Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 13 April 15 >

April 14[edit]

Category:Texas Pacific Group companies[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The reason why I am proposing this merge ts that apparently, Texas Pacific Group is now TPG Capital. It is currently the name of the article itself. To remove this redundancy, I am asking for this merger. Because of the article name, I am calling for the move of this category to the category bearing the name TPG Capital. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) C 00:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if the new company differs considerably from the old one, we may need two categories, like with AT&T. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge we have one article that covers the company under both names, there is no reason for multiple categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2013 (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:Tom and Jerry cartoons[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match format of other short film categories. Trivialist (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2013 (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 Montgomery Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania[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 (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only has 1 entry and I double checked for other biographical articles. There aren't any. ...William 20:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge town is too small to produce a category of any worth. Valenciano (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. If and when Wikipedia actually has enough articles about people from these places to warrant a category, then they can be recreated at that time — but as long as we only have one or two possible entries we should indeed stick to categorizing people by county rather than individual town until more articles actually show up. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2013 (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:Women and death[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Women and men don't really have a different relationship with death - it will claim us all in the end. This category seems to collect a hodgepodge of various topics relating to death and women, but it's not clear what the value is - or why such a category doesn't/shouldn't also exist for men. I think merging this back up to death is a better idea, rather than trying to divide this by sex. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and given that women are human, and that they therefore *die*, it is not surprising we have lots of articles about women dying, or killing, or being death goddesses or whatever! Duh.
But, per WP:Cat gender, do women have some sort of different and defining relationship with death than men, that is somehow less common, or less "normal"? The examples given by BHG above could be copied for men, e.g. Fratricide, Patricide, Category:Causes of death specific to men, etc - so clearly there would be scope for Category:Men and death - and indeed if this category is kept we *must* create Category:Men and death, but will this benefit readers of the wiki? I don't think so.
It is useful to have categories for things like Category:Matricides or Category:Death goddesses but as an overall category it bugs me, by suggesting that the standard is for men to die, and women have their own "special" or "unique" or "different" ways of dying - which is ridiculous, given that they are half of the population. Yes, women die of different things than men, but it could also be said that men die of different things than women. Why, for example, do we not make category Category:Death mixed gender but mostly about women, while all articles about men would be placed in Category:Men and death? Would you accept this as an alternative? If not, ask yourself why? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I note above, there may also be a case for a parallel Category:Men and death, but per WP:Cat gender, that's a separate issue. If you identify enough topics to justify creating a Category:Men and death, then create it. But saying that the women category should be deleted just because the male one doesn't yet exist is silly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
note I informed wikiprojects death and gender about this discussion. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep there are a very large number of gender based differences throughout the world in the process of death and the responses to it. sats 05:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Death of women" (or similar) and remove articles that don't fit this title (possibly by creating that category and then upmerging the "Women and death" category). DexDor (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it has a useful set of sub-categories as well as many articles. I would have no objection to creating a corresponding category for Men and death, although it would not have a corresponding set of sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 13:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful category, and well-populated. Dimadick (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BrownHairedGirl. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BrownHairedGirl and Fayenatic. Cgingold (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of rename to Category:Death of women or something similar. There is clearly enough content. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category per the existence of the topic. But I'd also support a rename since "X and Y" category formats are always awkward-sounding to me. "Death of women", however, suggested by User:Peterkingiron, is substantively different enough that I'm not sure it's correct. --Lquilter (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question It seems many people want to keep this category, but I urge you to think about the contents. What is defining about this category? As I see it now, it's a hodge-podge of female killers/suicide bombers, women who have been killed, and even relationship of women to war, as well as famous women who have, believe it or not, died (I will leave it as an exercise to the reader whether dying is "defining" - but a quick hint - it happens to *everyone*).
I still fail to see what holds this category together, other than some vague relationship with death or dying - either that the women does the dying, or does the killing, or is nearby when it happens and reacts accordingly - or things like Final_girl, who confronts a killer and often survives!
I'd be ok with keeping if we could pare back the scope significantly and define exactly what the topic is. Sophie's choice, for example, is a book about a woman who had to make a terrible decision and her *child* died as a result - but do we want to start slotting novels in here where women did something and someone died? I really urge you to rethink this category, and if it is to be kept, what exactly is the scope - killers? those who died? What sorts of things other women do when someone else dies? Another option would be to split it to two categories - Death of women - that groups together famous types of deaths, and then put other bits into Female murderers, that would group together famous women who have killed either suicide bombs or murder or what have you. But the rest of these articles don't hold together IMHO, and I don't think we need an umbrella cat which is really a mish-mash. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem with the "X and Y" formulation -- it's broadly over-inclusive. We should perhaps consider the various possible topics and create appropriate categories for them. "Types of death of women" (femicide, matricide, death in childbirth, etc); "Gendered treatment of death in religion"; etc. --Lquilter (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redistribute. With no statement of criteria for inclusion, the category is completely open-ended; the articles and subcats that happen to be included are just a small random subset of articles that might be included if someone editing them happened to think of it. As such, the category is a useless random grab-bag miscellany. Some of the articles and especially subcats could mote to, say, Category:Murdered women, or a subcat of Category:Cultural aspects of death (the latter currently has no literature subcat?!). If there is a policy against creating such intersection categories then I think using this one as an ersatz workaround is a violation of the spirit of such a policy. If there is no such policy then replace this current mixum-gatherum with a set of sensible categories and redistribute. For every article that is in the current category there are lots more that are not currently included that might be included but are not. Why is Sex-selective abortion included? Who is dying? If it is the fetus, then all Category:Abortion should be in here. Maya Lin: A Strong Clear Vision is included: a film about Maya Lin designing the Vietnam War Memorial, neither of which is included. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross an expert in death who happened to be a woman. Are there no other female death experts? Kay Scarpetta maybe? Two goddess categories: are goddesses women? Medusa but not other female monsters. Banks of the Ohio but not many others in Category:Murder ballads, or Honey (song), or The Wild Dove. Alcestis (play) but not As I Lay Dying (novel). What film in which a woman dies gets included? Only if she is the main character? What if the main character is a widow? In fact why isn't widow in this category? jnestorius(talk) 22:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thanks - you put it much better than I could. I hope those who voted delete above will read Jnestorius' argument above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no real set of includsion guidelines. Why is The Lady or the Tiger in there. It seems the actual subject under trial by ordeal there is a male, so the only person who dies is a male. He does not even die at the hands of a women, but at the hands of the tiger, so I really see no reason to include it. There is no logical set of inclusion criteria, so it really is not a clear grouping of anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2013 (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:Malayalam-language writers[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:Malayalam writers to Category:Malayalam-language writers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a redundant category considering that a category named Category:Malayalam writers exists. Salih (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth the ethnicity is Malayali, Malayalam is the term only for the language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge: The focus on Malayalam-language for journalists is more accurate as there are many Malayali journalists who write for English newspapers. Crtew (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reverse merge as appropriate. Language is one of the things we can state with great definitiveness about writers, and little chance of over-categorization; nationality offers greater ambiguity. --Lquilter (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2013 (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:Cheeses with Denomination of Origin[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 to Category:Cheeses with designation of origin protected in the European Union. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to conform with other categories for protected designation of origin products. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Human pregnancy and birth[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not perfect, but we already have Category:Human pregnancy and Category:Human reproduction so do we really need Category:Human pregnancy and birth as well? I realize birth is not = pregnancy, but birth is certainly a part of reproduction... Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In these cases we usually merge, since articles like Uterine_tachysystole would be left as orphans if we don't merge - sometimes after the merge some re-diffusing is required, but merge prevents orphaning articles without any relevant parent cats. re: cat removal, understood, I've now added Childbirth as the parent of that cat (not child), which makes more sense to me in any case. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We only merge if the merge target makes good sense; this one doesn't. I wasn't concerned about orphaned articles because I assumed the few that are listed directly in the category could easily be reassigned to the subcats. Cgingold (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't even remember why I created this category - I think it had a different name when I created it, since its name seems unfamiliar to me. It should probably be merged into existing categories, since it seems redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarble (talk • contribs)
  • Merge with pregnancy or Keep: There are enough articles to justify the category and some articles cannot help but encompass both processes. Montanabw(talk) 23:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's an intermediate category that's not needed. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split -- If there are some articles that need to be to be in two categories, put them in both. But we do not need this double category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2013 (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:Health issues in pregnancy[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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not clear on the difference between these categories, and what would cause something like Fetal thrombotic vasculopathy to be placed in one and not the other. The parent cat is based on a ICD code and a broader structure, so I think a merge upwards is in order. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
note: related Cfd here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_26#Category:Health_issues_in_pregnancy --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge—this layer in the category tree is not needed and some of the articles in the parent category should have been diffused to the subcategories of this category. I will be moving the neonatal subcategory back to its proper position in the tree. Babies are not a health issue during pregnancy, they are the end result of a pregnancy. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my upmerge !vote based on Cgingold's comments below saying that this category belongs in a different tree to the target category. This is in line with my reflections on this since making the initial comment. The ICD-10 based sub-categories however do not belong here, rather they belong to the target category and should be moved there. (In RL I use ICD-10 daily.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm still not sure I understand the difference - can you explain how a wikipedia editor should categorize something like Abdominal_pregnancy or Gestational hypertension? It seems there will be a ton of overlap, and I'm not sure which articles would *only* be in Category:Health issues in pregnancy --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abdominal pregnancy primarily belongs in Category:Pregnancy with abortive outcome along with the other locations of ectopic pregnancy, where they are. (This is why I don't think the sub-categories belong in Category:Health issues in pregnancy.)

Gestational hypertension primarily belongs in Category:Pathology of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium and Category:Hypertension. However, the spectrum covered by the term means that this is indeed a health management issue in pregnancy and it seems reasonable to me for it to be in this category as well.

Articles that would *only* be in Category:Health issues in pregnancy are those that are either not conditions (such as Bloody show, Prenatal nutrition and Stretch marks) or are procedures (such as Cervical cerclage—although I'm not convinced that the condition this treats, Cervical incompetence, is a "health" issue). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem - it's very hard to define something that is a health issue but that is not somehow a disease or medical condition. As you noted, there are only a few oddballs, like Stretch marks or Prenatal nutrition- but those would fit comfortably in Maternal health or even Human pregnancy - I'm just not convinced on the need for a separate category which, as you can see, attracts tons of articles that don't belong.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment Thanks. Since someone else has already voted, it's too late to withdraw in any case. Would you mind elaborating what you see as the differences? What specific health conditions would not fit in Category:Pathology of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium? And what do you mean by pathological conditions? For example, which health conditions are not included in ICD-10_Chapter_XV:_Pregnancy,_childbirth_and_the_puerperium, which is pretty comprehensive - I'm not sure if we should try to out-classify ICD. The only things I can think of that wouldn't fit into the ICD would be things like Prenatal nutrition, but those would fit nicely in Category:Maternal health instead.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Thanks for thanking me for notifying you but I can't take much credit, Twinkle does that for me automagically. IMHO everyone should use twinkle for nominating categories - I've seen many cases where the cat isn't even tagged before being brought here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Health is not pathology; pregnancy is not a pathology but it has health concerns. Montanabw(talk) 23:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically do you mean by the word pathology, and how do you differentiate that from a health issue? I'd be happy for a proposal to rename Category:Pathology of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium to something else if people are so turned off by the word pathology. Can you provide a health concern of pregnancy that is not covered here: ICD-10_Chapter_XV:_Pregnancy,_childbirth_and_the_puerperium? As noted above, I can only see a few, like nutrition or stretch marks - and those could fit in Category:Maternal health or Category:Human pregnancy--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • at least restructure, maybe merge It's obvious that we are not the only ones who find the two categories confusing, given that one subcat belongs to both. At the very least, if they should both exist, the hierarchy should be inverted and "pathology" should be under "health issues" rather than vice versa as at present. But I'm also doubtful that there is a clear line here; at least if there is it hasn't been expressed plainly. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge The health issues name is just much more workable. We should have simple category names, not needlessly long ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with this. The "health issues" category only deals with pregnancy and does not deal with childbirth or the postpartum period. In addition the "Pathology of …" category is a part of an established tree under Category:Diseases and disorders. Each of the category names there is based on the name of a chapter of ICD-10. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, pregnancy ends when the woman delivers. It's easy to distinguish which health issues happen before it, after or both. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could elaborate on the difference between the two categories as you see them? Also, could you explain why the people who developed the ICD, who presumably know more than most of us about health issues, decided to group pregnancy, birth, and post-partum together, and why we should not respect that?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Pathology is the precise study and diagnosis of disease" - pregnancy is not considered a disease by most people. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2013 (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:NCAA women's ice hockey seasons with Patty Kazmaier Award winner[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 (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OVERCAT as a trivial intersection of an individual award winner and the teams they played for. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 03:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not have the equivalent category for the more notable Heisman Trophy of football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not relevant at all. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2013 (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/2013_April_14&oldid=1138397472"