Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 16 May 18 >

May 17[edit]

Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Ireland[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 both. >Radiant< 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Ireland to Category:Primates of the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland
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:Fauna of Northern Canada[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. >Radiant< 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We already have Category:Fauna of Canada. In addition, there are only a few articles under these categories. PianoKeys 22:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if they can be reserved for the ecozones found in those regions, they would be reasonable categories. Polar Canada has 24hrs sunlight/darkness in summer/winter... 132.205.44.134 22:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (preference) or rename Category:Endemic fauna of X - I disagree with categorizing fauna by country or subdivisions of countries (rather than ecozones or ecoregions) anyway, but if these categories are going to be kept, I suggest using the word "endemic" to indicate that the categories are for fauna that are only found within the given regions. If the categories are used to indicate every animal that falls within the given regions, then endless number of categories for the vague subdivisions of countries can be created, leading to severe category clutter problems. Dr. Submillimeter 07:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The national categories really don't seem to work here; a quick review of the pages for some of the fauna involved seems to have multiple national categorizations (many of them US, Mexico, and Canada - imagine that!) when what is defining is the ecozone or ecoregion. Is there a Wikiproject that can deal with perhaps a massive recategorization scheme? Has the creator of these categories been notified?A Musing 20:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is a long-standing problem; see Category talk:Biota by country. I was working on this for a while, but for a variety of reasons, I quit. Also, one specific WikiProjects with a name I cannot remember (the name has a phrase like "Tree of Life") may have some interest. Dr. Submillimeter 13:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending recategorisation by ecozone, which would certainly be better. This is the same issue we had with African flora a few weeks ago. But Northern Canada pretty much is an ecoone surely? I would support a rename to whatever the correct name for that is, although clearly what is needed is a big overall revamp; "endemic" would then be the way to go. These are not satisfactory, not least because they have so few articles, but I don't see that going back to a pure political region is an improvement. Johnbod 01:46, 19 May 2007 (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:Madurai[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Madurai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete. Fork, possibly unintentional, of the article Madurai. As a cat, it has two members and seems unlikely to grow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems to be a mistake. Tim! 21:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Copying the article to the category page was clearly a mistake, now corrected. The category was created by Astronaut123 who also created one of the articles in it, for a district of Madurai. There are several other existing articles, for institutions in the city, which should be placed in the category if it remains; this may justify retaining it. - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sufficient scope for the category can be demonstrated. >Radiant< 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Songs by songwriter[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: insufficient participation to overturn last week's debate. Suggest wider advertising and/or deletion review. >Radiant< 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category was previously listed as "Songs by composer" and was moved to this title two days ago. But "songwriters" include lyricists and there is a separate category, "Songs by lyricist." I think that either we should go back to the previous title or (my preference) make it "Songs by musicwriter." -- BRG 21:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - is this a legit nomination? Looks like the nominator just posted this here without going through the standard procedure. Otto4711 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as malformed nomination, and relist if done properly. (Nominator, please take a few minutes to read WP:CFD#Procedure. Thanks!) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I've done it right now; the procedure describes so many special cases that I can't be sure I've done everything it calls for. Can it now be relisted? -- BRG 14:37, 18 May 2007 (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:Muslim travel writers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Rename to Category:Islamic travel writers. Personally I remain unconvinced by the arguments for retention—User:Dr. Submillimeter's points towards the end of the debate are well made. Nevertheless to delete the category on these grounds would be an example of imposing consensus rather than reflecting it.

It seems to be accepted that the intersection of 'Muslims' and 'Travel writers' per se is invalid—at least no contributor seems to have argued against this. Therefore the current name, suggesting as it does this intersection, is unsatisfactory. The most notable suggestion for renaming, Category:Islamic travellers and geographers, seems to have attracted mixed opinions and as such I do not feel able to adopt it. A rename seems to be in order to correct the misapprehension as to it being an intersection, the rename above seems to be in order.

Xdamrtalk 16:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim travel writers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Irrelevant intersection of religion and profession. There is really no reason to categorize Muslim travel writers together, as religion has nothing to do with the job. Picaroon (Talk) 20:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Islamic Travelers and Geographers. There is a specific literary genre of Muslim travel writers, akin to the Medieval and Early Modern chroniclers in Europe, that is the focus of this category. Such notable authors as Ibn Battuta and Leo Africanus, as itinerant scholars, diplomats and geographers, played a major role in the Muslim's worlds role as the crossroads of the Medieval and Early Modern world, and made unique and closely related contributions to literature and geography. While the heydey for the genre was the late Medieval and Early Modern world, it has continued to have influence and practioners into the 20th century. A Musing 20:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suggest a better name that would indicate that historical basis for the category? Vegaswikian 21:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested a different name that would emphasize what I think are the two relevant points of the intersection: they are Islamic, and they are not just ordinary travelers but travelers and geographers. It also no longer emphasizing the writing element of this - while the works are stylistically similar, some are by and some are about these people.A Musing 16:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per A musing. Open to a rename. Johnbod 21:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to think of a better name, but I'd be open to renaming. The Library of Congress keeps them under a "travelers" category, with "Arab" and "Islamic Empire" subcategories. There are similar travelers and writers in other cultures (Marco Polo being the most significant Western one), but the Muslim or Arab tradition is the most significant. Even though this name is pretty intuitive, it does get confused with contemporary Western travel writing, which is very different.A Musing 21:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These people come from so many different time periods (Knud Holmboe and St. John Philby are 20th century writers; Ibn Battuta is a 14th century writer) and so many different locations (Mansa Musa is from Mali; Zheng He is from China) that grouping them together is inappropriate. I almost considered suggesting a rename to indicate the nationality of these people rather than their religion. However, it would be better to create new categories rather than keep this one. Dr. Submillimeter 07:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you a bit of what they have in common. These are people whose extensive travel is motivated either by the Hajj or by the need for diplomacy between large, far-flung empires, travel generally made possible by either the network of roads and inns established to serve the Hajj or by the Pax Mongolica and its successors among the surviving Mongol (including Chinese) and Islamic empires. They generally have a pattern of writing that features extensive chains of authority that in many cases shows the oral transmission of religious, geographic, or political knowledge going back in many cases to the time of Muhammad and that focus on a cataloguing and chronicling of the key geographic and political figures of each region; usually, these are self-consciously "world geographers". FYI, Mansa Musa probably doesn't belong in this category as it is currently constituted, since he was not a writer per se, and the famous writers are about his travels, not by him. Renaming this as Islamic travelers would both track the LOC catalog's approach and allow coverage of Mansa Musa and Zheng He (who is culturally Chinese even though it appears he has some Arab ancestry, but who does belong in this tradition, so I'd keep this as Islamic rather than renaming as Arab).A Musing 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A category of mere "Islamic travelers" would not be a defining characteristic, given that one of the Five Pillars of Islam is to participate in the Hajj. It would be as useful as a category for confirmed Catholics. I also still do not think that categorizing Islamic travel writers is really appropriate. Christian European traveler writers (not just Marco Polo) made similar observations during their travels through the same parts of the world. Perhaps the time period is more important than the religion of the travelers? Dr. Submillimeter 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Islamic form is a radically different genre; is it surprising that a unique form would arise out of an Empire, and its successors, that stretched from Spain and the Sahara to India and Central Asia? A Musing 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would remove Ibn Battuta, the quintessential example of the genre.A Musing 18:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well since a category name needs to clearly identify it's members, the current category needs to be deleted. The alternative is to rename but that means a name that again describes the contents. If there is no possible new name, then deletion is the way to go. If deleted, a template could be used if the members of this genre are of a limited size. Vegaswikian 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current category name does reflect it's members, except for one or maybe two that I would view as not properly categorized under the current arrangement. My rename would change the category slightly. I don't think a couple of miscategorized names is a reason for deleting a category - do you? If so, there's a lot of deleting to be done!A Musing 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the real problem are interlopers of modern vintage, perhaps a time limitation on the category: Category:Muslim travel writers before 1700 or something of the sort; is there a defining moment to choose? This would, properly, then eliminate Knud Holmboe, St. John Philby, and Ahmed Hassanein as modern aspirants to the genre. If we cannot delineate properly what is meant, and particularly to remove the (St.) Johnny-come-latelies then I agree with Vegaswikian, that this has to be deleted as an invalid intersection (i.e., per nom.). Carlossuarez46 15:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What WP:OC, which the nomination quotes, refers to is "Irrelevant intersection of religion and profession". I would say this is a highly relevant intersection, even including the modern converts. I would not support "Methodist travel writers", nor would this create a precedent in favour of such categories. The main travel writers category could be renamed pretty accurately "Travel writers with a Western background" (that is not a suggestion) and the perspective offered by Muslim writers is sufficiently different to be well worth its own sub-category. Johnbod 16:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 20th century members are kind of interesting, particularly St. John Philby, and I'd want to actually read some of the material before trying to figure it out. I'd say the core, interesting part of the genre would likely extend through the demise of the Ottoman empire, and perhaps later (maybe even through WWII); the presence of easy international communications and the rise of the nation-state to replace the empire in the Islamic worlds makes it hard (but perhaps not impossible) to imagine a contemporary equivalent. I'd have nothing against identifying this as Travelers and Geographers of the Islamic Empires, for example, which would prune the category a bit, but you do have to remember, travel by boat and camel rather than air and truck was probably prevalent until sometime in the 30s, and the Ottoman empire extends to 1922. Writers from the west get less excited about these works once they develop their own colonial endeavors, but that doesn't mean the genre just dries up; you see a lot of Western scholarship on people like Leo Africanus because their transmission into the West was the source of so much of the West's knowledge of World Geography in the High Middle Ages.A Musing 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) There is lots of scholarship on ancient travel writing as genre - Marco Polo, Benjamin of Tudela, John Mandeville, among the more notable non-Muslims during the time period when most of the people here flourished. Whether they get dumped all together or segregated by religion is of less importance to me, than (a) that the title of the category match what's being categorized; (b) as titled, it does not become either an invalid intersection or a collection of basically unrelated people. If the argument being forwarded is that St. John Philby belongs in the same category with the medieval writers, then it begins to look like a bunch of people who are only related by being Muslim and being travel writers. Also, how do we categorize non-Muslim writers of accounts of the Islamic Empires (e.g., Richard Francis Burton, Lawrence of Arabia, Gertrude Bell)? Carlossuarez46 00:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Islamic Travelers and Geographers. From the discussion it is clear to me that deleting the category would be a mistake as would keeping it at the current name. However a rename addresses the problems that I have. One question should the rename be to Category:Islamic travelers and geographers? Vegaswikian 22:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Recategorize into their respective nationalities and make Travelers and Geographers categories. "Islamic" no. Bulldog123 17:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally this type of suggestion is listed as merge to Category:Muslims by nationality and Category:Travelers and geographers but not an outright delete. That could be an excellent compromise. Vegaswikian 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of these would then end up in an "Arab travel writers" category, since the bulk of them traveled or wrote under the Arab or Islamic empires and these have not yet been broken out by "Abbassid" or "Fatimid" (the Ottomans have been broken out in a few cases, so there may be some "Ottoman travel writers" as well). We'd have a couple prospects for "Chinese" travel writers. I'm not sure this results in much change, though it would result in more categories. I'd not be adverse as long as the travelers and geographers category, or some permutation, is retained, and there is a place for preferably Islamic (because there is a uniquely Islamic approach to the writer) but alternatively Arab travelers and geographers. Vegaswikian is correction on punctuating "travlers and geogrphers" without the caps. A Musing 16:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The "travelers and geographers" suggestion is very clumsy and does not characterize some of the people in this category anyway (as many of the people did not actually map the regions that they passed through). Dr. Submillimeter 13:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's any requirement that a Geographer be a Cartographer - for example, Leo Africanus is the source of much of the West's information about Africa in the High Middle Ages.A Musing 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Upon looking up the definition of "geography" in a dictionary, I agree that a geographer does not need to be a cartographer. However, I would still prefer "travel writers" to "travelers and geographers", although I am still unconvinced that Medieval Islamic travel writers are somehow different from their non-Islamic contemporaries. (Just for information, I am reading about Ibn Battuta now (currently he's in Anatolia), and I have also read the books by Marco Polo and Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also, is it worth discussing the technical point that Ibn Battuta did not write the Rihla himself but instead dictated it? Technically, he does not belong in this category. Dr. Submillimeter 13:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not! Most Roman writers, and many later ones, dictated, not to mention John Milton etc. Johnbod 13:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting to discuss the different techniques in articles, but I'm not sure why it would be relevant to categorization.A Musing 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A Musing has repeatedly asserted that Medieval Islamic travel writers are different from their contemporaries. I would like to read more about this, mainly to understand the differences and to determine if the differences are significant enough that Islamic travel writers truly do stand apart from other writers (as opposed to just having small cultural differences). Does Wikipedia have an article that describes "Islamic travel writing", and if so, is it sufficiently referenced? Dr. Submillimeter 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about wikipedia, and may look around a bit, but a good recent book is Trickster's Travels by Natalie Zemon Davis; there are a couple collections focused on the writers on Hajj pilgramage's (One Thousand Roads to Mecca is one), and you'll see discussions in survey texts of Middle Eastern history. I also believe there are some books comparing travel stories East and West. Zemon-Davis does a good job of describing the Islamic writing styles in these books and discussing the influence of large empires and the Hajj on Africanus' writing in particular, though she also talks a fair bit about Ibn Battuta - some of the discussions in the footnotes and she has a good bibliography. One problem for Westerners is that most contemporary translations will "Westernize" the style, in particular deleting chains of authority and all that goes with them and sifting out "the story" instead - so if you really want to know what the works are like, sifting through a good library for old literal translations will give you a good feeling - even if you only read a few pages since the style comes across as very tedious to most Westerners. Wish I had more quickly at hand, but it's been over 20 years since I really studied the area, though I picked up and read most of Trickster's Travels when it came out.A Musing 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I do not have immediate access to these references, and most of this comment simply states that differences exist without specifying what the differences are. Maybe it would be best to delete this category and write a referenced article (not a list, but a real article) on "Islamic travel writing" or about written accounts of the Hajj and cite specific examples rather than just use this category to list people. One of the comments that I frequently make about such categories showing the intersection between career and religion/gender/sexual orientation is that these topics are better discussed in articles, as mere lists of names say nothing about the significance of the topics or how the people may or may not be connected through the intersection. (Sometimes, it is not at all apparent that people are affected by the intersection.) Hence, I recommend deleting such categories simply because they are not informative and because they may contribute to category clutter. Dr. Submillimeter 08:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd love to write an article when I have time, but do note that early in the discussion I outlined what was unique about these writers as follows: I can tell you a bit of what they have in common. These are people whose extensive travel is motivated either by the Hajj or by the need for diplomacy between large, far-flung empires, travel generally made possible by either the network of roads and inns established to serve the Hajj or by the Pax Mongolica and its successors among the surviving Mongol (including Chinese) and Islamic empires. They generally have a pattern of writing that features extensive chains of authority that in many cases shows the oral transmission of religious, geographic, or political knowledge going back in many cases to the time of Muhammad and that focus on a cataloguing and chronicling of the key geographic and political figures of each region; usually, these are self-consciously "world geographers". All of that statement I made could be supported by many established sources; I mentioned Trickster's Travels, which is by an eminent academic historian but available at any Barnes & Noble or significant library, but the fact is that the short summary I gave is the kind of thing that almost anyone who took a survey course that covered the history of the Islamic Empires would learn; we should not be deleting categories out of ignorance, or because the specific article on Wikipedia has not yet been written. You'd indicated you wanted to read more about the topic: there is plenty out there, this is not an obscure area. (FYI, for a very brief summar on wikipedia, see Arabic literature#Biography, history and geography - that's the result of my two-minute wiki search). A Musing 16:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Most Medieval Christians also took advantage of "the network of roads and inns established to serve" pilgrims to Christian sites (such as Lourdes) and also took advantage of the Pax Mongolica (or other Asian empires) to travel across Asia. In these respects, Medieval Muslim travel writers are no different from their Christian counterparts. This leaves the Hajj and the "pattern of writing that features extensive chains of authority" as the only two characteristics that differentiate Muslims and Christians from the same time period. This really does not seem like enough of a difference to warrant having this category. My comment on having an article instead of a category of people may have been misunderstood, so I will try to say it very simply: This category says nothing useful about the intersection of Islam and travel writing and is open to misinterpretation and misuse, but an article could discuss the subject very thoroughly and informatively. I sincerely doubt that anyone can learn about this subject from a list of Leo Africanus, Ibn Battuta, Evliya Çelebi, Ahmed Hassanein, Mansa Musa, St. John Philby, and Zheng He, all of whom are so different from each other that grouping them together is inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 09:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those were a few examples of what makes Islamic travel literature distinctive, not an exhaustive list. You may want to see Eickelman and Piscatori, Muslim Travelers (1990) or the discussions in classic works like Hodgson's Venture of Islam. There are also specific Islamic doctrines about the reasons, purposes and methods of travel. It's a storied and complex area. Generally, the ability to write an article on an area is one reason indicating that there is a basis for a category, not the other way around. And, by the way, those "chains of authority" can be 25-30% of some works - they are extensive discussions that place the author's travel and observations very self-consciously in the context of broader Islamic thought. I've noted scholarly works, I've noted the Library of Congress' classification system, I've gone on rather extensively. Do you have any authority at all that these are just like writings out of Christendom? I sense a simple, "I don't like it" with respect to any category that isolates a set of cultural works based on the fact that they are Islamic, rather than a knowledge or even a cursory review of the subject matter. As just one example, Marco Polo was the most likely candidate to be treated as being just like ibn Battuta or Leo Africanus - yet, his journey is, explicitly, a trading journey. Trading is not a central issue in the Islamic travel accounts, which focus much more on diplomacy and learning. I could go on (and, indeed, I have already ;)).A Musing 16:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Primates of the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland[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. See top of the page. >Radiant< 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Primates of the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland to Category:Primates of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, because in Ireland the term is Roman Catholic Church in Ireland; the Church of Ireland is the (protestant) Anglican denomination. The parent category is Category:Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 17 May 2007 (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:Roman Catholic Primates of All Ireland[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. See top of the page. >Radiant< 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Roman Catholic Primates of All Ireland to Category:Primates of the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland
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:Articles related to Laredo, Texas[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. >Radiant< 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles related to Laredo, Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Laredo, Texas, as duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Articles in the "Laredo, Texas Category" pertain to articles such as schools, companies, government agencies located in Laredo. The reason why I created the "Articles related to Laredo, Texas" is an attempt to consolidate all articles that pertain to Laredo, Texas, including: history, highways, future projects, people, cities & towns within 20 miles of the Laredo, Texas area. Besides there are 164 in the "Articles related to Laredo, TX" VS 8 in the "Laredo, Texas Category" AMAPO 14:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, most article's are only laterally connected to Laredo anyway. This is just a one man campain. --Mariano(t/c) 16:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Prove It. I haven't checked everywhere, but it looks like most cities have a category named directly after the city. "Articles related to x" is redundant when describing a category, anyway. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Prove It. VerruckteDan 01:50, 18 May 2007 (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:List of Tall Men[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. >Radiant< 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:List of Tall Men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as subjective. -- Prove It (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It had one entry, it's badly formed, it's subjective....WP:SNOW and just eradicate it now. Mangoe 13:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mangoe. Jamie Mercer 20:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do have a List of tall women (presumably just as subjective, but has survived afd), but neither is suitable for a category. Carlossuarez46 18:01, 18 May 2007 (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:Welsh dragon[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. >Radiant< 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Welsh dragon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete, The category contains a single article, Y Ddraig Goch, about the welsh dragon, and 2 images of it which are essntially identical; it also has no parent categories (although it could be assigned some). I propose deleting the category, and integrating one of the images into the article. I have already assigned the main article to other useful categories, so nothing more needs to be done. Bards 12:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - small category little or no chance of growth. Otto4711 12:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - essentially I created this as a temp dump for the images, which i though i might get round to doing something more with sometime :) Roger 12:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 06:36, 18 May 2007 (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:Whaling stations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands[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. This category is effectively an end-run around the debate on May 13, to rename the other cat to this one, and which does not appear to have consensus to rename. >Radiant< 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Whaling stations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a sub-category of Category:South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands which can only ever contain one thing: Category:Whaling stations of South Georgia, because there were no whaling stations on the South Sandwich Islands. It was created as a well-intended "compromise" between two positions at the CfD on Cat:Whaling stations of South Georgia, but has served only to add a superfluous sub-category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 17 May 2007 (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:Films with a medical theme[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Relist. Vegaswikian 00:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films with a medical theme - Relisting to generate consensus for a more specific target name, per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 10#Category:Films with a medical theme. - jc37 09:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral to the discussion, though to just toss out a couple idea words: medical field and/or medical facility. - jc37 09:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems clear enough.--Holdenhurst 11:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on the previous cfd on this; medical theme is in the eye of the beholder and how substantial is really subjective, we should not have categories where someone cannot objectively determine what's in and what's out. Otherwise it's POV and OR. Carlossuarez46 18:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to any from Medical films, Medical-themed films, Medical genre films or anything substantially similar. Tim! 21:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46. We do not need dozens or hundredths of new subjective categories and we do not need to have several such categories inside every article about a movie. Pavel Vozenilek 01:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vague inclusion criterion. Based on the parent cat, the best name would be "medical films", but the parent cat has several other vague children. >Radiant< 10:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't see a problem with the present title, and changing it to something similar seems a bit pointless. A brief plot summary should make it apparent whether or not a film has a substantial medical theme, and subcategories can always be used for more precise subject matter. PC78 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Wikipedia Temples Created By User:ISOLA'd ELBA[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was deleted per WP:SNOW as an obvious misuse of the category namespace. Allow me to introduce you to Special:Prefixindex —dgiestc 07:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia Temples Created By User:ISOLA'd ELBA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We don't need a category for every individual Wikipedian's template creations. Past discussions on categories similar to this have all resulted in delete. VegaDark (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:New York rappers[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. >Radiant< 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging:
New York City
New York State
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:Mid winter flowers[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: listify. Since this requires explanation (e.g. of climates and temperate zone), as well as "guesstimates", it is really better covered in a list. >Radiant< 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mid winter flowers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Several editors in WikiProject Plants have raised concerns about the practical use of such categories. I'm nominating this category along with its associated categories listed below for discussion. Categorizing plant articles based on estimates of seasonal flowering time doesn't seem to be particularly useful for the following reasons: Depending on climate, continent, ecoregion, altitude, and variation from year to year, flowering times can be drastically different and would thus require many plant articles to be in several of these categories; the categories would swell to enormous sizes, especially considering the number of flowering plant articles on Wikipedia (thousands); most plants flower in spring or summer seasons, making these categories even larger than the others. The other categories involved in this discussion are Category:Late winter flowers, Category:Early spring flowers, Category:Mid spring flowers, Category:Late spring flowers, Category:Early summer flowers, Category:Mid summer flowers, Category:Late summer flowers, Category:Early autumn flowers, Category:Mid autumn flowers, Category:Late autumn flowers, Category:Early winter flowers, and the parent category, Category:Flowering dates. See the discussion on the talk page for WP:PLANTS here, here and here. Is this idea practical? Work better as a list? Discuss away. --Rkitko (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The categories are named based upon meterological seasons (temperature), with months being used as a guide. The dates used for classification are in the article, so the flowering date should be what is given in a source. As was mentioned in the creation discussions, things can be adjusted if a Wikipedia-acceptable seasonal dating method is created.[1] [2] As with Category:People from California, subcategories such as Tree can be used if they get large. I created the categories. (SEWilco 05:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete all These categories cannot be applied globally, especially if months are used (see Southern Hemisphere. Jamie Mercer 20:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The hemispherical difference was discussed in several of the above links. If you looked, the following table should seem familiar. (SEWilco 03:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Categories for when plants are in flower
Meteorology Months
(North/South) 		Category
Winter Jan/Jul Category:Mid winter flowers
Feb/Aug Category:Late winter flowers
Spring Mar/Sep Category:Early spring flowers
Apr/Oct Category:Mid spring flowers
May/Nov Category:Late spring flowers
Summer Jun/Dec Category:Early summer flowers
Jul/Jan Category:Mid summer flowers
Aug/Feb Category:Late summer flowers
Autumn Sep/Mar Category:Early autumn flowers
Oct/Apr Category:Mid autumn flowers
Nov/May Category:Late autumn flowers
Winter Dec/Jun Category:Early winter flowers
  • Delete all The idea that early spring etc happen in only two months, one in the Southern Hemisphere and another six months later in the Northern Hemisphere, is nonsense. Each hemisphere has many climatic zones. Haddiscoe 10:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The categories are not named for months. The months are mentioned because many sources specify a month of flowering, and it is assumed not all those sources contain nonsense, or that readers/gardeners have an idea of when spring happens. If you think the month information is nonsense please update Season#Four_Seasons. (SEWilco 13:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Categories need to clearly define their contents. The problem here is that while the term may be accepted in professional circles, it is confusing to many many editors and readers. I laugh when I see the chart that shows spring lasting 3 months when we are lucky here to have it last 3 days in some years. It is problems like that that raise issues with categories. I don't know what the solution is, but maybe some name that is less broad? After all, I'm sure the seasons are rather different for growing plants on the equator and the south pole so how can one category do justice to both? Vegaswikian 18:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned in the request for discussion, the parent category is Category:Flowering dates, which states These are most relevant in the temperate zone, …. The original discussion also points out there is a project directed at a standard blooming wikiterminology, but they expect years of data collection. (SEWilco 02:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete I guess most English language gardening books are written in the NE United States or Southern England, by people who think that their seasons are the only ones that count. We don't need that sort of systemic bias in Wikipedia. Annandale 11:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a series on
Weather
Temperate and polar seasons
Tropical seasons
Storms
Precipitation
Topics
Glossaries
icon Weather portal
  • Comment: Delete because there might be some seasons which aren't included? So add appropriate categories such as Dry season flowers or Post-conflagration flowers, when such information is found in whatever sources. Or when v:Bloom clock project produces it. (SEWilco 15:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep but maybe rename to include "Temperate zone foo.." Johnbod 01:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- it's better than nothing at this point, even though inclusions in the categories will involve some guesstimations at this point. As mentioned above, the Bloom Clock on Wikiversity will hopefully provide enough data over time to suggest systems for various climates (and pass peer review). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 12:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all but the parent to include 'temperate zone' so that it is clear from the name what the category contains. Vegaswikian 04:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary categorisation; this detail is best covered in the article or in lists. --Peta 06:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Given that the seasons vary by location within hemispheres, this type of categorization does not seem feasible, as flowers will bloom at different times in different locations. For example, a specific species of flowers may bloom earlier in the year in Hawaii than in Maine. Using lists to discuss this information is probably better. Dr. Submillimeter 14:40, 22 May 2007 (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:Aventis Prize for Science Books[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. >Radiant< 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aventis Prize for Science Books (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

First this is supposed to be a category for winning books, but it is largely used on author pages. The award is no longer known by this name, see Royal Society Prizes for Science Books. Since the name of the award changes frequently, and there are only about 40 books that could go in the category (assuming it is for winning books only), it seems to be an unnecessary category, delete. Peta 03:49, 17 May 2007 (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:Yonkers (NY) rappers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Replaced by a more complete nomination above. Vegaswikian 21:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Yonkers (NY) rappers to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's Rationale: Rename to Category:Yonkers (New York) rappers or Category:Yonkers rappers or Category:Yonkers, New York rappers...or something to get rid of the "NY" as abbreviations are to be avoided per MoS and two-letter USPS state abbreves are US-centric. Sohelpme 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe up-merge everything back into Category:New York rappers (which arguably should be renamed to Category:New York City rappers based on its description)--there seems to be under 100 articles between the 7 subcats. Sohelpme 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Queens (NY) rappers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Replaced by a more complete nomination above. Vegaswikian 21:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Queens (NY) rappers to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's Rationale: Rename to Category:Queens (New York) rappers or Category:Queens rappers or Category:Queens, New York rappers...or something to get rid of the "NY" as abbreviations are to be avoided per MoS and two-letter USPS state abbreves are US-centric. Sohelpme 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe up-merge everything back into Category:New York rappers (which arguably should be renamed to Category:New York City rappers based on its description)--there seems to be under 100 articles between the 7 subcats. Sohelpme 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:People from Mexico City, Mexico[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. >Radiant< 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Mexico City, Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:People from Mexico City, to match Mexico City. -- Prove It (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, but retain as category redirect. I think that the risk of confusion with "Mexico City, Ontario", "Mexico City, Japan" and "Mexico City, Finland" is probably low enough not to need the disambiguator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; categories should (almost) always match their lead article. I'm neutral on the question of a redirect, however. Xtifr tälk 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the idea of making a redirect. Otherwise, it will probably just be back in another few months. -- Prove It (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2007 (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:People from Mexico[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: redirect. >Radiant< 09:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge / Redirect into Category:Mexican people, convention of Category:People by nationality. -- Prove It (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect I have redirected the category and moved the article. There should be such a redirect for every country. Haddiscoe 01:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect, but preferably protect or semi-protect to warn editors against making it back into a category. Same for other countries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:15, 17 May 2007 (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/2007_May_17&oldid=1144513637"