Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 27#Category:Moths of France

: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. There are some reasonable suggestions in the discussion, may be they should be explored.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|World Digital Library related}}

:Nominator's rationale: This is categorizing articles (not talk pages) about real-world things by their relationship to a Wikimedia partnership. It causes categorization such as putting the article about the year :1309 in :Category:Library of Congress. See related CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_20#Category:Smithsonian_Institution_Archives_related. DexDor (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete This really is a random category that links many articles which don't obviously warrant links by their connection to the World Digital Library. Maybe there is something here, but this is a bad title and content is beyond repair. SFB 17:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:WikiProject World Digital Library articles This appears to be a project worklist but the naming completely fails to indicate this. Categories should be move to the talk page accordingly. {{ping|Djembayz}} Can you give the category a short description? My initial assessment was prejudiced by the lack of information for what the category was trying to achieve. SFB 00:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

:::Proposed name sounds fine to me. Would like to defer to the expertise of User:Pigsonthewing regarding expanding the description, category vs. talkpage bot, etc., as he has more experience, and can keep things consistent across GLAM projects. --Djembayz (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, or please help upgrade it! This category has been extremely useful for tracking the results of a GLAM partnership. I may be one of the last people currently updating pages from this GLAM source, and I'd like to be able to continue to track how much has been done to date. How else can these results be tracked? If you can provide some other means of generating this data, that would be great. Does someone here know how to set up the Category:World Digital Library articles by quality and the associated table display, like the Smithsonian has? That would be much better. -- Djembayz (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Have you considered just creating a list of the articles ? DexDor (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Categorise the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Don't have time to check 2K pages (volunteer here). Are you able to do this? --Djembayz (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• In my !vote, below, I suggest a bot do this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, but have a bot move to talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: User:Pigsonthewing: Spoke to a Smithsonian person last night who was dismayed that a similar category for Smithsonian had been deleted. Is there a way this data can be restored? --Djembayz (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Possibly. Where was it deleted, and who by? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Smithsonian_Institution_Archives_related&action=edit&redlink=1 Deleted by Cydebot, 27 January 2015]. --Djembayz (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• delete as not defining, and being utterly useless as a category, grouping unrelated articles into a far too large to make sense of (the first page e.g. is 1/3 seemingly random years). I can't see how it could be useful for tracking them for GLAM. An actual list, which could be sortable, manually grouped, viewable all at once, and far more easily maintained and kept track of as a single page with a history, would be far more useful.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

::Do go ahead and make a list if you like that better, and let's try it to see how it works ... --Djembayz (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

:::Someone would have to explain first how the existing category is helpful. E.g. 1309 is in there. How is the year 1309 at all "World Digital Library related" ? The library is used as a reference, for this "Konrad of Megenberg (d. 1374)", the page is actually on the Book of Nature. It seems the category has been added simply because the WDL is used as a reference, but we don't as a rule use categories like that, otherwise well referenced articles would be flooded with categories that are of no interest to the vast majority of readers. Anyone wanting to know if something is used as a reference can use 'What links here' and/or a search to find all references.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

::::The purpose of the categories is tracking all articles where references to GLAM partner materials have been added, including articles such as the ones you mentioned. These tracking categories are designed to be hidden so that they do not show for a wiki readerm unless they go into the code for the page. The GLAMs need this tracking data to show how their materials get used, so they can demonstrate the value that a Wiki partnership provides. With no value added for the GLAM, it's tough to sell a partnership; and a partnership makes things much smoother, more systematic, and yields better metadata for search than what you get from simply grabbing stuff off the Web. The GLAMs want to be able to pull the complete data set, not search references one at a time. Sometimes people access your GLAM materials through unexpected articles and links, and this can tell you a lot about what your user base is interested in, and how to expand your audience. (Even a seemingly random article like 1304 can see sudden spikes in traffic if it is referenced somehow in mass media, social media, or becomes some sort of topic of local or subcultural interest; and it is useful to get as much data as possible on the historical time periods of interest to audiences.) If we are already at the point where we are flooded with GLAM partnerships providing source materials, could you fill me in with a little more info about this, and give a few examples of where the tracking categories are a problem? I'm not opposed to tracking GLAM articles some other way than categories, I just don't know how to make that happen myself, so I need one of the more experienced people here to put something in place and show how it works. My concern is that if the category gets wiped out, we could lose the data. So if User:Pigsonthewing or one of the other GLAM folks can roll the data in the categories over to the talk pages, great, then we're good to go. --Djembayz (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::An article like :1914 is not a "GLAM article"; it is a Wikipedia article in which one fact (of hundreds) is sourced to the WDL. If this type of categorization grew then we could have dozens of these category tags (which hinder category intersection) on an article - and note that if the reference is removed from the article (e.g. if the information is removed or split off to a different page or a better reference is found) then the category tag will remain which makes it even more meaningless. Again, why not do this as a list (which IMO would be more appropriate than a talk page category) ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DexDor (talk • contribs) 07:34, 3 February 2015

:::::Yes, per {{U|DexDor}} in every article I've looked at the WDL is just a source, often just one of many. Further every example I've looked at is not sourced to the actual contents of the library but to the blurb by it, which has no indication of authorship or what is based on – it could even be based on WP. Nowhere have 'GLAM partner materials been added', the materials in the library haven't even been used. It seems like this has little to do with the partnership described. Using it like this as a reference is unremarkable, especially as it's just being used as a source for facts for which many other sources exist. If WDL tomorrow decided to take down their site because they could not see the value in it then we would not need to change any article contents, just change the references to another source. The valule in the library is more in the actual content, which as primary sources make poor references. It is much more like Wikisource or Commons, and a template like (and used like) {{tl|commonscat}} or {{tl|wikisource}} would be far more appropriate.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

::::::Go right ahead and make a template, and add a list. I don't know how to do this, but if you do, sounds like a good idea to me. The content provided on the summaries is written by scholars on contract, and the cultural institutions represented have an interest in seeing that it is accurate, so it should be as reliable source as you will find on these materials. More recent summaries contain citations. --Djembayz (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2015 (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.

: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'm not sure if all those who commented correctly read the nomination and/or examined the contents of the categories, but a straight merge to the corresponding "FOOs of Europe" categories would not be appropriate given that these all contain articles and subcategories about the things in French colonies around the world. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Moths of France}}

:* Propose deleting :Category:Butterflies of France

:* Propose deleting :Category:Lepidoptera of France

:* Propose deleting :Category:Insects of France

:* Propose deleting :Category:Arthropods of France

:* Propose deleting :Category:Invertebrates of France

:* Propose deleting :Category:Molluscs of France

:* Propose deleting :Category:Vertebrates of France

:* Propose deleting :Category:Birds of France

:* Propose deleting :Category:Mammals of France

:* Propose deleting :Category:Reptiles of France

:* Propose deleting :Category:Amphibians of France

:Nominator's rationale: Each of the categories proposed for deletion groups together animals that are found in French colonies around the World (French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Réunion, Metropolitan France, New Caledonia, Martinique, Mayotte, French Polynesia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon). If we are to categorize species by geographical characteristics then that should be primarily be physical geography, not by political geography. These categories group species because they live in (widely separated) parts of the World that have a related political history. Example of related CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_18#Category:Moths_of_Metropolitan_France. DexDor (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support – could add :Category:Biota of France, :Category:Fauna of France, :Category:Flora of France, same rationale. Oculi (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Listify and Upmerge to the Europe parents. Animals frequently transcend political boundaries so doesn't make sense to categorise this way (particularly given the fact that "France" is not limited to Europe). Perfectly fine as a list and I'm pretty sure that our readers will benefit from such a listing. When it comes to categorisation, though, the example of the Brown rat shows the inherent problems of the animal categorisation by nation idea. Much better to subdivide at continental level by animal type instead. SFB 17:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• support SFB. Having 30 national categories on an article (as will happen in some cases) is gross category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Merge per nom and SFB. Animals are not confined by political boundaries, but by geophysical constraints — so flora and fauna should be categorized by continent, not individual country (which just leads to extreme category bloat as most "animal species of France" are also animal species of Germany and Belgium and the Netherlands and Switzerland and Italy and Andorra and Spain and Liechtenstein.) Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2015 (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.

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Far East naval theatre of World War II to :Category:Pacific Ocean theatre of World War II

:Nominator's rationale: These two categories appear to have much the same scope and currently form a loop (each is parent/child of the other) which can't be correct categorization. Note: After the merge it may be necessary to edit :Category:Pacific Ocean theatre of World War II to avoid it categorizing itself. DexDor (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Merge into one category for Asia and Pacific. This is about allied warfare against Japan. British operations took place in the north of the Indian Ocean. Other actions may have taken place in seas that are not clearly part of it or Pacific. Little happened west of the meridian on which India lies. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2015 (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.

: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) 01:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Far East naval battles of World War I to :Category:Naval battles of the Asian and Pacific Theatre (World War I)

:Nominator's rationale: Consistency with parent categories such as :Category:Battles of the Asian and Pacific Theatre (World War I). DexDor (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Rename -- Little happened there in WWI. Coronel (in this category is off Chile, not in Far East. The category is about allied forces mopping up German naval vessels in distant waters at the beginning of the war. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Rename "Far-East" is a Euro-centric term that should be abaondoned by all in the 21st-century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2015 (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.

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Canadian football teams in Shreveport, Louisiana to :Category:Canadian football teams in the United States

:* Propose merging :Category:Canadian football teams in Louisiana to :Category:Canadian football teams in the United States

:Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Created by the same editor almost two full years apart. As other editors know, I'm all for making exceptions to WP:SMALLCAT where needed, in the case of a necessary category branch, but this ain't one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Upmerge to :Category:Sports teams in Shreveport, Louisiana, since the article and eponymous category are already in the proposed target. kennethaw88 • talk 23:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Upmerge. Unnecessary SMALLCAT for a single team that's adequately served by existing categories without needing the dedicated intersection. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Not the same editor two years apart. Newest category was created to fix punctuation in category title.spatms (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2015 (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.

: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. MER-C 11:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Islamist terrorist incidents - 20th century to :Category:Islamist terrorist incidents in the 20th century :Category:Islamic terrorist incidents in the 20th century

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming this to use words rather than a spaced hyphen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per usual format, although I'm not really sure if the category is warranted either, given the emptiness of the parent now. SFB 19:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per normal wording. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support since it seems it should also belong to :Category:Terrorist incidents in the 20th century. kennethaw88 • talk 23:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks—I've added that as a parent. I suppose that makes this kind of speedy-able since there is a pre-existing format. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment (nominator). I've made a speedy-rename-esque change to the proposed category name. In this midst of this discussion, the parent category was renamed to {{cat|Islamic terrorist incidents}} to match {{cat|Islamic terrorism}} and Islamic terrorism. So this one should also adopt that name format. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Rename - Per nominator. Jackninja5 (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2015 (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.

: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. MER-C 11:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Suspected Islamist insurgents to :Category:Islamist insurgents

:Nominator's rationale: Merge or delete. We don't generally categorize by attributes or characteristics that are "suspected" or "alleged". We could either upmerge the contents to :Category:Islamist insurgents if we are comfortable saying that those in the category are Islamist insurgents, or we could just delete the category without upmerging the contents if we're not comfortable with that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Not reasonable to categorise anyone as this when there is doubt upon the label. SFB 19:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete we ought not categorize "suspects" - very subjective - suspected by whom? when? etc. and of course WP:BLP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete We categorize by verifiable fact, not by what is suspected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2015 (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.

: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. MER-C 11:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:American al-Qaeda past members to :Category:American al-Qaeda members

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. In categories, we do not generally distinguish between past and present/living and dead members of organizations. The one article in the category can comfortably sit in :Category:American al-Qaeda members. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Merge Appear to be about former members, but is actually about a dead member. Not serving any purpose here as a dead member was still a member. SFB 19:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Merge the target category is not and should not be a "current" category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2015 (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.