Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 18 November 20 >

November 19[edit]

Category:Omaha 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: Rename. Timrollpickering 10:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is intended for members of the Omaha nation of Native Americans, but despite the usage note it still has a tendency to get misused for non-Native people from the city of Omaha, Nebraska. Usage notes, in truth, are very rarely effective at controlling ambiguity problems, as people often just apply the categories they think an article belongs in and then walk away without actually checking to see if they're doing it wrong. Of course, if somebody's got a better alternative name to propose, that would also be acceptable -- but the category still needs some alternate name that more effectively disambiguates it from the city of Omaha. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Although the suggested change would make this category's name inconsistent with other similar categories, avoiding confusion with the city makes the change worthwhile. Reyk YO! 14:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • support for the reasons stated above Hmains (talk) 20:21, 25 November 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:Birds of the Albertine Rift montane forests[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 10:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In wp we generally categorize species by regions (usually defined by countries) rather than by the habitats they live in (which would be much messier).  Many/most of the articles in this category (e.g. Cape wagtail) make no mention of the Albertine Rift or montane forest. This category doesn't fit into a larger Fauna-of-Albertine... category scheme.
Note: I've proposed an upmerge to a wider area than the parent categories (Category:Birds of the Congo Basin and Category:Birds of East Africa) as I'm not sure that all the articles belong in both those categories.  For info: many other categories by the same (now-blocked) editor have already been deleted (example). DexDor (talk) 21:42, 19 November 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:Technological comparison[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 10:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Certainly should be plural, starting a CFD because Comparisons of technologies may be better. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to plural some way. I have a slight preference for Comparisons of technologies because Technological comparisons sounds like the comparisons themselves are technological, rather than the subjects of the comparisons. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 25 November 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.

Bookstores by U.S. state/city[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: Standardise on "in" without prejudice to any future split. Timrollpickering 10:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
by-state
by-city
Nominator's rationale. Five state categories, using three different naming formats. The sub-state categories, using two different naming formats. We need a convention here.
Note that the parent Category:Bookstores of the United States uses the "of FooCountry" convention of Category:Bookstores by country.
As yet, I have no preference for any of the 3 formats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a consistent standard. My personal preference would be "in state or city" — because a bookstore is a discrete tangible thing that has a specifically pinpointable location, rather than an abstract or collective concept, English usage leans much more toward "in". That said, I don't really care strongly enough to challenge it if consensus mounts toward a different wording — my personal vote is "Bookstores in X", but I'm fine any other way as long as these end up being standardized on something consistent. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good case for "in". Like you, my priority is to standardise on something, but I think if I had to pick one option I woulkd choose "in". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Crown Books is a chain of bookstores based in Maryland. Perhaps there is a case for splitting the category into 'bookstores in' for tangible entities and 'bookstore chains based in' for chains. Oculi (talk) 13:58, 20 November 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:Months in the 2000s[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 without prejudice to a rename nomination. Timrollpickering 21:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't really get the purpose of this category but I would like to have more experienced editors take a look L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but all they contain is "Current events archives". The emerging consensus seems to be to rename all to match that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either that (with redirects from Months to Current events), or the other way around, namely turning Category:Current events archives into a disambiguation page redirecting to the three most recent months by decade categories. There is no need to keep all of them, per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reorganize We should just follow what Marcocapelle has suggested, of which is to standardize this section to fit with those used for the 1990s and 2010s. It is of the utmost importance that Wikipedia uses a unified standard for how articles are organized, and this reorganization would exceedingly beneficial in that regard.SuperChris (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as Category:Current events archives for the 2000s or similar. Category:Months by decade is overkill and not even used in a standard way. Content related to Current events archives should be moved accordingly, and unrelated content should be removed, with other subcategories of Category:Months by decade probably deleted. Place Clichy (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: adding 1990s and 2010s
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 10:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'KEEP. this sub-cat is highly useful, and should be kept. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are better than Category:Current events archives, since the older months are NOT archives of Portal:Current events, which did not exist at the time of the older months. UnitedStatesian (talk)
  • I think that the "Current events archives" categories are low-value and should be deleted; the "real", potentially useful, reader-focussed categories of Months in the 2000s (which can be expanded in future) should be kept. James F. (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone please explain what the purpose of this category is? SportingFlyer talk 11:18, 27 November 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:Current events 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. Timrollpickering 10:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category does not make sense. Currently, it contains only the subcategory [:Category:Years of the 21st century by country] and it is unclear what else it could contain. BenKuykendall (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it appears to duplicate Category:Years by country. Oculi (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible KEEP. Okay, well obviously the 21st century will remain current for decades to come, and when it ends, there will be a new century, of course. ok, so that is one point on this item. as far as your other point, i am trying to determine whethere there are other cats in existence that serve to enote current events by country that might be of interest here.
As you noted, currently there is only one cat in that catergory, so obviously this is not of urgent important to our common encylopedic project. are you saying there are no other cats that might be useful to place here? open to input. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:10, 19 November 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:2018-related timelines for current events[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 Category:2018-related timelines. Timrollpickering 10:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to violate Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There is no need to gather "current events" or "general news" into timelines; this is not what an encyclopedia is for. Further, the title "current events" is problematic because in the future 2018 events will no longer be current. BenKuykendall (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible KEEP. keep.hmm, well we do have a cat here named "Category:Current events don't we? so therefore, that label itself does not seem invalid. we don't change the name of that cat over time, obviously. ok, as far as your other points, I hear you. it was meant to denote topics and events of a general current nature, i.e. items of general news. so what's better? perhaps "2018-related timelines for general history"? in other words, what works as a descriptor for items, topics, events of a general nature as referenced here? --Sm8900 (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "2018-related timelines for general history" How would that be different from Category:2018-related lists? Dimadick (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment well, that's precisely the point. lists are NOT timelines. timelines are sorted chronoligcally. not all list articles fit that description. however to answer your larger question, ie how timelines for general history deserve their own distict cat, to differentiate them within timelines as a whole, there are NUMEROUS timelines that do NOT fit that description. we have timelines for JApanese anime, video games, sports, rock music, and numerous other fields having nothing to do with general history, eg pop culture, sports, recreation, etc. so that is the essential idea of this cat. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:2018-related timelines, the scope of the two categories is currently the same. However in 2020 a Category:2018-related timelines for current events just won't make any sense. "For current events" should not be linked to any one particular year. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:2018-related timelines, or just delete. All timelines are "of current events". Based on the contents, I think Sm8900 wanted to create a category for geo-political events, but regardless of what he wants, Category:2018-related timelines is the correct location. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:2018-related timelines, or just delete. WP:NOTNEWS, so "current events" cats are bad idea.
    I have been reviewing @Sm8900's recent efforts of categorisation, and sadly a lot of its is problematic. This is just the tip of the iceberg. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 21 November 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:2018 timelines 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. Timrollpickering 10:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a duplicate of Category:2018 by country. BenKuykendall (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
* STRONG DISAGREE.it is NOT a duplicate. the Category:2018 timelines by country will contain only the individual articles that serve AS timelines. the category Category: 2018 by country contains numerous subcats which contain a whole range of articles pertaining to individual events in 2018; in other words, NOT timeline articles. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC) COMMENTS WITHDRAWN.[reply]
FOR EXAMPLE: Category:2018 by country contains the subcat Category:2018 in France, i.e. with entries like France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, amd PicSat, which are NOT timeline articles. COMMENTS WITHDRAWN.
however, the category Category:2018 timelines by country, would contain only the individual entry 2018 in France for that country, and NO other articles pertaining to that country. so THAT is why this category is needed, and is viable. I hope that is helpful for this topic.--Sm8900 (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC) COMMENTS WITHDRAWN.[reply]
We never create two categories for the same topic where one does and the other does not allow subcategories. This is a very simple case of WP:OVERLAPCAT. What we can do instad, however, is keeping this category, adding it as a subcategory to Category:2018 by country and removing the individual articles there. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your comment above. as indicated above, I have withdrawn my prior comments on this topic. i have decided to remain neutral on this. however, i am open to any suggestions, feedback, etc, that anyone may have. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a duplicate. One category has timelines only, the other has all events in that country in that year. The category was created for Category:2018-related timelines. The creator of Category:2018 timelines by country put the "x by country" categories in Category:2018-related timelines, I objected because these categories have things other than timelines. Personally I don't think we need either, but if we keep Category:2018-related timelines then we should also keep this one as it is a clear substructure. --mfb (talk) 21:16, 19 November 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:Conservative Jewish synagogues[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 Category:Conservative Jewish synagogues to Category:Conservative synagogues, without prejudice to a fresh nomination to propose ALT1, since it had some support. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1
Propose merging
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Appear to be the same thing. Note: The new category has no parent categories. DexDor (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems reasonable to move an orphaned superfluous category into the general hierarchy, though perhaps there's a content issue I'm missing. SportingFlyer talk 10:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that Samaritans have synagogues but whether that matters, I don't know. Thincat (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It probably does not matter for this discussion, I have never heard of conservative Samaritan synagogues and there is only Delos Synagogue in the Samaritan category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge to avoid ambiguity.
The word "Jewish" may seem superfluous, but without it the adjective "Conservative" becomes ambiguous. This category is for synagogues which are part of the Conservative Judaism movement, but the unqualified title "Conservative synagogues" could be applied to applied as an assessment of the political or social small-c conservatism of the congregation. Ambiguity causes miscategorisation, which wastes the time and effort of both editors and readers. Please avoid it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reverse merge per BrownHairedGirl (or support merge as a second best option, because the two categories obviously serve the same purpose). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A reverse merge would make this category's name inconsistent with many other categories (e.g. Category:Conservative synagogues in Ohio). Can I suggest that someone in favour of a reverse merge of this category create a CFD to insert "Jewish" in the names of the other categories; if that looks like being successful then I'll withdraw (my support for) this CFD. DexDor (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1. @DexDor: rather than have two separate discussions on the same issue, I have added the revese merge as ALT1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, either direction is ok with me although I think inserting "Jewish" is probably unnecessary (and would be a bit like "Protestant Christian churches"). DexDor (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: I think it's nothing at all like "Protestant Christian churches".
"Protestant" is a an exclusively Christian term. But the primary meanings of "Conservative" are unconnected to Judaism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The primary meaning of "Conservative synagogues" is Judaism. DexDor (talk) 21:23, 23 November 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_November_19&oldid=871854238"