Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 21

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

December 21[edit]

Category:Guelmim-Es Semara, Category:Laâyoune-Boujdour-Sakia El Hamra[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. I will upmerge the contents into parent categories as appropriate. – Fayenatic London 07:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALL. These categories are for Guelmim-Es Semara and Laâyoune-Boujdour-Sakia El Hamra, two of the 16 former Moroccan administrative regions, all of which (except for Oriental) were abolished and reorganized in 2015: see Regions of Morocco#1997 to 2010: Full unitary system. None of the other abolished regions have their own categories. The post-2015 regions (see Category:Regions of Morocco) already all have their own categories and a consistent scheme of subcategories. Cobblet (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There's no reason why them being defunct is enough to delete (e.g. Category:Northwest Territory) so we can take appropriate articles for towns, births, establishments, etc. and categorize or subcategorize them as appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in general we may sometimes keep categories like these as "history of" categories but I do not expect for these two particular categories that they can sufficiently be populated with articles about the former administrative regions' histories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 22 December 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:Species named for Barack Obama[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) 18:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining trait of the organisms. Despite the initial flurry of press releases Obama-named species often generate (and twenty million fluff news pieces regurgitating 99% identical churnalism) the namesakes of any organisms are not described by reliable sources commonly and consistently. Keeping this category only builds precedence for thousands of parallel category clutter: Species named for Charles Darwin, Species named for David Attenborough, species named for David Bowie, species named for any famous person, species named for Tolkien characters, species named for the place they were found, species named for whatever some Wikipedian wants to categorize them by, etc. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:30, 21 December 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:Living Landmarks[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. The two New York landmarks are within the subcategories of Category:Landmarks in New York (state), leaving nothing to merge. ℯxplicit 04:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no Living Landmark article to match these to, it seems to be some kind of local designation by New York Landmarks Conservancy - the two members are both in NYC Le Deluge (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The_Weeping_Beech is one of two living landmarks in NYC. The other is Magnolia grandiflora (Brooklyn) Both list the category and are active articles. Kingsland homestead and John Bowne house are both on the national registry of historic places. There are others around the country, their articles just are not written yet. Some, like Africa's transcontinental Great Green Wall and the circular grove in China or the grove of aspen trees Pando_(tree) and Methuselah out west should be added but do not have recognized landmark status, more research is needed before deleting or merging the category. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' for consideration, the great barrier reef is a living landmark and should be added. What exactly is non-defining about a line of green trees that can be seen from space? CaptJayRuffins (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great Barrier Reef is well categorized (grouped with articles about similar subjects) by, for example, Category:Reefs of Australia. DexDor (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Link Thanks for adding that link. I just realize that somehow the New York Landmarks Conservancy has something to do with a WP:Category so it needs to be deleted. Not. Their annual gala and any promotion for is not the source for Category:Living Landmarks. It is a definition, for a subset of unique organisms that exist or did and were notable for the time they existed. Equating the two is wrong, the great barrier reef consists of living coral that is not used in the construction of any buildings that the NY conservancy wants to honor at it's annual people that mattered gala. And, the category was not created to promote that party. There are others (living organisms) that don't have a wiki written about them as they have no notability, but the future is not written yet. Dump the Great Green Wall, a 15 kilometer line of trees stretching across Africa from Senegal to Djibouti 'cause it's not landmarked by the NRHP. 100.2.105.65 (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SMALLCAT. The category page includes the definition "Living flora that have landmark status"; The Weeping Beech formerly met those criteria, although it died in 1998, so perhaps the definition ought to have been "Flora that had landmark status while living". That only makes two; the Wall, while visible from space, does not "have landmark status". The phrase "Living Landmark" appears to be WP:OR, not used in reliable sources, e.g. NY Post The commission has previously only designated two trees as landmarks, NY Times In 1966, it became the first New York tree to be designated a historic landmark. The term "Living Landmarks" is used more for people: the New York Landmarks Conservancy has so far honoured over 150 people as Living Landmarks.[1] Perhaps the category could be renamed as Landmark trees in the United States. If not renamed, the category should be deleted rather than merged, as the Weeping Beech and Magnolia grandiflora (Brooklyn) are already in other specific sub-categories of Category:Landmarks in New York (state). The could be linked under "See also". – Fayenatic London 21:50, 6 January 2019 (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:Lists of fauna of the Arabian Peninsula[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 (Talk) 18:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To make the name consistent with similar categories (e.g. Category:Lists of animals of Africa). Note: I created the category a few days ago. DexDor (talk) 17:36, 21 December 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:LGBT scientists[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 together. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to revoke Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 16. --Sharouser (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at least until a reason for separation is specified. (CFD link). DexDor (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason as DexDor. I don't see how being a different type of LGBT has any effect on most types of scientific research. Catrìona (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: non-defining intersection of sexuality and profession (i'd support removing most LGBT profession except where directly relevant: I don't think "Lesbian science" is a recognized subfield like Lesbian literature. It's just science. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a trans and being a LGB have different effects on most types of scientific research. Most of trans person may adopt a new name. I think that Category:Transgender and transsexual scientists should be seperated. --Sharouser (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
People may adopt a new name when they're married too, should we have Category:Married scientists? And you're going to have to provide some evidence for the claim for "Being a trans and being a LGB have different effects on most types of scientific research." Are there gay paleontology journals? Do trans people use microscopes differently than non-binary, cisgendered, or asexuals? We normally categorize only by defining traits, not just any trait. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if lesbian science differs from straight science then the science is wrong. Look to the science, not the scientist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:36, 26 December 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:Lists of Australian animals[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 (Talk) 09:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency of naming - e.g. see Category:Lists of animals of Africa, Category:Lists of moths of Australia and a 2012 CFD. DexDor (talk) 09:52, 21 December 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.

Roman Catholic churches by city and Churches by city (Spain)[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/Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 09:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, the Roman Catholic churches categories contain only 1 or 2 articles, while the parent Churches categories do not contain any article at all, apart from the Roman Catholic subcat. So this is a double merge nomination, for the Churches and the Roman Catholic churches simultaneously. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 21 December 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.

Roman Catholic churches by city and Churches by city (Italy)[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/Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 09:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, the Roman Catholic churches categories contain only 1 or 2 articles, while the parent Churches categories do not contain any article at all, apart from the Roman Catholic subcat. So this is a double merge nomination, for the Churches and the Roman Catholic churches simultaneously. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 21 December 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:Mammals of Southwest Asia[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 (Talk) 09:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the text and the parent category. Note: The target is currently a redirect back to the current category name. DexDor (talk) 07:09, 21 December 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:Crimes in Europe by decade[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. ℯxplicit 04:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also proposing the following renames:

Nominator's rationale: The singular seems appropriate here at this level to match the parents (Category:Crime in Europe, etc.) and follows the naming convention of the "by year" sub-categories under Category:Crimes by year and continent and Category:Crimes by country and year (eg. Category:Crime in the United Kingdom by year‎). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we have Category:Crime, a topic category (topics about crime in general), and its subcat Category:Crimes, a set category (articles about a particular crime). Subcats of Category:Crimes should all be set categories and should all use the plural. Oculi (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So should all the categories under Category:Crimes by country and year be changed from "crime" to "crimes" instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk • contribs)
  • That would be the better solution, also because all countries have crimes subcats. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars' suggestion per above. Needs to be plural. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmains: Wait, are you saying there should be both Category:Crime in Austria and Category:Crimes in Austria or that Crime in Austria be changed to Crimes in Austria? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:23, 24 December 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_December_21&oldid=1138411698"