect a merge proposal. For example merge Category:Submachine guns of Czechoslovakia to Category:Weapons of Czechoslovakia. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - these categories are not properly parented, eg Category:7.63×25mm Mauser firearms is not given Category:Mauser firearms as a parent (7.63×25mm Mauser is not in any other Mauser category). Delete doesn't seem to work for any of the ones I have looked at, and neither does 'upmerge to parents' as some are missing. Oculi (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per DexDor. Categorising firearms by the country of origin seems to make a good deal of sense, and outright deleting a subcategory, without merging, doesn't. No opinion about merging, but articles shouldn't be taken out of a good and relevant category tree entirely. If you can propose merger targets for them, I'd strike the opposition. Nyttend (talk) 11:47, 23 July 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:Wilbur Award winners[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. Timrollpickering 19:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small, unimportant category. Not defining for recipients. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. Note: There is a list at Religion Communicators Council#Wilbur_Awards. DexDor (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hi I'm the category creator. Based on the comments above I concur that this category doesn't need to exist and the relevant names can be folded into the list of Wilbur Awards winners on the Religion Communicators Council article page without losing any information. Thanks, Alicb (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given this edit by someone else, the category hasn't been edited only by its creator, so the above "delete" doesn't qualify the category for G7 speedy; barring SNOW, this will have to run its course. Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- A NN award, per WP:OC#AWARD. No need to listify as there is already a list at Richard Wilbur Award. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Peterkingiron: to clarify, as this has been a source of confusion for a few years now (including for me when I was researching this initially), the Richard Wilbur Award has no relationship with the Wilbur Awards. It's just a crazy coincidence that both awards have the word 'Wilbur' in their name but other than that there's no relationship between the two. The real list of awardees can be found at Religion Communicators Council. Alicb (talk) 12:18, 25 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_21&oldid=1073191673"