Login
Login

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 10

width = "100%"
style="width:50%; text-align:left;" | < November 9

! style="width:50%; text-align:right;" | November 11 >

= November 10 =

==== Category:Tetrapods by year of formal description ====

: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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Tetrapods by year of formal description to :Category:Vertebrates by year of formal description

:* Propose merging :Category:Tetrapods described in the 21st century to :Category:Vertebrates described in the 21st century

:* Propose merging :Category:Tetrapods described in 1904 to :Category:Vertebrates described in 1904

:* Propose merging :Category:Tetrapods described in 1969 to :Category:Vertebrates described in 1969

:Nominator's rationale: The categorization of birds, mammals etc directly under vertebrates works fine - it does not need a (incomplete) tetrapods layer. See related discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_2#Category:Tetrapods_by_country DexDor (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. Not an idea worth completing. Oculi (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge I'm actually open to deleting this whole tree as undefining. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge but they should mostly be container only categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

----

: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:Marcia Hines ==

: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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Marcia Hines}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Through numerous precedent and WP:OC#Eponymous, this category is an unnecessary parent to the artist's songs and albums categories, as all articles are also already linkable directly from the main article at Marcia Hines. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete There is insufficient material to warrant this kind of category. Subcategory information is better explored through the songs or albums tree. Still, I think we need to make better use of {{tl|Category see also}} between artists' songs and albums categories, which will make categories like the above one entirely redundant navigation-wise. SFB 22:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

----

: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:Fictional slave owners ====

: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; there's also general agreement that :Category:Fictional slave traders may have some potential as an acceptable category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Fictional slave owners to :Category:Fictional slave owners and slave traders

:Nominator's rationale: Inclusiveness is better then creating more categories. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Probably better to create :Category:Fictional slave traders (which would fit under :Category:Slave traders) (we normally categorize fictional fooers under fooers) - then consider deleting this category as I'm not sure that being a slave owner (in Roman times etc) is a defining characteristic. DexDor (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete not defining. If Jabba the Hutt is a fictional slave owner for having non-human slaves, perhaps every animal owner is a slave owner for having their animal. The trivialization of slavery is a serious matter, and this category does much to perpetuate the myth that it isn't/wasn't so bad. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete not defining. They're all evil characters but slave ownership only plays a marginal role in that character. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep but Purge so that the category only includes Watto, Mongul, Mojo (comics), Apocalypse (comics) and Jabba the Hutt as these article all clearly articulate that they held slaves as a key piece of their identity. The others either "enslaved" a population as an expression, or a passing reference to slaves, or absolutely no reference to slavery. No opinion on the actual nomination to rename the article. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as per RevelationDirect --173.55.119.156 (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-defining and, furthermore, not categorization of fictional characters by occupation (owning slaves is not an occupation). A character who owns slaves could be defined by what he/she/it does to/with those slaves, but I cannot think of any character (and there are none in the category) defined by the mere fact of owning slaves. I think that :Category:Fictional slave traders has more potential. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

----

: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:Automotive cultural pioneers ==

: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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Automotive cultural pioneers}}

:Nominator's rationale: Category is too broadly characterized. Head is: "A category for individuals who have significantly influenced the culture of automobile ownership along with driving, through automotive media, customization or services for automobiles." That could apply to hundreds of bios, many of which don't have anything in common with each other. The Magliozzi brothers and auto customizers don't belong in the same category. At the very least, the scope of the category needs to be redefined. pbp 17:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

----

: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:Afri ==

: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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Afri}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. The main article and the only other article in the category are well-linked anyways. If kept, I suggest at least renaming to :Category:Arid Forest Research Institute. Pichpich (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

----

: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:Born in Buchach ====

: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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Born in Buchach to :Category:People from Buchach

:Nominator's rationale: Probably too specific. Do we want every geographic category to have "born" as a subcat of "from"? brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge – the tree of 'born in' categories was deleted long ago. Oculi (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge. 'Born in' is being born again? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge Using "From" is preferable as the defining aspect is mostly to do with an identity association with a place. A large number of people were born in places other than those they grew up in and have much more significant associations with. One obvious point is that in rich countries babies tend to be born in hospitals or clinics and many places (where those people later grow and thrive) don't have those facilities. SFB 22:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

----

: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 the United States by state==

: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: Upmerge. If only it was that simple. There are valid objections raised about some simple upmerges as proposed. So that close it what is left after all of the exceptions are processed. :Category:Lists of fauna of the United States by state‎ should be the target for lists which are in some cases the only content or overview articles of fauna in a state. :Category:Endemic fauna of the United States is the target for the endemic fauna material by state. Following that :Category:Fauna of the United States by region should be the target as appropriate. This will be slow to implement and will take a while. Help is welcome. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

::Also note this old discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Propose upmerging:

Rationalle: Fauna ranges don't recognize the state borders, I see no reason why these are defining for these animals. Note that Hawaii was left out intentionally. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

:: If an animal is only endemic to a single state, that is a much more compelling case than grouping something with a wide range to 20 separate state categories. I suspect the animals are really limited not by the state boundary but rather by the :Category:Fauna of the Yuma Desert or :Category:Fauna of the Yuma Desert (which in turn fit under :Category:North American desert fauna) but your proposal at least minimizes category clutter on the bottom of articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Upmerge per nom, except leave :Category:Fauna of the United States by state as that's an appropriate category for :Fauna of Nevada etc. DexDor (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I sympathize with the nominator's desire for simplification. However, by that logic fauna by country categories shouldn't exist either, as animals don't respect political boundries of any kind (especially in places with many small countries close togher [i.e. Europe]). I like consistancy. Keep "by state" or get rid of "by country". --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • For what's it's worth, I would also be in favor of reducing country tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm also in favor of reducing the "by country" tree (see my vote at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 6#Category:Moths of Cameroon), except for big countries (e.g the US), which may be considered regions in their respective continents; and island countries (e.g the UK, Australia, Madagascar), which are likely to have their own animal life. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Upmerge the articles. The subcats need individual thought (eg :Category:Endemic fauna of Arizona is already in a suitable US tree but should be placed in an Arizona cat such as :Category:Biota of Arizona - present for some states - or :Category:Natural history of Arizona). Oculi (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Upmerge/listify as appropriate Fauna by American state is very useful information, but categories are a disruptive way to gather this information (brown rat anyone?). I believe fauna are better categorised by landmasses or bodies of water, where appropriate, as that better follows how animal territories are formed (i.e. not on a human border basis). SFB 22:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as container categories, and either purge individual species or move them into an "Endemic" sub-cat where appropriate. Otherwise, if not kept, selectively upmerge sub-cats and lists to appropriate parents by state e.g. "Biota/Natural history of Foo". The nomination would remove the sub-cats of the nominated categories from the state hierarchies, e.g. :Category:Endemic fauna of Arizona from :Category:Natural history of Arizona, which is presumably not intended. (The latter category also needs to be converted to a container category, but that's another matter.) – Fayenatic London 17:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom -- There may be some merit in creating subcategories for broad regions by habitat type. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge — State subcats under :Category:Fauna of the United States by state are very useful when species are only in several adjacent states, but not an entire region such as :Category:Fauna of the Eastern United States. With climate change, it could be a long range data tool for wikipedia users.

:If deleting fauna by state categories does become the consensus, then please merge their articles into their parent subregion's cat, such as :Category:Fauna of the Southwestern United States, and not just into :Category:Fauna of the United States as nominated here. The United States is too large, and too diverse in ecoregions/subecoregions, to dump every regionally distributed animal into the cross−continental scale :Category:Fauna of the United States and have the articles be useful or findable, beyond biologists' "by genera/familia" searches.

:If a consensus to merge does occur, please exempt :Category:Fauna of Hawaii and :Category:Fauna of California from extinction by merges, as both are biodiveristy hotspots with numerous species beyond their endemic fauna crucial to their ecology (and often endangered/threatened), making research at the geopolitical state level most useful.

:Lastly, the suggestion by Oculi (12 Nov.) above, to transfer a state's articles to their natural history cat. under :Category:Natural history of the United States by state is another method for the average wiki user to not loose the ability to discover some of what is living in a state. Thank you—Look2See1 t a l k → 23:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

----

: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.